The Netherlands offered the Walrus class type submarines, which fitted nearly all Australian practical, tactical and strategical needs and demands for a long range conventional powered submarine.
Notice the obvious telltales. The five scimitar bladed prop / screw is one. The turbulence deflector at the sail top which is a tadpole tail is also obvious. The X-cruciform tail control implies a computerized helm. The sail planes indicate the same for awash or mast depth high speed to prevent roll-out during turn maneuver conditions. This thing was designed as a submarine fighter, intended to get in close and shark-fight another submarine if the creep-stalk ambush failed. She uses, according to published sources, Mark 48 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles^1
^1
https://web.archive.org/web/2018032...nside.nl/frontpage/onderzeeboten_walrusklasse
I would not be surprised to learn the same Honeywell weapon systems are
aboard the Collins class as of this date. Since Harpoons CAN attack land targets, I wonder at the science fiction that Collins class submarines lack land attack capability. They just have to get in closer than would be comfortable.
The only drawback was it was a relative complex, double hulled, design which probably would not be build in Australia, while domestically construction was one of the main demands of the Australian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus-class_submarine
Notice the automated torpedo missile loaders and the conn. Also notice the compartmentation pass through and the power train details. This sub was designed by fatalists.
Honestly, it seems that the RAN has backed itself into a corner when they decided to go non -nuclear. The US, and UK are off the table simply because they don't offer any DE conventional submarines (not counting the UK abomination known as the Upholder class). That leaves you with France, which will gladly build you a conventional submarine, but the most recent class available (at the time the Collins were being procured) was the Agosta class which are Oberon era ships. The Scorpene class is still in the planning/works so unless you are willing to hold out to the early/mid 2000's France isn't exactly an option rn. The French iotl offered a conventional powered version of their Rubis class (which imo would have been theoretically one of the best options on the table assuming no design problems arose from converting from nuclear to diesel).
Have commented on this option. Let one add that the engineering spaces volumes for the Rubis fission reactor steam plant are HUGE by ratio compared to the life and work spaces set aside for the crew. The diesel electric drive might be about 1/2 the volume. Alternatively, the battery which is rather small on a fission reactor heated steam turbine electric motor propelled boat; is definitely an auxiliary and would be much larger on a D/E conversion of such a design. The ballasting of the float sausage sections would have to be recalculated as to segmented mass distribution. Compartmentation and hull framing (hoops and decks in the modules) would have to be recalculated.
This would actually be a new boat for all practical purposes which "might" account for the cost blow-out in the current Australian program.
Suppose I was the French Marine National and I wanted to design a new D/E boat for own use and for export, and suppose I did not want to eat the cost for designing the new D/E boat? Could I "get" a customer onboard to bear the costs for me?
Next are the Nordic countries/ Germany who make great subs, but they are built for the Baltic sea/ North Atlantic, totally different operating conditions from the Hot, Humid, South Pacific. Not to mention said subs are usually smaller (once again defending the Baltic sea and not usually far from a friendly port) so if you choose one of the designs you will have to enlarge it to fit the needs of the RAN who have a greater distance and are to patrol/secure. And thats how the Collins class fiasco started.
Have commented on this one.
A nation that was not given a chance to compete though is Japan. Their Oyashio-class submarine seemed somewhat closer to the RAN specifications (well closer then the OTL choice of the Kockums Vastergotland proposal). However given Japans strict weapons export policy i can see why it was not considered.
This is not the case, now. Get an ally to talk to the Japanese. They "could" fix their boloed proposal to insist that they build it and try again with an in Australia construction option. The problem is the politics and long memories.. It is not quite too late. Next year it WILL be.
As a proud Canadian, I would gladly have exchanged your Collins-class program for our Victoria-class program. Seriously, if you're looking at an ability to mismanage procurement program, we "win" that competition without breaking a sweat.
I would point out that the Canadians have accomplished marvels with the Upholders / Victorias. They went into it with too much misplaced faith in the vendors who sold them the subs. They, the Canadians, proved that they were miracle workers. The Victorias are capable at the costs of a steep learning curves.
