According to a report by The Australian Independent Australia website in an article entitled “Government Submarine Contract sunk and unlikely to Resurface” written by Alan Austin, the program to build twelve new submarines for the Royal Australian Navy to replace Collins-class submarines is likely to be cancelled.
How things got to a possible cancellation of the program
The construction project has been won after an international competition by the French company Naval Group with the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A project (26 April 20160. The article blames the country’s political instability. The initial cost was $50bn (AUSD) (2016), but with Australian government demands it can move from $80-$140bn (AUSD) apart from time delays.
by Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis
©The law of intellectual property is prohibited in any way unlawful use/appropriation of this article, with heavy civil and criminal penalties for the infringer.
Photo by the website www.globaldefensecorp.com
While the first submarine would have to be delivered (based on the 2016 timetable) in the mid-20s, it was then revised for the early 2030s and could arrive in 2040.
In addition, the Australian Ministry of Defence is requesting participation of 60% from the 90% originally announced as a target when the competition began. But Naval Group insists this figure should be reduced given Australia’s industrial potential.
The author of this article wrongly argues why twelve new submarines need to be acquired to replace six and to support his view he cites as examples other countries such as Taiwan which while it has the same population as Australia has four submarines, Canada with a larger population has four.
Argentina and Spain with twice the population also have two. Germany and Brazil each have six but a much larger population, while Mexico has five times the population.
The author of the article cites as a reason the expansion of Australia’s industrial base to build this number of submarines in Australia.
But to give a proper answer and a solution to the problem that has arisen for the Australian government, we will have to look at it from the outset starting with the selection that emerged from the competition.
Why the French company Naval Group was chosen to build the new submarines
It is a fact that the ever-increasing trade between China and Australia along with the associated trade and political ramifications is important but not the main factor that would lead the Australian government to cancel the program.
China is aware that the three different types of submarine designs that took part in the Australian Navy competition (German, French, Japanese) are designed with capabilities to sink the Chinese Navy. If China wanted to stop Australia’s specific program it could threaten to break trade relations and retaliate and cancel orders to the three countries (Germany, France, Japan).
The French company Naval Group won the competition because it is the only one with plans and construction for tested conventional submarines with anaerobic propulsion displacing 3000 – 4000 tons that can carry cruise missiles.
The German company that took part in the competition does not have such submarines. It presented an elongated conventional propulsion version of the submarine “214” displacing 3500-4000 tons equipped with cruise missiles, but they have never built such a large submarine. For this reason, they were not selected by Australia.
The Japanese company that took part in the competition had a design for a submarine that reached 4000 tons and tested in practice but had less operational autonomy (in the version of anaerobic propulsion) than that of naval group and had not shown (obviously at least) that it can be equipped with cruise missiles.
The great advantage of the French in Australia’s competition is that they have experience of nuclear submarines flying 5000 – 7000-ton intercontinental ballistic missiles operating in the Ocean Environment. The French have submarine hunters as well as submarines carrying ballistic missiles.
Naval Group has proposed to Australians the construction of nuclear-powered submarines with enormous operational autonomy that can operate throughout the Pacific Ocean. Let us consider that in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean lies the deepest point of the Earth at 12 kilometers deep from sea level. Then what does it take to operate a submarine in deep water with intense underwater currents.
Why Australia needs to build twelve, not six new submarines
Because the operational needs and requirements respectively of the Australian Navy have changed and Australia’s strength at sea should be increased. The operational requirements of a Navy are not compared using countries based on their population but with the threats they face.
The countries of the American continent as well as Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines are operationally covered by the U.S. Navy. So, you cannot compare Australia, which has an opponent in the Pacific Ocean, China, and Mexico, and use the country’s population in the comparison equation.
China is shifting to the geopolitical chessboard and from a trading partner of the Anglo-Saxon world until now becomes its first adversary. Outside the U.S., England, Canada, and Canada are transferring their maritime forces to the Pacific Ocean. In the same way, Australia, along with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and India, are increasing their naval forces sharply.
Australia is twice as large as the European continent and Australia’s submarines patrol the Pacific Ocean which is twice as large as the Atlantic Ocean and at the same time patrol the Indian Ocean. They are basically patrolling a terrifyingly large operational field. Sweden and Taiwan protect their coastal territories.
Why the cost of building the twelve submarines has increased
The cost of building these twelve submarines increased because they were politically exploited during an election campaign (2019).
Additional but also more important reason is that the cost was increased by the requirements of the Australian governments such as the replacement of the nuclear-powered propulsion system with a conventional propulsion system, the selection and placement of American-sourced subsystems on a French-made submarine and the selection of lead-acid accumulators.
All these options and despite the warnings of the Naval Group were inevitable to drastically increase their construction-completion costs.
So, the cost has gone remarkably high – and that always happens – when someone makes something new from scratch with different systems that have never been tested before. It is not a smart example of ordering a nuclear-powered submarine and then removing its nuclear-powered propulsion by limiting its operational autonomy.
