Jump to content


Photo

New Australian Sub

Japan Germany France Collins-class

  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#41 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 30 September 2015 - 0616 AM

Is the main concern of Japanese critical of the deal the fact that Oz could be a economic or strategic competitor or that the technology might leak out of Australia? Presumably China is the primary/only concern in the latter case.


  • 0

#42 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,964 posts

Posted 30 September 2015 - 0843 AM

Is the main concern of Japanese critical of the deal the fact that Oz could be a economic or strategic competitor or that the technology might leak out of Australia? Presumably China is the primary/only concern in the latter case.

 

 

Leaks to China by far is my impression. A point often made is that if Australia's future sub are to be entirely built in Australia, many of the Japanese posters are saying France or Germany would be perfectly fine. I haven't noticed any objection to the idea of a German assisted developed Australian sub industry. Not to say I have seen a lot, but from just what I have seen on a military news website that I frequently read. I don't post there, only reading. It has been said to be similar to the F-22 even, like how the US didn't want to export any F-22s in order to safe guard its technology. I have no idea how advance Soryu's tech is. I kind of doubt it's at a level of cutting edge tech like the F-22 but to a point I understand this argument.


  • 0

#43 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 30 September 2015 - 1026 AM

I can see Japanese reservations, though at the same time I'm wondering what could be sensitive relative to the Collins class - it seems like both sides have access to relatively high end submarine technologies, if perhaps the RAN seems to have harder time making any of it reliable. Since the people who comment on such things are never in the know as a rule, I wonder if largely there's little repercussions to Japan exporting their technology. Does Oz have some history of leaking things to China? Certainly the US has had a couple issues with technology going out of Japan in the past.


  • 0

#44 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,964 posts

Posted 30 September 2015 - 1121 AM

I can see Japanese reservations, though at the same time I'm wondering what could be sensitive relative to the Collins class - it seems like both sides have access to relatively high end submarine technologies, if perhaps the RAN seems to have harder time making any of it reliable. Since the people who comment on such things are never in the know as a rule, I wonder if largely there's little repercussions to Japan exporting their technology. Does Oz have some history of leaking things to China? Certainly the US has had a couple issues with technology going out of Japan in the past.


There are videos about Soryu and in some scenes of the videos, sections of the internal rooms of the sub are blurred. But as someone who is not well knowledgable about subs, I can't say. Indeed some people just post away without deeply knowing and I have no doubts that many posts are of that kind. It's an indication of the general mood rather than indications of what Soryu's tech and capabilities actually are.

As for leaks to China from Australia, well, AFAIK, Australia doesn't have a lot of cutting edge weapons so not much opportunity for leaks. Giving the shacky history of the Collins sub, having secret tech involved in a repeat of Collins-like difficulties would be undesirable no doubt. I'm not taking the position that Australia isn't a country that cannot be trusted by Japan but with all factors considered, a degree of risk is there. And there are, supposedly, plenty of examples of China stealing tech from the US. China is definitely out to get whatever they can. So if Soryu tech ends up in Australia, Chinese activities to get out of Australia would have to be assumed to go up. And in the case of Soryu, it not only would be for acquiring new tech, but also, as a foreseeable enemy sub, for improving ways to detect and combat Soryu.
  • 0

#45 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,339 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 0459 AM

Soryu subs have the wave motion cannon. The blurred stuff in the videos are the MFDs and other equipment associated with the wave motion cannon.

;)
  • 0

#46 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,964 posts

Posted 12 October 2015 - 1509 PM

A blog loaded with reading material about the sub competition:

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/?m=1
  • 0

#47 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,964 posts

Posted 05 April 2016 - 1130 AM

While there was a headline not to long ago saying that Australia would announce their decision shortly, as just a headline, who knows right. From the blog linked in the above post provides some speculation about it worth some interesting reading.

 

 

Submarine decision "Coming Soon" maybe 8 to 15 April 2016

 

The political problems of the of the Turnbull Government may result in an early Election with the likelihood of haste and some confusion in the submarine decision.

In the political environment of the Australian Election Campaign Prime Minister Turnbull is attempting to gain political capital by flagging the likelihood of an early Future Submarine decision. This decision may be on:

-  which of the three contenders has won, and

-  may indicate how many submarines (if any) are built overseas and how many in Australia. The proportion of work in Australia and $Billions to be spent is the most politically high profile issue.

Turnbull may not specify which Australian States will get most of the submarine work, rather he is more likely to say all will do work.

It is Industry Minister, Christopher Pyne who, coming from South Australia, who will say (or imply) that most submarine work will be in the key State of South Australia. It is in South Australia that  Turnbull's Coalition Government may lose many House and Senate seats to Labor, the Greens and to the submarine fixated Xenophon Team.

ANNOUNCEMENT WHEN?

There are many influential variables. But I am guessing Turnbull might announce submarine decisions on Friday, 15 April 2016 (this of course is assuming Japan wins) because:

-  that day is the beginning of a visit by Soryu submarine JS Hakuryu, to Sydney on 15 April. 

-  there is also no distraction of Parliament sitting on 15 April.

-  Friday is a traditional day to make major announcements, as detail can be supplied to the weekend newspapers published the next day.

-  the "achievement" of making the submarine decision that "helps workers" would occur as a "good news story" just before Federal Parliament sits, on Monday 18 April, to effectively decide if the 2 July (double dissolution) Election should be held  

-  if Japan doesn't win things are more complicated. Then Turnbull needs to be courteous to prevent loss of face (to him and Japan), making the announcement at least a week before 15 April - hence on 8 April or after the Japanese submarine leaves Sydney 26 April) hence 29 April or later.

As the submarines is a major policy decision Turnbull would tend to follow the conventional of not making the decision during the caretaker period after Parliament is dissolved just prior to the Election (about 5 weeks before any Election) with possible election dates 2 July onwards through to as late as October 2016.

It must be realised that Turnbull has been making policy decisions in an erratic way - as he goes along. So the above predictions are only Guesstimates.

ARTICLE

 

AAP via Australia’s Channel 9 News reports, April 5, 2016, http://www.9news.com...g-soon-turnbull
 
"Submarine decision coming soon: Turnbull
 
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says a decision on Australia's biggest ever defence contract will be made shortly.
 
...Industry Minister Christopher Pyne on Monday suggested the winner would be announced before the election, which could be held on July 2 [2016] if Mr Turnbull opts for a double-dissolution.
 
Mr Turnbull told reporters on Tuesday in Sydney..."Announcements about that will be made shortly," he said.
 
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told reporters in Perth the government needed to fulfil its 2013 election promise to build 12 submarines in Australia. "Our test is straightforward for submarines - build them here, maintain them here, sustain them here," he said..." [see WHOLE AAP-9News ARTICLE]

 

 

  • 0

#48 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,945 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 2242 PM

Fear of technology leakage to China is one fear, but not the only fear.

 

I am in favor of Australia's selection of a Soryu-class option, but it must be said that exposure of Japanese submarine technology to Australia would expose it to the Five Eyes USA-UK-AUS-NZ-CAN espionage alliance and, in turn, Newport News Shipbuilding.


Edited by Nobu, 06 April 2016 - 2245 PM.

  • 0

#49 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 06 April 2016 - 2319 PM

Fear of technology leakage to China is one fear, but not the only fear.

 

I am in favor of Australia's selection of a Soryu-class option, but it must be said that exposure of Japanese submarine technology to Australia would expose it to the Five Eyes USA-UK-AUS-NZ-CAN espionage alliance and, in turn, Newport News Shipbuilding.

Why would that possibly be a concern? Even assuming the Japanese know something the USN doesn't about silencing, which seems rather generous from the get go given the massive head start the USN has always had post war, it's not like the USN is going to be hunting Japanese subs. And if it was, I suspect Japanese problems would be a bit more serious than loosing a couple of SSKs, considering they would be fighting the largest navy, economy, and nuclear power. The US isn't even a competitor for selling SSKs to other navies, so I just don't see the problem of the remote possibility of technology sharing with 'Newport News' (I would have gone with Electric Boat, but ok) so long as any such information stays in the ECHELON family - they are all allies with no diesel sub production lines to even compete with Japanese exports. No conflict or conflict of interest.


  • 0

#50 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,945 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0003 AM

Japan's most advanced diesel attack submarine, and possibly the world's, incorporates the full engineering expertise of Japanese industry. Whether the USN or any other member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance would be able to learn anything from the Soryu class is debatable. I would be surprised if the USN, Newport News Shipbuilding et al were not extremely eager to find out.

 

The U.S. not being in the diesel attack submarine business is true. Access to the secrets of the most advanced diesel attack submarine in the world might be enough to kickstart such an enterprise, however.

 

Soryu-class technology would also be an extremely interesting and marketable intelligence commodity.


Edited by Nobu, 07 April 2016 - 0010 AM.

  • 0

#51 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,964 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0009 AM

Can take just one insider thirsty for Chicom money to throw away one of Japan's few and critical advantages.
  • 0

#52 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0015 AM

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...


  • 0

#53 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0019 AM

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.


  • 0

#54 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,945 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0020 AM

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.


  • 0

#55 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,945 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0034 AM

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.


  • 0

#56 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0114 AM

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.


  • 0

#57 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0117 AM

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, 07 April 2016 - 0118 AM.

  • 0

#58 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 07 April 2016 - 0117 AM

deleted


Edited by Josh, 07 April 2016 - 0118 AM.

  • 0

#59 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,964 posts

Posted 25 April 2016 - 2358 PM

France won, congrats :)

http://www.theaustra...401f3edc97c5402
  • 0

#60 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,339 posts

Posted 26 April 2016 - 0139 AM

I couldn't open the link of JasonJ so:

 

http://www.reuters.c...s-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:


  • 0





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