Defence advised to walk away from french Subs

[Juliar]

Will the Govt bite the bullet and walk away from the primitive diesel subs ?



Defence advised to walk away from French subs
BEN PACKHAM 10:30PM JANUARY 14, 2020


A submarine at the Naval Group shipyard in Cherbourg, France. Picture: AFP

A key adviser to the federal governmen­t was so concerned about the $80bn Future Sub­marine Project it warned Defence it should consider walking away from the French-built boats.

A report by the Australian Nationa­l Audit Office released on Tuesday revealed the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board warned that Defence should consider whether proceeding with the project was in the national interest.

The ANAO said in the report the submarines’ design phase was running nine months late, and “Defence cannot demonstrate that its expenditure of $396m … has been fully effective” in achieving key milestones.

The report also revealed Defence­ had approved the fabric­ation of complex hull parts for the first future submarine to be undertaken in France, rather than ­Australia, to guard against delays to the build schedule.

The revelations follow the ­Defence Department’s admission to a Senate estimates hearing late last year that construction of the first boat had been pushed back by up to a year, and the cost to build and maintain all 12 submarines would reach $225bn over their 50-year lifespan.

Defence told the ANAO that if the subs project was delayed by more than three years, it would “create a gap in navy’s submarine capability” that could affect plans for the nation’s Collins-class ­submarines.

In a sign of the tensions between­ Defence and French shipbuilder Naval Group, the report said the government’s Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, chaired by former US Navy secret­ary Don Winter, warned in September 2018 that “Defence should assess whether program risks outweighed the benefits of proceeding”.

At that time, Defence was struggling to negotiate a strategic partnering agreement with Naval Group. “The Naval Shipbuilding Advisory­ Board expressed a separate­ view that, even if the strategic partnering agreement negotiations were successful, Defence consider if proceeding is in the national interest,” Defence told the ANAO. “This consideration was represented in the advice to government seeking approval to enter the (SPA).”

The agreement was finally signed in February last year and included a provision for Aust­ralia to break the contract if the subs were delayed or failed to deliver­ promised capability.

Defence has previously warned of “high to extreme risk” to its naval shipbuilding prog­ram, with differing engineering methodologies between France and Australia cited as a potentially major issue.

The Auditor-General said that establishing “an effective long-term partnership between Defence and Naval Group” was a key risk-mitigation measure.

Opposition defence spokesman Richard Marles said government “mishandling” of the nation’s biggest ever defence acquisition­ posed major risks.

“On all three measures of this program — on time of delivery, on the cost of the project, and on the amount of the Australian content — the numbers are all going the wrong way,” he said.

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick said the ANAO report was “one of the most concerning reports I have ever seen”.

“The alarm bells are ringing. If the minister is not hearing them, they need to be turned up,” Senator Patrick said. “Defence’s view that they can recover the schedule is naive at best.”

But Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said the schedule delay had been essential to get the submarine design right.

“Doing so will reduce costly changes and uncertainties while the Attack-class submarines are built, and will reduce the need for larger construction contingencies,” she said.

She said the first submarine was still due to be delivered to the navy in 2035, as planned.

The Naval Shipbuilding Advis­ory Board’s role is to provide­ expert, independent advice­ to the government on its $90bn shipbuilding program. Its membership includes three retired­ senior navy officers — Rear Admiral Thomas Eccle, Vice Admiral William Hilarides, and Vice-Admiral Paul Sullivan — and former Department of Education secretary Lisa Paul.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute defence analyst Marcus Hellyer said the advice of the high-level board was normally confidential. “It’s the first time I have seen that gloomy assessment,” he said. Mr Hellyer said the potential “capability gap” was likely to refer to the risk of having fewer than six operational submarines at any point.

He said it was now likely all six Collins-class boats would have to have their lives extended.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... a683a790b2


The COMMENTS are quite inspiring

William 7 MINUTES AGO
It was stated in the local media several months ago that for a fee of $400 Million Australia could pull out of this ridiculous Dud Submarine deal. Chicken Feed in the overall defence budget.I can’t say much more or I will get moderated out again.William B.

