July 7, 2015

Liberals in South Australia Nervous about Build in Japan

Respected Liberal Member for Hindmarsh, Matt Williams, stands to lose his seat if Prime Minister Abbott carries through the "build in Japan" Captain's Pick.
-------------------

Portrait of an Abbott supporter. 
Cabinet Minister for Education Christopher Pyne (Liberal, South Australiamay lose his  seat of Sturt.
--- 

There remain cracks in Prime Minister Abbott's Coalition Liberal Party over the "build in Japan" submarine issue. Federal Liberals in South Australia are concerned that they will lose their jobs (Federal seats - electorates) if Abbott makes his "build in Japan" Captain's Pick. Even Cabinet Minister (for Education) Christopher Pyne a Liberal and close Abbott supporter, may lose his seat. 

Eliza Borrello, ABC News Online, has written the following revealing article, July 7, 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-07/japanese-submarine-contract-would-threaten-federal-seats-in-sa/6599998:

"Liberals fear South Australian seats at risk if submarine contract goes to Japan

With the state still reeling from the loss of thousands of car manufacturing jobs, employment remains a hot button political issue.Liberal MPs say they fear several of their federal seats in South Australia could be at risk if the Government gives Japan the contract for the next fleet of submarines.
Liberal sources have told the ABC the contract for the next fleet of submarines will play a big role in its fortunes at the next federal election.
One Liberal said seats like Hindmarsh, held by first-term MP Matt Williams, would be under threat if the contract goes to Japan.
"I don't think it would be an electoral wipe-out ... [but] it would make it really hard for guys like Matt," he said.
"The easiest option [politically] would be for it to be done in South Australia."
Another MP said it would compound the risk of Lower House seats going to Independent Senator Nick Xenophon's party.
"[A] Japanese build would take Xenophon from a potential problem to a real threat," he said.
"A local build may not even see him run Lower House candidates."
But Hindmarsh MP Matt Williams said he would not speculate on talk he may lose his seat and was confident there would be more jobs in South Australia.
I can give an absolute, categoric guarantee there will be more sub jobs in SA.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott
"I'm working as hard as anyone with some of my colleagues to maximise the opportunities and the jobs in South Australia for the defence ship industries, having meetings with senior Government ministers who are listening to the various options," he said.
"The Government has already committed to at least 500 more jobs in various areas of the next submarines project which is good news for South Australia.
"We've also got the frigate program which we'd hope to get some work for South Australia so there's opportunities for the defence sector and industry in South Australia."
Prime Minister Tony Abbott said while the Government was yet to decide how or where the submarines would be built, he gave a guarantee there would be more jobs for South Australian ship builders.
"Whatever happens, I can give an absolute, categoric guarantee there will be more sub jobs in SA and I think that's what South Australians understandably want," [Abbott] said.
"They want a good deal for our country. They want a good deal for their state. They want the best possible submarines and that's what we are determined to deliver."
The Government is running what it has called a competitive evaluation process for the contract — which could go to France, Japan or Germany.
In February, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said he expected significant work would be undertaken in Australia, particularly during the build phase, leading to the creation of at least 500 new jobs.
Mr Andrews said many of those jobs would be in South Australia."
Pete

13 comments:

Nicky said...

Hi pete,
I think the problem is the liberals in South Australia are trying to protect their so called jobs. When in reality they never had the skills to build submarines.

Also have you seen this in Canada. Looks like the Canadians are having problems with getting parts for their Victoria class SSK. Maybe they should have gone to Germany, France or Sweden for SSK Submarines.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1297488-spare-parts-harder-to-find-for-victoria-class-submarines

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

Yes Liberals, like any politicians, make poor submarine builders? Maybe HY steel welding courses would improve politicians' future employment prospects :)

More seriously it looks like the Victoria class are (like the Collins) suffering from being no-longer built "orphan subs" - making spare part availability one of their major proplems.

Thanks for http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1297488-spare-parts-harder-to-find-for-victoria-class-submarines . Buying Victoria/Upholders in the 1990s looked such a bright "money saving" idea but nothing is free or cheap in the submarine game.

Canada is in an odd position of having an ally full of SSNs just to its south - which might have Canadians saying "why have more Canuck subs after the Victorias?" But then all the islands and inlets on Canada's west and east coasts are ideal SSK territory. With Canadian SSKs working with US SSNs.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Dear Nicky,

the main problem with the Victoria-class was the replacement of the inherent combat system with a US combat system. Canada purchased the submarines in 1998. In 2011 the first torpedoes were launched from HMCS Victoria. Due to the replacement Victoria-class lost its capability to launch sub-harpoon missiles.

For about 13 years Canada owned submarines incapable to launch any kind of weapon. The submarines were built around 1990. They are now about 25 years old. In 1998 when Canada bought the submarines from the UK the first Type 212 was laid down.

Canada paid 750 million CAD for 4 submarines in 1998. With 5 % interest it would have been 1,900 million CAD in 2011 (~1,350 million Euro). Cost for a Type 214 was about $330 million in 2008 or about 315 million Euro in 2011.

Well, Canada has now a US combat system and is compatible with US Navy. That raises the question how compatible was the Royal Navy to the US Navy?

Nice deal...

Regards,
MHalblaub

Nicky said...

Unlike Australia, Canada needs an SSK submarine to patrol the Arctic and right now, no SSK submarine has been known to sail under the Arctic and be able to punch a hole through an Ice pack. Which is why for Canada it's either go with an enlarged SSK such as Type 216 or SMX Ocean with built in capability to punch through an Ice pack in the arctic. The other would be to go Nuclear and ask France for the Barracuda class SSN or America for the Virginia class SSN.

As for Australia, I do think they need an enlarged SSK like SMX Ocean or Germany's Type 216 SSK that they are building for Singapore. I can't see Australia going nuclear unless the US holds Australia to the same deal that the British go with their Nuclear submarines.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

A possible mission for Australian subs is protecting future resources in Australia's Antarctic territories.

A whole Canadian submarine punching a hole through the ice would expose itself to enemy satellite detection. A snorkel or periscope may need to penetrate the ice.

Canadian subs also perform missions on Canada's east and west coast. The north coast is not their only focus.

Singapore is ordering the 218 not 216.

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
I'm thinking that if Australia wants to build their own submarine. They should have TKMS build it for them, but be hands on with them.

Also I am wondering, what do you think if Australia were to go with the Type 218

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

Japan seems to be experiencing some industrial and security concerns which may translate to years of delay in the already 10 year process of supplying Australia with subs. Also problems with Australia doing heavy maintenance.

So France and Germany are the real competitors. If Japan delays perhaps Sweden should also again be allowed to compete.

Germany and Singapore have made the 218s characteristics unknown - so Australia may not be interested.

Regards

Pete

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,

According to what I read the Type 218 SG is just a relabeled 214 for phonetic reasons. "214" sounds like "sure to die" while "218" sounds like "sure to prosper". Also is the 8 a lucky number.

The 218SG may have some enhancements but TKMS for sure will tell Australia what they can build.


Regards,
MHalblaub

C.c. Type 210mod is the best solution for Australia!

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Yes a Type 210mod with seven crew, preferably dwarves, sehr gut ;)

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

Hi Pete,
It makes me wonder why didn't Australia go for the Type 218SG or what Sweden is building the A-26 SSK. Also isn't the Type 218SG just another version of the Type 214 but enlarged and double the size and displacement.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

Given the high costs of sub purchases ($10s Billions) and because its public money - countries ideally put their submarine needs out to tender. The public expect it.

So Australia just couldn't choose any country's sub.

Also there is no such thing as truely "off the shelf". Customers set particular requirements that sub supplier countries/companies respond to.

The 218 is unknown - that it has super-cavitating propulsion is just a rumour :)

Regards

Pete

Nicky said...

Hi pete,
My question is why hasn't Australia talked to America on the Virginia class SSN or to Germany on the Type 214 or 218.

Peter Coates said...

Hi Nicky

Australia has. Do the research on my past blog articles.

Pete