Showing posts with label MHI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MHI. Show all posts

April 15, 2015

Minister Andrews' overseas visit to submarine competitors.

Australian Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews
---
I originally wrote  on April 15(using a report of April 10 in the Kieler Nachrichten) concerning Minister Andrews meeting the German and French Defence Ministers and visiting Kiel and Cherbourg. Now there is ministerial confirmation (April 21).

Minister Andrews' itinerary:

April 23, 2015 - Meeting German Defence Minister Dr Ursula von der Leyen, then Visiting TKMS-HDW submarine yard at Kiel, Germany. 
Confirmed in Kiel's newspaper, 
-  Kieler Nachrichten, article of April 10 (Windows 7 or 8 or right-clicking mouse can translate into English). and
-  Kieler Nachrichten April 23 indicated Ministers Andrews, when at TKMS-Kiel, was given a presentation on the HDW 216. He was also given information on submarines TKMS has been constructing for Israel (which are Dolphin 1s and 2s) and Egypt (which are Type 209s]

April 24, 2015 – Meeting French Defence Minister Jean-YvesLe Drian and DCNS senior executives. .  
-  French website of April 21 reporting Minister Andrews visit to Chsubmarine . 
-  Kieler Nachrichten April 23 reported Minister Andrews was to be given a presentation by DCNS, Cherbourg shipyard on the "Scorpene." This may suggest DCNS is not calling its offer to Australia the "SMX Ocean" of "conventional Barracuda" but Scorpene-4000 (probably 4,000 ton (submerged?).

Ministerial Confirmation:

Ministerial Media Release on all this came on April 21.
Ministerial Media Release of April 23 of April 23 visit to German Defence Minister then TKMS-HDW at Kiel
Ministerial Media Release on April 24 of April 24 visit to  French Defence Minister and to DCNS at Cherbourg.

The Ministerial Media releases were all informative and signify that Minister Andrews is serious about finding out what Germany-TKMS and France-DCNS have to offer in Australia's future submarine competition. This systematic openness is a welcome change compared to the  practice of Ministers prior to 2015.  

Minister Andrews spent ANZAC Day (April 25) at commemoration services in France and Belgium.

Still unknown if/when Minister Andrews is visiting Japan, including Tokyo to meet Defence Minister Nakatani then KHI and MHI submarine yards at Kobe, Japan

Accompanying Minister Andrews may be the Australian Navy, Head Future Submarine Program, a senior executive of Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and perhaps a senior executive of ASC.

Pete

March 29, 2015

Kevin Andrews' speech prompts questions of evaluation process fairness

 It is difficult to find a photograph of Australian Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews letting himself be filmed with a submarine. Here's the next best thing - reflections of what looks to be a submarine in Andrew's binoculars (Photo courtesy thevine.com).
---
The following are the portions of a speech most relevant to submarines made by Australian Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews on March 25, 2015 at Australia's Future Submarine Summit (“Sub Summit”) Adelaide, South Australia, March 24-26, 2015, http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2015/03/25/speech-rusi-submarine-summit-25-march-2015/ :


COMMENT

The Andrews speech and other statements made by Australian government officers and officials at the Summit appeared to confirm a growing belief the evaluation process may not be truly competitive. This is due to what appears to be an unequal match between the official competitors, which are:

- the Government of Japan (including Prime Minister Abe and the Japanese Ministry of Defence (JMD) in part drawing advice from MHI and KHI). Significantly Japan is backed by overt US Government support *

versus 

- only companies: TKMS from Germany and DCNS from France. 

European company representatives at the Summit questioned this mismatch and many wondered how the evaluation process could possibly be fair when Japan was being dealt with on a government-to-government basis while the German and French builders were on a commercial level. “It looks to me like the decision might already have been made,” said one CEO who asked to remain anonymous. “This whole process clearly favours Japan.”

* US Support for Japan's Bid

The Japan Times reported: "Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, commander of the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, reportedly said Oct. 24 [2014]  in Tokyo that then-Australian Defense Minister David Johnston was very interested in Japan’s Soryu-class subs.
“I talked to him about it four years ago and I said: ‘You want to find the finest diesel-electric submarine made on the planet — it’s made at Kobe works in Japan,’ Thomas was quoted as saying by Bloomberg News."
PORTIONS OF SPEECH

Minister for Defence – Speech – RUSI Submarine Summit – 25 March 2015

Submarines are the most complicated, sensitive and expensive Defence capability acquisition a Government can make in meeting that responsibility.
An effective submarine capability plays a critical role in Australia’s defence in conjunction with all Australian Defence Force elements.
I have previously stated – as a Government and as a nation, we have one chance to get this decision right.
Because of the previous government’s refusal for 6 years to make a decision on the replacement for the Collins class submarines, we had a looming security and capability gap arriving in about ten years.
The process that I recently announced is the best way forward to ensure that such a gap will not occur, simultaneously delivering the best possible capability to the ADF and value for money to Australian taxpayers.
Geographically we are an island continent, the world’s sixth largest country by area. This unique geography means we have special requirements for Australia’s future submarines.
Australia’s national security and our $1.6 trillion dollar economy rely on the unencumbered use of the sea.
Seventy per cent of Australia’s exported goods and services, by value, travel by sea, an export trade worth more than $220 billion in 2012-13. We are a maritime nation and we need maritime security.
By 2030, half of the world’s submarines will be in Australia’s broader strategic region. The Indo-Pacific region has some of the fastest growing economies in the world and the demand for defence technology to safeguard the region’s prosperity and security is ever increasing.
The future submarine programme represent a $50 billion investment in Australia’s safety and security – the largest Defence procurement in Australia’s history – with up to two thirds of this investment being spent in Australia during the lifetime of the future submarine.
To the average Australian taxpayer this may seem to be a huge price to be paid for a capability that may never be used in anger.
But that cost also needs to be measured against the major investment that would need to be made by any adversary to counter the effect of our submarines.
The complexity of Australia’s strategic environment means our defence planning has to cater for a range of possible contingencies, but particularly focussed on maintaining stability in our region and ensuring that conflict doesn’t have the chance to start. So submarines remain a logical and necessary investment in Australia’s wider defence capability.
And for this reason, Australia’s future submarine must give us a significant capability edge in our region as well as meet our needs in respect of geography and strategic outlook.
We need submarines capable of operations at long range over extended periods because they defend our interests far from our shores. The range and endurance must be similar to that of the Collins class submarine.
They are an essential part of our national security capability.
Another key strategic requirement for our Future Submarines includes sensor performance and characteristics that are superior to that of the Collins class submarine.
We need the sovereign ability to maintain the future submarine over coming decades, including repairs, modifications and certifying it as safe for use.
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT
Now I acknowledge that – in recent times – there has been some anxiety about the future submarine programme.
This is why I announced the acquisition strategy in February – to provide a pathway for Australian industry to maximise its involvement in the program, whilst not compromising capability, cost, program schedule or risk.
The Government supports local industry and recognises how valuable it is to our nation. As Minister for Defence, I want to see a sustainable and viable industry better able to support Defence.
In 2014-15 financial year, Defence expects to spend $6.2 billion on equipment acquisition and support in Australia.
This equates to around 53 per cent of the military equipment acquisition and support expenditure this year, and is consistent with long-term averages of between 50 and 55 per cent being spent in Australia.
The Government does support local Defence industry.
When it comes to making decisions on Defence capability, the needs of the Australian Defence Force will – must – always come first.
The Government will acquire Defence capability that supports ADF requirements first and Australian industry can play a very significant role in this process.
Our sailors, soldiers or airmen and women need the right equipment and industry needs to demonstrate that they are world leaders, producing the best product at the best price.
SUBMARINES AND DEFENCE INDUSTRY
When it comes to Future Submarines, Australian industry will play an important role in delivering the best possible equipment at the best value for money.  
There will be many new high-skill jobs in Australia for the life of the Submarine program, decades into the future.
Significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase. At a minimum, this includes combat system integration, design assurance and land-based testing.
There will be significant opportunities arising from the support and maintenance of the submarine for decades. In dollar terms, this often accounts for two-thirds of the investment.
