Jump to content
AIR-DEFENSE.NET

Marine Australienne: modernisations, acquisitions et exercices navals.


Philippe Top-Force
 Share

Recommended Posts

Le 20/01/2021 à 19:21, ARMEN56 a dit :

Il fait son boulot ......

Les Echos de janvier 2020

« Malgré les rumeurs qui évoquent que la vente des sous-marins français à l'Australie est menacée »

https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/opinion-sous-marins-pour-laustralie-les-industriels-francais-en-ordre-de-bataille-1166008

Un autre avis australien (submarine matters, ex sous-marinier, plutôt pro japonais et pro US), et qui donne d'autres raisons pour laquelle le contrat n'est pas vraiment menacé actuellement (malgré les grognements).

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/01/unlikely-australia-wants-to-end-french.html

Pour lui, c'est plutôt une campagne soit pro-Kockums (qui n'a pas construit de soum depuis 18 ans ...) , soit de l'opposition...
Et vu le déroulement catastrophique du programme de soum suédois précédent (catastrophe qui approche le niveau F-35 ou Naventia S80), il ne pense pas que le gouvernement australien se risquera à retenter sa chance avec les suédois (sauf raté monumental de Naval Group)

 

Le 20/01/2021 à 19:26, Rom1_ a dit :

Je me suis permis de répondre sur l'article de The War Zone, c'était un peu abusé de relayer cette info (et comme souligné par un autre commentaire qui plus est sans contacter Naval Group).

En creusant un peu, je suis tombé sur ces 2 articles de ASPI (Australian Strategy Policy Institute), pas eu le temps de tout lire à fond et je ne sais pas la "valeur"/pertinence de cet institut mais la description de l'augmentation du coût parait assez cohérente, si de "plus instruit" :biggrin: peuvent confirmer (j'en ai peut être raté) :

- Présentation des coûts en "out-turned dollar" dans les acquisitions australienne ce qui tend à mélanger choux et carottes et à faire mécaniquement augmenter le coût plus on s'éloigne de la date d'affectation du contrat.

- Demande de la marine australienne d'une garantie d'avoir toujours le meilleur sous-marin possible vs menaces de la région cause potentielle d'augmentation de coût après pendant l'affectation

Perso, je pensais aussi au matériel US qui ne doit pas peser qu'un peu dans le coût final, mais je ne suis pas suffisamment calé pour chercher l'info.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/has-the-cost-of-australias-future-submarines-gone-up-part-1/

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/has-the-cost-of-australias-future-submarines-gone-up-part-2/

Je les relirais plus posément ce WE.

L'ASPI est un think tank "officiel" mais indépendant, créé par le gouvernement australien pour donner un avis indépendant sur les sujets de défense et sécurité.
(en gros, la partie contrepoids aux industriels de la DGA, et du CBO US).

J'ai une bonne impression de ce think tank.
Leur département cyber et infoguerre m'a l'air bien sérieux (avec bien sûr le point de vue australien ... et focus sur leurs menaces régionales)

https://www.aspi.org.au/
ils acceptent même des soumissions d'article extérieurs (en faisant le tri : aspi strategist).

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/
 

exemple de "petit" papier de recherche qu'ils pondent en infoguerre (96 pages, 650 citation ...)

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2020-12/The influence environment.pdf

Edited by rogue0
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: Statement by Linda Reynolds on 01/25/2021

During a press conference held at Henderson Naval Base on 25 January 2021, Australia’s Defence Minister showed her full support to the Attack-class program:


LINDA REYNOLDS: "Look, I’ve seen those reports, and what I can confirm is that the Future Submarine Program is our nation’s largest and most complex project. We are acquiring the next generation, our future submarines, to replace the Collins class submarine [...] I’m absolutely committed. I work very carefully and closely with my French counterpart, Minister Florence Parly, and we are both committed to making this project work [...] Contrary to rumours, it is not over budget and it is not over time."


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/01/attack-class-program-to-enter-system-functional-review-on-time-as-planned/

Ils vont faire de la guerre des mines avec des OPVs...

 

Australia’s Future MCM Vessels May Be Based On Arafura-Class OPV Design

The future vessels will come with a toolbox of Robotic and Autonomous Systems to keep sailors out of the mine field, as it has become the norm for modern mine warfare


...
For the potential mine counter measure (MCM) variant, the design, based on Luerssen’s OPV 90 could easily serve as unmanned systems mothership: Toolboxes and mission containers can be fitted below the flight deck. The OPV design also features a stern ramp to ease the launch and recovery of a potential USV.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/01/australias-future-mcm-vessels-may-be-based-on-arafura-class-opv-design/
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Le contrat de sous-marin sur le point d'être rompu ?

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/90b-french-subs-project-could-sink-20210224-p575e5

A top-level study ordered by Prime Minister Scott Morrison of the nation’s submarine program will look at how to terminate the $90 billion project with French government-owned shipbuilder Naval Group, amid questions over whether Defence Minister Linda Reynolds will hang on to the portfolio after being admitted to hospital.
' - Although dumping the contract would risk a big diplomatic rift with France, defence industry sources said a potential resignation by the minister might give the government the opportunity to reset the troubled submarine and frigate construction programs. Senator Reynolds has taken leave from the ministry after checking into a Canberra hospital on the advice of her cardiologist for a pre-existing medical condition, after a stressful 10 days over her handling of rape allegations involving former staff in her ministerial office. It forced her to cancel a sold-out address to the National Press Club and a crucial first face-to-face meeting with Naval Group’s Paris-based global chief, Pierre-Eric Pommellet. Mr Pommellet, on his first visit to Australia as chief executive, is under immediate pressure from the government to make good on a promise to spend 60 per cent of its contract value with local suppliers and repair what is a toxic working relationship between the Defence Department and Naval Group.
He met Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price and Assistant Defence Minister Andrew Hastie on Wednesday, and on Thursday will meet Foreign Minister Marise Payne, who has assumed the defence portfolio, and Finance Minister Simon Birmingham.
Ms Price laid down the law to Mr Pommellet that a clear commitment to Australian capability and industrial involvement was an “absolute necessity” for the government. “It was made clear to Mr Pommellet that it is critically important for Australian companies to be an integral part of the future submarine supply chain. This is important for Australian jobs, the broader economy and our industrial sovereignty,” she told The Australian Financial Review. “Drawing on my extensive legal experience as a construction lawyer, I reminded Mr Pommellet that the finer details of a contract matter. The Morrison government will hold Naval Group to account on this commitment, as the Australian public would expect.” It is understood the two sides were close to announcing an agreement but there were still issues around penalties and reviews.
The Financial Review revealed on Wednesday that a frustrated Mr Morrison had tasked two senior naval officers, including a three-star admiral, to examine options for the submarine program. It is learnt that another senior naval officer conducting the study is Phillip Stanford, previously the project manager for the German bid for the submarine contract. Mr Stanford is expected to focus on the contribution local industry can make to the program. One source said the substance of the study was reflected in the appointment of Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead, the military’s Chief of Joint Capabilities, one of its most senior leadership roles. “It is a genuinely serious look at what alternatives might be, rather than a stalking horse,” the source said. It is understood the study will look at the long-range conventional powered submarine that Swedish shipbuilder Saab Kockums has offered the Dutch navy. It can trace its lineage back to the original Collins submarines built for Australia.
Hefty break fees
It will also examine how to get out of the contract with Naval Group, if the relationship continues to deteriorate. The government would be liable for a €90 million ($138 million) break fee if it terminated the contract now, but this would rise to €250 million under the next contract phase. The options study will also look at how quickly a shift could be made to bring in Saab Kockums, how it would tap into local supply chains, and the involvement of the Australian government-owned shipbuilder ASC. It is not expected to canvass reopening the door to the German and Japanese bidders that missed out in 2016. While Naval Group’s first boat – which is based on re-engineering a nuclear-powered design – for Australia is scheduled to enter service in the mid-2030s, the Dutch navy is being promised its first two submarines by Saab in 2027-28. The government is reluctant to go to the extreme step of tearing up the contract with Naval Group because it would have effectively wasted $1.7 billion and five years on the project, and is more focused on improving the working relationship. It would also damage relations with France after Australia had spent recent years cultivating closer ties with a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and significant holder of territories in the Indo-Pacific as part of its strategy of building regional alliances as a check to China. The options paper may look at simply squeezing more life out of the Collins-class submarines by upgrading weapons, communications and propulsion systems beyond the extra 10 years the boats are planned to get as part of a so-called Life of Type of Extension. One defence industry source said the hulls of the vessels were good for another 20 years because they had been relatively lightly used. Senator Reynolds’ admission to hospital has sparked speculation among her colleagues and the defence industry about whether she will hang on as minister. Although Mr Morrison has given no indication he will sack her, her hospitalisation might be an excuse to bow out gracefully. A frequent industry criticism is that as a former brigadier in the army reserve, Senator Reynolds is too deferential to military chiefs higher up the chain of command. “She has forgotten or never realised she is the boss,” one industry source said.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

il y a 23 minutes, herciv a dit :

Aucune idée.

Je ne suis pas l'affaire de près, mais selon ce blog d'ex-sous marinier australien (plutôt pro soum japonais ou US à titre personnel), le contrat serait plutôt généreux pour Naval Group.
Il aurait été conclu (trop?) rapidement avec Naval Group, pour avoir un argument électoral (retombées industrielles massives promises en Australie du sud -> plus le contrat est cher, mieux c'était).

Depuis, ils regrettent un peu, et ça grogne mais le contrat serait blindé ... (et la province australienne qui fera la construction défend sa manne)
Et la concurrence serait à la ramasse (sauf au niveau des campagnes de presse hostiles).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-25/company-building-australias-submarines-local-content-rules/13189608

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/02/turnbulls-election-winning-sub-deal.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/02/naval-group-criticized-in-australian.html

Note : ce blog n'est sans doute pas vendu à Naval Group : il est ouvertement sceptique sur notre capacité à conduire simultanément le programme australien, le SNA Barracuda, ET le nouveau SNLE 3G fraichement annoncé .

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/02/frances-new-ssbn-aus-attack-class-2nd.html

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pas trop d'accord, parce que ce blog que je suis depuis longtemps est très très citrique vis-à-vis de la France. Regarde par exemple la féminisation du personnel sous-marinier. Où la France est-elle simplement évoquée ? Entre autres, avec le commentaire sur le Suffren...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Le 25/02/2021 à 12:59, mudrets a dit :

Pas trop d'accord, parce que ce blog que je suis depuis longtemps est très très citrique vis-à-vis de la France. Regarde par exemple la féminisation du personnel sous-marinier. Où la France est-elle simplement évoquée ? Entre autres, avec le commentaire sur le Suffren...

Je ne comprends pas ta réponse au commentaire de Rogue0.

C'est justement exactement ce que dit Rogue0. Que l'auteur du blog est assez hostile au contrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Il y a 5 heures, mudrets a dit :

On s'est alors mal compris ! 

De fait, il est toujours prêt au French Bashing

Mes excuses à Rogue0:smile:

pas de problème, ça sera 20 pompes pour la peine :)

Sérieusement, oui il est critique de la France ... mais même lui ne pense pas que le contrat soit réellement menacé (sauf chute du gouvernement australien, ou si les USA se mettent à la fabrication de SSK)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Les pompes sont faites ! 

Le plus drôle dans l'affaire, c'est qu'il voit maintenant Canada et Australie acheter des SNA français ...

Encore plus drôle, c'est que si le contrat capote, que va faire Lockheed Martin, le concepteur du système de combat ?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

il y a 7 minutes, mudrets a dit :

Encore plus drôle, c'est que si le contrat capote, que va faire Lockheed Martin, le concepteur du système de combat ?

Un autre système?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L'éditorial de l'Australian (cité par bribes dans l'article posté ci-dessus) :

Citation

Short of nuclear subs, we won’t do better than the French Naval Group deal

GREG SHERIDAN

Australia’s 12 French Naval Group submarines are on budget and on time, according to the Australian National Audit Office.

But wait! There’s more. Far from experiencing a cost blowout, there have been cost savings in the past 12 months. This is confirmed by comparing the 2020-21 defence portfolio additional estimates with the 2019-20 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The French subs have been subject to the most hysterical, fact-free campaign of demonisation that I’ve seen for any major defence project. The government has failed appallingly in broadcasting a consistent narrative on subs. As much as any nation in the world, Australia needs submarines. Because of our geography they have to be long range.

The best long-range subs are nuclear-powered but there is no prospect at all, none, that we could get nuclear subs without a nuclear industry. No country that has nuclear subs does not have some nuclear industry. You need hundreds of nuclear-qualified engineers and technicians to run them, elaborate nuclear facilities to sustain them and an established, bipartisan political consensus. I support nuclear energy. I wrote my first column advocating it more than 40 years ago. But we cannot wait until we win the nuclear debate before we get new subs.

The costs of the French subs are reasonable, indeed inevitable. They have not blown out. Before the competitive evaluation process chose the French and we decided on a fleet of 12 subs and that we would build them in Australia, Defence officials told a Senate estimates committee the total cost of the project might be around $50bn in out-turned dollars.

The difference between constant price and out-turned dollars is critical in all the confusion.

Cutting metal for the subs is due to begin in 2023. The first boat will be fully approved for service in 2034. The last will be commissioned in the early 2050s.

Out-turned dollars is a concept that takes account of inflation, currency valuations and the like over the time span under consideration. So a 2016 figure of $50bn is calculated as about $90bn in out-turned dollars by the 2050s. The constant slide between these different types of dollars has led to much of the confusion.

The government announced the program in early 2016. By then we knew it was 12 subs, regionally superior in performance and range, built entirely in Australia as the heart of a new naval shipbuilding industry. Naturally, that’s expensive.

The cost estimate for this was $50bn in 2016 constant dollars. That is still the estimate today. Costs have not risen since then. Everything you have heard to the effect that there have been cost blowouts is simply wrong.

The figure of 2016 $50bn constant translates into $90bn out-turned. The drop in costs I mentioned at the start comes from $89.7bn in out-turned dollars in MYEFO to $88.5bn in the 2020-21 additional portfolio estimates. So that’s nearly $1.5bn we’ve saved.

In fact, it must surely be more than that. In May the Finance Department said the costs estimate had risen from $80bn to $90bn in out-turned dollars because of currency movements. At that time, the Aussie dollar was worth US64c and 58 euro cents. Now the Aussie is worth US80c and 65 euro cents. So you can be just about sure that the cost has fallen further by billions of dollars.

In reality, these out-turned figures are entirely notional. Who knows what a dollar will be worth in 2050? There is a lifetime operations and sustainment cost for the subs of some $145bn in out-turned dollars. Add that to $90bn out-turned dollars for construction and you get an eye-watering $235bn. But if the last boat is commissioned in 2050 it will stay in operation until the 2080s.

That means we are making cost estimates over a longer period than between the Boer War and the Beatles. That’s nuts, entirely meaningless, pure gobbledygook. Yet it is used as an argument against the subs. There is simply no way we can produce a regionally superior sub, built in Australia, much cheaper than we are now. The competitive evaluation process thought all bidders — French, German and Japanese — would end up costing comparable amounts. So would any alternative. There is no off-the-shelf sub that does what Australia needs. That means there has to be a new design.

A huge part of the cost goes not to the submarine manufacturer but to Lockheed Martin, which will provide the magnificent US combat system. Buying that, integrating it into a new sub and making it work will cost many billions of dollars, no matter which sub we build.

Building in Australia also costs. But there are four compelling reasons for building here.

In such a complex, people-centric system as a sub, you can maintain it much better if you build it yourself. Second, we saw even in COVID that international supply chains are fragile. We need to be able to build and sustain our most important defence gear ourselves, where possible. Third, it’s the heart of a new industry. And perhaps most important, with huge defence programs, if you don’t spend most of the dollars in Australia you risk having insufficient political weight to keep the program going. Governments searching for money endlessly postpone such projects.

This is what happened to the subs under the Rudd and Gillard governments. The previous Labor government is the real villain of our subs troubles. Six years of doing absolutely nothing of consequence about subs under Labor put us so far behind.

And there are no short cuts. The government is examining a Swedish alternative to Naval Group. This is probably designed to keep the French honest. If we pull out now and start all over again the government completely humiliates itself, massively dislocates industry and demonstrates that six years of Coalition government have been as worthless and costly as six years of Labor. And we will wait even more years.

We are about to sign the next work phase contract with the French, so this is the last off-ramp. We should avoid it.

That’s not to say the French can’t be difficult. But Naval Group is one of the most powerful submarine building companies in the world. As Admiral James Goldrick puts it, subs are the “apex predators of maritime conflict”. They are our most important military capability, our only real offensive capability. The program should give us the world’s best conventional submarines — unless we destroy it with hopeless politics, uninformed comment, narrative inattention and government dilatoriness.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/short-of-nuclear-subs-we-wont-do-better-than-the-french-naval-group-deal/news-story/bc0949f4e36dfafc0a0a19f720d2db97

S'il faut rappeler la différence entre prix courant et prix constant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Malgré les récurrents bruits de chio**es, ca semble être une affaire qui avance le contrat "attack"

Sous-marins australiens : Naval Group s’engage sur le niveau du contenu local

© Mer et Marine https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/sous-marins-australiens-naval-group-sengage-sur-le-niveau-du-contenu-local?xtor=EPR-56-20120118[Newsletter_V2_Drupal]-20210324-[_2]

"Le gouvernement australien et Naval Group ont signé hier un accord portant sur le volume des retombées du programme des futurs sous-marins de la Royal Australian Navy (RAN) sur l’économie nationale. Après avoir évoqué ce chiffre comme objectif à atteindre, l’industriel français s’est cette fois formellement engagé à ce qu’au moins 60% de la valeur du contrat revienne à des entreprises australiennes."

"Et bien entendu, ce projet colossal est régulièrement instrumentalisé à des fins politiciennes. Sans oublier en coulisses d’anciens concurrents et leurs réseaux locaux toujours prêts à mettre de l’huile sur le feu dans l’espoir de voir capoter l’affaire."
 

Edited by Bon Plan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Le 24/03/2021 à 08:36, Bon Plan a dit :

Malgré les récurrents bruits de chio**es, ca semble être une affaire qui avance le contrat "attack"

Sous-marins australiens : Naval Group s’engage sur le niveau du contenu local

© Mer et Marine https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/sous-marins-australiens-naval-group-sengage-sur-le-niveau-du-contenu-local?xtor=EPR-56-20120118[Newsletter_V2_Drupal]-20210324-[_2]

"Le gouvernement australien et Naval Group ont signé hier un accord portant sur le volume des retombées du programme des futurs sous-marins de la Royal Australian Navy (RAN) sur l’économie nationale. Après avoir évoqué ce chiffre comme objectif à atteindre, l’industriel français s’est cette fois formellement engagé à ce qu’au moins 60% de la valeur du contrat revienne à des entreprises australiennes."

"Et bien entendu, ce projet colossal est régulièrement instrumentalisé à des fins politiciennes. Sans oublier en coulisses d’anciens concurrents et leurs réseaux locaux toujours prêts à mettre de l’huile sur le feu dans l’espoir de voir capoter l’affaire."
 

Le même refrain du point de vue australien:

Le contrat est quasiment verrouillé.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/french-submarines-all-but-locked-in-after-negotiation-breakthrough-20210302-p5771h.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/03/confirmed-australia-sticking-with-naval.html

Même le remaniement ministériel (affaire de moeurs) n'aura pas grand impact sur le contrat.
Attention quand même, y aura probablement des élections d'ici la fin de l'année ...

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/03/australian-ministerial-reshuffle-women.html

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Il y a 1 heure, rogue0 a dit :

Le même refrain du point de vue australien:

Le contrat est quasiment verrouillé.

Le blogueur de gentleseas est toujours aussi hostile à ce projet à ce que je vois.
"After 3 weeks of customer beatup" (sic)
Non mais franchement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Il y a 10 heures, rogue0 a dit :

Le même refrain du point de vue australien:

Le contrat est quasiment verrouillé.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/french-submarines-all-but-locked-in-after-negotiation-breakthrough-20210302-p5771h.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/03/confirmed-australia-sticking-with-naval.html

Même le remaniement ministériel (affaire de moeurs) n'aura pas grand impact sur le contrat.
Attention quand même, y aura probablement des élections d'ici la fin de l'année ...

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2021/03/australian-ministerial-reshuffle-women.html

Plus le temps passe mieux c'est verrouillé : le temps passé, bien utilisé par Naval Group, ne pourraient être récupéré par n'importe quel autre compétiteur.  Or la menace de la marine chinoise est de plus en plus présente.

Il faut juste que Naval Group continue a bien bosser sans vouloir s'engraisser.

Et je ne serais pas surpris qu'une partie des 12 prévus finissent pas être demandés en version nuc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Il y a 1 heure, clem200 a dit :

Je n'aime pas le titre. Il me semble que c'était convenu au contrat initial, ce n'est pas une fleure faire pour rester dans la course 

C'était peut être convenu au départ, mais si NG a eu du mal à trouver des sous traitants de qualité locaux, la tentation a peut être été de reculer sur cet objectif...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Member Statistics

    5,644
    Total Members
    1,550
    Most Online
    Mehdi2909
    Newest Member
    Mehdi2909
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    21.3k
    Total Topics
    1.4m
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    4
    Total Blogs
    3
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...