Greetings from the northern German city of Hamburg and the beginning of a Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems media tour. They are one of two finalists for SEA 3000, the general purpose frigate project, but they are forbidden by Defence from discussing their proposal. This ridiculous level of secrecy seems to be in place purely to conceal Departmental incompetence and to cover up the growing possibility that no frigates will be built in Australia, ever.
Some words about US demands that Australia increase Defence spending to as much as 5% of GDP and what looks like a major difference of opinion between the PM and Defence Minister as to whether or not we give in to that pressure.
Then some details of an article in June APDR that AUKUS Pillar One has very little chance of success written by Dr Hans Ohff, Managing Director of the Australian Submarine Corporation during the critical years of the Collins program. Unlike politicians and bureaucrats he actually knows how difficult it is to successfully deliver submarines – and Australia is falling well short.
To listen to the podcast, click here.
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
Current plans call for the US president to put pen to paper 270 days in advance of approving the transfer of a Virginia Class submarine into Australian service. The US president will likely only sign off on this if the transfer of these submarines will not degrade US undersea capabilities.
Huge risk right there for Australia. Not only will we have run down the clock as finding a replacement for the Collins subs but we will have likely blown tens of billions of dollars in the process.
In my opinion we are seeking to replace the Collins with SSNs a generation too early. What we actually need to do is obtain conventional submarines now, probably built in overseas yards and look at the possibility of acquiring SSNs by the late 40s or 50s.
Thanks again, Kym.
Interesting news in the UK’s defence review announcements. Firstly, the UK has confirmed a ‘NATO first’ defence posture. Hardly a surprise, but what does this mean for the original ‘optimal pathway’ whereby one Astute boat would be rotationally deployed to Fleet Base West from 2027? Fremantle is quite a long way from the North Sea.
More generally, the Astute program has run at a drumbeat of one boat per four years. The supply chain for the AUKUS boat will be one boat per 18 months – apparently. This is in addition to the BAE Osborne production pace of one boat per 36 months. This scaling up of production capability at Barrow-In-Furness will be taking place at precisely the same time that Australia will be looking to recruit specialised workers for BAE in Osborne. In aggregate, we are to believe that the AUKUS global production will be one boat per 12 months, while the Astute class production has run at one boat per 44 months over the life of the program.
Finally, the RN recognises that the AUKUS boats are to be the replacement for the Astute class. However, in the ‘race to replace’, the oldest Collins-class boat will always be a full 14 years older than its equivalent Astute-class boat. I wonder if the sense of urgency is equally felt amongst the partners?
It’s far from clear how the UK will fund the program – though the cash donation of $5 billion from Australia (no refund clause) will help.
Its sobering to realise that for that $5 billion AUKUS gift to UK we could probably build 2 Mogamis or 3 Mekos in Australia…
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the German offering for the undisclosed Australian customer and project. I still think that the deal has been done.already behind closed doors.
With respect to the AUKUS circus – I saw an announcement today, wether it is based on fact or fiction, that the UK will now acquire 12 AUKUS SSN’s and am wondering if this decision will further impact on delivery of the Australian boats. The AUKUS dream/folly seems to be drifting further and further away from reality. Perhaps it is time to pull the pin and revisit the South Korean KS-III option. If Canada also selects them a lot could be gained in platform commonality, design collaboration and development and training. I also see huge benefits in strengthening our ties with South Korea.
First Arafura has been handed over so will interesting to see what tasking it undertakes.
I doubt that actual Strategic requirements will come into it as much as Political expediency will but who knows (certainly not the Government) . I like the Mogami but I think the Meko has some merit as well ( I can see the problem with getting it right) . Perhaps a win/win would be choosing the Meko with a few more VLS and appeasing the Japanese by contracting for 6 Taigei Submarines with Osborne busy with the Hunter and the impending AUKUS boats (when/If ever) an excuse can be made for a Japanese Build. Looking forward to your next Podcast .