politics

Concern growing in Australia over plan to buy Japanese submarines

35 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

This is a big political ploy to advertise to the World that Japan is open for business in the ARMS RACE... Because it doesn't make sense for Australians to partner up with Japan rather than UK's BAE System who is one of the top Sub builders in the World who can also build Nuclear powered ships which Japan is not able to do so at the momment plus Brits and Aussies have the UNITED KINGDOM RELATIONSHIP... Also there is French DCNS would be happy to transfer the technology and help to build Submarines domestically if the Aussies want to build it on there own. Aussies are helping Japan to get there ARMS business rolling in return for increased investments to Australia from Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pride is the last thing you need in developing state of art advanced piece of technology like a sub.

PRC's subs are all Russian in design and I don't hear you complaining about that.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I hope the Aussies can pull it together and regain their pride. Buying anything like a sub from Japan shows a lack of pride, if you ask me. I could never see the U.S. arming its fleet with Japan made subs. They might source some of the technology, but I could never see them buying a whole fleet made in Japan. I see some talk of the U.S. buying some of the battery technology, but Im sure the hulls and other propulsion systems are all domestic.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How on Earth this is a problem in Australia is beyond me.

The last series of Australian submarines - the Collins Class, were a disaster, beset by all manner of problem.

Why on Earth would you pay much more, for a potentially significantly inferior Submarine, just to say you made it yourself? When it comes to matters of defence, that is the epitome of stupidity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ WakarimasenSep. 10, 2014 - 06:03PM JST

Price always wins these days. Too expensive to make anthing in Oz (eh, toyota?)

You can also add to that list GM (group who bought out Holden), Ford Australia, Renault Australia, Mitsubishi Motors Australia, Rootes Australia, Chrysler Australia, British Leyland, Nissan Australia, Australian Motor Industries, Volkswagon Australia and a bunch of other small scale manufacturers...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember back when south korea started building their own Main battle tank. In the end they couldnt produce the engine and transmission under license due lack of expertice and had to buy the engines from Daimler AG. Australia should just study what parts of the sub they can make. Just like everyone else does

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

The object of war is not to die for your country..... Its to make the other poor bastard die for his country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiSep. 11, 2014 - 11:59AM JST I'm a bit tougher. Launching cruise missiles from a safe area against an enemy with 0 ASW capability is not what I'll call a battle.

Thinking you're tougher just because you are willing to get shot does really mean you are tougher, it just means you like getting shot. A dead fighter is just dead.

Submarine warfare is all about stealth, if they know where you are at that completely defeats the purpose of having a submarine force. If you kill them before they have a chance to fire at you, well you win! Just like a sniper.....

In my book that's a win.

You may think it's not chivalrous to fight in the shadows, but name me a war where being chivalrous won that war?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The 688 or Los Angeles class is an outstanding sub and battle tested (gulf wars cruise missile launches) and in 42 years of service only one was lost, but that was due to a shipyard arsonist who wanted to go home.

I'm a bit tougher. Launching cruise missiles from a safe area against an enemy with 0 ASW capability is not what I'll call a battle.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

NathawSep. 10, 2014 - 01:31PM JST Ian Macfarlane and Tony Abbot have never been to battle field. They will never be too.

Just because a leader (s) of a nation have never seen combat doesn't mean they can't make the right call.

NathawSep. 10, 2014 - 01:31PM JST Under water warfare is entirely different from surface ships on the sea.

Couldn't agree more, surface ships are just targets.

NathawSep. 10, 2014 - 01:31PM JST Cost and efficiency is favourable for Japanese Soryu. However Japan has never been to real combat in real life with using those Subs. It is questionable about Soryu sea worthiness, battle readiness and user friendliness.

Even though Japan has yet to use their subs in any real combat doesn't mean that her sub and crews aren't any good. In the happy go lucky world of subs Japan's navy is considered one of the best trained and disciplined not to mention having some top notch subs.

Most navies train for war, while other navies train their sailors by singing patriotic songs and reading propaganda drivel.

