Subs taskforce mulls new Collins before nuclear boats arrive
Defence officials are weighing up whether Australia will need a new conventional submarine to avoid a capability gap while the navy waits for a fleet of nuclear-powered boats to be delivered.This could include building an updated version of the navy’s Collins-class submarine in Adelaide by the government-owned shipbuilder ASC with support from the submarine’s original Swedish designer, Saab Kockums, according to multiple sources.
Collins-class submarine HMAS Sheean undergoes work in Adelaide. Ben Rushton
Submarines featured heavily in an unpublicised virtual bilateral meeting between Defence Minister Peter Dutton and Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist last week.
“The minister spoke to his Swedish counterpart about the strategic environment, AUKUS, and the ongoing role Saab plays in supporting Australian Defence,” Mr Dutton’s spokeswoman said.
Mr Hultqvist said he briefed Mr Dutton on the “increased national military capabilities of the Swedish Armed Forces”, which included acquiring stealthier submarines.
While the nuclear-powered submarine taskforce is concentrating on acquiring submarines from the United States and Britain under the AUKUS arrangements, sources said the chief of the taskforce, Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead, had a remit that also includes looking at interim submarine capability.
The government had initially floated leasing a British or American nuclear-powered submarine until the first of the new boats were delivered, but this is viewed as increasingly unlikely.
Admiral Mead told a budget estimates committee last month Defence wanted at least one nuclear submarine, and ideally more, before 2040 and was working to accelerate that timetable.
In the meantime, all six Collins-class submarines will have their lives extended for another 10 years, beginning in 2026 and two years thereafter. However, that means the first submarine is due to retire in 2038, cutting it fine if there are any delays with the nuclear program.
Navy chief Mike Noonan has left open the possibility of carrying out a second life extension to the Collins-class submarines, but sources said the price difference between refurbishing an ageing submarine and building a brand new diesel-electric boat based on the Collins but with more modern systems would be comparatively small.
ASC has conducted comprehensive studies on modernising the existing Collins-class submarines, which drawing upon the original design could form the basis a new boat.
“Building a new Collins-class submarine would give you more capability and keep the workforce together in Adelaide. And you are not trying to force a 40-year-old submarine to do stuff,” one source said.
The fresh consideration of interim submarine capabilities comes after Defence Department Secretary Greg Moriarty told Senate estimates last month the department had “not at the moment” provided advice to government on the matter.
“The focus of the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Task Force is to work closely with the UK and US over the next 18 months to identify the optimal pathway to deliver at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for Australia,” the department said in a statement.
“In parallel, the government is investing between $4.3 – 6.4 billion in the life-of-type extension of all six Collins class submarines. The Collins class submarine to this day remains one of the most capable conventional submarines in the world.”
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Marcus Hellyer said building a “son of Collins” had problems, including that original component manufacturers were no longer around and the navy was reluctant to operate three classes of submarines, but nevertheless it could help mitigate risk.
“We’re in a bad situation. But it is definitely worth exploring in a serious way,” he said.
“You line up the schedule [for retirement of the Collins and delivery of the nuclear-powered submarines], and it doesn’t line up. If your delivery drumbeat for the nuclear-powered submarines is greater than two years, you are getting new boats slower than the old ones are retired.”
The Australian Industry and Defence Network said while a decision on an interim submarine was a matter for the government, such a program would benefit local defence contractors and preserve the capabilities created by the cancelled French submarine program
“It would allow an Australian workforce to be grown and prepared for the construction of the nuclear submarine. It would allow Australian Industry to efficiently and effectively establish itself for the coming task,” chief executive Brent Clark said.
Subs taskforce mulls new Collins before nuclear boats arrive
Defence Minister Peter Dutton has held talks with his Swedish counterpart, at which Australia’s future submarine program featured heavily.
I guess journalists have to write something to get their clicks. There is no talk of buying another conventional sub. The above quote from the article is accurate. Saab Kockums is part of the $6b life extension of the Collins. In hearings, the ADF said any gap with the Collins, will be filled with other weapon systems. Until the new nuke sub 2040.
Saab Kockums looks to take vital role in Collins LOTE programme
Saab's Kockums business is examining how experience from submarine build and upgrade programmes in Sweden could be applied to Australia's forthcoming Collins-class...
www.janes.com
Sweden's Saab views modernisation opportunities with Australia getting US-UK submarines
Sweden’s Aerospace company, Saab is eyeing opportunities for modernisation and maintenance as Australia decided to go nuclear under the defence pact with US, UK
www.republicworld.com
Last edited:
How Morrison spectacularly failed the diplomacy test
"In one of the most remarkable developments, certainly since the Second World War, an Australian Prime Minister leaked a highly classified security document against an American President.Think about that.
On the international stage, Scott Morrison put his own national political interests ahead of maintaining the public trust between Canberra and its most important strategic and conventional partner, the United States. He did so in a chilling Glasgow dockside press conference, in the context of a riposte to French President Emmanuel Macron, who 24 hours earlier had told Australian journalists that he "didn't think" the Australian Prime Minister had lied to him, he knew it.
In front of television cameras around the world, Mr Biden told Mr Macron that he had "the impression that France had been informed long before the deal was not done. I didn't know, honestly, that you hadn't been.
And that's where Morrison's usual policy-making went awry, along with Australia's best interests. A document was duly leaked to The Australian implying that Biden was lying to Macron. Does anyone really suspect that the leak was authorised by anyone other than the Prime Minister himself? It is unlikely that senior diplomats at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were consulted first. Certainly the Foreign Secretary, Marise Payne, has not been seen or heard from anywhere.
Morrison is known to be a secretive lone ranger who relies on his own judgement, often with politically calamitous results. In this case, he was desperate to establish that he had basically told Macron what was going on. He did so in June, but even by his own account, what Morrison told the French president was only half the truth. Australia was unhappy with the conventional submarine decision and was reconsidering it. Macron clearly thought he was part of that review; after all, France could supply its nuclear-powered Barracuda submarine.
At this stage, there was no indication to Macron that the so-called AUKUS pact had been finalised the day before on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Cornwall. The pact provided for the supply of British or American nuclear submarines instead. This, of course, is a key element in France's anger, not only with Australia but especially with its oldest ally, the US.
The headline of the article in The Australian was "How Biden knew the plan all along". It revealed that a confidential 15-page document negotiated in secret between Biden's National Security Council and British and Australian officials "describes, to the hour, how the world would be told" about the pact.
A document was duly leaked to The Australian implying that Biden was lying to Macron. Does anyone really suspect that the leak was authorised by anyone other than the Prime Minister himself?
The document, signed by Biden's closest advisers, "made it clear that Australia would tell France on that day, September 16, that its $90 billion submarine contract was off the table". The article quotes a source in Canberra as saying that everything was "perfectly synchronised and understood". There are no prizes for guessing who this source is.
The publication of this highly confidential document is undoubtedly the return of Morrison's compliment to Biden. A former senior Defense Department official and author of the 2000 defense white paper, Hugh White, says the Biden White House would not look kindly on the leak. It fuels questions about the administration's competence, especially after the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle and the "aging president" himself. The kindest explanation is that key sections of the government do not communicate with each other or upwards to the president.
But if it is Biden who is playing politics, as the 'Canberra source' suspects, then Australia is doing poorly behind France as far as the president is concerned. The fact that Morrison has been so clumsy in his diplomacy cannot be in Australia's national interest, despite his insistence that the country's security is the only reason for this embarrassing and extremely expensive mess.
As Sean Kelly writes in his insightful new book The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister sees politics as a kind of sport. What is at stake above all is his own self-interest. This could not be truer after the events of the last few days.
In midweek at the National Press Club, the recently returned French ambassador, Jean-Pierre Thébault, reacted scathingly to Morrison's disclosure of a personal text message from Macron. The text was supposed to show that the president knew what was going to happen. He did not. Instead, it showed that he didn't know what was going on with "our common submarine ambitions" - whether that was good news or bad.
Thébault said that if these leaks are Australia's response to Macron's accusations of lying, then it is "sad". He made the same point as Malcolm Turnbull about the French leak and also, critically, the release of the confidential US document.
The ambassador said it was a message to other world leaders to be careful what they say to Australia in confidence, "because it will be used and used as a weapon against you".
Hugh White says Morrison's claims that conventional submarines were "obsolete almost the minute they entered the water" are simply not true. Conventional submarines, he says, will continue to have capabilities more suited to a range of situations. The main reason for having nuclear submarines is to chase Chinese nuclear submarines far from home. Any talk of war with China over Taiwan, for example, "is a long dark tunnel" at the end of which there is the possibility of a nuclear conflagration.
Moreover, under the new timetable, if Australia ever gets a nuclear submarine, it will be 20 years, which hardly speaks to the strategic urgency the Prime Minister claims behind his decision.
Opposition leader Anthony Albanese says Morrison should not treat other world leaders "in the same way he treats state premiers here in Australia", where he often sees them as political adversaries rather than people with whom he needs to develop trust.
The prime minister who signed the first submarine contracts, Malcolm Turnbull, has not been shy about his criticism. This is hardly surprising. Imagine a Labor government abandoning a multi-billion dollar defence project less than five years old, then declaring it unnecessary a month after Australian and French ministers met and stated in their communiqué how important the future of the program was. It's not hard to imagine Morrison, if he were Opposition Leader, saying Labor could not be trusted to defend the nation.
Turnbull says exactly the same thing about his successor. He says Morrison should apologise to President Macron for not dealing with him honestly, as any trusted partner and ally should. Turnbull also sees the US involvement in the breakdown of relations as a very unhealthy development for Australia. He says Morrison can bluster all he likes, but it doesn't fool anyone. He says Morrison "sacrificed Australia's honour, security and sovereignty". And, according to the former prime minister, "that is a shocking thing".
Mr Macron made similar remarks in his impromptu doorstop, while saying how much he appreciated our nations' shared history as defenders of freedom and how much he admired the Australians. Mr Morrison brushed off these remarks and regarded criticism of his double standards as an insult to all Australians. He said that questioning Australia's integrity was unacceptable and that he was not going to "let Australia insult me. I'm not going to do it on behalf of Australians".
Mr Albanese accused Mr Morrison of trying to use the nation as a "human shield", of having the same delusions as Louis XIV, who said, "I am the state". He said he had news for the Prime Minister: he is not the Australian state, he "is a leader who has a habit of not answering questions directly, of dissembling, of using gas lamps to manipulate and of not being fair in the way he deals with issues".
This is the case with Morrison's approach to the climate talks in Glasgow. Nick Feik in The Monthly is not alone in calling the Prime Minister's contribution "inept and dishonest". The alleged 20% reduction in emissions since 2005 is due more to the Gillard government's 'carbon price' and the renewable energy incentives the Liberals have removed than to anything the party has done since.
In his optimistic speech at the summit, Morrison was mostly fanciful in his assertion that unproven or as yet non-existent technologies will save the planet by 2050. He completely ignored the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's warning that, on the current trajectory, humans will warm the planet by 1.5 degrees in less than a decade. And if no action is taken now, it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to cool the planet.
We will know within months whether this palpable loss of credibility on the world stage translates into a loss of voter confidence in Scott Morrison's incompetent and inactive government. It is the delay of an election that the Prime Minister must fear. What is certain is that rapid and uncontrolled global warming will make for a harsher judgment in either case.
This article appeared in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on 6 November 2021 under the headline "Text sook diplomacy".
A free press is a paid press. In the short term, the economic fallout from the coronavirus has taken about a third of our income. We will survive this crisis, but we need the support of readers. Now is the time to subscribe.
Paul Bongiorno is a columnist for The Saturday Paper and a 30-year veteran of the Canberra press gallery.
It is your biggest mistake to believe that the Rafale remains the same when it is highly evolutionary.
This is what I was told in 2006. Now I'm bein told it will have GaN GMTI and modes in F4 2027. I've been waiting for 20 years.
"However, when facing with the competitors like F-15 + APG-63V3, F/A-18E + APG-79, F-16E + APG-80, EF-2000 + CAPTOR, Su-30/35 + N0-11M or Irbis, and / or MIG-35 + NG Russian AESA radar, it is true that the relative short detecting / tracking range of RBE-2 today is a disadvantage. Therefore, Dassault and THALES are planning and trying to equip modified RBE-2 AESA radar (with 1,000~1,200 T/R modules) to Rafale at the end of 2011, which may make Rafale to become the first Eurocanards that equips AESA radar formally."
View topic - F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale • F-16.net
Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130.
www.f-16.net
It's funny that you' re waiting for GAN and GMTI for 20 years when no one promised it, and you don't even realise that what was promised, namely an AESA radar, has been produced and delivered on time.
I was told all sorts of wonderful things were going to be the new AESA. GaN was on the list. There was even talk of EW. It turned out they just stuck an AESA antenna on the front. The one with stuff is coming in 2027 now. I'm sure it won't be further delayed.
Last edited:
According to you, you waited 20 years, so someone promised you all this in 2001, 3 years before the Rafale was operational in the French Navy, and 5 years before it was operational in the French Air Force?
If you have a link it would be nice to share it with us!
The reality is that the Rafale is highly evolutive and that its evolution is done step by step with a design to cost approach. So the important thing for the operational staff was not the GMTI which they already had on the Mirage 2000 and which brought little benefit, but to go to AESA, which was done in 2012, a decade before all the other Europeans, as planned.
And F4.2, including GMTI and electronic attack, was scheduled for 2025, not 2027, and will be delivered fully tested, including operational tests, in 2024, three years before the first operational tests of the F-35 are finally completed.
Ahem (sick),You are using someone's tweet, without a link to the claim.
about me, #218?
Y/N
No, the last post of the previous page, icefanboy. A claim need to be backed up by something.
The defence department and government have already laid out a plan. It doesn't include a new conventional sub. There is an approved $6B upgrade to our Collins. The next 18 months is working out the nuke sub.
The defence department and government have already laid out a plan. It doesn't include a new conventional sub. There is an approved $6B upgrade to our Collins. The next 18 months is working out the nuke sub.
Last edited:
True! Agreed w/ force.
But im afraid i definitly can’t find the author for the expression « sitting duck », hélas. i don’t have any account w/ g* nor faceb.
It is decent to name a quote, a cit.
ph. grasset, fr. segnoranalyst author dedefensa.org, to get back to aukus (whtTfck w/ rafale here?), him says: JSF-class, for « joke submarine fake », so obvious.
Yes there is, it could even be disel sub supplied by France as well. Refer to video link shared be me in Indo Pacific thread. US's indo Pacific coordinator Kurt Campbell talking about this on a direct question from former US government official and current member of US Peace some organization/Think-tank.I guess journalists have to write something to get their clicks. There is no talk of buying another conventional sub. The above quote from the article is accurate. Saab Kockums is part of the $6b life extension of the Collins. In hearings, the ADF said any gap with the Collins, will be filled with other weapon systems. Until the new nuke sub 2040.
Saab Kockums looks to take vital role in Collins LOTE programme
Saab's Kockums business is examining how experience from submarine build and upgrade programmes in Sweden could be applied to Australia's forthcoming Collins-class...www.janes.comSweden's Saab views modernisation opportunities with Australia getting US-UK submarines
Sweden’s Aerospace company, Saab is eyeing opportunities for modernisation and maintenance as Australia decided to go nuclear under the defence pact with US, UK
