The Table may be the most accurate published comparison of the three Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) contenders. (Table courtesy of News Corp Australia, 2015) Still, there are many inaccuracies for the picky:
- the Table is a mix of current capabilities (which is wrong) and estimated future capabilities (more correct). Clear current mistakes are:
- the Table is a mix of current capabilities (which is wrong) and estimated future capabilities (more correct). Clear current mistakes are:
- conventional Barracuda's surfaced Displacement is likely to be 4,200-4,765 tonnes. Submerged displacement is unknown.
- 216's website give a surfaced displacement of around 4,000 tonnes, so the "Submerged Displacement" in above Table will likely be considerably more than 4,000 tonnes.
- 216's website give a surfaced displacement of around 4,000 tonnes, so the "Submerged Displacement" in above Table will likely be considerably more than 4,000 tonnes.
- Soryu's Weapon Stowage believed to be equivalent of 20 heavyweight torpedos (HWT)/Harpoon missiles OR 10 torpedos/Harpoon + 20 (smaller) mines = 20 HWT equivalent.
- 216 likely has at least 1 vertical launch system = about 6-7 more missiles or other uses.
- 216 likely has at least 1 vertical launch system = about 6-7 more missiles or other uses.
- Soryu's current range is believed to be 6,100 nm but the "Super SoryuAU" (name first christened here) estimated range in 2025 may be more like 11,000 nm.
- The TKMS Type 216 website gives normal crew of 33 - 33 may be short mission but 216AU may vary up to 60 for long mission.
- Cruise missile capability (Tomahawk or other AN/BYG-1 compatible) are very likely required.
- The Australian government has already set the combat system to be the US AN/BYG-1. If the US refuses a contender access to this combat system that contender will be eliminated.
See Submarine Matter’s Australia’s $90 Billion Naval Shipbuilding More Complex Under New Government, September 21, 2015.which mentions all of these shipbuilding industry competitors, including there locations.
--------------------------------------------
![]()
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During the so-called two-plus-two [or "2 + 2"] security meeting, Kishida and Nakatani are expected to seek an edge over the German and French bids for what Canberra calls its “largest defense procurement program in history....”
Pete
- The Australian government has already set the combat system to be the US AN/BYG-1. If the US refuses a contender access to this combat system that contender will be eliminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
This Submarine Matters article has three parts– with just 10 days to go before final responses are due for Australia’s future submarine CEP.
1. Perhaps Greater Australian Competition
A November 18, 2015 news report that that two shipbuilding companies Forgacs (NSW) and Civmec (WA) may unite to compete more fully against large shipbuilders in SA and Victoria. This will hopefully boost competition in the submarine, frigate and offshore patrol boat builds.
"Newcastle [NSW] shipbuilder Forgacs expects selling its defence engineering division will lead to significant investment and more jobs. Western Australian firm Civmec, which employs 1,500 workers at its base in Henderson near Perth, wants to buy Forgacs.
It plans on making the Tomago shipyard Civmec's east coast headquarters, with the acquisition expected to create a leading national firm.
Forgacs chairman Peter Burgess said the deal is dependent on the approval of Civmec's shareholders..."
2. Rising scholar Mina Pollmann, has written an outstanding article of November 19, 2015, for The Diplomat. The following are excerpts. I have bolded some parts for emphasis.
“How Will Australia Choose Its Next Submarine Builder?
As France, Germany, and Japan promote their bids, a look at Australia’s wishlist for its next submarine class.
Mina Pollmann (Photo courtesy Alexander Brown/ The Hoya)
This week, the three companies competing to build Australia’s next generation of submarines publicly discussed their proposals at the Submarine Institute of Australia’s ..Conference held in Adelaide, South Australia. The November 30 deadline for the Japanese, German, and French bidders to submit their proposals for a modified Soryu, the Type 216, and the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A, respectively, is rapidly approaching, and the competition for the $20 billion prize intensifying.
…Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has offered to transform Australia into the shipbuilding hub of the Asia-Pacific, a proposal recently echoed by France’s state-controlled DCNS.
....Of course, there are also strategic considerations – former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was known to favour Japan in order to cement the “special relationship” between the two democratic U.S. allies. Even though Abbott’s ousting by Malcolm Turnbull has helped ameliorate the perception of favoritism towards Japan, the underlying logic of a U.S.-Australia-Japan alignment remains sound.
Turnbull replacing Abbott might even end up being a win for Japan – now, if the Japanese option is recommended and chosen, no one can accuse the decision makers of bias and the Japanese bid can be recognized as objectively in the best interest of Australia.
…Finally, cooperation with the United States is a key factor. Conventional submarines, which are better at operating in Asia’s shallow coastal waters, can complement and augment the United States’ all-nuclear undersea fleet. Australia’s allergy to nuclear submarines may have started as a liability, by hindering technology cooperation with their patron-ally, but now may be the best guarantor for continued integration between U.S. and Australian forces – and more importantly, their interests.
Australian Defense Minister Marise Payne provided some insight …: “The selection balances key considerations, including high levels of interoperability with our key ally, the U.S., opportunities to de-risk the combat systems, and synergies arising from commonality between Collins and future submarines.”
The Australian government is expected to decide which international partner Australia will work with early next year – but don’t be surprised if the decision keeps getting pushed off. In Payne’s words, “The Government does not intend to be rushed. This is too important a decision for that.” But a non-decision will have important consequences, as Australia’s neighbors are also modernizing their undersea fleets. Even after a winner is chosen, it will take another three years to finalize the processes and details of the deal.
…After all, it’s not just the submarines contract that shipbuilders must be prepared to deal with. Even though the three-way competitive evaluation process for building eight or 12 submarines has been getting the most attention, the Australian government is also preparing to award contracts for a fleet of frigates to replace the eight ANZAC Class frigates and a new fleet of up to 21 offshore patrol boats in the coming months.”
3. Japan to get last major sales opportunity with Australia on Sunday, November 22, 2015.
The Japan Times reported November 17, 2015 that:
Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defense Minister Gen [not Nakatani rose to Army Captain in the military “Gen” is just his first name] Nakatani will meet Sunday in Sydney with their Australian counterparts [Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Defence Minister Marise Payne], officials said [November 17, 2015], with Tokyo aiming to pitch the advantages of teaming up to build Australia’s new fleet of submarines.
So much is happening as the November 30, 2015 CEP deadline approaches.