How much can submarine CEP contenders, like TKMS, say?

On February 18, 2016 MHalblaub commented:

"Problems with going public?
We just need to compare in public what RAN can estimate from public available sources.
We might remember that RAN wasn't even capable to look for US weapons used on German submarines.

We can compare the Diesel engines in public because these engines are also available for private use. Hint: there are no fast running Diesel engines designed by Japanese companies. 
We can compare the basics of the air independent propulsion system according to stored energy.
We can compare the differences of weapon systems according to various public sources.
- available weapons or not
- world wide use
- price tag

What also should be on stage is the way Australia will use these submarines because this is a major democratic decision how to use a weapon. From this decision we can conclude what would be the best submarine for Australia. 

Well, why not a public vote?
- 8 Soryus/DCMS/TKMS with US combat system.
- 12 Soryus/DCMS/TKMS with inherited system
- 24 Type 210mod

All for more or less the same price.

Anybody who thinks that THE PEOPLE do not have enough insight should explain why a few people with more insight did built Collins-class.

THE Australian PEOPLE will pay it not the few who think to be smarter than the rest."

What I think is. The contenders can and have been broadly discussing overtly known advantages of their submarines, but contenders cannot be specific about their actual bids sent to the Australian CEP assessors. Commercial sensitivity is usually a consideration and actual bids are highly sensitive for Australian on national security grounds.

The Australian Government currently cannot advertise the strengths of a particular contender's submarine at least until one contender is chosen. This may be in the context of justifying the selection to the Australian public.

Put another way - public discussion on the future submarine selection process can be informed by the Australian Government in different ways at different times in the selection process. As Julie Bishop said last week the Government cannot pre-empt the CEP selection process (and Julie is diplomatic).

Maybe TKMS has the best diesel in the MTU 4000 http://www.rina.org.uk/Series_4000_to_form_basis_of_new_submarine_diesel.html. MTU can advertise that likelihood itself, not the Australian Federal Government. TKMS cannot be specific on what precise diesel model (or exact future model with future performance numbers). 

For example would we want China to know the likely sound signature of Australian future submarine diesels 10 years before our future submarine goes to sea? Also TKMS may want to market a roughly similar diesel for Chinese naval ship (and maybe Yuan?) submarine use.

Australia may want to keep its option open on whether to use AIP, so the Government won't sell the fact TKMS has the most developed known AIP. France may also be working on advanced AIP but the maturity or years until operational service is not known. Meanwhile Japan is not including AIP in its future Soryu but instead plans to use LIBs of, as yet, publically unknown performance. 

Saying Australia wants the most efficient LIBs may benefit Japan’s bid. But DCNS or TKMS may have as good as or better LIBs on the way (a very Commercial-in-Confidence issue)

Regarding holding democratic-public opinion surveys or votes on complex weapon systems. No country does that or has ever done that (to my knowledge). Did Sweden advertise to its public that it was doing "cold" testing of nuclear bombs or let its public decide? 

Also governments are paid to wade through complex issues and make a decision. Would TKMS accept votes all over the EU that no new submarines should be built in the EU? Would the Australian Government accept votes for no new subs at all?

On the TKMS Type 210mod - it does not have:

-  the unrefueled range (from Fleet Base West) for long missions like South China Sea, 

-  sufficient crew to endure a 60+ day mission,

-  weapon shots carrying capacity, and

-  ability to accommodate the (already mandated) AN/BYG-1 combat system.

Australia has difficulty mustering 5 Commanders for the 6 Collins. So 24 Commanders for 24 Type 210mods is not possible.

An example of what a contender says and can say is TKMS and Australia state government level body (Defence SA) body visiting Whyalla in February 2016. There was fairly vague talk about upgrading the South Australian defence business skills as they relate to manufacturing portions of submarines, militay vehicles, frigates and offshore patrol vessels. TKMS could have been more specific about German frigates and OPV models available but it is not the time or place. There was also mention of Whyalla's likely inability to produce submarine hull steel.

In January 2015 Japan was more forthcoming on steel - perhaps Wollongong may be capable - but Japan may not intend to make NS110 steel in Australia. 

The Federal Government is necessarily constrained by process including the commercial, political and security sensitivities behind process.

Of course the taxpayer pays, but think of all those jobs in South Australia and other states.

Pete