Abbott's "Open Tender" Future Submarine Call Doesn't Go Far Enough

Prime Minister Abbott seems to be the main advocate for "Buy Soryu and Built it in Japan" however his hold on the position of Prime Minister (PM) is still threatened. Yesterday (February 8, 2015) PM Abbott appeared to say that the future submarine issue should go to open tender.  But Abbott was not definite in stating what he meant. He did not say "Build the submarines in Adelaide". It was unclear whether the government owned Australian Submarine Corporations (ASC) would be ordered to ally itself with the Japanese Soryu (KHI and MHI) "bid". It remains likely the Soryus would mostly be built in Japan but as is already anticipated the US-Australian developed combat system might be mostly fitted in Adelaide by ASC.
- The extract in that article "It is understood that France, Germany, Sweden and Japan were to be named in a selective tender process that would allow Australia to solicit bids from other governments, rather than just corporations."  is ambiguous. It may be aimed at the US Government providing the combat system. It may also suggest there will be much weight given in choosing the winning "bid" on what bidding governments have to offer. This would favor Japan in the context of the Japan-Australia free trade agreement . The Japan-Australia strategic alliance issue I wrote about in my previous article would also favor Japan. The other contenders (Germany, France, Sweden) do not bring such economic and strategic benefits to the table.

On February 8, rather than making a serious effort to plan the future submarine build Abbott appeared to be just securing votes from Federal Liberal Party politicians from South Australia to support him in a No-confidence meeting on February 9, 2015.

Although Abbott won enough votes (at the 9am February 9, 2015 meeting in Canberra) from his Liberal Party to stay PM Abbott's survival as PM remains unresolved. This is because there was a split vote, 61 votes he should stay on and a substantial minority of 39 votes that he should stand down. This reflects continuing unhappiness at Abbott's non-consultative leadership style. More no-confidence votes are likely in the months to come.

Now that the immediatte threat to Abbott's PM job is over continuing submarine discontent of politicians in Adelaide is being heard. This more recent article (February 9, 2015) from Australia's ABC indicates: The South Australia State Defence Minister, Martin Hamilton-Smith, believes the newly promised shift to an open tender process for future submarines falls short of the Federal Government's promise that ASC would build the submarines in Adelaide. He believed the open tender process could still result in the ships being built overseas. So he believes that Build 12 submarines in Adelaide should be a definite condition of the tender.

- Independent Federal Senator Nick Xenophon said he was also deeply sceptical about Mr Abbott's new promise for an open tender process. Mr Xenophon said the PM should have announced that the tender process would lead to the subs being built in Australia.

- Federal Defence Minister Kevin Andrews urges caution and patience

Overall Abbott needs to be more explicit that he now supports a truly open tender with most of the build in Adelaide - not a rigged tender that favors a build in Japan. If Abbott remains vague, without Prime Ministerial OR Defence Ministerial Media Releases, Abbott may easily renege-backtrack as his 2014 broken promise of "Build in South Australia". 

In terms of what submarines should be built I think the cost of a totally new or heavily modified 3,000-4,000 ton (surfaced) submarines would be too expensive and involve overly long lead-times. Also since the end of Australia's mining boom, 2 years ago, Australia doesn't have the $20-$25 Billions for 10 to 12 large, possibly orphan, subs. More money towards other voter-popular causes (health, education, welfare) would keep Abbott in his job as PM and the Coalition in power.

Large, heavily modified submarines, built in Australia or overseas, are such a tough choice I think Abbott would describe it as a lose-lose decision. 

If I had my way I'd just buy 6 medium size (Scorpene, HDW 214, Dolphin 2, or Kockums A26) from France, Germany or Sweden for $5 Billion TOTAL price (ie. just over A$800 million per submarine).

Odds on Abbott makes no major decision till 2017 - that is AFTER the next election. - even if the US is applying pressure. Regarding US pressure, note this timely scholarly comment of MIT’s Jonathan D. Caverley “The thumb on the scales that has Australia leaning towards Japan for its submarines has an American fingerprint.” (page 19 of Running Faster to Stay in Place: U.S. Defence Exports in 2030 within RSIS’s  http://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/idss/the-global-arms-industry-in-2030-and-beyond/#.VNhLU_mUen8 )

Pete

Australia - the future junior ally of Japan - revised

Most of the following article was also publised at Australia's On Line Opinion news http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17065

The revision is at FURTHER COMMENT below.

