Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Japanese submarine establishment seems to be doing its utmost not to be involved with Australia despite what Abe and Abbott want. The worst outcome would be an unwilling partnership at the level that matters.
Alternatively it may be simply a ploy to ensure all production occurs in Japan, another poor outcome.

Whilst that is a disappointment it certainly opens the door to the other bidders

Submarines program: Adelaide shipyard not capable of building Soryu subs, former Japanese commander says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Japanese submarine establishment seems to be doing its utmost not to be involved with Australia despite what Abe and Abbott want. The worst outcome would be an unwilling partnership at the level that matters.
Alternatively it may be simply a ploy to ensure all production occurs in Japan, another poor outcome.

Whilst that is a disappointment it certainly opens the door to the other bidders

Submarines program: Adelaide shipyard not capable of building Soryu subs, former Japanese commander says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I also have been wondering about this apparent disinterest by, not just the Japanese SMEs but the Australian experts as well. Could it be that those with real world knowledge are of the opinion that the changes required to meet RAN requirements are simply too great for the existing (and future) Japanese submarines to meet? It could be they are simply not interested in designing a new boat for Australia and the RAN is not willing to acquire a design that is less capable of completing the required mission set than the Collin class.

I am not for one second suggesting that there is anything wrong with the Japanese boats, as by all accounts they are superb, possibly the best of their type in the world and a generation or two in advance of the Collins. What I am saying is they are the result of several decades of design evolution of boats specifically intended to sanitise the waters around Japan and control strategic choke points. The were never intended to have cruise missiles, were not designed with a US combat system, are not intended to conduct long range ISR missions, are not designed to embark and deploy special forces, are not designed to operate in tropical waters (cooling, corrosion and mirco-biological attack are critical issues in the tropics), are not intended to deploy, operate and recover UUVs.

Basically there are very major gaps between what the RAN needs from its future submarines and what the Japanese boats offer. For example if you need a high performance sports wagon or SUV with room in the back for your scuba gear and a tow bar for your boat you will not by a Nissan GTR no matter how good it is, as it can not do what you need it to do. If you went to Nissan and asked them for a GTR sports wagon that can tow a boat they would tell you to get stuffed.

I would not be surprised if the Japanese builders have looked at the Australian requirements and determined that they can only be met by a new design and that is not what Abe and Abbott have in mind. As we found with Collins it is actually a very difficult and risky undertaking to scale up and modify an existing design to meet a very different requirement, you are usually better off starting with a clean sheet, assessing and managing the risks before you start and be prepared for issues as they arise, than to simply assume that you are building a modified MOTS solution to print.
 

rjtjrt

Member
I also have been wondering about this apparent disinterest by, not just the Japanese SMEs but the Australian experts as well..........

............ What I am saying is they are the result of several decades of design evolution of boats specifically intended to sanitise the waters around Japan and control strategic choke points. The were never intended to have cruise missiles, were not designed with a US combat system, are not intended to conduct long range ISR missions, are not designed to embark and deploy special forces, are not designed to operate in tropical waters (cooling, corrosion and mirco-biological attack are critical issues in the tropics), are not intended to deploy, operate and recover UUV's..........
2 points
1. Japanese society is, by all accounts, a very conservative one. Such societies, at first, often/usually approach change with reluctance and even suspicion, but gradually adapt to changed circumstances/requirements.
Negative comments are thus probably not uneqpected from some quarters.
If this is correct it is likely at least some parts of industry and military look on the new process of exporting defence products with disdain and distrust, and even more so the prospect of co-operative production.
It may take some of them some time to accept and embrace such in submarine production for a non Japanese customer.
2. Even if Volkodav is correct in the above assessment of Soryu, it is likely the next iteration of Japanese sunbmarine will be designed for activities much closer to the Australian requirements, due to the new events in the South China Sea. Long range ISR, operating outside Sea of Japan and into tropical waters, use of Special Forces adjunct capability, etc will presumably be high on the list of requirements for Japan. They can no longer just operate close th Japan.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
2. Even if Volkodav is correct in the above assessment of Soryu, it is likely the next iteration of Japanese sunbmarine will be designed for activities much closer to the Australian requirements, due to the new events in the South China Sea. Long range ISR, operating outside Sea of Japan and into tropical waters, use of Special Forces adjunct capability, etc will presumably be high on the list of requirements for Japan. They can no longer just operate close th Japan.
Not enough for Australia though. Lithium batteries won't be a game changer in terms of range.

I believe the 216 proposal has 4 diesel engines (the french has SIX!). Soryu has 2 (each of a similar to the MTU ones on the 216). Collins has 3 and has issues with what we try and do with them now (particularly if one breaks missions are effectively aborted). You can't just put a huge V8 truck engine into a hatch back and make it pull a 40 ton trailer across the Nullarbor. You just can't, there are so many issues trying to do that. Your fuel tank isn't big enough, you can't manage the heat, weight distribution is all wrong, you don't have the space you need, its not fit for purpose etc.

Japan doesn't have to travel 3500 nm to get to station and then 3500nm to get back (Paul Greenfield 2014). It would be a huge compromise for them to design that capability into a submarine as they would never use it.

Unless Japan is considering patrolling Seattle down to central america, from Tokyo our requirements are very unique. The distances are literally that big.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Another factor (more closely related to the ABC story of the former senior Japanese submarine officer believing Australia to be incapable of fabricating Soryu hulls), many Japanese tend to look at Australia through a filter of "we find this thing hard to do, we are better than Australians, therefore Australians will find this thing impossible to do".

What I have written may sound judgemental or even racist but comes from experience of working in R&D for a Japanese automotive manufacturer and that is literally the bias we encountered all the time. We would have to repeat tests over and over again, produce multiple drafts of reports, have a cast of thousands (well a dozen or so engineers and managers) witness tests and even then still have our findings doubted. Often we would not be believed until the test was witnessed by a Japanese engineer or the same results were reproduced by a Japanese team. Simply they believed themselves superior to Australians therefore they automatically doubted anything we produced that they themselves had not, if what we found differed from their experience or suggested a problem with something they had designed the standard position was that we were wrong and must have stuffed it up.

Australians have risen to the highest levels globally in engineering, manufacturing, science, design, medicine, I could go on, but the stereo type of lazy, dumb, drunk and racist makes it very common for many cultures to look down at us in a way that when we used to do it to them was rightfully seen as racist and now they do it to us still is.

The irony in this is that ASC is among the world best at welding and fabrication. This was the case during the Collins build and continues to this day in the Collins maintenance, including cutting and re-welding the hulls, as well as the excellent job done on the AWDs. ASC fixes the problems from other builders, hull sections from Sweden, blocks from BAE, pipe segments from contractors, as well as completing their own work to worlds best practice. Its not just me saying this, it has been certified by Lloyds of London, as well as noted by each and every professional review of either the submarine or destroyer project. Senior surveyors from ABS, experienced shipbuilders and engineers from BIW, Navantia, Kockums, EB, USN etc. ASC are among the best when it comes to bashing steel.

It is quite common for ASCs abilities to be disregarded or even denied, but then again many (including unfortunately many ignorant Australians) like to deride the abilities and achievements of Australians in engineering, science, medicine, manufacturing, agriculture, mining, to name a few. The dumb, dunk and racist stereotype is believed rather than the reality of the majority being hard working and capable. Structural problems resulting from a small population, on a very large land mass, geographically separated from the rest of the world, exacerbated by political opportunism, inconsistency, lack of vision and sometimes, stupidity, as well as the greed of a small but very powerful minority, hold the county back and often prevent us from reaping the rewards due the talent and effort of so many.

It is hardly surprising that a retired senior naval officer who without a doubt is a patriot and rightfully proud of his countries achievements may believe that Australia is incapable of fabricating submarine hulls when Japan find it so difficult to do it. Then again the previous defence minister stood up in parliament and publicly canned ASC, which was rich coming from a corporate lawyer who probably doesn't know one end of a screw driver from another, so how can you blame the average member of public, let alone a member of an overseas navy for having doubts.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
BTW there is a good story in this months Engineers Australia magazine (Vol 87 May 2015) particularly with comments from the GM of the DMO submarines and DSTO. Covering 10 pages, the 3 proposals and details about the project.
 

rockitten

Member
The Japanese submarine establishment seems to be doing its utmost not to be involved with Australia despite what Abe and Abbott want. The worst outcome would be an unwilling partnership at the level that matters.
Alternatively it may be simply a ploy to ensure all production occurs in Japan, another poor outcome.

Whilst that is a disappointment it certainly opens the door to the other bidders

Submarines program: Adelaide shipyard not capable of building Soryu subs, former Japanese commander says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
On the positive side, that also confirmed that we are getting the Japanese's high tensile steel on our sub.
 

Hoffy

Member
On the positive side, that also confirmed that we are getting the Japanese's high tensile steel on our sub.
It actually said no such thing.

His comment referred to our ability to produce high tensile steel required to produce this particular version.

It never said that Australia was getting the Japanese sub and that it would be produced using this steel.

No confirmation of anything in this article at all...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
I am not for one second suggesting that there is anything wrong with the Japanese boats, as by all accounts they are superb, possibly the best of their type in the world and a generation or two in advance of the Collins. What I am saying is they are the result of several decades of design evolution of boats specifically intended to sanitise the waters around Japan and control strategic choke points. The were never intended to have cruise missiles, were not designed with a US combat system, are not intended to conduct long range ISR missions, are not designed to embark and deploy special forces, are not designed to operate in tropical waters (cooling, corrosion and mirco-biological attack are critical issues in the tropics), are not intended to deploy, operate and recover UUVs. ....
I suggest you check your list. One item has sprung out at me (bolded in red).

I find it unbelievable that JMSDF submarines are not designed to operate in tropical waters. Why would Japan build subs that aren't designed to operate in all parts of Japan's home waters? And note that nowadays they also deploy slightly further afield, e.g. to Guam.

Japanese submarines carry heavyweight torpedoes the same size as & heavier than a sub-launched Tomahawk, & carry sub-Harpoon. There are no physical or weapons-handling obstacles to them using cruise missiles that I can see.

The JMSDF has been using UUVs for a few years. I'd be very surprised if the scope for deploying them from submarines has been ignored.

And considering the amount of US kit they have, & the long history of close co-operation with the USN, almost to the exclusion of other navies (they jointly operate SOSUS systems, for example) I'd bet that Japanese submarines would be compatible with US combat systems, just as their surface ships are.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It actually said no such thing.

His comment referred to our ability to produce high tensile steel required to produce this particular version.

It never said that Australia was getting the Japanese sub and that it would be produced using this steel.


No confirmation of anything in this article at all...
Errr . . . he didn't actually say either of those. If the English is an accurate reflection of what he said (which can't be taken for granted), he was talking about the ability to work with, to shape, the high-tensile steel.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I suggest you check your list. One item has sprung out at me (bolded in red).

I find it unbelievable that JMSDF submarines are not designed to operate in tropical waters. Why would Japan build subs that aren't designed to operate in all parts of Japan's home waters? And note that nowadays they also deploy slightly further afield, e.g. to Guam.

Japanese submarines carry heavyweight torpedoes the same size as & heavier than a sub-launched Tomahawk, & carry sub-Harpoon. There are no physical or weapons-handling obstacles to them using cruise missiles that I can see.

The JMSDF has been using UUVs for a few years. I'd be very surprised if the scope for deploying them from submarines has been ignored.

And considering the amount of US kit they have, & the long history of close co-operation with the USN, almost to the exclusion of other navies (they jointly operate SOSUS systems, for example) I'd bet that Japanese submarines would be compatible with US combat systems, just as their surface ships are.
Allow me to expand on that. A number of assumptions were made during the design of the Collins class, some specifically relating to its use in tropical waters, others not, but the result was mixed with some quite unexpected outcomes. The issues I listed above were all encountered by the Collins and addressed over time by ASC. Cooling, corrosion and microbiological attack were very major, and quite unexpected issues in terms of their severity, they had been anticipated however the measures taken in the design phase proved inadequate as there is a very major difference to passing through, or even deploying for a period of time to a region, verses operating there continually through out a vessels service life. This is not just submarines, for example based on experience with the DDGs and FFGs the AWDs were fabricated from a different grade of steel to the Spanish vessels to prevent cracking that would definitely have occurred with the original steel in Australian waters. The paint / coating scheme was also changed, in part to inhibit corrosion and MB attack, both of which are far more severe in Australian water than almost anywhere else (one of the side effects of biodiversity due in part to our lower population density and greater near pristine environment).

The requirements for the replacement class have been developed by the RAN from their experience operating the Collins, as the Soryu and their eventual successors have been evolved to meet the requirements of the JMSDF. Every capability I listed is required by the RAN but not currently (so far as I have heard) by the JMSDF, this means that these capabilities will either need to be added to the Soryu replacements or the RAN will have to do without them. The issue isn't the Japanese subs, as I stated earlier they are superb platforms, the issue the RAN and JMSDF have different requirements.

I am not saying the Japanese should not design or build the RANs next subs, if they do the RAN will end up with a class of extremely capable boats. What I am saying is, contrary to popular / political belief, it will never be a case of ordering a MOTS solution from overseas, or building locally "to print" and having it meet the RANs requirements to a tee. The Japanese option will either have to be modified to such and extent it is no longer a Soryu / Next gen JMSDF boat but a new design, with all the associated risks, impacts to schedule and cost, or the RAN will have to do without capabilities they have stated they require to meet the missions given to them by the Australian Federal Government.

Few people, let alone politicians (even the smart ones) comprehend the impact of even small changes to a design baseline on project cost and schedule, nor do they understand the through life impact of not tailoring an asset, intended to last for a couple of decades, to suit the local environment, or current and anticipated missions. They think they can have a chat with the Japanese PM and just order several of the cool boats Japan is buying and all will be good, it doesn't work with cars and it definitely doesn't work with ships. Why the car reference? Well even importers like Kia and now the new Chinese importers such as Great Wall etc. spend considerable sums of money tailoring their vehicles for the Australian environment, our crap, suspension destroying roads, radiating heat that can cause problems for fuel systems, let alone aircons etc. Australian built vehicles exported to the ME were tested extensively and modified to cope with the harsh environment (particularly the heat), cars intended for Europe were fitted with improved under body fairing for improved performance and higher top speed, cars for the US were fitted with new fuel tanks, marine grade stainless exhausts, 5 Mph impact bumpers and tar like under body corrosion protection.

Different parts of the world have different environment impacts which drive differing requirements on vehicles and equipment intended to operate in those environments. Submarines built for the JMSDF are designed to operate in Japanese water, French submarines are designed to operate in French waters, German in German waters etc. etc. Any submarine, Japanese, French, German, or American will need to be modified for Australian requirements or its performance and perhaps even its availability and service life may be adversely (not to mention expensively) effected.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I understand all that. What I'm saying is that you're not looking at Japanese subs, you're looking at Swedish subs & saying they weren't designed for tropical waters (fair enough - Sweden's a long way from the tropics & its subs expect to operate in the Baltic) & seem to be assuming that Japanese subs will resemble Swedish subs.

Japan has tropical waters in its home waters! Of course Japanese submarines are intended to operate there, & sometimes for extended periods. If they weren't, they'd be useless to Japan. Japan is not Sweden.

And so on down the list. I'm not saying it's all wrong, just that you seem to be looking backwards, & focusing on European navies & how their requirements differ from Australia's.
 

Oberon

Member
I understand all that. What I'm saying is that you're not looking at Japanese subs, you're looking at Swedish subs & saying they weren't designed for tropical waters (fair enough - Sweden's a long way from the tropics & its subs expect to operate in the Baltic) & seem to be assuming that Japanese subs will resemble Swedish subs.

Japan has tropical waters in its home waters! Of course Japanese submarines are intended to operate there, & sometimes for extended periods. If they weren't, they'd be useless to Japan. Japan is not Sweden.

And so on down the list. I'm not saying it's all wrong, just that you seem to be looking backwards, & focusing on European navies & how their requirements differ from Australia's.
Japan does not have tropical waters. It lost its tropical islands as a result of WW2.
Japan's principal maritime area of interest is the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea both in temperate climatic zones...... with the occasional typhoon.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Japan does not have tropical waters. It lost its tropical islands as a result of WW2.
Japan's principal maritime area of interest is the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea both in temperate climatic zones...... with the occasional typhoon.
Look at a map. Don't just look at Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu & Shikoku, but further south. And remember that waters start at the coastline & spread out, 200 nautical miles in the case of EEZs.

Then think where the southernmost choke points are that the JMSDF would want to close in a war.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Look at a map. Don't just look at Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu & Shikoku, but further south. And remember that waters start at the coastline & spread out, 200 nautical miles in the case of EEZs.

Then think where the southernmost choke points are that the JMSDF would want to close in a war.
If you say the tropics start at 23°26′14.2″ then Japan I don't think has any territory in the tropics (below 24). Close though. However, patrolling this is still in deep water so on patrol at 500m deep is quite different to traversing through 2500 miles each way at the surface to get to the other side of the topics/equator in the northern hemisphere.

There are nuclear submarines designed with far shorter transits.

Managing heat when travelling through 30 degree c water is problematic particularly for an SSK.
 
Is the DCNS SMX Ocean based option actually viable or just making up the numbers?

Is the only reason this option isn't given higher weight that they're french and the system intergration worries of the US?

With a build of 8-10(12) subs tailored to our requirements almost any option *could* work.

Also, should we hold any fears over TKMS potentially taking over ASC. Their promises of on-going work etc. could seem bit bogus considering what happened with the takover of Kockums and subsequent re-split to SAAB. Any thoughts?
 

kiwi in exile

Active Member
MRH90 in Vanuatu relief/pacific ops

Does anyone have any insider info on how well the MRH90 performed in the vanuatu relief mission. Was this it's first pacific deployment. According to Gov't PR things went well.

Capabilities put to immediate use | Navy Daily

There was a bit of fuss in NZ MSM becasue we werenot able to deploy our brand new $$$ NH90s (they had not reached FOC yet, not been cleared to operate from HMNZS Canterbury yet, however most commentators missed this, political points scoring all round). I'm interested because south Pacific HADR will probably be a big part of what NZs' NH90s will do internationally. As far as I'm aware, Aust is the only country that has operated them in tropical climates, and Euro seaborn ops have reveallled corrosion issues.

Thanks
 

Oberon

Member
Look at a map. Don't just look at Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu & Shikoku, but further south. And remember that waters start at the coastline & spread out, 200 nautical miles in the case of EEZs.

Then think where the southernmost choke points are that the JMSDF would want to close in a war.
Yes, the choke points for middle east oil imports to Japan are mostly around Indonesia which is in tropical waters. But Japanese "home waters" are hardly in the tropics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top