S's response to "7 Problems With The Japanese Option"

Japan had a submarine building industry for 100 years before it began to build the Soryus. The class immediately preceeding the Soryus are the Oyashios. Above is Oyashio class submarine SS-599 (Setoshio) being fitted out at MHI shipyard, Kobe in 2006. SS-599 was commissioned on February 28, 2007.

---

Little is known publically in Australia about Japan’s submarine building concerns. Submarine Matters provides one forum for discussions. To that end Japanese concerns are being highlighted. I have clarified the English in some sentences [...] brackets - hoping this remains faithful to S's intended meaning. 

At http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/7-problems-with-japanese-option.html in Comments “S” commented on August 21, 2015 at 12:54 AM. In "S's response... S provided additional  information on August 25, 2015 6:31 PM, regarding to Australian Made Defence’s "7 Problems With The Japanese Option":

"Requirements for submarine performance significantly depend on design concept which is based on various factors such geopolitical situation, geographical conditions, technological issues and diplomatic relations. Therefore, the ideal design concept of submarine becomes highly country specific. The design concept of the Soryu is continuous improvement of performance by batch building [in order to respond to a highly defense-oriented policy of surveillance of the sea around Japan]. The operational period and range of the Soryu are purposely set to be short [with the design  concept optimised for this]. [Introducing quality upgrades and extra fuel will make the submarine design heavier (i.e. increase in size, therefore increase in water resistance). This will lead to performance degradations].

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. 

1)    I do not think that the JSMDF agrees with a NS110 very high yield pressure hull steel  technology transfer. So new low magnetic and high strength steel for a single pressure hull [rather than the Soryu's double hull design] should be developed, but evaluation and testing will be very time-consuming.

2)    There are some shortcomings in the quality management system. Part of this is information security management concerning top secret Japanese technology transfer to Australia. Many people, including a former executive of ASC, indicate ASC has considerable skills and self-reliance, but  ASC can strengthen its management planning with regard to aims, training and internal checks. Some strengthening of performance measures to achieve customer requirements would be advantageous.

3)   Apparently Germany is finding that the CEP is a creative   challenge https://www.bayernkurier.de/inland/4720-deutsche-u-boote-fuer-australien.

PETE'S COMMENTS

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) 

Regarding:

"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.

Pete