Royal Australian Navy : News, Updates & Discussions.

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,495
Mumbai

IMG_20210616_183723.jpg


Since 5 years , not a single rivet has been struck... The French are certainly earning admirers across the globe .


 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
The Australians wanted not just the submarines, they wanted to build the submarines themselves. What are the existing industrial facilities in Australia to build submarines? That's right, nothing. Nada. Nil.

So the first step is to build the entire industrial ecosystem from the ground up. Australians complain that it's expensive. Of course it's bloody expensive you nitwit, we're talking about training literally thousands of people and building up infrastructure fit to build giant military submarines! Did you think it was cheap? Morons. If it were cheap, you'd have done it by yourself years ago! If it were cheap, every frigging coastal country would have a booming giant military submarine industry. If it were cheap, China would have thousands of giant military submarines, and Australia would be screwed anyway.

There's talks about going back to the 214 or the Soryu... Except neither of these submarines fit the Australian requirements. For a start, they're far too small. The Aussies want submarines that can stay on patrol for months... they want nuclear submarines except without the nuclear. You'll need size for that. Enough volume to store all the fuel you require. (Plus, you know, the stuff the crew needs to stay alive and fit that long. It's actually important, too.)

And lastly -- what do Sky News and The Australian have in common? That's right, they're both emanations of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. If there's one thing that's sure, it's that anything owned by Murdoch is the worst specimen of jingoistic propaganda. Murdoch's media empire never ceased bashing the French, among the many other targets of his boundless petty hatred. Anyone with more than one synapse in the brain would know better than to pay attention to anything a News Corp antenna says.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,495
Mumbai



As is obvious , Francophilia isn't only the monopoly of the Murdoch group. A lot of Australian MSM , defence portals & independent analysts share the same love for the French. I wonder what's it between French & descendants of the British in distant climes or the British themselves . It certainly is a combustible combination , eh Paddy . @BMD

It's not difficult to see why . The project costs have already shot up to 90 billion$ from the initial 50 billion$ within 5 yrs & the construction is yet to commence. ( is expected to in another 2-3 yrs )

Hats off to the French for pulling this off . At this rate I suspect the Naval Group's topline & bottomline is assured for the next 3 decades at least . I wonder if their stocks are trading in the market. Seems like a killing is to be made .


What remains to be seen is if Morrison & Macron French kiss & continue with the deal or ......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,687
8,933
India
There's talks about going back to the 214 or the Soryu... Except neither of these submarines fit the Australian requirements. For a start, they're far too small. The Aussies want submarines that can stay on patrol for months... they want nuclear submarines except without the nuclear. You'll need size for that. Enough volume to store all the fuel you require. (Plus, you know, the stuff the crew needs to stay alive and fit that long. It's actually important, too.)

Actually, what's weird is the Australians are not interested in AIP. Plus it appears they are opting for lead acid or a new chemical battery instead of Li-ion due to safety reasons.
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
As is obvious , Francophilia isn't only the monopoly of the Murdoch group.
Your other examples are a lot more level-headed than the NewsCorp drivel.

They clearly say how the cheaper option for Australia would generally involve buying an off-the-shelf design from the builder's own shipyard, instead of a custom-tailored design to be made at home in Australia. Furthermore, they also remember that these off-the-shelf designs would not have all the features that the Australians wanted. Finally, they direct their anger more at the ScoMo administration and less at the French.

Obviously if the Australians forego their "Australian-Specific-Enhancements" and their "Make In Australia" policy, they're going to get a much cheaper deal. Obviously also, it'll also means that their cheaper submarines will be less well adapted to the challenges their navy will face, and that they will not have the infrastructure to maintain them at home so they will need to sail to the original manufacturer's shipyard to get them serviced. If they're okay with these drawbacks, then by all means, they should ditch the Attack class and pursue something cheaper. They should have done that since the beginning in fact.

On the other hand, if they don't want these drawbacks, and just want to do the Attack class again but this time from a German or Japanese base with a German or Japanese company instead... well, it's just gonna end up exactly as expensive, if not moreso, and they'll have wasted five years for nothing. But they're a free country! They can do that if they want.
As is obvious , Francophilia isn't only the monopoly of the Murdoch group.
Your other examples are a lot more level-headed than the NewsCorp drivel.

They clearly say how the cheaper option for Australia would generally involve buying an off-the-shelf design from the builder's own shipyard, instead of a custom-tailored design to be made at home in Australia. Furthermore, they also remember that these off-the-shelf designs would not have all the features that the Australians wanted. Finally, they direct their anger more at the ScoMo administration and less at the French.