All three potential international partners will require significant redesign work to be undertaken on their existing submarines. There are opportunities here for Australia.  
I want to make it clear – that maintenance can occur in Australia, even if there is an overseas build. The important consideration, and a lesson from Collins, is to ensure that maintenance and knowledge transfer are planned from the early stages of design.
As I mentioned previously, this is a busy time for Defence acquisition – and there are many exciting opportunities ahead for industry.  
Here in South Australia alone – over the next four years – subject to the outcomes of the Defence White Paper – there will be up to $4.4 billion in Defence spending for building and sustaining Defence materiel.
PROGRAMME OF ENGAGEMENT WITH DEFENCE INDUSTRY
As the competitive evaluation for the Future Submarine proceeds, Defence is engaging with a number of key industry representatives.
This includes engaging with Austrade and the Department of Industry and Science, along with engagement with State Governments, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Industry Defence Network and the Australian Business Defence Industry Unit.
Here, in South Australia, Defence is consulting with Defence SA, the Defence Teaming Centre and, of course, ASC and other companies.
Importantly, the potential international partners that will deliver Australia’s Future Submarine fleet need to understand Australian industry’s capabilities and skill sets.
During a meeting yesterday between Defence and Department of Industry officials, State Government representatives, and defence industry groups, there was agreement to the SEA 1000 Industrial Engagement Strategy.  This included the formation of the State and Industry Association Consultative Group, comprising all attendees.
The SEA 1000 Industrial Engagement Strategy involves the members of this group working together with the common aim of providing competitive Australian companies with meaningful opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and skills to international partners.
The strategy includes bimonthly meetings to monitor progress against planned activities that include preparation sessions for Australian industry, the development of company profiles to be provided to international partners, a schedule of interactions between the partners and state-based organisations, and visits by the partners to states across Australia to meet with company representatives and visit facilities.
These activities will commence in early April with briefings to major companies operating in Australia, and progress throughout the remainder of the year. 
The engagements between international partners and industry will be scheduled to complement the development their pre-concept designs, allowing timely judgments of how to best involve Australian capabilities and skills in their proposals.
Importantly, there is agreement on the need for a coordinated and consultative approach to the engagement, which offers international partners full visibility of how Australian industry can support the project and maximise Australian industrial involvement
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
As the Government has announced, France, Germany and Japan have emerged as potential international partners. All three countries have proven submarine design and build capabilities and are producing submarines.
The competitive evaluation process will ensure that capability, cost, schedule and key strategic considerations, along with Australian industry involvement, are carefully and methodically considered, and avoid unnecessary delays to Australia’s future Submarine program.
As part of the competitive evaluation, Defence will seek proposals from potential partners for:
  • Pre-concept designs based on meeting our capability criteria;
  • Options for design and build overseas, in Australia, and/or a hybrid approach;
  • Rough costs and schedule for each option; and
  • Positions on key commercial issues, for example intellectual property rights and the ability to use and disclose technical data.
The level of Australian industry involvement will be a fundamental consideration, as will interoperability with our alliance partner, the US.
The competitive evaluation will take at least ten months, after which time Defence will bring advice to Government for consideration.
The Government will continue to ensure that a careful, considered and methodical approach is taken in making decision on the future submarine.
The opportunity is now there for industry to engage with international partners and to demonstrate that maximum Australian involvement can deliver an affordable and quality submarine such that this vision can become a reality. 
EXPERT ADVISORY PANEL
As part of the Government’s commitment to a robust and transparent competitive evaluation, we will soon be announcing the appointments to an Expert Advisory Panel to oversee the competitive evaluation process.
This panel will oversee the conduct of the process, including ensuring its probity, managing any conflicts of interest, and ensuring that confidentiality is maintained in relation to all sensitive information received during the process.
This oversight will provide the Government and the public with confidence that the evaluation process not only is, but is seen to be, fair and defensible, and that the will robustly address all relevant factors, allowing Government to balance importance considerations, for acquisition and through life support, including capability, cost, schedule, and risk.
In closing, as you know, the first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens.
As the newly appointed Defence Minister, I ask that we work together to bring this about." ENDS
Pete

March 26, 2015

Documents for Competitive Evaluation Process sent to (Likely) Bidders

Rear Admiral Gregory John Sammut, Head Future Submarine Program with long experience as a submariner and other positions.
---
Mr Harry Dunstall, Acting CEO, DMO (Defence Material Organisation). Only a thumbnail photo available.
---

Australia's Future Submarine Summit (“Sub Summit”) Adelaide, South Australia, March 24-26, 2015 is just finishing. Many Australian politicians, military officers, officials and some lucky journalists took part as well as foreign industry representatives and foreign naval officers.

Yesterday (March 25) much logical procedural information for the competitive evaluation process was reported in the media. These details are in several news items but mainly the following http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/government-advisory-panel-to-overseas-future-submarine-project/story-fns0jze1-1227278674311 :

Defence Minister Kevin Andrews reaffirmed that the competitive evaluation process would continue. Andrews said that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s [of the ALP “Labor Party”] alternate policy of a Tender (that also included Sweden) would not be adopted. Significantly Shorten promised he would honour any submarine contracts signed by the Abbott Government.

Andrews said the Abbott government will appoint an expert advisory panel to ensure accountability for the first phase of the future submarine project. That "The panel will oversee the “competitive evaluation process” between companies from Germany and France and the Government of Japan. Industry representatives questioned the move and many wondered how the evaluation process could possibly be fair when Japan was being dealt with on a government-to-government basis while the German and French builders were on a commercial level."

“It looks to me like the decision might already have been made,” said one CEO who asked to remain anonymous. “This whole process clearly favours Japan.”

Acting CEO of DMO, Harry Dunstall, said the project…would include maximum Australian industry involvement regardless of where the vessels were built. There are three build options on the table, an overseas build, an Australian build or a hybrid build between Australia and an overseas yard.

Mr Dunstall said potential build partners would submit pre-concept plans by November 2015 with a decision to be made by government in early 2016.

[Another source advised “Harry Dunstall, …told the conference that after the bidding contracts had been signed, there would be an eight-month period during which the companies would prepare their preliminary design proposal and present it to the government for consideration. [Question - Is that an additional stage of the process?]

Dunstall said Australia would insist on full access to all technical and intellectual property details related to the project for the life of the boats.

And firms would be banned from entering exclusive teaming arrangements with the bidders before a contract was signed.

“All potential international partners are to be treated fairly,” Mr Dunstall said. “We want industry to be available to work with any international partner that we choose.”

Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, Head Future Submarine Program said key attributes for an Australian submarine were;
-          range (how far they could travel)
-          endurance (how long they could stay there)
-          payload
-          stealth and
-          sensors.

Separately Germany’s TKMS reported that they just received the:
-          draft contract
-          statement of work
-          data descriptions which tell us what we need to do, and
-          functional performance specifications (sent through classified channels)

Presumably Japan and France's DCNS received this documentation at the same time?

“Submarines must be capable of offensive operations … to strike the key capabilities of an adversary before they can be brought to bear against our interests,” Rear Admiral Sammut said.

He said the future submarine had to be affordable and delivered on schedule and in a fit state for the operators and he issued a warning about “over optimistic” delivery schedule.

Please link with Submarine Matters' article of March 24, 2015 MHI and KHI not at Australia's Future Submarine Summit, Adelaide, March 24-26, 2015

Pete

March 24, 2015

MHI and KHI not at Australia's Future Submarine Summit, Adelaide, March 24-26, 2015

Australia's Future Submarine Summit is being held in Adelaide, South Australia on March 24-26, 2015. There are many Australian politicians, military officers and officials due to speak as well as foreign industry representatives.  

The content carried in an article of March 22, 2015 from the Reuters Tokyo office has been reproduced in the Australia media. The Reuters article reported: “The no-show by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries [MHI] and Kawasaki Heavy Industries [KHI] at an event called Australia's Future Submarine Summit, held amid intensifying competition for the deal, exposes a potential weak link in Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's more muscular security agenda: Japan Inc.”

It is significant that two retired Japanese Vice Admirals, Masao Kobayashi and Yoji Koda (details of each below) are attending the Summit and are due to speak on March 26, 2015 - both are advisers to Japan's National Security Council. Some Australian newspapers (such as the Herald Sun drawing on The Adelaide Advertiser) did mention the Japanese Admiral’s attending. 

Perhaps officers from the Japanese Consulate, Adelaide and Japanese Embassy, Australia will also attend? The presence of the retired Japanese admirals who still advise the Japanese Government clearly indicates that Japanese bilateral relationship-alliance with Australia is Japan’s main submarine sale strength. Japan's approach at present seems to rely less on commercial approaches given the absence of MHI and KHI. This is in contrast to France and Germany’s more commercial approach – though German government representatives will also be present in Adelaide.

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF THE RETIRED JAPANESE ADMIRALS


 Vice Admiral Masao KOBAYASHI, JMSDF (Retd) photo (above) courtesy Sub Summit

Maseo is now an adviser to Japan's National Security CouncilBiodata: "Masao graduated from the Japanese Defense Academy in 1973 and commenced a career in the JMSDF submarine service. He had held many posts in the submarine force. Shore billets included Submarine Branch Head in the Ship Systems Section in the Maritime Staff Office and Operations Officer in the Fleet Submarine Force. He has commanded TAKASHIO SS-571, (Uzushio class), and has been the Commander of Submarine Division Two. In 2001/2 he was the Commander of Submarine Flotilla One, and was Coordinator of Exercise at sea for Pacific Reach 2002. Masao’s last post was as Commander of the Fleet Submarine Force. He retired from the MSDF in 2009. Vice Admiral KOBAYASHI served with distinction in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and is well regarded as an authourity in the submariner community." See Kobayashi's comments on submarines to the Japanese press - reported January 18, 2015.
---


Vice Admiral Yoji KODA, JMSDF (Retd) - photo (above) courtesy Sub Summit

Yoji is Maseo is also an adviser to Japan's National Security Council. Biodata: "Yoji is a graduate of the Japanese Defense Academy in 1972, the JMSDF Staff College, and the US Naval War College. As a Surface Warfare Officer, he has commanded JS SAWAYUKI (DD-125), Flotilla Three and Fleet Escort Force at sea. Yoji’s shore duties include tours as Director General (DG) for Plans and Operations, Maritime Staff and Director-General of the Joint Staff. He retired from the JMSDF as Commander in Chief, Self-Defense Fleet, in 2008. Following retirement from active duty, he was invited to join the Asia-Center, Harvard University as a research fellow researching the US-Japan Alliance and the Chinese Navy during 2009/11. Yoji is a prolific writer on maritime and strategic subjects in both Japanese and English, and his most recent articles include “A new Carrier Race [large PDF file]” and “The Russo-Japanese War” published by the US Naval War College. He contributed to “Refighting the Pacific War (an Alternative History of World War II)” published by the US Naval Institute in 2011. He is currently an advisor to National Security Agency. Vice Admiral Koda served with distinction in the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and his body of academic subject matter speaks for itself."

Admiral Koda, in late March 2015, raised the possibility that most of Australia's possible Soryus might be built in Australia. However there has been little or no discernable support in the Japanese government, military, MHI or KHI for this approach.

Pete

February 21, 2015

Australia Narrows the Future Submarine Bidders to Japan, Germany and France.

On Friday 20, 2015 the Australian Governments decided to select:

- 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

The longest article is http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/at-least-500-jobs-to-come-from-submarine-project-but-no-guarantee-of-local-construction-20150220-13k5c0.html with more on South Australia’s expected negative reaction

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

January 25, 2015

Japanese Concerns Over Any Soryu Sale to Australia

Prime Ministers Abbott and Abe, on April 7, 2014, when they concluded a framework agreement for co-operation on defence equipment and technology (including submarine hydrodynamics). This is/was a preliminary to any Soryu sale. Abbott's political position is now threatened. 
---

As Prime Minister Abbott - the main Australian advocate for a Soryu deal  steadily weakens politically it is valuable to consider possible Japanese concerns and misgivings over a Soryu sale.

Several days ago an Anonymous commenter said [retired Admiral]"Kobayashi is not arrogant, he just does not want to sell sub tech, that’s all. Australian thinks that Japan wants to sell her subs like Germany, Sweden or France. But this idea is perfectly wrong and huge misunderstanding, Japan does not want at all. Soryu’s secret is more important and valuable than money which Australia will pay Japan." 

Enlarging on possible Japanese concerns yields the following possibilities.

Unlike other western countries involved in Australia's submarine selection - Japan is the only country actually in danger of conflict - with North Korea and to a lesser extent with Russia and China. Other contenders - Germany, France and Sweden - are not at risk. For these latter three countries the submarine selection is only a commercial-trade matter - while for Japan it is most importantly a strategic alliance, national security matter.

A sale of Soryus to Australia may weaken Japan's national security:

Selling to Australia would involve a major diversion of Japanese industrial and submarine corps resources to plan, train and generally liase with Australian industry and Australian submariners. Japan's limited resources might be better focussed monitoring or more active measures against Japan's potential enemies.

Sales to Australia might disrupt Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) submarine production lines to supply the Japanese submarine corps. This particularly in view of Japan's goal of expanding its submarine corps from the current 16 operational submarine to the goal of 22 submarines. More specifically there may be strategic pressure for a Soryu earmarked (by contract) for Australia on a production line to be diverted to thJapan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) instead. Such a diversion might raise political and contractual difficulties for Japan.

The prospect of sales to Australia may encourage the Soryu's submarine builders (MHI and KHI) to modify the Soryus to a standard configuration that does not suit JMSDF requirements. For example it is possible that two reasons for Japan's decision to delete Stirling air independent propulsion (AIP)  from the future batch of Soryus were:
- Australia's assessment, since the 1980s, that AIP is problematic, involving negative trade-offs, that  do not meet Australia's needs, and
- for legal property right reasons Japan could not sell Swedish Stirling engine AIP technology to third countries, including Australia.

It is also possible the future batch of Soryu will have much longer range, to suit Australia's operational requirements but this longer range might not be ideal for the JMSDF's needs.

Due to China's trade value to Australia Japan cannot rely on Australia to support Japan in any confrontation or outright conflict with China (eg. arising from East China or South China Sea matters). Australains see the islands in the East China and South China Seas as more to do with current opportunistic economic claims than national historical claims. This means that in any conflict in those seas Australia may support the claims of its major trade partner - which is China.

Australia's security laws and rules may be detrimental to Japan's security overall. Part of the weakness would stem from Chinese government and corporate  influence over Australia. For example Australia's China situation may result in Australian steel-making companies inadvertently sharing newly acquired Japanese steel secrets with Chinese steelmaking business partners.

Australia's laws overall make racial discrimination illegal in employment - particularly for government jobs, including the submarine corps. A main area of Japanese concern might be Australian tolerance of former Chinese citizens, or ethnic Chinese generally, being inducted as Australian submariners or into broader Australian government or submarine-shipbuilding industry positions. China has a reputation for pressuring ethnic Chinese in the West - even if they have only distant cousins or elderly grandparents still living in China. The Chinese government can deny Chinese citizens careers, lose jobs, lose pensions or worse if their Australia based relatives are not cooperative. Australia cannot match Japan's ability to control the ethnic security of submarine crews or such security in the broader submarine industry.