Jump to content


Photo

New Australian Sub

Japan Germany France Collins-class

  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#141 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 07 July 2016 - 1024 AM

On the point of Japan not knowing how to sell, I still think the Japanese hesitated because they originally wanted to make the subs in Japan and then send them to Australia because that would better safe guard Japanese secret sub tech. Not only did Abott get replaced, the condition of building the subs in Australia for Australian jobs and industry was also a changed requirement. I don't see how being military means the Japanese don't know how to sell. I think it's a red herring point. They been trying to sell all sorts of things to other countries with government involvement such as Shinkansen, nuclear power plants, and other sorts of infrastructure projects. And there is one military item that has been in the works at the same time as the sub, the US-2 floatplane to India. Japanese netizens were overwhelmingly relieved to hear that Japan lost. I saw one news article saying that the Japanese bid might have a new chance from the election, I think I can fairly represent the Japanese opinion with a no thank you, unless.. the deal goes back to making the subs in Japan.

  

 

It's far from a red herring point, international defence sales are a world of their own, with direct and indirect political overtones you don't even find in other sales to government. The French have been doing it for donkeys years all over the world, the Japanese do not have this depth of experience either institutionally or individually. I'm not saying the Japanese don't have salesmen who could flog ice to Inuit or people who could have done a far better job, but they weren't on this team. The whole issue of domestic production, proves the point. Off the shelf or DIY +/- local content is a default question for any defence purchase in Australia - and with Submarines we've got a whole factory custom built just for the job so it is inevitable local content would come up in any open selection process. The French knew this going in and worked it into their strategy (as did the Spanish), I don't believe the Japanese bid did more than mumble about the ASC facility for maintenance without much supporting materiel - but I haven't read the actual bid so grain of salt on that.

 

Shane


  • 0

#142 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 07 July 2016 - 1141 AM

 

On the point of Japan not knowing how to sell, I still think the Japanese hesitated because they originally wanted to make the subs in Japan and then send them to Australia because that would better safe guard Japanese secret sub tech. Not only did Abott get replaced, the condition of building the subs in Australia for Australian jobs and industry was also a changed requirement. I don't see how being military means the Japanese don't know how to sell. I think it's a red herring point. They been trying to sell all sorts of things to other countries with government involvement such as Shinkansen, nuclear power plants, and other sorts of infrastructure projects. And there is one military item that has been in the works at the same time as the sub, the US-2 floatplane to India. Japanese netizens were overwhelmingly relieved to hear that Japan lost. I saw one news article saying that the Japanese bid might have a new chance from the election, I think I can fairly represent the Japanese opinion with a no thank you, unless.. the deal goes back to making the subs in Japan.

  

 

It's far from a red herring point, international defence sales are a world of their own, with direct and indirect political overtones you don't even find in other sales to government. The French have been doing it for donkeys years all over the world, the Japanese do not have this depth of experience either institutionally or individually. I'm not saying the Japanese don't have salesmen who could flog ice to Inuit or people who could have done a far better job, but they weren't on this team. The whole issue of domestic production, proves the point. Off the shelf or DIY +/- local content is a default question for any defence purchase in Australia - and with Submarines we've got a whole factory custom built just for the job so it is inevitable local content would come up in any open selection process. The French knew this going in and worked it into their strategy (as did the Spanish), I don't believe the Japanese bid did more than mumble about the ASC facility for maintenance without much supporting materiel - but I haven't read the actual bid so grain of salt on that.

 

Shane

 

 

Mentioning of France knowing about such a custom built Australian sub factory sounds like a good point. Perhaps it was inevitable to be brought up in the more important stage of the bid. Up until that inevitably happened, maybe the Japanese were hoping what was inevitable wouldn't happen, if they were aware of that, that is. Maybe Abott increased a sense of hope that it wouldn't. Admittedly, I am an outside observer of all of this, but knowing Japanese personally, when they are really committed, they apply a lot of effort, not to say others don't in their own respective ways, but just its difficult to imagine. By the time news of the the supposedly inevitable requirement for at least some domestic production came about, my impression was a drop in energy from the Japanese bid. Even if they lack the experience and institutions, I would have still expected lots of energy, campaigning, sloppiness and embarrassment here or there if must be, and so on. I follow Japanese military blogs on a fairly regular basis and I just didn't notice any amount of the kind of energy I would expect if the Japanese were fully committed after the requirement for production in Australia became an important criteria. Nor was there high hopes from Japanese netizens interested in military topics after the inevitable happened. Just my two cents on the matter. Thanks for the reply.


Edited by JasonJ, 07 July 2016 - 1206 PM.

