Japan to Offer Australia Its Top-Secret Submarine Technology

Discussion in 'Naval Warfare' started by Shadow, Oct 7, 2015.

  1. Shadow

    Shadow Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    India
    Japan has for the first time revealed additional details of its proposal to design and build submarines to replace Australia’s fleet of six Collins-class boats.

    This week, the head of a high-powered Japanese delegation, speaking at this year’s Sea Power conference in Sydney, told local media that Japan would transfer 100 percent of the technology involved in building a larger version of Japan’s state-of-the-art 4,000-ton diesel-electric Soryu-class submarine to the Australian submariner community. “Our objective is to have everything available to transfer,” delegation head Masaki Ishikawa said.

    In detail, Japan’s proposal includes advanced welding technologies, top-secret stealth technology, combat system integration, lithium-ion batteries as the submarine’s main energy source (with the option for air-independent propulsion to be added later an), and an all-weather snorkel system that can operate even during a typhoon, according to the Australian news website Perth Now. In addition, the sub will feature a U.S. combat system.

    Ishikawa also offered further details for the construction process of the vessels, with the Japanese plan calling for hundreds of Australian workers to be sent to Japan for training and constructing a mock-up submarine under the supervision of engineers from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

    He also emphasized that all vessels could be built in Australia, while the option for the first boat to be constructed in Kobe, Japan under Australian supervision remains an option. “Both options have strong points,” Ishikawa said.

    The delegation head furthermore dismissed the language barrier as a problem for Australian-Japanese cooperation on the A$50 billion ($38.8 billion) project. “There is no problem with language and cultural issues,” he said. The recent changes in Australia’s government should also have no impact on the ongoing bidding process, according to Ishikawa: “You have a new prime minister and that has no impact on our proposed strategic partnership.”

    In May 2015, Australia invited France, Germany, and Japan to participate in a 10-month long “competitive evaluation process” with each bidder receiving around $6 million to prepare a proposal. (Given specific Australian requirements, an “off-the-shelf” solution is not an option.)

    So far, all three bidding countries have agreed to build the submarines in Adelaide, the home base of Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC). To make its offer more competitive, the Japanese government announced this May that it would share top-secret technology, including details about lithium-ion battery systems, with Australia – a first for Tokyo.

    The Soryu-class boats currently in service with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force are outfitted with a Swedish-made air-independent propulsion system. However, the Australian government has expressed its preference for a lithium-ion battery option – one of Japan’s most preciously guarded military technologies.

    Long considered the frontrunner, Japan has been losing ground to Germany and its offer of the HDW-class 216 diesel-electric sub designed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). Unlike their Japanese competitors, the German company has already built over 160 submarines for 20 different international customers.
    http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/japa...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    I hope they too offer us Technology transfer.
     
  2.  
  3. Tactical Frog

    Tactical Frog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    303
    Exciting times are coming ! I hear that the Barracuda Shortfin is now very well placed to win the australian competition. Meantime ...

    Japan’s Deadliest Sub to Join Australia’s Navy in Military Drill
    Is Tokyo showcasing its high-tech submarine to boost its chances to win a major defense contract in Australia?

    By Franz-Stefan Gady
    March 11, 2016
    The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) will dispatch a Soryu-class diesel-electric attack submarine to Sydney next month to participate in a joint naval exercise with the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force, ABC News reveals.

    The 4,000-ton Soryu-class stealth submarine JS Hakuryu, outfitted with a new lithium-ion battery propulsion system, will be joined by two JMSDF destroyers and two helicopters during the training exercise aimed to “foster collaboration” and “improve tactical skills,” according to JMSDF officials. All in all, around 430 JMSDF personnel will participate in the drill.

    Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries with its Soryu-class still appear to be the frontrunner in the competitive bidding process for a $50 billion ($38.8 billion) contract to build Australia’s new submarine fleet in partnership with Australian industry.

    Malcolm Davis from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute told ABC News that this is a major development in the bid for Australia’s largest defense procurement program ever (the so-called SEA-1000 acquisition project)—a contract to build up to 12 new submarines for the Australian Royal Navy, replacing the six Collins-class submarines currently in service.

    “By sending a Soryu-class submarine down to work with our Navy, they’re clearly very confident that the Soryu will impress and when you look at what they’re doing — they’re doing anti-submarine warfare exercises — they’re doing tactical maneuvering, communications, PHOTEX [photographic exercises] and so forth,” Davis noted. “Clearly the goal here is to demonstrate how effective the Soryu is in terms of tracking and evading being tracked by our ships,” he added.

    However, as I pointed out previously, the submarine may not be the best option for Australia:

    [O]n average Japanese subs are constructed to last for around 19 years, whereas the Australian governments expects at least a 30-year active service life span. The Japanese boats also have much less accommodation space than Collins-class submarines.

    Additionally, the much talked about air-independent propulsion (AIP) system is actually Swedish technology. However, the Australian government has so far not shown any interest in AIP, preferring a lithium-ion battery option, which will be built into the next batch of Soryu-class subs. Nevertheless, advanced lithium-ion batteries are one of Japan’s top military secrets and it seems unlikely that Tokyo has agreed to share this sensitive technology with Canberra despite media reports.

    The Japanese subs also allegedly have less range than the current Collins-class submarines in service. Furthermore, another concern is the integration of a U.S. combat system and weapons ( Mk 48 Mod 7 CBASS heavyweight torpedoes) into the Japanese hull.

    In November 2014, Australia’s Senate Economics Legislation References Committee rejected the Soryu-class as a replacement option over some of the concerns outlined above. Japan is currently locked in a fierce competition with German defense contractor Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS), offering a scaled-up version of its 2,000-ton diesel-electric Type 214 submarine (also equipped with lithium-ion battery technology), and French defense contractors DCNS, who is proposing a 4,000-ton version of the French Navy’s Barracuda-class nuclear powered attack submarine, dubbed the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A.

    Source : http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/japans-deadliest-sub-to-join-australias-navy-in-military-drill/
     
    Bahamut likes this.
  4. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,053
    Likes Received:
    1,842
    Location:
    Gujarat
    I see this as a move to contain china. we need few of these boats with desi AIPs. Bloody china will piss in their pants.
     
    aliyah and Bornubus like this.
  5. Shadow

    Shadow Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    India
    I doubt Japan will agree for TOT of Soryu class submarines.
     
    Screambowl likes this.
  6. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    2,250
  7. Tactical Frog

    Tactical Frog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    303
    Some interesting notes about Shortfin Barracuda design :

    -----

    Designing the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A
    8 Apr 2016|Gerard Autret and Sean Costello


    [​IMG]Editor’s note: The Strategist has invited all three SEA 1000 contenders to explain their approach to meeting Australia’s future submarine requirement.

    A common misunderstanding about the conventionally powered Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A is that is somehow “converted” from the nuclear powered French Barracuda. This characterisation is inaccurate. In fact the conventional ship uses the nuclear ship as its design reference.

    As a new design for Australia’s specific requirement, the first design activity DCNS conducted was to size the ship. Based on what Australia needs the submarine to do, a calculation is performed to determine the necessary volume and weight required – how much submarine do we need? The answer to this question is found using specific programs within DCNS, and displacement is determined.

    From this volume the naval architect then asks the next question – does an existing design approach the estimated displacement? If the answer is ‘yes’, this existing design becomes the reference for the new ship. If the answer is ‘no’, then a completely new design is required. In this situation one design loop will be insufficient and the design agency faces many years of risk reduction activity.

    This threshold question is very important to understand and it is possible for different design agencies to answer this question differently, depending on the magnitude of the design loop in question. Design agencies will call on all their background tools, technologies, experience and know-how before answering one way or another. However, in the case of DCNS a clear and positive decision was made that the French Navy’s Barracuda would provide a very suitable design reference for the Shortfin Barracuda.

    The data that enabled the selection of the Barracuda as the Australian design reference included such things hull diameter, length and steel, existing hydrodynamic studies of manoeuvrability, drag and acoustic performances and the suitability of main systems including, ship control, electrical, hydraulic, sonar, sensors, habitability, weapons storage, cooling, and ancillary platform systems. In each of these major systems the existing system design of the French Barracuda is used for the Shortfin Barracuda and from these known references an interpolation is performed for the new system design.

    DCNS has high confidence in the performance of the design as the Shortfin Barracuda is within the envelope of the nuclear design. Where the nuclear design’s systems are not transferable the next most applicable systems are chosen. The main area where Barracuda design references were not used was in the area of the electrical system (batteries and voltage), power generation (induction and diesel generators) and propulsion (main electric motor). In these systems the design reference comes from the Scorpene class of diesel electric submarines, or from an existing submarine technology within DCNS. Existing technologies are re-used in all systems in the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A. System by system, the whole ship performance is validated and the design loop closed.

    The selection of the nuclear Barracuda as the design reference for the Shortfin also enabled DCNS to meet requirements in addition to range and endurance. The Australian requirements for warm water operations and very low acoustic signatures are good examples. As the nuclear Barracuda is designed to operate globally, shares the same hull form as the Shortfin Barracuda and is also compliant with nuclear safety standards, it is very suitable for the Australian requirement. This avoids many years of design studies for validation of equipment such as pumps and hoses, and allows the designer to take margins for higher performances elsewhere in the ship.

    Acoustic performance is driven by three related factors of onboard equipment: silencing, reduction in the noise of the propeller and the overall hydrodynamic performance of the hull while manoeuvring. For the Australian requirement the nuclear Barracuda is again the closest design reference and all the relevant ship systems are reused. The challenge for any attack submarine is to maintain a nearly silent acoustic signature at a speed necessary to manoeuvre within weapons range of the target. The nuclear Barracuda is designed to reduce radiated noise when operating at a speed sufficient in order to close a threat submarine undetected. Of particular importance is the pump-jet propulsor, which combines a rotor and stator within a duct to significantly reduce the level of radiated noise through the effects of wake harmonisation and avoidance of cavitation.

    One other myth worth debunking is that designers of nuclear submarines do not have to manage the power consumption of on board equipment as electricity from the reactor is “unlimited”. In large attack submarines, such as the French and proposed Australian Barracuda, the power consumption of the hotel load (the electricity needed to power the combat system and maintain the life support of the crew) is more than that of the propulsion system at the most frequently used speeds. In the case of nuclear submarines, the very high cost and significant weight of the reactor, as well as the safety requirement to operate on batteries without the reactor online, drives the architect to minimise the consumption of the hotel load to the lowest realisable level. In the case of a conventional submarine the preservation of energy in the main storage battery drives the same system design.

    In summary, the description of the design process and choices made in the development of the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A show that one submarine is not converted to another. Rather, a design reference is selected and an iteration of a new design is developed to meet the requirement with interpolation of known data and the re-use of proven technologies.

    Source : http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/designing-the-shortfin-barracuda-block-1a/
     
    Bahamut likes this.
  8. Tactical Frog

    Tactical Frog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    303
  9. Tactical Frog

    Tactical Frog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    303
    :clap2: DCNS wins !!! See you , sumo boys :)

    -------------------

    DCNS Wins $ 50 Billion Australian Submarine Contract Beating Japanese, German Proposals

    Australia’s new fleet of 12 submarines will be built by DCNS of France in South Australia

    Australia will get to possess the new Barracuda-class submarines which will be built to Australian specifications for a conventional, non-nuclear powered submarine in 8-10 years from the signing of the contract.

    Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) and the government of Japan were the two unsuccessful bidders in the bid to build 12 submarines to replace Australia’s Collins-class submarines.

    Japanese defence minister Gen Nakatani said the decision was “deeply regrettable” and that his government will ask Australia to explain why they didn’t pick our design.”

    The submarines will cost $20bn to build and $30bn to maintain over their expected lifetime of 30 years.

    Australian Prime Minister Turnbull said the submarine contract would “secure Australia, secure our island nation, but also ensure that our economy transitions to the economy of the 21st century”. The submarine project alone would create 2,800 jobs, he said.

    Some components may come from France while the combat system will be sourced from the US.


    Source : http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15...ating_Japanese__German_Proposals#.Vx8RWdSvirU

    See also : http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...ogram-contract-for-royal-australian-navy.html
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
  10. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Thales has 35% stake of DCNS.

    And Thales is (one of the) big fish in Australian defence industry.
     
  11. Screambowl

    Screambowl Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    3,207
    Location:
    N/A
    and chinese hackers will steal it from there, lol. what they have been doing so far :p
     
  12. Screambowl

    Screambowl Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    3,207
    Location:
    N/A
    they will never. Because of obvious reasons.

    When you provide this tech to some one else. It may get leaked to 3rd and 4th hand too. Secondly, Japan itself has not fully inducted it
     
  13. Tactical Frog

    Tactical Frog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    303
    No mention of India in this article listing regional powers around Australia :doh:

    http://dld.bz/e3W2Y
     
  14. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    2,250

    ................................................................................................................................
     
    Tactical Frog likes this.
  15. Tactical Frog

    Tactical Frog Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    303
    There is also a theory according which Australia would like to keep the door open for a major design change ... switching to nuclear propulsion !
     
  16. Zebra

    Zebra Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    6,006
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Ha..ha,
    Never talk about that red color part again. :biggrin2:

    As AU don't want nukes. :scared2:
     

Share This Page