Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Foreign Militaries => Australian Defence Force => Topic started by: S.M.A. on June 02, 2014, 02:33:07

Title: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: S.M.A. on June 02, 2014, 02:33:07
Considering how we've seen (in past threads here) the need for the ADF to recruit laterally for foreign military personnel in many trades, will we even see sufficient manning levels in the RAN for future subs like these envisioned in the article below? Don't they have trouble keeping all of their 6 Collins class subs manned as it is?

Quote
May 28, 2014
Submarine Deal Could Rattle China
BY MAREX

Maritime Executive.com (http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Submarine-Deal-Could-Rattle-China-2014-05-28)

Japan will get the chance to pursue an unprecedented military export deal when its defence and foreign ministers meet their Australian counterparts in Tokyo next month.

Japan is considering selling submarine technology to Australia - perhaps even a fleet of fully engineered, stealthy vessels, according to Japanese officials. Sources on both sides say the discussions so far have encouraged a willingness to speed up talks.

(...EDITED)

"There's a clear danger that aligning ourselves closely with Japan on a technology as sensitive as submarine technology would be read in China as a significant tightening in what they fear is a drift towards a Japan-Australia alliance," said Hugh White, a professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. "It would be a gamble by Australia on where Japan is going to be 30 years from now."


(...EDITED)

Australian officials have expressed an interest in the silent-running diesel-electric propulsion systems used in Japan's Soryu diesel submarines, built by Mitsubishi Heavy and Kawasaki Heavy. Those vessels would give Australia a naval force that could reach deep into the Indian Ocean.


- mod edit to better reflect latest developments -
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Ostrozac on June 02, 2014, 04:33:18
As I understand it, this proposal is for the Collins-class replacement. So it should be fairly "PY-neutral" -- as the Collins-class decommission, the crews will transition to the new boats.
Title: Scratching heads to replace subs
Post by: OTR1 on July 30, 2014, 13:13:15
Excerpts here from a well-sourced article by Claire Corbett, in Sydney, apropos the state of play in replacing the RAN Collins boats.

Worth noting that Claire hails from Vancouver.  :D



Australia's $60 billion submarine dilemma


Claire Corbett
August, 2014


If Australians felt blindsided in April when the federal government announced its purchase of an additional 58 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets for $12 billion, they’ll want to sit down with a strong cup of tea to contemplate the cost of our future submarine fleet. The new vessels will need to enter service by the early-to-mid 2030s in order to replace the ageing Collins Class submarines. It will be one of the biggest and most expensive infrastructure projects in Australian history, as ambitious as the Snowy Mountain Hydro-electric Scheme or the National Broadband Network.

To discuss the project, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) hosted a conference, The Submarine Choice, over two days in April. It was “the most knowledgeable gathering ever held in Australia to do with submarines”, said ASPI’s executive director, Peter Jennings, and there was not an empty seat to be found in the Federation Ballroom of the Canberra Hyatt.

The defence minister, David Johnston, opened the conference and stated clearly the difficulty Australia faces in considering its future submarine options. What we want, the minister admitted, is a conventional submarine (one powered by diesel-electric motors), with the power, speed and range of a nuclear submarine. Such a boat doesn’t exist. Nor, as the then chief of navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, pointed out in his speech, has Australia even begun to acquire the infrastructure or invest in the training needed to support nuclear-powered submarines.

..............the media has breathlessly suggested the possibility of off-the-shelf purchase of Japanese submarines. The Australian submariner community is highly sceptical, as Japanese subs do not meet Australia’s unique requirements, and their much-touted air-independent propulsion is actually Swedish technology that would have to be bought directly from Sweden. The supposedly silent propulsion system, according to these submariners, also includes a modified French engine that is already out of date.



Read the whole thing in The Monthly (magazine) site via the following Tiny URL: the original link is over 200 characters long - http://tinyurl.com/mmauozc
Title: Re: Scratching heads to replace subs
Post by: Chris Pook on July 30, 2014, 15:56:38
"Australia has the only navy in the world that flogs its diesel submarines thousands of kilometres across the ocean – and then goes on patrol."

Canada really should put its head together with the Aussies and Japs.  Same problems - same solutions?


Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on September 01, 2014, 18:33:57
Soryu class SSKs in RAN service?

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/australia-leans-toward-buying-japan-subs-upgrade-fleet-085541780--sector.html)

Quote
Australia leans toward buying Japan subs to upgrade fleet: sources

Reuters
By Tim Kelly and Nobuhiro Kubo

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan and Australia are leaning towards a multibillion-dollar sale by Tokyo of a fleet of stealth submarines to Canberra's military in a move that could rile an increasingly assertive China, people familiar with the talks said.

An agreement is still some months away, three people said, but the unprecedented sale of off-the-shelf vessels based on the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force's Soryu class sub is emerging as the likeliest option.

(....EDITED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Colin P on September 02, 2014, 12:03:34
The wiki posts say the Soryu class is bigger than the Upholder, but the range appears to be less, but not sure if that includes only AIP and not conventional motors.

It would be good for Canada to take part in the talks at the very least. The armament appears to be almost the same as the Upholders.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 02, 2014, 17:09:06
RAN will be very, very, very unhappy if this happens.

Title: Japan offers Soryu class submarine to Australia
Post by: S.M.A. on September 04, 2014, 13:20:10
It doesn't say if a formal offer has been made:

Quote
Japan Enters Global Submarine Market With Soryu Offering
By Robert Farley
September 03, 2014


It now appears likely that Japan will sell advanced Soryu-class submarines to Australia. In addition to strengthening the relationship between Australia and Japan, and making Australia’s submarine force considerably more lethal, this represents a major move by Japan into the global submarine market.

Germany, France, and Russia have long dominated the existing market for diesel-electric submarines. The German Type 209 submarine serves in over a dozen navies, the Type 214, is scheduled for export to Greece and South Korea, but has suffered some setbacks.  France has exported the Scorpene-class to Malaysia, Brazil, and India, and Russia continues to export its Kilo-class subs and Improved Kilos to a handful of countries, at least until Russian industry can work through the problems with the Lada-class.

The Japanese Soryus are extremely competitive with these boats. At 4,200 tons submerged, the Soryu-class is considerably larger than either the Type 214, Scorpene, or Improved Kilo, and can carry a much heavier weapons load. This size also makes them quieter and longer-ranged than the other boats on the market. At current price expectations of around $500 million, the Soryus are not wildly more expensive than the other boats.

There’s no doubt that Germany, Russia, and France should worry about the position they currently hold in the global submarine market. Many of the Latin American navies have Type 209 boats that will require replacement sooner rather than later. The Soryu could also give Vietnam an alternative to the Improved Kilos Hanoi is buying from Russia. It doesn’t hurt that some of these large, long-ranged boats may go to countries that have problems with China. This solidifies Japan’s security relationship with these countries, while also improving the economic prospects of Japan’s defense industry.

If Japan can reliably produce the Soryu at a cost that is competitive with the latest German and French boats, it can capture a big part of that market, while also making the Western Pacific more dangerous for the PLAN. For Tokyo, this is a win-win.


Source: The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/japan-enters-global-submarine-market-with-soryu-offering/)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Journeyman on September 04, 2014, 13:30:55
RAN will be very, very, very unhappy if this happens.
Why?
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on September 04, 2014, 17:33:27
Apparently representatives of the Japanese sub maker are already in Australia. OTR1, so why wouldn't the RAN want 12 Soryu class submarines?

Source: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/01/us-japan-australia-submarine-idUSKBN0GW1RQ20140901)

Quote
Australia leans toward buying Japan subs to upgrade fleet: sources

TOKYO Mon Sep 1, 2014

(...SNIPPED)

Discussions have since moved rapidly from engine-technology transfer to a full build in Japan, with the goal of replacing by the 2030s Australia's six outdated Collins-class boats with 12 scaled-down versions of the 4,000-ton Soryu, the world's biggest non-nuclear subs. ...

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 license 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.

A visit last week by representatives of the two Japanese companies to the Adelaide shipyards of government-owned ASC Pty Ltd - formerly Australian Submarine Corp - sparked fierce media speculation in Australia.

(...SNIPPED)

Twelve top-of-the-line Soryu subs at $500 million each, plus maintenance and overhaul, would work out cheaper for Australia as it grapples with austerity.

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 04, 2014, 18:27:07
The govt may well go in that direction. Please bear in mind that this current and recent activity comes from the minister's office, not the RAN sub community.

Right now the RAN has no preferred option, as there isn't one. Many of the specs in the previous govt's plan can only bet met by a  Virginia-class nuke, and there is zero chance of bipartisan accord on going that way. That said, the current PM recently sought briefing papers from nuke boat builders in UK and USA, and the minister visited the yard in Scotland for a close-up lookie lookie. We'll see....

Equally, the RAN has never - repeat, never  - sought 12 boats, and the minister has intimated a few times in recent months that the end number will be somewhat south of that. That number was dreamed up in the office of former PM Kevin Rudd, not the uniformed or bureaucratic arms the defence establishment. Despite the minister's comments the media keep running the '12 subs' meme as fact: the journos in Oz aren't too clued-up re defence (just last week they said RAAF Rhinos were going to deploy in Iraq from USN CVNs.........) and everything they report needs t be taken with a huge sack of salt. If the govt really does commit to a dozen boats, then they have a very great deal of explaining ahead of them at Fleet Base West.

The Soryo boats, in particular, are not preferred by anyone at sub HQ in Perth because in rather more than one respect they're not as good as the Collins boats, and the much bally-hoo'd AIP kit (for example) isn't even Japanese, and was looked at and discarded by the RAN in the 90s. 

For what it's worth, I know who the RAN sub bigwig was who spoke to Claire Corbett in the above article, and I assure you that both he and his serving and former colleagues aren't too thrilled with this. On the strength of that article Claire has been invited to present a long, formal speech in Sydney (very soon, but I forget the exact date) and more input will be evident then. Some of that will help answer questions here.

BTW I agree with Colin that Canada should lean into this programme at some level. It's long struck me as something beyond absurd that Oz and Canada don't line up and share asset acquisitions when time frames match. Ho hum.

Hope at least some of this helps?
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 16, 2014, 18:26:38
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright ACT, is from Defence Industry Daily:

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-next-generation-submarines-05917/
Quote
(https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/mktg/did_logo.png)
Australia’s Next-Generation Submarines
It’s all about the risks we choose to accept. So, which risks are tied to a Japanese choice?

Sep 16, 2014

Defense Industry Daily staff

Sept 15/14: Japan risks. As it becomes clear that Japan is the odds-on favorite, discussion of that choice’s particular risks is coming up. If Australia picks the Soryus, the risks it will accept include some level of opacity with respect to key technologies, like special steels for hull strength. Time will tell, but Japan is also said to be reluctant to transfer all of the boat’s key technologies to Australia. Noise reduction designs in particular transfer naturally, as part of giving Australia full local maintenance capability, but are highly sensitive.

These issues, and the complex nature of these technologies, have industrial implications. The ability to actually build the submarines at ASC would leave no middle ground regarding technology transfer. Worse, experts like Kazuhisa Ogawa and ex-submariner Toshihide Yamauchi estimate that an ASC build could double the cost to the full planned A$ 40 million. This compares rather unfavorably with TKMS’ reported bid submission, but that design promises serious performance and timeliness risks, along with the potential for unexpected costs. Pick your poisons.

Other risks are geopolitical. Hugh White is not a fan of local construction, but his questions go to the heart of the strategic risks:

     “How sure can we be that within that time [of the submarines' delivery and entire service life] Japan will… be a US ally? That it will not have restored its long-standing ban on defence exports? That it will
      not have become a compliant neighbour of a predominant China, or on the other hand have become China’s bitter enemy? What would happen to our new submarine capability in any of these contingencies?”

Fair questions. Does Australian participation in a project of this magnitude make some of these outcomes less likely? How much less likely, and what role will other macro trends play? Someone needs to be doing this kind of analysis, and Australia’s DoD hasn’t shown great proficiency in the past. Sources: Australia’s ABC, “Soryu submarine deal: Japanese insiders warn sub program will cost more, hurt Australian jobs”

Canberra Times, “Japanese submarine option odds-on favourite”.
Title: US considers Soryu class as it mulls building diesel submarine squadron
Post by: S.M.A. on September 20, 2014, 01:26:01
Japan's Soryu class is also being seriously looked at by the US Navy:

National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-submarines-run-silent-run-deepon-diesel-engines-11306?page=2)

Quote
U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep...On Diesel Engines?

(...EDITED)

And so it remains. JMSDF Soryu-class diesel attack boats are the biggest boats of their type, and they're acclaimed among the best—for good reason. Their size lets them carry large amounts of fuel, weaponry and stores, making long patrols feasible. The depths offer a sub its best concealment. Accordingly, Japanese SSKs are outfitted with air-independent propulsion, obviating their need to surface and snorkel frequently. That's an Achilles' heel of older diesel subs. Soryus, then, can remain underwater for long stretches, evading detection from the surface or aloft. And their acoustic properties are excellent while submerged—helping them elude enemy passive sonar. What adversary sonar men can't hear can hurt them.

In short, Soryus are optimized for plying the China seas and Western Pacific. Those are precisely the waters the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard singled out as crucial in the 2007 Maritime Strategy, the sea services' most authoritative statement of how they see the strategic environment and intend to manage it. Soryu SSKs are proven platforms manned by experienced mariners who can bequeath their knowledge to their U.S. comrades. That makes these boats a logical common platform around which to build a combined SSK squadron.

Let's evaluate the Soryus' candidacy while remaining mindful that many other capable diesel subs—for instance, the German Type 214—are also on the market and worth considering. In operational terms, what would a U.S.-Japanese force do? Its strategic rationale would be straightforward: it would turn access denial against China, its foremost contemporary practitioner. Reciprocity is a fine thing. Or, if you prefer your strategic wisdom colloquial, paybacks are a b*tch.

In other words, if Beijing wants to deny U.S. forces access to the theater, U.S. and Japanese commanders should reply in kind. They can deploy submarines along the first island chain to fight in concert with surface forces, detachments of missile-armed land troops, and shore-based tactical aircraft. Combined-arms forces could:

-     Keep the People's Liberation Army (PLA) from wresting away beachheads in the island chain
. Bursting through the island chain would turn Japan's southern flank (and Taiwan's northern flank), compromising Japanese territory while making it far harder to cordon off the China seas. Defending the islands should be Job One for allied forces.

-    Expel China's flag from crucial seaways. Plugging, say, Miyako Strait (south of Okinawa) with submarines while erecting overlapping fields of anti-ship-missile fire overhead would give the most determined PLA Navy skipper pause. He would think twice before trying to exit the East China Sea for the Western Pacific (or to return to home waters if caught outside).

-    Make transiting north-south along the Asian seaboard perilous in the extreme. SSKs venturing within the island chain could target merchantmen and PLA Navy units with impunity, imposing unbearable costs on Beijing for making trouble.

In short, staging a combined fleet near likely scenes of action would give rise to a kind of mutual assured sea denial. Properly executed, allied anti-access preparations would yield a measure of deterrence vis-á-vis China—enhancing prospects for uneasy peace in the Far East.

But why diesel boats? Isn't the all-nuclear U.S. silent service the world's finest, a silver bullet in the navy's chamber? Yes and no. A U.S. Navy boat remains the odds-on favorite in a duel against any single antagonist. Mass is a severe and worsening problem, however. If the fleet disperses itself all over the map, as global navies are wont to do, it's apt to find itself outmatched at some trouble spot or another. Never mind how capable an individual platform may be. If commanders concentrate assets in one trouble spot, on the other hand, other priorities may go uncovered. Now as ever, quantity has a quality all its own. And quantity is precisely where trouble lies.

The reason for dwindling fleet totals should astound no one
. It's dollars and cents. As Cold War-era Los Angeles-class nuclear attack subs (SSNs) retire, they're being replaced not on a one-for-one basis but by fewer, more expensive Virginia-class SSNs. As costs rise and shipbuilding budgets stagnate—if that—downward pressure on numbers mounts inexorably. The fleet is projected to sag from 55 SSNs today to as low as 42 around 2030.

(...EDITED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Ostrozac on September 20, 2014, 08:55:47
Although the US eventually purchasing some SSK may not be completely impossible -- the US sailing in Japanese built Soryus is a really, really farfetched idea. One of the principal functions of the US Navy is to convert dollars into jobs at shipyards. American shipyards.

Has the US Navy ever even commisioned a foreign built vessel since the 30's? The Yangtze River Patrol used Spanish and Chinese built gunboats, but as far as I know, since World War Two, the US Navy has been 100% American made.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Colin P on September 22, 2014, 16:29:53
Fastcats?. the USCG Island class cutters were Vosper designs, not sure where they were built.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on September 23, 2014, 00:58:41
US Soryu's = Hard to envision.

Australian/Canadian Soryu's = Make a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Ostrozac on September 23, 2014, 03:14:00
Fastcats?. the USCG Island class cutters were Vosper designs, not sure where they were built.

The USCG Island Class were built in Lockport, Louisiana.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 25, 2014, 20:14:12
Also, the trimaran Littoral Combat Ships are being built in Alabama, but are an Australian design and being built by an Australian parent company (Austal) with a US partner. They had to jump through a staggering amount of 'Made in USA' hoops to appease DC. Going back, the Harrier purchase was a nightmare for the Marines: more than one congressman was an anglophobic bigot......

On the Soryu front, vide the RAN, sorry, but, again, no, the RAN doesn't want them.

At last a former boat boss has taken up the pen. This time for ASPI, as good and heavyweight a think-tank as you'll find in Oz.

Excerpts here.


Option J for FSM—a Japanese solution?


By Peter Briggs
26 September 2014


It’s apparent that Soryu would need to be heavily modified to meet Australian requirements, particularly for long ocean transits and patrols. This would carry cost, performance and schedule risks, and will effectively amount to a new design—it won’t be a MOTS acquisition.

Careful, measured consideration of risks is required, and any proposal for a Japanese solution for the Future Submarine must address those issues. Based on the assessment possible from the limited amount of information available that doesn’t seem to have been done.

Despite the apparent political attraction of this solution, it seems most unlikely that Soryu is as capable as Collins, and it almost certainly can’t offer the sort of improvements required in FSM. Considerable development would be required before a Soryu or its successor could achieve that.

Option J is a distraction. An Australian-led project definition study, utilising reputable European designers, is the way ahead to provide Government with the information and maximum options for the key decisions necessary to avoid a capability gap.

*** Peter Briggs is a retired RAN submarine commanding officer and past President of the Submarine Institute of Australia.

Read the whole thing via this link - http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/option-j-for-fsm-a-japanese-solution/


BTW I'll happily buy a beer for someone who can find a single serving or former RAN submariner or sub-specialist bureaucrat who wants Soryu boats. Two beers, in fact.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Colin P on September 26, 2014, 11:25:30
I know both boats have had their issues, but how does the Upholder and the Collins hull designs work? My question is that are we both going to be looking for a new design or looking for an improved version of what we have?
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on November 14, 2014, 02:26:51
The influence of the shipbuilding unions...

Quote
The Australia-Japan Submarine Deal Gets Complicated
By Clint Richards
November 13, 2014

There has been quite a bit of defense related news coming out of Japan over the last week, but the biggest stories have to do with Tokyo's security relationship with Australia.

However, Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-australia-submarines-idUSKBN0IQ2DZ20141106) reported last Friday that Australian labor unions and politicians are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to open the deal to an international tender, as other countries'  submarine manufacturers have said they would be willing to undergo production in Australia, potentially saving thousands of naval industry jobs. The government is set to spend $34.3 billion on its new submarine program, and sending the production of these vessels abroad roughly 18 months before federal elections could prove politically disastrous for Abbott.

Japanese defense officials indicated that should Australia open up the bidding process, Tokyo would have to wait and see before deciding to participate, and that the kind of vessel Canberra chose would be the deciding factor, as Japan's diesel-electric submarine is substantially larger than any European or Turkish variant.

On the other hand, Australia's government is in a very difficult position, essentially deciding between the revival of its domestic shipping industry and further integration with its two most powerful military allies, combined with the transfer of the world's quietest diesel submarine technology.

The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/the-australia-japan-submarine-deal-gets-complicated/)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on November 19, 2014, 13:00:41
In the wake of Japan changing the propulsion systems of its last 4 Soryu class subs to lithium ion batteries (http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,116489.0.html), Australia may want them changed too if they buy Soryus.

Reuters (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/australia-wants-japan-propulsion-system-submarines-sources-210655047--finance.html)

Quote
Australia wants new Japan propulsion system for its submarines: sources
Reuters

By Tim Kelly and Nobuhiro Kubo

TOKYO (Reuters) - Australia wants a new Japanese propulsion system for its next generation of submarines, government officials with direct knowledge of the matter said, bolstering Tokyo's position as the likely builder of the multibillion-dollar fleet.

Reuters reported in September that Australia was leaning towards buying 12 submarines based on Soryu-class vessels built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. The new submarines will replace six ageing Collins-class boats.

In talks since then, Canberra has said it wants a lithium-ion battery propulsion system for the submarines, two Japanese officials and one Australian official told Reuters.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 19, 2014, 14:18:23
I am not sure that the Reuters reporter understand what they are reporting on here.

In nuclear boats, the reactor produces steam, which in turn operates a steam turbine connected to the shaft, and ancillary steam driven generator to make onboard electricity. They are the only ones that are powered through "direct" drive of the engines.

But all non nuclear submarines use electrical propulsion. What varies is how you provide the electrical power.

In the "classic" non-nuc boat, the diesel submarines, the electrical motors get their power from the diesel-generators when on the surface and completely run on batteries while submerged and not snorkelling. While running the diesel-generators, they also recharge the batteries.

In an AIP boat, such as the Japanese Soryu or the Swedish Gotland classes, you have three sources of electrical power instead of two: On the surface (for ease of understanding, always consider that running on the surface includes snorkelling), they get their power from the diesel-generators. Submerged, they have two choices: at speed, they run on the batteries - just like a "classic" diesel sub and with the same time constraint for running down the batteries charge. However, when at slow speed of up to 5 kts for loitering, they can get power from a generator run by the Stirling air independent engine to either provide for the electrical motor only, or to also (by going even slower) trickle charge the batteries for their next use when the need occurs.

By alternating between bouts of high speed and loitering periods, they can recharge/keep charged the batteries and remain underwater for very long period of time, bridging a good part of the gap between "classic" and nuke boats.

So, when the Japanese say that they are "changing" the propulsion system to lithium ion batteries, which is just a more efficient means of storing electricity, does it mean that they are replacing the regular battery system with those, but otherwise keeping the diesel-generator/Stirling engine-generator combination to generate their electricity (and recharge those lithium ion batteries) or does it mean that they are going back to a classic diesel-generator/batteries only set up using lithium ion for better charge retention and longer duration of charge?   
Title: Australia rules out open tender for new submarines
Post by: S.M.A. on December 03, 2014, 11:49:17
No open tender

Quote
Australia rules out open tender for new submarines, Japan in box seat
Tue Dec 2, 2014
By Matt Siegel

Dec 2 (Reuters) - Australia will not hold an open tender to replace its ageing Collins-class submarines, government officials said on Tuesday, a decision that bolsters Japan's position as the likely builder of the new multibillion-dollar fleet.

Reuters reported in September that Australia was leaning towards buying as many as 12 off-the-shelf stealth submarines from Japan despite domestic pressure to build them at home.

Since then, several European defence contractors have said they would be price-competitive with Japan and do the work in Australia in a bid to win a piece of the overall A$40 billion ($33.96 billion) submarine programme.

But the Australian government did not have time for an open bidding process.

"We need to make decisions now and we don't have time to go through a speculation process." - Joe Hockey, treasurer

Sources have said Australia is strongly considering a replacement for the Collins based on the 4,000-tonne Soryu-class ships built by Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

They have said Canberra wanted a new lithium-ion battery propulsion system, which experts say would give the submarines better underwater range and speed compared with other diesel-electric vessels that use air independent propulsion under the sea, a system which requires fuel to operate.

Tokyo's next generation of Soryu submarines will be the world's first to be powered by the new technology.

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/australia-defense-submarine-idUSL3N0TL5XF20141202)


Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on January 06, 2015, 11:34:42
RAN Soryus by the end of 2015?

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/asia-pacific/2015/01/05/report-japan-proposes-joint-work-australia-sub-fleet/21296219/)

Quote
Report: Japan Proposes Joint Work on Australia Sub Fleet

TOKYO – Japan is proposing jointly building Australia's new submarines, instead of exporting a new fleet, a report said Monday, after concerns in Canberra over the effect on the domestic ship-building industry.

Under the proposal, Japan's defense ministry is to cooperate with Australia in developing special steel and other materials for its new submarines, while Tokyo will be in charge of assembling them, the Mainichi Shimbun said.

The Australian side has taken "a positive stance" on the proposal, the daily said, adding that the two countries may strike a deal by the end of 2015.


Australia needs to replace its fleet of diesel and electric-powered subs, which date from the 1990s, and Japan's high-tech ship-building industry is thought to be well-placed to win the contract.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Japan to share classified submarine tech data with Australia
Post by: S.M.A. on May 07, 2015, 12:16:53
Major update:

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/a-first-japan-will-share-classified-submarine-technical-data-with-australia/?utm_content=buffer32d0c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Quote
A First: Japan Will Share Classified Submarine Technical Data With Australia

By Ankit Panda
May 07, 2015

The battle for Australia’s Collins-class replacement project continues, and Japan is getting ever more serious about its Soryu-class offering. The Japan Times reports, citing Japanese officials, that Tokyo will take the unprecedented step of sharing classified submarine data with Canberra. Japan’s Soryu submarines, widely regarded as one of the most advanced non-nuclear modern submarines, are competing with French and German offerings for Australia’s lucrative Collins-class successor program. The deal is expected to be the largest in Australian defense spending history, amounting to over A$50 billion by some estimates.

If Japan shares classified submarine data with Australia, it would mark the “first disclosure of such classified technical data to a foreign military other than that of ally the United States,” notes The Japan Times report. Sharing the technical data will naturally help Australia evaluate the Soryu‘s specifications. One of the questions in the Collins-class replacement project has been whether the Australian Navy would be best served by simply purchasing a design off-the-shelf with few modifications, or if it should look to modify and tweak an existing foreign design to better suit the needs of the Australian Navy. With access to Japan’s technical data, the Australian government will be able to better determine the Soryu‘s operational suitability.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Dimsum on June 12, 2015, 11:51:31
Submarine bids by Japan, France and Germany to be subsidised with $24m from Australian taxpayers

Quote
Australian taxpayers will spend $24 million helping three overseas bidders state their case to build the Australian Navy's next generation of submarines.

The Defence Department has confirmed the Japanese government, French firm DCNS and German shipbuilder TKMS will each receive $8 million to provide "defined deliverables" under the Federal Government's so-called "competitive evaluation process".

All three foreign bidders have been asked to consider building the fleet of submarines offshore, in Australia, or a combination of both.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/foreign-sub-bidders-to-be-given-24m-subsidy-to-prepare-tenders/6542482
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on August 18, 2015, 23:59:35
The latest on Japan's quest to sell Soryu class subs to Australia:

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/failure-to-communicate-will-japan-fall-behind-on-australias-collins-replacement-contract/)

Quote
Failure to Communicate: Will Japan Fall Behind on Australia's Collins-replacement Contract?

Japan has the finest product on offering, but savvy PR pitches from its French and German competitors may edge it out.


AVw7kxXY
By Ankit Panda
August 18, 2015

As many Diplomat readers may be aware, three firms are effectively in the running for a highly lucrative Australian defense contract to build the submarine that will replace the aging Royal Australian Navy’s fleet of Collins-class submarines. Germany’s ThyssenKrupp AG, France’s Direction des Constructions et Armes Navales (DCNS) Group, and a joint bid between Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd could be the potential winners of an expected $20 billion weapons deal. For the Japanese firms in particular, the Collins-class replacement bid presents a new opportunity to enter the lucrative global weapons market after Japan lifted a decades-old self-imposed embargo on weapons exports. What’s more, Japan’s Soryu-class submarines are among the most advanced non-nuclear attack submarines in the world and an expected favorite to cinch the Australian contract.

However, the Soryu‘s technology isn’t going to sell itself. According to a fascinating new Wall Street Journal report, Mitsubishi and Kawasaki aren’t ones to perfect the sort of public relations push that’s often necessary to build an aura of positivity around pricey defense deals that are often seen as a form of superfluous spending by domestic audiences. What’s more, ThyssenKrupp and DCNS on the other hand are very active in the “public charm offensives” in Australia according to the WSJ reporters. The report highlights some of the necessary “growing pains” that may afflict Japanese defense contractors with little experience in competing on the global market for multi-billion dollar hardware contracts.

The Journal report, however, goes further than implying that the two firms are simply inexperienced in the arts of public persuasion. Indeed, it highlights a sort of intentional “secrecy surrounding the government-led Japanese bid.” The report speculates–correctly, in my view–that given the experimental nature of this contract for Mitsubishi and Kawasaki and regional tensions in Asia surrounding Japan’s ongoing recalibration as a more “normal” country on matters regarding its own military and participation in the global market for military hardware, Tokyo may be reluctant to fully embrace the range of trappings that accompany international defense contract pitches. As one expert cited in the Journal notes, Japan sees the Collins-class replacement contract as “a case of exporting defense equipment, transferring technology and making Australian production possible” while competitors are “adding value with their proposals.”


(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on September 02, 2015, 15:33:28
OTR1, what would be your assessment on this Aussie Senator and how good he has been in keeping promises to maintain defence spending in your country?

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/interview-australian-senator-nick-xenophon/)

Quote
Interview: Australian Senator Nick Xenophon
The Diplomat speaks with Sen. Xenophon about Australia’s submarine deal
.


(...SNIPPED)

Why does Australia need submarines?

Because we are an island nation with a vast coastline, submarines are an integral and vital part of Australia’s defense. I am not a defense expert, and I am not a strategic expert, but I rely on what the experts say, and there is tremendous unanimity that having a viable, capable submarine fleet is essential for Australia’s defense. Particularly in this era when the Indian and Pacific Oceans are increasing in importance, and knowing historically how important submarines are to an island nation such as Australia, we need to have a capable submarine fleet. Having 12 submarines, with at least six to eight of those being operational at any given time, is vital to cover the oceans that surround us.

How do the German, French and Japanese bidders compare in terms of experience building in Australia?

Clearly, France and Germany have had experience building submarines overseas. Japan has not yet had that experience. I think that it is fair to say that all the countries involved in the bidding process can make high-quality, first-class submarines. But in terms of experience, I think the Japanese understand that they are playing a game of “catch up” with the others, and they are diligently engaging with us.

I am agnostic as to which country we partner with to build the submarines, so long as they build here, which is consistent to the promise made by the Australian government. That, to me, is the key issue. Japan is at a disadvantage relative to Germany and France, but they are making a very genuine effort to “catch up” and that is what their industry delegation to Australia was about. And again, I’m not taking sides, I just want the subs to be built in Australia.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Dimsum on September 03, 2015, 03:33:28
OTR1, what would be your assessment on this Aussie Senator and how good he has been in keeping promises to maintain defence spending in your country?

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/interview-australian-senator-nick-xenophon/)

Not sure about anything else, but he's from Adelaide where the new subs would be built (if they end up being built in Australia.)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 11, 2015, 11:54:31
SMA, I expect Dimsum has nailed it. NX is, I believe, a very good rainmaker for local stuff but not a bigwig in the corridors of power in Canberra.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 14, 2015, 16:38:28
On a slight tangent, I gather that in the wash of the change of PM in Oz that the current minister will be replaced next week.

That's now +/- 10 defence ministers since 2000.

Sigh..............
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 20, 2015, 14:46:16
Just to update the above, Andrews was sacked and replaced by a wholly unknown senator named Marise Payne.

Standby for a statement this week or so that the DWP and DCP will be 'reviewed' and not released until the new year.

Ho hum.

 :(
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on September 27, 2015, 19:37:56
Would the new Turnbull govt. be bad news for Japan's efforts to sell Soryu class subs to Oz? This article below explores that possibility:

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/is-australias-new-prime-minster-bad-news-for-japans-submarine-bid/)

Quote
Is Australia's New Prime Minster Bad News for Japan’s Submarine Bid?
Will Australia’s leadership change throw a wrench into Japan’s odds of winning the Collins replacement deal?


By Ankit Panda
September 28, 2015

The recent unexpected leadership shake-up in Australia raises several questions about how the country’s foreign affairs will be conducted under a new prime minister. After a leadership spill in the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott is out and Malcolm Turnbull is in. For Japan, whose Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd. are in the running for Australia’s largest-ever defense contract—to replace the $20 billion Collins-class submarine—the change will be a topic of great interest. The Japanese firms, manufacturers for the Soru-class diesel-electric attack submarines, are competing with Germany’s ThyssenKrupp AG and France’s Direction des Constructions et Armes Navales (DCNS) Group.

On first glance, it appears that Turnbull’s ascent to the helm of the Liberal Party and, consequently, the prime ministership, will not factor in Japan’s favor. Malcolm Cook has a helpful post over at the Lowy Institute’s blog in which he highlights the close personal rapport that Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, and Tony Abbott had established over the past two years. Abe returned to power for a second term as prime minister, leading the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, in December 2012, and Abbott became prime minister in September 2013. Turnbull, of course, isn’t the only new figure to appear at the top of the Australian government — Abbott’s defense minister, Kevin Andrews, has been replaced as well, by Marise Payne, the first woman to hold the post.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: RDBZ on September 27, 2015, 23:05:21
Just to update the above, Andrews was sacked and replaced by a wholly unknown senator named Marise Payne.


Was previously Minister for Human Services, which is a bigger spending portfolio than defence.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: CBH99 on September 28, 2015, 00:14:55
I was under the impression that the senior ADF brass really, really don't want the Japanese subs.  So a new minister might not be the biggest wrench thrown into the Japanese bid...?
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on September 29, 2015, 13:38:21
In reply...

"I was under the impression that the senior ADF brass really, really don't want the Japanese subs."
They don't.

"So a new minister might not be the biggest wrench thrown into the Japanese bid...?"
Yes/no/maybe/dunno. With what is many respects a new govt all this is muddier than ever.

"Was previously Minister for Human Services, which is a bigger spending portfolio than defence."
Not the sort of job that gets a lot of attention. There was a great of "Um....who?" uttered the length and breadth of the country when she got the job.



Title: Japan ready to build all subs for Canberra in Aussie shipyards
Post by: S.M.A. on October 02, 2015, 01:52:23
Of course, the deal preferred would be the one that doesn't leave local shipbuilders high and dry:

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/29/japan-australia-submarines-idUSL4N11M2C420150929)

Quote
Japan says ready to build all submarines for Canberra in Australia


By Tim Kelly and Nobuhiro Kubo

TOKYO, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Japan is ready to match European rivals and build a fleet of submarines for Canberra entirely at Australian shipyards, a senior Japanese official said on Tuesday, after stumbling in its effort to win the A$50 billion ($34.76 billion) contract.

Tokyo was willing to train hundreds of Australian engineers in Japan's submarine-manufacturing hub of Kobe as well as in Australia as part of its offer for one of the world's biggest defence contracts, Masaaki Ishikawa, director general for Acquisition Reform at the Ministry of Defense, told Reuters.

His comments are the first from an official directly involved in the bid that Japan is willing to build the stealth submarines entirely in Australia, where jobs are a hot button political issue. Canberra is expected to order between eight to 12 vessels.

"Whatever option Australia chooses we are ready to provide the necessary technology transfers and skills," Ishikawa said in an interview.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on October 07, 2015, 09:53:05
Japanese defence firms showing their wares at this expo in Sydney, Australia:

Navy Recognition (http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3152)

Quote
Japan's Government and Industry Held an Industry Briefing on Soryu Submarine at PACIFIC 2015

At PACIFIC 2015, the international maritime exposition currently held in Sydney Australia, the Japanese Government and Industry held an industry briefing on its bid with the Soryu for the SEA1000 program. Japan has a small pavilion at the exposition with scale models of the SEA1000 proposal, a Soryu class, an Atago class Destroyer and the 20DX Frigate.
   
At PACIFIC 2015, the international maritime exposition currently held in Sydney Australia, the Japanese Government and Industry held an industry briefing on its bid with the Soryu for the SEA1000 program. Japan has a small pavilion at the exposition with scale models of the SEA1000 proposal, a Soryu class, an Atago class Destroyer and the 20DX Frigate. Izumi Ishii, Vice President of Integrated Defense & Space Systems at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. during SEA1000 Industry Briefing at PACIFIC 2015
   
The briefing which Navy Recognition was attending was presented by Japan's Defence Ministry spokesman Masaki Ishikawa and Izumi Ishii, Vice President of Integrated Defense & Space Systems at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

The Team Japan as presented by the Defence Ministry spokesman is to incorporate state of the art technologies from both Australia and Japan into proven technologies for ocean navigation, to work with local industries in whatever arrangement best suited for the Australian Government and to involve Australian industries from the design phase throughout the program.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on October 07, 2015, 14:12:42
Japanese defence firms showing their wares at this expo in Sydney
As are the Germans and the French.

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on October 07, 2015, 14:59:48
All-weather snorkel system?

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/japan-to-offer-australia-its-top-secret-submarine-technology/?utm_content=buffere658a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Quote
Japan to Offer Australia Its Top-Secret Submarine Technology
Tokyo has disclosed additional details of its offer to replace the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class subs
.


By Franz-Stefan Gady
October 07, 2015

Japan has for the first time revealed additional details of its proposal to design and build submarines to replace Australia’s fleet of six Collins-class boats.

