Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Joe Black

Active Member
More sub commentary from The Diplomat:
Failure to Communicate: Will Japan Fall Behind on Australia’s Collins-replacement Contract? | The Diplomat

.. and here's the Wall Street Journal's article on referenced in the article above.
Japan Slips Chasing Australian Subs Deal - WSJ

By ROB TAYLOR in Canberra and CHIEKO TSUNEOKA in Tokyo
Aug. 17, 2015 4:04 p.m. ET
Six months ago, two Japanese companies better known for producing trains and motorcycles were favorites to win a roughly US$20 billion Australian defense contract to build submarines, launching them into the nearly US$1.8 trillion global military hardware market after an almost 50-year ban in Tokyo on weapons exports.

But secrecy surrounding the government-led Japanese bid—in contrast to public charm offensives waged by German and French rivals—might scuttle the firms’ chance to win one of the world’s most lucrative weapons deals.

The makers of Japan’s Soryu-class submarine, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., haven’t made a single public appearance in Australia. They didn’t attend a government submarine-planning conference in March and declined to appear before a parliamentary hearing last month in Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, where scores of local jobs are at risk if the successful bidder decides to build the submarines overseas.

Meanwhile, Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems GmbH and France’s DCNS Group have set up Australian offices bristling with lobbyists, defense experts, public-relations teams and technical employees to advance their bids and exploit public unease about the Japanese bid.

ThyssenKrupp last month signaled that if its Type 216 sub wins out, the company could create shipyard jobs and turn Australia into a submarine-industry hub for much of Asia. Many influential lawmakers now believe that the German company is the favorite.

Mitsubishi and Kawasaki said they support the push for the Australian contract, but each said the government’s involvement made their approaches different from the European companies’ bids.

“That is where Japan’s weakness lies. Japan is handling this project in a Japanese way and working on it as purely a case of exporting defense equipment, transferring technology and making Australian production possible,” said Yoji Koda, a retired vice admiral and former commander of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force Fleet. By contrast, he said, “competitors are adding value with their proposals,” such as creating a submarine service hub in Australia.

The contrast underscores the challenges facing Japan as the semipacifist country seeks to enter the global weapons market after a decadeslong absence. Japanese troops haven’t engaged in any conflict since World War II, restricting their operations to international peacekeeping and disaster relief. The Australian contract is by far the largest Japan has sought since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe eased the ban in April 2014, and is seen as a test case for how Japan could reposition itself in the region as Mr. Abe seeks to use military hardware trade to help build ties with neighbors who are also wary of China’s power.

Japan and Australia deepened security ties last year amid worries over Chinese muscle-flexing in territorial disputes, a deal senior defense officials had thought would give the Japanese bid an edge. India has expressed interest in buying Japan’s US-2, a large seaplane built for the navy by ShinMaywa Industries Ltd.

Australia is one of many Asia-Pacific nations looking to modernize its submarine fleet with diesel-powered vessels. More than half of the world’s submarines are expected to be in Asia by 2030, as countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore look to hedge against instability by building undersea fleets, which are harder for enemies to detect than conventional ships.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has pledged to boost military spending to 2% of gross domestic product from the current 1.8%, adding 3.5 billion Australian dollars (US$2.6 billion) a year to the current A$32 billion military budget.

Japan is confident in the technological superiority of the Soryu, the world’s largest diesel-electric submarine, over its rivals, including Australia’s aging Collins-class submarine, manufactured by government-backed Australian Submarine Co. While the Collins sub has been plagued by reliability and noise problems since its introduction in 1996, the Soryu’s stealth propulsion system allows it to operate underwater for almost two weeks, comparatively long for nonnuclear vessels. It can also dive deeper than the Collins, making it better able to evade enemies.

But several factors have inhibited a full-throated sales effort by the Japanese companies. Japanese weapons exports are still controlled by the government, and the companies have taken a back seat to government leadership in the negotiations. The government has never exported big-ticket defense technology before, and is handling the talks with Australia as a strategic matter rather than a business opportunity—making it difficult to craft a pitch that will appeal to Australian political sensitivities, defense experts said.

Japan’s foreign-affairs ministry said it plans to send technical information on the bid to Australia’s government. The ministry declined to comment further.

Toru Hotchi, director of the Equipment Policy Division of Japan’s Ministry of Defense, said Tokyo could work with Sydney to ensure a deal would satisfy domestic concerns. “If the Australian side attaches importance to industrial elements such as employment and maintenance, we will address the issues seriously and earnestly,” Mr. Hotchi said.