Obviously if the Australians forego their "Australian-Specific-Enhancements" and their "Make In Australia" policy, they're going to get a much cheaper deal. Obviously also, it'll also means that their cheaper submarines will be less well adapted to the challenges their navy will face, and that they will not have the infrastructure to maintain them at home so they will need to sail to the original manufacturer's shipyard to get them serviced. If they're okay with these drawbacks, then by all means, they should ditch the Attack class and pursue something cheaper. They should have done that since the beginning in fact.

On the other hand, if they don't want these drawbacks, and just want to do the Attack class again but this time from a German or Japanese base with a German or Japanese company instead... well, it's just gonna end up exactly as expensive, if not moreso, and they'll have wasted five years for nothing. But they're a free country! They can do that if they want.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,495
Mumbai
Your other examples are a lot more level-headed than the NewsCorp drivel.

They clearly say how the cheaper option for Australia would generally involve buying an off-the-shelf design from the builder's own shipyard, instead of a custom-tailored design to be made at home in Australia. Furthermore, they also remember that these off-the-shelf designs would not have all the features that the Australians wanted. Finally, they direct their anger more at the ScoMo administration and less at the French.

Obviously if the Australians forego their "Australian-Specific-Enhancements" and their "Make In Australia" policy, they're going to get a much cheaper deal. Obviously also, it'll also means that their cheaper submarines will be less well adapted to the challenges their navy will face, and that they will not have the infrastructure to maintain them at home so they will need to sail to the original manufacturer's shipyard to get them serviced. If they're okay with these drawbacks, then by all means, they should ditch the Attack class and pursue something cheaper. They should have done that since the beginning in fact.

On the other hand, if they don't want these drawbacks, and just want to do the Attack class again but this time from a German or Japanese base with a German or Japanese company instead... well, it's just gonna end up exactly as expensive, if not moreso, and they'll have wasted five years for nothing. But they're a free country! They can do that if they want.

Your other examples are a lot more level-headed than the NewsCorp drivel.

They clearly say how the cheaper option for Australia would generally involve buying an off-the-shelf design from the builder's own shipyard, instead of a custom-tailored design to be made at home in Australia. Furthermore, they also remember that these off-the-shelf designs would not have all the features that the Australians wanted. Finally, they direct their anger more at the ScoMo administration and less at the French.

Obviously if the Australians forego their "Australian-Specific-Enhancements" and their "Make In Australia" policy, they're going to get a much cheaper deal. Obviously also, it'll also means that their cheaper submarines will be less well adapted to the challenges their navy will face, and that they will not have the infrastructure to maintain them at home so they will need to sail to the original manufacturer's shipyard to get them serviced. If they're okay with these drawbacks, then by all means, they should ditch the Attack class and pursue something cheaper. They should have done that since the beginning in fact.

On the other hand, if they don't want these drawbacks, and just want to do the Attack class again but this time from a German or Japanese base with a German or Japanese company instead... well, it's just gonna end up exactly as expensive, if not moreso, and they'll have wasted five years for nothing. But they're a free country! They can do that if they want.
Excerpted from the ABC article :

"Critics of the Attack Class project have jumped on early milestone delays and a steep rise in the cost of the project from $50 billion to $89 billion now."


This , I believe , is the crux of all those articles including the ones by NewsCorp . If within 5 years there's a near 100% escalation in costs , it wouldn't be any exaggeration to suggest that by 2050 when the last of those proposed subs are to be built the project costs could well escalate to 150 billion $ or more.

Somebody or some people goofed up massively . Either that or there seems to be some massive miscommunication or worse scope for underhand deals.
 

Nilgiri

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
581
1,407
You have to build an SSK from ground up to be SSK for it to be anywhere near price-competitive.

In the largest weight classes (Aussies were going for) for SSK now, South Koreans and Japanese show the basic proven process to do. The former got more recent-era underlying ToT from Germans....and the latter you have to trace back many more years to see the (post war)American-provided basis.

Taking SSN basis and making it SSK is asking for trouble, especially if you are not the industry provider.

A similar stupid thing is going extreme cost-escalation wise in Canada (to keep local shipyard going vis a vis the larger scale of economy/savings w.r.t UK source) with the new type 26 frigate commitment (halifax replacement).

Shortfin was meant to be brochure + defence stall occupier psy-ops etc all along....plain as day to any naval industry watcher that knows their beans.

Aussies just did not do the sound due diligence and logic of what is not easy at all (internally w.r.t RnD maturing + production chain inertia) to change from SSN to SSK and everything that must be reworked (and how obviously anyone would sell this as best case scenario in pitch for pricing and give you the "bad news" later while time-buying in the interim with influencing your internal politics/lobbies to see if it actually leads anywhere with gullible docile taxpayers).
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,801
7,835
Bangalore
You have to build an SSK from ground up to be SSK for it to be anywhere near price-competitive.

In the largest weight classes (Aussies were going for) for SSK now, South Koreans and Japanese show the basic proven process to do. The former got more recent-era underlying ToT from Germans....and the latter you have to trace back many more years to see the (post war)American-provided basis.

Taking SSN basis and making it SSK is asking for trouble, especially if you are not the industry provider.

A similar stupid thing is going extreme cost-escalation wise in Canada (to keep local shipyard going vis a vis the larger scale of economy/savings w.r.t UK source) with the new type 26 frigate commitment (halifax replacement).

Shortfin was meant to be brochure + defence stall occupier psy-ops etc all along....plain as day to any naval industry watcher that knows their beans.

Aussies just did not do the sound due diligence and logic of what is not easy at all (internally w.r.t RnD maturing + production chain inertia) to change from SSN to SSK and everything that must be reworked (and how obviously anyone would sell this as best case scenario in pitch for pricing and give you the "bad news" later while time-buying in the interim with influencing your internal politics/lobbies to see if it actually leads anywhere with gullible docile taxpayers).
Australian and Canadian defense procurements are so messy that it makes us look good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilgiri

sunstersun

Active member
Dec 4, 2017
386
212
USA

Herciv

Active member
Nov 30, 2017
130
137
FRANCE

Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs​

Yes this news shoul be announced today the the australian prime minister.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,687
8,933
India

Australia to get nuclear-powered submarines, will scrap $90b program to build French-designed subs​


This journey will be interesting to watch. The British are definitely going to supply a "Made in Australia" reactor.

$90B is obviously way too high for just 12 SSKs. But they should buy something in small numbers as a stopgap until the SSN arrives, Korea is preferable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj

sunstersun

Active member
Dec 4, 2017
386
212
USA
I have no idea where the hell the spare capacity for Australian ships are going to be. There's 2 dockyards that make subs in the USA, 1 sucks and 1 is good. Pretty much capped at 2+1 full until at least 2030.
 

sunstersun

Active member
Dec 4, 2017
386
212
USA
We need a Kaiser shipyard effort on the west coast lmao.

Rope in Canada too for the Submarine deal and now we're talking in the Pacific.
 

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
1,760
1,326
Republic of Wadiya
This journey will be interesting to watch. The British are definitely going to supply a "Made in Australia" reactor.

$90B is obviously way too high for just 12 SSKs. But they should buy something in small numbers as a stopgap until the SSN arrives, Korea is preferable.
Right move by the Australia.Atleast dozens each of Hunter killers and Boomers are the preferable for better survivablity against a country like China in Indian Ocean and South China Sea.
But the price tag is giving me nausea.
 

sunstersun

Active member
Dec 4, 2017
386
212
USA
Right move by the Australia.Atleast dozens each of Hunter killers and Boomers are the preferable for better survivablity against a country like China in Indian Ocean and South China Sea.
But the price tag is giving me nausea.
Much better price tag than the French deal.
 

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
1,760
1,326
Republic of Wadiya
Much better price tag than the French deal.
That deal too was overpriced and also not suitable for their needs considering the situation right now.
Atleast this time they will get something that will give them some deterrence against relentless chinease transgressions. They should try to build small but lethal sub force along with few ASW assets like P-8 Poseidon and Atleast couple of Elizabeth/Charles de Gaulle class carrier with F35s on-board or try to lease/buy one super carrier with the fleet of superhornets on-board.
PS: I don’t understand the rationale behind insanely high price tag US companies try to extort for things like Drones,BMDS,OPVs etc which the rivals sell at fraction of that price.
 
Last edited:

vargr

Member
Sep 1, 2021
59
87
Norway
The French deal was absolute trash, pure garbage, and predictably, and fortunately, died. I remember writing a few years ago on this forum about Naval Group's inflexibility and shady negotiating during Norway's Type-210 replacement tender. Turns out my experience dealing with them was equally true for Australia. Good negotiators, bad partners.

...

Coming to a shore near you, China;)

Capture.PNG
 

john0496

Member
Nov 11, 2020
13
8
France
Australians can't be trust anymore when they sign a contract.
The french are able to offer to build nuclear subs.
And in parallel Australia can sign a strategic deal with the US an UK.
This is really unfair.

Naval Group can be trust unlike the Australian government. Look at the indian contract. The tech transfert building scorpenes ships went quite well.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BMD