Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

rockitten · Feb 4, 2016

John Newman said:
John,
So what would happen in Australia if the LNP said 'yes we are ordering Nuclear Submarines'?

The ALP would most likely oppose such a decision, based on their 'nuclear' position and also fear of loosing even more votes to the Greens.

Maybe I'm right (maybe I'm wrong), but I just can't see that either major political party would go down that path (a bloody big path to go down), unless they knew the other side would support such a decision.

Nuclear submarines for Australia? Not until both major sides of politics are on the same page!!

Just my opinion of course!!

One extra point I can think of, is that, if RAN really adopt SSN from USN (no matter by lend least or FMS), that will be an "end of story" for the submarine industry in Australia. They are mostly likely built in US, and major over-hull/upgrades are very likely being done in US as well.

The unions will surely pressure ALP to vote against that idea.

alexsa · Feb 4, 2016

John Newman said:
John,

Does Australia have to have nuclear power stations (and an expanded nuclear industry) in place to have nuclear submarines? I think from a pure 'technical' point of view the answer is probably 'no', (but we would have to have a hell of a lot of support from our US and UK friends to be in a position to do so).

The question is more about the politics of 'nuclear', nuclear in all it's forms in this country.

From a pure political point of view we don't have 'majority' agreement amongst the major political parties, simple as that.

The 'far right' and 'centre right' of politics could reasonably go to the their voters and say we are going to have Nuclear submarines, and they probably wouldn't loose any votes by having that position (are they going to go further to the 'right'? I think not).

On the other hand the 'centre left' and the 'far left' is a whole different kettle of fish, the 'far left', the Greens, will always say NO! NO! NO!, to anything nuclear, simple as that, its in their DNA.

The 'centre left', the ALP has been fundamentally opposed to Nuclear power in Australia, whilst that is still a policy, then (in my opinion), they would never advocate the acquisition of Nuclear Submarines, the word 'nuclear' would just drive the more left of their support to the far left, eg, the Greens.

As we all know, political survival comes before anything else with political parties.

A good example of 'bi partisan' support is the difference between the F-35 acquisition in Australia vs the F-35 acquisition in Canada.

In Australia, both the LNP Coalition and the ALP are on the same page when it comes to the F-35, both support the acquisition, neither party risks the possibility that either party will cancel the choice of the other, (the Greens don't have a say and it doesn't matter what they think, the majority rules).

Canada on the other hand, appears to have a fundamental difference between the right and the left, the right should have ordered the F-35 (but didn't have the balls), the left said they wouldn't select the F-35 and select another alternative.

And the saga continues to drag on, simply a fundamental difference between both sides of politics.

So what would happen in Australia if the LNP said 'yes we are ordering Nuclear Submarines'?

The ALP would most likely oppose such a decision, based on their 'nuclear' position and also fear of loosing even more votes to the Greens.

Maybe I'm right (maybe I'm wrong), but I just can't see that either major political party would go down that path (a bloody big path to go down), unless they knew the other side would support such a decision.

Nuclear submarines for Australia? Not until both major sides of politics are on the same page!!

Just my opinion of course!!

You are right. The Greens will align with the ALP the vast majority of the time but there are conditions on that ..... Particularly where they have the Balance of power in the senate. To come out, even in opposition, and support something that is completely at odds with the Greens mantra could have significant ramifications.

John Newman · Feb 4, 2016

alexsa said:
You are right. The Greens will align with the ALP the vast majority of the time but there are conditions on that ..... Particularly where they have the Balance of power in the senate. To come out, even in opposition, and support something that is completely at odds with the Greens mantra could have significant ramifications.

The problem for the ALP (as opposed to the LNP), there is a clear alternative for the more 'extreme' views, if you are on the left of the left, then it's not a very big jump going from being an ALP voter to a Greens voter (in many respects the people who currently vote Green would have traditionally been the far left ALP voters).

On the other side, the LNP side, there is of course an 'extreme' of the right too, but realistically there is no clearly established 'alternative' right party, yes there will always be the odd independent or the odd more extreme 'right' independent party.

