12 subs

A few good points here.

Those are: stick with 12 submarines to replace the Collins. Rule of 3's and all that.

Not mentioned: we must kill the requirement for a U.S. combat system. That limits creativity. I do understand that with a U.S. combat system, you get your nose into their Pacific submarine command tent, but other than that, a U.S. combat system is not needed... unless a proper, thought out, risk assessment sees otherwise. Pressure by itself from the U.S., is not a justification.

I would like to see some of the features dropped. I would rather see a long range submarine, with an as-small-as-possible-crew that could do torpedo attack; launch subsonic cruises missiles from the torpedo tube; no specfor capability, drop mines when needed and a complete beat-down of the design for anything that is overly complex.

AIP doesn't need to be on the boat if the battery budget with Lithium-Ion technology can be managed. No AIP would be one less system that has to be managed during a refurb cycle. I am OK with AIP if the operational requirement just has to have it, but again, I want simple.

Please.

Another "please" would be to use all the existing risk and procurement how-to books already existing in government.

.