covert_shores said:It's a crying shame that Australia didn't join the SSN club in the 1970s. I know it was never on the table (?) but I think NATO/Aus should have developed an SSN for Australia and Canada. Approximately equivalent to Rubis but American technology based.
I know it's too much to hope for but maybe they could lease a Los Angeles class like India does an Akula? Way too much to ask.
Kadija_Man said:Buying such boats from overseas means we would be heavily dependent on whom ever supplies them for training and expertise in operating and as previous experience such as in the case of the L35a1 Carl Gustaf's use in Vietnam showed, it's not a situation we would want to repeat.
Kadija_Man said:I've often wondered why so much emphasis is placed on the technology when the real determinant on whether or not we can operate any sort of submarine has and remains manpower.
covert_shores said:It's a crying shame that Australia didn't join the SSN club in the 1970s. I know it was never on the table (?) but I think NATO/Aus should have developed an SSN for Australia and Canada. Approximately equivalent to Rubis but American technology based.
Kadija_Man said:The US has jealously guarded it's nuclear technology since it's inception. I can't see the US just handing the keys to a SSN like that.
The US has let it be known they would be willing to lease Virginia class subs to Australia.Kadija_Man said:covert_shores said:It's a crying shame that Australia didn't join the SSN club in the 1970s. I know it was never on the table (?) but I think NATO/Aus should have developed an SSN for Australia and Canada. Approximately equivalent to Rubis but American technology based.
I know it's too much to hope for but maybe they could lease a Los Angeles class like India does an Akula? Way too much to ask.
I am unsure what the US Government's view on this but I suspect it would be rather like the F-22 Raptor - "NOT FOR SALE" or in this case, lease. Nuclear technology is extremely sensitive. The US has jealously guarded it's nuclear technology since it's inception. I can't see the US just handing the keys to a SSN like that.
Moose said:The US has let it be known they would be willing to lease Virginia class subs to Australia.Kadija_Man said:covert_shores said:It's a crying shame that Australia didn't join the SSN club in the 1970s. I know it was never on the table (?) but I think NATO/Aus should have developed an SSN for Australia and Canada. Approximately equivalent to Rubis but American technology based.
I know it's too much to hope for but maybe they could lease a Los Angeles class like India does an Akula? Way too much to ask.
I am unsure what the US Government's view on this but I suspect it would be rather like the F-22 Raptor - "NOT FOR SALE" or in this case, lease. Nuclear technology is extremely sensitive. The US has jealously guarded it's nuclear technology since it's inception. I can't see the US just handing the keys to a SSN like that.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel fights for one of the largest arms export business of German history. It involves the sale of up to twelve submarines of the class 216 from Australia. The deal could bring an order value of 14 billion euros of German industry and is in government circles as "outstanding", as the submarine industry would benefit for decades. Germany is competing with the Japanese. Back in November, during G-20 summit in Brisbane , Merkel lobbied to the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott for the German offer. Merkel argued here that Germany could act politically neutral, while Japan was suffering from tensions with China.
"On that point you're right," Abbott said.
Submarines of the class, there are only 216 in the draft. They are considered the most advanced conventional submarines in the world. They are about 90 meters long, have a fuel cell drive and can dive up to four weeks at a time. A preliminary decision to drop the middle of this year.
That is not the only conversation that has happened. But you are correct no formal offer has been made, it's a very sensitive issue on a number of levels. No offer will be formally made unless/until it was already informally agreed to, and in some detail, by both parties.Hot Breath said:Moose said:The US has let it be known they would be willing to lease Virginia class subs to Australia.Kadija_Man said:covert_shores said:It's a crying shame that Australia didn't join the SSN club in the 1970s. I know it was never on the table (?) but I think NATO/Aus should have developed an SSN for Australia and Canada. Approximately equivalent to Rubis but American technology based.
I know it's too much to hope for but maybe they could lease a Los Angeles class like India does an Akula? Way too much to ask.
I am unsure what the US Government's view on this but I suspect it would be rather like the F-22 Raptor - "NOT FOR SALE" or in this case, lease. Nuclear technology is extremely sensitive. The US has jealously guarded it's nuclear technology since it's inception. I can't see the US just handing the keys to a SSN like that.
The US Ambassador in Canberra as made one, off-the-cuff, remark suggesting it was willing to do so. There has been no formal letter of offer.
fightingirish said:The German magazine 'DER SPIEGEL' reports in its latest issue this weekend:
They have larger conformal arrays on the submarine's sides, so they can reduce the size of the bow array which makes packaging a bit easier for them.covert_shores said:Re the Soryu class, does anyone know why the japanese went from the USN style of having the whole bow section as a sonar array with the torpedo tubes on the sides, to having the torpedo tubes in the nose above a smaller sonar array?
Moose said:They have larger conformal arrays on the submarine's sides, so they can reduce the size of the bow array which makes packaging a bit easier for them.
Abraham Gubler said:...But since that thought bubble is being driven by the politicians and the Finance Department things like naval operations really don’t come into consideration.
covert_shores said:Always suspicious at those sorts of news stories, leads with shock horror but really doesn't amount to anything unsurprising. Like the JMSDF would have already revealed their biggest technological secret at this point in the game.
Hot Breath said:No security imperative to build new submarines in Australia, Defence Chief Mark Binskin says. Might not be a defence imperative but there is an economic one, I think.
Abraham Gubler said:Moose said:They have larger conformal arrays on the submarine's sides, so they can reduce the size of the bow array which makes packaging a bit easier for them.
Nope. The Soryu bow array is still as big as it would be with side positioned angled tubes. The reason the torpedo room is in the bow and the tubes go straight forward is to balance the ship thanks to the weight of having two generator systems (Diesel and Stirling). In so doing the Japanese sacrifice the tactical speed of the ship because the bow can’t be shaped to preserve laminarisation of water flow at higher speeds so lowering indiscretion. Plus better performance from the bow array. But the priority for the Japanese thanks to their geostrategic derived tactical situation requires the ability to operate under hold down more than the ability to operate at higher speeds. So air independent propulsion is fitted at the cost of the ship’s hydrodynamics and sonar performance.
All of the above are good operational reasons for why Australia should NOT buy the Japanese submarine. But since that thought bubble is being driven by the politicians and the Finance Department things like naval operations really don’t come into consideration.
Minister for Defence – Strategic direction of the Future Submarine Program
20 February 2015
Today the Government announces the acquisition strategy for the Future Submarine Program. This announcement sets out further details of the competitive evaluation process that will be undertaken by the Department of Defence.
Submarines are an essential component of Australia’s naval capability and the Government will ensure that the future submarine provides the best possible capability and value for money for Australian taxpayers while maximising the involvement of Australian industry.
Submarines are the most complex, sensitive and expensive Defence capability acquisition a Government can make.
Australia’s national security and $1.6 trillion economy depend on secure sea lanes. We need the best possible submarine to protect our trade and support our maritime security.
It must be delivered in time to avoid a capability gap in the mid-2020s when the Collins Class submarine is scheduled to be retired from service. The decisions we make on the Future Submarine Program will determine what kind of capability we have to defend Australia and Australian interests into the 2040s and beyond.
The process outlined by the Government today provides a pathway for Australian industry to maximise its involvement in the program, whilst not compromising capability, cost, program schedule or risk.
The Government expects that significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of the future submarine including combat system integration, design assurance and land based testing. This will result in the creation at least 500 new high-skill jobs in Australia, the majority of which will be based in South Australia.
The Future Submarine Program is the largest Defence procurement program in Australia’s history and represents an investment in the order of $50 billion in Australia’s security. These costs will be subject to refinement through the competitive evaluation process. A significant proportion of this investment will be spent in Australia during the lifetime of the future submarine.
Successive governments have used various kinds of competitive evaluation processes for major Defence capability procurements.
As part of this competitive evaluation process, the Department of Defence will seek proposals from potential partners for:
a) Pre-concept designs based on meeting Australian capability criteria;
b) Options for design and build overseas, in Australia, and/or a hybrid approach;
c) Rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs and schedule for each option; and
d) Positions on key commercial issues, for example intellectual property rights and the ability to use and disclose technical data.
In addition to this – and on the advice of Defence – the Government has endorsed a set of key strategic requirements for our future submarines:
a) Range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine;
b) Sensor performance and stealth characteristics that are superior to the Collins Class submarine; and
c) The combat system and heavyweight torpedo jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the preferred combat system and main armament.
Defence advises that for Australian industry to have the best opportunity to maximise their involvement in the Future Submarine Program, it needs to work with an international partner.
Based on work completed by Defence, France, Germany, and Japan have emerged as potential international partners. All three countries have proven submarine design and build capabilities and are currently producing submarines.
France, Germany and Japan will be invited to participate in this competitive evaluation process that will assess their ability to partner with Australia to develop a Future Submarine that meets our capability requirements.
The Department of Defence will invite potential international partners to seek opportunities for Australian industry participation in the Future Submarine Program.
The competitive evaluation process will help the Government balance important considerations including capability, cost, schedule, and risk. Interoperability with our alliance partner, the United States, will also be a fundamental consideration.
The competitive evaluation process will take around ten months, after which an international partner will be selected for Australia’s Future Submarine Program. Further details about Australian industry involvement are also expected to be known at that point.
The competitive evaluation process will ensure that capability, cost, schedule, and key strategic considerations, along with Australian industry involvement, are carefully and methodically considered, and avoid unnecessary delays to the Future Submarine Program.
The Department of Defence will soon be holding industry briefings to inform Australian industry about the process and how they can engage with potential international partners.
An expert advisory panel will also be appointed to oversee the competitive evaluation process. Further details about this will be announced once individual appointments are confirmed.
GTX said:And some reporting in response to:
Submarine program: Japan, France, Germany to compete for build process; Government promises hundreds of local jobs