So when it comes to policy shifts, the LNP generally has far less to loose if it moves to the right or back closer to the centre, the ALP on the other hand (from all my years on this planet watching politics in this country), tends to have more 'volatile' support, if it moves too close to the right, then the disaffected left moves further to the left, eg 'The Greens' because there is something established to grab onto, and at the same time if they move too far to the left, then the more far right of ALP voters might just jump over to the LNP.

Basically what I'm saying is, the ALP generally has more voter support to loose if it goes either too far to either the left or the right.

So again (in my opinion), until the ALP can actually get a clear mandate from the majority of it's voters to back 'nuclear' or at least back and support a nuclear debate, then the chances of Nuclear power or Nuclear submarines in Australia will remain at near zero chance of ever happening.

RobWilliams · Feb 4, 2016

StingrayOZ said:
We won't be looking at Astutes. We would look at Viriginias if we were to look. Which we aren't. Astutes are all basically under construction or finished. You would have to start long lead items again.

Not even the biggest issue, where would you build the things?

Not in Barrow, not got the capacity. You do that and you push Successor down the road.

rossfrb_1 · Feb 4, 2016

alexsa said:
Nope my point is we are ideally placed to use Nuclear power (noting coal fired generation makes up a large proportion of our generation capacity) given our resources and space. Even a small number of plant for base load would go a long way to resolving a green house gas issues that have the greens in a spin but the options is simply 'not on the table' due to the nature of the debate in Australia and the sheer volume of inaccurate information (a lot of it is simple hysteria and/or nonsense).

snip.

I think Australia is unlikely to seriously consider nuclear as a future civil power generation option unless something earth shattering happens. Government and business have their eggs in other baskets.
This from a few days ago (which paints a very rosy future for solar)
Catalyst: Battery powered homes - ABC TV Science

Australia may develop new nuclear industries based around the OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights regarding the generation of isotopes for medical research. But that is about it as far as I can see it going.

Does the lack of a domestic civil nuclear power generating industry help or hinder a future Australian nuclear submarine option?
In some respects I'd say not.
For those opposed (ideologically) to the idea of having civil nuclear power plants in Australia, nuclear subs are similarly going to be unpalatable.
However for non ideological opponents (whoever they are) a nuke sub solution where all the dirty work is done offshore may be more palatable.

Just trying to think outside the square.
rb

peterAustralia · Feb 5, 2016

Australia does not need nuclear power stations. Geography dictates that we have heaps of open space where solar photovoltaic and/or solar thermal could be built. Other countries do not have this advantage, and thus for them nuclear is a viable alternative to coal.

Price per kilowatt hour, I would say wind power, Solar Thermal and Solar photovoltaic and possibly geothermal are cheaper than nuclear, so why bother with nuclear?

What happens when the sun dont shine? the heat is transferred to molten salt, and this heat boils water, creates steam, giving power 24 hours a day (not just day time). Hydro, having two dams at different levels can be used to smooth out energy use (this is done). Water is pumped up when demand is low, water flows down when demand is high. This is done in snowy mountains, and also on the Shoalhaven at lake Yurunga, there are some lakes up near fitzory falls, the water goes up and down every day.

Household batteries make sense in that they even out the load, so that when there is a lot of power they store it, when demand is high they discharge it. A business case can be made as peak power prices are higher than off peak. Batteries are getting cheaper, this is good.

As for nuclear, Australia would be a great place to store the worlds nuclear waste. Find a spot in the middle of the nowhere, dig a sloping hole half a mile deep, and store it there. Seal up each section as you go. The time period where it is of concern is 30 thousand years. Not millions of years. Yes technically it is still radioactive after 30000 years and much much longer, however after 30000 years, the level is so low as to be comparable with natural uranium found in the ground.

I cant believe every time they find a spot in the middle of nowhere to store nuclear waste, it turns out to be a sacred site. Surely there has to be somewhere in the middle of nowhere that is not a sacred site!!!

Would I like to see this happen, (storing nuclear waste in Oz) very much? Will it happen, sigh no because a sector of the populace goes nuts when nuclear is mentioned. If the libs do it, they lose half a million votes. If the ALP does it, they lose half a million votes. So they dont do it.

Aside, in the US coal burning releases dozens of times the radiation than is ever emitted from nuclear plants. This is because coal has small amounts radon gas in it, which is radioactive. (this is true, no BS)

The particulate pollution from coal burning causes a lot of deaths worldwide. In Beijing it takes 2 years of the life expectancy. Add to that greenhouse effect, and you can see that coal is not good stuff. Coal pollution shortens the life significantly of 30 thousand americans every year, about 20 thousand in Europe, heaps more in China, India, Asia. Forbes magazine reports that in China alone coal pollution causes 670,000 premature deaths per year. (thats a LOT IMHO)

Thorium has great promise, much less radioactive waste, proliferation is not an issue, (waste cant be used for bombs), reactors are much, much, much, safer and much smaller. A thorium liquid salt reactor ran for over a decade at Oak Ridge in the 1950s and 1960s. China is now spending billions on developing liquid salt thorium reactors. India is getting into Thorium too (because it has a lot of Thorium and not much uranium). Thorium fuel is a waste product from other mining, so heaps of it is stored around because no one wants it.

Sorry for getting off topic, what I am trying to get at is that nuclear costs more than coal. So if you want to get away from coal you look at the other options. Australia because of its huge landmass and relatively small population can go solar, wind, geothermal fairly easily. Its costs a bit more than coal, but is still cheaper than nuclear. Other nations do not share Australia's geography, that is why they have nuclear power plants and/or are looking to get them.

nothing to do with navies. but Oz wont be getting nuclear power plants. Without nuclear power plants, makes it much less likely that Oz will get nuclear subs IMHO.

Volkodav · Feb 5, 2016

Well thoughtful piece Peter.

I would add uranium processing and reprocessing to the mix for purely economic reasons. Processing adds substantially to the value of exports as well as opening up other export opportunities through removing most concerns of proliferation. Reprocessing could be part of waste disposal, being paid to take waste then making more money through what they could extract through reprocessing before final disposal.

StingrayOZ · Feb 5, 2016

Volkodav said:
Well thoughtful piece Peter.

I would add uranium processing and reprocessing to the mix for purely economic reasons. Processing adds substantially to the value of exports as well as opening up other export opportunities through removing most concerns of proliferation. Reprocessing could be part of waste disposal, being paid to take waste then making more money through what they could extract through reprocessing before final disposal.

Reprocessing will most likely be the future. Closed nuclear cycle.

Nuclear is not an option for subs or for power plants in Australia. We have enough trouble selecting a diesel submarine. We are almost deadlocked on that issue.

Australia has significant mining, we could have significant refinement. People openly talk about uranium hexafluorine export and commissioning refineries in south Australia to process all Australia's export uranium, but it is unlikely to happen. It is a polarizing issue. There are issues beyond environmental concerns. Uranium prices are low. Lots of other countries have excess refinement capacity.

We struggle to close the most polluting coal power station in the OCED or possibly the world (per Mw Hr - Hazelwood). We struggle with building or refurbishing coal power stations.

Japan has an extensive nuclear industry. Has no SSNs. Its more complex than just a question of a nuclear industry.

Stampede · Feb 6, 2016

peterAustralia said:
Australia does not need nuclear power stations.

Thanks Peter for a well written piece.
I'm still traditional re diesel for subs but in the greater context of energy for the future, I would agree that Australia by virtue of it's geography is better placed than many other countries re it's energy options.
If I'm correct Spain has done some great work on energy sustainment with salt as a heat reservoir for electrical power generation.Hopefully some great promise in this technology.
In the naval context Australia does seem to like Spanish Ships,so maybe whether related or not we could share / exploit some of their evolving power generation capabilities.
Two counties both under the sun yet on opposite sides of the world may infact have quite a bit in common.
Now just when is there a decision on SEA 1654.

Regards S

alexsa · Feb 7, 2016

peterAustralia said:
Australia does not need nuclear power stations. Geography dictates that we have heaps of open space where solar photovoltaic and/or solar thermal could be built. Other countries do not have this advantage, and thus for them nuclear is a viable alternative to coal.

Price per kilowatt hour, I would say wind power, Solar Thermal and Solar photovoltaic and possibly geothermal are cheaper than nuclear, so why bother with nuclear?

What happens when the sun dont shine? the heat is transferred to molten salt, and this heat boils water, creates steam, giving power 24 hours a day (not just day time). Hydro, having two dams at different levels can be used to smooth out energy use (this is done). Water is pumped up when demand is low, water flows down when demand is high. This is done in snowy mountains, and also on the Shoalhaven at lake Yurunga, there are some lakes up near fitzory falls, the water goes up and down every day.

Household batteries make sense in that they even out the load, so that when there is a lot of power they store it, when demand is high they discharge it. A business case can be made as peak power prices are higher than off peak. Batteries are getting cheaper, this is good.

As for nuclear, Australia would be a great place to store the worlds nuclear waste. Find a spot in the middle of the nowhere, dig a sloping hole half a mile deep, and store it there. Seal up each section as you go. The time period where it is of concern is 30 thousand years. Not millions of years. Yes technically it is still radioactive after 30000 years and much much longer, however after 30000 years, the level is so low as to be comparable with natural uranium found in the ground.

I cant believe every time they find a spot in the middle of nowhere to store nuclear waste, it turns out to be a sacred site. Surely there has to be somewhere in the middle of nowhere that is not a sacred site!!!

Would I like to see this happen, (storing nuclear waste in Oz) very much? Will it happen, sigh no because a sector of the populace goes nuts when nuclear is mentioned. If the libs do it, they lose half a million votes. If the ALP does it, they lose half a million votes. So they dont do it.

Aside, in the US coal burning releases dozens of times the radiation than is ever emitted from nuclear plants. This is because coal has small amounts radon gas in it, which is radioactive. (this is true, no BS)

The particulate pollution from coal burning causes a lot of deaths worldwide. In Beijing it takes 2 years of the life expectancy. Add to that greenhouse effect, and you can see that coal is not good stuff. Coal pollution shortens the life significantly of 30 thousand americans every year, about 20 thousand in Europe, heaps more in China, India, Asia. Forbes magazine reports that in China alone coal pollution causes 670,000 premature deaths per year. (thats a LOT IMHO)

Thorium has great promise, much less radioactive waste, proliferation is not an issue, (waste cant be used for bombs), reactors are much, much, much, safer and much smaller. A thorium liquid salt reactor ran for over a decade at Oak Ridge in the 1950s and 1960s. China is now spending billions on developing liquid salt thorium reactors. India is getting into Thorium too (because it has a lot of Thorium and not much uranium). Thorium fuel is a waste product from other mining, so heaps of it is stored around because no one wants it.

Sorry for getting off topic, what I am trying to get at is that nuclear costs more than coal. So if you want to get away from coal you look at the other options. Australia because of its huge landmass and relatively small population can go solar, wind, geothermal fairly easily. Its costs a bit more than coal, but is still cheaper than nuclear. Other nations do not share Australia's geography, that is why they have nuclear power plants and/or are looking to get them.

nothing to do with navies. but Oz wont be getting nuclear power plants. Without nuclear power plants, makes it much less likely that Oz will get nuclear subs IMHO.

I will beg to disagree but it is off topic. We do need to cover base load with a rapid and 'reactive' generation capability. I am a huge fan of renewables and support that but ...... The system is not linear and the grid must be able to rapidly adapt to changes in load both through changes in demand and when something breaks. This aspect is critical for industry who rely on unit erupted power.

It does not have to be nuclear ..... If just should not be coal as we currently use it. I love hydro power and thing we should see more off it. Thermal is great where you have the heat variation in the earths crust. Good for NZ and Iceland not so great in Australia and the trials to date have not been successful.

We ignore biomass yet there are very good projects in place the rely on this.

