SEA 1000: French bid to make Australia submarines fades on US security fears

[Zeewier]

Australia increasingly likely to pick Japan for huge submarine order, experts say
BY JESSE JOHNSON

With Australia's release of its defense white paper last week, the race to build the country's next generation of submarines enters the home stretch — and some experts say the Japanese bid appears to hold an insurmountable lead.

"The DWP (Defense White Paper) strongly stresses the importance of further strengthening U.S.-Japanese defense relations and is also quite vocal about China's challenge to the rules-based order in maritime Asia," Ben Schreer, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, said.

"In my view, it's highly likely that the Turnbull government will choose the Japanese design for strategic and technological reasons, and the DWP has added weight to this," he said, referring to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The white paper says the country's submarine force will be increased from six to 12 "regionally superior submarines with a high degree of interoperability with the United States."

Requirements include the submarines having "a range and endurance similar" to the Collins class of vessels that the Royal Australian Navy currently operates, as well as "sensor performance and stealth characteristics superior" to its current subs.

Experts note that Japan's diesel and electric-powered Soryu subs either meet or could be specially designed to meet most of these requirements. A decision is expected sometime this year.

"First and foremost, we've made a big strategic commitment to Japan based on this view of where the region is heading," said Nick Bisley, a professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. "There is bipartisan support ... both sides think this is a really good idea. ... That plus the operational side — the Japanese submarine is most similar to ours — will tilt the balance very heavily in their favor.

"And the Japanese are also saying they are now open to the construction process in Australia, so that the government will be able to present a package that says 'we've got jobs, we've got something we want, and we've got this friend in Japan.' Together, I think that makes it overwhelmingly the choice that will be made."

Japan has said it is willing to build at least some of the submarines in Australia, a key economic factor that until recently Tokyo had been apparently unwilling to commit to. Tokyo has also reassured Canberra that if it wins the sub bid Japan will also share with Australia its naval crown jewels — its most secret stealth technology.

While France and Germany are also participating in the so-called Competitive Evaluation Process to build the subs, Japan has long been thought of as the front-runner. Prior to the implementation of a more transparent bidding process, the Japanese bid was widely expected to be a lock under the administration of Tony Abbott, the former Australian leader who had close ties to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

But more than the technical aspects, Canberra's strategic goals could prove key as Japan seeks to outflank the French and German bids for Australia's largest-ever defense procurement offer, worth an estimated 50 billion Australian dollars ($36 billion).

Australia's new defense paper lauds Japan as "a major power in North Asia" and "an important contributor to regional and global security." It goes on to say that Canberra "welcomes the prospect of Japan playing a larger role in international security and will continue to deepen and broaden" its growing security cooperation with Tokyo.

During a visit to Tokyo last month, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said her country's relationship with Japan is at an "all-time high," and acknowledged that the Japanese side has "emphasized the strategic importance" of the submarine bid.

The push to cement closer defense ties began in 2007, during Abe's first administration, with the signing of the Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation. This was upgraded in 2014, under Abe's current administration, to a "special strategic" partnership. That same year, Abe's Cabinet approved new rules on the export of arms, ending a nearly five-decade-long self-imposed ban.

Now, much of the strategic debate in Australia is focused on China and how such a deal will build on Canberra's "quasi-alliance" with Tokyo. A winning bid by Japan will likely see the two nations working hand in hand over at least the next 30 years, as the subs are built and maintained.

Sam Bateman, a former Australian naval commodore and adviser at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said a deal with Japan "would not be well received in China."

"It would be seen in Beijing as Australian participation in the U.S.-Japan effort to contain China," Bateman said, adding that such "cooperation is actively promoted by both Tokyo and Washington as part of balancing an ascendent China."

But with any Japan sub deal, China would likely be less worried about the submarines themselves and more concerned about the precedent set by such an agreement.

"China, ultimately, doesn't really care about the submarines — their number and function is of little concern," said Bisley. "What it doesn't like is the political connection between Japan and Australia and of course the U.S., which they perceive to be intended to constrain China."

A European deal, on the other hand, would be a transaction less encumbered by geopolitical considerations, as well as one that offers Canberra more strategic independence, analysts say.

"Although the European options would provide longer-term strategic flexibility, it seems likely that the final decision will go the way of the Japanese," Bateman said, adding that Australia will face difficulties sustaining the subs if not acting in concert with Japan.

"It is a matter of grand strategy to determine whether that is acceptable," Bateman added.

Macquarie University's Schreer said that picking Japan for the deal would signal that Australia has an interest in East Asian stability and that it would be more likely to side with Tokyo in the event of a conflict.

"And it would signal that Australia is an independent nation which makes choices on its vital defense technologies based on its national interests and not based on Chinese interference," he added.

The Competitive Evaluation Process itself is unlikely to factor in strategic aspects in its recommendation. It is instead expected to focus on technical merits and value.

"If the strategic relationship angle is to play a role, that will most likely happen at the government level, when they weigh the results communicated by the Defense Ministry," said Andrew Davies, director of research at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in the capital, Canberra.

"There is a precedent for that — the government of (former Prime Minister John) Howard chose to override the department's recommendation for the Collins combat system in order to select an American one, on the basis of greater alliance value."

Critics of the Japanese bid say picking the Soryu class could see Australia pulled into an unwanted fight, most likely in the disputed waters of the East or South China Seas.

The East China Sea is home to the uninhabited, Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands, which are also claimed by China. Australia, the U.S. and Japan have all condemned China's November 2013 declaration of an air defense identification zone over those waters, and for now the conflict there has somewhat died down.

The South China Sea, where several nations — Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan and Malaysia among others — have overlapping territorial claims, is a different case altogether.

In those waters, most of which are claimed by Beijing, there has been a marked ramping up of tensions in the wake of China's massive dredging program to create artificial islands. Some of those man-made islands are now home to military-grade airfields as well as powerful weapons and radar systems.

These moves, too, have been roundly condemned by Canberra, Tokyo and Washington, which has conducted what it calls freedom of navigation operations near the disputed islands. Fears of an accidental clash between China and other claimants in the South China Sea have proliferated as tensions have grown fraught.

Bisley, however, said the argument that by picking a Japanese sub, Canberra could be dragged into a battle it may not want to fight, is a nonstarter. He said Australia's strategy in the region has long been to maintain the status quo, which has seen the United States as the dominant military power.

"Those who argue that the J-option will tie Australia into a quasi-alliance with Japan are wrong" Bisley said. "In this case, the technological link will follow a strategic choice that has long been made.

"The submarine decision will flow from Australia having committed itself to an extremely close long-term strategic relationship with Japan — not the other way around."

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/03/01/national/australia-increasingly-likely-pick-japan-huge-submarine-order-experts-say/#.Vtd6rajvLML

[Zeewier]

Zullen een wedje met de Aussies leggen dat wij 'ze' eerder in het water hebben liggen? Zo zetten we er een beetje vaart achter!

Despite being flabbergasted, ex-PM Tony Abbott knew first future submarines won't be ready till 2031
March 2, 2016 8:19am
Exclusive — Tory ShepherdPolitical EditorThe Advertiser

The first submarine to replace the Collins Class fleet won't be ready till 2031.

A REVELATION about the timing of the Future Submarines program which left former Prime Minister Tony Abbott "flabbergasted" was actually passed on to his administration three years ago.

The Abbott Government was told in 2013 that the first Future Submarine would be ready in 2031, and that the Collins Class submarines would need to have their lives extended by up to five years.

In reports on Wednesday, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said he was "flabbergasted" that the 12 new submarines would not enter service until the early 2030s.

However, ministerial advice delivered to his Defence Minister at the time, David Johnston, shows the Government was briefed on the precise schedule more than two years ago.

It is understood Senator Johnston passed the information on to Mr Abbott.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information and released last year show Defence's then submarine boss David Gould wrote that the Collins submarines would need to be kept going for four or five years to cover the gap until the first Future Submarine is ready to go in 2031.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed on Wednesday there had been "no delay" on the program and said the Australian Federal Police would investigate the leaking of a draft Defence White Paper to The Australian, which showed that under Mr Abbott the submarines would be delivered sooner.

Mr Turnbull said the Government had known for years "that it was highly unlikely the first of the Future Submarines could be delivered by 2026, and an extension of life for the Collins Class submarines was feasible and practical".

Defence Minister Marise Payne said extending the Collins was the only practical option to ensure Australia was not left without enough submarines in the water.

The upgrade work to extend the life of the Collins fleet will continue at Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC, which sacked another 110 people on Wednesday.

ASC has entered the 'Valley of Death', during which jobs drop off as work on the Air Warfare Destroyers decline. The Government is under pressure to award other shipbuilding contracts to ASC to retain a core of skills for use on the Future Frigates and Future Submarines.

The draft White Paper predicted the submarines would enter service in the late 2020s, while the final White Paper released last week says 2030s.

Mr Abbott told The Australian the Collins was "a fragile capability" and that national security was at risk if there was a delay.

France, Germany and Japan are competing to be Australia's partner on the $50 billion project, and the Government is still considering their bids.

It is understood that European contenders are able to deliver in the 2020s, while it is not clear if the Japanese can.

Mr Abbott is understood to have pushed for the Japanese option, but if he were in power and determined to stick to a 2020s deadline, that could rule them out.

Defence Force Chief Air Marshal Mark Binskin went through the submarine plan in detail this week.

He said the Collins had been set to retire in 2026, but that once it became clear the new submarines would hit the water between 2030 and 2033, it became clear two Collins would have to have proper upgrades to maintain their capability for longer.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/despite-being-flabbergasted-expm-tony-abbott-knew-first-future-submarines-wont-be-ready-till-2031/news-story/29977649eaee6b8709e2564b13c5cebb

[mandaje]

Beter laat dan nooit: een apart topic over het SEA 1000-project. De Amerikaanse overheid drijgt om gevoelige technologische gegevenslekkage dit Australische project te vetoëen. En daarmee de Australische overheid min of meer te chanteren om voor de Soryu te kiezen. Het gebeurd zelden in de scheepsbouw maar DCNS zou sterk staan in een aanspannen rechtzaak.

En een les voor de Nederland toekomst he. Daarom plaats ik het.

Het is naar wat ik kan begrijpen puur een actie gericht tegen de Fransen omdat ze een niet al te beste reputatie hebben als het gaat om bescherming van intellectueel eigendom. De Duitsers en Jappanners kunnen nog gewoon meedoen.

[walter leever]

Ik snap eigenlijk niet dat er altijd over 12 stuks gesproken wordt(zullen er toch echt minder worden,waarom?),ze krijgen de 6 Collins al niet eens bemand. :crazy:

[Zeewier]

SEA 1000: A Franco–Australian solution
10 Feb 2016|Sean Costello

Where Australia selects France, it selects enduring geopolitical alignment and surety of supply, a program of technical transfer to deliver sovereignty, a regionally superior capability and interoperability with our allies.

I can make those statements with respect to France because France is a complete submarine power and has national polices to remain so. A complete submarine power is one that can safely design, build, operate and sustain any class of submarine on an enduring basis.

Objective evidence of being a complete submarine power is the ability to re-apply technology from multiple designs, both nuclear and conventional, to optimize for any one design. In a strategic framework this is critical. Whatever the future holds, cooperation with a complete power provides Australia with the greatest latitude in developing a solution.

Planned in detail to beyond the year 2080, France's mature galaxy of submarine capabilities stems from France's own commitment to, and maintenance of, a strategic nuclear deterrent. Stemming from this national undertaking France autonomously designs, builds and sustains large ocean going nuclear powered submarines, conventional submarines and of course has proven and established methods for technology transfer.

Consider what's behind this statement—enduring and leading edge capabilities for Australia in stealth, sonar and other sensor technology derived from nuclear missile and nuclear attack submarines, the return on experience from long-range patrols, nuclear safety standards, technology development pathways, a complete array of research and development and test facilities... I could go on.

The relevance of those capabilities are brought to bear when one considers the Australian Future Submarine requirement, which self-evidently calls for a new submarine and not one that's in existence today. Although it may seem obvious, it's worth pointing out that when DCNS received Australia's requirement we immediately recognised that the French Barracuda was the most suitable reference design and not our existing conventional design.

