- the Government of Japan (effectively including Japanese Ministry of Defence (JMD), MHI and KHI)
- TKMS from Germany, and
- DCNS from France
Sweden was effectively excluded by not being mentioned. The Government stressed that weight was given to the bidders actually building submarines now.
The best succinct mainstream media article, on February 20, 2015, was probably http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-20/japan-france-germany-to-compete-for-submarine-build/6159834
For the leadup to the Friday 20, 2015 decision see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/open-tender-versus-competitive.html particularly about the main Australian workforce involvement being the integration of the US-Australian evolved AN/BYG-1 combat system.
As things stand I would say the Australian Government's favourites are Japan, Germany and France - in that order.
Pete
5 comments:
Soryu is a paper dragon with a bunch of drawbacks, i.e., terrible endurance, slow speed, poor armament, short range, high cost, job thieving and china outraging. Japan should decline competitive evaluation process. It’s not too late.
And sorry to Sweden: you are out because Kockums built its last complete submarine in the last millenium (1996).
Only Japan, Germany and France can offer a steady experience of building submarines.
Didn't Kockums showed once that even with Gotland class experience the company was incapable to supervise a license build of a submarine?
Hi Anonymous (of Feb 26)
Its only a short time that Sweden regained control of Kockums. So Sweden was/is in an unfavourable position for Australia's new submarine competition.
The Australian logic of not including Sweden because Sweden has not built a new submarine since the 1990s, may unfortuantely spill over to the German and French bids. This is in the sense that Australia will say that the German and French bids involve submarine types they haven't built (or finished building). Meanwhile Soryu will be picked because it is an in-production submarine.
Regards
Pete
Dear Pete,
The German Type 214 submarine is being built in a steady stream in various subtypes for different nations e.g. Israel and now Singapore.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Hi MHalblaub
Yes I think it more appropriate that the tried and tested HDW 214 and Scorpene should be pitted against the Soryus instead of over-expensive, high purchase risk, 4,000 ton (surfaced) HDW 216 and SMX Ocean designs.
Enlarged 214s and Scorpenes could probably carry sufficient fuel and warload at 2,200 tons (surfaced) to meet Australia's selection requirements. This would be at FAR LOWER PRICE THAN THE SORYUS.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment