Japanese submarine experts visit Adelaide, sparking fears for shipbuilding future

The South Australian Government wants an explanation from Canberra about the visit of Japanese submarine experts to Adelaide.

 

The group toured shipbuilding company ASC's base in Osborne yesterday, heightening fears the Federal Government may build the next generation of submarines overseas.

 

South Australian Defence Industries Minister Martin Hamilton-Smith said he knew nothing of the trip.

 

Mr Hamilton-Smith said he wanted answers about the reason behind the Japanese visit and whether it signalled a backdown from the Coalition's election promise to build the submarines in Adelaide.

 

"I think the Coalition could explain why this visit's been held in such secrecy," Mr Hamilton-Smith said.

 

"Who's in the party, is it senior military officials from Japan or defence department officials, is it at the political level?"

 

The Government has been looking at its policy for replacing its ageing fleet of Collins Class submarines including using Japanese technology, which has created uncertainty over how much work will be carried out in Australia.

 

The Coalition is due to reveal its policy for replacing the submarines next year with speculation Defence Minister David Johnston will reveal a significant downgrade in plans to build the 12 submarines in Adelaide.

 

Mr Hamilton-Smith said he was urgently seeking an explanation from Canberra.

 

"There's been speculation in the press about a submarine being built overseas, there's been quite a lot of criticism of the Australian shipbuilding industry, some of it unfounded," he said.

 

"I think the South Australian and Australian people involved in the defence industry deserve some answers."

Federal Government says it is business as usual

The Federal Government this morning confirmed 16 Japanese defence experts had toured ASC to look at naval and submarine technology.

 

Senator Johnston said the Government was considering a range of options but would not say what Japanese involvement there could be in the new submarine project.

 

He said Australia recently signed a defence science and technology agreement with Japan and the tour of ASC was linked to that.

 

"They're down here looking at defence science and technology and we are discussing ways whereby we may both collaborate in that space to the mutual advantage of both of our countries," he said.

Senator Johnston defended not alerting the South Australian Government to the visit.

 

"We don't routinely advise state governments of every hourly, weekly visit by defence, science personnel from around Australia or from overseas," he said.

 

"Defence is a Federal Government responsibility. As soon as we have a viable, feasible submarine plan we will announce that much, but having 16 Japanese technicians in South Australia is neither here nor there and quite frankly, is just simply business as usual."

 

The Minister said there would be an announcement either later this year or early next year as to the options the Federal Government would pursue to replace the Collins Class submarines.

 

But SA Premier Jay Weatherill accused the Federal Government of snubbing the SA community.

 

He said Federal Liberal MPs from SA should be working harder to ensure submarines were built in Adelaide, just as Liberal members serving with former prime minister John Howard had done for the successful Air Warfare Destroyer project.

 

"The reason we won that contract is because we had powerful voices in the federal Cabinet, like Nick Minchin, Robert Hill, Amanda Vanstone and Alexander Downer, who stood up and advocated for SA," Mr Weatherill said.

Shipbuilders head to Canberra

John Camillo from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union said there were real fears for the future of shipbuilding in Adelaide.

 

"Not long ago the Federal Minister Johnston in Adelaide indicated that 12 new submarines will be built at the ASC," Mr Camillo said.

 

"And all of a sudden now the tone has been changed from the Government.

 

"It's a major concern for our members and their families."

 

The AMWU said a delegation of shipbuilders from around Australia will meet in Canberra today to call on the Government to commit to its election promise.

 

National secretary Paul Bastian said thousands of jobs would be lost if Australia imported submarines from Japan.

 

"As well as destroying jobs and industry, the Government is risking our national security with this reckless move," Mr Bastian said.

Australia extends Collins-class submarines maintenance contract with ASC

ASC has been awarded a contract extension to provide maintenance on the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) Collins-class submarine fleet.

 

The company will continue to perform all maintenance work at its headquarters in Osborne, Adelaide, South Australia, and Henderson, Western Australia.

 

ASC interim chief executive officer Stuart Whiley said: "This new contract recognises the significant improvement in performance and availability of the submarine fleet.

 

"ASC already performs significant submarine maintenance work and inventory management at its facilities at Henderson in Western Australia, to complement its maintenance, engineering and logistics capabilities in South Australia.

 

"ASC plans to build on its capability in Western Australia to perform all mid-cycle and intermediate maintenance work, enabling the focus in South Australia to be on the new two-year full cycle docking (FCD)."