As the political reputation of Australia's Prime Minister, currently Tony Abbott, plummets, some of his more outlandish foreign policy ideas are being seen for what they are. This article doesn’t raise the bright ideas of rushing Australian troops to Ukraine, presumably to hold back Russian tanks, or to rush Australian troops to the Middle East, where those troops waited for an Iraqi invitation for two months, but the policy of buying into an alliance with Japan.

News.com.au reported on July 9, 2014 that: “AUSTRALIA and Japan have become partners in a “special relationship” that will see both countries join with the US in a powerful military alliance aimed at curbing China’s influence in the region. During an extraordinary day in the long Australia-Japan relationship, yesterday in Canberra both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe pledged to create a partnership for “peace, prosperity and the rule of law”. Fresh from reversing almost 70 years of pacifism embedded in his nation’s post-World War 2 constitution, Mr Abe placed Australia alongside the US at the forefront of Japan’s future defence strategy.”

Alliance maintenance through weapon system purchases has long been a factor in Australia’s relationship with the US. However, as the US has no conventional submarines to sell, there is a joint US-Japanese scheme to sell Japanese submarines to Australia. The purchase price for Australia to secure this alliance with Japan is now around $25Billion (with the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar compared to the US dollar). This is specifically for 12 Made in Japan submarines. Abbott’s budgetary ideas have skimped on health, education and welfare but money is no object when paying for a military alliance from Abbott’s friend, the like-minded conservative Japanese Prime Minister Abe. 

[Note this Submarine Matters article, of February 4, 2015, appears to have triggered a subsequent  article of February 7 in The Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/japan-fears-25bn-submarine-deal-at-risk-in-tony-abbott-crisis/story-e6frg8yo-1227211135322  :-]

By having Japan build our submarines Abbott can also run down Australia’s ship and submarine-building industry, which he sees as a hotbed of Labor, leftwing, union interests anyway.

So what’s in it for Japan? Well the money helps. Japan also frets about what it sees as rising threats from China, North Korea and increasingly Russia. However Japan is mainly thinking about the potential economic benefits of contested islands in the South China and East China Seas.

Few Australians know or care about several disputes in the East China Sea involving China, Taiwan, Japan and others. Possibly the most dangerous Japan versus China dispute is over a small island chain - which is known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan, the Diaoyu Islands in China and the Diaoyutai Islands in Taiwan. The importance of the Senkakus are that great unmentionable factor - oil. Oil draws military forces – be they Australian forces in the Middle East or future Australian forces in Northeast Asia.

The US, for its part, is worried about the cost of keeping the world’s oceans open for trade, including oil. Although the US, in the next 12 months, will be spending many extra $Billions to maintain the Asia-Pacific “pivot” against China the US increasingly wants Japan to spend more on defence. Japan’s current defence spending is only about 1% of its GDP. The US also wants Japan to secure military alliances – that is with the few countries interested – not South Korea or most Southeast Asian countries - after Japan’s horrific conduct in World War Two.

The US and Japan are quite explicit in seeing a submarine sale as Australia-Japan strategic alliance cement. A US Admiral has condescended to interpret what an Australian Defence Minister really wanted. The Japan Times of January 18, 2015 reports: "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,’…”

Also in that Japan Times article retired Japanese submarine admiral Masao Kobayashi said."The U.S., which has close but separate security pacts with Japan and Australia, probably wants Australia to buy Japanese submarines because it would greatly strengthen their strategic military ties.”

When anyone bothers to ask ordinary Australians whether Australia should be drawn into a conflict by an additional senior ally (Japan) the response appears encouragingly negative. ABC News (online), January 6, 2015, reported the results of a Survey of over 1,000 Australians, which indicated “Australians would overwhelmingly reject siding with close ally Japan against top-trade partner China over a dispute in the East China Sea and prefer to remain neutral.” In the article Australia's former Foreign Minister Bob Carr said “…as far as the public was concerned, Australia was not obliged under the Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) treaty to make a commitment…".

Now it needs to be explained that the Survey, Australian Attitudes on ANZUS and the East China Sea , was commissioned by the Australia-China Relations Institute (ACRI) . ACRI was established in December 2013 with a grant of $1.8 million from a citizen of China. Bob Carr is the Director of ACRI.

