Following comments of February 15/16, 2020 from Anonymous and Arpit Kanodia
Due to Australian July 2016 Federal election priorities (specifically votes for jobs in South Australian) Australia chose DCNS (now Naval Group), too early as the winner of the submarine competition.
Australia should have retained a two or three way competition (with Japan and/or TKMS/Germany) until at least 2018 when 2 or all 3 had a more complete designs and costings. Delays now mean Naval Group will only "cut steel" on the Attack class in 2023 (and I'd say, more likely, 2024).
So Australia now is relying on French Government owned Naval Group. But the French Government has already ordered Naval Group to tackle 2 major French submarine national security priorities first. That is before Naval Group gets round to doing serious work on the Attack class.
1. France is yet to complete a great deal of development work on the far from operational Barracuda SSN program. France is mindful that its preceding Rubis class SSNs are already up to 41 years old with the Rubis launched in 1979.
2. France has a great deal of work to do on its 15 year replacement SSBN program
- in order to start replacing the preceding Triomphant class SSBNsby 2033.
So France's replacement SSN and SSBN programs are of higher priority for French Government owned Naval Group management, designers and workers than the Attack class program that Australia cannot walk away from.
The Australian Federal government knows it has nowhere to go now. It would lose too much face (political capital - including votes in South Australia) if it said it was wrong to choose France so early.
I'll write about any Japan option after I see what you readers think.
Pete
Due to Australian July 2016 Federal election priorities (specifically votes for jobs in South Australian) Australia chose DCNS (now Naval Group), too early as the winner of the submarine competition.
Australia should have retained a two or three way competition (with Japan and/or TKMS/Germany) until at least 2018 when 2 or all 3 had a more complete designs and costings. Delays now mean Naval Group will only "cut steel" on the Attack class in 2023 (and I'd say, more likely, 2024).
So Australia now is relying on French Government owned Naval Group. But the French Government has already ordered Naval Group to tackle 2 major French submarine national security priorities first. That is before Naval Group gets round to doing serious work on the Attack class.
1. France is yet to complete a great deal of development work on the far from operational Barracuda SSN program. France is mindful that its preceding Rubis class SSNs are already up to 41 years old with the Rubis launched in 1979.
2. France has a great deal of work to do on its 15 year replacement SSBN program
- in order to start replacing the preceding Triomphant class SSBNsby 2033.
So France's replacement SSN and SSBN programs are of higher priority for French Government owned Naval Group management, designers and workers than the Attack class program that Australia cannot walk away from.
The Australian Federal government knows it has nowhere to go now. It would lose too much face (political capital - including votes in South Australia) if it said it was wrong to choose France so early.
I'll write about any Japan option after I see what you readers think.
Pete