Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

swerve

Super Moderator
Most of them aren't. But look at the southern islands, & the gap between the southernmost Ryukyus & Taiwan.

Stingrayoz:
If you count Okinotorishima, Japan has a tiny bit of territory in the tropics, & it has islands barely north of the Tropic of Cancer from just east of Taiwan to Marcus Island. The western end of that is exactly where China's been making trouble recently.


It seems peculiar to me to suggest that a country the EEZ of which extends into the tropics would not design its naval vessels for tropical water temperatures.
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A few interesting press releases from the DEFMIN, an "Expert" advisory panel has just been appointed to try and keep things "above board". As best as I can see, there is really only one person on the panel you could deem as an expert, I can see why the others are there, but if they are going to appoint a former Secretary of the USN, we could find more people with specific Submarine experience to truly make it above board ?

This continual quote still concerns me though:

"The Government expects that significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the future submarine including combat systems integration, design assurance and land based testing. This will result in the creation of at least 500 new high-skilled jobs in Australia, the majority of which will be based in South Australia"

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Transcript – Expert Advisory Panel on the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process – 5 June 2015

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Expert Advisory Panel appointed to oversee Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Inaugural visit to Japan concludes

Cheers
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A few interesting press releases from the DEFMIN, an "Expert" advisory panel has just been appointed to try and keep things "above board". As best as I can see, there is really only one person on the panel you could deem as an expert, I can see why the others are there, but if they are going to appoint a former Secretary of the USN, we could find more people with specific Submarine experience to truly make it above board ?

This continual quote still concerns me though:

"The Government expects that significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the future submarine including combat systems integration, design assurance and land based testing. This will result in the creation of at least 500 new high-skilled jobs in Australia, the majority of which will be based in South Australia"

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Transcript – Expert Advisory Panel on the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process – 5 June 2015

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Expert Advisory Panel appointed to oversee Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Inaugural visit to Japan concludes

Cheers
Yep the preferred plan definitely seems to be a Japanese build of a JMSDF submarine, with local work being all the tricky technical stuff such as combat system integration, i.e. Raytheon not ASC. Inevitably it will all go to the dogs, situation normal, due almost entirely to the decisions made by the government of the day and the nature of the contract they write and force Australian participants to sign but it will all be ASC and Labors fault.

Sorry for the cynicism but I have the sinking feeling I have seen it all before, i.e. the defence procurement travesties of the Howard years that somehow always ended up being someone else's fault.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
See labour throwing the mud around and hoping it sticks, we would not be in this position if they did not raid the cookie jar all those years ago,

"Labor said the appointment of the advisory panel was too little, too late and no amount of oversight or expert advice could save this fundamentally flawed process."
 

Stock

Member
Yep the preferred plan definitely seems to be a Japanese build of a JMSDF submarine, with local work being all the tricky technical stuff such as combat system integration, i.e. Raytheon not ASC. Inevitably it will all go to the dogs, situation normal, due almost entirely to the decisions made by the government of the day and the nature of the contract they write and force Australian participants to sign but it will all be ASC and Labors fault.

Sorry for the cynicism but I have the sinking feeling I have seen it all before, i.e. the defence procurement travesties of the Howard years that somehow always ended up being someone else's fault.
You have cause to be cynical I believe.

With statements like "The Expert Advisory Panel will assure the Government that the competitive evaluation process remains sound, is conducted in accordance with probity and accountability principles, and that participants have been treated fairly and equitably," it seems the Govt is shoring itself up in anticipation of any protests lodged by the Germans or French should they go the Japanese route.

Reeks of a massive stitch-up.

In view of the fact the Japanese Govt and Soryu industry partners have zero technology transfer experience or of exporting the technology, has the Govt given any consideration to the impending difficulty of translating Japanese engineering documents and plans? Sounds simple but it won't be. As in all languages, there is a big difference between Japanese and technical Japanese.

Anyone in engineering/engineering design and who has dealt with overseas primes/OEMs will know how difficult and problematic this will be.

Those who end up being responsible for translation will need to be both fluent in Japanese and English AND be subject matter experts across all technology areas. Being fluent in the Japanese language won't be enough.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But what if its not a major stuff up, and its a huge success?

I think the Jap option should be considered a JSF equiv.
A lot of knockers, but it seems that they have got it right.
Hopefully the intergration of customised systems wont be a problem.....I have my doubts though, as the security system we have at our workplace has so many problems its not funny, and we have to reley on the contractors to fix them, we cant touch them, even if its just plugging in a monitor.....
 

Stock

Member
But what if its not a major stuff up, and its a huge success?

I think the Jap option should be considered a JSF equiv.
A lot of knockers, but it seems that they have got it right.
Hopefully the intergration of customised systems wont be a problem.....I have my doubts though, as the security system we have at our workplace has so many problems its not funny, and we have to reley on the contractors to fix them, we cant touch them, even if its just plugging in a monitor.....
I do hope you're right.

I'd be far more comfortable if Govt was to articulate why they believe the Japanese option is the best available. The Soryu-class is a good sub by most accounts but we all know its not MOTS - far from it. If we are to go with a Jap sub it won't look much like the Soryu-class in performance, onboard systems or weapons. In which case, why the apparent preference over the Germans for instance?

This is why a DMO-led restricted tender process is called for: to assess each bid's compliance against stated capability requirements and counter-balance that with assessments on risk profiles (cost, schedule, commercial, technical) and value for money. It's not about the design or capability. Capital equipment procurements of this magnitude almost never are.

If out of all that the Japanese option is still the best bet then great. At least we would have been smart about it, gone through due process, impartially assessed all the risk factors and made a balanced decision.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
But what if its not a major stuff up, and its a huge success?

I think the Jap option should be considered a JSF equiv.
A lot of knockers, but it seems that they have got it right.
Hopefully the intergration of customised systems wont be a problem.....I have my doubts though, as the security system we have at our workplace has so many problems its not funny, and we have to reley on the contractors to fix them, we cant touch them, even if its just plugging in a monitor.....
Could be that it is a huge success, But could be that it isn't.

At the moment all we are told is that it will be an evolution of the Soryu with Lithium-ion batteries and from what I have read no Stirling AIP system.

With out even having a rough idea of what it would look like it is a much bigger gamble going for the Soryu then the Type 216.

Guess people are also more cautious when Abbott does away with a proper tender and cosies upto Abe so closely. Too often his captain calls have buggered up and we worried he will bugger this up too and waste ten's of billions in the process.

Submarine choice aside, I'm curious if 12 submarines is actually enough considering the changing situations in both the Pacific and Indian oceans? Read in the past by rule of thumb 1/3rd the fleet would be in refit, 1/3rd would be in local waters/maintenance and the other 1/3rd deployed outside of Australian waters. Considering the vase oceans, time to get on station and the growing naval forces of all nations is 4 submarines forward deployed actually enough?

-----------------

Noticed that ASC want's to build a third Aegir 18A should we select them, While I'm not against ASC (and Australia in general) building them, They are likely to be more negative in the cost/benefit ratio. Even the UK has gone to South Korea to get there's while Canada us paying over a billion for each one of there's that are smaller.

Rather then building a third Aegir would it be more beneficial for Australian ship builder's to make a case for a pair of JLSS (HNLMS Karel Doorman) that could not only fit the role of an extra replenishment ship but also fit the role of a Strategic Sea lift vessel.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Most of them aren't. But look at the southern islands, & the gap between the southernmost Ryukyus & Taiwan.

Stingrayoz:
If you count Okinotorishima, Japan has a tiny bit of territory in the tropics, & it has islands barely north of the Tropic of Cancer from just east of Taiwan to Marcus Island. The western end of that is exactly where China's been making trouble recently.


It seems peculiar to me to suggest that a country the EEZ of which extends into the tropics would not design its naval vessels for tropical water temperatures.
A Japanese submarine may have 10% of its patrol area in the tropics and 0% of its transit in the tropics. An Australian submarine may have 100% of its Patrol and 70% of its transit through the tropics. Its not like in tropical waters they will explode, but they aren't designed for the mission Australia has.

UK ships for example, can and do operate in tropical waters. But one of the first thing Australia does when it buys european/british is upspec the aircon and cooling systems. Our ships will spend more time in worse conditions than most other ships.

Also if Australia was to get 12 capable subs, I think you would find that Australia would be doing much of the patrolling around Indonesia, Singapore etc.Japan would be focusing on waters more north. Trade between Korea and Japan are very important as are trade to the us.

Anything that happens happens with planning from the US (and with Japan).

From what I can see.
People that think Soryu is a good option: PM of Australia. PM of Japan
People that think Soryu is not a good option: DMO, RAN, exRAN, ASC, Japanese sub manufacturers, some talk from Japanese navy.

Maybe Abbott and Abe are military geniuses, and have personally developed/engineered secret solutions to all the issues all the detractors have. But then that wouldn't make it MOTS.

Abe and Abbott could easily put all this to rest. They could send Japanese submarines to regular visit Australia. Prove that the 2 engines, limited diesel, limited food stores, limited surface water tropical experience are all in peoples heads.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Rather then building a third Aegir would it be more beneficial for Australian ship builder's to make a case for a pair of JLSS (HNLMS Karel Doorman) that could not only fit the role of an extra replenishment ship but also fit the role of a Strategic Sea lift vessel.
That's not as silly as its sounds, a trio of Cantabria for AOR (2x RAN 1x RNZN) or even the UK new Tides (MARS) and a trio of Karel doorman in strategic sealift role(RAN) & and a 3rd Canberra LHD(RAN) gift Choules to RNZN as a replacement for Canterbury, RSN-RNZN build 3x Endurance 160 LHD

Beefs up the Anzac amphibious options ARG(RAN)and JATF(NZ) 3x Canberra LHD and 1x Endurance 160(2x fingers crossed) Tides can be built in S Korea RAN strategic sealift could be built at an expanded tech port in SA
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
That's not as silly as its sounds, a trio of Cantabria for AOR (2x RAN 1x RNZN) or even the UK new Tides (MARS) and a trio of Karel doorman in strategic sealift role(RAN) & and a 3rd Canberra LHD(RAN) gift Choules to RNZN as a replacement for Canterbury, RSN-RNZN build 3x Endurance 160 LHD

Beefs up the Anzac amphibious options ARG(RAN)and JATF(NZ) 3x Canberra LHD and 1x Endurance 160(2x fingers crossed) Tides can be built in S Korea RAN strategic sealift could be built at an expanded tech port in SA
Mentioning the Cantabria's and Tide class AOR's, Does any one know how the various AOR's on offer stack up? The Tide class I'd imagine would be viewed as being too big not that I would be against getting them.

Most likely contender's would be the Aegir 18a, Cantabria and the Berlin class vessels.

While the rest of you'r proposals sound nice I don't think our current or any government in the foreseeable future will be willing to go that big (though China's newest white paper may give them a kick in the rear).

We could afford and man a trio of Karel Doormans, The RNZN could probably afford to man and run the Choules if it was gifted to them. Rather then a third Canberra the RAN would be better off looking into an Aircraft carrier. Between 2 Canberra's and a trio of Karel doorman's we would already have quite the punch, A third Canberra would help but a carrier would make it into a world class amphibious combat force. The Endurance 160's, While I can see the RSN getting a pair of them I'm hard pressed to imagine NZ getting even one of them if they already have the Choules and an AOR on order. NZ realistically is still relying on the distance is there best friend defence and not likely to change any time soon.

Mentioning the AOR and the Karel Doormans, Since the JLSS also fills the role of an AOR would one of them not be more suitable to NZ then a dedicated AOR? Is likely to be more costly up front but gives them increased capabilities for the cost.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There seems to be a convenient loss of collective memory regarding sub design. Why do we forget that a 216 does not exist and that the Japanese already have a number of evolved 4,000 tonne subs? Why should the RAN once again be the risk taker with a new hull? Do the Germans or French have some magic capacity that eluded the Swedes?

I haven't seen any data to suggest which is the most appropriate and I have no preference but I do know that whatever boat we buy, system integration will be a challenge when we predetermine that a AN/BYG1 CMS is mandatory?
At least option J begins with a proven hull.

Many have brought up the false (IMHO) view that Japanese tech transfer is something new, not the case, Japanese manufacturers have been building overseas for decades including full tech transfer.

What we have mandated is a submarine that once again will be an orphan and therefore a risk in both cost and time and whichever sub is chosen will have 2/3 of the project cost spent in Adelaide over their lives.

The CEP is well understood by both the Europeans and the US so its not a demon process that some make it out to be. My view is that we should let the process run and have faith in it, Abbott is not stupid enough to wear the Kim Beazley mantle (re Collins) and although he might have blundered in gushing about Soryu early on, he seems to have stepped back and allowed the experts to properly evaluate the options. By appointing Kevin Andrews to defence, he has given the job to one of his most experienced, careful and most respected (within the APS) men, one who is not going to blunder in the same way that his predecessor did.

Finally, we are wedded to the US for the boats CMS and weapons therefor US influence is going to play a major role in which option is chosen but I also believe that the geopolitical reality of China will also influence the decision.

There's a lot to ponder.
 

Goknub

Active Member
I believe a third AOR could have merit. I'm of the opinion that the RAN should separate the amphibious fleet from the surface fleet and base them out of a port further north. A third AOR could essentially become the dedicated amphibious AOR.

My experience from East Timor 2006 suggests there are two areas that still need work. Firstly, the LHDs will need additional support to transport the heavier follow-on logistics elements. Large fuel tankers, cranes and other heavy transport/plant equipment in quantities large enough to sustain a deployed force. Secondly, the need to establish a regular resupply sea-bridge. The RAN will have great capacity for the initial force but has gaps in logistical support of this force.

I believe the LHDs need to be each paired with a large sea-lift ship, preferably with RORO capability. This could be met with an additional HMAS Choules-type LPD or a dedicated heavy RORO transport. The sea-bridge could be handled with 3 or 4 Landing Ship Logistics of the Damen type.

It's not too large to be unachievable with existing budgets and would give us a much better balanced force capable of supporting both regional and global operations.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
There seems to be a convenient loss of collective memory regarding sub design. Why do we forget that a 216 does not exist and that the Japanese already have a number of evolved 4,000 tonne subs? Why should the RAN once again be the risk taker with a new hull? Do the Germans or French have some magic capacity that eluded the Swedes?

I haven't seen any data to suggest which is the most appropriate and I have no preference but I do know that whatever boat we buy, system integration will be a challenge when we predetermine that a AN/BYG1 CMS is mandatory?
At least option J begins with a proven hull.

Many have brought up the false (IMHO) view that Japanese tech transfer is something new, not the case, Japanese manufacturers have been building overseas for decades including full tech transfer.

What we have mandated is a submarine that once again will be an orphan and therefore a risk in both cost and time and whichever sub is chosen will have 2/3 of the project cost spent in Adelaide over their lives.

The CEP is well understood by both the Europeans and the US so its not a demon process that some make it out to be. My view is that we should let the process run and have faith in it, Abbott is not stupid enough to wear the Kim Beazley mantle (re Collins) and although he might have blundered in gushing about Soryu early on, he seems to have stepped back and allowed the experts to properly evaluate the options. By appointing Kevin Andrews to defence, he has given the job to one of his most experienced, careful and most respected (within the APS) men, one who is not going to blunder in the same way that his predecessor did.

Finally, we are wedded to the US for the boats CMS and weapons therefor US influence is going to play a major role in which option is chosen but I also believe that the geopolitical reality of China will also influence the decision.

There's a lot to ponder.
Fair point though a few issues.

1. The current hull is proven, But the current hull also has limitations such as being more cramped and having less fuel capacity thus the current hull is actually a useless for us.

2. Your view that Japanese tech transfer has been going on for decade, True.. In the civilian market, Not with military hard war. It's a big difference that should not be trivialized.

3. The CEP is well understood. It is viewed at a process for which Submarine A could be better then submarine B but Abbott can still choose submarine B. If they wanted it to be fully honest and fair they would have put it out to a simple tender.



Would like to point out though, With the Collins class and the issues we had with the hull and cavitation around the propeller can be attributed to poor project management. They had tested a model of one hull type, It passed.. Then they modified the hull and never retested it.

As it sit's an evolution of the Collins class is probably the safest bet out of any of them.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I have no doubt that whatever Sub is chosen, there will be intergration problems, Ill bet my left one on it, and those problems will be jumped on by the media, saying its worse than Collins etc etc. And those problems will be over come , like Collins, and we will end up with a very potent sub, Like Collins.

As Assail,pointed out, the Jap option (Hull) is out there and doing it. It is regarded as a very quiet Hull, and its steel is regarded as good as it gets.

As for the systems, engines, tanks etc, well that remains to be seen, and of course there will be problems. The LHD had over 20,000 faults to be dealt with before it was handed over to the RAN. (rangeing from minor paint problems, to major electrical.)
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
I think you would find that Australia would be doing much of the patrolling around Indonesia, Singapore etc.Japan would be focusing on waters more north. Trade between Korea and Japan are very important as are trade to the us....
Trade between Korea & Japan in wartime is Korea's great concern, not Japan's. Korea is not a supplier of materials which are essential for Japan's survival - unlike Australia, Middle East oil producers, etc., the products of which have to come to Japan from the south.

What do you think Hyuga & Ise are for? They're rather good at supporting sustained ASW helicopter operations a long way from the Japanese coast, not just from their own decks but from those of accompanying destroyers/frigates. Japan has lots of land-based aircraft for ASW operations close to the main islands, including all the local choke points, but it still built those two. Does it look as if the JMSDF thinks only in terms of operations close to base?

...People that think Soryu is not a good option: ...Japanese sub manufacturers, some talk from Japanese navy. ...
Japanese sub manufacturers? They seem to think it's a great option - as long as they build it in their own yards. The objections I've read about all relate to worries about sharing their secrets & suggestions that Australian yards aren't up to it, & therefore it'd be better for them to do all the building & integration in Japan, & deliver finished products. The Japanese navy? Doesn't want its suppliers distracted by dealing with anyone else.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Trade between Korea & Japan in wartime is Korea's great concern, not Japan's. Korea is not a supplier of materials which are essential for Japan's survival - unlike Australia, Middle East oil producers, etc., the products of which have to come to Japan from the south.

What do you think Hyuga & Ise are for? They're rather good at supporting sustained ASW helicopter operations a long way from the Japanese coast, not just from their own decks but from those of accompanying destroyers/frigates. Japan has lots of land-based aircraft for ASW operations close to the main islands, including all the local choke points, but it still built those two. Does it look as if the JMSDF thinks only in terms of operations close to base?


Japanese sub manufacturers? They seem to think it's a great option - as long as they build it in their own yards. The objections I've read about all relate to worries about sharing their secrets & suggestions that Australian yards aren't up to it, & therefore it'd be better for them to do all the building & integration in Japan, & deliver finished products. The Japanese navy? Doesn't want its suppliers distracted by dealing with anyone else.
Having two ships used for helicopter operations does not mean the Japanese submarines are suitable to our maritime conditions. One should also take into account time deployed compared to time spent in home waters along with the shorter life spans of the Japanese submarines. Both would have an effect onto how they stand up to the tropical maritime climate.


That aside it's not just tropics that need to be taken into account, They have to be able to operate in various oceans and climates reaching as far West as the Horn of Africa and as far North as Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and everything in between.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Actually Swerve the DDHs are intended primarily to sanitize the waters around Japan, in conjunction with the submarine and MPA capabilities, to provide the USN carrier battle groups with a safe area from where to conduct offensive operations. They also have secondary HADR and, particularly in the case of the Izumos, amphibious capabilities.

Japan builds great subs and without a doubt their current and planned designs are closer to Australian needs than anything else out there, but, unless the Australian government has contracted a case of the stupids, they are most definitely not a MOTS solution for the RAN. What ever design is chosen, it will require extensive work just to ensure it is actually able to operate efficiently in the RANs areas operations and can be affordably maintained through their service lives. The shear idiocy of reports that the boats can be built in Japan (or anywhere else for that matter) and outfitted in Australia, or that the combat systems can be integrated locally shows a total lack of understanding of how submarines are actually built. All equipment and systems are tested, installed on the rafts, that become the submarines decks, that are then slid into the fabricated hull sections which are then welded together, sealing the hull. Combat systems and other major items can be updated or even replaced after the hull is consolidated but this is incredibly difficult, not to mention expensive and time consuming. Such work requires the hull to be cut open, or the systems themselves to be broken down into components small enough to fit through the largest hull opening in an intricately planned process of teams working in and around each other in severely restricted spaces. I call BS on the suggestion that outfit or combat system integration will be done locally on overseas built hulls, the suggestion is either made in ignorance or is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public over the true intent to send all work offshore and dispense with local capability altogether.

Also ASC did a superb job fabricating and maintaining the hulls of the Collins class, the problem was with the quality of some of the installed systems and some design features. This includes some MOTS items that were perfectly satisfactory in other boats in service with other navies but struggled in the RANs area of operations. Over their service lives, many of these systems have been replaced by new improved designs developed by ASC and DSTO in conjunction variously with USN, DARPA, RN, EB and specialist suppliers. Basically ASC have had to graduate from building to print to designer to address the multitude of unanticipated issues encountered during the project.

The Oberons were a conventional fleet submarine designed for global operations, as were the US Tangs and Barbels, but none since, other than the Collins. This is why it is so difficult to find submarines suitable for the RAN, they need to be extensively redesigned to become fleet submarines. This is why any design, even one as good as the Soryu, will need to be modified to the point that it is most definitely is no longer MOTS solution. Anyone who sees the Japanese option, even with a full Japanese design and build, as a risk free MOTS solution is kidding themselves. The take home from the AWD should have been that the supposedly cheaper, easier MOTS option usually isn't and the main effect of outsourcing design authority is when things inevitably go wrong there is limited, if any, local capability to recover the situation.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
There seems to be a convenient loss of collective memory regarding sub design. Why do we forget that a 216 does not exist and that the Japanese already have a number of evolved 4,000 tonne subs? Why should the RAN once again be the risk taker with a new hull? Do the Germans or French have some magic capacity that eluded the Swedes?

I haven't seen any data to suggest which is the most appropriate and I have no preference but I do know that whatever boat we buy, system integration will be a challenge when we predetermine that a AN/BYG1 CMS is mandatory?
At least option J begins with a proven hull.

Many have brought up the false (IMHO) view that Japanese tech transfer is something new, not the case, Japanese manufacturers have been building overseas for decades including full tech transfer.

What we have mandated is a submarine that once again will be an orphan and therefore a risk in both cost and time and whichever sub is chosen will have 2/3 of the project cost spent in Adelaide over their lives.

The CEP is well understood by both the Europeans and the US so its not a demon process that some make it out to be. My view is that we should let the process run and have faith in it, Abbott is not stupid enough to wear the Kim Beazley mantle (re Collins) and although he might have blundered in gushing about Soryu early on, he seems to have stepped back and allowed the experts to properly evaluate the options. By appointing Kevin Andrews to defence, he has given the job to one of his most experienced, careful and most respected (within the APS) men, one who is not going to blunder in the same way that his predecessor did.

Finally, we are wedded to the US for the boats CMS and weapons therefor US influence is going to play a major role in which option is chosen but I also believe that the geopolitical reality of China will also influence the decision.

There's a lot to ponder.

Chris, probably the most reasonable, balanced and fair comment I've seen for a while regarding the Collins replacement, a great post!!

With some of the comments and posts lately I was starting to think that the 'secret deal / Captain's pick' was all signed, sealed and done and that our Japanese friends were already cutting and shaping steel for the very first of the Soryu(A) class boats, HMAS Rising Sun!!!

It just seems to me that everyone is trying to read between the lines and interpret things that may or may not be there (mostly not there!), or are adding two and two together and coming up with five! Just way too early to assume what the final outcome will be.

I agree with your comments regarding the PM, yes he did appear to get all very excited about the prospect of Soryu in RAN service (with what appeared to be no competition being run), but it does appear that things have calmed down since then.

And I also agree with you about Def Min Andrews, yes he is a bit of a dull and boring pollie on the surface (in my opinion), but he's been around for a long long time and I get the impression that he has a pretty firm handle on what he does and won't let himself get into a position were stupid decisions (and comments) will jump up and bite him on the bum, too experienced a politician for that to happen.

And talking of the Def Min, this transcript of an interview that he did with ABC (just prior to the Japan trip) is a pretty good read (in my opinion):

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence – Interview with ABC – Visit to Japan

As you can see he makes it very clear that there is ‘no’ MOTS solution and that ‘all’ contenders will need to modify their boats, here are a couple of the relevant quotes from the transcript:

Well, first of all, there’s no such thing as an ‘off-the-shelf’ model of submarine, and in each case there are modifications and changes that would need to be made.

The Japanese submarine is about the size that we are looking for in Australia, but obviously it requires changes. What we want is a submarine which has the endurance of the Collins; that has superior stealth capacity to the Collins, and; is one which is going to be interoperable in terms of the weapons system with the US.

Now, that’s going to require design changes and modifications in the case of whichever submarine we buy from, which ever country, and so it’s important that each of the countries, Japan included, understand that.
And this quote too:

Well as I said, each of these submarines will need modifications. It is true, the French submarine, the Barracuda, is a bit bigger that what we are looking at and is a nuclear powered submarine so it would require modification to a conventional power source.

The German submarine is not a big as what we are looking for and would need to be up-scaled for Australia. But there is no off-the-shelf submarine that perfectly fits our needs. Each of these countries are going to have to modify it and I’ve detected so far a number of claim and counter-claim about each other’s product so far and I’m sure we will hear more of that in the next few months.
Like you Chris, I agree, lets all sit back and wait and see what the outcome of the CEP is, rather than trying to read the tea leaves and trying to join the dots, especially when it comes to some of the comments being made in the media and by ‘so called’ experts too.

Cheers,
 

hairyman

Active Member
I still believe that the best outcome for the RAN would be eight or more subs built in Australia., and four built overseas, the four being nuclear. Virginia class would be good. I know we dont do nuclear, but we have had Lucas Heights for many years, and nothing bad has come out of that. It is about time Australia stood up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top