Several Australian government lawmakers have said that if the Japanese win, it will be seen as a politically unpalatable “captain’s pick,” in which Mr. Abbott agreed to a deal with his Japanese counterpart to build submarines in Japan, at the expense of Australian shipbuilding jobs. Mr. Abbott was already pressured in February by lawmakers to open the bidding to a 10-month competitive tender, after reports he had favored the Japanese in a handshake deal with Mr. Abe.

The Japanese side has recognized its low profile compared with the European companies might prove damaging, and has vowed to step up efforts in coming weeks to persuade Australian voters and lawmakers.

In a rare televised address last month to Australia’s National Press Club, Japan’s top envoy to Australia, Sumio Kusaka, said a 40-member Japanese delegation including trade and defense officials, as well as Mitsubishi and Kawasaki representatives, would meet with Australian industry groups this month.

“I think Japan will lose this deal unless it brings in consultants or gets some kind of help,” said Mr. Koda, the retired vice admiral. “It is like a person who doesn’t know how to dance making his or her debut in international society. You’ll need to learn how to dance, right? And the Japanese don’t know anything about dancing.”

----------
So it appears from the articles above, the TKMS Type 216 is the favourite based on commercial merits along, and if we were to go with Soryu, then the decision is based more on political rather than commercial or technical merits.

This is going to be such an interesting CEP.
 

rockitten

Member
More sub commentary from The Diplomat:
Failure to Communicate: Will Japan Fall Behind on Australia’s Collins-replacement Contract? | The Diplomat

.. and here's the Wall Street Journal's article on referenced in the article above.
Japan Slips Chasing Australian Subs Deal - WSJ

So it appears from the articles above, the TKMS Type 216 is the favourite based on commercial merits along, and if we were to go with Soryu, then the decision is based more on political rather than commercial or technical merits.

This is going to be such an interesting CEP.
And some news said the decision of submarine will not be made until mid 2016 (rather than early 2016).

Well, from the article by WSJ, Soryu does have technical merits and one article from naval institute did mentioned if RAN chose the German design, we may loss the technical superiority we have enjoyed (plus potential security risk by German selling similar technology to other countries in the region). So personally, I will say it is a loss for RAN not choosing Soryu.

But one thing is for sure: Japanese bureaucratic public servants are terrible sales.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But one thing is for sure: Japanese bureaucratic public servants are terrible sales.
Actually, I'd say the only thing that is for sure is that no matter what gets picked, everyone will be saying it is the wrong option. The words rock and hard place come to mind.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
... if RAN chose the German design, we may loss the technical superiority we have enjoyed...
if it is an "Australianised" and enhanced further beyond the base Type 216 design (Type 216AU or whatever) the RAN or more accurately the Australian government may be able to buy the IP for that particular enhanced version. Further customization adds risk but it is a paper design. None of the options are without significant risk.

Also, the Australian version will have the AN/BYG-1 combat systems. Not convinced other versions of the Type 216 that would be sold around the world would get access to this. Meaning an Australian version already has a technical edge, (although some other combat systems are comparable in terms of capability). What I am getting at here is, these days the technical edge comes from the system whole (we are linked into the US system - others are not), sensor fusion etc - not individual system

Others involved in the industry may have further comment

There is also some "other" vital areas that could value from Australia being the Asia-pacific maintenance hub for Type 212-18 variants from a variety of nations.
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
From memory the Germans did say they would give us full IP rights to the type 216, That aside it is likely to be only a building block, We till have some tech of our own that we could implement, further US tech that will be implemented and I still wouldnt rule it out, But possible Japanese tech as well..

But as Raven said, We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, Both the German and Japanese option have there good and bad points. Japanese likely to give the superior tech, German likely to create the most jobs (when including us possibly becoming a central hub for Asia). But every option is a risk one way or the other as every single one of them is a paper design.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
AN/BYG1 combat system and the advanced american torpedoes. Also some very advanced sensor and sound management I don't believe would be shared widely (and not at all by the germans). I believe we work closely with the British and the Americans on many of these.

Sure the hull design would be I imagine exportable, but that's the whole point, we want a low risk hull.

It would be a shame to think that a design is not chosen because another country has a better sales strategy. I don't think it will come down to that. I think Australia is seriously looking at the Japanese proposal. I do think the Japanese are still working out how to do it.