  • 0

#143 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 07 July 2016 - 1256 PM

Its worth noting that in addition to backing away from the Japanese offer, they tanked the Germans too. They to have been doing domestic production projects with boats the world over. The only reasons I've found given for French > German offer is that the boat was bigger to start with (implying there was worry that scaling the 212 design up would have high R&D risk) and that supposedly the RAN said that the 212/214 was specifically louder at a crucial frequency...without telling the Germans anything about said frequency. The later seems surprising in that 212's are generally considered holes in the water. The only thing I can think of is the pump-jet at medium speeds would be an advantage on the French boat. But the choice of frog boat just for a larger hull seems suspect since the nuke it's based on hasn't hit the water and the D/E version would have to be substantially revamped internally for the different propulsion which I would think would be equally high risk to stretching the 212. Quite honestly the French boat seemed like the worst prospect from the get go to me.

It is of course almost impossible to comment on the merits of the bids with only open source material.

 

Has anyone ever determined what diesel plant will be installed? I've read somewhere it will have four engines, but nothing about what kind, power, or size.


  • 0

#144 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,461 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 July 2016 - 2352 PM

Whatever the reasons may be, the loss is a $100 billion and possibly a generational setback to Japan's defense export industry hopes.

 

If Japan really did not want to win the bid, then the continuing defense ministry petulance toward Australia, months after the fact, is concerning and counterproductive to say the least.

 

http://www.theaustra...0fec-1467952701

 

One lost Indonesian bullet train contract was a misfortune. A second lost contract seems like carelessness. There cannot be a third.


  • 0

#145 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 08 July 2016 - 0441 AM

The Germans (B&V at least) have a very good reputation down here for local manufacture, the way they dealt with some mid life structural cracking in the ANZAC's impressed a lot of people. But our last Sub project was an 'off the drawing board' proposal based on scaling up a Baltic design, and it has been a rocky business - so that whole concept wasn't exactly a winner from the outset. The Collins stink was loud enough and long enough that any government seen to be repeating the process would be open to ridicule in the press down here. The silencing issue... that sort of information is closely held by every nation seriously playing with submarines, and very carefully shared between them when shared at all. For the RAN this means the USN and RN, particularly the USN who have been very generous in helping sort out the Collin's acoustics. So its not a subject the RAN could openly talk about even if they wanted to, they might talk to the Bundesmarine about it but German industry, no way - nor could the German firms and governmenthave expected otherwise, and getting in a huff over it strikes me as blowing a bit of smoke on their part. 

 

 

 

 

Mentioning of France knowing about such a custom built Australian sub factory sounds like a good point. Perhaps it was inevitable to be brought up in the more important stage of the bid. Up until that inevitably happened, maybe the Japanese were hoping what was inevitable wouldn't happen, if they were aware of that, that is. Maybe Abott increased a sense of hope that it wouldn't. Admittedly, I am an outside observer of all of this, but knowing Japanese personally, when they are really committed, they apply a lot of effort, not to say others don't in their own respective ways, but just its difficult to imagine. By the time news of the the supposedly inevitable requirement for at least some domestic production came about, my impression was a drop in energy from the Japanese bid. Even if they lack the experience and institutions, I would have still expected lots of energy, campaigning, sloppiness and embarrassment here or there if must be, and so on. I follow Japanese military blogs on a fairly regular basis and I just didn't notice any amount of the kind of energy I would expect if the Japanese were fully committed after the requirement for production in Australia became an important criteria. Nor was there high hopes from Japanese netizens interested in military topics after the inevitable happened. Just my two cents on the matter. Thanks for the reply.

 

 

 I'm sure the Japanese knew all about the ASC factory for the start, nor do I think local construction was ever a mandatory element. The jury is still out on exactly how much work will end up being done here. Listing to Paris and Canberra they seem to have different ends of the stick. The real point was that the French addressed it in depth and detail where the Japanese barely mentioned it.

 

They could have made a damn good case against building them at ASC, doing it in Japan would have been cheaper, quicker and covered any quality concerns. But ASC is by default the heavy maintenance facility (only other option being doing it in Japan) and throwing a bit of the build work their way would have sweetened the deal and saved everyone's face making it an easier sell for the politicians.  

 

shane   


  • 0

#146 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 08 July 2016 - 0741 AM

 

 

 

Mentioning of France knowing about such a custom built Australian sub factory sounds like a good point. Perhaps it was inevitable to be brought up in the more important stage of the bid. Up until that inevitably happened, maybe the Japanese were hoping what was inevitable wouldn't happen, if they were aware of that, that is. Maybe Abott increased a sense of hope that it wouldn't. Admittedly, I am an outside observer of all of this, but knowing Japanese personally, when they are really committed, they apply a lot of effort, not to say others don't in their own respective ways, but just its difficult to imagine. By the time news of the the supposedly inevitable requirement for at least some domestic production came about, my impression was a drop in energy from the Japanese bid. Even if they lack the experience and institutions, I would have still expected lots of energy, campaigning, sloppiness and embarrassment here or there if must be, and so on. I follow Japanese military blogs on a fairly regular basis and I just didn't notice any amount of the kind of energy I would expect if the Japanese were fully committed after the requirement for production in Australia became an important criteria. Nor was there high hopes from Japanese netizens interested in military topics after the inevitable happened. Just my two cents on the matter. Thanks for the reply.