 

The new phase of the in-service support contract (ISSC) represents ASC's significant work undertaken to improve availability and reliability of the fleet, and its submarine enterprise partners, including the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and RAN.

 

The new support initiatives that have been included are the introduction of a circumferential hull, cut for easy access to the submarine, and efficient removal of the diesel engines.

 

Also included are the construction of a new maintenance support tower at ASC's South Australian facility, house key resources forfacilities around the boat, remediation of the supply chain, and the establishment of a rotable pool of spare parts.

 

The navy currently operates a fleet of six 78m-long Australian Submarine Corporation-built Collins-class submarines, which are designed to carry up to 22 missiles and torpedoes, as well as six 533mm forward-torpedo tubes with air-turbine pump discharge.

Australia Reviews Plan to Double Submarine Fleet

Australia will review plans to double its fleet of submarines, with the new conservative government under pressure to rein in its budget even as Asian neighbors dramatically ramp up military spending.

Defense Minister David Johnston said he was unconvinced that Australia needed as many as 12 new conventional submarines currently foreseen by military planners. It comes as regional neighbors, led by China, build up their naval and air arsenals amid disputes over territorial waters, especially in North Asia.

At a cost of up to 36 billion Australian dollars (US$32.28 billion), doubling the submarine fleet would be the country's largest single military purchase

Understanding Australia’s Submarine Choice

Ben Collopy, a fifth year University Student at the University of Newcastle Australia, is currently writing an honors thesis paper on the future of the ANZUS alliance with America. Here he discusses Australia’s submarine choice:

Australia is set to embark upon its most ambitious, complex, and expensive defense project in history – the design and construction of its first indigenous submarine. Understanding why Australia has decided to commit to such a project requires both knowledge of Australia’s unique geographical environment and regional strategic realities.

 

 Dubbed the Future Submarine Project, this ambitious scheme hopes to develop the ability to design, test, and construct an Australian submarine perfectly suited for the unique conditions in which it would be required to operate. The project is estimated to cost anywhere between 16 to 36 billion Australian dollars (the final price remains a point of contention) and aims to construct the largest diesel attack submarines in the world, surpassing even the mighty U.S. Virginia-class. The 2013 Defense White Paper unequivocally stated the nation’s intent, removing all other options from the table. There remains, however, a rather heated debate within Australia as to the risks versus possible reward of the Future Submarine Project. Australia has never before attempted something of this magnitude; normally preferring to purchase advanced pieces of military hardware from those who have spent decades perfecting the trade. Such crucial facts and some strategic foresight explain this ambitious move.

 

Firstly, unique geography plays an enormous role in Australia’s decision making. With one of the largest maritime domains in the world, a massive 8,148,250 square kilometers, Australia’s claims stretch from the freezing waters of Antarctica through to the far warmer waters in the North, near the equator. The sheer size of the zone raises a difficult question for the nation, which while large in geographic size, is relatively small in population, with roughly only 23 million people for a nation the size of the United States.

 

It remains rather difficult if not impossible, to patrol and monitor the vast majority of Australian waters. Subsequently areas of importance must be selected. Furthermore military platforms are required to spend long periods of time on station patrolling this zone and covering far larger swaths of sea with limited resources. Australia requires craft that are durable, versatile, and capable of long-term deployments.
 

The size of the continent creates another difficult situation for any navy but especially a submarine force. Multiple sea conditions surround the Australian coastline, with the warmer Pacific Ocean in the north and the much cooler Indian Ocean in the south, far rougher conditions occur in the Indian Ocean than in the milder Pacific Ocean. These climatic changes of temperature alter the salinity of the water, (thereby affecting buoyancy), creating a strong demand for durable and versatile craft.
 

Now, one may ask why the significantly more demanding polar South of the nation requires such serious attention. Despite being a zone of little activity, compared to the busy Northern trade routes, Australia places high strategic importance upon patrolling the Southern route, or so-called “Australian backyard”.  Australia claims up to 40% of Antarctica (despite being ignored by most of the world’s powers, including the United States). Australia does however take this entitlement quite seriously and consequently, the southern region is patrolled and monitored. Anyone who doubts Australia’s intention to protect and guard its southern approach, need only look at a map of claimed Australian maritime borders, and note the strategically placed Macquarie and Heard Islands. These seemingly insignificant parcels of land allow for the creation of effective choke points to any approach of Australia’s claimed Antarctic region and southern trade routes. Should circumstances arise where northern trade routes become unsafe, or worse still blocked perhaps through conflict, the longer and inhospitable south would remain of vital importance. Australia relies on seaborne trade for survival, and if the above mentioned eventuality were ever to arise, the ability to place quiet attack submarines in the newly vital southern trade routes to protect shipping and monitor activity, becomes of unquestionable importance. Combined with Australian Antarctic sovereignty claims, the enforcement of the entire region becomes clearer to understand, despite the highly unpleasant arctic conditions.

 

 

Secondly, growing military capabilities within Southeast and Northern Asia place a further emphasis on the need for a highly survivable and capable submarine fleet. Australia looks beyond 2025 when questioning future military capabilities in Asia, this points to a period where many neighboring nations will have acquired formidable submarine platforms and anti-shipping capabilities. For example Indonesia is seeking to expand its small fleet of two submarines toward a more powerful twelve with the recent purchase of Russia’s quiet running Kilo-class diesel submarine. Vietnam will take possession of its first submarine fleet by the end of 2016. This is not to forget the expansive growth of Chinese A2/AD, or area denial abilities, primarily the growth of anti-shipping weaponry from the emerging power. Lastly, this also heralds the end of the aging Collins-class diesel attack submarine Australia currently employs.
 

While not necessarily constituting an arms race, the growth of submarine capabilities throughout Southeast Asian nations demonstrates the development of these nations as maritime powers who are self-conscious of their perceived lack of maritime defense ability. The growth of ballistic anti-ship missile technology helps to explain the sudden popularity of submarine fleets, as surface vessels lose their survivability in conflict. For smaller nations, these vessels work to create an important deterrent and if need be, the capability to wage effective warfare against a more powerful enemy.
 

 As for Australia, while it certainly doesn’t consider the growth of neighboring military capabilities a risk to its survival, it understands how maritime abilities developed by its neighbors can help secure Southeast Asia and those ever important trade routes. However, it also realizes that the growth of military capabilities erodes Australia’s traditional military edge over its immediate possible rivals. Seemingly then, the desire to have one of the most capable and deadly submarine fleets in the region remains critically important to Australia, which considers much of Southeast Asia of vital strategic importance. Any Asian history buffs should look to the 1951 Radford Collins agreement to get a sense of the zone (large portions of the Indian and Pacific Oceans) Australia has considered under its immediate strategic concern, and perhaps what it still does.
 

Thirdly we come to the varied options Australia has to replace the aging Collins-class. Taking into consideration the above requirements for the future submarine, the list of possible options for replacing the Collins-class is seemingly on the short side. The SEA 1000 project was the study committed in order to ascertain Australia’s requirements for a future submarine. Three basic options were put forward: to buy a MOTS (model off-the-shelf) design and modify it for Australian conditions, evolve the current Collins-class submarine for future use, or lastly create a brand new indigenous submarine designed for Australian requirements.
 

The first option of buying MOTS craft, while certainly more cost effective and of lower risk than the other two options, would struggle to fulfill Australian demands, despite major and costly modifications. While most capable submarines are more than suitable for many other Southeast Asian nations, the vast majority of MOTS-designed craft would not be suited for the expansive Australian maritime border. Most MOTS craft are relatively small, with an average crew of around 30-to-50 men, resulting in less time deployed and limited range due to lack of fuel and food supply.
 

The Collins-class by comparison holds upward of 80 men with far larger compliments of fuel and food, allowing for greater deployment time, upward of three months. The new Future Submarine is planned to be even larger. The increased size also allows for greater armament of torpedoes and guided missiles. The Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine has often been touted as a possible alternative to an Australia design, and while there have been indications that the U.S. might be willing to sell them, the nuclear element of the craft was rejected by the Australian government.


While this has been blamed on a lack of nuclear infrastructure in order to effectively manage a nuclear propelled craft, it is more likely the government remains unwilling to attempt a difficult sell of nuclear technology to a voting public distrustful of nuclear energy, and as a major signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty) it would be trekking into unknown legal waters by attaining nuclear powered craft. Ultimately then, a purchase of MOTS submarines would poorly fit Australia’s needs, and would more than likely result in far greater cost in order to get them to an acceptable level, and without nuclear power, any real contender craft are removed.
 

The option of evolving the current Collins-class is also touted as a more cost-effective alternative to producing a brand new submarine. However the historical failings of its original design have left an unpleasant memory within the Defence Force and government, who now strive to avoid the same mistake. The Collins-class was put to tender from seven of the world’s nine diesel shipbuilding companies. Eventually the Swedish company, Kockums, put forward the Type 471 submarine, fitted with systems from an American company, Rockwell. From the onset major issues arose with the submarine build, resulting in numerous mechanical failures and setbacks. This meant cost spiraled greatly, and a following disagreement between Rockwell, Kockums, RAN, and the Australian government meant the vessels were delayed in their construction.
 

