French shipbuilder DCNS hoping to clinch Australia’s future submarine project with Shortfin Barracuda subs

NAMED after an agile fish in the Great Barrier Reef, French shipbuilder DCNS is hoping it can entice Australia to snare its fleet of “Shortfin Barracuda” submarines for our future submarines project.

• Siemens backs call to build subs in SA
• Senator Nick Xenophon warns Japanese submarine makers
• Thyssen Krupp says it wants to buy Adelaide’s ASC

FRENCH shipbuilder DCNS wants to build a fleet of “Shortfin Barracuda” submarines for Australia to take to war, gather intelligence and protect the nation and its trading routes.

The Advertiser can reveal that the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A design, which is more than 90m long and displaces more than 4000 tonnes, is the French bid for the $50 billion Future Submarines project.

The name comes from a fish indigenous to the Great Barrier Reef and DCNS claims it will be “the world’s most advanced conventionally powered submarine”.

German shipbuilder TKMS and Japan are competing with France to win the project.

Japan is reportedly working on the “Goryu”, or “Australian Dragon”.

The three nations are taking part in the Government’s competitive evaluation process.

DCNS chief executive officer Sean Costello, a former senior one-time adviser to former defence minister David Johnston, said the company had named all of its ships and submarines after marine life.

“On that theme, we were already building the (nuclear-powered) Barracuda for the French Navy,” he said.

“We did our research and found the species of barracuda in the reef is known as the shortfin barracuda.”

The Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A would be slightly smaller than the existing Barracuda-class submarine.

At least eight subs are expected to be built. Mr Costello said they would be able to build as many submarines as Australia decided it needed. They would also be able to incorporate new and improved technology as they went.

The Coalition had promised before the election to build 12 submarines in South AustraliaSA, delivering jobs and billions of dollars into the economy.

But they’ve claimed that when they came to power, they realised the former Labor government had not done enough on the project so they were forced to consider an international partner and an offshore or hybrid build.

As political pressure built over the backdown, Senator Johnston declared that Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC couldn’t be trusted to “build a canoe”.

He was then replaced by Kevin Andrews as Defence Minister and shortly after, the Government announced the Competitive Evaluation Process — which involves the three contenders each pitching three options: an onshore, offshore, or hybrid build.

Mr Costello said DCNS could “absolutely” build onshore, that they respected ASC and its capabilities, and that they were also determined to ensure there was a strong supply chain in Australia.

“Each program of build, whether you build offshore, whether you build in Australia, or whether you build in a hybrid model (which will still be basically in Australia), will create a different schedule, a different cost and, most importantly, different benefits,” Mr Costello said.

“The supply chain for the submarines is just as important as the build location. We need the supply chain in Australia to support them over their 30 to 40 year life cycle.”

Many details of the submarine are being kept secret for security reasons, while many details of the bid are secret for commercial reasons.

But the French are happy to share their secrets with Australia, and Australia has released classified information to the DCNS and the French Government.

By the end of the year, the Government will have selected its international partner, while more details of the project will be published in August in the Defence White Paper and the Naval Shipbuilding Plan.

The submarines will replace Australia’s Collins Class submarines, which are due to retire by the mid 2020s, but their lives may have to be extended until the mid 2030s.

Insiders have long suspected that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had already made a “handshake deal” with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to give Japan the deal. It became known as “Option J”.

However, political pressure from those who believe Option J would mean an offshore build and fewer jobs for SA, and doubts about Japan’s willingness and ability to sell its Defence technology, means all three submarine options are now on the table.

Labor has accused Mr Abbott of neglecting SA because of the “broken promise” on submarines and the subsequent job losses, while the Government claims thatLabor didn’t not make decisions early enough, so it is their “valley of death”.

SA Senator Penny Wong said yesterday that Mr Abbott had “given up” on SA.

“He’s accepted the Liberal Party is on the nose and it’s not worth his time trying to win back support,” she said.

“He’s has consistently attacked every industry that underpins SA’s economy,” she said. He drove away the car industry, threw the renewable energy industry into free fall and has tried to send our shipbuilding industry overseas.”

But Mr Andrews said “all we hear from the Labor Party is negativity”.

“I encourage Mr Shorten and Labor to join with the Government and present a united voice promoting (to promote) Australia as a great place to do business and to promote our skilled shipbuilding workforce in a positive manner,” he said.

 

THE OPTIONS

Earlier this year the Federal Government announced a Competitive Evaluation Process.

Under the CEP, each of the three contenders to build the Future Submarines — the French, the Germans and the Japanese — has to propose three options. An onshore, offshore, or hybrid build. Each of these options will have different costs, benefits, and risks. The Government will determine both who gets the $50 billion project and which of the three options they will use.

 

ONSHORE

Under an onshore build, the work from the keel up will be done in Australia. The international design partner will send experts over here to help local industry.

The Opposition, the industry, and others are calling for an onshore build because that’s what was originally promised by the Coalition, and they believe this is the option that will deliver the most jobs and money for Australia, particularly South Australia.

 

OFFSHORE

An offshore build would mean the whole project is done overseas, in whichever country wins the CEP.

While both Germany and France have said they would be happy to build here in Australia, the same assurance has not come from the Japanese, and many are worried that an offshore Japanese build is the one the Government is tending towards.

That would mean the expertise, jobs and money for the build mostly goes to Japan, although the Government says most of the $50 billion will be for sustaining the submarines, which will happen in Australia.

 

HYBRID

Under a hybrid build, the first submarine would be built overseas, but Australians would go over to learn the processes. As Australia acquires the skills and capabilities to do more of the building, the process would be transferred to Australia.

The benefits for Australia would depend proportionally on how much work is done with Australians.

However, a hybrid build could also mean Australian shipbuilders can get to work straight away in a shipyard overseas.