Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

 

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existing designs was higher risk and AIP wasn't their priority, or that the Japanese offer was in fact favored but withdrawn by the bidders - which would be at odds with the pissed reaction of the Japanese government, not showing a good grasp of how selling your goods on the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.

 

Maybe one thing that upsets the Japanese government is that the previous Australian PM, Tony Abbott, practically ensured that the Japanese were going to get the deal through 2014 and up until the the fall of 2015 when he got replaced. Putting aside his antics, he was more pro-Japan/America. His replacement voted in last year in the fall, PM Turnbull, still voices opposition to China's activities in the South China Sea but is seen as a little more middle ground between the US/Japan on the one hand and China on the other. So it may not be to difficult to see it as government to government anger rather than defense company to defense company.

 

But yes, it is still quite unjapanese. But other things have changed. They now can export weapons and make security relations, and more easily can go to war now like everyone else. Japan is changing. Japan is no longer the biggest economy in Asia. Not even half the size of the biggest one. And the biggest one is very unpeaceful. All this when Japan's population is aging and on shrinking. Really bad timing. Of course Japan will change. Or maybe China was counting on Japan remaining the cute, polite, pervert, weakling, so that China would have an easy time dominating the region. Well now I'm rambling on again.. With all that said, the Japanese government being unprofessional is still a fair comment, but just that there's more to it than a typical defense contract IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In any case, even though Australia didn't pick the Japanese bid, China still warns Australia for building new submarines and for being a US ally. Should wipe clean any negative feelings towards the Japanese government's whining.

 

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday awarded an A$50 billion ($40 billion) contract to build a new fleet of submarines for Australia to a French enterprise. Japan, which had been a frontrunner in the contest, lost the bid. Japan's Soryu-class submarines are some of the most advanced diesel-electric submarines in the world. Some attributed Japan's failed bid to its lack of experience in military weapons exports and Australia's considerations of avoiding offending China.

 

However, some Chinese scholars hold that Japan lost the deal because Australia still has concerns over its submarine-building compatibilities. Technological factors weigh more in such a mega project than political factors.

 

The worst-case scenario seems to have been avoided since Australia snubbed Japan's submarines.

 

However, as Australia is an ally of the US, these 12 new submarines will beef up the US' strategic strength in the West Pacific, negatively affecting China's strategic security.

 

Canberra has attached great importance to its economic links with Beijing, its biggest trading partner. But meanwhile, it has offered more support to US military deployment in the Asia-Pacific region that targets China. Nonetheless, Australia is different from Japan. The former is more willing to show its effort of balance between China and the US, while the latter boasts of its partiality to the US.

 

Canberra needs to know that its submarine plan, be it independent or not, is part of the geopolitical game in the Asia-Pacific and will be used as a bargaining chip for the regional strategic wrestling. Should it add to military pressure against China, it will be compelled to develop stronger counteroffensive capabilities, which in the end runs counter to the national interests of Australia.

 

Australia after all is located far away from China's continental sea. The simmering tensions between China and the US in the South China Sea are harmful to Australian national security. Therefore, Australia can only secure its best interests by detaching from the South China Sea disputes and not fanning the disputes from outside.

 

That China will reconstruct the order of the South China Sea, stifle freedom of navigation and block the trade routes of Australia is an illusion. China was accused of changing the status quo of the South China Sea through island building. But it's the US that is a real status quo changer by increasing troop numbers in Darwin, deploying a P-8 Poseidon spy plane to Singapore and reopening five military bases in the Philippines.

 

If Australia pursues long-term national development and security, it should use its own advantages to help alleviate strategic tensions between China and the US. It should find the correct balance for the sake of peace in the Asia-Pacific.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/980304.shtml

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

The Australian army has been buying Land Cruisers for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

The Australian army has been buying Land Cruisers for decades.
oh they do? Okay. Must be those SASR Land Rovers that confused me.

 


 

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/world/south-and-central-asia/2016/04/16/japanese-unlikely-supply-our-submarines/14607288003128

 

Strong suggestions have been coming from the United States in favour of the

Sōryū, because it would tighten strategic links between its two main Pacific allies,

and because of worries about leakage of secrets about American combat systems

and weaponry via the more export-oriented European shipbuilders. In terms of

demonology in the Pentagon, the ranking is France, Germany and Japan, says a

senior Australian figure with high-level access to US defence thinking.

----

 

official site for the programme: http://sea1000.gov.au/

 

even has c.v. of the consultants. Quite a few from the USN.

 

----

 

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/la-victoire-dcns-now-the-work-begins/

 

We now have some answers about the project that will eventually deliver our next generation submarines. The French company DCNS will be our international design partner and the submarines will be built in South Australia. There are also many things we still dont know, such as how the government-owned ASC company will be restructured as we move ahead with the concurrent design and build of the submarines and three different types of surface vessels.

 

No doubt the French team will be rejoicing today. They should make the most of it. As the American commentator on defence acquisitions Norman Augustine once pointed out, things never look as good for the winning contractor once the euphoria of the initial announcement has worn off. Once we get into the nitty gritty of contract negotiation and thenworst of allactual project delivery, all sorts of heartaches will eventuate. Like all major projects, there will be cost, schedule and probably capability issues that arise over the decades that the project will take.

...

----

 

http://www.janes.com/article/59792/australia-selects-dcns-as-preferred-bidder-for-collins-class-submarine-replacement-programme

This decision was driven by DCNSs ability to best meet all of our unique capability requirements, said a joint statement issued by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Minster for Defence Marise Payne on 26 April. These included superior sensor performance and stealth characteristics, as well as range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine, they added.

----

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/04/18/bae-fincantieri-and-navantia-ships-australian-shortlist/83177512/

 

Type 26 and FREMM and spanish F100 in the last round for new RAN frigates

Edited by Panzermann
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see backing away from the Japanese option for political or just tech transfer reasons. But I don't know why they wouldn't go German. The French seemed like the absolute largest technical risk - the nuke boat this thing is supposed to be based on isn't even in the water and the internals of the D/E can't look anything like the nuke*, so its practically a clean slate design. At that point I would seriously have to consider just going nuclear with the French, since their boats run on low enough enriched U that I think the NPT doesn't become an issue. At least then the RAN would have the endurance and speed that it needs.

 

 

*EDIT: an will gut its combat system for an American one, a completely non trivial change.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally when Abbott was PM, the idea was to just buy Australian version Japanese submarines made in Japan. Would have been a lot less expensive for Australia and it would have been less of a security risk for Japan. Some time later, Australian internal demands for jobs in making the subs went up, so in came the bids from France and Germany.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/dwp-2016-the-future-of-ran/

 

The next decade will be busy for RAN, as the force acquires and develops a range of key platforms.

Navy will see:

 

The acquisition of 12 future submarines to replace 6 Collins-class submarines, for entry into service from the early 2030s. A rolling acquisition process to extend construction into the late 2040s to 2050, with a down select decision regarding bids from Japan, Germany and France expected in 2016

 

Continuous production of nine future frigates to replace Navys eight Anzac-class frigates, to begin in South Australia in 2020, after a competitive evaluation process, for delivery from the late 2020s

 

Three Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) entered into service in the early 2020s. (To ensure the vessels keep pace with regional capabilities, continuous upgrades will be made throughout their service life.)

 

12 new offshore patrol vessels to replace the current fleet of 13 Armidale-class patrol boats. Construction to begin in 2018, for entry into service from the early 2020s.

 

The progressive replacement of the current fleet of two large and four smaller ADF hydrographic survey vessels with a combination of military and commercial hydrographic and oceanographic survey capabilities from early 2020s

 

24 new-build MH-60R Seahawk naval combat helicopters currently being accepted into service, to enhance Navys anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare operations

 

That is an ambitious plan. doubling the the sub fleet, one more frigate etc.

 

 

Does the RAN even have enough crews for their six Collins subs at the moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crewing factor seems more relevant given the size of the French boats. How does their crew size compare to Collins or Soryu/Type 216? the French seem to have solved the rate of advance and indiscretion rate issues by just going big: 4500 ton displacement, four diesels, large amount of fuel and batteries. More interestingly they employ a shrouded propulsor, which you never see on D/E boats* because of the drag this imposes (or whatever the hydrodynamic equivalent is). The French solution seems to be to simply run more engines with more fuel using more (traditional lead-acid) batteries. I suppose that at least does lower the technical risk compared to the Li batteries the Japanese design will employ.

 

*There is one Black Sea Fleet Kilo with this as a mod, but AFAIK it was purely for research and not operational deployment. Don't believe it is in service anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot wait to revisit this thread some two to three years from now, with all the reports of mismanagement, delays, problems with integration, going beyond budget, and cuts to the numbers of subs to be built.

 

:D

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the case with the Collins. ASC no longer has the technical cadre from before and needs to rebuild but it should have at least some basis. The RAN essentially had no idea what it did not know when devising the combat system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well perhaps in that the FC will be an established US design that's in current use, so that should work.

 

What type of diesels will it employ? Four does seem like a good idea, but is it actually a Frnech design or something borrowed from zee Germans?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan did not fully understand the degree to which Australia and Turnbull were opposed to this year's Antarctic whale hunt, and the ramifications of defying the International Court of Justice on this issue.

 

In retrospect, this year's hunt was utter stupidity.

 

Washington's last-minute reversal on its previous reluctance to integrate U.S. weapons into European submarines was a shock as well and could be linked to Abe's recent snubbing of Obama RE: Putin and Russia.

 

If Defense Ministry bumbling, clumsiness, and overconfidence contributed, Nakatani should do the honorable thing in order to relieve pressure on Abe.