Man, do I miss angles and dangles!

SamuraiBlueSep. 10, 2014 - 03:16PM JST Can you name one sub under your own criteria as sea worthiness, battle readiness and user friendliness? I do not know of any modern day subs that is in service that had been real combat in real life.

The 688 or Los Angeles class is an outstanding sub and battle tested (gulf wars cruise missile launches) and in 42 years of service only one was lost, but that was due to a shipyard arsonist who wanted to go home.

But, the cost for one of these babies far exceed that of the Japanese made diesel subs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Ha! I was down voted for asking a question? God bless comment posters, they're always happy to blast people.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Labor opposition leader Bill Shorten said allowing the subs to be built elsewhere could “irresponsibly put our national security at risk as a maritime nation”.

Bill Shorten is still acting like Union boss. I want to know about why National security risk if Submarine was builds in overseas from Bill Shorten. Australia has just bought second war ship from UK not too long ago. Australia had bought its all fighter jets and Helicopters from US and Europe. Please, explain us Mr. Bill Shorten. I want to hear the reason of national security risks from future Labor PM.

Japanese build Submarine will only cost half of Australian build under water Orchestra Collin class Submarine. Australia Sub Marine industries do not have technology to build world class Sub Marine. Every time they build Sub Marine or Ship, the Government needs to spend billions of dollars to fix technology and strategy problem in Sub Marine and War ship.

Collin class Submarine has poor performance history and other ships and Submarine knew their location. So they were called as under water Orchestra and joke about Collin class Submarine.

Japanese build Soryu Class Submarine has advance technology, quiet and more capability than Collin Class Submarine in combat or reconnaissance duty.

Every Labor Government projects were budget blown out and cost more than double than first cost analyzed. So buying Soryu class Submarine will save Australian tax payers' money tens of billions dollar and Navy will get better Submarine than building Collin Submarine in Australia.

I'll say Soryu Class Submarine cost only 1/3 of Collin Class Submarine which builds in Australia because Collin Class Submarine needs to fix technology for strategy and capability problems in Collin Class Submarine.

If Australia Government bought Soryu Class Submarine and then Government does not need to spend on technology faulty. The Japanese Company will fix at its cost.

I don't see any national security risk for Australia from overseas build Submarine. Labor is champion of wasting tax payers' money.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why Japan in the first place? There are other sellers out there... Russia anyone?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

However Japan has never been to real combat in real life with using those Subs. It is questionable about Soryu sea worthiness, battle readiness and user friendliness.

Neither has anyone else. The only real live post-WWII sub attack was by a nuclear submarine against an ageing WWII light cruiser escorted by two destroyers with nearly no useful sonar ability to speak of.

My vote is ... overall, Australia just isn't big enough to make building subs at home a truly cost efficient proposition. In a time when the government is only willing to spend a limited amount on defence, there are few real alternatives than to buy foreign unless you are willing to eat an easily visible capability deficit.

The thing is ... really Australia doesn't have the ability to do it. Submarine building is a fairly specialized field with only a few countries as real players. Australia tried to stretch to it with the Collins and it didn't work out. Just as they can accept not building fighters themselves, they should concentrate any arms industry on building niche products where they might have a realistic chance of building a world class product at reasonable cost.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The argument is simple. You go where the better technology, speed of construction and cost is located. Isn't it a rule of thumb?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Price always wins these days. Too expensive to make anthing in Oz (eh, toyota?)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I'm not making a snarky comment, but does Australia need a fleet of subs? Are there threats I'm unaware of? Honestly just curious! Thanks!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Of course the Australian ship builders have the technology and experience to build these subs. The thing they don't have a is a PM that supports Australian business. Abbott should be deported to the asylum seeker's shelter he set up in PNG!

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

I wonder if the new sub will come with a big ring pull on the out side? it could be sponsored by "FOSTERS"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nathaw

Can you name one sub under your own criteria as sea worthiness, battle readiness and user friendliness?