As a complete submarine power, we understand conventional propulsion, which is why we also understand that propulsion is but one part of the submarine puzzle. In designing to the Australian requirement, it should come as no surprise then that the conventionally powered Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A is only 5% lighter than its nuclear cousin.

The Future Submarine Program isn't a competition for an existing submarine but a global design development and technology transfer program to deliver an integrated capability and not a product. That should be obvious, and where statements are made that existing designs will be lengthened and widened to the requirement, it only proves my point. 

For submarine matters, France offers a strategic partnership that directly interfaces with and complements that offered by the US in submarine weapons and electronic systems. Together with the United Kingdom, the strategic future for Australia in terms of sovereignty, enduring regional superiority and interoperability is in joining this club of complete submarine powers.

There's no better example of what I'm talking about than the offer from France to transfer to Australia sovereign control and use of pump-jet propulsion technology for the Shortfin Barracuda—technology resident only in France, the UK and the USA. Technology borne from the French SSBN program a generation ago. The stealth and hydrodynamic performances of pump jet propulsion are of course classified and in Australia known only to DCNS and the Australian Government.

For Australia, our industrial plan is built for the unique circumstances facing Australia's submarine enterprise as well as from the return on experience from decades of international technology transfer.

DCNS will transfer know-how from France to Australia, purposefully apply this knowledge to create specific benefits in our programs and develop an innovation environment around our scientific, education and industrial community to provide an enduring and continuously improving service for our customer.

As part of our Australian Industry Plan, DCNS has already consulted hundreds of Australian companies and has identified more than 50 projects to develop new capabilities within our sovereign bounds.

From the early days of the future submarine program DCNS proposes to develop centres of excellence organised around four competitiveness clusters.

The first will be based on advanced manufacturing, with technological issues to address such things as hull materials and welding, composite materials, corrosion and hydrodynamics.

The second will focus on engineering methods and tools in an effort to ensure DCNS stays at the edge of best practice. It would deal with such issues as program management, configuration and data management, 3D and virtual reality, simulation, test and training.

The third will focus on emerging or evolving technologies, such as optoelectronics, stealth and signature management, energy storage and optimization, permanent magnet electrical propulsion, lithium ion batteries and cyber security.

The last cluster will focus on emerging technologies in support and sustainment, which today include such things as predictive testing, vibration analysis and availability management.

From a nation of only 66 million people, and with the same western demographic and cultural challenges as Australia, the French submarine enterprise:

Maintains a continuous strategic nuclear deterrent at sea,
Designs several classes of the most advanced types of submarines,
Has had a submarine at sea every single day since 1972,
Publicly contracts for 240 days at sea each year for their SSNs,
Has multiple crewing concepts in place for all its submarines,
Routinely patrols as far afield as the south western Indian ocean,
Has a complete end-to-end scientific, educational and research and development program planned to beyond the year 2080.
In other words, France has a mature submarine enterprise and there is no reason why Australia cannot have one, too.

Whatever the outcome of the CEP, my hope is that Australia can seize this once in a generation opportunity to form a submarine enterprise that's fit for its needs and become sovereign, enduring, autonomous, regionally superior and interoperable.

AUTHOR
Sean Costello is the CEO of DCNS Australia. This is an edited extract of a speech delivered to the ADM2016 conference in Canberra yesterday.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/sea-1000-a-franco-australian-solution/

[Zeewier]

Mitsubishi boss promotes sales pitch for Australia's $50 billion submarine contract
Date
February 12, 2016 - 2:46PM

Jared Lynch
Business reporter

The boss of the Japanese company hoping to build Australia's new $50 billion submarine fleet has denied reports that the Turnbull government is pressuring to reveal a detail cost breakdown of his bid.

Shunichi Miyanaga, the president and chief executive of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, said his company's bid is progressing smoothly and expected the government would announce the successful firm sometime this year.

Mr Miyanaga is in Australia and has visited the ministers from defence, trade and industry ministers or their representatives, as well has shipyards in Adelaide and Perth and academics for the country's biggest universities.

He dismissed a report published in the Financial Times this week that the Australian government had in the past two months been laying increasing pressure on Japan to tighten the commercial terms of the bid and outline a detailed budget so it can gauge which company is leading the submarine project.

When asked if that report was true, Mr Miyanaga said: "I don't think so".

"As the leading company of this project... I have come here and I think the bidding process ... is [making] very smooth progress. We have been exchanging the questions and answers so I don't have any such kind of concerns and problems."

Mr Miyanaga's comments came after he told reporters in Adelaide this week that Mitsubishi could build Australia's new submarine fleet in Australia if it won the contract, which could be worth up to $50 billion.

He didn't rule out investing in the government-owned Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) to improve the chances of Mitsubishi's bid.

"I have expressed our willingness to do the business in Australia. In many countries we have been operating very smoothly and well in the form of joint ventures, sometimes in the form of 100 per cent investment, sometimes acquisitions, sometimes new investment.

"But I would like to discuss further [the prospect of investing in ASC]. We have been very successful in this kind of gigantic project to form such collaboration schemes, sometimes in a joint venture in the early stages, which can be taken over, step by step, by the customer country's companies."

Mitsubishi has been operating in Australia since the 1950s and generates revenue of about $35 billion a year. Its operations include rocket launches and the manufacture of jets, gas turbines, high speed rail and forklifts as well as submarines.

It is It is competing against French bidder DCNS and German bidder TKMS, part of the ThyssenKrupp multinational group for the submarine contract.

All three of the competing bidders lodged their proposals late in 2015 under the timetable set by the federal government, with a decision expected by mid-2016.

Mr Miyanga said he was confident Australia's shipbuilding industry could build the country's new fleet of submarines, although he didn't specify a percentage of how much the build would be local if Mitsubishi won the contract.

"My visit this time is very assuring visit. I have found very strong confidence in expertise in shipbuilding. We'd like to work together with the Australian people and send our people [here] and have some people come to Japan.

"We'd like to make as possible as we can in Australia and I have found the Australian industries are very fortified and have very high skills and expertise."

One aspect of the project he was looking forward to, if Mitsubishi was successful, was the development of a design centre which would draw on the expertise of Australian industry leaders and university researchers.

"It would both in Japan and Australia. At the very beginning... the Japanese design centre would be a little bigger. Then, step by step, the Japanese design centre would become smaller and the Australian design centre would become larger.

"We'd establish a very specific design centre but we'll add a lot of related engineering collaboration organisations. For example I have met several professors in Perth and Adelaide and here, this morning, I was at the Monash University to discuss the further collaboration possibilities.

"I am excited to explore information technologies and other technologies. We'd like to connect such collaboration centres in Australia with this design centre for submarines."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mitsubishi-boss-up-sales-pitch-for-australias-50-million-submarine-contract-20160212-gmsihs.html#ixzz3zy1SIqVv

[Zeewier]

Liberal pollsters to help in German submarine bid
Date
February 10, 2016

Liberal Party pollsters Crosby Textor are poised to become involved in the submarine race with German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems planning to hire the firm to help with its bid for the $50 billion contract.

Meanwhile, Fairfax Media can reveal that the Turnbull government's national security committee of Cabinet has signed off on the plan to commit to building a full fleet of 12 submarines to replace the ageing Collins Class.

Also on Wednesday, Defence officials dismissed suggestions that the Japanese bid was getting favourable treatment by being allowed to patch up holes in its proposal to build the new fleet.

Advertisement

Germany, Japan and France are in a three-way race to build the new boats starting in the late 2020s. Each has submitted a proposal that the Defence Department is now examining under the so-called "competitive evaluation process".

Fairfax Media has learnt that TKMS Australia is seeking the services of Crosby Textor, the political polling firm with a long history of working as pollsters and strategists for the Liberal Party. The firm is expected to survey Australian attitudes towards the submarine project.

TKMS Australia chairman John White declined to comment.

The Financial Times newspaper reported this week that Japan had failed to submit a detailed budget plan or identify which of the two major Japanese firms involved was actually in charge of the project.

Australian officials had laid increasing pressure on Japan to fix these gaps in its proposal after bids had closed at the end of November, the paper reported.

Independent South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon asked Defence officials during a Senate hearing whether any of the bidders had been asked to provide further information.

The Navy's head of the submarine program, Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, said that information had been "requested of all participants".

It had been asked in a different form of one bidder with whom there was a "government-to-government arrangement as opposed to a commercial arrangement", he said.

This indicated Japan, whose bid is being effectively run by the Japanese government in contrast to the German bid by TKMS Australia and the French partially government-owned firm DCNS.

"But the information requested of each participant is the same," Rear Admiral Sammut said.

He said this was consistent with the bidders' contracts with Defence.

Senator Xenophon, asked later whether he was concerned that the Japanese were being coached through their bid, said: "I can't say that, but that is the obvious question that will arise if there has been a contract variation ... That could well mean that there has been an opening up of the process.

"I just want it to be a fair process and I want taxpayers to get value for money."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-pollsters-to-help-in-german-submarine-bid-20160210-gmqod1.html#ixzz3zxrVfO5R

[Zeewier]

Daarom ook een nieuwe SSK, zoveel mogelijk uit eigen huis.

Mee eens, kijk eerst naar wat in eigen keuken realiseerbaar is. Echter er zijn zat partners te vinden die ons op verschillende terreinen technologisch uit de brand willen helpen. De problemen treden pas op wanneer we exemplaren gaan bouwen voor andere marines. Dan komen we in dezelfde fuik te zitten als waar Kockums in zat. Je partner wordt je grootste exportconcurrent. Zuid-Korea mag Type 214 afgeleiden bouwen voor Indonesië. Moet nog zien wat daar van komt. Kan me amper voorstellen dat DSME er door de licensiebouw nog winst uit perst.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Je zult uiteindelijk toch veel uit het buitenland moeten halen, omdat veel gewoonweg niet in Nederland wordt gemaakt. En dat geld voor elke sector. Daarbij zul je tot een bepaalde hoogte ook de kwaliteit van het product mee moeten wegen, evt dmv licentie productie. Ook kun je je afvragen in Hoeverre producten uit eigen huis wel echt uit eigen huis zijn, want wat betekend dat vandaag de dag nog? Is Thales Nederlands? Of is dat eigenlijk gewoon Frans, en zo ja, is Airbus dan eigenlijk niet gewoon een Nederlands bedrijf? etc etc. Ben het met je eens hoor, ben ook van mening dat de Nederlandse economie waar mogelijk moet profiteren. Maar uiteindelijk wordt het toch een internationaal product, of Europees, wat afdoende zou zijn.

Vandaar ook: zo veel als mogelijk.

[dudge]

De scheepsbouw en ontwikkeling zie ik toch het liefst zoveel als mogelijk in Nederlands plaatsvinden, dan rendeert elke geïnvesteerd euro maximaal.

Je zult uiteindelijk toch veel uit het buitenland moeten halen, omdat veel gewoonweg niet in Nederland wordt gemaakt. En dat geld voor elke sector. Daarbij zul je tot een bepaalde hoogte ook de kwaliteit van het product mee moeten wegen, evt dmv licentie productie. Ook kun je je afvragen in Hoeverre producten uit eigen huis wel echt uit eigen huis zijn, want wat betekend dat vandaag de dag nog? Is Thales Nederlands? Of is dat eigenlijk gewoon Frans, en zo ja, is Airbus dan eigenlijk niet gewoon een Nederlands bedrijf? etc etc. Ben het met je eens hoor, ben ook van mening dat de Nederlandse economie waar mogelijk moet profiteren. Maar uiteindelijk wordt het toch een internationaal product, of Europees, wat afdoende zou zijn.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Uit Europees huis zou ik zeggen...1 vd redenen waarom ik ook grotere EUropese militair technologische onafhankelijkheid van de VS bepleit. Want dit is gewoon een interessant project bij een andere democratische rechtstaat en wat mij betreft dus niet omstreden. En het is niet de eerste keer dat de VS dit zo frustreert.

De scheepsbouw en ontwikkeling zie ik toch het liefst zoveel als mogelijk in Nederlands plaatsvinden, dan rendeert elke geïnvesteerd euro maximaal.

[Elzenga]

Daarom ook een nieuwe SSK, zoveel mogelijk uit eigen huis.

Uit Europees huis zou ik zeggen...1 vd redenen waarom ik ook grotere EUropese militair technologische onafhankelijkheid van de VS bepleit. Want dit is gewoon een interessant project bij een andere democratische rechtstaat en wat mij betreft dus niet omstreden. En het is niet de eerste keer dat de VS dit zo frustreert.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

En een les voor de Nederland toekomst he. Daarom plaats ik het.

Daarom ook een nieuwe SSK, zoveel mogelijk uit eigen huis.

[Zeewier]

Beter laat dan nooit: een apart topic over het SEA 1000-project. De Amerikaanse overheid drijgt om gevoelige technologische gegevenslekkage dit Australische project te vetoëen. En daarmee de Australische overheid min of meer te chanteren om voor de Soryu te kiezen. Het gebeurd zelden in de scheepsbouw maar DCNS zou sterk staan in een aanspannen rechtzaak.

En een les voor de Nederland toekomst he. Daarom plaats ik het.

[Zeewier]

French bid to make Australia submarines fades on US security fears
Leo Lewis in Tokyo

Taking on water: US fears of 'technology leakage' have hurt France's bid to supply Barracuda submarines to Australia
Paris's bid to build a $35bn submarine fleet for Australia has lost significant ground over fears the French state shipbuilder will not be able to protect highly sensitive US military secrets.

The US military is concerned that submarine maker DCNS may be more prone to technology "leakage" than contractors in competing bids, according to several people close to the situation.
"France is in Nato, the politics are delicate and it is true that US weapons have been integrated on to French vessels before," said one person involved in Pentagon procurement issues. "But with technology this advanced there is real discomfort within the US military about putting it on a French boat."

The strength of US influence on Australia raises the likelihood that Japan's 4,000-tonne diesel-electric Soryu vessel could emerge triumphant from a three-way tender process it is contesting fiercely with France and Germany. The Japanese bid is the first of its kind and follows a historic policy change in 2014 that lifted a longstanding ban on Japan exporting arms.
Japan weapons export drive

A Japanese national flag flies on a ferry in front of buildings in Tokyo, Japan
Japan seeks submarine sale to Australia in first big weapons export in 70 years
However, Sean Costello, chief executive of DCNS Australia, dismissed the suggestion the French offer would be affected by security concerns. "DCNS is France's sovereign provider of naval technology and has proven systems and procedures in place that protect the sensitive information already provided by Australia," he said.

Although all three bids have strengths and weaknesses, the offer from Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems is also thought to be lagging slightly behind the Japanese offer on technical grounds. The German proposal involves doubling the size of its Type 214 Class vessel, while the Japanese would be selling a model that already exists at the desired size and is in active service.
The concerns over the French bid, according to people closely involved in the tender process, centre on the US-built weapon and sensor technology that will lie at the heart of the new submarines.

Australia is preparing to choose between two weapons systems that will form the backbone of the submarine fleet. Only after that decision is made — probably by early April — can the submarine contractor be selected.
Whichever weapons system is chosen — one is being offered by Lockheed Martin, the other by Raytheon — the technology will be American.

French submarine

Chuck Jones, chief executive of Lockheed Martin in Asia, played down the idea that a US combat system would limit Australia's choices and said that a prerequisite of his company's ability to bid on the weapons tender was that Lockheed would be prepared to work with any of the three submarine makers.

But diplomats say that, on the sidelines of the tender process, Washington has made it increasingly clear over the course of the past six months that it favours the Japanese bid. A Japan-Australia partnership on a high profile military project, say military analysts, would underpin US plans to create a counterbalance to China's rise in the Pacific.
French submarine

The bidding process has highlighted Japan's inexperience in the global arms market, after a failure to submit a detailed budget plan for the project or identify a project leader to take overall responsibility, according to people close to the situation. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has twice intervened to tell the bid team to sharpen up its efforts, according to political insiders in Tokyo.
Meanwhile, the bid has exposed the fact that its largest contractors, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries, have evolved their defence businesses around a single customer — the Japanese Ministry of Defence. Australia has, over the past two months, been laying increasing pressure on Japan to tighten the commercial terms of the bid, lay out a detailed budget and make it clear which company is leading the project.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d27f1502-cbf2-11e5-a8ef-ea66e967dd44.html#axzz3zho2lD4V