Somewhat better.
OK, so, again, I will fill in the rest...
"Unlike competing bids from French and German shipbuilders, Japan’s Soryu was “the only proven submarine” with the most advanced technology, which made him confident of the bid’s success, Mr Miyanaga said."
First, the Soryu-class sub is pretty outstanding for Japanese concept of operations (CONOPs).
Those CONOPs are not Australian CONOPs.
In stock trim, the Soryu doesn't have the range. It is far less than the existing Collins. RAN sub requirements (like them or hate them) aren't a stock fit.
Australianization for the Soryu includes:
1. 6-8 meter extension. In part to make up for fuel storage.
2. Different crew quarter arrangement including accommodation for women and...different toilets.
3. All new, Japan Navy Soryu class are to be built with Lithium-ion batteries. AIP will not exist.
4. Combat systems.
5. Weapons.
6. RAN requirement for special forces and maybe even cruise missiles (previous Defence White Papers). Don't know how this will be workable.
Risks are associated with all of the above:
1. Defective Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy management methods dealing with efficient Japanese managers. This includes significant deskilling in Canberra in regard to using established risk processes.
2. Massive engineering changes that in the end could make the Air Warfare Destroyer project look easy?
3. Change in assumptions from the stock Soyru in the electrical budget. Maybe a bridge too far.
4. Buoyancy budget. Modern subs have thin margins in this area and depend on the modern pump management and circulatory systems to make up the difference. Here is an example of putting too much stuff into a sub design and wrecking your buoyancy assumptions.
The Germans and French are the safer play all the way around.
Background on how the Japanese got involved in this mess.
---
-How will Australia crew 8-12 submarines?
-Predicted Australian Defence cost per flying hour - 2015-2016 budget
-Australia's diminishing RAAF
-Defence may want to waste money on more defective M-1 tanks.
-Collins sub replacement appears to be a rigged game
-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-I will wipe out bullying vows new Defence chief (Houston 2005)
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
-The Decay Of Critical Military Thinking And Writing-With Particular Reference To The RAAF
-The great M-1 tank myth
-*UPDATE* Fear and loathing in Canberra - Audit released on MRH-90 helicopter project
-RAN bullies contractor over Collins sub replacement
-2014-15 ADF budget shocker - Star-ranks
-Air Warfare Destroyer -- Billions, not millions over budget
-Australia's M-1 tanks are... a downgrade compared to what it had
-Weak links put on rubber-stamp Defence panel
-Insert Joke Here
-Tyranny of distance--Long, drawn out helicopter projects are unsustainable
-2014-15 ADF budget shocker - cost per flying hour over the last budget year
-Tiger savaged by Navy League of Australia
-Tiger helicopter update
-PDF file - Exploring the Impacts of the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012
-Dangerous minds: Are maths teachers Australia's newest threat?
-Government ignores its own 'rescue' report created to fix Air Warfare Destroyer woes
-DM Johnston fired in cabinet reshuffle
No comments:
Post a Comment