I do not know of any modern day subs that is in service that had been real combat in real life.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

science and technology seems to be de-emphasised in society generally.

I'm not sure that the CSIRO would agree with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do the Australians have the technology to do this at all? absolutely but at high cost. if i can get an excellent subs worth 50billion at home, and made for half price in Japan, that other 25billion can go towards more planes and other high tech weapons. its a no brainer. the chances of Japan becoming an enemy of Australia is almost zero so why not get the best weapon for your $ from your friends

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It said that buying off-the-shelf from Japan, based on its highly regarded Soryu-class design, would cost about A$25 billion, compared with A$50 to $80 billion at home.

Ian Macfarlane and Tony Abbot have never been to battle field. They will never be too. Under water warfare is entirely different from surface ships on the sea. Cost and efficiency is favourable for Japanese Soryu. However Japan has never been to real combat in real life with using those Subs. It is questionable about Soryu sea worthiness, battle readiness and user friendliness.

It is good for Japanese ship building industry and defence export. However existing facility of Aussie ship building industry heartland will become like Ghost town. Australia has local talents. The government is unimpressed and lazy to use them.

Aussie authority have not learnt the tragedy of Russia back in 2008. Ordering more than dozen Subs is more likely Russian Roulette.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russian_submarine_K-152_Nerpa_accident

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Yeah, I hear the word among the boys in Zhongnanhai is to wait for you guys to built a brand new submarine from scratch and then leisurely navigate in more disputed waters...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia should buy them from Japan and use that as a base from which to build their own in the future. Just like Japan is buying F-35s but they have their own stealth fighter in mind for the future.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

If Australia govt gives up plans for homegrown vs. better/cheaper Japan-bought .... Diogenes can finally rest his lamp

(... assuming they're not planning on wasting the money they save somewhere else.)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I can agree in principle with the need to retain a local military shipbuilding particularly in the outbreak of war when supply lines become dubious but Australia neither has the facilities nor the expertise. The best thing I think here is to find a compromise between both first by buying most of the subs from Japan outright then by acquiring a license and building maybe 1 or 2. In the process Australian shipbuilders should start investing in taking classes in Japan the same way Japan took classes in Europe then go from there.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So typical for labour union dinosaurs to play on fears that don't exist and claim jobs will be lost. YOU FIRST NEED TO HAVE THOSE JOBS in order to lose them and since they don't have that skillset at an affordable price, well come on Labour nutters, who are you trying to fool?!

What I'm surprised about is not that Japan will build these but how come China and SK haven't already lost their collective minds saying that this is illegal, that Japan is selling weapons of mass destruction and they weren't consulted on this first and also asked to bid on it as well. Jaded? Me?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

It would be better for Australia to build these submarines at home. Yes it is more expensive but the money will go into the local economy not Japans. Second it will keep their shipbuilding process available.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Do the Australians have the technology to do this at all?

Australia will need technological assistance if they decide to produce the submarines locally (or even create a new class) from Japan. This is very expensive and could lead to going over budget.

They are certainly capable, but its just cheaper in both time and cost to buy them from Japan. It also doesn't mean the Australian ship-building industry is done as Australians will likely study the submarines extensively for their own manufacturing purposes.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Do the Australians have the technology to do this at all?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Look, Aussie industry. They gave you a chance to hack the mustard and you didn't. This is the only possible result, especially with a 2-3:1 cost difference.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Aussie ship building industry is going the same way as the Holden mate, get used to it.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I dislike the current government with a passion. That being said, however, the opposition are going overboard in trying to kill this off. You also need to know that the current submarine fleet (built in Australia) had more than a few teething problems and cost over runs. Moreover, perhaps Australia doesn't really care about heavy industry anymore. The much vaunted (but highly inefficient) local car industry is finally collapsing and in a broader context science and technology seems to be de-emphasised in society generally.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Cheap prices today means a sacrifice in the skill level of domestic maritime engineers.

Stupid decision to not elevate your people in favor of a cheap price tag.

-17 ( +3 / -20 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites