Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It might be an intelligence commodity, I'll grant you that. But outside of China I'm not really sure to *who*. Vietnam? Indonesian? But its jack and shit to Newport News. The USN will never allow a D/E to be made in America. They are a 'what part of nuclear don't your understand?' fleet, and IMO with perfectly good strategic reasons for being so. It seems unlikely the UK would go that route either and unlikely NZ or Canada will ever produce a submarine again, and perhaps even operate one in the near future. So while I could understand leaks to China being a concern, leaks to Anglo Saxon front seem like a much, much lower concern. If that were the *only* concern I'd consider it rather laughable from my point of view. But if the Japanese don't want to share, the Germans will. Or, god help the Ozzies, the French...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can take just one insider thirsty for Chicom money to throw away one of Japan's few and critical advantages.

No argument. I was just pointing out that leaks to non-PRC countries seemed like far less of an issue. I assume that Japan's mono-ethnicity would tend to make spying hard for ethnic Chinese, where as Oz is probably much more open to those of Chinese decent or even citizenship. So not an unfounded concern.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But its jack and shit to Newport News.

 

Naval Torpedo Station Newport may have thought the same about Japanese engineering when designing and producing its Mark 14 torpedo for the USN.

Facile argument. I never said Japan didn't have superior technology during the war, I said when it came to sub quieting technology it had its entire infrastructure and means of production taken from it for a decade or two. That's a bit of a set back, especially if the other side making boats has 20x your economic power from the starting point and its economy never missed a beat for the entire war, and then it spent half a century heavily prioritized sub quieting and operational doctrine. I'm sure their are a few quirks that the Japanese found that the Americans didn't, but I doubt they are especially relevant to a nuke boat and more so not something the US would ever want to export.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An exchange, Thyssen/Krupp access to data from the Soryu USB drive. In return, the release from Berlin of the complete file on Kurt Steiner and the plans for Operation: Eagle.

I didn't dismiss the usefulness of just exchanging information, but your original post said: "Newport News". Also since the Japanese have never sold boats to anyone before and its not a major market they seem likely to expand past RAN, and the Germans as far as I know don't sell boats to their adversaries, I'd argue its a low risk.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I couldn't open the link of JasonJ so:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-idUSKCN0XM2F5

 

 


Japan's Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani described the decision as "deeply regrettable".

"We will ask Australia to explain why they didn't pick our design," he added.

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't open the link of JasonJ so: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-idUSKCN0XM2F5

Japan's Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani described the decision as "deeply regrettable"."We will ask Australia to explain why they didn't pick our design," he added.

:lol:

It had this same thing in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

neither japanese nor german nor swedish:

 

australia goes for frog eating:

 

FUTURE SUBMARINE PROGRAM

 

26 April 2016

Prime Minister

Minister for Defence

 

The Turnbull Government today announces that the next generation of submarines for Australia will be constructed at the Adelaide shipyard, securing thousands of jobs and ensuring the project will play a key part in the transition of our economy.

DCNS of France has been selected as our preferred international partner for the design of the 12 Future Submarines, subject to further discussions on commercial matters.

Along with our recent naval shipbuilding announcements, the commitment to an Australian build will create a sustainable Australian naval shipbuilding industry and provide the certainty that industry requires to invest in innovation and technology and grow its workforce.

The Future Submarine project is the largest and most complex defence acquisition Australia has ever undertaken. It will be a vital part of our Defence capability well into the middle of this century.

This $50 billion investment will directly sustain around 1,100 Australian jobs and a further 1,700 Australian jobs through the supply chain.

Todays announcement follows the comprehensive Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) involving DCNS, TKMS of Germany and the Government of Japan. Each bidder submitted very high quality proposals and the Australian Government takes this opportunity to thank both TKMS and the Government of Japan for their ongoing commitment to Australia and their participation in the process.

The CEP has provided the Government with the detailed information required to select DCNS as the most suitable international partner to develop a regionally-superior future submarine to meet our unique national security requirements, as detailed in the Defence White Paper.

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2016-04-26/future-submarine-program

Link to post
Share on other sites

oops jasonj was faster. that's what I get for posting through the search function.

 


 

I couldn't open the link of JasonJ so:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-idUSKCN0XM2F5

 

 

Japan's Minister of Defense Gen Nakatani described the decision as "deeply regrettable".

"We will ask Australia to explain why they didn't pick our design," he added.

