Leaked claims an Australian designed and built future submarine fleet may cost as little as $18billion do not take into account the overall program cost.
Defence analysts say once design, risk management, program management, infrastructure and other overheads are factored in, the true cost could be double that.
That would correspond almost exactly with the $36 billion cost estimate put forward in an Australian Strategic Policy Institute paper issued last year.
Former Australian Submarine Corporation strategic analyst, Brice Pacey, has estimated the individual ''sail away'' cost of 12 future submarines of between 3000-4000 tonnes as ''within the range of $1.2billion to $1.6billion'' in a report for the Kokoda Foundation to be issued later this month.
This compares to a sail away cost of $1.75billion for a Virginia-class nuclear submarine twice the size, a source said.
The overhead for the Virginia class, which is being built in far greater numbers than the 12 submarines proposed as Australian designed and built Collins replacements, adds about $1 billion per submarine for a total cost of $2.75 billion each, it was claimed.
The Canberra Times was told the overhead for the proposed Collins replacement would likely be higher given Virginias are produced at an existing facility by General Dynamics.
''The end result would be that, even accepting the Kokoda figures, the Collins replacement and a new Virginia class would cost about the same,'' the source said.
Mr Pacey's report, Sub Judice: Australia's Future Submarine, says otherwise.
''The increased costs of nuclear submarines, thought perhaps to be 30 or 40per cent higher than conventional boats, might partially be offset by the smaller numbers that are required,'' he wrote.
''But these efficiencies arguably accrue only to states with nuclear industries.''
A US Congressional Research Report issued last April said the acquisition cost for a Virginia was $2.6 billion.
Defenders of Mr Pacey's costings have said this may not include key items supplied to General Dynamics by the US Government.
While Mr Pacey and his detractors are divided over whether Australia should buy an ''off-the-shelf'' submarine design from Europe, go nuclear or design and build its own Collins-class replacement, they agree billions must be spent on new submarines to carry Australia through to the middle of the century.
''There are developments underway which threaten to erode the freedom of movement of Australian and allied naval forces and maritime trade,'' Mr Pacey wrote.
He cited China's heavy investment in anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles as evidence of an active strategy of sea denial by the rising superpower.
''While this study does not seek to identify China as a military threat, it is important to recognise that the scale and sophistication of Chinese military modernisation is of a different order to submarine programs in other regional states.''
He makes the point that while few Australians think beyond the coast, 99 per cent of the country's exports (by volume) travel by sea.
China currently has 65 submarines, nine of which are nuclear.
It is expected to have 78 submarines in the water by 2025 and is launching new boats at the rate of two a year.
.gif)
