Australian navy's hunt for new sub to replace Collins class

[JLB50]

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.

 

[PanaEng]

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/ they are 4000 t and not 4700t as reported earlier.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I find the water jet propulsion interesting.  Makes me think of either Red October or Relic from the Beachcombers.  ;D

 

[OTR1]

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. 

 

[suffolkowner]

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?

 

[jmt18325]

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.

 

[dimsum]

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). 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Oz ABC story:

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

 

[OTR1]

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. ++

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers OTR.

Mark, you might want to reconsider your post.  Just a thought.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Anyway, back on topic, according to this: 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.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Image duly deleted.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheers.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Japanese new at arms trade/industrial benefits game:

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":

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

yes, as long as it's not the US "Merchant of death" then it's not worthy of censure.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Big US involvement:

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

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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?

 

[tomahawk6]

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

 

[CougarKing]

China behind Australia's rejection of the Soryus?

National Interest

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 >