The design concepts of the Collins, Type 216 and Conventional Barracuda are long [range], [high endurance] and multi-purpose functions including deployment of special forces. [These] are very different from design concepts [for the] Soryu. But, I think Japan can achieve many capabilities in the table “How They Compare” [see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/7-problems-with-japanese-option.html].
I think there [are] two key issues, i.e. 1) development of new hull materials and 2) establishment of submarine building management system in Australia should be addressed.
3) Apparently Germany is finding that the CEP is a creative challenge https://www.bayernkurier.de/inland/4720-deutsche-u-boote-fuer-australien.
Just as Japan builds cars for Australia's specific requirements Japan can build subs for Australian requirements. Japanese car exports to Australia far outstripped German + French exports, of course.
As Australians often do not know what they want at the beginning of a submarine batch - Japan's "continuous improvement of performance" procedures should do nicely.
The Super SoryuAU (term first used here) will be heavier than subs for the Japanese Navy but greater engine power and a more hydro-efficient shape should maintain performance for the Super SoryuAUs.
Yes 1. new pressure hull steel for Australian welders is important and 2. the establishment of a submarine building management system in Australia that is up to Japan's high standards is important (a bit like the former Mitsubishi car factory in Adelaide)
"1)" Yes NS110 should not be transferred as it is difficult to reweld and Australia's security system is not like Japan's.
"2)" ASC management system standards have indeed been poor as shown in the Collins and now in the AWDs. Appointing a Japanese senior executive would be a good idea for a start.
Thankyou for passing on Germany's frustrations. I'm sure Germany appreciates the kind gesture.