For ThyssenKrupp this is very straight forward, they do this, all the time. They had a plan for the original Collins. They know what Australia wants (maybe more that Australia originally did), who they have to play with. They came out swinging from the beginning and have a top notch team stacked with key players. They hired Dr John White who was basically advising the government on all ship building. They know Australia is a key player in Asia defence. They aren't holding back.

DCNS by comparison seems like a bit of an after thought not that their proposal doesn't have some selling points (on paper), and the Japanese aren't sure what to make of it all.

Captains calls only work if your a popular captain with a history of being right. The Japanese should be increasing transparency and working with others not just Abbott in some sort of secret deal (even if that's what the Japanese would prefer).

Actually, I'd say the only thing that is for sure is that no matter what gets picked, everyone will be saying it is the wrong option. The words rock and hard place come to mind.
This is not an easy choice. Given how much fantasy gets written about the F-35 (which is bar far the most obvious/serious choice for Australia), the subs its going to be much worse. Junk will get written every day, and it will no doubt be used for political reasons. And thats if everything goes to plan and we have perfect subs from the get go.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
People shouldn't forget that Australia has a lot of expertise in submarine design as well, expertise that may be overlooked if a MOTS solution is selected, expertise that would make for a much better, more capable boat. We hear about the high tensile steel used by Japan, some pretty good steel was developed in Australia for the Collins too and better undoubtedly would be available now, over two decades later. The anechoic tiles, signals management tech, new materials developed to suit local / tropical waters, new applications of existing materials.

There is also the systems engineering and integration side, the way tech and knowhow from around the world was integrated into a Swedish designed sub. No one design did everything the RAN required but features of different subs individually did and that what was done with Collins. Go MOTS and that is lost, we get what is on offer only, rather than the best of what is available. The only way around this would be to provide the tech and know how to the successful bidder to incorporate for us, giving them a free leg up.

Seriously what is going to happen, are we going do without the stuff a particular prime can't do, or are we going to give it to them, either for free or charge them for it?
I have seen it done over and over again, management decides to outsource production or buy in OS tech but in doing so provide a lot of IP to the OS supplier for nothing then sit back and watch that supplier adopt the IP across the board and make a killing globally. Is this going to happen with our subs, are we going to select an overseas build option and give the IP developed by DSTO, ASC and a multitude of other companies and organisations to them?

I may be a cynic but I have a bad feeling that the Australian tax payer may end up footing the bill for the revitalisation of another nations submarine building capability and the design of their next generation sub, that ironically may end up with features and capabilities they Wold never have had without the Australian input.

Its basically what happened with Kockums, Australia basically paid for the design of the next generation sub for the Swedish navy and helped them get up to speed working with new materials and systems. Is this why the Japanese government are so keen on the RAN requirement, they get to sell a MOTS design and in all likelihood get to expand and modernise their production facilities while also getting a direct look into the most advanced non Japanese sub program that incorporates the best of the rest of the worlds tech, including US. I wonder also if part of the plan is Japan, who doesn't really care what China thinks, is going to develop an export boat for sale to Taiwan?

Lots of bonuses for the winning bid, the companies and nations involved, but is Australia going to get anything for their input? Will IP be paid for or just provided free of charge, will there be a discount to acknowledge the Australian input, or will we have to pay full price while providing tech, knowhow and bankrolling the upgrade and expansion of their entire industry.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
How realistic is the ThyssenKrupp announcement of creating a submarine-industry hub for much of Asia Pacific, seems like a hearts and minds campaign to me without any real substance.

With the Indonesian Navy talking of expanding its submarine force to 12, with two being built in South Korea and a third being built by PT PAL in Indonesia and with the comments by the former Indonesian Defence Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro that the remainder might be Indonesian built. If that's the case and they do get the magic twelve submarines it would be in the Indonesian interest to do the heavy maintenance as well on the same scale as ASC.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
aust capability is really not acknowledged - and unfort both sides of govt have made the cardinal mistake of assuming that all capability lies offshore

eg 2 of the companies i either directly worked for or with provide services to 2 x different classes of nukes, and have been providing acoustic and sig mgt services to 6 different navies with 8 different classes of subs

they've even modified kilos as the owners were unhappy with their sig footprints
 

rockitten

Member
Its basically what happened with Kockums, Australia basically paid for the design of the next generation sub for the Swedish navy and helped them get up to speed working with new materials and systems. Is this why the Japanese government are so keen on the RAN requirement, they get to sell a MOTS design and in all likelihood get to expand and modernise their production facilities while also getting a direct look into the most advanced non Japanese sub program that incorporates the best of the rest of the worlds tech, including US. I wonder also if part of the plan is Japan, who doesn't really care what China thinks, is going to develop an export boat for sale to Taiwan?
I left the rest to other more informed. But from what I have read from Japan and Taiwan (yes, I can read their language), that's what I know. In Japan, it is know/rumored that why Shinzo Abe so keen on a submarine export to Australia is not just because a military alliance, but also to anchor his works to lift the weapon export ban. He wants a successful sale to make sure the weapon export ban is true and effectively lifted even after he has step down from the job(as the PM).

