November 20, 2015

"Final" Responses for CEP Due in Ten Days - Japan has last word

The Table may be the most accurate published comparison of the three Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) contenders.  (Table courtesy of News Corp Australia, 2015) Still, there are many inaccuracies for the picky:
-  the Table is a mix of current capabilities (which is wrong) and estimated future capabilities (more correct). Clear current mistakes are:
-  conventional Barracuda's surfaced Displacement is likely to be 4,200-4,765 tonnes. Submerged displacement is unknown.
-  216's website give a surfaced displacement of around 4,000 tonnes, so the "Submerged Displacement" in above Table will likely be considerably more than 4,000 tonnes.
-   Soryu's Weapon Stowage believed to be equivalent of 20 heavyweight torpedos (HWT)/Harpoon missiles OR 10 torpedos/Harpoon + 20 (smaller) mines = 20 HWT equivalent.
-  216 likely has at least 1 vertical launch system = about 6-7 more missiles or other uses.
-  Soryu's current range is believed to be 6,100 nm but the "Super SoryuAU" (name first christened here) estimated range in 2025 may be more like 11,000 nm.
-  The TKMS Type 216 website gives normal crew of 33 - 33 may be short mission but 216AU may vary up to 60 for long mission.
-  Cruise missile capability (Tomahawk or other AN/BYG-1 compatible) are very likely required.
-  The Australian government has already set the combat system to be the US AN/BYG-1. If the US refuses a contender access to this combat system that contender will be eliminated.


--------------------------------------------------------


Artist's conception of what an expanded Civmec, Henderson, WA, facility would look like if the future submarines were assembled there. Notice (left of center) 3 subs being built between the yellow supports. (Image courtesy communitynews)

--------------------------------------------------------


This Submarine Matters article has three parts – with just 10 days to go before final responses are due for Australia’s future submarine CEP

1.  Perhaps Greater Australian Competition

November 18, 2015 news report that that two shipbuilding companies Forgacs (NSW) and Civmec (WA) may unite to compete more fully against large shipbuilders in SA and Victoria. This will hopefully boost competition in the submarine, frigate and offshore patrol boat builds.

"Newcastle [NSW] shipbuilder Forgacs expects selling its defence engineering division will lead to significant investment and more jobs. Western Australian firm Civmec, which employs 1,500 workers at its base in Henderson near Perth, wants to buy Forgacs.

It plans on making the Tomago shipyard Civmec's east coast headquarters, with the acquisition expected to create a leading national firm.

Forgacs chairman Peter Burgess said the deal is dependent on the approval of Civmec's shareholders..."

See Submarine Matter’s Australia’s $90 Billion Naval Shipbuilding More Complex Under New Government, September 21, 2015.which mentions all of these shipbuilding industry competitors, including there locations. 

--------------------------------------------

2.  Rising scholar Mina Pollmann, has written an outstanding article of November 19, 2015, for The Diplomat . The following are excerpts. I have bolded some parts for emphasis.

“How Will Australia Choose Its Next Submarine Builder?

As France, Germany, and Japan promote their bids, a look at Australia’s wishlist for its next submarine class.

Mina Pollmann (Photo courtesy Alexander Brown/ The Hoya)

This week, the three companies competing to build Australia’s next generation of submarines publicly discussed their proposals at the Submarine Institute of Australia’s ..Conference held in Adelaide, South Australia. The November 30 deadline for the JapaneseGerman, and French bidders to submit their proposals for a modified Soryu, the Type 216, and the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A, respectively, is rapidly approaching, and the competition for the $20 billion prize intensifying.

…Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has offered to transform Australia into the shipbuilding hub of the Asia-Pacific, a proposal recently echoed by France’s state-controlled DCNS.

....Of course, there are also strategic considerations – former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was known to favour Japan in order to cement the “special relationship” between the two democratic U.S. allies. Even though Abbott’s ousting by Malcolm Turnbull has helped ameliorate the perception of favoritism towards Japan, the underlying logic of a U.S.-Australia-Japan alignment remains sound.

Turnbull replacing Abbott might even end up being a win for Japan – now, if the Japanese option is recommended and chosen, no one can accuse the decision makers of bias and the Japanese bid can be recognized as objectively in the best interest of Australia.

…Finally, cooperation with the United States is a key factor. Conventional submarines, which are better at operating in Asia’s shallow coastal waters, can complement and augment the United States’ all-nuclear undersea fleet. Australia’s allergy to nuclear submarines may have started as a liability, by hindering technology cooperation with their patron-ally, but now may be the best guarantor for continued integration between U.S. and Australian forces – and more importantly, their interests.

Australian Defense Minister Marise Payne provided some insight …: “The selection balances key considerations, including high levels of interoperability with our key ally, the U.S., opportunities to de-risk the combat systems, and synergies arising from commonality between Collins and future submarines.”

The Australian government is expected to decide which international partner Australia will work with early next year – but don’t be surprised if the decision keeps getting pushed off. In Payne’s words, “The Government does not intend to be rushed. This is too important a decision for that.” But a non-decision will have important consequences, as Australia’s neighbors are also modernizing their undersea fleets. Even after a winner is chosen, it will take another three years to finalize the processes and details of the deal.

…After all, it’s not just the submarines contract that shipbuilders must be prepared to deal with. Even though the three-way competitive evaluation process for building eight or 12 submarines has been getting the most attention, the Australian government is also preparing to award contracts for a fleet of frigates to replace the eight ANZAC Class frigates and a new fleet of up to 21 offshore patrol boats in the coming months.”


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent photo, after Nakatani entered politics. Japanese Defence Minister Gen Nakatani throws himself from a parachute training simulator. Note that Gen (his first name not a previous rank) used to be a Captain in the Japanese Army's Ranger-parachute corps. Clearly he can do things that no other Defence Minister would dare attempt.
(Photo Courtesy Getty Images)

3.  Japan to get last major sales opportunity with Australia on Sunday, November 22, 2015.

The Japan Times reported November 17, 2015 that:

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani will meet Sunday in Sydney with their Australian counterparts [Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Defence Minister Marise Payne], officials said [November 17, 2015], with Tokyo aiming to pitch the advantages of teaming up to build Australia’s new fleet of submarines.

During the so-called two-plus-two [or "2 + 2"] security meeting, Kishida and Nakatani are expected to seek an edge over the German and French bids for what Canberra calls its “largest defense procurement program in history....” 

So much is happening as the November 30, 2015 CEP deadline approaches.

Pete 

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

From common sense, Japan will win a bid. Super Soryu AU is superior to TKMS 216 in various aspects: i) hull strength, ii) maximum submerged speed, iii) magnetic shielding; iv) stability of LIBs, v) reliability of production (less initial failure & no delivery delay), vi) well-defined cost calculation based on the life cycle analysis, vii) interconnectivity with US soft & hard ware system and so on. TKMS 216 seems to show advantage in low speed operation. Frankly speaking, I cannot understand why it takes so long time to decide. Further thinking is pain in the neck for bidders.

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

If you compare the datas the most performing submarine is the Shortfin Barracuda's.

How can you say Super Soryu is an evidence?

- No anti-helicopter missile
- No Cruise missile
- No VLS
- No experience in transferring techonologies and outsourcing production.

MHalblaub said...

Dear S,

to follow common sense is not the best the way to make a proper decision. On the other side, the first step for a right decision would be to think about what you want to do. Just "more" is a very easy "decision".

Lets look at your points.

I) What is your definition of hull strength and how do you know Super Soryu is superior?

II) How do you know the maximum submerged speed of all contenders?

III) What about the German diamagnetic steel?

IV) Any proof for that?

V) Sure about that? Japan will not produce another Soryu. Didn't you mention Super Soryu? It will also have to contain some costume made features like English labeling.

VI) Japan has never exported a submarine. So how can Japan determine the costs for an export?

VII) OK, the US use the same Japanese computer hardware.

Some points to think about:

1) Type 212 with a submerged displacement of 1.800 t has a range of 8,000 nm. Soryu has about 6,000 and Super Soryu?

2) At the moment IDAS is the only operational anti helicopter missile system.

3) Germany supported the export of more than 60 submarines of just the Type 209.

4) What type of diesel engines will the Super Soryu have?


Does common sense really exits?

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi S, Anonymous and MHalblaub

I'll let you guys battle it out with arguments for the Japanese, French and German entries.

My brief comment is Australia should not stick with ex Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's plan of a 4,000 ton (SURFACED) sub.

I'd say a 3,000 ton (surfaced) minimally modified LIB 10,000 nm Soryu may be desirable

or a Type 218 (nearer 2,000 tons surfaced, but maybe crew too small for 3-watch long missions) sub.

Regards

Pete

Anonymous said...

Hi Petew, would you please delete my previous post?I would prefer to keep anonymous.

To MHalblaub

II) How do you know the maximum submerged speed of all contenders?
A. It is not the Max speed that matters, it is the transition speed that is critical for Australia. The batteries of the submarine is consumed by 2 factors: the propulsion load and hotel load (stuff like air conditions, lights, combat systems...etc). The propulsion load is about the square or cubic of the speed. So, if you want to double the speed, you need about 4 times (2X2) or 8 times (2X2X2) of propulsion load.

And so, how Type 212/214 achieve that "superior" endurance? Sail at very slow speed (4 to 5 knots), very low crew numbers and a much less power hungry but less capable combat systems (so much less hotel load). It takes 2 weeks to cover 1500km, and our submarines have to sail nearly 7000km to reach the operation area. If we do it in German's way, we have to return to base (with 70days provision as in Collins) before we reach our target.

Our Collins (and the future submarine) are transitioning at 10+ knots, have a much bigger crew, a much more power hungry combat system. So what is practical on Type 212/214 will not be true for the Type 216 (and that is a power consumption far beyond the fuel cell AIP on board TYPE212/214 can practically provide). So even the Type 216 have 4 diesel engines (twice the number on board type 214) in order to recharge the LIB fast enough.

Soryu has a higher transitioning speed, have a much bigger crew and a more power hungry combat system than the type 214/212. Not as crazy as our Collins but it is more close to "reality" than the spec. of type 216 on newspapers.

I) What is your definition of hull strength and how do you know Super Soryu is superior?
III) What about the German diamagnetic steel?

A: Thant's a type of steel weaker than HY80 (which is used for Type214). Even HY80 only gives about 300m of operation depth, the German non-magnetic steel will be less than that. That may be acceptable for Baltic sea operations as the average depth is less than 50m, but absolutely not so for Pacific. On the other hand, the NS80/110 is way superior than even HY100 and gave Japanese submarines tactical advantages (in diving depth)to most nuclear submarines.

V) Sure about that? Japan will not produce another Soryu. Didn't you mention Super Soryu? It will also have to contain some costume made features like English labeling.
VI) Japan has never exported a submarine. So how can Japan determine the costs for an export?
3) Germany supported the export of more than 60 submarines of just the Type 209.
A: Japanese have been exporting and manufacturing cars in Australia for more than 30 years. They have participate much big infrastructure projects (from BHP-Mitsubishi Alliance to Toyota) in Australia than the German or France. So I really don't see how those so-called language barrier or cultural barrier is an issue.

Also, Japanese have a continuous build programme for their submarines for decades, their next generation submarine (29SS, an evolved Soryu) will be what the "Aussie Soryu" based on. So I don't see any problem with supply of parts.

Many "bad names" tainted on Soryu were from those special interest groups from SA, that is far from truth.

2) At the moment IDAS is the only operational anti helicopter missile system.
A: That's not part of the RAN's requirement for the future submarine. In fact, as most navies ( including china) don't have any anti submarine weapons that can kill a submarine sailing 600m undersea surface (which is an operation depth Soryu capable of), why do I need an anti helicopter missile system?

田中敦 said...

Question
How can Australian people know the range of the Soryu?
Many Australian raise the "inadequate range" as one of the biggest concerns of the so called Option J.
But, as far as I know, Japan has never exposed it at all.

Some may say that it's quite natural to imagine her short range because of her big AIP compartment that should be squeezing her fuel compartment.
It can't be true however, because the fuel compartment of the Soryu is said to be in the area between outer and inner hull.

I don't understand how does some Australian media even determine it's range as approximately 6100km.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete & Anonymous (November 21, 2015 at 5:14 AM)

How can you say Super Soryu is an evidence?
(Answer) The Nuclear Barracuda, basic model of the Shortfin Barracuda is still under constructing, but TKMS 216 and Super SoryuAU have basic models (TKMS 214, Soryu) which are currently in operation. I cannot compare the Shortfin Barracuda with other two contenders.

- No anti-helicopter missile
(Answer) Super Soryu does not have it.

- No Cruise missile, - No VLS
(Answer) Super Soryu does not have them. If Australia hopes and US supports, it is possible. I do not think that cruise missile and VLS which need extra power are suitable for powerless conventional submarine. After shooting, enemy satellite identifies submarine’s position and enemy sends hunter killers, but conventional submarine cannot escape easily. Cruise missile and VLS are weapons for nuclear submarines.

- No experience in transferring technologies and outsourcing production.
(Answer) JMSDF has not the experience, but, many private companies participating Soryu project are very famous and have the experience, some of them have many foreign branches. For example, Boeing 787 adopts LIBs of GS YUASA which is supplier of LIBs for Soryu. About communication of Japan, first Japanese delegation for Australia showed bad communication and was heavily criticized, but, Japan has changed and tries to communicate local government and industries.

Regards
S

Anonymous said...

Hi Pete & MHalblaub (November 21, 2015 at 6:54 AM)

I) What is your definition of hull strength and how do you know Super Soryu is superior?
(Answer) High strength steel for pressure hull of Super Soryu is very possibly NS80 and NS110 which is stronger than HY100.

II) How do you know the maximum submerged speed of all contenders?
(Answer) I assumed that power from LIBs controlled maximum submerged speed, and I estimated submerged speed from energy density and numbers of LIBs to be loaded. From beam and size of fuel cell section etc. of TKMS 216, I assumed that TKMS 216 loaded considerably less LIBs than Super Soryu. As a result, I concluded that Super Soryu showed higher maximum submerged speed than TKMS 216. I did not take into account of the Shortfin Barracuda.

III) What about the German diamagnetic steel?
(Answer)There are three possible issues in application of German diamagnetic steel (EN 1.3964 for TYPE212A submarine): i) relatively low strength (proof strength of EN 1.3964 is nearly half of NS110), ii) higher price (As EN 1.3964 contains 20-21.5% Ni and 15-17% Cr which are 10 times more expensive magnetic HY80, it becomes is very expensive.), and iii) technology export approval by Italian shipbuilder, Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani SpA (TYPE212A was developed by collaboration of HDW an Fincantieri. Fincantieri did not reach an agreement with HDW to independently export derivatives of the submarines [1].). EN 1.3964 may be applicable to fuel cell module comprising a magnetic shielding thanks to patent of Siemens.

IV) Any proof for that?
(Answer) JMSDF (Japan Maritime Defense Force) proved stability years ago. Further validation of LIBs will be conducted by using FY2017 and 2018 Soryus with LIBs.

V) Sure about that? Japan will not produce another Soryu. Didn't you mention Super Soryu? It will also have to contain some costume made features like English labeling.
(Answer)Delivery delays or initial failure are not reported for modern Japanese submarine.

VI) Japan has never exported a submarine. So how can Japan determine the costs for an export?
(Answer) Export cost depends on Australia’s situation. Every year, MOD (Ministry of Defense) calculates LCC (life cycle cost) of main equipment including submarine. LCC which is calculated based on proven data (actual operation) predicts total cost from design to abolishment, and is most reliable. I want to know whether TKMS includes total cost from design to abolishment in 20BD and how TKMS calculates LCC, because each navy does not disclose operation data.

4) What type of diesel engines will the Super Soryu have?
(Answer) I appreciate MTU diesel engines, but KHI diesel is best selection. MTU exports diesel engine to China, we should not share main equipment like a diesel engine with China. KHI is traditional supplier of diesel engine and is involved in snorkel generation system.

[1]http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/italy-submarine-import-and-export-behavior/ ”Italy Submarine Import and Export Behavior”

Regards
S

Arpit Kanodia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hi Pete

I correct comment (November 21, 2015 at 5:14 AM) and show additional information.

Before correction
III) What about the German diamagnetic steel? (Answer)--- ii) higher price---it becomes is very expensive.
After correction
III) What about the German diamagnetic steel? (Answer)--- ii) higher price---it becomes very expensive.

Before correction
V) Sure about that? ---(Answer)Delivery delays or initial failure are not reported for modern Japanese submarine.
After correction
V) Sure about that? ---(Answer)Delivery delay or initial failure are not reported for modern Japanese submarine. TKMS 214 shows some troubles including serious initial failures in S Korea more than 10 years ago and serious delivery delay in Turkey,this year [2, 3]. We cannot say that production stability of TKMS is higher than that of MHI/KHI.

Addition of reference
[2]http://defence.pk/threads/thyseen-krupp-may-pay-100-million-%E2%82%AC-penalty-for-the-2-year-delays.356967/#ixzz3rVinU3JV
“Thyseen Krupp May Pay 100 Million € Penalty For the 2 Year Delays”
[3]http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/german-company-will-pay-compe%E2%80%A6n-submarine-delivery-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78260&NewsCatID=345“German company will pay compensation to Turkey over delay in submarine delivery”

Regards
S

Peter Coates said...

Hi Arpit Kanodia

"Maybe I am wrong" Yes.

The Super Soryu will be mostly double hull (if chosen).

Yes NZ.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi S, Anonymous and MHalblaub

Thankyou for your comments. 8 more days before deadline to claim superior sub.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi 田中敦

Where you ask "I don't understand how does some Australian media even determine it's range as approximately 6100km."

Wikipedia and other authoritative sources (not) record what Japanesee MoD claims. See right side bar of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-class_submarine where it says "6,100 nm @ 6.5 knots[citation needed]"

The CEP assessors would have received very detailed range figures from Japan - figures that are kept secret from us all.

Regards

Pete