:lol:

buying japanese would have caused frictions with a certain asian billion people state. rumour has it that TKMS did not sell its design well. leaves france as neutral supplier. Also diversification of suppliers, TKMS seems to be the front runner for the new frigate programme.

 

And well maybe the french boat was the one best fitting the requirements.

 

Cg9q9YlWUAEXba9.jpg

 

too bad the french boat is missing in the table

Edited by Panzermann
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fine Panzermann, my link directs to a subscription request. But that still leaves Corinthian being faster than you :P

 

France has some level of security relation with Australia as well actually. Australia and France have a history of working together in disaster relief. There are French territories in the Asia Pacific, most notably, New Caledonia, so France does have a little interest in the region as well.

 

Many Japanese netizens have expressed concerns about leaks to China, so many are actually quite relieved about the news. Some saying France was best anyway, etc. Darwin port being leased to China is an example of the basis of fears of leaks. Looking at Australian news, job creation for the submarine construction sector played a big role. Leaves me to think that is was even more important than actual capabilities of the sub. Although that is not to say that their new sub with France won't be good.

 

And yes, China would have been angry about it. Goes to show how important it has become to not upset the feelings of the Chinese people™ these days. Between additional stress from China, stress in ensuring smooth work conditions for Australian workers and within budget, and anxiety about leaks to China from the Japanese side, the selection of the Japanese sub would have put unwelcome strain on the forming Japan-Australia security relationship. If it was military equipment that was less sensitive, like tanks, I think Japan would be feeling more disappointed, but the subs require special security protection. And at already 50 billion, it might be hard to ensure top level security throughout, in and out.

 

About the graph, the Japanese proposal to Australia was an Australian version of the Soryu MK II which would have a hull longer by a few meters to include additional space for extending range. Other features like Tomahawks might have been included.

 

Soryu_Cutaway_Variants%2BPNG.png

 

http://gentleseas.blogspot.jp/2016/04/soryu-cutaway-diagrams-evolution.html?m=1

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a surprise. I thought the race was going to be between the German and Japanese design. Hearing different suggestions why the French won; best price, Australia thought the need to scale up the others' existing designs was higher risk and AIP wasn't their priority, or that the Japanese offer was in fact favored but withdrawn by the bidders - which would be at odds with the pissed reaction of the Japanese government, not showing a good grasp of how selling your goods on the international arms market works, and how to make friends there ...

 

Anyway, a non-nuclear Barracuda will be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAN will no doubt be busy visiting their RMN counterparts in Teluk Sepanggar for the low down on driving a French submarine. The RMN has had crews trained on Froggy boats since the early 80s prior to procuring the two Scorpene AIPs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a surprise. I thought the race was going to be between the German and Japanese design. Hearing different suggestions why the French won; best price, Australia thought the need to scale up the others' existing designs was higher risk and AIP wasn't their priority, or that the Japanese offer was in fact favored but withdrawn by the bidders - which would be at odds with the pissed reaction of the Japanese government, not showing a good grasp of how selling your goods on the international arms market works, and how to make friends there ...

Yes very unjapanese to be so bluntly showing they are pissed. Normally you either sue in military procurement or you just leave quietly. If they had shut up they could have haggled a deal for, dunno, lorries and land cruisers or some such. Something not as high profile as a submarine.

 

 

Anyway, a non-nuclear Barracuda will be interesting.

Apart from the hull there won't be much similarities I think. Different electronics, different engine. Probably different weapons.

 

With the evovling battery technologies the Ozzies are maybe hedging a bet on replacing the batteries with higher capacity ones in the future. fuel cells are quite inefficient.

 

 

here for example: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2455715/scientists-accidentally-create-batteries-that-last-a-lifetime

 

far from a ready product, but smaller more durable electrodes should help making tighter packaging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised and bitterly disappointed at this news. I had not even realized the French were mounting a strong bid for the contract.

 

The personal stake Abe placed on winning this deal for Japan, what this deal meant to the Japanese defense industry, Japan's willingness to expose and share the technology of the world’s best large conventional submarine with Australia in the deal, just so disappointed right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ze French have had a major presence in the Oz defence sector for a while. The Japonais are kindergarten grade and utterly unaware of the challenges needed to transfer tech and service the ADF.

It was an all GtG affair and that is very difficult for ASC. Failure of Japonais bid was very likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...