This week, the head of a high-powered Japanese delegation, speaking at this year’s Sea Power conference in Sydney, told local media that Japan would transfer 100 percent of the technology involved in building a larger version of Japan’s state-of-the-art 4,000-ton diesel-electric Soryu-class submarine to the Australian submariner community. “Our objective is to have everything available to transfer,” delegation head Masaki Ishikawa said.

In detail, Japan’s proposal includes advanced welding technologies, top-secret stealth technology, combat system integration, lithium-ion batteries as the submarine’s main energy source (with the option for air-independent propulsion to be added later an), and an all-weather snorkel system that can operate even during a typhoon, according to the Australian news website Perth Now. In addition, the sub will feature a U.S. combat system.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Colin P on October 08, 2015, 01:28:40
by the time this contract is wrapping up, maybe it will be a perfect time to jump aboard.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 08, 2015, 09:28:59
All-weather snorkel system?

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/japan-to-offer-australia-its-top-secret-submarine-technology/?utm_content=buffere658a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

All snorkelling systems are all-weather so long as you are willing to live with the discomfort associated with temporary shut-down of the inflow pipe and you are ready to handle vacuum-in-the-boat situations.

The real question is, with a submarine, why on earth would you want to be anywhere less than two hundred feet deep during a typhoon ?
Title: Germany offers Endeavour project sub as Soryu alternative to Australia
Post by: S.M.A. on October 08, 2015, 12:44:16
Germany's competing offer to Japan's offer of Soryu class subs to Australia:

Navy Recognition (http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/pacific-2015-naval-show-daily-news/3156-tkms-announces-endeavour-the-name-for-australian-future-submarine-project-.html)

Quote
TKMS announces ‘Endeavour’ - the name for Australian Future Submarine Project
 
ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS), the world’s leading builder of conventional submarines, has announced the name ‘Endeavour’ for its Australian SEA1000 Future Submarine Project. The announcement was made today to coincide with the company’s presence at Pacific 2015, a major naval industry event being held in Sydney from 6 to 8 October. TKMS is committed to naval shipbuilding in Australia and the broader APAC region.

Dr John White, Chairman of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Australia, said:

“We selected the name ‘Endeavour’ for its obvious connections to Australia’s history, particularly the fact that the country was discovered by Captain James Cook who first landed the Endeavour at Botany Bay in 1770. 245 years later, at Pacific 2015, we are showcasing our leading ship-building and submarine capability that reflects our strong commitment to Australia for over 150 years.”

“We are committed to deliver a regionally-superior submarine for Australia under Project Endeavour through the Federal Government’s Competitive Evaluation Process. We will offer an advanced submarine design that is tailored to Australia’s specific submarine requirements and designed for reliable cost effective sustainment.”

(...SNIPPED)


Title: DCNS Barracuda pitched for Australia sub replacement program
Post by: S.M.A. on October 12, 2015, 16:42:39
France's counter offer to Japan's Soryu and Germany's Endeavour sub projects to Australia:

Navy Recognition (http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/pacific-2015-naval-show-daily-news/3161.html?task=view)

Quote
PACIFIC 2015: DCNS Showcased the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A for SEA1000 Submarine Program
 
At PACIFIC 2015, the international maritime exposition held recently in Sydney, DCNS was showcasing for the first time a scale model of its proposal for the Australian SEA1000 submarine design and procurement program. Based on the French Navy Barracuda SSN currently in final stage of construction, the Shorfin Barracuda is 3 meters shorter (94 meters) and 200 tons lighter (4,500 tons).

The two submarines share the same hull but DCNS further improved some aspects of the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A hull shape in order to maintain the impressive speed and maneuverability qualities expected with the next SSN of the French Navy. Both are fitted with X-shape rudders which provides better handling to the submarine while surfaced and underwater. The "pump jet" allows for higher speed before the onset of cavitation and lower acoustic signature.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Saab offers upgrade for RAN's Collins class subs
Post by: S.M.A. on October 15, 2015, 17:29:50
What??? This is assuming the Aussie MoD wants to stick with these undermanned, problem-plagued subs.

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/could-saab-upgrade-australias-collins-class-submarine-as-a-stopgap-measure/)

Quote
Could Saab Upgrade Australia’s Collins-class Submarine as a Stopgap Measure?
The Swedish company Saab Kockums offers to upgrade Australia’s subs while Canberra decides who will replace them. Is it worth it?


By Benjamin David Baker
October 14, 2015
As previously reported by the Diplomat, Australia is still trying to figure out which submarines will replace its Collins-class boats. The three contenders still in the so-called SEA-1000 competition are the German ThyssenKrupp’s Type 216-class, a diesel-electric version of the French Thales/DCNS Barracuda-class and a modified version of the Japanese Kawasaki Soryu-class. The first of the 6 Collins’ have been in service since the early 1990s, when they replaced the venerable Oberon-class. Although no definitive price limit has been set, the Collins replacement program has caused an intense debate in Australia, and is calculated to be the most expensive defense acquisition in country’s history.

One of the contenders to be dropped from the competition last year was Sweden’s Saab Kockums. As the Diplomat’s Franz-Stefan Gady reported earlier this year, this was apparently due to Sweden’s inexperience in building advanced subs. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott stated that “The last Australian submarine came off the production line in about 2001 … the last Swedish submarine came off the production line in 1996, so it’s almost two decades since Sweden built a submarine.”

Saab Kockums responded that “this is not the case” and emphasizes that Sweden, “maintained a full capacity to design and build submarines both for Sweden and for export over the last 20 years.”

(...SNIPPED)


Title: DCNS prepares final offer for Aussie sub tender
Post by: S.M.A. on October 22, 2015, 17:48:32
DCNS's last push?

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/10/20/dcns-prepares-final-offer-australian-sub-tender/74276298/)

Quote
DCNS Prepares Final Offer for Australian Sub Tender
By Pierre Tran 2:56 p.m. EDT October 20, 2015

PARIS — DCNS filed a draft proposal at the end of September and aims to submit a final offer at the end of November in Australia’s tender for a new class of attack submarines, reported to be worth Aus $50 billion (US $36.3 billion), a spokesperson for the French naval shipbuilder said.

Technology transfer will be part of the French offer of the concept vessel Shortfin Barracuda, a diesel-electric version of the Barracuda nuclear-powered attack submarine being built for the French Navy.

“The transfer of technology will be complete, to allow Australia to meet its objective of sovereignty and independence,” the DCNS spokesperson said.

Australia’s Sea 1000 project to replace the Collins submarines has attracted competing bids from DCNS, a Japanese offer from Mitsubishi Heavy Industry and Kawasaki Shipbuilding, and German specialist ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. The tender is for six to 12 units.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on December 01, 2015, 00:36:30
More on the last push by the French:

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/11/30/dcns-submits-final-bid-australian-sub-program/76560992/)

Quote
DCNS Submits Final Bid in Australian Sub Program
By Pierre Tran 12:14 p.m. EST November 30, 2015

PARIS — DCNS last week submitted its final proposal in Australia’s tender for up to 12 attack submarines in the Sea 1000 Future Submarine program, a deal reported to be worth Aus $50 billion (US $36.1 billion), a spokesperson for the French naval shipbuilder said.

“The offer was made on Friday,” the spokesperson said.

The DCNS offer is backed by the procurement office of the French Ministry of Defense.

“The proposal includes a government-to-government agreement from the French Ministry of Defense’s Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA) to the Commonwealth of Australia’s Department of Defence and a binding written commitment on key aspects of the deliverables,” DCNS said in a Monday statement.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on December 12, 2015, 02:52:00
All bids are in: let's see who comes out on top.

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/12/05/submarine-bids-now-australian-panel-begins-evaluation/76737126/)

Quote
Submarine Bids Now in, Australian Panel Begins Evaluation
By Nigel Pittaway 2:59 p.m. EST December 5, 2015

MELBOURNE, Australia — Now that all three competitors have issued final proposals in Australia's AU$ 50 billion (US $36.44 billion) Future Submarine program, an expert advisory panel will begin its evaluations and issue findings next year to guide the government's selection.

Up to 12 large conventional submarines will be acquired under Project Sea 1000. The Australian government selected France’s DCNS, TKMS of Germany and the government of Japan to participate in a competitive evaluation process (CEP).

“Since the CEP began in February, all three participants have worked closely with [the Department of] Defence and they should be congratulated for the hard work and significant investment they have made to reach this point,” Australian Defence Minister Sen. Marise Payne said in a statement.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Germany's TKMS to buy Australia Submarine Corporation?
Post by: S.M.A. on December 16, 2015, 01:14:17
2 major updates that may influence Australia's future sub competition:

Defence Aerospace (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/169752/france%E2%80%99s-dcns-details-bid-for-aussie-submarine-tender.html)

Quote
The French DCNS Bid for Future Australian Submarine
(Source: DCNS Australia; issued Dec 15, 2015)
The Future Submarine Program will deliver Australia an affordable, regionally superior, conventional submarine capability, sustainable into the foreseeable future.

Australia must have the ability to operate, sustain, maintain and upgrade Australia’s submarine force on an enduring basis. Australia’s Future Submarines project will be the biggest defence acquisition in Australia’s history, valued at $50 billion.

Building the submarines will be a mammoth task – at least twice the size of the Collins Class program.

On completion, the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A will be the most technically complex artefact in Australia.

(...SNIPPED)

A winning move by the Germans which will win over the shipbuilding lobbyists in Australia?

Financial Review (http://www.afr.com/news/policy/defence/thyssenkrupp-prepared-to-buy-asc-as-part-of-submarine-pitch-20151212-glm963#ixzz3uEp0fiRC)

Quote
ThyssenKrupp prepared to buy ASC as part of submarine pitch

The German bidder for Australia's submarine tender wants to create a Pacific advanced manufacturing hub to build, maintain and export combat boats to Australia's regional allies by buying government shipbuilder ASC.

ThyssenKrupp Marine Services, which is competing to build Australian submarines in what is the world's largest non-nuclear submarine contract, says it is prepared to take over ASC, formerly known as the Australian Submarine Corporation, in order to "replicate" its German shipbuilding operations in Australia.

ThyssenKrupp's push to win the bid has reached the highest levels of government and industry with Chancellor Angela Merkel putting aside her nation's reticence to discuss its defence industry to back the bid.

South Australian politicians are also keen supporters because of the flow on effects to local small to medium manufacturers that could be potential suppliers to a 30-year high-tech shipbuilding project.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on January 23, 2016, 00:26:00
TKMS losing its bid?

Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/has-germany-lost-the-bid-to-build-australias-new-subs/)

Quote
Has Germany Lost the Bid to Build Australia’s New Subs?

A German bid is reportedly losing ground over technical concerns.


By Franz-Stefan Gady
January 23, 2016

In the competitive bidding process for a $50 billion ($38.8 billion) contract to build Australia’s new submarine fleet in partnership with Australian industry, Germany appears to be losing over technical concerns, according to industry sources interviewed by Reuters.

“The German proposal is an enlarged version of a smaller existing submarine, and that technically is risky,” one source told Reuters. German defense contractor Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) is offering Australia a scaled-up version of its 2,000-ton diesel-electric Type 214 submarine, equipped with lithium-ion battery technology. As I reported previously, TKMS is offering the 4,000-ton HDW class 216, specifically designed to meet Australia’s needs.

In February 2015, the Australian government asked Germany, France, and Japan to bid for the country’s largest defense procurement program (the so-called SEA-1000 acquisition project)—a contract to build up to 12 new submarines for the Australian Royal Navy, replacing the six Collins-class submarines currently in service.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on February 08, 2016, 17:28:29
Still no news on the winning bid yet:

Agence France Presse via News Republic (http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=3&articleid=57495244&source=facebook)

Quote
Japan steps up bid to win Australia submarine contract
AFP

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016 12:52 AM GMT

Japan has assured Australia it will share its most secret stealth technology if it wins a contract to design and build Canberra's next generation of submarines, a report said Monday.

Three international bidders are competing for the project worth up to Aus$50 billion (US$36 billion) to replace Australia's current diesel and electric-powered Collins Class submarines which are set to be retired from about 2026.

The tender process is now closed with submissions received from DCNS of France, Germany's TKMS and the Japanese government.

Besides matching the range and endurance of the Collins Class, the new generation of subs are expected to offer superior sensor performance and stealth capabilities.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on February 10, 2016, 13:01:04
More on the DCNS bid:

ASPI Strategist (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/sea-1000-a-franco-australian-solution/)

Quote
SEA 1000: A Franco–Australian solution
10 Feb 2016|Sean Costello

Where Australia selects France, it selects enduring geopolitical alignment and surety of supply, a program of technical transfer to deliver sovereignty, a regionally superior capability and interoperability with our allies.

I can make those statements with respect to France because France is a complete submarine power and has national polices to remain so. A complete submarine power is one that can safely design, build, operate and sustain any class of submarine on an enduring basis.

(...SNIPPED)

Quote

The relevance of those capabilities are brought to bear when one considers the Australian Future Submarine requirement, which self-evidently calls for a new submarine and not one that’s in existence today. Although it may seem obvious, it’s worth pointing out that when DCNS received Australia’s requirement we immediately recognised that the French Barracuda was the most suitable reference design and not our existing conventional design.

As a complete submarine power, we understand conventional propulsion, which is why we also understand that propulsion is but one part of the submarine puzzle. In designing to the Australian requirement, it should come as no surprise then that the conventionally powered Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A is only 5% lighter than its nuclear cousin.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Mitsubishi willing to build Soryu class subs in Australia
Post by: S.M.A. on February 16, 2016, 12:11:54
Mitsubishi's counter offer to TKMS's earlier pitch to buy ASC to provide jobs in South Australia:

Nikkei (http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Mitsubishi-Heavy-willing-to-build-subs-Down-Under)

Quote
February 12, 2016 1:00 am JST

Australian defense

Mitsubishi Heavy willing to build subs Down Under

KAORI TAKAHASHI, Nikkei staff writer

SYDNEY -- Hungry for a defense contract worth tens of billions of U.S. dollars, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has expressed a willingness to construct Australia's next-generation submarines entirely in-country.

The company "will be happy to oblige" if asked to build all of the new vessels here, President Shunichi Miyanaga told a news conference Thursday.

Australia is expected to spend more than 4 trillion yen ($35.6 billion) on the project.
Mitsubishi Heavy, which constructed Soryu-class submarines for Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force, has been bidding with the Japanese government.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on March 01, 2016, 11:38:03
A Soryu deal closer than previously thought?

Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/01/national/australia-increasingly-likely-pick-japan-huge-submarine-order-experts-say#.VtW2hvD9erV)

Quote
Australia increasingly likely to pick Japan for huge submarine order, experts say
BY JESSE JOHNSON
STAFF WRITER
MAR 1, 2016
With Australia’s release of its defense white paper last week, the race to build the country’s next generation of submarines enters the home stretch — and some experts say the Japanese bid appears to hold an insurmountable lead.

“The DWP (Defense White Paper) strongly stresses the importance of further strengthening U.S.-Japanese defense relations and is also quite vocal about China’s challenge to the rules-based order in maritime Asia,” Ben Schreer, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, said.

“In my view, it’s highly likely that the Turnbull government will choose the Japanese design for strategic and technological reasons, and the DWP has added weight to this,” he said, referring to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on March 28, 2016, 13:02:05
Interview with an ex-JMSDF submarine CO who now works in industry, who discusses the advantages of Japanese-made subs:

Nikkei (http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Japan-should-protect-tech-secrets-in-Aussie-submarine-bid?page=1)

Quote

March 27, 2016 1:00 pm JST
Interview
Japan should protect tech secrets in Aussie submarine bid


TOKYO -- Japan's leading shipbuilders Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries are strongly promoting their technological strengths to Australia in a bid to win contracts to build that country's next generation of submarines. Mitsubishi Heavy said that it is considering building all the vessels in Australia, but hurdles remain, such as how to train local engineers in such a short period of time. Management of costs and protection of technological secrets are also major concerns.

 Toshihide Yamauchi, councillor at the Taiheiyo Engineering, a Tokyo-based defense-focused consultancy, discussed how the Japanese camp can prepare for these challenges, in a recent interview with The Nikkei. Yamauchi previously served as captain of the Japanese submarine Setoshio.

(...SNIPPED)


Quote
Q: Compared to the German and French rivals in the bidding, what are the advantages of the Japanese submarines?

A: The Japanese submarines can dive much longer without having to surface. This is a significant technology. Japan's Ministry of Defense has said it plans to replace conventional lead-acid batteries with more powerful lithium-ion cells, which will enable the vessels to cruise at high speeds underwater.

     The Japanese submarine is as capable in combat as the German boats. Our country is also advanced in combat systems (which can pick out specific sounds of the enemy from surrounding noise and conduct operations based on this information). In addition, Japan has a well-developed supply chain for submarine building. There are companies that can custom-make even a single screw for a submarine.

(...SNIPPED)

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on April 07, 2016, 12:27:36
Um, it wouldn't be very intelligent for a serving seaman and engineering RAN bubblehead to write an article for publication, but somehow this one, just published, aligns to the tune of 100 per cent with the views of RAN sub country on the garbage consistently published on the Soryu boats.

From Aust. Defence Monthly.


The submarine problem - deeper than meets the eye


ADM writers

It’s been said so often but never actually examined in great detail – the Future Submarine Program is strategic for Japan and Australia. In speaking to the submarine community, past and present, what comes through is that cooperation with Japan results in a Future Submarine that can approach the performances of Collins but only with a completely new design and one that will definitely not be regionally superior post 2030. This is alarming and requires pause for thought.

The root-cause of this problem is that Japan does not have any technology that is, well, regionally superior. Indeed it is the reverse situation - Japan’s relative submarine capability is improved by the Future Submarine Program but not Australia’s.

The Future Submarine is strategic for Japan, but not for Australia.

The Australian Government tells us that the next generation of RAN submarines will be regionally superior because they will have higher performances in stealth, sensors, range and endurance, and of course the US-origin combat system and weapons. With superior performances in these areas, the Future Submarine can outmatch any other submarine the RAN might conceivably fight, including the nearly silent nuclear attack submarines emerging from Russia and in the future, China. In the decades to come these submarines will hunt, and be hunted by, Australian submarines and it’s important to note that the RAN may not get to choose who to fight or when – they might choose us.

To say it in plain English, if the Collins were to fight the Soryu today Collins would kill it every time.

But what if the international partner for Australia has no better technology than we already have access to? The undeniable logic is the Future Submarine will offer performances no better than the Collins Class Submarine it replaces. An ‘Australianised’ Soryu will not be regionally superior beyond 2030. This is the critical issue.

And there is no technology offered by Japan to suggest any evolution of the Soryu can change this situation in the future.

None.

In lobbying Australia to accept their submarine, Japan has disclosed enough about its own capabilities in open literature to prove this. The Soryu Class, Japan’s most modern submarine, offers no improvement over Collins in any capability area – not stealth, not sonar, not range nor endurance and not combat system or weapon. Moreover, there is no objective evidence that Japan can overcome these problems with a new design. Let's examine the case for the Soryu point by point.

Stealth

Stealth in submarines is mostly determined by the noise of the submarine, making it vulnerable to detection by the enemy (the noise of machinery, vibration, the flow of water over the hull and the propeller at all speeds) as well as the echo the submarine may return from enemy active sonar. For a submarine to be detected by active sonar its position is generally already localised by an adversary.

The extent to which the noise generated by on-board machinery is reduced is determined by the vibration of the equipment in the first instance, followed by the effectiveness of acoustic isolation treatments. Submarine designs since the 1980s, including the Collins, isolate vibration by a combination of treatments at each and every interface between the equipment, the hull of the submarine and the deck itself. However at least one technical paper made public by Kawasaki confirms that the Soryu does not have acoustic isolation between the deck and the hull.

This problem is clear as the production process described by Kawasaki in its own literature is incompatible with any conceivable method for acoustic isolation of the deck from the hull. Without isolation of the deck from the hull, acoustic isolation is incomplete and will result in higher acoustic signatures and loss of stealth capability. Alarmingly, the acoustic signature of the Soryu is very likely to be higher than that of the Collins and the problem is literally welded in. Fixing the problem is not straight forward as the Soryu's double hull sections constrain the available internal volume for installation of the acoustic systems. Even before the problems of range and endurance are considered, a complete redesign of the Soryu based on technology from outside Japan is required - perhaps Australia will donate this technology to Japan from the Collins?

As the phrase suggests, a double hull creates one small submarine inside a larger one. Only the internal hull, with the smaller diameter, is designed to resist the external seawater pressure. The external hull is comprised of tanks for fuel and ballast. A double hull can save weight but can introduce other problems.


Whole article via the link, here  -  http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/the-submarine-problem-deeper-than-meets-the-eye
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Colin P on April 07, 2016, 16:22:08
Are the other countries offering anything that much different in ability than the Japanese. Can Australia afford to go to far beyond the Collin's class abilities?   
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on April 07, 2016, 17:52:08
Defence Aerospace (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/172779/australia-close-to-decision-on-new-submarine-contract.html)

Quote
Decision Close On Australian Submarine Contract
(Source: Forecast International; issued April 5, 2016)
MELBOURNE, Australia --- Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has indicated that a decision is close on the winner for the $36 billion contract to build Australia's new submarine class. Tenders have been submitted by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. ThyssenKrupp AG and DCNS for the contract to build 12 new submarines.

Expectations are that the winning bidder would be announced before the next election, even if an early poll was called for July. Much depends upon the passage of two unrelated items of legislation through the Australian Government. One of these is a tax reform bill that, if rejected again would trigger a "double dissolution" election in which both houses of the Australian government would be subject to re-election.

If this takes place, the selected site for the construction of the submarines may well prove to be a decisive issue.


(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on April 20, 2016, 02:09:12
The decision on the new sub will be announced next week. A lot of press lately seems to suggest that Japan is out of the race.

ABC News (Australia) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/submarines-announcement-expected-next-week/7340996)

Quote
Submarine deal: Successful bid for new Royal Australian Navy boats to be announced next week
Exclusive by political editor Chris Uhlmann
Updated about an hour ago

 
The Federal Government is preparing to announce the successful bidder for Australia's new fleet of submarines next week.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on April 20, 2016, 13:14:53
......Japan is out of the race.
Gosh, that does surprise me.  ::)
Title: Japan's Soryu class eliminated from Aussie sub tender
Post by: S.M.A. on April 21, 2016, 21:04:03
No more hope for Soryus for Australia?

Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-falls-behind-in-race-for-australian-submarine-contract-1461144176)

Quote
Japan Falls Behind in Race for Australian Submarine Contract
Japanese bid was viewed as risky because of inexperience building naval equipment overseas


By Rob Taylor
Updated April 20, 2016 6:36 a.m. ET
6 COMMENTS

CANBERRA, Australia—Japan has been virtually eliminated from a multibillion-dollar contest to supply Australia’s navy with new submarines, two people familiar with the matter said, with German or French competitors now favored to win one of the world’s most lucrative current weapons deals.

Senior Australian security ministers met Tuesday to consider offers to build 12 conventionally powered submarines in Australia, the people said. While the conservative government has yet to make a final decision, one of the people said the Japanese bid was viewed as having “considerable risk,” given Japanese inexperience building naval equipment overseas.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: Colin P on April 22, 2016, 12:34:52
More like "cleansing any potential taint of the contract" they may be making sure that if Japan is chosen that the deal looks all above board and based on technical specs.
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on April 24, 2016, 02:21:00
Thoughts, OTR?

Reuters (https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/australian-police-investigate-submarine-tender-leak-abc-045545921--sector.html)

Quote
Australian police to investigate submarine tender leak: ABC
Reuters – 22 hours ago

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian police are investigating how confidential information about the outcome of a tender process for Australia's next submarine fleet was leaked to the media, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on Saturday.

It is the second leak from within the military acquisition project which has come down to a race between bids from French, German and Japanese companies for an A$50 billion contract to build 12 submarines.

Australia's Federal Police confirmed in a statement to the ABC that they had been asked to investigate, the broadcaster said. Police spokesmen were not available for comment.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: YZT580 on April 24, 2016, 10:01:41
I suppose that this announcement by the police simply verifies the veracity of the leak. 
Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: OTR1 on April 24, 2016, 13:49:58
Thoughts, OTR?
My thoughts?

I concur with YZT's comment re the leak and its implications.

Title: Re: Sub deal may lead to Japan-Australia alliance as Tokyo mulls selling tech
Post by: S.M.A. on April 25, 2016, 20:14:01
From Twitter (https://twitter.com/TheTodayShow/status/724709410396721153):

Quote
The Today Show Verified account
‏@TheTodayShow

.@9NewsAUS can reveal the French Consortium has been awarded the contract for next gen AUS submarines. #9Today

Title: France's DCNS wins Australian future sub bid
Post by: S.M.A. on April 26, 2016, 01:40:25
More details on the winning French bid:

Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/france-wins-50b-submarine-contract-20160425-goeuxh.html)

Quote
France wins $50b contract to help build Australia's new submarines

Date
    April 26, 2016 - 1:14PM


David Wroe


Australia's new 12-strong submarines fleet will be built in South Australia, with France's DCNS winning the $50 billion contract. Courtesy ABC News 24.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced all 12 of Australia's next fleet of submarines will be built in Adelaide from local steel, with France winning the hard-fought global race for the $50 billion contract.


Mr Turnbull said in Adelaide on Tuesday morning that the decades-long program would create about 2800 direct jobs and help Australia transition to a 21st century economy.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 26, 2016, 02:26:19
Well that is an interesting turn of events...
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on April 26, 2016, 07:10:39
Shocking.

Hopefully these will be quieter than anything else that comes from France..
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: GR66 on April 26, 2016, 10:02:33
Shocking.

Hopefully these will be quieter than anything else that comes from France..

  ;D

Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on April 26, 2016, 11:10:08
Massive statement of intent from Australia.  12 Nuclear Powered subs capable of launching cruise missiles.  The Aussies are becoming a serious military power. 
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on April 26, 2016, 11:23:40
I thought these were diesel-electric subs based off of a nuke sub hull?
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 26, 2016, 11:26:24
They are: It is quite specifically mentioned in the third paragraph from the end in the Newspaper article quoted.

besides, the whole contest has always been of diesel electric boats - the nuclear option had been rejected by Australia some time ago.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Chris Pook on April 26, 2016, 11:27:25
Massive statement of intent from Australia.  12 Nuclear Powered subs capable of launching cruise missiles.  The Aussies are becoming a serious military power.

Not quite Bogie.

Quote
DCNS makes a wide range of cutting-edge submarines, ranging from small attack boats to massive strategic nuclear missile submarines.

Their Shortfin Barracuda design will be a variant of an existing French nuclear-powered boat. It will be converted to a diesel-electric powered design.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/france-wins-50b-submarine-contract-20160425-goeuxh.html#ixzz46wVwFO4K
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

A non-standard nuclear boat converted to diesel-electric.  This could be interesting - in the pop-corn munching way.

God.  Getting slower.  Beaten by Colin and OGBD
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on April 26, 2016, 11:50:17
Not quite Bogie.

A non-standard nuclear boat converted to diesel-electric.  This could be interesting - in the pop-corn munching way.

God.  Getting slower.  Beaten by Colin and OGBD

I missed that!  Thx!
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on April 26, 2016, 11:57:06
The French plan to finish the Barracuda contract by 2029 and can see the Aussie contract taking a similar amount of time to complete, might be an option to tag onto as our subs will be due for replacement then.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 26, 2016, 12:39:58
Some details (from various sources) I was able to find on the Shortfin Barracuda.

Official Designation: Shortfin Baracuda Block 1A
Length: 97m
Beam: 8.8m
Displacement: 4785 tonnes (submerged)
Range: 18,000 nm @ 10 kts
Top speed: 20+ kts
Endurance: 80 days
Crew: 60 + 20 SF
Weapons sytsems(1):

Propulsion:  Pump-jet propulsor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump-jet#Workings), combined with a shrouded rotor and stator which are designed to reduce  cavitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation) allowing the submarine to operate quietly.


(1) These are the weapons carried by the French Barracuda. According to media the Shortfin Barracuda will carry US supplied weapons.

Sources:

How the French Barracuda submarine differs from the Collins class submarine Article Link. (http://Army.ca//http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/how-the-french-barracuda-submarine-differs-from-the-collins-class-submarine/news-story/03e3769698928444b5efd7b7613e5274) The Advertiser. 25 April 2016

 Why the French submarine won the bid to replace the Collins-class. (http://theconversation.com/why-the-french-submarine-won-the-bid-to-replace-the-collins-class-58223) Conversation.com. April 25, 2016.

 Shortfin Barracuda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHZUJe3N99c) video.  DCNS Australia (http://dcnsgroup.com.au/what-we-do/sea-1000/)

Edited to add information in a more enjoyable format.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on April 26, 2016, 13:36:55
From the South Australian "Advertiser" newspaper some details on the Barracuda's capabilities:

 Article Link. (http://Army.ca//http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/how-the-french-barracuda-submarine-differs-from-the-collins-class-submarine/news-story/03e3769698928444b5efd7b7613e5274) Appears link has disappeared!!

Even though they're diesel boats.  12 state of the art subs is nothing to stick our noses up at.  The Aussie purchase of armed UAVs, helicopter carriers, attack helicopters, additional strategic airlift, new fighter aircraft and now these subs give the Aussies some real punch. 

They're becoming a serious military power and heading in the opposite direction of us.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on April 26, 2016, 13:57:41
Meanwhile people are saying we can't afford 2 Mistrials, I just point to the Aussies and ask them to explain.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 26, 2016, 14:10:42
Colin, the military can have as many "mistrials" as it wants so long as there is no discipline breakdown.  ;D



Damn that autocorrect !!!
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: JLB50 on April 26, 2016, 14:16:24
Not only can we not afford the Mistrals, we evidently can't afford the new surface combatants, the AOPS, the F35 (or whichever replacement) etc. etc.  What's wrong with this picture? 

Oh, I forgot, the Liberals are re-evaluating our needs.  Puh-lease, spare me.  Why don't they just come out and admit that they're embarrassed to have a military and too afraid to say they don't want anything other than a token Mickey Mouse force.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: PanaEng on April 26, 2016, 15:20:58
Not only can we not afford the Mistrals, we evidently can't afford the new surface combatants, the AOPS, the F35 (or whichever replacement) etc. etc.  What's wrong with this picture? 

Oh, I forgot, the Liberals are re-evaluating our needs.  Puh-lease, spare me.  Why don't they just come out and admit that they're embarrassed to have a military and too afraid to say they don't want anything other than a token Mickey Mouse force.

Hate to reply to an off-topic comment but let me fix something for you: all those things you mention could have been bought/committed to by the previous gov ( the conservatives, since memory seems to be hard thing to come by), they had a majority and could have fixed the procurement process. But no, they had a nominal budget on paper only that made them look somewhat good but the effective budget was pretty dismal in comparison - they weren't about to risk not balancing the budget with buying stuff for the military. Talk big but not deliver was the mantra. This gov is not doing much either but at least want's to have a review of some sort...  just waiting for details on the outcome...

Anyway, back on topic, according to this: http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/dcns-unveils-shortfin-barracuda/ (http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/dcns-unveils-shortfin-barracuda/) they are 4000 t and not 4700t as reported earlier.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: jollyjacktar on April 26, 2016, 15:30:09
I find the water jet propulsion interesting.  Makes me think of either Red October or Relic from the Beachcombers.   ;D
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: OTR1 on April 26, 2016, 15:44:32
I think the number of subs needs some clarification.

The RAN requirement is for a squadron of eight subs, where a 50 per cent availability rate will (finally) facilitate two subs patrolling from Perth, and two from Sydney, with the rest off at the yard getting beauty treatments.

The plan, such as it is, with the 12 new subs, is for hulls 9-12 to replace hulls 1-4, and hulls 5-8 to get half-life refits.

It's more-or-less given that 9-12 will be an evolved/next-gen sub-class, and the refits for 5-8 are to bring them up to new specs.

Hope that helps. 
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on April 26, 2016, 15:59:33
I find the water jet propulsion interesting.  Makes me think of either Red October or Relic from the Beachcombers.   ;D

I think this represents the greatest risk? Water jet propulsion would be a first in a diesel sub, I think, I wonder what the energy/speed trade-offs will be?
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: jmt18325 on April 26, 2016, 16:16:28
Meanwhile people are saying we can't afford 2 Mistrials, I just point to the Aussies and ask them to explain.

I didn't say we can't afford them - I said we choose not to.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Dimsum on April 26, 2016, 16:25:02
Even though they're diesel boats.  12 state of the art subs is nothing to stick our noses up at.  The Aussie purchase of armed UAVs, helicopter carriers, attack helicopters, additional strategic airlift, new fighter aircraft and now these subs give the Aussies some real punch. 

They're becoming a serious military power and heading in the opposite direction of us.

Depending on the what they're used for, Diesel subs aren't necessarily worse off than Nuclear ones (and have some other benefits as well). 
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on April 26, 2016, 17:45:47
I didn't say we can't afford them - I said we choose not to.

and we are very good at choosing not to do things and our history generally shows that not doing so has bit us in the butt many , many times. this was an excellent opportunity that was lost, one that would have changed things and given our future governments far more options than they have now.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 26, 2016, 18:15:49
Oz ABC story:

Quote
Winning submarine bidder must meet Australia's 'range and endurance' requirements

With the winning bidder for Australia's next fleet of submarines announced as French company DCNS, attention has turned to how it will meet Australia's requirement for a long-range, high-endurance war machine.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute Defence and Strategy Program director Andrew Davies said none of the off-the-shelf submarines that bidders drew their designs from had the range capability required by Australia.

The country's isolation and its need to patrol massive swathes of ocean waters mean it must have a fleet of submarines that can stay at sea for long periods of time.

"High endurance is not just a matter of fuel and payload," Mr Davies said.

"It's a matter of having enough people on board to do all the jobs that need to be done, without tiring out the crew."

Australia's existing Collins class submarines require a crew of about 58 people per boat and the Navy has reportedly struggled to maintain crew numbers during some periods.

Because of the long range that Australia's submarines will be required to travel, even if a boat requires a smaller crew - such as the 33 required to crew the Class 216 model unsuccessfully pitched by Germany company ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) - a large crew is still required for staff rotations.

"The question is, how habitable can you make the submarines, and how automated can you make them to reduce the stress on the crews in terms of the jobs they have to perform?" Mr Davies said.

He said the design for French company DCNS, the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A model, was essentially a scaled down version of its larger nuclear submarine.

"In terms of habitability ... it should be pretty good. You're starting from a design that has more space and more power than we'll have in our boat, but we should be able to reach those accommodations fairly quickly," Mr Davies said.

He said the Japanese had an interesting problem to solve in that "the average Japanese sailor is physically smaller than the average Australian sailor".

The existing Soryu class submarine upon which it based its Australian pitch offered accommodation spaces too small for Australians.

American weaponry a must for Australian subs...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/winning-submarine-bidder-must-meet-australia's-endurance/7347034

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: OTR1 on April 26, 2016, 18:54:12
Depending on the what they're used for, Diesel subs aren't necessarily worse off than Nuclear ones (and have some other benefits as well).

Yup.

After the big refit to the O-boats in the early 80s the phone calls from US brass to RAN sub HQ (then in Sydney) were frequent: too many littorals around the parish where the nukes were, and are, too big.

Only a few patrol details have been released, but these ones were cited in The Aust. newspaper today.....

++........some clues about the roles of the Navy’s current and new submarines in an uncertain future can be gained from the extraordinary secret operations of the Oberon boats during the Cold War.

The Australian has revealed that in 1985, HMAS Orion entered Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, the Soviet Union’s largest naval base outside the USSR. Prime minister Bob Hawke was later shown brilliantly clear footage of a Soviet Charlie Class nuclear submarine Orion was tailing. Unseen but just metres behind the Soviet submarine, Orion’s crew was able to get remarkable pictures of sonar and other fittings along its hull.

On another occasion and in response to an American request, HMAS Orion waited, submerged, outside Cam Ranh Bay and this time tailed a Soviet Kirov-Class nuclear powered cruiser, monitoring its communications.

A similar operation inside the Chinese port of Shanghai in late 1992 nearly went disastrously wrong. HMAS Orion became caught in fishing nets. After a fisherman used an axe to cut his boat free, the Australian submarine was able to escape into the open ocean. ++
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Chris Pook on April 26, 2016, 19:49:35
Cheers OTR.

Mark, you might want to reconsider your post.  Just a thought.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 26, 2016, 20:08:36

Anyway, back on topic, according to this: http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/dcns-unveils-shortfin-barracuda/ (http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/dcns-unveils-shortfin-barracuda/) they are 4000 t and not 4700t as reported earlier.

Actually what it says is, "displaces more than 4,000 tons when dived,” said Sean Costello, CEO DCNS Australia."

The 4700+ tonne quote comes from the Advertiser newspaper report, which for some reason the link I provided doesn't work anymore.  However, go to Google and type in "shortfin barracuda, advertiser," and you should get the article I used as reference.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 26, 2016, 20:11:07
Image duly deleted.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Chris Pook on April 26, 2016, 20:30:13
Cheers.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 30, 2016, 16:16:42
Japanese new at arms trade/industrial benefits game:

Quote
How France sank Japan's $40 billion Australian submarine dream

In 2014, a blossoming friendship between Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe looked to have all but sewn up a $40 billion submarine deal. Then French naval contractor DCNS hatched a bold and seemingly hopeless plan to gatecrash the party.

Almost 18 months later, France this week secured a remarkable come-from-behind victory on one of the world's most lucrative defense deals. The result: Tokyo's dream of fast-tracking a revival of its arms export industry is left in disarray.

