New Subs winner announced

Whats been spotted in and around our Navy
User avatar
SlatsSSN
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 21 Jan 2010 10:25
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: Fleet - in service and under construction

Submarines:
HMS Talent S92 - Trafalgar Class SSN.
HMS Conqueror S48 -Churchill Class SSN (Falklands 1982).

Merchants:
MS Bremen -Expedition Cruise Ship Hapag-Lloyd Cruises.
MS Christina O.
MV Titan Uranus - Harbour Tug
Harbour Tug - (James Slater)

Warships: (Under construction) -
HMS Liverpool D92 -Type 42 Batch 2 (1983)
HMS Iron Duke F234 - Type 23 (2019)
HMS Dragon D35 (Daring Class Air Warfare Destroyer)
HMS Broadsword F88 - Type 22 Batch 1 (Falklands 1982)
FGS Elbe A511 - Modern Germany Navy Submarine Tender
HMS Clyde P257 - Offshore Patrol Vessel (James Slater)
Location: Sydney

Re: New Subs winner announced

Postby SlatsSSN » 16 Dec 2018 16:20

agree with Mike re the furphy...forget nukes built / leased / imagined or otherwise, but my question is whether or not we will ever see what we signed up for?

Notwithstanding the mystery or logic underpinning these decisions, the DCN proposal makes the least amount of fiscal sense or any contemporary procurement - I say that from the sheer eye-watering cost involved. Yes, defence kit is expensive, really expensive, but some simple comparisons of unit cost to contemporary, previous, and emergent kit are something that makes this deal so bad.

I have read that the deal for DCN was decided on size and capability rather than price and the off the shelf options rejected competed on the latter rather than former. However, these boats won't be anywhere capable as for want of a benchmark as a Seawolf SSN. It might seem ridiculous to make that comparison but in terms of cost, it's fair. The Seawolf's are the most expensive submarines ever developed or built, extremely capable - yet too expensive for the US to justify continuing beyond 3 units, even with an amortisation of greater numbers units built. Yet our conventionally powered DCN SSK/G is going to cost more per unit in today's $ than the Seawolf. This is a very bad deal.

Interestingly the off the shelf options had more inclusion of Australian workers/supply chain offered than that which is being still negotiated with DCN now. So the DCN deal is hardly the boon for SA shipyards and Aussie suppliers that these projects inevitably have to try and guarantee. I'm all for a strong capable Australian shipbuilding industry, but ASC will never be Electric Boat, they don't have the capability, repetition of volume, economies of scale, and it would be a far better prospect to leave the industry to develop and upskill for surface vessels exclusively rather than submarines.

It's likely that the T26s will have to fill any gap between the phasing out of Collins and the next gen of Australian sub be that DCNs or something else, so - again - are there chances of this deal going the way of the Supersea Sprite, cancelled, and a cheaper less capable but more practical and reliable off the shelf alternative pursued?

Cheers
John
He who dies with the most toys, just dies...you can't take it with you.
User avatar
MikeJames
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 2633
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 09:43
Fleet Base: Sydney
My Ship Yard: RAN DDL HMAS Kokoda
Australian Coast Guard cutter Nemesis
RAN FCPB HMAS Wollongong
German SAR Launch DGzRS Berln
SS Geest Atlas (Building)
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: New Subs winner announced

Postby MikeJames » 17 Dec 2018 00:30

Probably not, too many politicians from both sides of the political spectrum in Canberra know that cancelling subs built in SA will cost them enough electorates to lose Government, no matter who is in Government.

Return to “Australian Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users