Antinuclear

Australia’s new submarines a liability

Everything wrong about Malcolm Turnbull’s submarine decision, AFR Apr 26 16 French to build Australia’s new submarines, by Brian Toohey The choice of a French-designed submarine is fine in principle, even if a German one could have been better.

Other than that, everything is wrong about the Turnbull government’s decision to build 12 extremely large submarines in Adelaide.

The decision embraces a long-discredited protectionist industry policy that will add billions of dollars to the cost. The government’s refusal to go with an off-the-shelf design will cost more billions, because the first of new submarines won’t be operational until after 2030 and the last until almost 2060.

This means the decrepit Collins class submarines will have to be kept going for more than 20 years beyond their planned 2025 retirement date – necessitating new capital spending and very high maintenance and operating costs that will soon pass $1 billion a year.

The Collins Class submarine is due to be retired by 2030. supplied

Bizarrely, the Turnbull government has decided that the Adelaide shipyard, which built the six Collins submarines, will now build 12 much bigger submarines and nine frigates that will be far larger than the existing Anzac class, which has served the nation well.

The new frigates will be even bigger than the three air warfare destroyers that the shipyard is building now. These are late and over budget, yet the government trusts this shipyard to build submarines costing $50 billion and frigates about $35 billion.

Where were Scott Morrison and Mathias Cormann when this decision was taken? The government’s estimates of the added costs of local construction shows it will take more than $20 billion more simply to try to win a couple of Coalition seats in Adelaide.

CHEAPER WAYS TO WIN VOTES There are much cheaper ways to win votes, yet the Treasurer and the Finance Minister stress their dedication to cutting spending….

If there is some other advantage in buying submarines that will be double the size of proven off-the-shelf options, the massive extra cost needs to be assessed against the marginal increment, if any, in overall capability.

EASIER TO DETECT  The recently retired US Navy Chief Admiral Jonathan Greenert has warned repeatedly that rapid advances in computing power and sensors make it easier to detect and destroy big submarines and frigates that will cost Australia $85 billion – without cost blowouts or delays.

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter outlined recently US developments in sub-surface drones that are particularly important for shallow water in Australia’s region. China is doing likewise. Australia’s new submarines won’t be fully operational until long after their size becomes a liability.

Defence is the only large department that is effectively exempt from Treasury and Finance scrutiny, even though taxpayers would benefit greatly from sharper cost-effectiveness studies.

The 2003 Kinnaird procurement review recommended Finance in particular should play a bigger part. It hasn’t done so, yet there is probably no other big budget item than defence where spending is such a poor indicator of outcomes…….http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election/everything-is-wrong-about-malcolm-turnbulls-submarine-decision-20160426-goez6s?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-14omn0047-optim-nnn:nonpaid-27062014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-drive-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter

April 27, 2016 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized