New Submarines for Royal Australian Navy-Free-Samples for Students

Question: Why the Australian Government Chose France to Build the New Submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Answer: Introduction In 2016, the Australian government announced its decision to select France to construct new submarines for the countrys royal navy. As expected, the decision was a major blow to competing bidders such as Japan and Germany who offered cheaper and timely deals for the project.[1] The French company is expected to design and build a 4500-tonne conventionally powered version of its 4500-tonne nuclear powered barracuda. It is also expected that the submarine will be designed for high stealth operations and will be ideal for long range missions to deep waters..[2] However, while submitting its bid, the French company warned that it would deliver the submarines at much slower pace and higher overall cost as compared to its competitors. By and large, the decision to choose France over Germany and Japan is controversial and many believe that the decision was guided by political influences. However, the Australian government insists that the Japanese bid was a better offer and design that met Australias unique navy needs. Discussion and Analysis Firstly, the Australian government argues that the French design and offer was the best option as it would involve building the boats within the country, in Adelaide. In turn, this would result in great opportunities for hundreds of construction workers and companies within the country.[3] The government estimates that the project would create approximately 2800 job opportunities for the Australian workforce as the construction of the new vessels begin. In turn, this is expected to boost the financial and economic position of local Australians in the country. Thus, the government chose the French proposal due to the fact that in the long run, the project would bring about an improvement in the economy of the country. In addition, the Australian government chose the French design as a means to secure their political positions in the South Australia region. Specifically, the Liberals under Tony Abbott were concerned that they would lose three federal seats in the region; Boothby (7.1 percent), Hindmash (1.9 percent) and Sturt (10.1) percent. At the time, Sturt was held by Christopher Pyne, the industry minister and he feared that it would fall to labor. Notably, Pyne was prominent during the submarine announcement and needed to maintain his position after the awarding of the contract. In turn, this led to the decision that would maintain his popularity among the south Australian people, forcing him and other liberals to opt for the French design. Therefore, the willingness by the French company to perform construction work within Australia made the decision more appealing, as it would cement the political position of the government while creating significant opportunities for the local Australian s uppliers. One may also argue that the contract awarding was influenced by the fact that the Japanese company, DCNS possessed great experience in the designing and building of submarines.[4] Particularly, in its submission, DCNS claimed that its experience and propulsion technology from its nuclear and conventional submarines rendered it as the best and most preferred candidate to construct the new submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Additionally, the DCNS technology incorporates the most sensitive passive sonar ever utilized in traditional submarines. The design also meets the high endurance and long range requirements specified by the Australian Navy. Furthermore, the French designed equipment will offer operational capability beyond the Royal Australian Navys requirements[5]. In turn, the use of these technologies made the French offer more attractive than the German and Japanese designs. According to the countrys minister of defense, the design and building capabilities offered by the DCNS was the best possible match to the countrys unique requirements for its royal navy submarine. The minister refuted reports claiming that the contract with France will cost the country a lot money for a vessel that will do way too little for the country. In his argument, Mr. Payne insists that through consistent advice from specialists in the field, there are no military-off-the-shelf submarine options that meet the countrys unique requirements[6]. He argues that a modified off-the-shelf submarine is an oxymoron. In retrospect, the French design and rapid advancements in the companys underwater military technology is the best alternative as it sufficiently matches the unique requirements of the RANS[7]. It is, therefore, for this reason that the Australian government awarded the winning bid to the French company. Irrespective of the various justifications made by the government for selecting the French company to undertake the project, the fact remains that the completion of the project by France is way too costly and time consuming than if the project was awarded to either Germany or Japan. At the onset, the project is expected to cost $50 billion[8]. The building of the submarine fleet will cost about $20 billion whereas the approximately $30 billion will be spent to sustain them after they come into operation in the middle of the next decade[9]. In addition, the French company will take a significantly longer time to complete the project as compared to the Japanese and German proposals. Conclusion All in all, all factors taken into consideration, the Australian government made the decision to award the contract to France to build the New Submarines for the Royal Australian Navy for various reasons. Firstly, the decision was made based on the fact that the French design, according to the government, would offer was the best option as it would involve building the boats within the country, in Adelaide. Consequently, it would result in promotion of local industries, local suppliers as well as create employment opportunities for the Australian people. Furthermore, the government selected the French proposal with the hope of securing its political position in the South Australia region. Likewise, the decision was informed by the fact that DCNS possessed great experience in the designing and building of submarines. Regardless, awarding of this project to France is way too costly and time consuming for Australia than if the project was awarded to either Japan or Germany. Recommendations It is recommended that before awarding any contract to a bidder, it is important for the management of a company to consider all factors such as the cost and time to be undertaken by the bidders to complete the project. Afterwards, the least costly and time efficient bidder that guarantee the highest quality should be awarded the contract. Reference List Australia, France officially sign Australias Future Submarine deal. (2016). [online] Naval Today. Available at: https://navaltoday.com/2016/12/20/australia-france-officially-sign-australias-future-submarine-deal/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Australian Government selects DCNS for the SEA 1000 Future Submarine Program. (2016). [online] Naval Group. Available at: https://www.naval-group.com/en/news/australian-government-selects-dcns-for-the-sea-1000-future-submarine-program/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Gady, F. S. (2017). Australias Government Under Attack Over Submarine Deal. [online] The Diplomat. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/australias-government-under-attack-over-submarine-deal/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Henderson, A. (2017). Australian submarines to be built in Adelaide after French company DCNS wins $50b contract. [online] ABC. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/pm-announces-france-has-won-submarine-contract/7357462 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Karp, P. (2016). France to build Australias new submarine fleet as $50bn contract awarded. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/26/france-to-build-australias-new-submarine-fleet-as-50bn-contract-awarded [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Laird, R. (2016). Building a New Class of Conventional Submarines: The Australian Case. [online] Second Line of Defense. Available at: https://sldinfo.com/2016/09/building-a-new-class-of-conventional-submarines-the-australian-case/ [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Ohff, H. (2016). Why the French submarine won the bid to replace the Collins-class. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/why-the-french-submarine-won-the-bid-to-replace-the-collins-class-58223 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Stewart, C. and Nicholson, B. (2016). Submarine contract: Turnbull takes expensive long road to new subs. [online] The Australian. Available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/submarine-contract-turnbull-takes-expensive-long-road-to-new-subs/news-story/32ee7d50f2c5338973b47d160f746e9f [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Stewart, C. and Nicholson, B. (2016). Submarine contract: Turnbull takes expensive long road to new subs. Karp, P. (2016). France to build Australias new submarine fleet as $50bn contract awarded. Stewart, C. and Nicholson, B. (2016). Submarine contract: Turnbull takes expensive long road to new subs. Ohff, H. (2016). Why the French submarine won the bid to replace the Collins-class. Laird, R. (2016). Building a New Class of Conventional Submarines: The Australian Case. Gady, F. S. (2017). Australias Government Under Attack Over Submarine Deal. Australian Government selects DCNS for the SEA 1000 Future Submarine Program. (2016). Henderson, A. (2017). Australian submarines to be built in Adelaide after French company DCNS wins $50b contract. Australia, France officially sign Australias Future Submarine deal. (2016).