Australia is currently set to embark upon its most ambitious, complex and expensive defense project in history, through the design and construction of its first indigenous submarine. Understanding why Australia has decided to commit to such a project requires both knowledge of Australia’s unique geographical environment and regional strategic realities.
Dubbed the Future Submarine Project, this ambitious scheme hopes to develop the ability to design, test and construct an Australian submarine, perfectly suited for the unique and different conditions it would be required to work. The project is estimated to cost anywhere between 16 to 36 billion Australian dollars; there remains argument on the final price. It aims to construct the largest diesel attack submarines in the world, surpassing even the mighty U.S Virginia Class. The 2013 Defense White paper unequivocally stated the nation’s intent, removing all other options from the table. There remains, however, a rather heated debate within Australia as to the risks versus possible reward of the Future Submarine Project. Australia has never before attempted something of this magnitude; normally preferring to purchase advanced pieces of military hardware from those who have spent decades perfecting the trade. Such crucial facts and some strategic foresight explain this ambitious move.
link.
2 comments:
The Collins-class submarine replacement project official name is "SEA 1000". The costs for an off-the-shelf modern diesel submarine with AIP by French DCNS or TKMS (with German HDW and Swedish Kockums) is about $0.5 billion. With infrastructure and special Australian needs like loud US torpedoes the price could be around $12 billion. Add $4 billion for an inferior and unsuitable US command and control system and Australia will pay about $16 billion for 12 Australian build European submarine designs. There is no US company with experience building diesel submarines. Last time (Collins class) RAAN’s choice was a European system but it was a political decision to use an unproven US system. Virginia class with 8,000 t displacement and a near endless energy supply is twice the size of 4,000 t SEA 1000 submarine.
$36 billion and more will be the price for an all Australian submarine design with many subsystems from European or US companies. First trails with fuel cell AIP on a German submarine took place in 1987. Does anybody think Australia can invent a better system within 10 years?
What would be the problem for Australia to buy 12 European designed submarines, build in Australia without any major changes for about $8 billion? There is the old thinking of Rear Admiral Rowan Moffitt that a submarine can stay at sea for about a day for each crew member on board”. The German Type 214 submarines have an endurance of 84 days with a crew of 27. RAAN wants more range. What about some submarine tenders? Even the US Navy got some because a nuclear propulsion system can’t provide food.
My advice would be to buy about 24 European submarine designs for about $12 billion. Even a fast nuclear powered submarine can’t be at two places at once. Australia would need even less crew man than for the planned 12 SEA 1000 subs (~80). Btw. with the crew of 5 Virginia class submarines (135) RAAN could man about 25 European submarines.
Yes, go with a European design but avoid the German vessels.
They are plagued with so many problems that one of their customers wanted to return their subs.
Sweden is the country with most experience in building and using AIP submarines. The Swedish propulsion system was chosen for the new Japanese subs over the German propulsion system.
German subs uses Swedish company SAABs technology in their subs.
Post a Comment