Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Hey guys,

I came across this today:
Australia leans toward buying Japan subs to upgrade fleet - sources | Reuters

Sensationalist journalism? or is there some truth behind the stories? I suppose everything will come out at the white paper release.

Actually if you read the article a bit more closely, apart from the 'sensational' bits the journo has highlighted, there is this paragraph:

Options under discussion run from working jointly to develop the technology, to Australia importing the engines and building the rest, to building the fleet in South Australia under licence from Japan, to - most controversially - Canberra buying finished subs designed and built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd, the sources said.

Basically that covers all bases, which I think is as much as we know already in the public domain.

If all the boats were built in Japan then the winner would be the RAN, it would more than likely get delivery on time and on budget, the losers would be the workers constructing and assembling the sections, but as would seem likely, all the maintenance and docking cycles would be handled at the ASC yard, as is currently the case with the Collins boats.

On the other hand if all are built here by ASC, then no doubt industry and the workers would be the winners, but I suppose there is the potential for delays and cost overruns which could potentially affect the RAN, at least in the early years.

So maybe the solution might be a bit of both, the first (or maybe up to the second) boat is built completely in Japan (allows the RAN to start getting the replacements quicker) and the subsequent boats are assembled here using Australian and Japanese made sections, with Australian content progressively increasing as the number of hulls work their way down the production and assembly lines.

The other question is when would this likely start to happen?

And I suppose that will depend on if the Collins class (or some of them) are put through a further docking cycle to extend their lives by another 6, 7 years or so, as was reported to be possible a while ago. If that happens, that will take the pressure off to a degree, or the Government might decide that pouring further money into extending the lives of Collins a waste of money and start the replacement process sooner rather than later.

The other factor no doubt will be the Defence budget, a lot of big tickets items are all due during that time, obviously the Collins replacements, the Future Frigates, the F-35A's, Land 400, etc, etc, a lot of competing priorities.

Hopefully when we see the new DWP (and DCP) around mid next year a lot of those questions will be answered!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hopefully when we see the new DWP (and DCP) around mid next year a lot of those questions will be answered!

Typical multinational builds the first in line is built overseas at the main yard and then future ones are built locally. I believe we did this with the NH-90s, FFG, F-18 etc etc.
Collins was a bit different because it was a wholly new design. But the story implied we would possibly get all our subs from Japan (which IMO is unlikely even if the Ausgov wants it).

South Australia's defence and trade minister, Martin Hamilton-Smith, said there was alarm within the state administration that the federal government was about to do a "backflip" and reverse its policy.

He warned that any decision to build the submarine overseas would have a broader impact on the economy than the recent decisions by Ford Motor Co, Toyota Motor Corp and General Motors Co to cease manufacturing in Australia.

Unfortunately the fall out could be bigger than that, as we would certainly annoy China directly, and also South Korea siding so heavily with Abe and Japan and pouring money into Japanese defense manufacturing so directly. Do we really want to piss off Australia's number 1 and number 3 trading partners and $122 billion in exports as well as the local industry and jobs of local production?

And I suppose that will depend on if the Collins class (or some of them) are put through a further docking cycle to extend their lives by another 6, 7 years or so, as was reported to be possible a while ago.

This this is a pretty reasonable option, upgrade some of the collins (say 4?) and then new build subs to replace all of them. It reduces risk because we will have many of the Japanese propulsion systems etc in service and a known quantity. It also defers some of the huge cost till later when there aren't so many things going on at once.

Ideally with a new sub program we reduce risk, increase volume to a sustainable level and sustainable pace and have a reasonable amount of time for planning, technology sharing etc.

 

[aussienscale]

It would certainly be the follow on from the Soryu Class looking at our time frames, the question to ask would be Japan's ability to not only build their subs but to also add an Australia build into the mix as well ?

Japan runs pretty much a continuous build in their sub program, do they have the capacity to slot Australian builds into this and not slip their own program ?

Just a thought

 

[ASSAIL]

It would certainly be the follow on from the Soryu Class looking at our time frames, the question to ask would be Japan's ability to not only build their subs but to also add an Australia build into the mix as well ?

Japan runs pretty much a continuous build in their sub program, do they have the capacity to slot Australian builds into this and not slip their own program ?

Just a thought

My thoughts are:
1. The number of subs will be contingent upon the new DCP not an arbitrary 12 and more likely groups of 4,
2. It's a political minefield to have them totally built in Japan,
3. The hull construction/welding skills at ASC are world class,
4. Japanese propulsion systems are world class.
5. The combat systems used on Soryu and Collins are completely different and it would be the US who decides if Those could be the same between us.

