Posts

Are our Navy Frigates going the same way as cancelled submarines? 

,

It has been revealed that our Navy frigate program is facing big problems, with fears they will be underpowered, unable to run propulsion and radar at the same time and have serious flooding design flaws. 

One Nation led calls with other Senators to ditch the expensive French submarine duds. Defence acquisitions doesn’t have a great track record, will these frigates follow the same path as the submarines? 

Transcript

[Chair] Please Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Roberts] Thank you chair, and thank you for appearing today. We’re pleased that the government has at last listened to and cancelled the submarine contract. What was the cost to Australia as a result of cancellation of the French submarine contract?

[Dalton]Senator Roberts expenditure to date on the attack class submarine programme was $2.4 billion. We’re in a process of negotiating with the two prime contracts, Naval group and Lockheed Martin Australia, the transition out of those contracts, that they’re sensitive negotiations, you’ll understand,

[Roberts] Yeah, I can. that we don’t want to talk about how that might play out in terms of dollar figures.

[Roberts] Sometimes I might argue, but not then. What progress has been made in determining the future of Naval defence procurement of submarines and other hardware options?

[Dalton] In what sense?

[Roberts] How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again?

[Mead] Senator, Vice Admiral, Jonathan Mead, I’m the chief of the nuclear power submarine task force. And I’ve been empowered to deliver a nuclear powered submarine capability for the Australian government, for Australia. So since the 16th of September, 2021 the task force working with other government departments and working with our US and UK partners, have made excellent progress in order to get to an important milestone, in beginning of 2023 so that we can identify the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire these nuclear powered submarines. I would just like to sort of emphasise that the pathway is more than just the actual platform. The platform is something that we can readily identify

[Roberts] Excuse me, platform being the boat itself?

[Mead] Correct, the actual submarine itself there Senator. But first and foremost, we need to satisfy a number of prerequisites. I can’t emphasise this enough, the safety and the security aspects associated with anything nuclear, but particularly nuclear powered submarines, need to be recognised with every aspect of the programme. And we, you Senator, the Australian public would absolutely expect that the department and the government would keep safety and security at the top of our requirements. So we’re working with our US and UK partners. There is a very significant series of delegations in Australia right now, combined US and UK teams. There are three specific delegations that are in Australia, two right now, they’ve been in Canberra talking to defence officials, obviously talking to the task force, talking to other government departments. They have gone down to Melbourne. They’ve gone down to Adelaide and had significant discussions with ASC, ANI, they’ve looked at the shipyards. They’re talking to workers down there. There is an another delegation, from the US and UK, that have just arrived. And late next week, there’ll be an even more senior delegation where I will take them down to Adelaide, and I will host, what’s called a joint steering group. That is a key decision body, a recommending body, that assesses the risks and the progress of what we are working on. This will be the third such steering group, I went to Washington in December of last year, where we had the first joint steering group. We did a virtual one in January of this year, and I’ll host the third one in late February. We are making very good progress. There are a number of key areas that we are working on right now. I’ll put the platform aside. But these absolutely support the platform itself. We are working on strategy and legal aspects and we are working on education, training, opportunities, the workforce. So you’ll know we’ve identified a scholarship programme, 300 scholarships over the next five years. We’re sending people as I speak, Australian Navy officers, to University of New South Wales to do nuclear engineering degrees, nuclear science degrees. We’re sending people overseas to do degrees at MIT. We’ve got a scholarship programme within the department of defence. We are a scholarship programme with STEM for cadets.

[Roberts] All right, what aren’t you doing?

[Roberts] So I welcome your comments about safety. As far as I know, the nuclear powered submarines have been around for decades. So, and coming from the Americans and the British.

[Mead] That’s correct. So US, UK have been operating nuclear powered submarines for about 60 years. We intend to leverage off their impeccable safety record, but I do want to emphasise that safety and security, when you’re dealing with nuclear, nuclear power, nuclear powered submarines must be afforded absolute priority, Senator.

[Roberts] We’re pleased to hear that. Senator Hanson and I support the nuclear decision, it seems very sensible to us, so that’s not a concern, but it is something new to Australia, so that’s obviously a risk. Has Australia done it again, this is in general to defence again, has Australia done it again by entering into the $45 billion contract for the hunter class frigates, already described as expensive duds by some, that will be slower than called for and underpowered, in terms of running its radar systems at the same time as operational propulsion systems?

Senator Roberts I’ll invite Mr. Dalton, seeing as he’s still at the table to respond, at least at a high level to that commentary, noting that quite a bit of detail has been covered already this morning on that project.

[Dalton] Senator, I think we’ve spent the last hour and a half discussing in quite some detail, some of those issues that we’re managing around the hunter class frigate. I would say that the projected total acquisition cost of the programme is $45 billion. That is not the contract value, and that is not the current approved value. So we’re taking much smaller bites as we go along, but

[Roberts] Depending upon success?

[Dalton] Yeah, that’s part of it. But I think you know, the discussion that we’ve had today demonstrates that we’re on a process, a design process, that is structured to manage risks and we, and the chief of Navy, has already testified this morning that he is confident that the hunter class frigate will fulfil the needs that the Navy has for a modern, state of the art frigate, optimised for anti-submarine warfare.

[Roberts] Okay. So I’ll keep my questions short out of respect for everyone here. Is it true that there are risks to the crew in the event of flooding or fires?

[Dalton] Again, Senator we don’t think that’s a likely outcome in the final design. We’re working through some risks that have come up, in the design process and looking at what’s happened.

[Roberts] So there are some risks, but you’re hoping to manage them?

[Dalton] There’s always risk. These are war ships, they go in harm’s way. And what we’re looking at is how do we mitigate best those risks and what happens when the ship is damaged. So we are making sure that when the ship is damaged, that the risks are absolutely mitigated as much as we possibly can. But we should not be fooled. These ships are designed to go into combat and combat can create damage.

[Roberts] I accept that, but if there are inherent flaws, before they even reach combat, that make them even more vulnerable, that’s my concern.

[Dalton] Senator what we’ve canvased this morning, at some length is in terms of those media reports being informed off of some documentation, which was work done by defence, seeking to identify extensively the potential risks faced in relation to the Type 26 and the hunter class that will be built across the type 26. Importantly, as officials have outlined, that report didn’t go into the detail of the type of mitigations and other work that is equally being done to manage and address those risks, which importantly is being done on the type 26 platform and of course on the hunter class platform.

[Roberts] So thank you, minister, it seems then that these problems were foreseen before the contracts were entered into, in review?

[Woman] No.

Senator Roberts, as a few people have addressed already this morning, these are always highly complicated procurement activities, design and build activities, that all come with risk. Nobody should think that there is a risk-free proposition in relation to building a highly sophisticated war ship.

[Roberts] We’ve just come off several, and the submarines we’ve been talking about this morning, several damaging processes in defence, so will the frigates go the same way as the sub’s, what’s your level of confidence?

[Birmingham] No Senator, they won’t, we do have a level of confidence there and the systems in terms of design finalisation and moving into the build stages, are systems that are built having learnt lessons from previous procurement decisions. The fact that defence is clearly undertaking the type of risk assessment work that has been discussed this morning is a plus. We should all be pleased for the fact that they are identifying those risks and working through them at these early stages, while we are still in design stages, where such mitigations can be pursued. These are some of – it’s similar in the sense that, you know this is a project, where right now the work that is being undertaken in Australia, is prototyping work. That’s a lesson learnt from the past, in terms of ensuring that we test those build systems before we get to a point where you have actually created a bigger problem in the build undertaking that could have been rectified if you’d learnt those lessons before through activities such as prototyping.

[Roberts] So these are my last questions on this topic. Are these fresh designs or are they rebuilding or modifying an established design?

[Birmingham] Perhaps I’ll let Mr. Dalton explain that again.

[Dalton] So the frigate, the hunter class frigate is based on the United Kingdom’s type 26 reference ship design. That is different from what we were doing in the attack class submarine programme, where the attack class submarine was a new design submarine. It evolves from previous ones, but it was a new design for Australia. And I would say Senator, that the attack class submarine programme, you know the government has made, you know, a very brave decision in light of changing strategic circumstances and that revolves around how we could employ conventionally powered submarines in high risk environments, high threat environments in the 2040’s, in 2050’s. The decision to move away from the attack class submarine programme was not based on the performance of the attack class submarine project, it’s based on the changing strategic circumstances that Australia finds itself in. So I don’t think you can compare those, you know to say that the programmes are broken because we’ve moved on from the attack class submarine programme.

[Roberts] The changing strategic circumstances we find ourselves in and the changing availability of capability to Australia.

[Dalton] Exactly.

[Roberts] Yeah. The last question.

I’ll come back. Do you want me to do it now?

[Ross] You have the changing security control requirements getting worse, but a delivery date.

[Chair] Tells me about another five minutes so we might just sit over time for a short while.

[Roberts] Last question on submarines. Has a live torpedo ever been fired from a Collins class sub?

[Dalton] Yes.

[Roberts] Have all the torpedo’s been unarmed dummies?

[Dalton] We can show you pictures Senator.

[Roberts] Sorry?

[Dalton] Yes.

/by

COP26 a Cop Out

,

Well it’s the same old story with Glasgow. Billionaires are going to fly their fuel guzzling private jets to a lavish party to declare you’re not allowed to run your two stroke motor. It’s all a scam designed to transfer your money to their pockets.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts joins us every Thursday. Good day, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul]

All right, thank you. I think we know who’s behind, perhaps, some of the, I’m gonna word this very carefully. Recoveries, if you like, in the expense of Australia spending time at the COP26. I’ve been sent a whole stack of photos of Santos billboards. I mean, I don’t get it. Why is Santos, a fossil fuel company, being promoted by the Australian government at COP26? It’s outrageous.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’ve got a deeper question for you.

[Marcus Paul]

No, no, hang on. Can you answer that though? I just–

[Malcolm Roberts]

I don’t know, Marcus. I honestly don’t know.

[Marcus Paul]

Can you ask next time you’re in the–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah.

[Marcus Paul]

Find out for me because I just think it’s ridiculous.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, yeah, but what’s even more ridiculous is there’s no resolution at Glasgow, which doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s as I thought it would be because the biggest hydrocarbon users and the biggest producers of carbon dioxide in the world are either not there or telling Joe Biden and Co. to stick it. In fact, Joe Biden’s own country and his own party, the Democrats in America are laughing at him and saying, we are not signing this mate, go away. That’s the state of West Virginia. Entirely democratic state. Powerfully democratic state saying, go to hell Joe. And so we’ve got China not turning up. We’ve got India not turning up, and India saying they won’t do anything until 2070. We’ve got Brazil, Russia, South Korea, the largest producers of carbon dioxide in the world saying, go to hell. Now, well, you got to ask that question, Marcus. I know you’re a lefty, but you gotta ask the question. Why no resolution? I’ll tell you why. There is no data underpinning this. It is a scam. There is no objectivity. If there was data, Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Scott Morrison would all say, here it is. Go and do something about it. And everyone would say, God, he’s got a good question. Let’s go and do it. Now listen. China is the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide. It’s saying, go away. We’re not gonna wreck our economy for this rubbish. There’s no science behind it. France is saying Australia, you must do something. You must save the planet. You must fulfil your responsibility. France is powered by nuclear energy. It is not gonna have anything to lose. This is going to destroy our country because the Paris agreement, there was no agreement. It was a scam and the countries could not resolve anything. And what they agreed on was to go away and come back with your own commitments. We came back with a commitment under Malcolm Turnbull to destroy our economy. China said, go to hell. America pulled out of it under Trump. What we’ve got is a massive scam here. And by the way, have you still not found anyone to debate me?

[Marcus Paul]

Hang on, hang on. Before I get to that–

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m still waiting.

[Marcus Paul]

I know. You say Glasgow has been a fizzer with no deal. It showcases the hypocrisy, deceit, theft and government’s lack of integrity and accountability on this. You talk again that no one has the evidence and all the rest of it. And maybe that’s true. Maybe that’s true. But again, I come back to my question. What are Santos doing there on billboards?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, there are many big question need to be asked about this. You can ask that question about Santos, and I’ll be happy to ask that question. It’s Santos looking after it’s own interests, but what about the people putting up lies about climate and costing the human race to pay for this rubbish? It’s a massive fraud to take money off the people. Look, you’ve got billionaires screaming in on their private jets. We’ve got 25,000 people jetting in from all over the world.