A lesson learned after costly upgrade programs were enacted was that too much diversification on one project could result in communication breakdowns, and the incompatible mating of components made from different suppliers resulted in unforeseen issues, especially when attempting to implant American combat systems into MOTS submarines. This helps to explain the current decision to commit to the largest and most complex defence project in Australia’s history. Again, however, there is great depth into understanding the current decision, the emergence of a nation set on expanding its abilities and standing in the world.
 

The RAND Corporation was hired by the Australian government to conduct a study into Australia’s submarine building and design capacity. It subsequently found that while the infrastructure was only slightly lacking, and the software capability was acceptable, a skills shortage proved to be the greatest problem, especially in regards to undersea propulsion. At no stage was the possibility of an indigenous submarine design and construct ever deemed impossible, rather, it conveyed a real sense of the possibility of Australia enhancing its ability to produce complex and highly advanced defence platforms. Plans to amend shortages were subsequently created.
 

The Future Submarine Project is already well underway, with the Future Submarine Project Office established in Adelaide. Tenders must be sent out for the design and development for the hull, systems and various components, and the ASC (Australian Submarine Company) is to begin construction sometime within the new few years through 2030. The ASC is well placed to fulfill the construction of the Future Submarine, with decades of work on the Collins under its belt, from construction work to maintenance of the Collins and finally to upgrading the troublesome boats.
 

 As for a nuclear option, it remains unlikely. While nuclear powered submarines would be the best possible option for Australia, as argued here, a lack of political will is likely to hamstring any attempts. The current conservative government however, is perhaps more pragmatic and positive towards the possibility and with a new Defence White Paper due the end of 2014, there remains hope. Australia is keenly self-aware of its unique strategic position in the world, and has striven since World War II to develop capabilities that allow for a self-reliant defence ability of the massive island nation. Despite a riskier option, the rewards offers far greater justifiable benefits in development of an indigenous Australian submarine, allowing the country to reach a new level of self-reliance and confidence, and take a strategic leap forward in the world in an uncertain and ever-changing world.

 

An evolved Collins Class submarine is the leading option for Australia's next generation of submarines, Defence Minister David Johnston has revealed, renewing hopes that the final decision on the project will deliver jobs and investment in South Australia. 

              

Senator Johnston said in Adelaide yesterday that he believed an evolved Collins Class was a better choice than completely redesigning and building a new submarine.

 

Twelve next-generation submarines will be built under the SEA 1000 project, which has an estimated cost of up to $40 billion.

 

"Our experience is that to go down that path is quite problematic," said Senator Johnston, who was attending a Submarine Institute of Australia conference.

 

"The evolved Collins is the leading option … capitalising on our evolving corporate knowledge, so we will see what the department has done and what the plan is within the next month."

 

SA Defence Teaming Centre chief executive officer Chris Burns saying if this option was backed it would mean jobs and investment for the state.

 

"The centre for excellence of knowledge and capability about Collins is here in South Australia, so it further cements that the future submarines will be made here in SA," Mr Burns said.

 

"And an evolution of Collins means work will be able to commence sooner rather than later in terms of design."

 

The new Abbott government had said it would make a decision about the Future Submarine project within 18 months of taking office, along with creating a new defence white paper.

 

Senator Johnston said he intended pushing forward with "not a briefing but a seminar" over the future subs next month after returning from NATO meetings, to discuss what he described as the Federal Government's "number one priority at the moment".

 

Previously, the former Labor government had narrowed the Future Submarine decision to two main options for the new submarines - the evolved Collins boat or an entirely new Australian-designed and built option.

 

Both parties have committed to the submarines being assembled in South Australia.

 

Senator Johnston also said yesterday that he was confident there would be no gap in capability between the ageing Collins submarines being replaced.

 

"These subs are so important that time is of the essence," he said.

 

"The plan is coming together and you will hopefully shortly see exactly what we are doing with Collins, you will see the path that we are going to choose will be a middle path for SEA 1000 (future submarines)."

 

He said it was "the most important capability we've got at the moment".

 

But he also said that of equal priority was focusing on the sustainment and remediation of the existing six Collins class subs because "the life extension program is vital to the haste with which we must pursue the new boat".

 

"The submarine life extension program will allow an orderly transition to the new submarine without a capability gap but that's not to say we are slowing down SEA 1000 in any shape of form it just means there's a little more time," he said.

