The estimates of the per-unit costs of the original bids seem widely off. For example, [this article from 2016](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-japan-defence-in-idUSKCN0XQ1FC) provides a contemporary view of what happened during the bidding. Importantly, it doesn't suggest the price was that different. Japan was hoping for a $40B deal, even before factoring the local work aspect. That's in the same order of magnitude than the last projected cost of the programme that was called off and [very similar to the original DCNS bid](https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/australia-france-sign-35-5-billion-submarine-contract/).

There are people in Australia who recommended selecting an off-the-shelf design, whether from Japan, Germany, or Sweden (who made Australia's current *Collins*-class submarines) and that would have perhaps avoided all these problems. [This 2021 article](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38790/australia-reportedly-looking-at-an-alternative-to-its-costly-new-french-designed-submarines) also mention German-designed submarines as costing “half as much”. That's a significant difference but not nearly as big as that betweeen off-the-shelf options like the Type 212 or Type 214, on the one hand, and a bespoke design (and that doesn't take into account predictable cost overruns).

On the other hand, if you add specific requirements and wants the submarines to be built locally, costs are going to be much higher and more difficult to control. That was true of the original bids and will in fact almost certainly be true of the new solution Australia is exploring now.