Greg 6 MINUTES AGO
Never mind the design phase being behind. The whole project is in the 18th century. Diesel engine retro fits ensures these things will be traceable where ever they go.

Jeffrey 9 MINUTES AGO
Every signal says cancel. Delaying the decision will make things worse.

The design is already late and anyone with project management experience knows that if there are delays in design then time is never made up plus it indicates more risks in the future. Cancel now.

Plus the basic concepts are flawed and the risks of being a pioneer using a French contractor that is positioning to do all build as well is not good sign either. If the ANAO is concerned then cancel, they have looked inside the deal and have the best understanding.

The reason this very expensive deal got legs is because Turnbull wanted an alternative to Tony Abbott’s Japan deal the US liked to; simply because it was Abbott’s idea.

Moet 10 MINUTES AGO
Listen up Government! Walk away from this disaster! Now!

Pam 9 MINUTES AGO
Bring on nuclear in all areas. Mining, generating, medical,, waste reprocessing and storage.

CHRISTINE 9 MINUTES AGO
Given the pace of technological advancement in recent times these subs must surely be obsolete by the time they are built.

Reality Czech 10 MINUTES AGO
They will forever be known as the 'future submarine' .

Phillip 10 MINUTES AGO
Seems to me this horse has long ears, & I'm thinking that in 15 years nothing will escape the new weapons of war that our intelligent species will come up with.
Oh well, so much for brotherly love.

Colin 10 MINUTES AGO
Cancel it NOW! And lease the Virginia class subs from the US. Maybe we can then learn some nuclear technologie and use it to build small power plants. Or is this my fanciful thinking?

Daniel 11 MINUTES AGO
Who will defend the country against this imongoing incompetence?

Rolf 12 MINUTES AGO
Like the Emperors New Clothes, anyone could see the Emperor was actually naked. Meanwhile, sycophants clapping and cheering on the Emperor confuse the public.

Edi 15 MINUTES AGO
First one to be delivered in 2035, maybe. This is a joke, right.

C 17 MINUTES AGO
Really? It took an "expert" to tell the government that?

We, the common sense general public, have been saying the same thing from the moment this farce was announced.

[Juliar]

And what about the new drone submarines????

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... ed-weapon/

[Juliar]

Will they won't they go nuclear ?



Subs could be switched to nuclear, says navy chief Michael Noonan
BEN PACKHAM 8:01AM OCTOBER 9, 2019


John C. Aquilino, commander of the US Pacific Fleet, left, with Chief of Navy Michael Noonan in Sydney on Tuesday. Picture: Royal Australian Navy


Chief of Navy Michael Noonan has left open the prospect of some of Australia’s 12 Future Submarines being nuclear powered, amid ongoing questions over the government’s decision to purchase the world’s biggest and most ­expensive conventionally powered subs.

The Australian understands the winning bidder of the $50bn submarine contract, Naval Group, has told the government it could deliver some of the submarines as nuclear powered. But it warns the switch to nuclear would increase design and sustainment costs for Australia’s Attack-class boats.

Vice-Admiral Noonan said at the Pacific 2019 maritime expo in Sydney that “at this point in time, I believe that they will be conventional submarines”.

“But as I’ve said in past ­announcements, the ability we have with continuous shipbuilding is to innovate as we go,” he said. “And I am absolutely of the mind that the 12th submarine will be different from the first.

“A change in the propulsion system for the Attack-class submarines; it’s something that will no doubt be discussed over the next 30 years, bearing in mind that by the time we deliver No 12 it will be 2055.”

Nuclear-powered submarines are faster, have a longer range and can spend longer underwater than conventionally powered boats.

ASPI defence analyst Marcus Hellyer said the arguments put forward by the government for its purchase of the Naval Group vessel, ahead of rival German and Japanese designs, “have been very abstract and high level”. “(It’s been said) ‘we need a regionally superior submarine’, or that ‘it is a strategic deterrent’.

“It would be better if we had a discussion about what exactly we need these submarines for and why we needed unique capabilities that no other submarines could provide. Then we would better understand why the investment in cost and time is needed.”

The Attack-class boats will be a diesel-electric variant of the ­nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine currently under construction for the French Navy.

They will be equipped with “pump-jet propulsion”, which has been designed for faster nuclear subs and is said to be more ­efficient at higher speeds, in ­addition to the propeller drives.

However, Naval Group has warned a switch to an Australian nuclear-powered submarine “would be a new design, not an ­upgrade”.

The costs of going nuclear, if a future government was prepared to take the politically risky decision, would also be higher due to the lack of a domestic nuclear ­industry, meaning Australia would have to create one or pay for the skills of overseas partners such as France or the US.

The Pacific 2019 international maritime expo is being held against the backdrop of increasing tensions between South Australia and Western Australia, which are competing to host a major upgrade of the navy’s six Collins-class submarines.

At least five of the Collins boats will be completely overhauled due to the long timelines in the delivery of the Attack-class subs.

The work was expected to be done in WA, but SA is pushing hard — with the backing of Centre Alliance senators — to have it undertaken at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards, where the Attack-class boat and new Hunter-class frigates will be built. Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said the government was yet to make a decision on where the work would take place. “Any decision will be taken in the national interest. It will be what navy requires to meet its capability requirements,” she said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 73e63bf195

[billy the kid]

We were originally supposed to get the first sub in 2030...now Reynolds says its 2035.....
What a fkn mess this has been from day one....as a prominent commentator once said "everything
Turnbull touchs just turns to shit...."....he was right...….

[Redneck]

We were originally supposed to get the first sub in 2030...now Reynolds says its 2035.....
What a fkn mess this has been from day one....as a prominent commentator once said "everything
Turnbull touchs just turns to shit...."....he was right...….

I dont know that it has much to do with the PM of the time, its just the way ordering these new ships,planes or subs seems to go.

dont any of them have some ready for delivery when ordered?

I think we might be better to buy second hand ones off the yanks than buy something that is out of date by time you get them.

[Black Orchid]

We should cut our losses and pull out. For God's sake if we have to wait 15 years before even the first of them MAY be delivered we obviously don't need them. Isn't construction supposed to extend to 2050? Well before then neighbouring countries will have far superior submarines and the Attack class (an oxymoron) will be obsolete before they even hit the water.

Turnbull was always a traitor to Australia. He was Australia's version of Nancy Pelosi.

[Juliar]

BO is a true patriot.

[Valkie]

What it will all come down to is
How much the French will pay in bribes to
Senior public servants
Politicians
Political advisers

It has absolutely nothing to do with functionality, capability or any other logic.

It's all about the bribes.

[Bobby]

How will they find crews for the new subs?

What about the Collins sub that sunk out of control and was nearly lost with all the crew?
It was a miracle that they got back alive.
3 sailors from that crew left the Navy with PTSD after that.
It's a dangerous job even in peacetime -
that's why they can't find crews.

In a real war I doubt that any crew would come back alive.
I think 70% of the German U boat sailors died in WW2.

[billy the kid]

From what Ive read, our grubberment was stitched up with this deal...and Turnbull only wanted the French
to get the gig to avoid giving it to the japs...but of course, with the lure of junkets to the French Riviera
for our politicians, Im sure they didnt mind the stitching....you know..just to check on the building progress...etc etc....
Its all a bit of a disgrace really...waiting until 2035 (originally was 2030) for the first sub to be delivered...well maybe...and then the
rest not arriving to 2050....well maybe.....and our grubberment still cant decide where the subs are going
to be serviced...Perth or Adelaide...and that would depend on which seats need shoring up....pork barrelling
I think its called....now that would never happen would it....the whole gig is enough to make me puke.....