Jump to content


Photo

New Australian Sub

Japan Germany France Collins-class

  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#21 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 22 May 2015 - 1619 PM

 

 

I know the nuclear propulsion solution is not popular but I am going to say it anyway: nuclear propulsion.

When Canada looked at them, the cost of the subs were acceptable, but the infrastructure cost to support them quickly tripled the price tag. Unless you plan to use existing refuelling facilites then the costs are quite high. Modern subs are starting to erode some of the advantages of nukes. 

 

Should have doubled up with the RN. After all our naval bases and yours are facing the same direction, and with a nuke boat the distances are trivial.

 

I understand they had Canadians at the Perisher courses in the 1980s (possibly still do) so there were working links there. We even had a squadron of RN diesel submarines assigned to Canada in the 1960s I was surprised to learn. Caused a potential problem during the Cuban missile crisis though....

 

Canada sent Canadian Reserve Officers on it since WWII, I think in preparation for the O boat handover 200 officers and sailors went to train with the RN. Meanwhile on the West coast HMCS Grisle was still active. The RCN wanted the US Barbel  class subs over the O-boats, but was even willing to take old S class boats to keep the Sub arm alive, the main reason was for ASW training and then NATO comitments.


  • 0

#22 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 22 May 2015 - 1820 PM

 

Well yes, though the existing Soryu is probably closest to a potential extended-range version for Australia. The 216 is an all-new design with quite a leap over the 214 in size (double the submerged displacement, plus new features like the multi-purpose lockout module), and putting a non-nuclear drive into a Barracuda sounds like a major evolution to me, too.

 

Hmmm...so to summarize, it's going to be much enlarged, unproven version of foreign sub, built in Australia. I can't put my finger on it, but it sounds somehow familiar...

 

An improved Soryu is probably being developed for te JMSDF anyway. It has a habit of evolutionary progress in subs. For example, new batteries are supposed to be introduced & bugs worked out on Soryus before any Aussie subs would be built. And it wouldn't need to be "much" enlarged - unlike the Type 216. I think the Japanese option is the one with the lowest technical risk for the sub itself, but they have no experience in supporting licence building. The Germans are by far the most experienced at supporting foreign yards building their subs built under licence, but their sub needs the most enlargement. The French sub doesn't need any enlargement at all, but needs completely new propulsion.


  • 0

#23 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,712 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 23 May 2015 - 1328 PM

On the other hand a large hull is easy and the technology driving U212-U216 is similar. And as U218SG is developed any way, there might be some savings.


  • 0

#24 baboon6

baboon6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,865 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Interests:military history, current affairs, sport (rugby, cricket, football), Bushmills whiskey, wine, bad 80s pop music (Howard Jones, Human League etc).

Posted 16 June 2015 - 2227 PM

I know the nuclear propulsion solution is not popular but I am going to say it anyway: nuclear propulsion.

When Canada looked at them, the cost of the subs were acceptable, but the infrastructure cost to support them quickly tripled the price tag. Unless you plan to use existing refuelling facilites then the costs are quite high. Modern subs are starting to erode some of the advantages of nukes.
Should have doubled up with the RN. After all our naval bases and yours are facing the same direction, and with a nuke boat the distances are trivial.
 
I understand they had Canadians at the Perisher courses in the 1980s (possibly still do) so there were working links there. We even had a squadron of RN diesel submarines assigned to Canada in the 1960s I was surprised to learn. Caused a potential problem during the Cuban missile crisis though....
The RN had submarine sqns all over the place in the 50s and 60s, including Malta, Singapore, Sydney and Halifax. The latter two were withdrawn after the Australians and Canadians got their own submarine forces online but there were some later deployments too.

http://www.godfreydy...AND_BEYOND!.htm

http://www.godfreydy...angle_Album.htm

http://upperiscope.c...history_sm4.htm

SM7 was I think withdrawn from Singapore in about 1972.

As for Perisher AFAIK the RCN and RAN both send their potential skippers to the International Diesel submarine Command Course run by the Royal Netherlands Navy which is conducted at least in part in conjunction with Perisher. The Dutch started this course after the RN course which they and many other countries had sent prospective captains to went nuclear.

http://www.navy.mil/...e_28/dutch.html

http://www.dutchsubm...pecial_smcc.htm

Edited by baboon6, 16 June 2015 - 2239 PM.

