By Marcus Hellyer*
Two questions are frequently raised about the process that selected Australia’s preferred partner for the design and build of the future submarine.
The first is why the Defence Department didn’t pursue a ‘son of Collins’, that is, an evolution of the successful Collins (pictured) design, with the questioner’s underlying assumption being that evolving an existing design should be cheaper and faster than starting an entirely new design. The second is why the Swedish shipbuilder Saab, which had acquired Kockums—the company that designed the Collins—wasn’t invited to participate in the competitive evaluation process (CEP), given that it (other than the Japanese) was the only entity with demonstrated experience in designing and building large conventional submarines.