 

New subs to be much bigger than Collins

Australia's next submarine will be much bigger than the existing Collins boats but the likely cost won't be known for years, a senior defence official says. 

 

David Gould, general manager for submarines in the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), said he couldn't estimate the cost of a vessel not yet designed and could not endorse estimates of $36-40 billion in some studies.

Under the 2009 and 2013 Defence White Papers, Australia is looking to replace the six Collins submarines with 12 new vessels of greater range, longer endurance and expanded capabilities.

This is set to be Australia's largest ever defence procurement.

Mr Gould said the new boats would have to be larger than the 3500-tonnes Collins.

"It will be in my opinion larger, much larger. That's the work we are doing at the moment," he told an Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) national security lunch.

The 2013 White Paper reduced the acquisition options from four to two, ruling out the cheapest options of an existing overseas design or an existing model with some Australia-specific systems.

That leaves either an evolution of the Collins or an all-new design.

Mr Gould said Australia had reached agreement with the government of Sweden on intellectual property rights to allow a start on concept designs for an evolved Collins.

That work would be undertaken by German shipbuilder TKMS, now the parent of Swedish firm Kockums, the original Collins designer.

Mr Gould said TKMS would have to correct known defects with Collins and propose improvements.

"But we will not allow them to increase the diameter of the pressure hull - to do so would clearly cross the threshold of a new design," he said.

Mr Gould said two concept designs should have been completed in two years and a decision made on the propulsion system for the first two or three boats.

There would be a much better handle on costs of design and construction.

"But we will not have contract quality costs for a build by any stretch of the imagination at that point," he said.

Australia - Navy eyeing off new Japanese submarines

The Admiral in charge of planning for Australia's next generation of submarines and the chief defence scientist are studying an advanced new submarine in service with the Japanese navy. 

Rear-Admiral Rowan Moffitt, head of the Royal Australian Navy's Future Submarine Program, and Dr Alexander Zelinsky, the Chief Defence Scientist, travel to Japan this month to look at the Soryu-class submarines, which started service with the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force three years ago. 

Submarines no longer all at sea 

Access to the Soryu technology was discussed during a visit to Australia last month by the Japanese navy's chief, Admiral Masahiko Sugimoto. It was only in December that Tokyo lifted its post-World War II embargo on defence exports. 

The 4200-tonne Soryu-class boats are the only new conventional submarines of the size and capabilities set out in Canberra's 2009 defence white paper for 12 new submarines to take over from the Collins-class subs from the late 2020s. 

''Our strategy with the Japanese is one of hope, because there are some very attractive characteristics about the Japanese submarine,'' Rear-Admiral Moffitt said. 

As well as having a close alliance relationship with the United States similar to Australia's, Japan's navy operated in the same Asia-Pacific environment, which was reflected in its submarine design, he said. 

''Their submarine, by all accounts, and their design and the evolution of that design, has by all accounts brought them to the point of having a very good submarine,'' Rear-Admiral Moffitt said.

''However, submarine technology tends to be crown-jewel stuff for nations, it tends to be at the most extreme end of sensitivity that nations have about protecting their intellectual property - especially if they have developed it themselves, as Japan has, as the US has. They've invested a vast amount of money doing that.'' 

Under a $214 million allocation in this year's budget, the RAN has stepped up work on selecting the new submarine design. Four options are: Adapting an existing ''military off the shelf'' or MOTS submarine, a large ''evolved MOTS'' design, an evolution of the Collins class, and a completely new Australian design. 

Until the Soryu became theoretically available, off-the-shelf submarines included only German, French and Spanish designs of about 2000 tonnes.

Australia - Two subs out of action for six years

TWO of navy's six Collins-class submarines will be out service for more than six years under the Gillard government's new maintenance regime.

HMAS Rankin and HMAS Collins have been out of action while undergoing maintenance in Adelaide, and will be returned to the Royal Australian Navy much later than the present three-year deadlines. The Rankin is the youngest submarine in the fleet yet it has been docked since 2008. It will not be released by shipbuilder ASC until the middle of next year at the earliest. The Collins is the fleet's oldest and has been at the ASC facility in Adelaide since last August. It will not be released until 2018.

ThyssenKrupp Submarine Unit Wins Access to Australia Bid

ThyssenKrupp AG (TKA) secured the chance to help develop a submarine for Australia after the country signed an agreement with Sweden’s government clearing the way for the involvement of the company’s Kockums AB unit. 

The accord gives Australia the right to use Swedish intellectual property for submarine design and technology, the Canberra-based Department of Defence said in a statement. The deal was necessary to begin working with Kockums, it said. 

Australian authorities have been exploring replacement of six Collins Class submarines, which were based on a Kockums design. The government said on May 3 that it’s proceeding with the project, dubbed SEA 1000, to assemble 12 of the vessels domestically and narrowed options to a new design or building an evolved version of the Collins configuration, with an off-the-shelf purchase discarded. 

“This agreement will pave the way for Swedish involvement in Australia’s future submarine program,” Defense Minister Stephen Smith said in today’s statement. “The ability for Australia to utilize Swedish submarine technology is a critical element, not only of the work on the Future Submarine Program but also in addressing the continuing challenges with the maintenance and sustainment of the Collins Class fleet.” 

HMAS Collins, the lead submarine, was commissioned in 1996. The last of the current six vessels isn’t scheduled to be retired until about 2031, after entering service in 2003. 

ThyssenKrupp doesn’t break out figures for Kockums. A spokeswoman at the Essen, Germany-based parent company wasn’t immediately available to comment. 

Kockums was part of ThyssenKrupp’s marine-systems business, which generated 3 percent of group sales at the steelmaker in the year through Sept. 30. The newly combined marine-systems and plant-technology division, dubbed industrial solutions, accounted for 15 percent of ThyssenKrupp’s revenue in the fiscal first half ended March 31.

Australia, Sweden sign agreement on submarine technology

Australia and Sweden have achieved a "significant milestone agreement" relating to Intellectual Property rights for submarine design and technology, Defence Minister Stephen Smith said Thursday.

The agreement followed extensive negotiations between Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, Smith said in a statement issued jointly with Sweden's Minister for Defence Karin Enstrom, reported Xinhua.

"This agreement gives effect to Australia's rights to use and disclose Swedish Intellectual Property rights for complex submarine design and technology," Smith said. 

"Defence materiel cooperation has been a key feature of the Sweden-Australia relationship, most notably in the area of submarine technology where our collaboration over the construction and support of the Collins submarines has spanned two decades, and more recently, with the vital 'sense and warn' capability provided to protect our troops in Afghanistan," he added. 

In 1987, Australia ordered six submarines of the Collins Class designed by Swedish firm Kockums AB. The submarines were built in Adelaide and will be in service for another 20 years. 

Australia is now planning for their replacement with 12 new boats with the recent 2013 Defence White Paper settling on two options - an evolution of Collins or a completely new design. 

Smith said the government announced last year it would engage Kockums to undertake initial design studies for the evolved Collins. But before that could occur, Australia needed to reach an agreement with Sweden on use of Collins and other Swedish technology for the Future Submarine Program.

Australian military, industry meet over problem projects

Senior Australian defense officials and heads of Australian defense companies have met over troubled defense projects.

Australian Minister for Defense Materiel Mike Kelly said progress made in remediation plans for each of six problem programs on the Projects of Concern list since a meeting was held in November were looked at.

"We are seeing tangible benefits in having government, (Department of) Defense and industry representatives discussing issues together and working towards remediation of these troubled projects," Kelly said. "Ultimately, results from these summits will deliver real benefits to the men and women of the Australian Defense Force."

The six projects involve Collins class submarines, a multi-role tanker aircraft, a multi-role helicopter, a redevelopment effort, direct fire support weapons and electronic support measures upgrade for maritime patrol planes.

The Australian Department of Defense said that since last November two projects were removed from the list but two others added.

All parties are said to be working together to achieve the main aim of the Projects of Concern process in putting the projects back on track and removed from the list.

The bi-annual face-to-face meetings have been held since 2011. A total of 21 projects have been put on the list with 15 removed -- 13 due to remediation and two due to cancellation.

Australia’s Submarine Folly

Over the last several years there has been an ongoing debate over the replacement of Australia's conventional powered Collins-class submarines. Some defense analysts have argued that a nuclear submarine purchase or leased from the United States, the UK, or France would make the most sense as opposed to the limitations a conventional diesel submarine.

It seems, at least for now, the debate has been settled, with homegrown diesel subs winning the day.

On Friday, Australia released its Defense White Paper 2013. The document lays out the future agenda and goals for Australia's military. The document seems to have crushed the idea of nuclear propelled Australian submarines:

"Due to the strategic value and importance of Australia’s submarine capability, the Government remains committed to replacing the existing Collins Class fleet with an expanded fleet of 12 conventional submarines that will meet Australia’s future strategic requirements. The future submarines will be assembled in South Australia. The Government has ruled out consideration of a nuclear powered submarine capability to replace the Collins Class fleet."

The report also seemingly commits to an indigenously built vessel:

"The Government has directed further work on a new Submarine Propulsion Energy Support and Integration Facility in Australia. This land-based facility will substantially reduce risk in the Future Submarine Program by providing the capability to research, integrate, assemble and test the propulsion, energy and drive train systems in all stages of the Future Submarine’s design, build and through-life sustainment."

"The Government has also taken the important decision to suspend further investigation of the two Future Submarine options based on military-off-the-shelf designs in favor of focusing resources on progressing an ‘evolved Collins’ and new design options that are likely to best meet Australia’s future strategic and capability requirements." 

There are some compelling arguments for sure when it comes to the direction of Australia's future submarine force. Homegrown conventional diesel submarines obviously would power Australia's defense industry for decades to come, creating or retaining jobs while developing greater domestic submarine building capabilities and technical knowhow. Modern diesel electric submarines, powered by air-independent propulsion, are near silent and tough to track by any modern navy. Armed with modern anti-ship missiles, they are certainly a force to be reckoned with on the high-seas.

Despite the benefits to Australia's defense industry and military capabilities of a domestic conventional submarine, one must look back to Canberra's last submarine project, the Collins-class — certainly not a smooth experience. In an interview The Diplomat conducted last year with Australian defense expert Ross Babbage, he explained some of the challenges of the last domestically built submarine:

"Overall, the Collins Class program demonstrated that Australia does have the industrial and other skills to design, build and then operate a very advanced diesel-electric submarine, provided that it receives extensive assistance from a range of friendly countries. When fully operational, these boats have periodically performed extremely well on exercises.

However, there were many problems with the Collins program including flaws in the contract and contract management, inadequate contingency allowances, design weaknesses, skill shortages and some major production and support difficulties. The result was that the boats arrived late, they were over-budget, they have experienced continuing reliability problems and these factors have compounded the challenges of building experienced submarine crews and a strong cohort of support personnel for the force.

Hence, while the Collins program hasn’t been the unmitigated disaster that’s so frequently described in the press, it isn’t the sort of experience that should be repeated given the rather more demanding requirements that Australia now has for its next-generation submarines." 

Considering the cost and needs of Australia's military for the next several decades, leasing an American, British or French nuclear submarine would surely have been a better option.

In particular, American nuclear powered Virginia-class subs are some of the most state of the art and well praised in defense circles and would be an excellent choice for Australia. As Babbage noted last May, "(The Virginia class boats), in particular, are well sorted and reliable, they have low risk, they have known costs, they never need to be refueled and they could be acquired with associated training programs and system upgrade pathways."

In the end, domestic considerations like job creation and economic matters may have ruled the day when it comes to Australia's future submarine choice. With Julia Gillard trailing in the polls, it certainly would have been an unpopular choice to hand billions in defense contracts to any foreign supplier at a time when the government is running a budget deficit. However tough the challenge would have been for Gillard, let's hope Australia also weighed the ultimate consideration: getting the most capable submarine to defend the nation for the best cost.

Australia - Adelaide favoured for submarines, warship projects

The Australian Federal Government has given a solid indication the nation's next-generation submarines will be designed and built in Adelaide and is planning a new warship project to ensure that skills are retained here in the interim.

Despite a $214 million study of four options for the highly lucrative submarine project, it is understood the Government wants the 12 non-nuclear vessels to be an evolved Collins Class boat dubbed "Son of Collins" or a new sub designed and built at Techport in Osborne.

The four options will be shaved to two evolved Collins and a brand new design sometime next year.

To prove that the hard lessons of the troubled Collins project including excessive noise, mechanical and combat systems problems have been learnt, a major land-based "test bed" facility will be built in Adelaide.

The test bed will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and generate hundreds of hi-tech jobs.

Next year's Defence white paper will include a skills plan and an interim warship (a fourth destroyer or new frigates) in Adelaide to ensure that skills are not lost before the submarine build begins in earnest after 2020.

The 12 attack subs will cost more than $30 billion under the nation's biggest-ever defence project, creating thousands of jobs and work for hundreds of local companies. The boats will significantly boost Australia's strike capability, weigh more than 4000 tonnes and carry a crew of up to 60.

Their US-made combat system will use advanced torpedoes and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles and be equipped with the latest electronic eavesdropping, sonar and communications equipment.

Japanese Soryu Class subs are of a similar size to the planned new Aussie boat.

Head of the new submarine project office Rear Admiral Rowan Moffitt and chief defence scientist Dr Alexander Zelinsky travelled to Japan earlier this year to examine the Soryu's propulsion technology.

Defence Materiel Minister Jason Clare said in a speech this month he wanted to create an industry around the subs that lasted 100 years.

"It will take decades to build 12 submarines, and by the time the last is built the first will need to be replaced. It will create an industry that could last for a century or more," he said.

Australia - Minister for Defence Materiel – Collins submarine sonar support contract awarded

Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that Thales has been awarded a $22.2 million contract to update sonar equipment for the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins Class submarines. 

The contract will involve replacing obsolescent electronic components to improve reliability and help to reduce space, weight and power requirements. 

Mr Clare said the majority of specialist engineering and logistics work will be performed in the Thales facility at Rydalmere, NSW. 

“The sonar system on the Collins Class submarines uses acoustic signals to safely navigate and operate effectively underwater,” Mr Clare said. 

“The updating of this equipment is key to ensuring our Collins Class submarines remain operationally capable and reliable.” 

Thales currently holds the contract for in-service support for the Collins sonar system and is the original manufacturer of the equipment. 

The Government has allocated an additional $700 million over the next four years for Collins Class submarine sustainment. 

The Collins Class submarine provides maritime surveillance, maritime strike and interdiction, reconnaissance and intelligence collection capability to the Australian Defence Force.

Australia - Defence solves problems with subs: new boss

DMO General of Australia's submarines David Gould.

After two decades of problems the new man in charge of Australia's submarine fleet says the government is now on top of the maintenance work for the troubled Collins class fleet.

In his first interview since stepping into the job of general manager of submarines two months ago, David Gould said the Defence Materiel Organisation had sorted out one of its biggest headaches.

''We are now confident, backed by evidence, that we have the Collins sustainment issues solved,'' the 63-year-old Mr Gould told the Sunday Canberra Times.

Fresh from Britain, where he spent almost all his working life within senior ranks of the defence bureaucracy, Mr Gould has now moved into a rented house at Campbell and plans to spend three years in the job.

The keen angler and one-time school teacher must straddle two difficult areas competing for his time: keeping Australia's six Collins submarines seaworthy in a timely fashion; and helping to design a new type of underwater fleet to be built in the next 25 years.

Creating a new generation of submarines was, in his words, as complex as constructing a space shuttle.

''Human beings are not supposed to survive down there [underwater],'' he said.

Even though the Collins submarines have made bad headlines since they were built - with problems varying from engine failures to excessive noise - Mr Gould said this was mostly because of maintenance problems.

At the moment, three of the six Collins subs are in the docks and he expected submarines to spend up to half their lives being maintained.

He said the Collins class submarine had many good qualities that should be kept for the newly designed submarines.

The achievements of the Collins were particularly notable because it was Australia's first attempt at parent its own submarine fleet. Before 1990, whenever Australia had a problem with the Oberon submarines, it could always call on Britain or Canada for help and information.

This changed when the Collins was designed specifically for the tropical water and long distances of Australian missions.

''Australia had to change,'' Mr Gould said. ''It was now the only user [of these submarines]. It had to become the parent navy.''

In the past 20 years in Britain, Mr Gould's positions have included under-secretary for air force supply and organisation, under-secretary for policy in the Ministry of Defence, deputy chief executive and chief operating officer of the Defence Procurement Agency and chief operating officer for Defence Equipment and Support.

In 2008 he retired from the British public service, started his own consultancy and served as executive chairman for SELEX SI.

In his Russell office he regularly gets emails from friends with progress photos of a project he was involved in - the 65,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier.

Australia Likely To Buy Subs From Japan

Japan and Australia are likely to confirm a defense technology deal involving the technology transfer of Japan’s highly regarded diesel-electric AIP Soryu submarine, according to the Japan Security Watch. This deal is an outgrowth of the relaxing of the arms export restrictions that took place late last year.

The two could collaborate on maritime domain, particularly in terms of Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). When the two countries held their first bilateral defense exercises recently they engaged in ASW exercises, something they have also done so with the US in trilateral exercises.

According to the Australian press, the Japanese could in a joint partnership to outfit the Royal Australian Navy with 12 submarines similar to the highly regarded Japanese diesel-electric mid-sized Soryuu submarine.

There had been numerous maintenance and technical issues with Australia’s Collins-class submarines, hence a desire this time around to acquire a proven platform.