How not to build a submarine. The Collins Class.

[McPherson]

Maybe if we were buying a lot of stuff from Japan and Korea we'd set up a purchasing and liaison organisation for East Asia, but that hasn't been the case for decades so it currently doesn't exist.

That reason did not stop the attempt to purchase Soryus did it? I mean that is a huge purchase. The IJG kind of boloed it on their end?

 

[Riain]

That reason did not stop the attempt to purchase Soryus did it? I mean that is a huge purchase. The IJG kind of boloed it on their end?

No it did not, but as we've already ascertained the Japanese did not win the contract and one major reason was their inexperience as a weapons exporter which means they're a massive non-technical risk. Don't underestimate the value of 'comfort' with major defence purchases, such purchases say a hell of a lot about the countries involved and in the case of the Soryus Japan just wasn't there as a major defence exporter.

Would you like hundreds of billions of your tax dollars being put on the line to be the guinea pig for Japans first ever weapons export? Because that's what tens of billions is like for us, I cannot understate the magnitude of this risk. Tens of millions, yeah, I'd accept that if the kit was competitive but not tens of billions first time out of the gate.

 

[McPherson]

No it did not, but as we've already ascertained the Japanese did not win the contract and one major reason was their inexperience as a weapons exporter which means they're a massive non-technical risk. Don't underestimate the value of 'comfort' with major defence purchases, such purchases say a hell of a lot about the countries involved and in the case of the Soryus Japan just wasn't there as a major defence exporter.

Would you like hundreds of billions of your tax dollars being put on the line to be the guinea pig for Japans first ever weapons export? Because that's what tens of billions is like for us, I cannot understate the magnitude of this risk. Tens of millions, yeah, I'd accept that if the kit was competitive but not tens of billions first time out of the gate.

I kind of been hinting at LockMart.

 

[Riain]

Did Lockheed Martin have the worlds largest DE submarine on offer and we overlooked it? Or do you think it was some giant bribery scam?

 

[McPherson]

Did Lockheed Martin have the worlds largest DE submarine on offer and we overlooked it? Or do you think it was some giant bribery scam?

LockMart is working on "electric" naval propulsion and there was a giant bribery scam involved somewhere (LCS). Just not with the "electric" propulsion.

 

[Riain]

LockMart is working on "electric" naval propulsion and there was a giant bribery scam involved somewhere (LCS). Just not with the "electric" propulsion.

So was this electric naval propulsion mature enough to win the contract 5 years ago? Or are we trading the non-technical risk of Japan for a technical risk with this new and not ready for production US system?

Keep in mind this is the biggest military project in the nation's history, risk is a massive problem.

 

[McPherson]

The US system is nearly ready and somewhat in use. On subs.

 

[Avrorrange]

That reason did not stop the attempt to purchase Soryus did it? I mean that is a huge purchase. The IJG kind of boloed it on their end?

Tony Abbott was an unconventional pm in many weird ways.

 

[Riain]

The US system IS ready and in use.

So was a proposal put forward to go head to head with the French and Japanese?

 

[Avrorrange]

No it did not, but as we've already ascertained the Japanese did not win the contract and one major reason was their inexperience as a weapons exporter which means they're a massive non-technical risk. Don't underestimate the value of 'comfort' with major defence purchases, such purchases say a hell of a lot about the countries involved and in the case of the Soryus Japan just wasn't there as a major defence exporter.

Would you like hundreds of billions of your tax dollars being put on the line to be the guinea pig for Japans first ever weapons export? Because that's what tens of billions is like for us, I cannot understate the magnitude of this risk. Tens of millions, yeah, I'd accept that if the kit was competitive but not tens of billions first time out of the gate.

There are more things at work. The deal was clearly the first step towards greater cooperation against China.Diplomatically,I think Japan has greater reliability as a security contract partner than France for very obvious reasons.EU nations have been very ambivalent in their attitude towards China, and I don’t doubt they would try and exploit Aus/Jap/US’ growing rift with China for better deals with it.Abbott was many things,but I think he got that right.

From what I grasped of the deal, Japan lost more because of their inexperienced in arms deals negotiations rather than doubts about their reliability as a supplier.France mounted a very active campaign which basically said yes to our every demand whereas Japan just sat on their laurels—thinking we would honour Abbott’s promises.Not to mention the technical issues I mentioned earlier.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Sweden did supply ammo for Carl Gustav RCLs during Vietnam, hardly a show stopper.
Political decisions between Japan and NZ in 2018 were not tainted by WW2, the Kiwis really liked the P1, apparently it's much better than the P8 at low level which impressed them. But they bought the P8 because they didn't want to be the guinea pig for Japans first major defence export on the cornerstone of the RNZAF's force structure.

FYI the AUSTEMBs in Washington DC and London coordinate purchasing for the US and Europe respectively that includes Italy, Sweden, France and well as Britain. There is no machinery in place for Australia to buy things off Brazil and this counts as much as how supposedly great their new tank is.

They stopped supplying the Swedish K to the US as they were fighting in Vietnam forcing the SEAL's to get Smith & Wesson to make copies as the S&W Model 76. The Carl Gustav rounds were being produced in various nations under licence so shipping them to he US from other sources was not an issue.

All sorts of people have found themselves being burnt by suppliers refusing to sell ranging from the Israeli's who had the French refuse to support their Mirage fighters or the Belgians refusing to supply ammo to coalition forces in GW1.

