All hail the God of Frustration!!!
- Apr 15, 2006
- Reaction score
The media downunder is all too often more interested in creating contraversy than merely reporting it.covert_shores said:Australian press and politicians seem to be more concerned about friendly relations with Japan than the subs. Why didn't he complain about french or german companies getting the money? Why was Japan listed first in the headline? Muppets.
Support for a Tokyo proposal to build the vessels in Japan was a factor in the downfall of Tony Abbott, who was deposed as prime minister last month by fellow Liberal Malcolm Turnbull.
“The submarine issue was one of the things that weakened Tony Abbott’s prime ministership,” says Andrew Davies, a director at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “His pursuit of a deal with Japan was seen as one of the ‘captain’s calls’ which led to his difficulties.”
The deal would have strengthened defence ties between Australia and Japan, both allies of the US, which is concerned about rising Chinese assertiveness and a submarine arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. But Mr Abbott underestimated the strength of feeling in the shipbuilding heartland of South Australia, a state reeling from the imminent closure of the car industry and a mining downturn that has pushed unemployment to 8 per cent — the highest in Australia.
“I’m now very confident the submarines will be built in Australia,” says Sean Edwards, one of seven South Australian Liberals who voted to oust Mr Abbott.
The departure of Mr Abbott, who enjoyed a close relationship with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has alarmed Tokyo, which has no experience of competing for overseas defence contracts or overseeing the design of submarines built in foreign shipyards. Amid the new political climate, Tokyo signalled last week it was willing to build the submarines in Adelaide alongside ASC.
Hugh White, professor at the Australian National University, says the pressure for a local build means Tokyo has slipped from frontrunner to outsider in the contest, as Mr Turnbull is unlikely to share Mr Abbott’s strategic agenda.
“The odds swing towards the European competitors, who have much better track records as submarine exporters and fewer of the regional strategic complications that a deal with Japan might bring,” he says.
Analysts say Japan is the only bidder with a submarine in operation large enough to meet Australia’s requirements, even though its Soryu design would need to be adapted to extend its range. DCNS also lacks Tokyo’s experience integrating the US weapons systems Australian submarines will use.
I am unsure why the US is concerned about Australia's decision to purchase submarines. Our submarines are (or were) intended primarily as a strategic, defensive system to deter possible aggression against Australia and it's regional interests. The way to deal with China and it's apparent designs in the South or East China Seas is to utilise soft-power - deny trade to their economy, which is highly dependent on sea-borne raw materials and trade, not to threaten to sink ships. Redirect the trade to nations which are friendlier and have the ability to fulfil the cheap labour needs of the West. They will get the message quickly enough.Grey Havoc said:http://blog.usni.org/2016/03/02/stepping-up-down-under
Bummer. I was hoping Japan would win. They have a lot of stuff that should do well on the world market.Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
They have to start designing their boats so that an average Aussie can stand up in them before they'll find many buyers for them...sferrin said:Bummer. I was hoping Japan would win. They have a lot of stuff that should do well on the world market.Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
Indeed.Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
I have seen no comments related to the possibility of AIP - just conventional batteries. That said, i would be very surprised if it wasn't included at least as an option or a future development. One key thing to remember is that this is just the start - there are a lot of negotiations to go before a formal contract is signed.TomS said:Has anyone seen whether the Shortfin Barracuda design for Australia includes AIP of any sort? I'm wondering if it's functionally a rebranding of the SMX Ocean, which has fuel-cell AIP and a 6-tube VLS.
I would guess that the ability to provide build documents and other services in English was one of the factors in Japan losing out. Corporate cultural differences may also have been a factor.Kadija_Man said:They have to start designing their boats so that an average Aussie can stand up in them before they'll find many buyers for them...sferrin said:Bummer. I was hoping Japan would win. They have a lot of stuff that should do well on the world market.Moose said:
Australian interactions with Japan are coloured somewhat by our experiences in WWII without a doubt. The PoW issue was a big one in the 1950s and 1960s, when many ex-PoWs were still alive and influenced the Returned Servicemens' League (RSL - a veterans organisation with considerable political influence). I've known Australians who refuse still to purchase anything made in Japan because of the experience of their relatives at the hands of the Japanese. The Burma-Siam railway is still well remembered downunder for it's brutality. Those feelings have decreased over time but there is still resentment in places like Queensland (an Australian state) because of the Japanese buying up considerable real estate in the 1970s and 1980s. Most Australians have a lingering suspicion of the Japanese. Mostly unfounded but it is still there.covert_shores said:Anyone closer to the situation got a view on why there is so much negativity toward the Japanese offer in Australia? Some of the comments I've seen a while back made me wonder whether it's still about WW2? Or worse?
Haven't heard similar concerns re German business practices applied to Swedish submarine partners, or French issues with Spanish sub program.
Its all BS. The Japanese offer wasn't as good as the French for the Australian requirement. The French boat is very good. And since the French are no longer a liability vis a vis the RAN to USN relationship it is easy to simplify the equation. This is what made the Japanese offer so attractive in the first place. They could provide good conventional submarine tech and not upset the vitally crucial RAN to USN Submarine MoU. It is this MoU that will mean an "Australian Scorpene" can be built with USN spec combat management system while a Spanish Scorpene has to use the Lockheed Martin commercial CMS. With the French back in the fold and established systems in place to protect the MoU (ie CMS) it becomes submarine tech vs submarine tech. And the French are building submarines of the right size with stuff in it from the UK and USA that the Japanese aren't using yet.covert_shores said:Anyone closer to the situation got a view on why there is so much negativity toward the Japanese offer in Australia? Some of the comments I've seen a while back made me wonder whether it's still about WW2? Or worse?
These figures don't mean much. In fact they mean less than nothing because they don't include crucial data. Things like transit speed, indescretion ratio, patrol rate of advance and hotel loading.Dragon029 said:There was also the issue of the Soryu having a questionable range; the Collins does 11,500NM at 10kts, the standard Soryu does 6,100NM. That could have been increased, but by how much? The Type 216 from TKMS does 10,500NM and apparently the DCNS Shortfin Barracuda goes as far as 18,000NM.
Australia needs subs with a long range to operate effectively around its coastline, as well as to perform operations up into SEA.
I very much doubt you will see an AIP. The Japanese are pulling Stirling AIP from their submarines and replacing them with high denisty power batteries. The world is coming around to the RAN's POV on AIP.GTX said:I have seen no comments related to the possibility of AIP - just conventional batteries. That said, i would be very surprised if it wasn't included at least as an option or a future development. One key thing to remember is that this is just the start - there are a lot of negotiations to go before a formal contract is signed.
I just hope the French are better at providing support here then on other acquisitions in the past...
Nothing fundamentally wrong with it, just that it isn't worth it for diesel-electric fleet submarine operations where you need a larger battery to support your higher transit speeds, higher rate of advance and lower indiscretion rate anyway. AIP is used to escape hold down by enemy ASW. Being held down is when a air dependent submarine is unable to escape localisation by the enemy without access to more air to provide energy. Being forced to snort or surface in the presence of the enemy is basically a death sentance in war and very embarrassing in peace.JohnR said:What is the RAN POV on AIP, is there something fundamentally wrong with it.
https://youtu.be/wlr29PKX8X0Published on Oct 7, 2015
At PACIFIC 2015, the international maritime exposition held recently in Sydney, DCNS was showcasing for the first time a scale model of its proposal for the Australian SEA1000 submarine design and procurement program. Based on the French Navy Barracuda SSN currently in final stage of construction, the Shorfin Barracuda is 3 meters shorter (94 meters) and 200 tons lighter (4,500 tons).