[Marcus Paul]

255 private planes, Malcolm. 250 private jet airlines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I read the figures were 400 at the damn thing.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, there you go, even more.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, and so what we’ve got is no scientific evidence. We’ve got huge costs. No impact whatsoever from any agreement that Australia will sign. We’ve got other people laughing at us. We’ve got the major producers of carbon dioxide, China, South Korea, Russia, Brazil, India, doing nothing and the poor yet again, will pay the price for the rich to get richer. We’ve got Malcolm Turnbull. Tim Flannery, who’s the clown climate scientist. We’ve got Tim Flannery, and we’ve got the millionaires like Twiggy Forrest jetting in there because Twiggy Forrest and other billionaires are the ones making money or looking to make money out of this. And we will be paying for it. The average bloke in this country will be paying for it. And the sheer hypocrisy, the sheer hypocrisy of what’s going on, and people are starting to wake up. It is absolutely disgraceful.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, as well as stealing farmers’ property rights, government climate policies, you say have destroyed the electricity sector taking us from the world’s cheapest to the most expensive. It’s gutted manufacturing and added, as you and I have mentioned many times, $1,300 per year to average households’ electricity bills.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, but you know there’s a been a very good development. Last year in 2020 in August, I invited 19 politicians who have been calling for cuts to carbon dioxide from human activity in Australia, prominent politicians, all federal. I asked them for their evidence. Not one provided me with any evidence, not one. Four replied. One of them thought he presented the science. I ripped it to shreds. That was Trent Zimmerman. Ripped it to shreds. He did not come back. Morison, Littleproud. And Karen Andrews replied with nonsense, absolute nonsense. And that is just not acceptable. That justifies the fact that there’s no evidence. Now, but there is some hope. I also invited 10 people to provide me with the evidence, and they came back and they said, there has never been presented any such evidence to them in parliament or to their parties. And I’ll read out the names of these people because they have shown integrity and they are showing courage. Lew O’Brien, National Party. Craig Kelly, then a liberal, now no longer a liberal. Kevin Andrews, a liberal. Senator Eric Abetz, a liberal. George Christensen, a National. Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, from your state, New South Wales, a strong liberal. Bob Katter, Katter Australia Party. Senator Pauline Hanson. Senator Gerard Rennick, a liberal. I also got one Labor MP, a Senator actually, who promised to send me the article, send me his response saying that he’s never been given any evidence, but he withdrew at the last minute because I’m guessing he was afraid of the backlash. What we’ve got is we’ve got these senators, these MPs, willing to state in public that they have never, ever been given any evidence from their party nor from the parliament. And I just remind you too, that John Howard, who brought in, disgusting government, brought in these policies that are now gutting our country, stole farmer’s property rights, went around the constitution to do it and he has admitted six years after he got the boot from Bennelong and the prime ministership, he admitted that on the topic of climate science, he is agnostic. In other words, he’s got no science. All of this was started by the John Howard government. And that is what they did not have the science, they’ve admitted it. The father of the Senate, Ian McDonald at the time in 2016, stood up in December, 2016, looked across the chamber at me and said, I don’t always agree with Senator Roberts, but I have to give him the credit for starting the debate on climate science that this parliament has never had. Marcus, there is no evidence for any of this crap. None of what-so-ever.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, why then Malcolm, is nobody seemingly listening to you and those aforementioned politicians that you’ve just summarised for us?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Because parliaments are no longer accountable to the people. Parliaments serve the parties. Parliament serve the party donors. And we have got to get back to the parliament serving the country, holding parliaments accountable. We have a bunch of sheep in parliament. We have gutless, ignorant, insecure, dishonest people representing the country. That’s the bottom line. We have got to change parliament, get the minor parties into parliament, get some independents in the parliament and hold the major parties accountable. We have got to change parliament. People have got to stop voting for the same old donkeys and the labor, liberal, greens, national parties.

[Marcus Paul]

All right. Just before I let you go, we know that diplomacy is important on a global scale for a whole range of reasons. Just taking the climate debate out of it, but you know, the defence. What do you make of the current spat between Australia and France?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Again, Marcus, it’s not based on evidence. It’s not based on solid data. It’s just been a game. Greg Sheridan, who I’ve got to some respect for who writes in the Australian. I know it’s News Corp and you don’t go with the News Corp.

[Marcus Paul]

Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So do I, so do I, mate. I agree with you, but Greg Sheridan writes occasionally good articles.

[Marcus Paul]

Don’t be like that. Don’t be like that. When you say I don’t go with News Corp, I just think they’re a little bias, that’s all. I mean–

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, yeah, they are in some ways. Every paper has it’s bias.

[Marcus Paul]

But we all are. That’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And anyway, Greg Sheridan points out that this submarine issue goes from one government to the next. It’s never based on sound data. It’s just an emotional ploy to get people in to think that we’re doing the right thing for security. And the government, and he said he bets that they will never ever build a submarine in this country. He bets that there’ll never be a proper submarine fleet that we can call our own. He bets that that’ll just be passed from one government to the next. And the reason that happens is that there’s no data driving decisions. Decisions in parliament are opinion-based, ideologically based rather than databased. We are not in parliament in this country under labor, liberal, nationals and greens. People are making decisions based on ideology, emotions, grabbing headlines, getting votes rather than what the people need. We have got to change parliament.

[Marcus Paul]

Thank you, Malcolm. Appreciate it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks mate.

[Marcus Paul]

Have a good day, there he is. One Nations, Senator Malcolm, Robert.

/4 Comments/by

Can we afford $220 billion Submarines right now? Department of Defence at Senate Estimates

, ,

CANCEL THE $220 BILLION SUBS CONTRACT

It is currently estimated that the Future Attack Submarines the government wants to buy will cost $220 billion including construction and ongoing service. We aren’t expecting to see the first one in the water until 2032 and the final one sometime in the 2040s.

They are outrageously expensive, will be obsolete by the time they hit the water and aren’t even nuclear powered. Don’t just take my word for it, almost every expert adviser and person outside the government has said they must be cancelled.

Transcript

[Chair]

As the call.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you Chair, thank you all for being here today. My first, the questions are about the Attack Submarines Contract. Given that some estimates of the final cost to Australia for this Attack Submarine fleet of 12 subs may run to more than $200 billion over the life of the subs. For example, the Managing SEA 1000 document is Australia’s Attack Class Submarines, February, 2020. Why is this considered good value for money in the face of wide criticism from reputable experts on the government appointed Naval Shipbuilding Advisory Board, which included admirals and others. The board advised the government to consider terminating the contract with Builders Naval Group.

[Greg Sammut]

Greg Sammut, General Manager Submarines. Senator, the board didn’t recommend terminating the contract with Naval Group. They recommended that we make sure that we are managing our risks properly as we continue our work to get into contract with Naval Group and talked about the best alternative to a negotiated outcome when they made their recommendations. What actually occurred was, we reached a negotiated outcome with Naval Group. We entered into contract with them and as the auditor general concluded, we have established within the strategic partnering agreement. A fit for purpose strategic framework for meeting the government’s objectives for the future submarine programme.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. You raise the word risks and that report raised risks, that committee meeting. If the last sub will be delivered in the 2040s and the first delivery estimated to be in 2032, ’33, won’t these subs be obsolete by the time they’re ready for the water.

[Greg Sammut]

No Senator, they won’t be obsolete by the time they enter the water we’re designing these boats now to meet Navy’s capability requirements. Those requirements contemplate a submarine that has to operate within the timeframes of delivery. We’re also designing this submarine to have appropriate margins, such that through life new technologies as they sufficiently mature can be incorporated into the submarines to keep them regionally superior throughout their service life.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the contract was first being considered, is it true that only eight submarines were to be built?

[Greg Sammut]

Not when the contract was being first considered I’ve said previously in Senate estimates that the competitive evaluation process that was initiated in February of 2015, which was established to pick an international partner used an assumption of eight submarines. But as we’ve also said previously to this committee, after the decision was made to commence the committee evaluation process there was a defence White Paper in which the government announced its policy to acquire 12 submarines.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the reason for the change? From eight to 12

[Greg Sammut]

There was a policy decision in the White Paper of 2016 to acquire 12 submarines that followed a process that was underway at that time, called a full structural review that accompanied the defence White Paper of 2016. And through that process, when options were considered for the structure of the defence force, 12 was the number that was decided by government.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The original cost quoted of around 25 billion was that for eight or 12?

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure what original cost you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m told that the original cost of the programme was expected to be around 25 billion.

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not sure where that information ever came from, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

It was widely known that in the early stage of this project that the cost was estimated to be around 55 from memory for 12

[Greg Sammut]

I’m not aware of what you’re referring to, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

What was the original cost of the programme? The very first cost when the contract was set.

[Greg Sammut]

When the contract was set, $50 billion constant, which today in outturn dollars is $88.5 billion that has not changed.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So the $200 billion that some people are estimating, reliable people.

[Greg Sammut]

I think people are endeavouring to estimate not only the acquisition costs but the through life sustainment costs, which will run out to an excessive 2080. And cost that also include I might add, not just material sustainment of the boats but expected costs of crewing, operations and fuel.

And infrastructure.

Infrastructures included in acquisition costs as well, Senator, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How will these subs be cutting edge when they use technology from the 20th century?

[Greg Sammut]

What technology are you referring to, Senator?

[Malcolm Roberts]

This technology of the subs comes from the 20th century.

[Greg Sammut]

Well, Senator, I’ll assume you’re referring to the battery technology that we’re using.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am, ’cause the next question is will these subs be using lead acid or lithium composite battery bank? That’s one of the things, but the technology generally comes from the last century.

[Greg Sammut]

We are using proven technology in these submarines to meet the capability requirements of Navy. And I think that’s what we must understand in the first instance. We’re not making compromises to meeting capability requirements, by simply choosing technologies. We are also being very mindful of the risks that attend the use of new technologies in something as complex as a submarine. So if we were to take the battery as an example, yes, the first batch of submarines will be delivered or at least the first future submarine will be delivered with a lead acid battery. We need make that decision now because if we don’t make that now the boat’s design will not be completed. And if the boat’s design isn’t completed in sufficient time we won’t be able to commence building and deliver the boat by the early 2030s. What’s important to understand is that in choosing the battery technology that we’ve chosen we are still meeting Navy’s capability of requirements when it comes to parameters such as dive endurance, range and so forth. We will continue as we are currently doing now to look at new battery technologies. Indeed we have an established and funded science and technology programme that is looking into a number of battery chemistries, including lithium ion but there are other promising technologies out there such as nickel zinc. When these are sufficiently mature, And we agree that they can be safely incorporated into the submarine to meet the Seaworthiness requirements of Navy which go to the safety of our crews at sea as well as meeting those capability requirements or indeed expanding the capability of the boat because of what advantages that new technology might bring. We will have the option to incorporate that. Because as I said earlier, we are building a submarine with margins to be able to incorporate new technology into the future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, how easily, these questions reflect concerns of our constituents. And they’re very concerned when we look at the government debt right now and what has happened last year, they’re very concerned at the amount of money that’s going towards these subs. And they’re very concerned about the value in particular. How easy will the submarines be located by potential enemies when they’re so large and powered by obsolete diesel engines that apparently are easily heard? I’m not a submariner, but that’s what I understand.

[Greg Sammut]

One of my first response would be that diesel engines aren’t obsolete. Diesel electric submarines throughout the world use diesel engines to generate electricity, to charge batteries, to run the submarine. Again back to the capability requirements of Navy to which we are designing this submarine, it contemplates the threats and the scenarios in which the submarines will be operating. And those requirements have been established to enable the submarine to operate in the environments in which it operates remaining undetected to achieve its mission.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Given the exponential rate of increase or improvement in technology throughout life. Is there any regular or systemic review of the original assumptions?

[Greg Sammut]

We always continue to look at new technologies and what they might bring, not only to the future submarine but the existing submarine capability we have today. And that’s a good example perhaps to use that for your constituents, to understand how we continuously look at the ability to upgrade existing platforms that were produced some time ago. And if you look at any Naval vessel, it generally has a long life. And you’re right Senator, of course technology does evolve over the life of ships or submarines which are typically in service for at least 30 years in many cases. Over that timeframe we have to have the ability in Australia to be able to not only maintain the systems as they’re delivered, but to update them to deal with obsolescence that might emerge as well as upgrade them to take advantage of those new technologies so that we can maintain a capability edge or regional superiority. We do that today with the Collins class, we’re upgrading the Sonar suite in the Collins class, we’re upgrading the communication systems in the Collins class. We continue to manage any obsolescence that may arise in the Collins class because it was designed back in the 1980s. And we have to make sure that it continues to perform well. Life of type extension for the Collins class looks at these very issues where we will look at updating the diesel engines in the boat as well as the main motor and power control and distribution systems in the first instance. So what I’m saying to you is that we don’t design a vessel, deliver it and expect that that’s the way it will remain throughout its service life. It will be updated. It will be upgraded to ensure that it remains a potent and viable capability for the defence of our nation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And you mentioned the Collins class. So let’s go to that. Given the difficulties that have been reported about like for locating enough submariners to man the current Collins class submarines, what’s planned to identify and train enough submariners to man the Attack Class submarines, should they actually be built

[Greg Sammut]

I’ll hand that question to Chief of Navy whose his area of responsibility that falls under

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

Good afternoon Senator, Vice Admiral Michael Noonan, Chief of Navy, with respect to the workforce for our submarine force, we have a growth plan which will allow us to achieve the required manpower to man 12 submarines as the Attack Class come to service.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can you tell us any particulars about that that would give us confidence without divulging anything secret?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

The submarine force has been enduring record growth over the last five years. I currently have over 800 submariners in the trained force which is an increase of almost 50% of where we were 10 years ago. And we have a separation rate from our submarine force at the moment, which is the lowest of any other trade within the Navy. I need to achieve a growth of approximately 50 submariners a year to achieve our target for the introduction of the cones. And we are well on track.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So could you just tell me the expansion, how much it expanded? Was it 50% since when?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

50% in the last 10 years.

[Malcolm Roberts]

10 years. Could we man all of the Collins class submarines 10 years ago?

[Vice Admiral Michael Noonan]

No, we could not.

[Malcolm Roberts]

My final three questions Chair. They’re brief ones, they’re to the minister because they’re matters of policy or opinion. Given minister that the prime minister has just said that the submarine contract will go ahead is this to win votes because of Australian-built content?

[Minister]

Absolutely not, Senator Roberts, as you know and as I think Mr. Sammut has indicated and has been discussed in this committee for some time both during my previous tenure and since. The Australian government and the Australian Defence Organisation, both the ADF and the Defence Organisation itself regard submarines as a vital element of our defence strategy essential to protecting those interests. And we will continue to stand behind the commitment that we have made the partnership that we are invested in and engaging in. We have, as you have noted in passing a very strong policy approach about maximising the Australian industry content, about building submarines here in Australia with Australian steel, with Australian workers. But that aside, Senator, we regard this as a vital element of our strategic approach.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Has the government given… I’ll leave that question. Can Australia afford this in the light of the COVID 19 restrictions from state and federal governments, that recovery will now take enormous effort from our country? Can we still afford it?

[Chair]

How many last questions do you have, Senator Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

One.

[Minister]

Senator, my response to you would be how can we not afford to do it? We must do it in the interests of the factors I put forward to you in response to your previous question and in the context of a COVID-19 recovery, the the impact of the work that we are doing in defence industry and particularly in Naval ship building is absolutely vital in the Australian economy. So I would absolutely respond to you in the affirmative to say we can afford it and we will afford it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So given the risks with technology increasing and improving so much outside the area, as well as inside the area, given that and the cost, and the changing circumstances in Australia isn’t it time to face reality and cancel these particular submarines?

[Minister]

Senator, I don’t agree. And I think Mr. Sammut has done an excellent job of setting out the reasons why including at a highly technical level.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by