 

[Riain]

There are more things at work. The deal was clearly the first step towards greater cooperation against China.Diplomatically,I think Japan has greater reliability as a security contract partner than France for very obvious reasons.EU nations have been very ambivalent in their attitude towards China, and I don’t doubt they would try and exploit Aus/Jap/US’ growing rift with China for better deals with it.Abbott was many things,but I think he got right.

From what I grasped of the deal, Japan lost more because of their inexperienced in arms deals negotiations rather than doubts about their reliability as a supplier.France mounted a very active campaign which basically said yes to our every demand whereas Japan just sat on their laurels—thinking we would honour Abbott’s promises.Not to mention the technical issues I mentioned earlier.

I've tried the find the source where I read, most likely in something from ASPI, that when placed head to head with the French and Germans the Japanese were defeated easily for the entire scope of the project. Going back over the APSI articles from 2015 and 2016 there is no shortage of technical criticism of the Soryu, which I don't seem to recall at the time.

I'm not anti-Japanese by any means, but I'd like our first foray into having them as a supplier be something smaller/cheaper and less critical like the SP Artillery we're buying from Sth Korea.

 

[Riain]

They stopped supplying the Swedish K to the US as they were fighting in Vietnam forcing the SEAL's to get Smith & Wesson to make copies as the S&W Model 76. The Carl Gustav rounds were being produced in various nations under licence so shipping them to he US from other sources was not an issue.

All sorts of people have found themselves being burnt by suppliers refusing to sell ranging from the Israeli's who had the French refuse to support their Mirage fighters or the Belgians refusing to supply ammo to coalition forces in GW1.

I left of the "n't" from the "did". They didn't supply ammo.

Use your words Riain.

I think there were to be some issues with France, our Mirages and Vietnam but in the event the Canberra deployment solved a bunch of problems for the RAAF in one go.

 

[Avrorrange]

I've tried the find the source where I read, most likely in something from ASPI, that when placed head to head with the French and Germans the Japanese were defeated easily for the entire scope of the project. Going back over the APSI articles from 2015 and 2016 there is no shortage of technical criticism of the Soryu, which I don't seem to recall at the time.

I'm not anti-Japanese by any means, but I'd like our first foray into having them as a supplier be something smaller/cheaper and less critical like the SP Artillery we're buying from Sth Korea.

In retrospect,there are a lot of problems with France as a supplier as well,but we rolled everything under the carpet because the French hired a former DoD bureaucrat who knew inside out about what the politicians and other DoD officials were thinking and advised them accordingly.Basically, they told us everything we want to hear.

 

[Rickshaw]

I wouldn't have thought an internal Army preference for tanks over another infantry battalion after Op Bribie would be that controversial or even noteworthy. Especially given that Commander of 1 ATF was Brigadier Graham, a RAAC officer.

I thought that during 1968 there was a change in tank troop strength from 3 to 4 tanks, in line with a British change so the initial deployment was 3 troops of 3 but by the end of the year it was 4 troops of 4 plus cats and dogs.

The change to the Vietnam Squadron came about because the forward deployed resupply troop was made active in 1968. There was no mention of that being driven by British changes to deployment strength at the time. It was apparently driven by the situation's requirements. There was no drop in the strength of the troops, as such.

 

[Sam R.]

But Australia needs arms suppliers indifferent to Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, India, China, Japan and the United States to have an independent foreign policy.

Obviously Australia is precluded (currently and historically) from having an independent foreign policy.

 

[McPherson]

So was a proposal put forward to go head to head with the French and Japanese?

On the battery? Where do you think NSG is going to "get" the battery?

But Australia needs arms suppliers indifferent to Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, India, China, Japan and the United States to have an independent foreign policy.

Obviously Australia is precluded (currently and historically) from having an independent foreign policy.

Why? I mean I know it is irony in there, but seriously why?

 

[Sam R.]

Why? I mean I know it is irony in there, but seriously why?

There are no major arms suppliers indifferent to the states that Australia had an interest in. Even Sweden has a generalised stance on war crimes.

The joke is about the structure of “imperialism” or the “world system” where Australia is necessarily a semi-peripheral state. Australia‘a economy is far too small to be independent. Australia will necessarily wind up with a Mother, Uncle or Teacher.

Buying a submarine, or a fighter, or a destroyer is always about who our special friend is. Demanding that they let us make it here is bargaining over how special the relationship is, as an implicit threat than in 20 years we could be special for someone else.

 

[McPherson]

There are no major arms suppliers indifferent to the states that Australia had an interest in. Even Sweden has a generalised stance on war crimes.

The joke is about the structure of “imperialism” or the “world system” where Australia is necessarily a semi-peripheral state. Australia‘a economy is far too small to be independent. Australia will necessarily wind up with a Mother, Uncle or Teacher.

Buying a submarine, or a fighter, or a destroyer is always about who our special friend is. Demanding that they let us make it here is bargaining over how special the relationship is, as an implicit threat than in 20 years we could be special for someone else.

You have just described the United Kingdom. More ironic and funny I cannot find in geo-strategic terms from about 30 years ago and evolving. Australia seems to me to not have been as funny or as deluded.

 

[Sam R.]

The UK sees herself as fallen, and would really rather not be selling herself in order to buy critical systems.

Australia may be inept, but she knows what she’s on about. Singapore and the insurance policy failing was a bit of a wake up. You need to play harder because they won’t always be there.