21 janvier 2020 | International, Naval

Australian defense leaders defend submarine buy with France’s Naval Group

By: Nigel Pittaway

MELBOURNE, Australia – Australian defense leaders this week denied claims that their department was urged to consider alternatives to the navy's plans of buying 12 large conventionally-powered submarines from France's Naval Group.

The claims, reported by local news media in the wake of an Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report about the program earlier this week, suggested negotiations with Naval Group were at such a poor state the Commonwealth-appointed Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board had earlier recommended drawing up contingency plans.

However, in a statement released Wednesday by Secretary of Defence Greg Moriarty, Chief of Defence Force Gen. Angus Campbell, Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Mike Noonan and Deputy Secretary Naval Shipbuilding, Tony Dalton, denied the claims.

“Contrary to media interpretations of ANAO's latest report on the Future Submarine Program, Defence was not advised to ‘walk away' from Naval Group by the Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board,” the statement read.

“In line with best practice and following the advice of the Advisory Board, Defence has continued to assess all of the risks that attend this highly complex program. At each stage, we are adopting relevant risk mitigation strategies. The ANAO acknowledges that Defence has taken steps to manage risks.”

The 12 Attack-class submarines are being acquired under Australia's Sea 1000 (Future Submarine) program to replace six existing Collins-class boats which, without a major service life extension program, will need to be retired by 2036. The design is based on the French Barracuda-class nuclear attack boat, and the program is valued at either $34.5 billion (50 billion Australian dollars), or $55.2 billion (AUD 80 billion), depending on accounting practices. Either way, it is Australia's largest-ever defense acquisition program.

The ANAO report, titled “Transition to Design,” found that the design phase of the program is already nine months behind schedule and two important milestones had been missed. It said Defence “could not demonstrate” its expenditure of $396 million (US $273 million) on the design to date has been fully effective in achieving the two milestones to date. The Defence Department has spent 47 percent of all program expenditure thus far on design work and, despite the risk mitigation strategies, it continues to describe program risk as “high”.

“While the first scheduled major milestone under the Submarine Design Contract was reached five weeks later than planned, Defence and Naval Group are working towards the recovery of this delay by the next contracted major milestone in January 2021. Importantly, the delivery of the Attack-class submarine has not been delayed,” the statement continued.

“Acknowledging the scale of this program, we remain confident that our work on the Attack-class program with Naval Group and Lockheed Martin Australia (as the Combat Systems Integrator) is progressing thoroughly and will result in the delivery of a regionally-superior submarine from the early 2030s, establishing a truly sovereign capability as we maximize the involvement of Australian industry.”

The Sea 1000 program timeline calls for delivery of the first Attack-class boat in 2032 with service entry around 2034.

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/01/17/australian-defense-leaders-defend-submarine-buy-with-frances-naval-group

Sur le même sujet

  • Japan's military to spend on AI, automation, perks to combat recruitment crisis

    1 septembre 2024 | International, Terrestre, Sécurité

    Japan's military to spend on AI, automation, perks to combat recruitment crisis

  • David J. Bercuson: Why Japan is building its military, fast

    7 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    David J. Bercuson: Why Japan is building its military, fast

    David J. Bercuson With 18 diesel electric submarines, four so-called “helicopter destroyers” that look suspiciously like small aircraft carriers, 43 destroyers and destroyer escorts, 25 minesweepers and training ships, fleet oilers, submarine rescue ships and other vessels, Japan's navy — the Maritime Self-Defense Force — is the second largest in Asia and one of the largest in the world. It is also highly advanced technologically and is growing all the time. The two 27,000 ton Izumo-class helicopter destroyers, the largest in the fleet, with flat flight decks and islands on the starboard side of the vessels, are small compared to the United States Navy's Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (approximately 100,000 tons) or Britain's new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers (65,000 tons). But if equipped with the new short-take-off-and-vertical-landing F-35B stealth fighter they will still pack a powerful punch. And Japan is considering adding more of these aircraft carriers to its fleet and advanced U.S.-style Aegis class destroyers, capable of shooting down medium-range ballistic missiles. The irony in all of this is that Japan's post Second World War constitution still contains a provision — Article 9 — that prohibits it from possessing any offensive military capability. In the early 1950s, Japan began to build its self-defence forces and now has a powerful navy, a modern medium-sized air force that will soon fly the F-35 along with specially built F-15s, alongside more than 300 fighter aircraft and 50,000 personnel, and a growing land army and marine sea landing capability. Are these military assets “defensive” in nature? Partly, but aircraft carriers, high-speed destroyers, modern fighter aircraft and assault ships are surely as offensive as they are defensive. And Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made it plain that in less than two years, he intends to seek to change the Japanese constitution to drastically curtail any obligation Japan has to maintain a purely defensive capability. In other words, he will ask the Japanese people and legislature to bless what Japan has already done. That could be more problematic than people realize. Like Germany, Japan suffered greatly in the Second World War. Virtually all its great cities were levelled either with atomic bombs (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or fire raids that were carried out by giant B-29 bombers at low altitude at night. The attacks burned the heart out of Japan's cities. In March 1945, 100,000 people were killed in one night in a fire raid on Tokyo and many acres of the city were burned to the ground. Submarine blockades of Japan drastically curtailed food and fuel supplies. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers were killed either in the United States' march across the Pacific or in the Russian invasion of Manchuria near the end of the war. Japan was a prostrate nation by the end of 1945 and its ancient system of government was a shambles. Full article: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/david-j-bercuson-why-japan-is-building-its-military-fast

  • US Army’s $5.5B wish list seeks to restore cuts made to protect force modernization

    3 juin 2021 | International, Terrestre

    US Army’s $5.5B wish list seeks to restore cuts made to protect force modernization

    The Army has submitted its Unfunded Requirements List to the Hill that seeks to boost funding to improve military installations, restore delayed procurement of legacy aircraft and vehicle fleets and cover the potential hidden costs of withdrawing from Afghanistan while covering unforeseen contingencies.

Toutes les nouvelles