Also, Japan is practically impossible to sell any submarine to Taiwan. The reason is simply because Japanese government doesn't not trust the Taiwanese. The current Taiwanese ruling party is a pro china/reunification faction, and many generals inside the Taiwanese military are also pro china, so much so that some retired generals are visiting china regularly and supporting china's propaganda. In Japanese point of view, their submarine technology is one of their best indigenous military invention(s), so there is no chance they will allow an unreliable neighbor (and ex colony) like Taiwan to access their top military secret.

When the pro independent (and anti china) party was in power during the 2000s, there was a proposal from Taiwan to purchase 8 retired Oyashio-class submarine and refitted with US systems.

Japanese said: Not a slight chance.

So from Japanese point of view, selling submarine/submarine technology to Australia is a prestige only reserved for the most trusted.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
When the pro independent (and anti china) party was in power during the 2000s, there was a proposal from Taiwan to purchase 8 retired Oyashio-class submarine and refitted with US systems.

Japanese said: Not a slight chance.
twice in taiwan, 2002, 2004, I had approaches from snr taiwan navy staff trying to organise a Collins buy, they wanted collins more than the oyashios/soryus as they knew that collins and gotland were better from their perspective to fight in their waters of interest

the japanese approaches were never serious as they also hold residual resentment towards japan.
 

rockitten

Member
twice in taiwan, 2002, 2004, I had approaches from snr taiwan navy staff trying to organise a Collins buy, they wanted collins more than the oyashios/soryus as they knew that collins and gotland were better from their perspective to fight in their waters of interest

the japanese approaches were never serious as they also hold residual resentment towards japan.
While the general public in Taiwan is mostly pro-Japan (especially in the pro independence/ anti China faction), since the pro China faction has been governing/dictating Taiwan for 60 years, most of the senior rank are still "penetrated" by "pro China communities through and through. What you have met was probably one of those.

From what I have heard from Taiwan sources, during that period, many Aussie submariners were invited for conferences. In one case, a retired Aussie submarine commander recommended Taiwan should developed their own submarine rescue capability along side with the expansion of their submarine force. And seems the Taiwanese has took his advices until the submarine project got politicalised and totally screwed it up.

Okay, enough about Taiwan, start talking about Australia. Regarding to Collins, there is some interest from Taiwan to purchase the retired hull, do the life extension and refit them with (less classified) US systems. Pity we didn't bought the IP. Otherwise it is practically a job to build 6 submarines for ASC.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Shouldn't be too hard as some modules (such as harpoon missiles) are on board ANZAC classes as well. And I suppose integration works for other modules like 76mm or ESSM shouldn't be too hard as well.

But, if we fit-out the OPV with so much war-fighting gears that are not essential for constable duties, will that drives up the crew size and up-keep of the vessel?

One design aspect I like the French Floréal-class is that, as the "frigates" are designed to be based in French overseas territories, they are build in civilian spec and armed to the minimum. It don't have gas turbine (only 4 diesel engines, don't know if it is a civilian spec) to give it exceptional range (but not speed).

And articles from some renowned naval analysis (such as Norman Friedman) praised this class as NATO's best "colonial/3rd class cruiser" design.

Of coz, this kind of ship is a widow maker for World War 3. But that's not an OPV's duty.
Just to be clear, there is not an open supply of STANFLEX modules and we do not use Stanflex for the harpoon on the ANZAC. Certainly a lot of OPV have a multi mission deck designed around 20 ft ISO containers ...... this is not Stanflex but modular packages can be built into containerised systems.

As noted by some the mission deck on many OPV does not envisage the stowage of missile or gun systems.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just to be clear, there is not an open supply of STANFLEX modules and we do not use Stanflex for the harpoon on the ANZAC. Certainly a lot of OPV have a multi mission deck designed around 20 ft ISO containers ...... this is not Stanflex but modular packages can be built into containerised systems.

As noted by some the mission deck on many OPV does not envisage the stowage of missile or gun systems.
Agree, why are we talking missile modules for the OPV's ? Geez talk about mission and scope creep, and the things have not even been built yet :(

Its spelled out in pretty plain language what the intention is for the mission modules, OPV's weapons systems will be fixed so no need there to be swapping out Stanflex or any other type of module for basic weapons fitout.

Mission modules will be for MCM, Hydro etc, I can't even see us getting mission modules for ASW let alone AAW, and really what would an OPV be chasing out there with Harpoon ?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agree, why are we talking missile modules for the OPV's ? Geez talk about mission and scope creep, and the things have not even been built yet :(

Its spelled out in pretty plain language what the intention is for the mission modules, OPV's weapons systems will be fixed so no need there to be swapping out Stanflex or any other type of module for basic weapons fitout.

Mission modules will be for MCM, Hydro etc, I can't even see us getting mission modules for ASW let alone AAW, and really what would an OPV be chasing out there with Harpoon ?
There are so many days when I just want to post up the CONOPS so as to act as the start point for discussions around platforms.....

OPV are in principle green and grey water assets - the weapons fit for any platform reflects its mission priority at that point in time - and which is why some ships will end up with progressive fits

OPV's don't have spare real estate to carry any weapons systems beyond what they fall off the slipway with on day 1 of getting a wet bottom.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree, why are we talking missile modules for the OPV's ? Geez talk about mission and scope creep, and the things have not even been built yet :(

Its spelled out in pretty plain language what the intention is for the mission modules, OPV's weapons systems will be fixed so no need there to be swapping out Stanflex or any other type of module for basic weapons fitout.

Mission modules will be for MCM, Hydro etc, I can't even see us getting mission modules for ASW let alone AAW, and really what would an OPV be chasing out there with Harpoon ?
To be fair alexsa is commenting on the subject of Stanflex modules and only in passing about the - earlier - discussion of using modules to upgun the OPVs. That subject has been firmly closed

This suggestion by gf0012 is a very good one.

There are so many days when I just want to post up the CONOPS so as to act as the start point for discussions around platforms.....
oldsig
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be fair alexsa is commenting on the subject of Stanflex modules and only in passing about the - earlier - discussion of using modules to upgun the OPVs. That subject has been firmly closed

This suggestion by gf0012 is a very good one.



oldsig
From one oldsig to another :) agree, sorry if my post come across the wrong way, was not debating Alexsa, was agreeing with him, but went on a bit of a rant on what had previously been stated

Cheers
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Came across this yesterday, I had read in the news that the PM (being in WA at the time), visited Austal and there was an interview, full transcript below:

Joint Doorstop Interview, Henderson | Prime Minister of Australia


The part I thought interesting was his comment regarding where the OPV's would be built:

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, given as Mr Bellamy mentioned and for the past 17 years, Austal has built the Offshore Patrol Vessels for the Commonwealth, why not just announce the contract with them now?

PRIME MINISTER:

There's going to be a Competitive Evaluation Process. We'll start that in October and we very much hope that Austal will be involved. Under what we're doing there'll be more ships more soon than would otherwise have been the case. We've brought forward the Offshore Patrol Vessels or Corvettes to 2018. We’ve brought forward the frigates to 2020, we’ve brought forward the Corvettes by two years, we’ve brought forward the frigates by three years. We've speeded up the process and obviously when you've got more ships sooner, you'll have more jobs sooner.


Now, what I’ve said is that the Corvette build is likely to start in Adelaide. The frigate build will certainly start in Adelaide. That doesn't mean that other yards can't have a role, but certainly the Corvette build is likely to start in Adelaide. It will stay in Adelaide until the frigate build starts in 2020 and then it's quite possible that the Corvette build could shift. Whether it shifts to somewhere else in South Australia, whether it shifts to somewhere else in our country, that obviously is something that we will work out through the Competitive Evaluation Process.

So it appears (whoever wins the OPV contract), will have to commit to at least have construction of the OPV's commence in Adelaide and continue there at least until the start of construction for the Future Frigates.

Be interesting to see how that works out, maybe it could also indicate that eventually there may be multiple locations for the OPV build??
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
"Prime Minister, given as Mr Bellamy mentioned and for the past 17 years, Austal has built the Offshore Patrol Vessels for the Commonwealth, why not just announce the contract with them now?"

Sorry for the one liner, but.......What the ?........My Goodnes
 

Goknub

Active Member
The PM seems to be making a determined effort to change the terminology from OPV to Corvette. The assumption would have to be that this is just a name change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top