July 12, 2017

July 2017 Donor Report: Naval Group To Handle Whole Submarine Build (So Far)

Images of ASC Pty Ltd as seen in the white pages of the phonebook. ASC has been leaning more to shipbuilding (rather than submarine building) for years. Therefore should ASC now call itself "Australian Shipbuilding Corporation" instead of "...Submarine Building". Perhaps change the name when ASC breaks into the 3 new companies?
---

Hi Donors

I've just emailed Submarine Matters July 2017 Donor Report: Naval Group To Handle Whole Submarine Build (So Far) out to you, as a WORD attachment. Please check your spam bin if you don't see it in your IN box.

Leadin to report:

Naval Group (formerly DCNS) is not rushing into associating itself with an Australian partner – even ASC (what was more commonly called “Australian Submarine Corporation”). Submarine building is too complex for politicians to simplify. Promises by politicians on ship and submarine building are temporary and maximised just before Elections.

Regards

Pete
Director
Submarine Matters International 

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous7/13/2017 6:00 PM

    Hi Pete

    Japan or MHI does never behave like Naval Group. The local production ratio offerd by MHI migh be lower than that by Naval Group, but it was real figure, not empty promise nor fake figure. Once promised, Japan keeps its word.

    Regards


    ReplyDelete
  2. Pete7/14/2017 8:00 PM

    Hi Anonymous

    I find it difficult to measure how Japan-MHI would behave in building submarines in Australia.

    This is because Japan has never built submarines (or other major weapons systems) in foreign countries before.

    And certainly some parts of the Japanese Ministry of Defense/MHI/KHI complex were not enthusiastic about the difficulty of building submarines in Australia.

    Regards

    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7/15/2017 12:58 PM

    Hi Pete

    Generally, Japan or Japanese company does not conduct intentional sabotage after contract, behaving honestly.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  4. Froggy7/15/2017 7:22 PM

    Hi pete,

    I disagree, building submarine is a very long process not a rush or race.

    https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/dcns-groundwork-ran-sub-programme

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pete7/16/2017 2:04 PM

    Oui M. Froggy, car mon article indique que la situation est complexe. Votre source reflète ceci https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/dcns-groundwork-ran-sub-programme

    “...DCNS Australia counts some 30 employees. This number is expected to double by June 2017, build up progressively to between 300 and 500 by 2019/2020, then to around 2,000 direct employees from 2021 when the first sub is slated to be laid down at the Adelaide shipyard. When production is in full swing, subcontractors will have a further 1,500 to 2,000 people working on the Shortfin Barracuda production programme, not counting civil engineering works....Overall, DCNS believes that the FSP programme will involve around 2,500 subcontractors for ‘standard’ activities like electricity, cabling and pipework.”

    Regards

    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pete7/16/2017 4:05 PM

    Mysteriously it appears many of the Daily Telegraph's July 16, 2017 points http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/piers-akerman-pm-malcolm-turnbulls-submarine-deal-will-cheese-us-all-off/news-story/e144361590054ade61145824301eecfe

    coincide with many points in my article.

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

    De façon mystérieuse, il semble que beaucoup des points du Daily Telegraph du 16 juillet 2017
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/piers-akerman-pm-malcolm-turnbulls-submarine-deal-will-cheese-us-all-off/news-story/e144361590054ade61145824301eecfe

    coïncident avec de nombreux points dans mon article.

    Pete

    ReplyDelete

You can comment :)