Interviews with more than a dozen Japanese, French, Australian and German government and industry officials show how a series of missteps by a disparate Japanese group of ministry officials, corporate executives and diplomats badly undermined their bid.

In particular, Japan misread the changing political landscape in Australia as Abbott fell from favor. The Japanese group, which included Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) (7011.T) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI), (7012.T) also failed to clearly commit to providing skilled shipbuilding jobs in Australia. And Tokyo realized far too late its bid was being outflanked by the Germans and particularly the French, the sources involved in the bid said.

France, on the other hand, mobilized its vast and experienced military-industrial complex and hired a powerful Australian submarine industry insider, Sean Costello, who led it to an unexpected victory.

Japan's loss represents a major setback for Abe's push to develop an arms export industry as part of a more muscular security agenda after decades of pacifism...

Companies complained Tokyo was unwilling to discuss substantive deals. Having only ever sold arms to Japan’s military because of a decades-old ban on exports that Abe lifted in 2014, neither Japanese company had any Australian military industrial partners.

And unlike France and Germany which quickly committed to building the submarines in Australia, Japan initially only said it would follow the bidding rules, which required building in Australia as just one of three options.

“The Japanese had been invited in on a handshake deal and were left trying to compete in an international competition having no experience in doing such a thing,” an Australian defense industry source said.

By September 2015, Japan’s key ally Abbott had been deposed by Malcolm Turnbull, blowing the competition wide open…

In a final coordinated push, a huge delegation of French government and business leaders visited Australia a month ago, touting the economic benefits of their bid…
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-japan-defence-in-idUSKCN0XQ1FC

As for France's "vast and experienced military-industrial complex":

Quote
The French Government’s Merchant of Death [as an awful lot of Canadians would see things]
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/mark-collins-the-french-governments-merchant-of-death/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on May 02, 2016, 11:24:09
yes, as long as it's not the US "Merchant of death" then it's not worthy of censure.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on May 02, 2016, 16:29:40
Big US involvement:

Quote
Australia’s Submarine Decision: Concerns Down Under, Celebrations in Paris
...
France’s share of the prospective deal is €17 billion (US $19.5 billion), according to sources close to defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, weekly Le Point reported, while Reuters reported some €8 billion (US $9.2 billion) for DCNS. DCNS chairman Hervé Guillou welcomed the support from the Direction Générale de l'Armement procurement office, Navy chief of staff Adm. Bernard Rogel, Thales, Sagem, and Schneider Electric, a French energy company with a significant business presence in Australia.

The deal is also a win for Thales, holder of 35 percent of DCNS, with the French government holding the remainder. Thales' share of the Australian program is expected to be some €1 billion (US $1.2 billion), with €100 million ($115 million) per sub based on the sale of sonar systems, electronic warfare and periscopes, a Thales executive said.

With the selection of the French proposal, negotiations will begin for a three-year submarine design contract, said Marie-Pierre de Bailliencourt, DCNS executive vice president for development. A contract agreement is expected later this year or early in 2017, she added.

More choices remain for the submarine program, which is specified to have a US combat systems integrator and employ US weapons. Australia reportedly is considering bids from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin [emphasis added]— each already working on the Royal Australian Navy’s Air Warfare Defense destroyer, fitted with Lockheed’s Aegis radar with integration from Raytheon.

Installing a US combat system is one of the reasons for building the subs in Australia rather than France, as there is sensitive technology involved [emphasis added, nice justification for high cost of build domestically], said Robbin Laird of consultancy ICSA, based in Washington and Paris. “It will be interesting for Thales” in Australia he said, as the Australian subsidiary of the French electronics company will work closely with DCNS and the US combat systems integrator.

One of the issues to be worked through is guarding US technological secrets. DCNS has never worked with a US company on this scale.

“I can’t help but think that the US Navy has considered the full intellectual impact on any of the platforms that might be selected,” observed Guy Stitt of AMI International. “I think the Australians will have a process that assures that US intellectual property will be protected.”..
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/29/australia-submarine-dcns-france-hollande-turnbull-stitt-davies-germany-japan-tkms-mitsubishi/83713442/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on May 02, 2016, 18:17:39
I have to wonder from a builder point of view how much is sensitive? The length and diameter of the Tubes and the launching system (such as compressed air) cannot to that much different than the ones for the last 20+ years. You need to know the size of the equipment, location of brackets and power/cabling requirements. Would it not be more of the software rather than hardware they are worried about?
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: tomahawk6 on May 03, 2016, 23:38:14
A bit more about this purchase by the ADF.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/05/03/australias-39-billion-submarine-deal-heralds-new-era-super-subs.html

Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: S.M.A. on July 04, 2016, 20:07:40
China behind Australia's rejection of the Soryus?

National Interest  (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-japan-lost-australias-40-billion-submarine-deal-fear-16026)

Quote
Why Japan Lost Australia's $40 Billion Submarine Deal: Fear of China?
Malcolm Davis

May 3, 2016

With the outcome of the long-awaited SEA 1000 Competitive Evaluation Process seeing France’s DCNS announced as the international design partner for the future submarines, Australia must now manage the diplomatic fallout with the two failed bidders: Germany and, especially, Japan. As David Lang notes, ‘we should expect the CEP outcome to dampen the energy and enthusiasm that’s driven the bilateral relationship for much of the past two and a half years.’ There may also be disappointment in key defence circles within the US, given the very real strategic benefits that would’ve flowed to the Australia–Japan–US trilateral. But Japan’s lost bid isn’t simply a bilateral challenge for Australia–Japan defence and foreign relations. Australia has to manage China’s reaction.

The outcome is likely to have pleased Beijing, (and here) given that ‘Option J’ would have opened the doors to a greatly expanded strategic partnership between Tokyo and Canberra—both allied to the US. Paul Dibb summed up the situation

< Edited >


Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on July 05, 2016, 11:25:55
Face saving for the Japanese to blame a failure on China?
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: OTR1 on July 06, 2016, 18:36:36
China behind Australia's rejection of the Soryus?
Utter drivel.

The end.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: S.M.A. on October 02, 2016, 02:20:24
DCNS and Lockmart collaboration:

Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/dcns-satisfied-with-australias-pick-of-lockheed-for-sub-project)

Quote
DCNS Satisfied With Australia's Pick of Lockheed for Sub Project
By: Pierre Tran, September 30, 2016
PARIS — DCNS has warmly greeted Australia’s signing of a design contract with the French naval shipbuilder and choice of Lockheed Martin for its partner on the Barracuda Shortfin 1A, a planned ocean-going attack submarine.

“DCNS welcomes the signature of the first operational contract for the Australian Future Submarine Program and the selection of Lockheed Martin as the program combat system integrator,” the French company said in a statement Thursday.

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 09, 2017, 16:09:13
RAN subs latest--note long lead time:

Quote
Australian PM in France to launch 'most ambitious military project' in his country's history

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is in France on Sunday to announce work on a new fleet of French submarines that will form the centrepiece of Australia’s defence strategy for decades to come.

Australia selected French naval contractor DCNS, last month renamed Naval Group, in April 2016 to build a new fleet of 12 submarines. The French industrial group, which is 62 percent owned by the French state, beat out competitors in Japan and Germany, winning one of the world's most lucrative defence contracts.

"This is the largest and most ambitious military project in Australia’s history," Turnbull told reporters at a joint press briefing with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysée Palace in Paris on Saturday.

France said it was ready to do everything necessary to meet the requirements of the contract, the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Naval Group was left fuming after details from more than 22,000 pages of documents relating to submarines it is building for India were published in The Australian newspaper, leading to concerns about its ability to protect sensitive data.

Australia's new submarine fleet is the focal point of its defence strategy unveiled in February 2016, which called for an increase in military spending of nearly AU$30 billion over the next 10 years to protect strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

The first submarines are expected to be ready by the early 2030s, with the the last ones finished by 2050 [emphasis added]. Following their conception in France, they will be principally constructed in Adelaide in southern Australia, which is home to Australia’s naval defence and the ASC shipbuilding organisation.

Building these submarines in Australia, along with the government's naval shipbuilding strategy, which begins with offshore patrol vessels and frigates, is estimated to create more than 5,000 jobs across Australia.

France and Australia formally signed the inter-governmental contract, worth A$50 billion, or €34 billion, last December [emphasis added].

The future submarines, called Shortfin Barracuda, are based on France’s Barrucuda submarines (99 metres long and weighing 4650 tons), which are nuclear attack subs. The Shortfin variant for the Australian Navy will see a conversion of the propulsion system to a conventional diesel electric bid equipped by Lockheed Martin, the combat systems integrator...
http://www.france24.com/en/20170709-australia-france-submarines-contract-defence

Doubt will be exports.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on July 09, 2017, 19:23:03
http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2017/07/ex-pm-abbott-doubts-wisdom-of.html

I think a lot of these issues will arise with any Victoria class replacement, but how picky are we?

Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 11:37:36
The reality is there are no existing subs that meet our needs, so we will be in the same boat, we might as well get involved with the Aussie deal so we have a shoulder to cry on and they have as well.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 12:48:17
http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2017/07/ex-pm-abbott-doubts-wisdom-of.html

I think a lot of these issues will arise with any Victoria class replacement, but how picky are we?

Good link, this article on the pros and cons of various AIP systems is informative http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2014/08/air-independent-propulsion-aip.html

Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on July 10, 2017, 15:18:31
Good link, this article on the pros and cons of various AIP systems is informative http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2014/08/air-independent-propulsion-aip.html

Colin, I think it's a good site, but I really don't have the expertise to question too much of what is discussed. It's not very pro AIP in general preferring a nuclear solution for Australia.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on July 10, 2017, 15:26:45
The reality is there are no existing subs that meet our needs, so we will be in the same boat, we might as well get involved with the Aussie deal so we have a shoulder to cry on and they have as well.

There are pretty much the same options Australia had
Soryu
U-216/218
Walrus replacement sub
it would be nice to have a shared parts supply

or we could go nuclear through DCNS either the Brazilian scorpene derivative or the Barracuda 

I can see some significant teething issues in the Australian plan especially with regards to the propulsion
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 15:47:22
Yes whichever one we go for, make sure we are not the only ones...
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 14, 2018, 15:06:57
Aussies almost there:

Quote
Australia, Naval Group [ex-DCNS, note French company now has English-only name] conclude sub negotiations

Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne confirmed that the Australian government has finally concluded negotiations for the formal signing of a strategic partnering agreement for 12 large conventionally-powered attack submarines from Naval Group.

Australia is acquiring the vessels under its $50 billion (U.S. $36.12 billion) Project Sea 1000 (Future Submarine) to replace its existing fleet of six Collins Submarines from the early 2030s. The subs will be the ‘Attack’ class with the lead vessel named HMAS Attack. They will be fabricated in Australia to a design previously known as the Shortfin Barracuda 1A.



Recent local media reports have suggested that negotiations between the parties had stalled, placing the government’s timeline for the Collins replacement in jeopardy, but Pyne said on Thursday the program was still on track.

“There’s been a lot of ill-informed mythmaking around the negotiations but I’m very happy to say today the negotiations are complete,” Pyne said during sod-turning event at the site of the Future Submarine Construction Yard at Osborne in South Australia. “The strategic planning agreement will be signed in February next year and we can continue to get on with the submarine project, which has been under the design and mobilization contract for the last two years.”

Declining to provide details of the intricacies of the agreement due to their commercial nature, Pyne said the negotiations were officially concluded at an Australian Government National Security Committee meeting in Melbourne on Dec. 10...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/12/14/australia-naval-group-conclude-sub-negotiations/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Colin P on December 14, 2018, 16:25:06
We should buy hull # 4, 6, 8 and 10.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: LoboCanada on December 14, 2018, 16:31:53
Seems like there should be an arctic capability for any future RCN sub.

How much further can an Attack Class go without breathing than a Victoria? Maybe an AIP version or Lithium Ion?
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on December 14, 2018, 17:12:57
I think there's a lot more issues with the Australian sub buy than the article suggests. It seems to me that the Australians tend to jump in on procurement a little quicker than us Canadians :rofl:

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/australian-future-submarines-to-be-2.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/thoughtful-comment-on-australian-future.html

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/retired-senior-naval-officers-propose.html

I'm not sure if the gentleseas blog author is anti DCNS or maybe just pro nuclear, but I think that there will be significant development issues with the Shortfin-Attack design. Perhaps Australia's always interesting politics will interrupt things as well

http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/12/australias-new-underwhelming-future-sub.html
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on December 14, 2018, 17:53:05
The Aussies certainly do jump on things quicker.   However, every once in a while someone will come on here and tell us their procurement system has issues. 

All I know is they seem to be kitted out quite nicely and usually in a timely manner.   We can’t get our crap together at all.  Then when we get something, like the AOPs or FWSAR we are supposed to jump up and down with excitement.   

I personally think we will get out of the submarine game, there’s no political will to announce a that Canada is shopping for new boats.   The only effective way to work under ice is with a SSN.  That’s it.   It’d be nice to piggy back on the Aussie program, but that won’t work because someone will say “it doesn’t meet our needs”.  Just what exactly are “our needs?” 
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on December 14, 2018, 18:31:09
The Aussies certainly do jump on things quicker.   However, every once in a while someone will come on here and tell us their procurement system has issues. 

All I know is they seem to be kitted out quite nicely and usually in a timely manner.   We can’t get our crap together at all.  Then when we get something, like the AOPs or FWSAR we are supposed to jump up and down with excitement.   

I personally think we will get out of the submarine game, there’s no political will to announce a that Canada is shopping for new boats.   The only effective way to work under ice is with a SSN.  That’s it.   It’d be nice to piggy back on the Aussie program, but that won’t work because someone will say “it doesn’t meet our needs”.  Just what exactly are “our needs?”

As far as jumping i kinda meant that they seem to commit to things before crossing their T's and dotting their I's whereas we spend so much time and money on the T's and I's that it becomes a significant part of the entire program. I remember reading some time ago (which I've probably mentioned here before) about a program where the lead up (definition etc..) cost over 10% of the proposed procurement that was in the end cancelled. How could that possibly be justified or defended? Canadian procurement is such a disaster and we are so far behind that short of sole sourcing a bunch of purchases and pushing them through I don't see how we can ever catch up.

If you look at the wikipedia pages for Australian Army and Air Force equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army

and compare it to Canada's I can't help but feel embarrassed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Canadian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Army

From my uneducated eyes the Australian fleets some much easier to rationalize but I am only an interested member of the public although I still have a few friends and family in the Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army


I am curious as to the nature of submarine operations in the Arctic as the archipelago would seem too shallow, narrow and congested at anytime of the year and the deeper basins too heavily ice covered in the winter at least



Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: RDBZ on December 14, 2018, 20:36:51
As far as jumping i kinda meant that they seem to commit to things before crossing their T's and dotting their I's whereas we spend so much time and money on the T's and I's that it becomes a significant part of the entire program. I remember reading some time ago (which I've probably mentioned here before) about a program where the lead up (definition etc..) cost over 10% of the proposed procurement that was in the end cancelled. How could that possibly be justified or defended? Canadian procurement is such a disaster and we are so far behind that short of sole sourcing a bunch of purchases and pushing them through I don't see how we can ever catch up.

If you look at the wikipedia pages for Australian Army and Air Force equipment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army

and compare it to Canada's I can't help but feel embarrassed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Canadian_military_aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Army

From my uneducated eyes the Australian fleets some much easier to rationalize but I am only an interested member of the public although I still have a few friends and family in the Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Australian_Army


I am curious as to the nature of submarine operations in the Arctic as the archipelago would seem too shallow, narrow and congested at anytime of the year and the deeper basins too heavily ice covered in the winter at least

Seems like there was a lot of "t crossing"  and "i dotting" by some very experienced and independent people as part of the RAN future submarine selection process:  http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/NewsMedia/News/DCNS_announced
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: suffolkowner on December 14, 2018, 21:37:04
Seems like there was a lot of "t crossing"  and "i dotting" by some very experienced and independent people as part of the RAN future submarine selection process:  http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/NewsMedia/News/DCNS_announced

Maybe ? I clicked on the link hoping for some new information but alas, the link was not new nor the information it.

Not being Australian my interest in their procurement policies is slightly cursory mostly as an interesting comparison to our own, as a trusted ally and perhaps shared operator of equipment. It's not my money after all.

We'll see if the Australian government can and or will actually follow through with this purchase.
Maybe DCNS will get a Barracuda in the water for some initial design comparisons and hull data generation?
Maybe DCNS will finalize he reactor design/installation so they can do the above?
After the above are done sometime in early 2021 to my understanding, maybe they can move forward in deciding whether Li batteries will be installed, whether the submarine will have a pump-jet and how to power that pump-jet.

It would be nice if the Australian sub was far enough along that it could be considered as a successor to our Victoria's
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Cloud Cover on December 15, 2018, 16:06:13
Somewhere in these threads is a recent link to a defence document that indicates there is no plan to replace the Vic’s, and without a plan, they will service life expire and so will that part of the RCN. This is perhaps why there is more open and transparent dialogue about the activities of the little fleet. We use these as more than just training vessels (Korea etc. recently), and the subs could put, for example, an enemy carrier, submarine, destroyer or supply ship on the bottom. Or, it can take useful imagery and collect ELINT etc. and no hostile force would be wise to it.  I don’t know if Canada needs aggressive SSK like the RAN is pursuing, but a more stealthy version of the Victoria class with an enhanced surveillance suite is a strategic asset that Canada needs as much as need surface ships and fighter aircraft.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Retired AF Guy on December 15, 2018, 19:11:59
Somewhere in these threads is a recent link to a defence document that indicates there is no plan to replace the Vic’s, and without a plan, they will service life expire and so will that part of the RCN.

I found this from the Wiki article on the Upholder/Victoria-class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine#Sensors_and_countermeasures) submarines: "Canada announced plans for a major life extension for the class on 7 April 2015, possibly to start in 2020. The estimated cost for the program would be between $1.5 and $2 billion CAN.[33]"

Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 15, 2018, 20:27:44
From 2016, VADM Norman quoted:

Quote
Government will have to decide whether to invest into submarines or cut ships adrift: Navy commander
The Royal Canadian Navy’s four submarines have been plagued by problems since they were acquired from Britain in the 1990s

The outgoing head of the navy says the government will have to decide soon whether to invest more money into Canada’s submarines so they can continue operating past the mid-2020s — or cut the ships adrift.

The Royal Canadian Navy’s four submarines have been plagued by problems since they were acquired from Britain in the 1990s. The most recent incident came last week when the HMCS Windsor broke down en route to a training exercise in Norway.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, however, said the Windsor is now back up to full speed after the “hiccup.” In addition, he said, two of the other three subs will be completely operational and contributing to Canada’s power at sea in the next two years. All four vessels should then be good until the early to mid-2020s.

“I feel very optimistic about this,” Norman said in an interview. “We need the conversation in Canada to shift from the trials and tribulations of the Victoria class to why submarines are essential a nation like Canada given our strategic context.”

The navy, however, is waiting to hear whether the government wants to extend the submarines’ lives so they can operate until the 2030s. A decision needs to be made “in the next year or two,” Norman said, so the necessary funds — which previous reports have put between $1.5 billion and $3 billion — can be set aside.

 “The decision is tied to the fact that if we want to plan for another cycle, we have to get that into the investment plan, and that has to be programmed,” he said. “So we need some sort of indication that we’re going to continue to operate the submarines.”

Norman made the comments to the Citizen about a week before he was due to turn over command of the navy after three years. He will become the vice chief of defence staff, the Canadian Armed Forces’ second-highest ranked officer, this week...
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/liberals-will-soon-decide-whether-to-invest-into-navy-submarines-or-to-cut-the-ships-adrift

From 2017:

Quote
...
In Canadian Defence Review, August 2017 Issue 4, in an interview Vice Admiral Ron Lloyd Commander RCN responded to a question about the Defence Policy Review and submarines as follows:

The new Defence Policy clearly notes that submarines are a vital capability for the defence of Canada and the protection of naval assets in deployed operations. The best asset to track a submarine is, without doubt, another submarine. The Victoria Class provide Canada with this extremely valuable capability.

Just as we have successfully completed the Halifax Class Modernization program, we aim to conduct a similar type modernization in the Victoria Class that will ensure the boats remain relevant in an ever-changing and rapidly evolving security environment.

Thus it can been seen that the current government commitment to “Operate and modernize the four Victoria-class submarines” will not only maintain the submarine capability but also upgrade further its survivability and technical capability for the years to come. Equally important the current in-service support partnership with defence industry will need to develop even further to maximize its potential and keep that Canadian strategic industrial capability alive. When it comes time to consider replacing the Victoria-class then the question of how – for example, build as part of NSS or otherwise -- can be answered...
http://www.navalreview.ca/2017/09/victoria-class-submarines/

2018 from gov't:

Quote
Victoria-class Modernization (VCM)
 Strong, Secure, Engaged
Project Type

Project Extension

Objective

This program will provide vital modernization to the Victoria-class Submarines (VCS), through a program-based approach, across a number of capability areas to meet future challenges. Overall, the project outcomes will:

    Position the Victoria-class to contribute meaningfully to CAF Joint Operations ashore;
    Ensure the survivability of the Victoria-class against an evolving threat in an increasingly complex and changing battlespace; and
    Improve the habitability and deployment conditions onboard the Victoria-class in support of RCN submariners.

Requirements

The Victoria-class Modernization (VCM) Program is the introduction of the necessary platform and combat system capabilities to achieve the required submarine operational capability through the mid-2030s. The VCM Program will address the critical capability gaps in Canada’s submarines that will emerge and reduce their utility over their remaining years of operation. It will deliver capability through targeted investments, consisting of capability upgrades and insertions, already identified as a priority for Canada.\

Funding Ranges

$1 billion to 4.99 billion

Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)

    2018 Start Options Analysis
    2020 to 2021 Start Definition
    2023 to 2024 Start Implementation
    2025 to 2026 Initial Delivery
    Beyond 2035 Final Delivery
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=943

Whenever, if ever.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Cloud Cover on December 15, 2018, 22:57:59
Ahhh, hope Col Campbell doesn't mind: https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/11/19/stupidity-of-the-worst-sort/
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Hamish Seggie on December 16, 2018, 17:10:15
Are we going to buy their cast offs?? 😉
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Cloud Cover on December 16, 2018, 23:35:32
From 2016, VADM Norman quoted:

From 2017:

2018 from gov't:

Whenever, if ever.

Mark
Ottawa

According to that awful website, the CP140 will be 52+ years flying by the time the first one is replaced.  And the Vic’s will be 50+ years in the brine by the time the upgrade finishes. 
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: dapaterson on December 16, 2018, 23:48:54
And the youngest of the B52s was built in 1962 - 56 years and counting.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: YZT580 on December 17, 2018, 00:31:47
With the exception of under ice work which requires a boat of a totally different class can the Victorias do the job.  Are they a sound hull to begin with and can they be maintained properly to the point where they are a valid threat to any erstwhile enemy.  Will upgrades be cost effective?  The answers to those questions all seem to be positive.  They seem to be good boats with a bad public relations history.  The problem really is can we keep the government of the days feet to the fire to ensure that those upgrades are done completely and without cutting corners on costs. 
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 17, 2018, 00:32:29
And the youngest of the B52s was built in 1962 - 56 years and counting.

While I agree that the age of an airframe alone does not tell the tale, I will note two things:

The B52 is not even remotely operated in the same airframe fatigue envelop as a CP140.

The USAF lavishes more money on avionics/weapons upgrades/sensors/airframe rebuilds than we could ever possibly dream of.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 17, 2018, 00:33:38
With the exception of under ice work which requires a boat of a totally different class can the Victorias do the job.  Are they a sound hull to begin with and can they be maintained properly to the point where they are a valid threat to any erstwhile enemy.  Will upgrades be cost effective?  The answers to those questions all seem to be positive.  They seem to be good boats with a bad public relations history.  The problem really is can we keep the government of the days feet to the fire to ensure that those upgrades are done completely and without cutting corners on costs.

They are a good boat, with bad PR.
Title: Re: Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class
Post by: Dimsum on August 06, 2019, 02:48:48
Quote
Defence ordered to hand over documents on $50bn submarine deal with French
Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick accuses department of ‘unlawful conduct’ for wrongly withholding sensitive material

The defence department has been accused of “unlawful conduct” after it wrongly withheld sensitive documents about Australia’s $50bn submarine deal with a French multinational.

The government’s massive future submarines project has been under intense scrutiny since a French arms manufacturer, DCNS, won the contract in 2016. The project has been described as the largest defence procurement in Australia’s history, but South Australian politicians feared the state’s shipbuilder, ASC, was unfairly shut out of a major role in the work, risking local jobs.

Two years ago, the former senator Nick Xenophon lodged a freedom of information request to attempt to obtain a 2015 document outlining DCNS’s plan for involving local industry.

Xenophon’s successor in parliament, the Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, believes the document will show DCNS, now known as Naval Group, wanted to involve Australian industry and partner with ASC in building the submarines from the start, but met resistance from the Australian government.

[More in link]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/19/defence-ordered-to-hand-over-documents-on-50bn-submarine-deal-with-french