In view of the above, I believe the solution will be that Japan and Australia collaborate on the Soryu II, Collins II design. Each country builds its own boats and installs its own front end or, alternatively, there is an agreement backed by the US for a common combat system.
Australia uses Japanese technology for the propulsion system.

The result will be that our boats will be more expensive and take longer to build but within an acceptable margin because with 3 competing builders (2 +1) ASC's performance will be bench marked against Mitsubishi and Kawasaki.

This should give our industry continuity and satisfy the sovereign integrity desired by all.
It all sounds so easy!

 

[Trackmaster]

My thoughts are:
1. The number of subs will be contingent upon the new DCP not an arbitrary 12 and more likely groups of 4,
2. It's a political minefield to have them totally built in Japan,
3. The hull construction/welding skills at ASC are world class,
4. Japanese propulsion systems are world class.
5. The combat systems used on Soryu and Collins are completely different and it would be the US who decides if Those could be the same between us.

In view of the above, I believe the solution will be that Japan and Australia collaborate on the Soryu II, Collins II design. Each country builds its own boats and installs its own front end or, alternatively, there is an agreement backed by the US for a common combat system.
Australia uses Japanese technology for the propulsion system.

The result will be that our boats will be more expensive and take longer to build but within an acceptable margin because with 3 competing builders (2 +1) ASC's performance will be bench marked against Mitsubishi and Kawasaki.

This should give our industry continuity and satisfy the sovereign integrity desired by all.
It all sounds so easy!

My thoughts run parallel to Assail, but perhaps with more sharing of hull blocks.
Get a production line running with the sharing to competed blocks.
The part that amuses me is the self-important attitude of the SA Govt.
In my view, they don't have a seat at the table.

 

[gf0012-aust]

small but significant point.

soryu hulls are basically a US hull

 

[ASSAIL]

small but significant point.

soryu hulls are basically a US hull

That's even better, plenty of experience and years of fine tuning should produce excellence in hydrodynamics, they certainly helped with Collins. They'll be able to relive their diesel electric fantasies by vicarious association.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's even better, plenty of experience and years of fine tuning should produce excellence in hydrodynamics, they certainly helped with Collins. They'll be able to relive their diesel electric fantasies by vicarious association.

that hull was considered by some i worked with who had been involved with building and designing nukes and one who had driven a nuke as almost acoustically "perfect"

 

[Magoo]

that hull was considered by some i worked with who had been involved with building and designing nukes and one who had driven a nuke as almost acoustically "perfect"

The Collins, or the Soryu?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Collins, or the Soryu?

Oyashio/Soryu

Soryu being more agile, but both fundamental hull designs are the same. (outside of tailplane differences)

 

[Joe Black]

Oyashio/Soryu

Soryu being more agile, but both fundamental hull designs are the same. (outside of tailplane differences)

Doesn't that make it a perfect "Son-of-Collins" for RAN? Japanese hull and drivetrain, American combat system, Aussie crew.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Doesn't that make it a perfect "Son-of-Collins" for RAN? Japanese hull and drivetrain, American combat system, Aussie crew.

I was advocating Oyashios for the RAN 8 years ago on StrategyPage

 

[John Newman]

I was advocating Oyashios for the RAN 8 years ago on StrategyPage

Maybe now the time is right, and that advocacy will pay off this time around.

Out of interest, you mentioned that the Oyashio/Soryu hulls are basically of US origin, does that mean that 'if' Australia and Japan do go down a path where we get access to not only the propulsion systems, but the Soryu design as a whole, does the US have some sort of control (veto?) over who else has access to that design?

Not that I think our US friends would put any roadblocks up (it appears they give Australia access to almost anything that we reasonably request), but would it still need their approval too? For example do they have some IP control over the 'original' design?

 

[StingrayOZ]

For example do they have some IP control over the 'original' design?

I would imagine the design has been paid for by the Japanese, the US has significant input on lots of Japanese defense projects and Japanese security. If the US wants something not to happen they have the power and influence to make it happen. It doesn't need contract control.

Historically, it has never been an issue because Japan has never on-sold a design or technology.

Which is why its a complex issue, because its never happened before. This will most likely be the first time japan has sold any sort of military hardware/technology. Submarine technology is a big one.

Australia May Buy
Is talking about OTS subs with maintenance contracts. I assume that maintenance would then need to happen in Japan?

that Canberra is now favoring the off-the-shelf version of Japan’s submarine, albeit in a scaled-down format, despite the political backlash such a decision would likely create given that Australia has its own large naval defense industry employs 3,000 people.

Scaled down format? so physically smaller? Why? Subs are notoriously difficult to build smaller and build larger. Have we learnt nothing from Collins? :lul

 

[ASSAIL]

I would imagine the design has been paid for by the Japanese, the US has significant input on lots of Japanese defense projects and Japanese security. If the US wants something not to happen they have the power and influence to make it happen. It doesn't need contract control.

Historically, it has never been an issue because Japan has never on-sold a design or technology.

Which is why its a complex issue, because its never happened before. This will most likely be the first time japan has sold any sort of military hardware/technology. Submarine technology is a big one.

Australia May Buy
Is talking about OTS subs with maintenance contracts. I assume that maintenance would then need to happen in Japan?



Scaled down format? so physically smaller? Why? Subs are notoriously difficult to build smaller and build larger. Have we learnt nothing from Collins? :lul

I'm sceptical about the veracity of that article.
How's this for a way forward, ASC is sold to Mitsubishi or Kawasaki and the Soryu/Collins 2 is built in Adelaide using Japanese production efficiencies, just as their car makers have successfully done around the world and particularly, in Australia.

 

[Joe Black]

Scaled down format? so physically smaller? Why? Subs are notoriously difficult to build smaller and build larger. Have we learnt nothing from Collins? :lul

My guess would be not the physical size but the complexity. I think the RAN boat would be the hull and the drive train. ASC and Raytheon would then be tasked to fit the combat system, and possibly integrating with non Japanese sonars (bow and flank array). It would also be interesting to see if the Australianised Soryu class were to have a towed array sonar as well. Other changes might be a lock out chamber for SAS, etc.

These are just my guesses...

 

[t68]

I'm sceptical about the veracity of that article.
How's this for a way forward, ASC is sold to Mitsubishi or Kawasaki and the Soryu/Collins 2 is built in Adelaide using Japanese production efficiencies, just as their car makers have successfully done around the world and particularly, in Australia.

Partly agree don't like privatisation but it should be run correctly, 51% should stay goverment owned then the rest of the shares sold to GDEB and the rest to Japan, strategic shipbuilding is not there to make a profit it's their in the national interest just like the bullshit with selling off our power station and it's a service industry as long as it makes enough to reinvest in new equipment and training that's enough for me

 

[StingrayOZ]

My guess would be not the physical size but the complexity. I think the RAN boat would be the hull and the drive train. ASC and Raytheon would then be tasked to fit the combat system, and possibly integrating with non Japanese sonars (bow and flank array). It would also be interesting to see if the Australianised Soryu class were to have a towed array sonar as well. Other changes might be a lock out chamber for SAS, etc.

These are just my guesses...

I would imagine we might remove the AIP (creating internal space) and use the virginia/Raytheon combat system.You would hope we would keep the hull modifications to a minimum. Also we would probably use locally sourced batteries. Scaled down format is a pretty weird way to say local/different components and systems.

I'm sceptical about the veracity of that article.
How's this for a way forward, ASC is sold to Mitsubishi or Kawasaki and the Soryu/Collins 2 is built in Adelaide using Japanese production efficiencies, just as their car makers have successfully done around the world and particularly, in Australia.

I think that's a much more likely and beneficial way forward.

 

[gf0012-aust]

a small tidbit

the most successful clean sub build ever (Virginias) were based around Japanese design, construction and management principles.

the USN dev team went to Japan before they started digital design

 

[ngatimozart]

I am wondering why you would actually scale the hull down down. I would think that if you left it the same size, used the same power plants and drive trains, you would minimise any risks plus allow for any future upgrades of capability. You would still be able to install your own sensors and CMS etc., without major compromises. IMO you would get the best of both worlds. The RAN get Japanese hulls, drive trains etc., with hulls licence built in Australia and Australia gets to build its own sensors etc., if it can do a deal with Raytheon. I am sure that Australia has technology that the Japanese Defence Force will be more than interested in and I can think of two non sub ones straight away.

I think that if the CofA held a 51% share of ASC with Mitsubishi and Kawasaki having 26% and the remaining 23% held by Aussie interests then you would have a win win situation. I do agree with some of Volks comments about the union issues and whilst I used to be a union rep myself, I believe that the unions and their members have to be given a dose of reality. However I would urge some caution because you don't want to end up where you go to far the other way so there has to be some safeguards. You pay what's fair but some of the things are a bit ludicrous and you do need to watch costs, because it will get to a point where all the benefits of an Aussie build project will not be viable, economically or politically and an overseas build will make far more sense.