  • 0

#25 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 0923 AM

Apparently Canada has provided one of our Victoria class subs to the Commanders courses in Norway?


  • 0

#26 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 24 June 2015 - 1455 PM

An old thread that could have been bumped.

http://www.tank-net....520#entry647377
  • 0

#27 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 06 September 2015 - 1628 PM

In 2014 it looked like Australia was looking to just buy off the shelf but in the last few months, they have been pressing for locally building their next subs. So now Japan's position is looking weak as they don't want to share all the technical details of the Soryu.

http://eandt.theiet....sep/jap-sub.cfm
  • 0

#28 TonyE

TonyE

    I/Kitsap Militia

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,448 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway
  • Interests:Them grate steal beest! and, there history.

Posted 06 September 2015 - 1743 PM

Collins-redux?


  • 0

#29 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,257 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 06 September 2015 - 1952 PM

The RAN would be as well attaching some people to the RMN to learn the AIP system on the frog boats which we run. Though if I were running this rodeo, I would have at least 4 boats built as milk cows/SF Support


  • 0

#30 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 06 September 2015 - 2215 PM

Collins-redux?


Seeing the troubles with the Collins, I could understand the Japanese not trusting their sensitive technology in a repeat of troubles.

Australia's call.. just buy the Japanese subs off the shelf or try the learning experience again with the either the Germans or the French.
  • 0

#31 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,257 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 07 September 2015 - 0142 AM

Practice by building 1 milk cow...screwing it up is lower risk.


  • 0

#32 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 07 September 2015 - 0157 AM

Practice by building 1 milk cow...screwing it up is lower risk.


I don't think Australia has the money for it unless they cut down the number of a subs they want to be able to deploy. The Japanese still probably would prefer to sell off the shelf to improve protection of the technology rather than have the manufacturing of parts being shifted outside of Japan.
  • 0

#33 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 07 September 2015 - 1130 AM

The Aussie just announced an ambitious ship building programme so that may take the political pressure off to build domestically. But it does create economic pressure to keep limited fund ashore.

 

I hear from some places good things about the Japanese subs and others saying stay away from them, without an specifics why. They are bigger than the Upholder/Victoria class which are bigger than many subs.  


  • 0

#34 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 07 September 2015 - 1310 PM

Size makes greater range & endurance possible. The Ozzies want long range & endurance. They also want maximum compataibility with the USN, & I think the Japanese offer that, too. AFAIK the biggest questions are about Japanese builders unfamiliarity with building weapon systems for export, & even more, with having their designs built abroad. But they're familiar with doing both for civilian stuff.


  • 0

#35 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 19 September 2015 - 1130 AM

The new Australian government looks to be putting more weight into having them in domestically built. Good luck France and Germany.

 

http://www.smh.com.a...917-gjpazk.html

 

Many Japanese comments on the net are saying its actually a relief as it keeps Soryu's technology more secured.


  • 0

#36 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,694 posts

Posted 20 September 2015 - 1342 PM

I understand the politics of the "build it here" game but seriously, didn't they learn a lesson from the last sub clusterfark? Then again, I'd be happy to see EB gain from being asked to pull their fat out of the fire again. Subs are a great example of perishable defense construction skills. You can't just pull them out of the drawer every couple of decades when you need them.


  • 0

#37 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 21 September 2015 - 0917 AM

If they don't build them domestically at all, they'll be permanently out of the sub building business. That's probably a bitter pill to swallow, though considering their need base I'm not sure they truly can support a domestic program indefinitely. There's a lot of surface ship activity on the horizon too; I think its probably a good time to just let it go. But that is a political decision far more than a military one.


  • 0

#38 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 21 September 2015 - 0935 AM

Ship building has always been a political decision. Canada built subs in WWII and was prepared to build more post war, but lost out to British subs. The RCN wanted the US designed Barbels  subs  https://en.wikipedia...class_submarine Instead we got the O-boats.


  • 0

#39 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 21 September 2015 - 1338 PM

Modern submarines seem to be complicated enough that its a hard industry to pick up or remain proficient in. Australia has the added problem of having very unique submarine requirements (outside perhaps Japan) which means they largely can't turn around and sell anything they make to the global market like Zee Germans, for instance. I don't know what the right answer is; the obvious short term answer is skip the Collins level CF and buy directly off Japan.


  • 0

#40 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 30 September 2015 - 0447 AM

Looks like the Japanese government really wants to win the deal.

 

 

Japan is ready to match European rivals and build a fleet of submarines for Canberra entirely in Australian shipyards, a senior Japanese official said Tuesday, after stumbling in its effort to win a contract worth 50 billion Australian dollars or $34.76 billion.

 

Tokyo was willing to train hundreds of Australian engineers in Japan’s submarine-manufacturing hub of Kobe as well as in Australia as part of its offer for one of the world’s biggest defense contracts, said Masaaki Ishikawa, director general for Acquisition Reform at the Ministry of Defense.

 

His comments are the first from an official directly involved in the bid to the effect that Japan is willing to build the stealth submarines entirely in Australia, where jobs are a hot-button political issue. Canberra is expected to order between eight to 12 vessels.

 

“Whatever option Australia chooses we are ready to provide the necessary technology transfers and skills,” Ishikawa said in an interview. “We will optimize the role of Australian industry.”

 

Japan had been the frontrunner to replace Australia’s aging Collins-class submarines with a modified off-the-shelf version of its 4,000-ton Soryu-class vessel until then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott opened up the bidding in February under pressure from opposition and ruling party lawmakers.

 

While Japan sought to stress the capabilities of its submarines, Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) and France’s state-controlled naval contractor DCNS both said their offers would include a full build in Australia.

 

The European firms have also courted the Australian defense industry and politicians for months, while Japan’s efforts to do likewise have fallen flat.

 

Abbott’s ouster earlier this month was a further blow to Tokyo, given his close relationship with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, sources have said.

 

Ishikawa said Japan would submit three options requested by Canberra: a full build in Australia, a hybrid option that would see the first vessels built in Japan and the rest in Australia, as well as a complete overseas build.

 

It was up to Canberra to assess the risk and cost of each option, he added.

 

An expert advisory panel is expected to deliver its recommendation on the bids to the Australian government in November. The contract also includes a decades-long maintenance program for the submarines.

 

Japan is offering a variant of its 4,000-ton diesel-electric Soryu submarine built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

 

“We already have an ocean-going submarine of the right size that is operating today at sea,” Ishikawa said.

 

TKMS, which is proposing to scale up its 2,000-ton Type 214 class vessel, has said it would turn a naval shipyard in South Australia state into a submarine construction and maintenance hub for Asia.

 

DCNS has said it would share for the first time its stealth technology with the Australian government and is also planning a package of economic incentives.

 

Abe has a lot riding on the tender after lifting a decades-old ban on weapons exports in April last year as part of his more muscular security agenda.

 

Japan has yet to secure a major overseas arms deal since then, with its inexperience in the rough and tumble of global defense markets showing.

 

Ishikawa and other Japanese government and industry officials who traveled to the South Australian capital Adelaide last month to promote the Soryu submarines were stung by criticism over their unwillingness to commit to building all the boats in Australia.

That team, Ishikawa said, would deliver a clearer message next month in Sydney in a bid to regain lost ground.

 

There, they plan a second presentation for potential suppliers and partners at the Pacific 2015 International Maritime Exposition, a biennial expo and conference that begins on Oct. 6. A third presentation will be held in Melbourne on Oct. 9.

 

In addition to highlighting the technical merits of Tokyo’s bid, Ishikawa said the team would note Japan’s investment in Australia, point to past industrial collaboration and talk up the benefits of building security ties with a fellow U.S. ally in Asia rather than buying vessels from distant Europe.

 

 

Maybe a sub variant of Soryu with less sensitive technology is being offered, like a cross between Soryu and oyashio. Also the sub deal would be a good way to strengthen ties with Australia in security cooperation while also expanding Japan's influence in the arms market. Those Japanese posters that expressed relief in the deal not going for Soryu were not too happy with the news.


  • 0





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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users