Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[Blitzo]

Jesus, this can happen with every deal. A power of dumb arguments - there's a high risk that Japanese will start leaving Earth for Mars starting in 2030 and what will Australia do in such situation?

"This can happen with every deal" -- I agree completely, and I stated so as well in my previous posts:

"it is very prudent to consider the political relationships between the buyer and seller in a weapons deal, and it cannot be ignored."

And..

"That is why future political possibilities in any relationship are a very big factor for any sort of weapons deal, if the change in the relationship can influence the future operation and support of the weapon in question.
That is a consideration for any nation making any sort of weapons deal, and is an issue for Australiato consider in its submarine procurement as well."

Frankly I'm confused as to why you think the argument is a dumb one; Mr White is merely saying Aus needs to weigh up what a potential strategic partnership with Japan may mean for its own geopolitical flexibility in future, and how it may compare with going with a European sub.

He's not even making any statements or criticisms of each sub offer from a technical or capability point of view, but rather the primary concern in the article was about the affecy of the sub deal on Australia's geopolitics. Nothing wrong with that I think.

 

[Blackstone]

Jesus, this can happen with every deal. A power of dumb arguments - there's a high risk that Japanese will start leaving Earth for Mars starting in 2030 and what will Australia do in such situation?

To the contrary, Blitzo's point on Japan's willingness to render post-delivery servicing and on-going support is spot on. We see this in US-provided military hardware and their post-sales service history; purchasing nations risk cut off of American parts and services if they sufficiently offend Uncle Sam, and what makes you believe Japan will be any different?

 

[Janiz]

purchasing nations risk cut off of American parts and services if they sufficiently offend Uncle Sam, and what makes you believe Japan will be any different?

And what makes you and the author think that any other country will be different?

 

[Blackstone]

And what makes you and the author think that any other country will be different?

I don't think any other country would behave differently than US does on its military exports, namely it might pull the plug on supporting sold merchandise should customers behave in ways Washington doesn't like. That's why I disagreed with your assertion vis-a-vis Blitzo's point that Australia might have geopolitical problems by buying Japanese submarines was "a power of dumb arguments."

 

[FORBIN]

Rankin and a MH-60R.

 

[Blackstone]

Canberra worried about upsetting China with Japanese submarine purchase? Germany comes to the rescue!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CANBERRA, Australia


A German executive vying for a lucrative Australian submarine contract on Thursday said that awarding the contract to Japan could damage Australia's relationship with China.

German's ThysennKrupp Marine Systems, Japan's Mitsubishi and French company DCNS are in the running to build 12 conventional submarines that the Australian navy expects will cost at least 56 billion Australian dollars ($43 billion). The government expects to award the contract this year, with Japan regarded as a favorite early in the bidding process due to its close military relationship with Australia and the Unites States.

Hans Atzpodien, the German company's chairman, described the Japanese bid as a choice for Australia between its relationship with China, its biggest trading partner, and Japan, its second biggest partner.

"Maybe it is an advantage dealing with us not to be in a position where you have to — let's say — decide between certain heavyweights of the Pacific area," Atzpodien told Australia's National Press Club.

Japanese defense officials argue that the military partnership between Japan and Australia will enhance peace and stability, especially maritime security, in the Asia-Pacific region amid China's military buildup in the East and South China seas.

The submarine deal would be Japan's first fully-fledged military technology transfer since World War II.

Australian government ministers have expressed no preference for any bid.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said during a speech in Tokyo last month that for Japan, the deal was strategic while for the others, it was of commercial value.

None of the contenders have ever built a conventional submarine large enough to meet Australia's long-distance requirements.

Germany is proposing a variation of its Type 214 submarine made for Australian specifications called a Type 216. France is offering a diesel-electric version of the Barracuda-class nuclear submarine under construction for the French navy. Japan proposes a longer version of its Soryu-class diesel-powered propulsion system with advanced stealth capabilities.

Atspododien said on Thursday that the Germans could build all 12 subs in Australia for AU$20 billion — less than half the cost that Australia is budgeting for.

Hugh White, Australian National University professor of strategic studies, warned that Japan's long-term cooperation in the submarine contract might hinge on Australia forming an alliance that could bring Australia into conflict with China.

"Tokyo expects that in return for its help to build our submarines, it would receive not just many billions of dollars, but clear understandings that Australia will support Japan politically, strategically and even militarily against China," White wrote in a Fairfax Media column this week.

U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Scott H. Swift told reports in Canberra on Wednesday that the United States would support Australia on any choice of submarine. The Chinese Embassy in Canberra did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[Jura The idiot]

a moment ago I found out
Second batch of four P-8s for the RAAF approved

The government has approved the acquisition of a second batch of four P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft.

Acquisition of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(and the first aircraft are now under assembly), but the recently released Defence White Paper’s accompanying Integrated Investment Program (IIP) revealed that, “Eight Poseidon aircraft will be introduced in the early 2020s, with seven additional aircraft to be acquired in two tranches to bring the total to 15 aircraft by the late 2020s.”

Approval of the first of those additional tranches of P-8s was subsequently announced by Defence Minister Senator Marise Payne at the RAAF’s Air Power Conference in Canberra on Tuesday.

“As foreshadowed in the White Paper, I can indicate today that the Government has approved the acquisition of four additional P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance and response aircraft, bringing the total number of P-8As on order to 12,” the Minister said in a speech that also confirmed the entry into service date of the MQ-4C Triton maritime surveillance unmanned aircraft system. Both the P-8A and MQ-4C are being acquired to replace the RAAF’s current AP-3C Orion aircraft.

“The first of the Poseidons is expected to be delivered late this year and 12 aircraft will be in service by 2022,” Senator Payne said.

“Pending government approval a further three aircraft are planned to enter service late in the 2020s and the Triton is planned to be introduced into service in 2023.”

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[FORBIN]

Confirmation and good news for down under guys or dudes

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Looks as if Germany is not the only one that is trying to drag Japan out by words.

Japanese subs 'recipe for disaster', claims rival French firm

The heads of one of the firms bidding to sell Australia new submarines say buying Japanese would be "a recipe for disaster".

The French firm bidding for Australia's new submarines has warned that buying Japanese could be a recipe for disaster.
Top executives of DCNS also say the lithium-ion batteries Japan is proposing to power the new sub remain unproven and potentially dangerous.
Herve Guillou, DCNS chairman, said buying French would not alter Australia's close strategic relationship with Japan but would bring closer ties with France.
He said France was a nation with a global naval reach, a clear interest in the Indo-Pacific and was a close ally of the US and Australia in the fight against Islamic State.
DCNS, German firm TKMS and the Japanese government are bidding to build 12 new submarines to replace the navy's six Collins boats in the early 2030s.
The government's competitive evaluation process is now under way with a decision expected in the next few months. The winner will be built mostly or entirely in Adelaide.
DCNS is proposing a conventionally powered version of its new Barracuda nuclear attack submarine, powered by diesel and electric engines with lead-acid batteries...... to read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It's kind of depressing seeing other nations are trying to compete with words instead of the product itself.
It shows how desperate they are feeling they have an inferior product compared to their rivals.

By the way this article is quite one sided since another article reporting the same news provides a counter argument by MHI.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The upcoming Soryus are going to be equipped with those batteries before any of the Australian subs are going to be constructed so they can see for themselves.

 

[antiterror13]

Well, the US also "push" the Australian govt to accept Soryu. If it was totally free competition (no politics), the Chinese improved Yuan would win, no doubt.

I still believe the German subs would win, the best in the world