John Newman
The Bunker Group
So that’s your reply to my very detailed point by point reply to your post to me, and my questions back to you? Yes?
Fail.
Try again please.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Fail.
Try again please.
Your question is a good one.
The answer is the leadership of both major parties.
The root cause of the waste was a lack of honesty about our strategic environment and what the best course of action was. My impression is that the consensus has been for a long time that SSNs have been the right answer for us, and the primary challenges
were political.
If AUKUS has taught us one thing it’s that the electorate is very accepting of decisions where it is clear that there is bipartisan support. There have been a few grumbles from the usual suspects but in general this is recognised as a good decision (if poorly handled by the French).
So the learning would’ve been to recognise the obvious back in 2013/14 and lobby our allies hard, with bipartisan support, to give us access to SSN technology. And any individual politicians who undermine a bipartisan approach should be punished accordingly (see Dutton most recently, who I think has actually done a decent job overall).
This 5.5 billion that has been mentioned several times in this thread and also on the telly bearing in mind it was the ABC News 24, I interpreted it as the payment could be up to 5.5 and this amount was still in ongoing discussion with the French. I read that as the French have demanded 5.5 and the Australians have said "lets have a discussion about the amount. I have not read any conclusive article that states that is the final figure.
Or have I missed an article that states its the final figure, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong
Or have I missed an article that states its the final figure, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes and no.
Yes it’s easy to look back 6, or 8, or 10 or more years ago, and say there was no bipartisan support for the nuclear option, but that was the reality then.
So that is why the conventional path was chosen, regardless of an LNP or ALP Government.
But equally I don’t think the circumstances at the time would have seen the creation of AUKUS.
I honestly can’t see AUKUS coming into being back then, it’s a three way partnership that required the ‘stars to align’ by all three Nations for it to happen now.
Again, it’s easy to say $5b has been wasted (it makes a great headline for the media), but you have to dig deeper to find the real answer.
The old 20/20 hindsight is a great saying, but not reality, if I only knew this weeks winning Lotto numbers, last week, I’d be a multi millionaire.
Yeah fair cop mate. You’re right.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks mate,
I’m not trying to be an arsehole (yes I’m a grumpy old bastard, I’ll happily wear that tag).
I get frustrated when I see a stupid media ‘headline’ that is clearly wrong and/or doesn’t tell the whole story, selective reporting of facts get me angry.
And when I see it get repeated here, without a bit of fair research, I see red!!
Totally confused on the whole submarine thing!
Put aside the conventional V nuclear bit; I've heard both that the Attack Class project was a complete disaster and other accounts that the program was tracking Ok.
As much as many want to bag the French, the reality of that situation for myself is I really just don't know what the true reality is, other than it stirs up a lot of emotion.
I have read much on the subject and to this day are still at a complete loss as to what is fact and fiction.
As to going Nuclear, there is so little in the public space to really form an informed opinion.
I get the ledger of one propulsion system versus the other with the reality that pretty much everything else on the sub will be the same.
I get that benefit.
I also get that AUKUS will be a new thing that gives us stuff, which will in turn expect stuff from us.
No free lunches.
So at the end of the day, we are hoping sacrificing 5 000 000 000 dollars written off plus what billions we will spend will provide a net benefit of speed and distance in a submarine that will be the game changer in our area of operation.
I'm open that this may actually be the case!
I'm also open to the concern that I need to trust that with so many unknowns with this project that we are actually on the correct path.
Going nuclear has it's benefits.
It also has ramifications on many levels.
Hopefully some more information coming to hand later this year
Regards S
PS - Not sure anyone could be held to account for writing off such a large sum, but at the same time I'd hate to think we should trivialise such sums.
It's difficult not to think what these vast sums of coin could purchase in domestic infrastructure. Hospitals, schools, road, rail etc.
The $5 billion while not a small amount to the average person and would have been very useful for other programs in the grand scheme is still chicken feed. Over the time period from when it was selected to cancelled something to the tune of $2.4 trillion was collected in taxes and other government revenue in Australia... So all intents we wasted just north of about 0.2% of that tax revenue.
In the end the submarine debacle comes down to two issues, Failure in leadership (From all sides) in having the thing so long delayed. I mean the first bloke to think of getting something started was bloody Kevin Rudd back in 2008. Had politics on both sides not gotten in the way we could have been building our new boats today which would have alleviated if not wiped out risk of a capability gap. The other being changing geopolitical circumstances. In a little over 2 years the world has gone from grumbling acceptance to threats of nuclear strikes. No one could have foreseen then and had anyone done so the majority of the worlds people would have laughed them off as a conspiracy nutter. Things changed so fast for the worst there has been little time to gradually adapt but rather one has to throw the book out and start all over if they want a chance to survive.
If we had stuff already under construction then it would have allowed us breathing room to adapt, Could have continued on and take a more appropriate speed in acquiring nuclear boats but global situations have changed that on us.
Money lost sucks but at the same time lessons learnt, knowledge acquired etc may also help to aid in bringing in our future nuclear boat's more quickly then starting from an entirely blank slate.
Ideally BAE, GDEB/HII and ASC will each take a 1/3rd stake in the new Enterprise and combined every ones best people that are free to do so in getting it done. Its only wasted money if we dont take advantage of the lessons and knowledge acquired so lets use them.
In the end the submarine debacle comes down to two issues, Failure in leadership (From all sides) in having the thing so long delayed. I mean the first bloke to think of getting something started was bloody Kevin Rudd back in 2008. Had politics on both sides not gotten in the way we could have been building our new boats today which would have alleviated if not wiped out risk of a capability gap. The other being changing geopolitical circumstances. In a little over 2 years the world has gone from grumbling acceptance to threats of nuclear strikes. No one could have foreseen then and had anyone done so the majority of the worlds people would have laughed them off as a conspiracy nutter. Things changed so fast for the worst there has been little time to gradually adapt but rather one has to throw the book out and start all over if they want a chance to survive.
If we had stuff already under construction then it would have allowed us breathing room to adapt, Could have continued on and take a more appropriate speed in acquiring nuclear boats but global situations have changed that on us.
Money lost sucks but at the same time lessons learnt, knowledge acquired etc may also help to aid in bringing in our future nuclear boat's more quickly then starting from an entirely blank slate.
Ideally BAE, GDEB/HII and ASC will each take a 1/3rd stake in the new Enterprise and combined every ones best people that are free to do so in getting it done. Its only wasted money if we dont take advantage of the lessons and knowledge acquired so lets use them.
Aussies 'secretly cancel' $1.3B AUD drone deal; Nixing French subs may cost $5B - Breaking Defense
"Basically we have a five-and-a-half billion dollar budget provision, including about $3 billion spent to date, and potential costs within that envelope. So taxpayers will be up for five-and-a-half billion dollars and submarines that don't exist?" asked Sen. Penny Wong.
breakingdefense.com
Interesting article regarding the 5.5 billion paymenf ts to the French. Senator Penny Wong on the Senate Estimates committee said the an initial budget of 5.5 billion and 3 had already been spent and we have no submarines. Also has information on the cancellation of the MQ9
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I want to pick up on one particular point you’ve made:
“I get the ledger of one propulsion system versus the other with the reality that pretty much everything else on the sub will be the same.”
That is drastically understating the performance difference between a conventional and nuclear submarine.
It’s not just speed, or endurance of speed because of the propulsion system.
A conventional submarine operating at high speed will use most of its fuel reserves getting to that far away operational area, but having done so, it then has to turn around and come back. Time on station is compromised.
Yes it can transit at slow speed and stay on station longer, but one compromises the other, can’t have both.
A nuclear submarine on the other hand, has the ability to both transit at high speed and then stay on station, at very long distance for a very long time.
This is what makes it difficult for the other guy, he has to invest considerably more to try and counter the fact that a nuclear RAN sub is always lurking nearby somewhere.
Has it cost us six years and $5b to learn that lesson? You could say, yes it has, but it’s going to cost him a $hit load more to try and counter the fact that one or more RAN nuclear sub is out there, nearby, somewhere.
A pretty good deterrent in my opinion.
One last point.
We can all sit here and moan about the ‘wasted’ $5b, it’s an easy thing to moan about, and point fingers at too.
But who if us here hasn’t made a not so good financial decision in their life? I have, we all have (if you say you haven’t, you’re lying).
Everyone one of us here has ‘blown’ money on something, $50? $500? $5000? or more?
Had a meal at a restaurant that was crap, the new fridge, TV or washing machine that was crap too?
Purchased that car that turned out to be a lemon, bought the new house that ended up being a bad decision, or that very expensive holiday that turned out $hit.
The list goes on.
Our politicians are ‘our politicians’, we elected them, pointing fingers at them also points back to us too.
As I said at the beginning, $hit happens, learn and move on.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry I failed, I will try harder. I still would like to know what all those billions of dollars have actually been used for, while we never got past a paper boat. Lot's of long boozy lunches for some folks. I also hope some lessons have been learnt, but if their is no critical enquiry into how it happened then the chances of learning something is small.
* Fact - At the start of this project the ‘nuclear’ option was ‘not’ on the table
Agree, a decade ago there wasn't, but with increasing PRC belligerence there may have been an option later in the decade, perhaps even by 2016 when the decision was made.
* Fact - the LNP would have been more inclined to go nuclear from the start, but as we all know the ALP has strong ‘anti nuclear policies’, eg, no bipartisan support for nuclear.
Yep, but with engagement on this issue with Labour, this may not have been true, so this is an assumption rather than fact.
* Fact - There was no conventional MOTS option to replace Collins.
I believe so.
* Fact - All options required a bespoke solution, the French Barracuda SSN design came closest to a ‘reference’ design of the same size,
High risk option, and with the aid of the retrospectoscope a very, very bad choice to pick a French 'Frakensub'. Do you think the Gov could have at least tried to sell the idea of a nuclear boat then? if the government/ADF had said no conventional submarines meet our needs and things are deteriorating in our neighbourhood, so a nuclear submarine is by far the best option. I suspect if Labour were in power they have chosen 'son of Collins'.
* Fact - The French reference design was chosen in April 2016, six years ago.
Yep, that ones a fact
* Fact - The ‘strategic environment has changed’ as you’ve acknowledged above.
Yep, also a fact.
* Fact - The Attack class project ran for approx five years, total cost approx $5b, or approx $1b per year on yearly average.
Yep, and all for nought. I really don't think people should trivialise wasting 5 billion dollars.
* Fact - Due to the change in our strategic circumstances, the Government made the choice to go nuclear and create AUKUS with our UK and US friends.
True. The only issues I have with it is the subs are a very long way off and the challenges of constructing and maintaining a nuclear boat.
IIRC have seen the figure quoted as 3.5-4 billion having actually been spent already. I assume the rest is getting out of the contractual arrangements. From the Senate Estimates committee on Friday:
Under questioning from Labor's Penny Wong, Defence Department deputy secretary Tony Dalton confirmed the final cost of the aborted program could exceed $5 billion.
"We now have a situation where the taxpayer will pay up to $5.5b for non-existent submarines?'' Senator Wong asked.
Mr Dalton responded that: "The final negotiated settlement will be within that price, senator."
It would be interesting to know how much of that spend would’ve been needed for the ultimate SSN anyway eg infrastructure enhancements at Osborne would’ve been required anyway not matter what design was chosen.
I think we need to commence designing an evolved Collins with SAAB ASAP. If nothing else, this would be a prudent risk mitigation strategy and should not wait 12 months until the AUKUS nuclear pathway is clearer.
There are so many risks with the nuclear option. Technical, regulatory, financial and not to mention political to name a few.
In one or two years time we can assess how an evolved Collins design is looking and consider whether or not to proceed with a build in the light of progress on the nuclear option.
This is a better position than where we are now.
Doing nothing to address the huge risks we face is not an option IMO.
There are so many risks with the nuclear option. Technical, regulatory, financial and not to mention political to name a few.
In one or two years time we can assess how an evolved Collins design is looking and consider whether or not to proceed with a build in the light of progress on the nuclear option.
This is a better position than where we are now.
Doing nothing to address the huge risks we face is not an option IMO.
Do you really believe the 3.5-4b already spent was all wasted though ? Although side shifted, that money has already been invested in building the industry, knowledge and personnel.
It has not just all been scrunched up and tossed away, much of this will carry over into the Collins LOTE and onto whatever the future boats will be, not all is lost.
I think everyone would have to agree had important Defence decisions had not been pushed back, or simply ignored in the previous decade the results would be rather different !
Cheers
Last edited:
If you do that you’re almost guaranteed to get a future government selecting that option, especially if the sticker price is lower.
SSNs should be a national priority and are too big too fail. We need to throw whatever we need at it to make it work. This is well within the wit and wealth of Australia. The question is will.
I'd agree John
You make some fair points.
My last car purchase was a mistake.
Did all the homework only to end up with a dog.
Not sure what to take from it other than going with my gut feeling at the time, I should of gone with something else.
One bad car in forty years is good going I'd say.
I may swap out the diesel for a nuclear engine!!!!!!!
Back to N subs, yes many advantages.
Also lots of power for computers. Not to be underestimated.
Like my car purchase, maybe navy and government probably had a gut feeling SEA 1000 should of had options other than a conventional platform
I recognise that the recent government make a very big call cancelling the Attack Class and this was fortuitously this was backed by the opposition.
We await more details and will see how it all pans out.
Regards S
I think that you should read back through the thread to see why this isn't a viable option.
Had the Collins replacement kicked off prior to 2010, when it was required, the first Australian designed and built boat would be undergoing sea trials now.
Twelve conventional boats in service by 2040, is much better than a couple of SSNs entering service around 2040. The reality is, had we done this properly, AUKUS could still be looking to provide SSNs, but there wouldn't be a panic Collins LOTE, just a phased replacement of the older SSGs with SSNs.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
V,
Well we could go through all the political machinations of what could or should have been, which party should have done something, etc, etc.
But it always ends up, woulda, coulda, shoulda,
“If the Queen has balls she’d be the King”