Less cost & risk if Australia Chose Japanese Designed Submarine with LIBs

The French Naval Group, Australian Future Submarine Program, may collapse, due to higher French priorities. There is also France's batch building system of delaying a whole submarine class for years. This is in contrast to Japan's more efficient ("continuous") build system of launching a submarine each year.

The following is an indication of what benefits could flow if Australia made the safest choice for Australia’s new submarine program. That is choosing a Japanese designed submarine with some features of the 29SS research program (see SORYU TABLE below). Japanese submarines, benefitting from the 29SS research program, will be actually commissioned into the Japanese Navy around 2022-23.

Japan continuously accepts the risk of new improvements to its all diesel-electric submarine fleet. Japan would test diesel-electric technologies, including its (on Japanese Navy subs) LIBs before designing submarines for Australia.Something France, with its all nuclear propelled submarine fleet, cannot do.  

Anonymous states that the figures discussed below are based on the precise cost calculation formulae used by the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD). Hence Anonymous believes this is the most reliable cost calculation by a third party. On February 24, 2020 Anonymous commented:

The AUS 29SS would have four diesels, [Pete Comment also Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)] and a range of 12,000nm. Meanwhile 29SS for the Japanese Navy submarine (JN 29SS) has just 2  Kawasaki diesels.

[Pete Comment: the French and German competition are far less advanced in submarine LIBs than Japan. Unlike Japan they have no submarines reliant on LIBs. So choosing LIBs in a French or German designed submarine would result in further delays, increased costs (with Australia carrying French and German LIB ACTUALLY ON SUBMARINE development costs) hence increased risks for Australia's future submarine program.] 

AUS 29SS would utilise a similar structure of single and double hulls as the Soryu submarine housing motor, diesel, torpedo and other sections. Extra diesel fuel in enlarged tanks between the inner and outer hulls would meet the longer range/endurance needs of AUS 29SS.

Anonymous indicates the increase in costs of AUS 29SS compared to JN 29SS’s may mainly be attributed to:

(a) US$0.02 Billion (B) for a hull plug housing larger fuel tanks for the extra 2 diesels in a lengthened AUS 29SS (94m) compared to JN 29SS’ 84m length. [Pete Comment: AUS 29SS would retain the Soryu's warload of 20 to 30 heavyweight torpedoes/missiles/UUV shots, or 40 to 60 mines.]

(b) US$0.027B for the two extra diesels themselves

(c) US$0.13B the cost of installing a US combat system instead of a different (though similar) Japanese combat system [coordinated with Lockheed Martin, Australia's combat system integrator] and

(d) US$0.11B profit for MHI.  

So the total cost increase of AUS 29SS compared to JN 29SS would be (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)= 0.02+0.027+0.13+0.11=US$0.29B.

Cost of JN 29SS is US$0.67B.

So the cost of AUS 29SS is US$0.96B (=0.67B+0.29B) meaning Japan can export AUS 29SS  (rounded up) for US$1B.

So for Australia’s 8 future submarines (assuming the Australian Government will only decide on 8 rather than 12 submarines):

- 2 x export AUS 29SS’s [assembled in Australia] (at US$1B/submarine)

and

- 6 x AUS post-29SS submarines (assuming US$1.3B/submarine)

then purchasing and maintenance costs are US$10B + US$10B = total cost of US$20B.

This represents a large cost saving for Australia, freeing up money for other defence or non-defence items.