Before one writes off ACRI as a support system for Chinese interests and for Bob Carr it must be said that ACRI was officially launched on May 16, 2014 by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. Given the Coalition’s declining fortunes Bob may be a “former Foreign Minister” for a very short time. He may again be Foreign Minister after the next Federal Election.

If Abbott has his way Australia will be junior ally not only of the US but of Japan with either of those two drawing Australia into their wars. It must be asked “If or when Abbott stands down as Prime Minister would a Coalition Government still pursue an alliance with Japan?”

If Labor wins in the next election would Bill Shorten (who agrees with Abbott’s Middle East policies) pursue an alliance with Japan?

Is a survey a genuine gauge of what Australians’ want? How else can we, the public, influence basic foreign and defence policy changes - including multi $Billion defence alliances with “friends” likely to draw Australia into wars?

FURTHER COMMENT

US Admiral Thomas (mentioned above) might be right that the Soryu might be the closest approximation of what the Australian Government thinks it wants in a submarine. I disagree and think a modified HDW Dolphin 2 or 214, enlarged DCNS Scorpene or Saab-Kockums A26 part or mostly built in Australia, would be more reasonable on military, technical, cost, Australian industrial and political grounds. Regarding Admiral Thomas's public advice to Australia - in the Australian system of values serving military men should not get involved in what are key issues between other countries (in this case Australia and Japan). If the current US Defence Secretary (still Chuck Hagel?) wants to offer advice, then that is his legitimate multi-lateral right and responsibility.

The main problem with the Soryu, apart from "Build in Japan only", is that selection of that submarine brings grave strategic, political and economic risks for Australia. 

That risk centers on being drawn into Japan's battles involving Australia's main trading partner (China). Such Japanese battles may not even relate to Japan's national survival but to sometimes slender Japanese claims to undersea oil resources.

Japan appears immature. Japan is unwilling to introduce peaceful precedent solutions such as those that occured in Northwestern Europe six decades ago. The Western European solution of sharing the oil and profits for "North Sea Oil" is what mature, peaceful countries should be doing in Northeast Asia.

Admittedly politics encouraged Australia from the 1960s to choose then operate the British built Oberon submarines. But Britain by then was not expecting Australia to get involved in Britain's battles. Britain like the US was a long term friend and mentor of Australia - Japan isn't.

Life would be so much easier if the US had conventional submarines to sell to Australia or if Australia took up the US offer in early 2012 for Australia to buy or lease Virginia SSNs.

It is a political and economic necessity that some or most of a conventional submarine build take place in Australia. Australia has the capacity to build conventional submarines but not nuclear submarines. 

These are all things for embattled Prime Minister Tony Abbott to work through - in his relations with Coalition Backbenchers and some Coalition Frontbenchers from Australia's submarine states of Victoria, NSW, Western Australia and South Australia.

BACKGROUND

Note that two senior Australian defence commentators are saying the same thing as me - see:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/defence-should-not-swing-on-abbotts-whimsy-20150202-133mfj.html, and

http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/574/The-consequences-of-capricious-decision-making

Pete

Possible Australian Future Submarine Competition Again Raised

DCNS SMX Ocean concept submarine - being offered to Australia as the "conventional Barracuda".
---

Dramatic DCNS sales video for the SMX Ocean.

---

news.com.au published an article on January 31, 2015 that confirms the expectation (recorded here) that the Australian Government may announce (in the next few weeks) that it is holding a submarine selection competition. news.com.au is owned by Murdoch's News Limited. Some useful data  in the article concerrns the contenders wishing to sell to Australia:

"THE PLAYERS AND THEIR MARKETS

*DCNS - France, Brazil, Pakistan, India, Chile and Malaysia

*Saab Kockums - Sweden, Australia

*TKMS - Germany, Brazil, Greece, South Korea, Portugal, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and South Africa.

*Kawasaki/Mitsubishi Japan - Soryu Class Japan only"

In any competition France's DCNS is likely to include the "conventional Barracuda" (SMX Ocean) in any bid (see artist's conception and video above).

Comments in the news.com.au article are very much in line with what I have argued in Submarine Matters over the last few weeks.

Within the article the submarine expert at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Andrew Davies, commented that any Soryu deal "...is government-to-government and the Japanese are not interested in a commercial competition. This would be their first submarine collaboration and they don’t see themselves as a commercial bidder.”

This Japanese assumption that it is above commercial bidding may already render a "competition" a meaningless exercise that endorses the Soryu as the winning "bidder". 

The only major error in the news.com.au article is the statement one-third the way down that "...DCNS [is bidding] an evolved nuclear boat that is already in service." This is incorrect. DCNS is offering what it calls a "conventional Barracuda" (also called "SMX Ocean"). The Barracuda itself is a not-yet-launched nuclear submarine-"boat". Launch of the first Barracuda may occur in 2017. That Barracuda may be in-service in 2018 but probably later. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Barracuda-class_submarine. 

Due to the complexity of a conventional Barracuda's propulsion system any conventional Barracuda might not be in service until 2025 - and that is if DCNS finds a customer.

See my earlier article of October 31, 2014 which describes how different a conventional Barracuda-SMX Ocean would be from the nuclear version (that is still under construction). 

Still it has to be said that while conventional Barracuda-SMX Ocean is at the conceptual stage, the likely German bid, the TKMS-HDW 216, is even more conceptual. The increasingly used term "vapour-ware" applies to the 216.

The Australian Government may be ensuring decades of problems if it assumes that the Soryu challenge can only be met by very large submarines that don't exist. Instead a large version of the existing Scorpene or of the HDW Dolphin should be seriously considered as contenders. The automatic assumption held by the Government since 2009 that the future submarine MUST be heavier (surfaced) than  the Collins forgets that the relationship between size and range is not linear. The range of the already built HDW 214 is already 12,000 miles. See more argument here.

Pete

Balance of Power Senator Lambie AND Limited Submarine Competition?

Senator Nick Xenophon (left) and Senator Jacqui Lambie (right) 

---

Balance of Power Senator Lambie

See February 1, 2015 revisions in Red.

The intervention on January 30, 2015 (see ABC article) of Australian Senator Jacqui Lambie in favour of Build the Future Submarine in Australia is of major significance. On that date Senator Lambie and Senator Nick Xenophon visited ASC in Adelaide, South Australia. The significance of the visit and statements by Lambie and Xenophon have been basically ignored by the international submarine industry and commentariat.

Senator Lambie does not tick all the superficial boxes considered important in the industry. She is not a tall, alpha male in a suit, with long experience as a senior politician or a retired senior military commander. She is relatively new to the Australian Parliament and rose to the rank of Corporal in the Army Reserve (however a certain German, who became powerful, rose to Corporal 100 years ago :)

Independent Senator Lambie, however, is one of the major holders of the balance of power in the Australian Federal Parliament with a record of threatening to block - or actually blocking - major $Billion dollar bills (also called "legislation"). Lambie, with other Senators, could potentially block or hinder the Abbott Government's pro-Soryu policy. 

Balance of power comes by way of the governing Liberal/National Coalition not having a majority of seats in the Australian Parliament’s Upper House – the Senate. There are 76 Senators, including:

- Liberal/National Coalition - 33 seats

- Australian Labor Party the main opposition party - 25 seats

The Minor Parties are:

- Greens (who often vote with Labor) - 10 seats

- Palmer United Party 2 seats

- Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party – 1 seat

- Liberal Democrats – 1 seat

- Family First Party – 1 seat

The Independents are:

- John Madigan – 1 seat

- Nick Xenophon – 1 seat, and

- Jacqui Lambie – 1 seat.

The Coalition requires 6 non-Coalition Senators to pass bills. Labor and the Greens regularly vote against the Coalition. This often leaves a Balance of Power situation where the governing Coalition needs 4 Senators from the other Minor Parties and/or Independents to vote with the Coalition. 

Jacqui Lambie has been the most recent Senator to become an Independent and she is the most unpredictable Senator.

Before voting the Coalition Government often has to "horse trade" on issues to avoid the embarrassing situation of having legislation blocked in the Senate because there are too many Senator votes against the Coalition's piece of legislation.

Senator Lambie is highly principled and represents Australia's smallest State, Tasmania. She might  expect some components for any new submarine would be made in Tasmania.

Senator Nick Xenophon from the submarine building and sustainment State of South Australia is coordinating efforts with Senator Lambie to potentially threaten to block any Submarine Made in Japan moves.

They admit they are coordinating efforts because Prime Minister Abbott's power is declining - making more amenable to the idea of Build in Australia. They recognise the major push for Soryu Made in Japan comes from Abbott's parliamentary office not Defence Minister Andrews' office.

The fall of the Coalition State Government in Queensland on the night of January 31, 2015 has further weakened Abbott's position.

Limited Submarine Competition

Separately in the ABC article is the prediction that: The Abbott government "is expected to announce a limited competition for the new generation submarine project involving firms from Japan, Germany and France in a matter of weeks." 

A limited competition is quite possible, but given a submarine purchase may cost $20+ Billions, the competition and the bids (or re-bids) from Japan, Germany and France would probably be long and comprehensive. The "competition" may also be used by Abbott and Andrews as a false exercise in "due diligence" to confirm that the current choice - the Soryu - has "won" the "competition". Choice of the Soryu, after all, is heavily about alliances - about alliance obligations to the US and by extension Japan - not only about the usual tender technical parameteres.

Pete

Indian Possible Interest in Buying-Building Japan's Soryu Submarine - Australia

Two Prime Ministers - Japan's Abe and India's Modi. Are their countries close enough for a Soryu deal?

---

The Indian press reported on January 29, 2015 that India, under submarine purchasing-building Project-75I (I for India), may wish to select six Japanese Soryu submarines for building in India. The Rs 50,000 crore project price converts to $US8,133,990,000 that is $US8.13 Billion (where one crore is 10,000,000 Indian Rupees and one Rupee is worth 0.016 US Dollars).

See reference on Submarine Matters to:
-  the slow pace of the Project-75I selection way back to 2008 and 2011
-  then an article of August 2014 (which also mentions the already building 6 Scorpene "Project-75" no "I")
-  see also the 2014 reference to the DRDO fuel cell which has complicated Project-75

If a legitimate tender process is held other contenders to sell a large conventional submarine are:
-  Germany (TKMS-HDW)
-  Russia (Rosoboronexport)
-  Spain (Navantia)
-  Sweden (Saab-Kockums), and 
-  France (DCNS). 

COMMENT

Several problems already seem evident in the possibility of Japan selling Soryus to India:

1. India's "build in India" intention may clash with Japan's (to date) insistence that any Soryus it markets should be built in Japan. 

There may be a solution that may allay many of Japan's concerns. If Japan is interested it can contact me by email - see email on my profile...

2.  Japan would be mindful of India's closeness to Japan's strategic opponent, Russia. Japan is very sensitive to the security of its submarine technology secrets. Therefore Japan would not want the secrets of any Soryu that is sold to India to be passed on to one of Japan's opponents. India has been close to Russia on a defence sales, weapons' development and on secondment of personnel, levels for decades. India and Russia are particularly close on submarine high technology matters - including INS Chakra, the Akula II SSN that Russia has long leased to India. 

3.  India may perhaps have a problematic reputation as a weapons system buyer from Western firms. France is unfortunate enough to be involved in both the major examples. 

a. The first example is in-building Project-75 (no I) where France (DCNS) has been assisting India to build 6 Scorpenes for the last decade (see Project 75 and third paragraph of this Indian article ). India has expressed displeasure with alleged French caused delays. Over the years India has increasingly wanted AIP in those Scorpenes - India sees AIP as important - in part to surpass the three AIP equipped DCNS Agosta 90Bs submarines operated by Pakistan. But India may not wish to pay the higher price adjustment that DCNS would want to charge (AIP being an expensive upgrade). India has countered with a project by DRDO to develop a fuel cell AIP. India may also be using the usual strategy of great powers (sellers and buyers) - which is delay for political and commercial leverage. 

b. Secondly, under the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition - on 31 January 2012 it was announced that Dassault Rafale won that competition. The MMRCA competition may be worth around US$30 Billion. However on 10 January 2015, India hinted it would not sign the Rafale deal with Dassault but instead perhaps buy more Su-30MKIs or Su-35s from Russia. India may also be attempting to leverage a better result from Russia on the joint India-Russia PAK- FA stealth fighter-bomber project - also known as the T-50. 

4.  If India insists on AIP this may cause problems for Japan. In Japan's first 5 Soryus Japan included Stirling engine AIP from Sweden. It is unlikely that Japan would receive Swedish permission to sell Soryus with Stirling AIP to India. Sweden, after all, would prefer to sell its own Saab-Kockums  submarines, with Stirling technology, to India. If Japan accepted an offer from India-DRDO to build an indigenous fuel cell AIP (see above) this may be a problem or opportunity because Japan may be in a strong technological position to jointly or unilaterally develop an AIP.  

Broader Implications - Australia and Canada

If there is a prospect of "build Soryus in India" - even whether or not it happens - this may have implications for any Japanese Soryu sale to Australia. Perhaps "build Soryus in part or whole in Australia" might be more possible?

If India is serious about buying 6 very large conventional submarines - built in India - with AIP - then Germany's HDW 216 and France's SMX Ocean may both be stronger contenders than Japan's (build in Japan - maybe no AIP) Soryu. This may increase the production runs and drive down development costs for the 216 and/or SMX making them more attractive to Australia. Canada has also been grouped with India and Australia as a country with a relatively large budget in need of large, long range, replacement submarines.

Please connect with India's Rising Nuclear and Conventional Submarine Force, May 21, 2015 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/indias-rising-nuclear-and-conventional.html .

Pete

Australian Prime Minister's Decline Weakening "Buy Soryu"

Are the sinking fortunes of Prime Minister Abbott also sinking the Soryu?

The last week has presented a further example of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's  lamentable political  judgement. Abbott is weakening his influence in his own Liberal Party and in Australia generally.

Regarding Australia's biggest future defence purchase - Abbott has frustrated many in his Party by going beyond the normal prime ministerial role. This is in terms of Abbott going over the heads of his former Defence Minister and perhaps his current Defence Minister Kevin Andrews in unilaterally(?) selecting a specific high cost weapons system - the Soryu submarine. If Abbott is doing this to please the US, and/or to build a special relationship with like-minded conservative politician Abe, then Abbott might want to reconsider. A proper tender for the future submarine is needed.

The future submarine (Soryu or not) may be with Australia for 45 years (selection, production, then in-service) perhaps long after Abbott and Abe are forgotten.

Abbott's support for the Soryu has always been opposed by most in his own Party, by many in the Australian Navy and probably most defence civilians in Canberra and Adelaide. With Abbott's decline the Soryu's chances of selection has declined. If or when Abbott is removed by his Party from the Prime Ministerial position it is not clear whether Abbott's policy of "buy Soryu and build in Japan" will be maintained.

Japan may not always be an ally but even a problem for Australia - as has happened before. At a minimum Japan may want Australia to join Japan in armed confrontation against China. Abe and new Defence Minister Nakatani are a rightwing departure from Japan's usual pacifist defence policies. They may change the defence complexion of Japan - not necessarily in line with Australian interests.

Abbott may have a conservative ally and loyal supporter in new Defence Minister Kevin Andrews. However Kevin Andrews is too new to the Defence portfolio, with no track record on defence issues, to have his own base of power to support a Soryu purchase - yet. Like earlier Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson Andrews may make a good Defence Minister in the near future.

There is powerful support in Abbott's own Party, the Navy and the Defence Department for the build of part or all of the future submarine in Australia. Germany's TKMS, France's DCNS and Sweden's Saab have made strong bids that support "Build in Australia." This means that if Abbott goes these other bids may win. Japan may need to be flexible enough to counter with a genuine "part or fully build in Australia".

No commentators or politicians are recognising the early January 2015 "Manufacture Soryu submarine steel in Australia" offer as genuine "Build in Australia". This is partly because this Australian steel will just be thrown on Japan's existing submarine steel stockpile. No-one expects Japan to be dependent on Australia for strategically vital submarine steel.

Background

Details on Prime Minister Abbott's latest political mistake, particularly in not consulting his Party, are:

AsiaOne, January 28, 2015 reported http://news.asiaone.com/news/world/australian-pm-abbott-stands-move-knight-prince-philip-takes-criticism-chin :

MELBOURNE Australia - "Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Wednesday he stood by his controversial decision to award Britain's Prince Philip a knighthood and was taking the firestorm of criticism "on the chin".  Several ministers [also called "frontbenchers"] have walked away from Mr Abbott's appointment of the nonagenarian Duke of Edinburgh to the ranks of the Order of Australia, MPs on all sides have mocked the move and the media condemned it severely."

The Australian, a major newspaper from Rupert Murdoch's powerful media empire, ran a highly critical editorial asking: "Tony Abbott is in office but is he prime minister?" http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/tony-abbott-is-in-office-but-is-he-prime-minister/story-e6frg71x-1227198890579 : 

"The decision to turn a distant duke into a knight Down Under suggests a prime minister who is tone deaf or, worse, complacent in his power to push through a personal preference indifferent to the fact that it is bound to enrage and bewilder many," it said."

Pete