{"id":22716,"date":"2015-09-29T17:39:06","date_gmt":"2015-09-29T07:39:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=22716"},"modified":"2015-09-29T17:49:38","modified_gmt":"2015-09-29T07:49:38","slug":"a-rolling-build-of-twelve-future-submarines-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/a-rolling-build-of-twelve-future-submarines-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"A rolling build of twelve future submarines (part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n It\u2019s time to review the arguments for 12 next generation submarines; the more so because eight seems to be the conventional wisdom of the day!<\/p>\n Any consideration on this subject should start with why Australia requires submarines<\/a>. Submarines offer the Government unique options in dealing with the increasingly challenging maritime environment in our region, where the presence of overt ADF assets is likely to be seen as escalatory and these assets will be at risk if safety catches are off.<\/p>\n The arguments for 12 long range<\/a>-submarines (part 2 here<\/a>) were accepted in the 2009 and 2013 Defence White Papers. Both DWPs also concluded that our geography requires a large submarine with long range\/endurance and large payload<\/a>. Our strategic environment hasn\u2019t changed for the better.<\/p>\n The Northwest Pacific is the strategic focus of the Asian Century. Based on this transit distance\u2014a not unreasonable for Australian submarines\u201412 submarines is the minimum force size to enable Australia to sustain one deployed (in a demanding but practical cycle) and provide one operational submarine available for other tasking.<\/p>\n Successive governments have spent years and millions of dollars in studying the options, and they\u2019ve concluded that an off-the-shelf option to meet our requirements doesn\u2019t exist; Australia, in partnership with an experienced overseas submarine designer will have to design and build a suitable replacement for Collins.<\/p>\n The Senate Economic Reference Committee heard evidence from the Department of Defence, industry and submarine experts to reach bipartisan agreement<\/a> on the points made above. To quote one of the recommendations:<\/p>\n \u2018Given the weight of the evidence about the strategic, military, national security and economic benefits, the committee recommends that the government require tenderers for the future submarine project to build, maintain, and sustain Australia’s future submarines in Australia.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There\u2019s no production line; we must pay to set this up, either in France, Germany, Japan or Australia. I agree with Professor Goran Roos\u2019s analysis<\/a>; there\u2019s a strong argument to build these submarines in Australia. French and German designers have indicated that they can build 12 suitable submarines in Australia for around $20 billion. Through life sustainment will add another $40 billion over the life of the submarines, regardless of where they\u2019re built, common sense suggests that this should also be spent in Australia as far as possible.<\/p>\n