Tidal power up north should be looked at ....... And so forth.

In my comments I did say "a few" throrium reactions would provide base load. At the moment much of this comes from tradition coal fired units. We have regenerative gas turbines but they are not the domination provider of base load.

Finally before a refrain from any further comment ..... on what was a statement on the lack of a mature discussion with regard to the use of nuclear in any context .... All the renewables in the world will not help unless we resolve our transmission inefficiencies. Generating power then wasting it the Gris is just ridiculous

ASSAIL · Feb 7, 2016

This discussion has ambled for a while but getting back on track

The RAN needs nuclear submarines in order to capitalise on our relative isolation, we need them tactically and strategically and we will eventually have them.
This may come in a class after SEA 1000 or the follow on but it will come and the sooner the concerned and naive accept that when fossil fuel generators are abandoned then a few (thanks Alexsa) nuclear generators will be needed to carry base industrial load, the sooner a nuclear industry will be established to run them and support our submarines

StingrayOZ · Feb 7, 2016

rockitten said:
One extra point I can think of, is that, if RAN really adopt SSN from USN (no matter by lend least or FMS), that will be an "end of story" for the submarine industry in Australia. They are mostly likely built in US, and major over-hull/upgrades are very likely being done in US as well.

The unions will surely pressure ALP to vote against that idea.

Its not just the ALP. As we have seen, if the libs want to have any seats in South Australia then its an issue for them as well. Chris Pyne was quite concerned with his seat. Particularly after a popular independent was running a candidate in his electorate.

Nuclear is more complex. It splits Labor and Liberals almost equally.

Probably the biggest hurdle is the Australia Institute and other think tanks funded by Rupert Murdoch. Ye who owns the think tanks and the papers/media owns policy.

Personally I think build an intergral fast reactor like a PRISM replacement for Hazelwood for base capacity and then continue to build more solar farms.

Doesn't matter if you have complete support of your party and popularity rating above 90%. When the papers/TV start churning out fear stories and the think tanks dump avalanches of bad idea papers it will all fall apart. As it had when John Howard seriously tried to move things forward.

Technology is changing. SSN's may not be attractive in the long future 20+ years as the fuel cycle is closed and battery technology continues to improve. Compare an SSN and an all Lithium ion submarine. SSN's will most likely have higher sustained speeds, but the difference will continue to get much closer. Dismounts etc mean that it may be hard to see if the investment in a big SSN program would pay off long term.

IMO a more realistic goal is establishing a "gigafactory" battery type facility in Australia with Korea or Japan. Lithium Ion is most likely going to be extensively used in military and civilian projects in the future.

oldsig127 · Feb 7, 2016

StingrayOZ said:
Probably the biggest hurdle is the Australia Institute and other think tanks funded by Rupert Murdoch. Ye who owns the think tanks and the papers/media owns policy.

This is an extraordinarily disingenuous statement which demeans the efforts of large numbers of researchers on both sides of the political divide. While there ARE think tanks which are funded by Murdoch, there are others funded from the other side of politics, and many that are government funded. Murdoch's ownership of the most successful media outlets is an advantage in promulgating think tank reports, but it doesn't stop his editors from using output from dissenting research either.

If I recall correctly I have read, in the last month, defence related output from SDSC, AIIA and ASPI - all government funded, independent think tanks. Not so much from Murdoch, and bugger all from Fairfax which is so badly managed that if they DID have self funded think tanks wouldn't tolerate them studying defence rather than something more liberal and no longer have the circulation to change anyone's mind.

(An aside - who funds APA? It must surely be secret, because I can;t imagine anyone wanting to be associated with Kopp and Goon, aside from the ABC)

oldsig

StingrayOZ · Feb 7, 2016

oldsig127 said:
This is an extraordinarily disingenuous statement which demeans the efforts of large numbers of researchers on both sides of the political divide. While there ARE think tanks which are funded by Murdoch, there are others funded from the other side of politics, and many that are government funded. Murdoch's ownership of the most successful media outlets is an advantage in promulgating think tank reports, but it doesn't stop his editors from using output from dissenting research either.

My intention wasn't to slander all think tanks and media outlets. But to point out the Nuclear debate isn't as simple as labor not supporting and local jobs. Its been divisive in both parties. That there are other actors other than the Liberals and Labor parties that have huge influence. There are well funded parties on both sides of the table. Even the mining industry is/was somewhat divided over it, coal and uranium don't always get along.

Its more decisive than the Republic issue. Even in the Greens members and voters, its 80:20. There is no unified front, its a civil war everywhere.

The biggest issue is no one has really built a OTS nuclear setup (reactor, refinement, waste etc) that Australia would want to adopt. We are certainly not going to develop one ourselves or be a first customer.

Look how risk adverse we are/were with the Navy projects like the AWD and the subs. Look at our want for a magical overseas impartial party to come in and do and run it all for us.

ADMk2 · Feb 8, 2016

oldsig127 said:
This is an extraordinarily disingenuous statement which demeans the efforts of large numbers of researchers on both sides of the political divide. While there ARE think tanks which are funded by Murdoch, there are others funded from the other side of politics, and many that are government funded. Murdoch's ownership of the most successful media outlets is an advantage in promulgating think tank reports, but it doesn't stop his editors from using output from dissenting research either.

If I recall correctly I have read, in the last month, defence related output from SDSC, AIIA and ASPI - all government funded, independent think tanks. Not so much from Murdoch, and bugger all from Fairfax which is so badly managed that if they DID have self funded think tanks wouldn't tolerate them studying defence rather than something more liberal and no longer have the circulation to change anyone's mind.

(An aside - who funds APA? It must surely be secret, because I can;t imagine anyone wanting to be associated with Kopp and Goon, aside from the ABC)

oldsig

Google ads...

Volkodav · Feb 8, 2016

StingrayOZ said:
My intention wasn't to slander all think tanks and media outlets. But to point out the Nuclear debate isn't as simple as labor not supporting and local jobs. Its been divisive in both parties. That there are other actors other than the Liberals and Labor parties that have huge influence. There are well funded parties on both sides of the table. Even the mining industry is/was somewhat divided over it, coal and uranium don't always get along.

Its more decisive than the Republic issue. Even in the Greens members and voters, its 80:20. There is no unified front, its a civil war everywhere.

The biggest issue is no one has really built a OTS nuclear setup (reactor, refinement, waste etc) that Australia would want to adopt. We are certainly not going to develop one ourselves or be a first customer.

Look how risk adverse we are/were with the Navy projects like the AWD and the subs. Look at our want for a magical overseas impartial party to come in and do and run it all for us.

It could be argued that perhaps the most influential anti nuclear lobby is the coal industry and other parties who have money to lose if Australia moves away from coal.

StingrayOZ · Feb 8, 2016

Volkodav said:
It could be argued that perhaps the most influential anti nuclear lobby is the coal industry and other parties who have money to lose if Australia moves away from coal.

A cashed up big employer that see nuclear as an existential threat, indeed. In 5-10 years the coal industry will be a shadow of itself. Nuclear didn't kill coal, emissions and solar did. Arguably brown coal is already on life support. Coal is shrinking. Nuclear isn't too far behind it. Pro Nuclear in Australia are now talking about uranium mining value adding, not nuclear power stations. The problem is close nuclear fuel cycles and new reactor types may mean there is no market for our Uranium.

Google ads...

Hahaha. Hence why they can't come up with a workable solution, people won't keep clicking!

Joe Black · Feb 9, 2016

Locals lack skills to build Japanese submarines, says MHI boss

Locals lack skills to build Japanese submarines, says MHI boss

Meredith Booth | The Australian| February 10, 2016 12:00AM

Australian engineers and shipbuilders lack the knowledge and skills to build a new generation Soryu-class submarine fleet should Japan win its bid and *construct them in the country, according to the head of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

After a tour yesterday of Adelaide’s Techport shipbuilding precinct and government-owned shipbuilder ASC, MHI chief executive Shinuchi Miyanaga, whose $50 billion conglomerate builds Soryu-class submarines for the Japanese navy in Kobe, said although he had confidence in Australian shipbuilding expertise, more training was required.

His delegation will speak with academic heads of universities across the country this week to talk about collaboration on skills for the future and defence research capability, as the company ramps up its bid to win the $20bn future submarine contract with a national advertising campaign it launches today.

Mr Miyanaga is believed to have drawn from the best export brains within MHI, one of Japan’s largest companies, in its bid to win the “symbolic project” that would be Japan’s first major defence export in 70 years after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ended a ban on weapons exports in 2014.
Mr Miyanaga said Japan would be “very much willing” to build Australia’s future submarine fleet completely in Australia if it was successful with its bid.
“I have confidence in the expertise that has developed here through the Collins project,” he said.

“For a new generation submarine probably the engineers and workers and other people will have to know or learn some more for those areas to be able to transfer our technology and know-how.”
Australia’s low exchange rate, against the yen and the US dollar, would also be beneficial for the Australian government if Japan transferred its technology to local companies to reduce costs on the project, he said.
But he was yet to speak with the federal government on whether their requirement would be for eight or 12 submarines.

Unlike competing bids from French and German shipbuilders, Japan’s Soryu was “the only *proven submarine” with the most advanced technology, which made him confident of the bid’s success, Mr Miyanaga said.

Japan, Germany and France lodged bids for the contract in *November with Canberra to *announce the winning bid by the middle of this year.
South Australian Defence Teaming Centre chief executive Chris Burns said Australia had a proven track record of training a shipbuilding workforce but urged a bid decision sooner so universities could plan. “These people can take three to four years to train. It’s a long lead time,’’ he said.
“Every day the federal government delays decisions, more jobs are lost, valuable skills leave the sector and we get further away from our goal to innovate.”

The Australian| Locals lack skills to build Japanese subs

Does Japan really want the deal. With such comments, I would have thought they would put the CEP selectors off.

Meanwhile...

France is out torpedoing Japanese submarine bid

The Australian | February 9, 2016 12:00AM | Cameron Stewart, Associate Editor | Melbourne

The French have moved to undermine Japan’s bid to build the navy’s new submarines, saying only a “complete submarine power’’ such as France can provide the strategic partnership Australia needs for its future defence.

Sean Costello, head of France’s DCNS Australia, says Australia and France are now fighting side-by-side against Islamic State but this strategic engagement will be entrenched for decades at an unprecedented level if Australia chooses to buy its new submarines from France.

“Where Australia selects France, it selects enduring geopolitical alignment and surety of supply, a program of technical transfer to deliver sovereignty, a regionally superior capability and interoperability with our allies,” Mr Costello will tell the Australian Defence Magazine Conference in Canberra today.

“I can make these statements with respect to France because France is a complete submarine power and has national policies to remain so. A complete submarine power is one that can safely *design, build, operate and sustain any class of submarine on an *enduring basis.”

His comments are a thinly disguised swipe at Japan, which has only conventionally powered submarines and has never built submarines in a third country before.

As revealed in The Australian yesterday, Japan is stepping up its push for the $20 billion submarine contract by promising it will fully share its most sensitive stealth technology with Australia if Canberra chooses Japan’s Soryu-class submarines. France, Japan and Germany are fighting a three-way battle to be chosen to build between eight and 12 submarines to replace the navy’s Collins-class fleet from the late 2020s.

Mr Costello’s speech moves to counter reports the US prefers the Japanese option for strategic *reasons, saying France and the US have never had a closer strategic partnership in the post-war period.

“In recent years, and particularly in the wake of the Paris terror attacks, France and the US now share intelligence in a way that mirrors the Five Eyes network,” Mr Costello will say.

Close and enduring strategic links between Australia and France are epitomised by the current struggle against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, he will say.

With regard to submarines, he will say France offers a strategic partnership “that directly inter*faces with and complements that offered by the US in submarine weapons and electronic systems. Together with the UK, the strategic future for Australia in terms of sovereignty, enduring regional superiority and interoperability is in joining this club of complete submarine powers.”

France is offering Australia the Shortfin Barracuda, a slightly smaller conventionally powered version of its new nuclear Barracuda submarine fleet.

Japan is offering a longer range version of its existing Soryu-class boats while Germany’s TKMS is proposing a Type 216 submarine, a larger version of its widely exported smaller submarines.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...d/news-story/80b19cc40d65c92cd119e7799cdab816

Let the race begin!

Volkodav · Feb 9, 2016

Joe Black said:
Does Japan really want the deal. With such comments, I would have thought they would put the CEP selectors off.

Meanwhile...

France is out torpedoing Japanese submarine bid

Let the race begin!

I have considerable past experience working with Mitsubishi actually and it wasn't pleasant. The easiest way to cop the brunt of the arrogance, and to be honest, perceived racial superiority, was to find something they missed or manage to do something they said couldn't be done, and this was after MMC had been caught falsifying test results on motor vehicles and trucks in their domestic market. I was left very unimpressed with MMC and the way they worked as there appeared to be something very culturally wrong with the way the company was run. Former colleagues I crossed paths with since who spent considerable time working in japan were even less impressed by the almost bitchy one-upmanship and continual efforts to setup and undermine the dumb Aussies. Give me Toyota, Honda or Nissan, even Ford (pre Mulally) or GM any day, as none of them left me with the WTF feeling I regularly got from Bitsareshitti.

That said it must be remembered that while ASC has been maintaining submarines they have not built one for over a decade. They have also had multiple (often pointless) reorganisations and associated redundancies so there will be a need to expand and train a workforce as part of any future build. This will include recruiting experienced past employees and overseas experts into key positions to train and mentor new employees (GF and I may even get calls or messages through LinkedIn).

The line from Japan seems to be, we will help you dumb Australians if we have to and you should be grateful that we are even looking at helping you, an attitude that will have to change if this project is to succeed.

One point I did find interesting is they have actually acknowledged that with the current value of the Australian dollar it will be much more economical doing work in Australia than it would have been just a couple of years ago. In fact it could well work out cheaper to build submarines in Australia than Japan, should the major currencies continue to trend towards their more traditional exchange rates combined with the efficiencies of a continuous build. Should Japan gain further exports in the future it is conceivable that they could make use of Australia's rebuilt capability to make their bids more competitive.

StingrayOZ · Feb 9, 2016

Volkodav said:
Should Japan gain further exports in the future it is conceivable that they could make use of Australia's rebuilt capability to make their bids more competitive.

I don't know if Japan is keen to export more subs. To whom? Does Japan really want to get involved in Indian procurement. Im sure India would like it. If it does all Indian subs will be built locally in India.

But it would not be out of the realm of possibility that they want more subs for themselves. With a large facility in Australia, they can build more subs, quicker. I would say there is less than a 10% chance the Japanese will want anyone else to have one of their subs in a realistic sale deal. I would say its 80%+ that they would want to operate more subs themselves. I would say its not impossible to envisage Japan operating 30%+ more subs than they currently do. They have just announced a 20% increase to 22 subs, which I wouldn't be surprised might be getting near the maximum they can make realistically at the two yards (12 per yard for a maximum of 24 per design cycle. Im sure more could be made but may interfere and would have to have a large workforce come online very quickly, something with Japans demographics won't be easy in the future).

Say Australia only builds 8, Japan might definitely be interested in the other 4 being built in Australia. The will make the line more productive and lower the cost overall. Japan might be interested in having maintenance carried out in Australia as well.

Mitsubishi is just one of the builders of course. Kawasaki is the other. I wonder which Australia will have most to do with. Kawasaki has utilised its experience in welding nuclear equipment together on its submarine program. I'm sure there is much expertise to be pulled together across Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and ASC.

There are very good reasons why we should seriously consider the French and German proposals. And these really are national proposals, which country do we choose to have a much closer relationship with.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Member

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Member

Member

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Just a bloke

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Active Member

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator