Thoughtful Comment on Australian Future Submarine Choices

The Germans have never built a sub in the 4,000t range before (neither had Kockums & we know the problems that caused).

The French have built nuke boats that big & bigger & build d/e subs of a similar size to Germany.

The Japanese subs needed a plug of at least 6m to be added (not enough fuel & even Japanese sailors complain about internal space). The South China Sea (SCS) is not that far from Japan (especially the naval base on Okinawa).

Australiain subs come from Rockingham Fleet Bast West, near Perth, Western Australia, and go a lot further than SCS.

The biggest risk with Japan was their lack of experience with not only military exports but overseas weapon builds. Japan has not exported a submarine since before WW2 and I am not aware of Japan ever doing an overseas build for any naval ships or submarines before.

You would be crazy to try it out on such a large and expensive program (cultural differences and language barriers to be added in as well).

Australia should have started on evolved Collins 10 or 20 years ago. They should also have invited Kockums to tender once Kockums was taken over by SAAB. SAAB is a defence contractor Australia has had a long (and ongoing) relationship with.

Quite a few unwanted Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) submarine engineers (when it became clear Collins 2 was not going to happen) joined SAAB. Even so, SAAB and ASC have recently signed 2 way support agreements. This is because SAAB recognises ASC still has considerable engineering knowledge building 4,000t submarines. SAAB can use this ASC input  regarding SAABs A26 Ocean Extended Range version that SAAB hopes to sell to the Netherlands.

In many ways, SAAB would have been the easiest for Australia to work with.

A Collins II like Cutaway of Australian Future Submarine. Click on image to make it larger.  (Coutesy Australian DoD via Australian National Audit Office on April 27, 2017.)