Edited by Nobu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see backing away from the Japanese option for political or just tech transfer reasons. But I don't know why they wouldn't go German. The French seemed like the absolute largest technical risk - the nuke boat this thing is supposed to be based on isn't even in the water and the internals of the D/E can't look anything like the nuke*, so its practically a clean slate design. At that point I would seriously have to consider just going nuclear with the French, since their boats run on low enough enriched U that I think the NPT doesn't become an issue. At least then the RAN would have the endurance and speed that it needs.

 

 

*EDIT: an will gut its combat system for an American one, a completely non trivial change.

If I understand Simon correctly a diesel version of the nucler Barracuda is less work and risk than increasing a Type 212 by a factor of 2,5.

 

edit: #$¥@ autocorrect!

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all about the trade, I'm sure

 

after all, back when we wanted trade with Europe we bought the Mirage III when the RAAF and everyone else in the defense establishment wanted the F-4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this time it would be to safeguard existing trade rather than taking the opportunity to trade. Just one more example how China is using its economic might to push its agenda.

 

Top 5 exporters to China (and Hong Kong) in the Asia-Pacific and percentage of total volume of exports going to China for 2014.

Myanmar 63% ---

Taiwan 40.3%

Laos 34.2% ---

Australia 33.7% ---

South Korea 30.2%

 

5-10

Chile 24.4% ---

Japan 23.8%

Singapore 23.6%

The Philippines 22.1%

New Zealand 20% ---

 

11-15

Peru 18.3% ---

Malaysia: 16.8%

Thailand 16.5%

Colombia 10.5% ---

Vietnam 10.4% ---

 

16-20

Indonesia 10% ---

India 8.5%

United States 7.6% ---

Cambodia 4.1% ---

Brunei n/a

 

21-24

Canada n/a

Mexico n/a

Fiji n/a

Tonga n/a

 

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39564&page=42&do=findComment&comment=1211832

 

Numbers for 2015 haven't been published yet, or at least, not at the CIA world fact book yet. Total import volumes into China did go down in 2015 due to its so-called economic slowdown so it's possible that the percentages of exports to China from the respective countries has dropped a bit.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can see backing away from the Japanese option for political or just tech transfer reasons. But I don't know why they wouldn't go German. The French seemed like the absolute largest technical risk - the nuke boat this thing is supposed to be based on isn't even in the water and the internals of the D/E can't look anything like the nuke*, so its practically a clean slate design. At that point I would seriously have to consider just going nuclear with the French, since their boats run on low enough enriched U that I think the NPT doesn't become an issue. At least then the RAN would have the endurance and speed that it needs.

 

 

*EDIT: an will gut its combat system for an American one, a completely non trivial change.

If I understand Simon correctly a diesel version of the nucler Barracuda is less work and risk than increasing a Type 212 by a factor of 2,5.

 

edit: #$¥@ autocorrect!

 

He might have more information than I do, but my perception is that lengthening an existing D/E boat, especially the Soryu which was approaching the Collins class size anyway, would be less of a design change than removing the entire power plant and totally changing the CG of the boat. To some extent I guess I'll have egg on my face if the Type 218 doesn't work out. Though if does, it would tend to suggest that the 216 wasn't a big leap of faith.

 

I want the RAN to have a good boat and the French have been making decent ships for a while, it just wouldn't have been my first choice and seems like the highest risk based on the information I have. The nuke boat they are basing it on hasn't even been put in water yet. That doesn't strike me as a low technical risk, but Simon's opinion likely differs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Wiki is right the 218 is but 5 meters longer than the existing 214 but displaces half of what the Aussies are looking for. One the one hand, not much danger of failure, on the other probably too different from the 216 to say the 216 would have been 'smooth sailing'. Aside from the strange name the Soryu seems to be the best of the three.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing strange about Soryu. Perfectly ordinary to any Japanese speaker.

 

He might have more information than I do, but my perception is that lengthening an existing D/E boat, especially the Soryu which was approaching the Collins class size anyway,

 

Soryu is bigger than Collins. About 7 metres longer, over a metre fatter. About 800 tonnes more displacement submerged.

Edited by swerve
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....This was about who could work best with Garden Island. Why is it so difficult to understand? DCNS engaged ASC and won. Japanese were dumbfucks and ignored ASC. Who was going to tell Abe he did not have it....nobody would dare do that. Sempai culture strikes again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again....This was about who could work best with Garden Island. Why is it so difficult to understand? DCNS engaged ASC and won. Japanese were dumbfucks and ignored ASC. Who was going to tell Abe he did not have it....nobody would dare do that. Sempai culture strikes again.

Japan didn't want to build the subs in Australia. So when Australia started making it a requirement, the Japanese initially refused.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40657&page=2&do=findComment&comment=1190537

 

But then the Japanese government said that they wanted to also build in Australia in order to keep their bid alive, about 3-4 weeks after Japanese bid looked like it was done because of Australian changed position.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40657&page=2&do=findComment&comment=1195420

 

Australia is not getting Australian Dragons because of their decision to press for local build. That's their decision to make. And it's good that the Japanese didn't win in the new Australian requirements. Soryu tech has been protected.

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...