COMMENT
Sam Bateman (below), recognises that the pump jet remains a major reason for Australia choosing the French Future Submarine Shortfin over Japan and Germany deason to meet SEA 1000. This is despite Naval Group (was DCNS) seemingly backpedaling on the pump jet promise.
Also contributing to the choice of France - the 100s/1,000s of Australian Navy, Defence and company personnel who will live in France during the Future Submarine Shortfin Program would much prefer 2-3 years of French (culture compared to Japan or Germany’s). J'aime Paris! :)
After all – why was the defective Eurocopter/Airbus Tiger helicopter chosen over the far superior tried and tested SuperCobra or the Boeing Apache? The Tiger has failed in Australian service even though the Australian Army is delaying the conclusion that $1 Billion has been wasted: "avoiding the inevitable.
Wrote DEFENCE CONNECT in May 2017 “The [Tiger helicopter] has been under fire since last year, when an Australian National Audit Office report revealed the Tigers are not available in sufficient numbers to give pilots the mandated minimum 150 flight hours a year.
Wrote DEFENCE CONNECT in May 2017 “The [Tiger helicopter] has been under fire since last year, when an Australian National Audit Office report revealed the Tigers are not available in sufficient numbers to give pilots the mandated minimum 150 flight hours a year.
Entry to service was scheduled for 2009 but was delayed by seven years, and replacements of the aircraft are already set to begin in the mid 2020s, but Defence maintains there will be no capability void.
...The acquisition of 22 of the Tiger helicopters cost $1.1 billion (2001 price), with an additional cost of $397 million (2001 price) for a through-life support contract.”
So the now defunct DMO searching for problematic, bureaucratically labour intensive, weapon systems was not the only reason. Furthermore Defence needs to delete its DMO still liveswebsite.ARTICLE
Pierre Tran for DefenseNews writes:
"How a French firm beat out Japanese companies in Australia’s submarine tender
PARIS ― A lack of Australian confidence in Japan’s defense industry sank an offer from Tokyo in the AUD$50 billion (U.S. $38 billion) tender for attack submarines, while greater stealth [held as a German deficiency] and advanced propulsiontechnology buoyed a rival French bid, said Sam Bateman, a research fellow at the Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security.
Australia’s selection was based on a “commercial and strategic decision,” Bateman told the annual seminar of the Observatory for Southeast Asia on Nov. 17.
The seminar, held at the French War College, was organized by Asia Centre, a think tank of Inalco, a French foreign language institute, and was backed by the Institute for Strategic Research and General Directorate for International Relations and Strategy. The latter two are part of the French Armed Forces Ministry.
Japan enjoyed a strategic advantage, as there was “some U.S. pressure” on Australia to pick a Japanese submarine, Bateman said. But after an exhaustive study, there was “some uncertainty about Japanese ability to deliver,” he added. The lack of confidence stemmed from Japan’s little experience in defense sales in the wake of Australia’s multibillion dollar program.
“France is greatly involved in military sales,” Bateman said, adding that there was an offer for a better submarine in terms of stealth and a forced jet propulsion rather than a conventional propeller...”
SEE THE WHOLEDEFENSENEWS ARTICLE
Pete