Replacement of Australia's Collins Class Submarines

image.jpg
 
jeffb said:
$66B!!! I don't think much of their chances!

View attachment 665151
Click to expand...

If they'll really serve a bill that high there's a chance they'll just be laughed out of court on principle, because even with the cost overruns that's considerably more than the amount of money that would actually go to France in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffb said:
$66B!!! I don't think much of their chances!
Click to expand...
The $66B figure is a fiction, not mentioned by any official or unofficial sources.

Another example of the (deliberate?) disinformation campaign that went on for years to torpedo this contract… apparently the bigger and more unbelievable the lie the easier it spreads.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
jeffb said:
$66B!!! I don't think much of their chances!
Click to expand...
The $66B figure is a fiction, not mentioned by any official or unofficial sources.

Another example of the (deliberate?) disinformation campaign that went on for years to torpedo this contract… apparently the bigger and more unbelievable the lie the easier it spreads.
Click to expand...
newseu.cgtn.com

French submarine builder to send Australia $66bn invoice for scrapped deal

Naval Group says the invoice is for costs it expects Canberra to pay after Australia opted to buy U.S. nuclear submarines instead.
newseu.cgtn.com newseu.cgtn.com

Note the source (CGTN = China Global Television Network), and that the headline and the body of the article mean different things when they mention $66Bn.

China trying to inflame the situation, who'd a thunk it?
 
GTX said:
www.aspistrategist.org.au

The raison d’état behind Australia’s submarine decision | The Strategist

French anger over Australia’s decision to dump the diesel–electric submarine project is entirely justified and understandable. Even if, as some argue, the project’s inadequacies were increasingly apparent, there seems little doubt that Australia seriously misled ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what to make of the analogy that the Three Musketeers (or AUKUS, if you will) should justify their actions by "raisons d'état", though, as in Dumas' (admittedly fictional) telling at least Richelieu most definitely was a baddie. And I will refrain from commenting on Kissinger's notions apart from making a point of my refraining.

Australia still could have French designed SSNs and U.S. sub basing and whatever else co-operation, could it not? All these justifications just seem so superficial to the fact that by almost all accounts it would've been easier for NG to revert back to nuclear propulsion than trying to convert their design to diesel-electric or Australia basically starting over, only explicitly without a French option. SSN manufacturers (especially disregarding obvious adversaries) are hard to come by, after all. Technologically I guess the UK and the U.S. might sneer at NG and its affiliates getting a look at their battle and signals systems (if the Australians want those explicitly) but even that could be worked around if we're ready to do things the hard way no matter what.

Under the circumstances, should we be resigned to those, the most exciting prospect (in a selfish "the world is an action movie directed for an audience of one, me", that is) would be for a bespoke Australian design to emerge; not a conversion or an adaptation.
 
Well I think one thing is certain about this Submarine cluster f#@£, there's nothing for it but a Royal Commission into Government/ADF Aquisition processes and RfP's/OR's. After all as much as this submarine debacle has taken the headlines, the truth is Australian Government/ADF aquisition has been a costly shit fight for decades.
But saying this, I'm also adimit that the government will do all in its power to quash any such Royal Commission under the proviso of the now popular go to of 'National Security' they're so adapt to using.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Questions raised as to where leased nuclear subs might come from - neither the US or the UK have any to 'spare'.
Other questions raised regarding impact of Australian HEU powered boats on the NNPT.

www.abc.net.au

7.30

www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
jeffb said:
Questions raised as to where leased nuclear subs might come from - neither the US or the UK have any to 'spare'.
Other questions raised regarding impact of Australian HEU powered boats on the NNPT.

www.abc.net.au

7.30

www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
“7.30 can reveal a group of eminent former ambassadors, regulators, presidential advisors, scientists and academics in the field of nuclear arms control have today written to President Biden saying the AUKUS deal poses a risk to not just nuclear non-proliferation, but to US national security because of the amount of weapons grade or highly enriched uranium that will have to be exported.”

HEU, that will become much more radioactive with use, encased in a reactor that will not need refueling, encased in a submarine that Australia will want to use, which would be noticed if it suddenly disappeared.

Most of these experts are people motivated by anti-nuclear dogma, from the soft science and arts.
 
starviking said:
jeffb said:
Questions raised as to where leased nuclear subs might come from - neither the US or the UK have any to 'spare'.
Other questions raised regarding impact of Australian HEU powered boats on the NNPT.

www.abc.net.au

7.30

www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
“7.30 can reveal a group of eminent former ambassadors, regulators, presidential advisors, scientists and academics in the field of nuclear arms control have today written to President Biden saying the AUKUS deal poses a risk to not just nuclear non-proliferation, but to US national security because of the amount of weapons grade or highly enriched uranium that will have to be exported.”

HEU, that will become much more radioactive with use, encased in a reactor that will not need refueling, encased in a submarine that Australia will want to use, which would be noticed if it suddenly disappeared.

Most of these experts are people motivated by anti-nuclear dogma, from the soft science and arts.
Click to expand...


...eminent former ambassadors, regulators, presidential advisors, scientists and academics in the field of nuclear arms control
Click to expand...

It's not the threat that someone will steal or repurpose the Australian HEU for weapons, it that other nations will say, "If Australia can use HEU in submarine power reactors, why can't we?" Leading to a proliferation of other nations refining HEU, ostensibly for submarine power reactors. If they do, then the amount of HEU available globally, that can be diverted or repurposed, goes up leading to...

Come on fellas, it's not that complicated.
 
jeffb said:


...eminent former ambassadors, regulators, presidential advisors, scientists and academics in the field of nuclear arms control
Click to expand...

It's not the threat that someone will steal or repurpose the Australian HEU for weapons, it that other nations will say, "If Australia can use HEU in submarine power reactors, why can't we?" Leading to a proliferation of other nations refining HEU, ostensibly for submarine power reactors. If they do, then the amount of HEU available globally, that can be diverted or repurposed, goes up leading to...

Come on fellas, it's not that complicated.
Click to expand...
First of all, a lot of countries have enrichment facilities:

“The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States”

(ref:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Global_enrichment_facilities)

If they are developing their own SSNs to provide an excuse to produce a little extra HEU on the side for weapons - that’s a lot of effort, time, and cash spent when they could covertly use their own enrichment facilities. Sure the IAEA could catch them at it - but then what? Iran and North Korea has shown that you can give the global community the middle finger and keep on doing what you’re doing. And given the time involved in independently developing SSN tech and manufacturing - that’s at least a few decades in the future.

If they are buying a sub off the US, UK, or Russia - then they can get them fueled, with agreements on maintenance and use. HEU will be sealed in the reactor.

Which brings the point: why no outrage over proliferation when India leased an Akula from Russia in 2012? Was it because building nuclear weapons was easier for India than SSNs? Even easier for Pakistan with no major shipbuilding industry?

Any way you look at it - the anti-proliferation side’s argument doesn’t stack up.
 
jeffb said:

India was already a nuclear armed state when it obtained the Akula. The Indian Akula doesn't set a precedent because it doesn't open the door for non-nuclear nations to obtain nuclear weapon technology.


Centrifugally enriching uranium is just physics.
Click to expand...

"You need a precedent" and "anyone can do it" are awkward bedfellows.
 
Dubious positions being expressed here and elsewhere around this subject. A ripe fruit attracts all sorts of creatures, not just those that eat the fruit........

The business of replacing the Collins class is the central subject of this thread.
As of now that is stated officially as by SSN. While some may oppse the ending of the Attack contract with NG and other oppose nuclear power from positions of reason and moral sensibility. There be other sorts...
 
www.nationalheraldindia.com

AUKUS puts India on the backfoot

Even as India leases submarines from Russia and sub-leased one to Myanmar to counter Chinese naval power, AUKUS signals a growing lack of confidence in India’s ability to help contain China
www.nationalheraldindia.com www.nationalheraldindia.com

Australia will be only the second country to be provided the naval propulsion reactor (NPR) technology by the US, which had produced the world’s first SSN, the USS Nautilus, in 1954. The UK had been the first, when the US supplied it the S5W pressurised water reactor (PWR) design, complete propulsion machinery set, auxiliary equipment, as well as fissile material for core fabrication and the offer to reprocess spent fuel in the US.
Click to expand...

You'd think the offer made to Australia would be very similar to this.

American nuclear submarines – and, as a corollary, also British - operate on reactors fuelled by weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) having 93.5% of U-235, the only naturally occurring fissile isotope that makes it widely usable in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.

Chinese and French NPRs use low-enriched uranium (LEU) that contains less than 20% U-235, rendering it not weapon-useable. Russia and India use medium-enriched uranium. The US Congress was also concerned that non-weapon states, like Iran or Brazil for instance, which are interested in acquiring or developing SSNs, could well use the US example to justify producing and stockpiling weapon-usable HEU, thereby destabilising the non-proliferation regime.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Also from the article above (interesting read):

Russia is the only country that leases out its nuclear-powered submarines, and India is the only country that leases them. In a move that had then raised concerns globally, Moscow had leased out a Soviet-built Project 670 Skat (NATO classification Charlie-I class) nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine (SSGN) to India from 1988 to 1991. It was bereft of the cruise missiles to adhere to the NPT, but gained Indian Navy the crucial capability to operate a high technology vessel.
Click to expand...

Though the NPT bans outright the sale of nuclear-submarines, it has no specific guidance on leasing or on trade in NPRs. In 2012, the Indian Navy took another SSN, of the Akula class, on a 10-year lease at a cost of $2 billion. The double-hulled submarine was returned in June, a year earlier, owing to an explosion on board that damaged both its hulls. Russia is reportedly modernising another Akula class attack submarine that will be delivered to the Indian Navy by 2025 under a $3 billion 10-year lease.
Click to expand...

India, however, has high stakes in the matter of submarine powerplay, being a lessee as well as a lessor, apart from being a builder of its own submarines as also those under technology transfer.

In December 2019, it helped the Myanmar Navy acquire its third dimension by transferring a 3,000-tonne 1988-commissioned Russian-built Kilo class Type 877EKM SSN, INS Sindhuvir, from its own fleet. The five-year lease was undertaken through a Line of Credit (LOC), and followed a two-year refit of at an Indian defence shipyard.
Click to expand...
 
There are parallels with the 1960s procurement of the F111 strike aircraft by Australia.
USAF F111s were a major nuclear delivery system in Western Europe. I don't know whether the RAAF versions had any nuclear capability..The planned 50 for the RAF certainly would have.
The F111 was one of the most complicated aircraft a country could buy. Only Australia did. The programme was subject to delays and cost overruns.
Another precedent is the Nassau agreement that provided Polaris for the RN. France could have had a similar deal but chose not to. The US were not happy about it and significantly the Nixon administration warned the Heath government off asking for Poseidon.
It seems likely that Australia will get a version of a US SSN as it did with F111. However, as it's force will be closer to the RN in size, it makes sense to follow how the RN operates its SSNs.
An Australian lead submarine will have a similar experience to HMS Dreadnought in the 60s. It will be followed by 3 or so of the same class but with modifications based on experience with the lead boat as Valiant and Warspite were.
Personally I doubt whether Australia will get more than 4 or 5 SSN. 8 is a "political" number.
Lessons learned from the slow build up of the Astute class and US problems with its Seawolf and Virginia boats will need to be studied closely.
 
Intriguingly the UK cases for TSR.2, F111 and CVA-01 were based around missions East of Suez.

Only financial restrictions forced this to be abandoned and with much resistance over several financial crisii.
 
Have to say Mods, if previous export SSNs and their effects (or lack thereof) on NPT aren't on-topic, what exactly is? Seems pretty pertinent to me. As fun as Star Wars references are.
 
From memory, it went into a spin this way: nuclear submarines - HEU - nuclear proliferation - Gaddafi - Lybia - Clinton (and Sarkozy)
 
Looking at the likelihood of this project, I can see the next gen US sub being chosen and Oz buying into the project at a reasonably early may bring a cost benefit (MAY). This would give them more opportunity to get the best system for the longest operational life cycle and relevance re potential opposition.

Ir perhaps a variant of it...
 
Archibald said:
From memory, it went into a spin this way: nuclear submarines - HEU - nuclear proliferation - Gaddafi - Lybia - Clinton (and Sarkozy)
Click to expand...

Yes. My fault. Zen remarked that the NATO intervention in Libya was a result of their starting a nuclear program, which is wrong. I should have left it.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Looking at the likelihood of this project, I can see the next gen US sub being chosen and Oz buying into the project at a reasonably early may bring a cost benefit (MAY). This would give them more opportunity to get the best system for the longest operational life cycle and relevance re potential opposition.

Ir perhaps a variant of it...
Click to expand...

Given Australia's troubles with keeping to major programs, or at least with investing sufficiently to maintain and build on them. I honestly wonder if they'll stick with it. They're already facing a major refit/life extension for the Collins class and several government Ministers have spoken of leasing boats to cover the gap between the life extended Collins and the nuclear Attack 2.0.

How unlikely is it that they change their minds again in 2 or 3 years when the costs/risks/difficulties mount and say, "Hey, why don't we just keep leasing nuclear boats"?
 
jeffb said:
My fault. Zen remarked that the NATO intervention in Libya was a result of their starting a nuclear program, which is wrong. I should have left it.
Click to expand...
No I said some suggest this, which is not the same thing. But I knew if I didn't include it, others would make a mountain out of that mole hill.
 
zen said:
jeffb said:
My fault. Zen remarked that the NATO intervention in Libya was a result of their starting a nuclear program, which is wrong. I should have left it.
Click to expand...
No I said some suggest this, which is not the same thing. But I knew if I didn't include it, others would make a mountain out of that mole hill.
Click to expand...
Either way.
 
Australia doesn't build the F-35 for a reason - and the same reason applies to nuclear submarines. It would be both faster and cheaper to buy them from the US (or UK).
 
SeanOhsee said:
Australia doesn't build the F-35 for a reason - and the same reason applies to nuclear submarines. It would be both faster and cheaper to buy them from the US (or UK).
Click to expand...
I disagree. US production is booked solid decades in advance for the Virginias, Columbias, and SSN(X), and unlike the Italians with some of their recent FREMM sales cannot afford to interrupt that to give Australia a couple of boats. The Brits may have some room to squeeze in Australian boats in between the Astutes and their Vanguard replacements - emphasis on maybe.

Now, obviously, most of the systems are likely to be sourced from one of the two countries, the reactor especially, but it's probably outright necessary to assemble the whole thing in Australia simply from a building space perspective.
 
CV12Hornet said:
SeanOhsee said:
Australia doesn't build the F-35 for a reason - and the same reason applies to nuclear submarines. It would be both faster and cheaper to buy them from the US (or UK).
Click to expand...
I disagree. US production is booked solid decades in advance for the Virginias, Columbias, and SSN(X), and unlike the Italians with some of their recent FREMM sales cannot afford to interrupt that to give Australia a couple of boats. The Brits may have some room to squeeze in Australian boats in between the Astutes and their Vanguard replacements - emphasis on maybe.

Now, obviously, most of the systems are likely to be sourced from one of the two countries, the reactor especially, but it's probably outright necessary to assemble the whole thing in Australia simply from a building space perspective.
Click to expand...
I think it'd make more sense to expand US capacity than build a new facility in Australia. The US could use it once the Australian boats were built. Kill two birds with one stone.
 
SeanOhsee said:
I think it'd make more sense to expand US capacity than build a new facility in Australia. The US could use it once the Australian boats were built. Kill two birds with one stone.
Click to expand...
And if the funding was there to make use of those expanded American facilities the Navy would be all over it. But the funding isn't there to increase the rate of submarine procurement, so the expansion would threaten to sink Electric Boat once the Australian order finishes and no one wants that.
 
It isn't there right now but it could be if negotiations amongst the parties put speed and cost first. An Australian nuclear submarine line would be a white elephant once the order was complete while the US navy could use the added capacity as they are hard pressed with the current build rate and scheduled maintenance. A little headroom would be a welcome bit of insurance.
 
GTX said:
jeffb said:

Given Australia's troubles with keeping to major programs, or at least with investing sufficiently to maintain and build on them.
Click to expand...
Examples please?
Click to expand...

Lack of investment, especially on maintaining workforce for the Collins class upgrades and follow ons, as discussed elsewhere on this forum.

All six of the navy’s Collins-class submarines will undergo a $10 billion rebuild with the introduction of first of 12 new French Attack-class submarines now scheduled for 2035.

“It’s well overdue; eight long years ago when the government was elected, they were advised to make a decision on the life-of-type extension on the Collins-class submarines by mid-2015,” Mr O’Connor said.

“That was six years ago and the cost of the life-of-type extension would’ve been around $3-5 billion, that’s gone up to at least $10bn, if not $15bn, so major delays, massive timeline blowouts and expenditure blowouts on the future submarine program.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom