Australian Government Reveals Why DCNS Won

Cutaway diagram of most of the future TKMS Type 216. Note there is space for a Vertical Multi Purpose Lock (VMPL) or two behind the sail. There is also the option of a Horizontal Multi Purpose Lock (HMPL) (the thick tube) in the torpedo section. Perhaps Australian assessors rated the Multi Purpose Lock flexibility as a deficiency (Hence The Australian newspaper mentioned "The Australians told [TKMS] the pre-concept design submitted to Defence at the end of November [2015] was “not balanced” and design optimisation “was not achieved”). (Cutaway courtesy TKMS)

---

Reading Cameron Stewart’s The Australian, May 30, 2016 article The sound of silence - Why Germany lost its subs bid it appears:

The Australian Government in a document marked “PROTECTED — Sensitive”, gave some reasons for the Future Australian Submarine CEP decision that favoured the DCNS Shortfin proposal. TKMS’s loss was due to:

1.  An unacceptably high level of radiated noise’ of the TKMS Type 216 proposal. This was at a

   particular frequency that was very important to the RAN. This appeared to be while a 216 was

   intelligence collecting close to shore. This meant the 216 had a lower level of stealth.
   :  Australia assessed the Japanese Soryu for Australia (Soryu Aus) also had less stealth

2.  Australia accepted French calculations that the Shortfin would have a higher tactical silent speed

   than the 216 and Japan’s Soryu Aus. 

[Pete's Comment (PC) - A "higher tactical silent speed" could mean dash speed in the operational area as well as transit (with DCNS identifying 14 knots as transit in past statements].

-  DCNS has proposed a pumpjet (generally associated with higher silent speed on large submarines)

   for the Shortfin. This is instead of propellers fitted on past and current SSKs and all future SSKs

   except the Shortfin

[PC Comment - developed pumpjets only come from countries that have developed pumpjets for their own large nuclear submarines. With pumpjets equating to higher silent speeds that excludes Germany and Japan from the higher speeds criterion that Australia seems to have rated very strongly. In the end a pumpjet may not turn out to be viable for the Shortfin's propulsion - then where will Australia be?]

3.  "The Australians told [TKMS] the pre-concept design [like the cutaway above] submitted to

    Defence at the end of November [2015] was “not balanced” and design optimisation “was not

    achieved”. 

[PC Comment - Perhaps Australian assessors rated the Multi Purpose Lock flexibility as a deficiency.] 

 4.  Australia had concerns about the safety of Lithium ion Batteries (LIBs) being proposed by TKMS and Japan. While DCNS Australia did not publicly raise a LIBs danger issue DCNS in France did in March 2016

5.  Australia was concerned about the difficulty TKMS would have in upscaling its Siemens motors
   and existing 2,000 tonne hulls to a 4,000 tonne hull.

6.  Australia was concerned TKMS cost projections were too optimistic and not reflecting technical
   challenges.

[PC Comment - This begs questions what has DCNS estimated for DCNS hull + and total propulsion conversion and DCNS hull + propulsion + US combat system].

7.  Australia was concerned TKMS projections for the extra cost of building the submarines in Australia were too low and unrealistic.

SEE THE AUSTRALIAN’ NEWSPAPER'S FULL ARTICLE

Please connect with Submarine Matter's April 29, 2016 article on the future Shortfin Pumpjet.

Pete

.............................................................................................................................................................

COMMENT THREAD

Additional comments from an Anonymous Donor dated May 31, 2016:

The Australian Government’s behaviour is difficult to understand. Australia should not have explained the reasons Germany and to a lesser extent Japan were defeated. The article in The Australian that draws on a Classified Document itself proves that Australia has an information security system that leaks. Japan, is, in a sense, lucky it was defeated because Japanese submarine secrets were less exposed to Australian leaks.

Australia has publicly commented on the alleged noisiness of the German 216 proposal. How is Germany expected to accept such a comment?

Germany sells submarines worldwide. Australia tried to calm Germany, but, the result was the opposite. Germany has, instead, been insulted. Australia sometimes does not understand that other countries may have different ideas. Frankly this is a fault in Aussie thinking.

Australia has not mentioned the poor comparative indiscretion ratio of the DCNS Shortfin as it is limited to Lead-acid Batteries (LABs). In terms of indiscretion ratios the TKMS 216 may rate the best as it would have Fuel Cell AIP + LIBs, then the Japanese Soryu Aus with LIBs and then the poorest discretion with DCNS (no LIBs or AIP, only LABs).

DCNS has the least proven technology. Last year, the French Navy showed in its home page that its SSNs had sunk half of the US Navy ships in a NATO exercise. I think that DCNS had definitely over-emphasized this tremendous (SSN not SSK) result for the benefit of the RAN.

....................................................................................................................................

On June 2, 2016 the Anonymous Donor provided additional comment:

The leakages of classified information of the Future Submarine CEP are still under investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). But, the article in The Australian carries yet another leak with serious damage to TKMS’ submarine business. The Australian Government is in a position to show discipline, but, instead it is laughing at the authority of AFP by pointedly ignoring or violating the law again.

Australian journalists have yet to criticise these continual leaks, but instead show implicit consent. This situation suggests another issue, i.e., loss of discipline, which is more serious than the submarine issue, because loss of the country’s discipline hurts values of society such as mutual trust, loyalty and common ideals, leading to loss of the country’s dynamism.