 

 

 I'm sure the Japanese knew all about the ASC factory for the start, nor do I think local construction was ever a mandatory element. The jury is still out on exactly how much work will end up being done here. Listing to Paris and Canberra they seem to have different ends of the stick. The real point was that the French addressed it in depth and detail where the Japanese barely mentioned it.

 

They could have made a damn good case against building them at ASC, doing it in Japan would have been cheaper, quicker and covered any quality concerns. But ASC is by default the heavy maintenance facility (only other option being doing it in Japan) and throwing a bit of the build work their way would have sweetened the deal and saved everyone's face making it an easier sell for the politicians.  

 

shane   

 

The Australians should have likely already considered the cost before making it very important for the bidders to have presentations about building in Australia. It kind of goes out of order of the process of things if Japanese bidders would be trying to get Australia to reconsider its budget plans. News articles for the months leading up to the decision have all indicated heavy emphasis on a lot of the building being in Australia. This Australian poll confirms that sentiment. This isn't a very comfortable environment to conduct a massive defense project that would last over the course of 20 years. I like the idea of Japan and Australia, together with the US, forming deeper defense relations which actively go into not just joint training, but into other areas, like defense procurement, but the reality of things make it difficult.

 

subsubsubjfkljfl.jpg

 

https://lowyinstitut...e-and-military/


  • 0

#147 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 09 July 2016 - 2126 PM

So...

 

When will they start building?

 

I am obviously no longer paying that close attention to this thread hehehehe


  • 0

#148 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 694 posts

Posted 10 July 2016 - 0418 AM

So they passed Swedes, Japanes, Germans, what say they will stay with the French? Next year it will probebly be a US build sub and then next year it will be a home made sube and so on.... and in the end they will modernise ther old subs and pospond the probelm...


  • 0

#149 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 04 August 2016 - 2348 PM

Jason

 

I saw this and thought of you... :)

 

http://www.aspistrat...uation-process/


  • 0

#150 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 04 August 2016 - 2359 PM

Thanks Argus :)

We'll see how it goes..
  • 0

#151 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 05 August 2016 - 0017 AM

No wukkers :D

 

Shane


  • 0

#152 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 23 August 2016 - 2018 PM

Well gee....

 

http://www.theaustra...3d0b-1472001611

 


The French company that won the bid to design Australia’s new $50 billion submarine fleet has suffered a massive leak of secret documents, raising fears about the future security of top-secret data on the navy’s future fleet.

 

The stunning leak, which runs to 22,400 pages and has been seen by The Australian, details the ­entire secret combat capability of the six Scorpene-class submarines that French shipbuilder DCNS has designed for the Indian Navy.

 

A variant of the same French-designed Scorpene is also used by the navies of Malaysia, Chile and, from 2018, Brazil, so news of the Edward Snowden-sized leak — ­revealed today — will trigger alarm at the highest level in these countries. Marked “Restricted Scorpene India”, the DCNS documents ­detail the most sensitive combat capabilities of India’s new $US3 bn ($3.9bn) submarine fleet and would provide an ­intelligence bonanza if obtained by India’s strategic rivals, such as Pakistan or China.

 

Gee. I guess they didn't see that coming, eh?


  • 0

#153 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 23 August 2016 - 2034 PM

Wow that was fast..
  • 0

#154 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 24 August 2016 - 0830 AM

22,000+ pages?!?! That sounds friggin' crippling. Think I'd scrap the Shortfin deal just on the off chance the two platforms shared similar tech, which I assume on at least some level they do.
  • 0

#155 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 29 September 2017 - 1111 AM

Description
This independent report by Insight Economics, sponsored by Mr Gary Johnston (Submarines for Australia), presents an analysis of the government’s decision on the acquisition of twelve future submarines (FSM) for the Royal Australian Navy under the SEA 1000 programme. In preparing this report, we have benefited from extensive discussions with a large number of experts in the areas of strategic analysis, submarine capability and operations, engineering and defence industry.

In April 2016, the government announced that the French company DCNS (now ‘Naval Group’) had been selected as Australia’s partner to design Australia’s FSM, the Shortfin Barracuda. Including a life extension for the Collins class submarines, the cost of SEA 1000, at around $60 billion in 2016 prices, is extremely high, while the risks around the programme are very substantial.

After evaluating the government’s decision and while not seeking to disrupt current contractual arrangements, we propose a way forward that involves significantly lower costs and risks.

http://apo.org.au/node/112296

Full report:

http://insighteconom...rine_Report.pdf


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Japan, Germany, France, Collins-class

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users