covert_shores said:Australian press and politicians seem to be more concerned about friendly relations with Japan than the subs. Why didn't he complain about french or german companies getting the money? Why was Japan listed first in the headline? Muppets.
[snip]
Support for a Tokyo proposal to build the vessels in Japan was a factor in the downfall of Tony Abbott, who was deposed as prime minister last month by fellow Liberal Malcolm Turnbull.
“The submarine issue was one of the things that weakened Tony Abbott’s prime ministership,” says Andrew Davies, a director at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. “His pursuit of a deal with Japan was seen as one of the ‘captain’s calls’ which led to his difficulties.”
The deal would have strengthened defence ties between Australia and Japan, both allies of the US, which is concerned about rising Chinese assertiveness and a submarine arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. But Mr Abbott underestimated the strength of feeling in the shipbuilding heartland of South Australia, a state reeling from the imminent closure of the car industry and a mining downturn that has pushed unemployment to 8 per cent — the highest in Australia.
“I’m now very confident the submarines will be built in Australia,” says Sean Edwards, one of seven South Australian Liberals who voted to oust Mr Abbott.
The departure of Mr Abbott, who enjoyed a close relationship with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has alarmed Tokyo, which has no experience of competing for overseas defence contracts or overseeing the design of submarines built in foreign shipyards. Amid the new political climate, Tokyo signalled last week it was willing to build the submarines in Adelaide alongside ASC.
Hugh White, professor at the Australian National University, says the pressure for a local build means Tokyo has slipped from frontrunner to outsider in the contest, as Mr Turnbull is unlikely to share Mr Abbott’s strategic agenda.
“The odds swing towards the European competitors, who have much better track records as submarine exporters and fewer of the regional strategic complications that a deal with Japan might bring,” he says.
Analysts say Japan is the only bidder with a submarine in operation large enough to meet Australia’s requirements, even though its Soryu design would need to be adapted to extend its range. DCNS also lacks Tokyo’s experience integrating the US weapons systems Australian submarines will use.
[snip]
Grey Havoc said:http://blog.usni.org/2016/03/02/stepping-up-down-under
Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
sferrin said:Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
Bummer. I was hoping Japan would win. They have a lot of stuff that should do well on the world market.
Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
TomS said:Has anyone seen whether the Shortfin Barracuda design for Australia includes AIP of any sort? I'm wondering if it's functionally a rebranding of the SMX Ocean, which has fuel-cell AIP and a 6-tube VLS.
http://defense-update.com/20141023_smx.html
Kadija_Man said:sferrin said:Moose said:So much for "TKMS is in the lead" rumors. One wonders, considering the proposed boat and the supplier, if the Aussies are looking at a path toward nukes on the next generation of boats.
Bummer. I was hoping Japan would win. They have a lot of stuff that should do well on the world market.
They have to start designing their boats so that an average Aussie can stand up in them before they'll find many buyers for them...
covert_shores said:Anyone closer to the situation got a view on why there is so much negativity toward the Japanese offer in Australia? Some of the comments I've seen a while back made me wonder whether it's still about WW2? Or worse?
Haven't heard similar concerns re German business practices applied to Swedish submarine partners, or French issues with Spanish sub program.
covert_shores said:Anyone closer to the situation got a view on why there is so much negativity toward the Japanese offer in Australia? Some of the comments I've seen a while back made me wonder whether it's still about WW2? Or worse?
Dragon029 said:There was also the issue of the Soryu having a questionable range; the Collins does 11,500NM at 10kts, the standard Soryu does 6,100NM. That could have been increased, but by how much? The Type 216 from TKMS does 10,500NM and apparently the DCNS Shortfin Barracuda goes as far as 18,000NM.
Australia needs subs with a long range to operate effectively around its coastline, as well as to perform operations up into SEA.
GTX said:I have seen no comments related to the possibility of AIP - just conventional batteries. That said, i would be very surprised if it wasn't included at least as an option or a future development. One key thing to remember is that this is just the start - there are a lot of negotiations to go before a formal contract is signed.
I just hope the French are better at providing support here then on other acquisitions in the past...
JohnR said:What is the RAN POV on AIP, is there something fundamentally wrong with it.
Published on Oct 7, 2015
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).