• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class

calculus

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
Except the cost to build was initially reported as $20 Billion, then reported as $80 Billion back in January, and this week is now $90 Billion. That is quite indicative of a project running out of control. Also, objectively, a tremendous amount of money for 12 non-nuclear subs.

https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/submarine-costs-spiraling-into-the-stratosphere

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/defence-megaproject-hit-by-delays-blowouts/

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26898/Australia_to_spend__90B_for_12_Attack_class_Submarines
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
The truth may very well be somewhere in the middle. 

Calculus is correct in that its not uncommon for projects to have won bids with "0" design/work hours allotted on certain aspects of the project in the requirements.  These aspects might end up being more important as one gets down to brass tacks.  The RAN might have changed their mind on something, might put more value in some tech, might have government-provided equipment that needs to be integrated etc..  so the costs go up.

And of course, RDBZ is correct that inflation needs to be taken into account.  Military equipment inflation is running somewhere around 14% I recently heard.  Its fast outpacing regular inflation.  That's a lot of money over the course of a decades-long build program.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
180
Is it really "replacing" if the Attack-class subs never actually get built? :sneaky:

Well, replacing one set electronic drawings and power points with a set different electronic drawings and power points. And most important a different set of "industrial" promises :)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
120
Points
680
And now everyone knows why the FREMM never even made it to the finishline on the CSC bid.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
320
Points
880
Surprised the Aussies are not considering the Japanese or SK subs as well, or is that political unacceptable as they lost the initial competition?
 

LoboCanada

Member
Reaction score
2
Points
230
You ever think a reason we haven't started a Victoria-class replacement is because someone/people are watching the Collins-class replacement project and seeing how to not do it?

Would be a mirror case for us:

SSN capability is favourable but something we as a Navy or our Industry have ever done before.
SSK is in our wheelhouse and cheaper but we haven't built any (ever)* (*Aus built their Collins ages ago).

These articles about "Australia mulling other options" come out every other month it seems, and could also be a partial negotiation tactic too. They chose this design but went with a traditional drivetrain, effectively it's a redesign.

If we ever buy subs, I hope it's through a new procurement model, with lessons learned from this project. Japan and Sweden have come a ways in Lithium-Ion SSKs with VLSs, I hope we chose between them. I guess you could compare the size of the nuclear vs. battery industry within Canada and see where the money (building offshore but with heavy IRBs) would be better spent to assist the industry.

Edit for clarity.
 
Top