Economy Australia pays $50 Billion for diesel submarines.

[Orgasmo]

The contract allows us to walk away if they don't meet the delivery goals and they are actually being built locally.

Building locally is exactly the part where matters get complicated. Technology transfer requires years to iron out the technical and labor details. Walking away from the contract if the French didn't meet your deadline will cost you tens, if not hundreds, of millions in payments.

 

[Ruprecht]

Building locally is exactly the part where matters get complicated. Technology transfer requires years to iron out the technical and labor details. Walking away from the contract if the French didn't meet your deadline will cost you tens, if not hundreds, of millions in payments.

Yes, they would still need to be compensated for developing the facilities and the technology transfer, however the concern about delays was a part of the contract negotiation. Also the submarines are only a part of the $90 Billion shipbuilding program the government is commencing (this is in my state), so it's not like the labour or facilities wouldn't be utilised.

 

[7437]

We've got one reactor (Lucas Heights) purely for science and medicine, and even that is extremely controversial.
No party wants to be tied to the nuclear debate, although it's traditionally had support from the Liberals. There was some discussion restarted over the issue around 2007, but it was completely killed off by Fukushima.

i always think people had an odd reaction to Fukushima. it took a magnitude 9 earthquake followed by a 50ft tsunami. most stuff would be wiped off the fucking earth. that was a super safe.

 

[Orgasmo]

Yes, they would still need to be compensated for developing the facilities and the technology transfer, however the concern about delays was a part of the contract negotiation. Also the submarines are only a part of the $90 Billion shipbuilding program the government is commencing (this is in my state), so it's not like the labour or facilities wouldn't be utilised.

You cannot forecast delays. By their nature, they are unforeseen events. The more complicated the project is, the greater the chance of such events occurring. This is the single most sophisticated project in Australian military history, and I bet you my car that cost overruns and setbacks are inevitable. No one is immune, not even the Chinese. The only question is what does that realistically translate to?

It takes several years from boat delivery to reach initial operational capability (IOC), and probably up to a decade or more to achieve full operational capability (FOC). If the first boat is due in 2034, assuming by miracle every last detail goes according to plan, you will be in the late 2030's when you can start patrolling with these subs. That's more than 20 years from now, and given how rapidly Chinese navy modernized in the past 20 years, you will be facing Chinese boats that are at least a generation ahead. The capability gap only widens from there.

Australia missed a golden procurement window by deal signing delay. It further went down the wrong path by insisting on local production. IMO, you'd be better off buying U214 from Germany or Soryu from Japan half a decade ago.

 

[Roaming East]

Australias navy is territorial, not blue water. So a nuclear submarine would be a terrible option for them.

 

[Ruprecht]

You cannot forecast delays. By their nature, they are unforeseen events. The more complicated the project is, the greater the chance of such events occurring. This is the single most sophisticated project in Australian military history, and I bet you my car that cost overruns and setbacks are inevitable. No one is immune, not even the Chinese. The only question is what does that realistically translate to?

It takes several years from boat delivery to reach initial operational capability (IOC), and probably up to a decade or more to achieve full operational capability (FOC). If the first boat is due in 2034, assuming by miracle every last detail goes according to plan, you will be in the late 2030's when you can start patrolling with these subs. That's more than 20 years from now, and given how rapidly Chinese navy modernized in the past 20 years, you will be facing Chinese boats that are at least a generation ahead. The capability gap only widens from there.

Australia missed a golden procurement window by deal signing delay. It further went down the wrong path by insisting on local production. IMO, you'd be better off buying U214 from Germany or Soryu from Japan half a decade ago.

It's not a matter of forecasting delays, it's a matter of how the costs and responsibilities are apportioned.
Hence why the contract specifies if the delivery is more than 2 years late or the cost blows out by more than 25%, we can walk away without penalty.
Local production was non-negotiable, because creating an indigenous naval industry is actually more important than the subs themselves. There's no way that 90 billion dollar Naval Shipbuilding expenditure would meet broad public approval without the ramifications for local industry. That figure's also excluding the additional 50 billion+ expected to be required to maintain the submarines capabilities.
Australia is not chasing China on military spending or capabilities. The primary role of the Submarine fleet is deterrence.

 

[grizzard2bid]

We have no nuclear industry for support, so going nuclear certainly wouldn't be a quicker or cheaper option.

That, and diesel is very underrated. It is the most efficient fossil fuel. Crew will probably run out of food before they run out of diesel, unless they plan on subsisting on small portions of canned food like cats for months on end.

Nuclear subs were the Cold Era golden idea because they could theoretically never need to refuel, but that idea never took into effect the human factor- mariners at sea in a closed little space can only last so long before needing to step on land.

 

[grizzard2bid]

America is rich but its people aren't.
The average aussie is over 3x richer.

Aussies also get murdered at a fifth the rate of Americans.

So as a fight between countries American wins clearly, no debate there.
But in a fight for a citizens experience Australia wins just as clearly.

As a person i consider how i live very important.

Australia seems like a great place, until I learned about saltwater crocks. It's one thing to worry about sharks in the ocean, but you also have to worry about goddamn crocks at the beach...

 

[Ruprecht]

That, and diesel is very underrated. It is the most efficient fossil fuel. Crew will probably run out of food before they run out of diesel, unless they plan on subsisting on small portions of canned food like cats for months on end.

Nuclear subs were the Cold Era golden idea because they could theoretically never need to refuel, but that idea never took into effect the human factor- mariners at sea in a closed little space can only last so long before needing to step on land.

Yeah, although range and endurance are the reason "off the shelf" diesel options were dismissed in favour of converting the Barracuda to diesel (or it's competitors in the procurement program, modified Soryu or U214/6 designs).

Diesel can certainly manage it, and nuclear wouldn't really make sense for Australia anyway unless we'd already invested in nuclear power and waste disposal.
Which would be a considerably bigger deal economically and politically than these submarines.

 

[Michaelangelo]

i’m sure no one benefited from side deals or bribes at all. totally reasonable government spending.

 

[Orgasmo]

It's not a matter of forecasting delays, it's a matter of how the costs and responsibilities are apportioned.
Hence why the contract specifies if the delivery is more than 2 years late or the cost blows out by more than 25%, we can walk away without penalty.
Local production was non-negotiable, because creating an indigenous naval industry is actually more important than the subs themselves. There's no way that 90 billion dollar Naval Shipbuilding expenditure would meet broad public approval without the ramifications for local industry. That figure's also excluding the additional 50 billion expected to be required to maintain the submarines capabilities.
Australia is not chasing China on military spending or capabilities. The primary role of the Submarine fleet is deterrence.

Okay, so you can walk away without paying penalty if the project deviated too much on cost and time. What about wasted time? What will you fill the capability gap with in case you do walk away? The Collins class is quickly becoming outdated and can't keep up with the latest Russian/Chinese designs. If you want to have effective deterrence, you need to present a credible threat to your potential adversaries. The Barracuda may be modern as of 2019, but certainly not when it's 15 to 20 years from now. How do you intend to do that with subs that will be obsolete upon first delivery and absolute ancient when last boat is built? Hope Chinese sailors laugh themselves to death looking at vintage subs?

 

[Ruprecht]

i’m sure no one benefited from side deals or bribes at all. totally reasonable government spending.

Actually, back when Australia was going with the Japanese design it was because of US pressure (possible refusal to allow the integration of US systems). It was largely the US relenting on that which lead to the selection of the modified Barracuda.

 

[Ruprecht]

Okay, so you can walk away without paying penalty if the project deviated too much on cost and time. What about wasted time? What will you fill the capability gap with in case you do walk away? The Collins class is quickly becoming outdated and can't keep up with the latest Russian/Chinese designs. If you want to have effective deterrence, you need to present a credible threat to your potential adversaries. The Barracuda may be modern as of 2019, but certainly not when it's 15 to 20 years from now. How do you intend to do that with subs that will be obsolete upon first delivery and absolute ancient when last boat is built? Hope Chinese sailors laugh themselves to death looking at vintage subs?

By developing an indigenous naval industry capable of building and upgrading what we need.
At the moment there's substantial focus on submarine drones as a future solution. It's impossible to "future proof" tech. You can only get the best available at the time with maximum provision for upgrades. It's not like there was substantially less involved in modifying the Soryu or U214/6 for Australian requirements, and unless we were willing to forgo local industry, there wasn't substantial time to be saved.
That wasn't politically an option.

 

[GhostZ06]

Actually, back when Australia was going with the Japanese design it was because of US pressure (possible refusal to allow the integration of US systems). It was largely the US relenting on that which lead to the selection of the modified Barracuda.

we were kicking the idea that we'd sell you Virginia class boats, hell we were putting pressure on the Aussies to buy US made Virginia class boats(if the rumors were ). But Nope leave it to the stupid ass Aussie government to pick something farrrr less capable. If you bought into those, you'd probably Op'd for the Block V Virginia class. But since the AUS goverment doesnt want nuclear power for some dumb reason, i guess they wont be getting anything remotely quality

 

[Ruprecht]

we were kicking the idea that we'd sell you Virginia class boats, hell we were putting pressure on the Aussies to buy US made Virginia class boats(if the rumors were ). But Nope leave it to the stupid ass Aussie government to pick something farrrr less capable. If you bought into those, you'd probably Op'd for the Block V Virginia class. But since the AUS goverment doesnt want nuclear power for some dumb reason, i guess they wont be getting anything remotely quality

There's still US pressure for us to join in US sub development.
It's less the Australian government than the Australian people (61% against nuclear power).

Aside from the nuclear issue, the politics got complicated. Abbott was going to get the modified Soryus made in Japan, largely due to the US-Japanese-Australian alliance, but wasn't transparent with it. His government had just closed the doors on General Motors in South Australia, Mitsubishi had already left, and now he was going to offshore submarine production (another major South Australian industry) despite earlier claims otherwise.
He couldn't manage it politically, my own South Australian representative (Nick Xenophon) prevented it. So he held a competitive procurement process (to the apparent surprise of the Japanese) to try and get out of the mess he'd made, but Turnbull ended Abbott's term as prime minister before it was resolved (turn about is fair play).
Thus it actually became a genuinely competitive procurement process rather than staged political theater.
The Japanese had no history of exporting their production of military technology, and kept playing up how difficult it was (refused to commit to how much production would be transfered). Meanwhile the Germans and French read the Australian politics better and downplayed any difficulties in technology and production transfer (while emphasising their prior experience in doing just that). This, combined with the capabilities of the short fin Barracuda (mostly transit speed, endurance, range and service life), were enough to win the contract over the cheaper Japanese and German offerings.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

Australia seems like a great place, until I learned about saltwater crocks. It's one thing to worry about sharks in the ocean, but you also have to worry about goddamn crocks at the beach...

In some places yes, but im not aware of any croc attacks at beaches, ever. People do get attacked occasionally but its almost exclusively because they ignored the signs saying don't swim in this croc infested water.

 

[Arkain2K]

Hmmm, looks like Australia's nuclear-to-diesel converted French subs that runs on lead-acid batteries will cost twice as much as America's Virginia-class nuclear subs.

 

[flashNsmash]

lol, yeah the math never added up for me

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/01...efend-submarine-buy-with-frances-naval-group/

 

[rob mafia]

lolz. i either never heard of this hilarious deal or forgot all about it. fucking australia. they'll lose to emus by sea, as well.

 

[ryan3434]

How do you sink the Canadian navy? Put it in water.

Hahaha ...