politics

Japan misses out as Australia awards sub contract to France

160 Comments
By ROD McGUIRK

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

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

160 Comments
Login to comment

Another fail for Abe. Hawkishness costing his country jobs. Good decision for Australia.

15 ( +30 / -14 )

Time to start paying attention to Japanese media and blogs to see how they'll massage this.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

so the boys under seem to pay homage to China in fear of retaliation from a non-threat that makes cheap goods that last once or twice before the good is broken and no refunds. Well if Australia likes cheap and weak French products then so be it be don't hide behind a skirt to say it. Japan is the world's finest in submarine next to the US and Russia. but hey what does a commoner know about things of this nature...Not Abe's fault...just backdoor politics..

-11 ( +19 / -29 )

It is so predictable; China always opposed the idea of Japan building those submarines for Australia and Australia too scare to piss the Chinese off. These are the major factors for the failed bid.

4 ( +23 / -20 )

No matter which sub was selected it is going to be massive fail since it is going to be constructed by ASC a company that can't even make a canoe.

1 ( +12 / -12 )

But others warned that Japan’s long-term cooperation in the submarine contract might hinge on Australia forming an alliance that could bring Australia into conflict with China, Australia’s most important trade partner.

I'm sure many would like to believe this, but the reality is, it was an economic decision based on product and services. It was not s political decision based on favours for mates. Abbott was just an apple polisher. He spent as much time polishing his own apples as everyone else's. It's a good choice and will create many new jobs in Adelaide shipyards.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Time to start paying attention to Japanese media and blogs to see how they'll massage this.

No doubt they'll portray themselves as victims who lost out despite concerted ganbari efforts.

The reality, of course, is they royally screwed up by being so lackadaisical in the early stages, when it literally was theirs to lose. And lose it they did, by dithering without reason and showing incredible incompetence.

8 ( +15 / -8 )

The Royal Australian Navy and Aus. Defence Force overwhelmingly picked and recommended the French sub. They have many years of experience in supplying this tech, Japan has zero. Furthermore, the Japanese bid seemed rather amateurish until too late in the piece.

What will be interesting is the fallout on the Japanese side - lets hope there are no dummy-spits and claims of an "unfair process" ala. the failed Indonesian Fast train!

17 ( +21 / -4 )

Good call Australia. Good call. Sorry Abe, so sorry. It may have been an economic decision,but everything has a political angle too. Try and figure it out for yourselves. Wonder if you can? Muzukashiine.

3 ( +14 / -10 )

Japan has a lot to learn when it comes to promoting its products, its not the 80s anymore when people were knocking down the door to get in on "made in Japan" now Japan has to actually do its homework in what gaijin want and expect from that made in Japan product.

5 ( +11 / -7 )

Well done France, and well-deserved too. Sorry Japan, but there were two factors why you lost. 1, French expertise. 2, political reasons.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

French company DCNS had beat bidders from Japan and Germany

DCNS isn't just a French company, it's owned by the French government. Financially and diplomatically, it seems like a much safer and reliable partner than Mitsubishi or the German elevator company.

3 ( +9 / -5 )

The U.S wanted Australia to pick Japan and they mede it clear that they wouldn't supply their most advanced weapons systems if it wasn't a Japanese submarine

1 ( +7 / -6 )

A blow to the hawks and their nascent military industrial complex.

Let's hope non-military Japan Inc. learns from this, properly analyses how to mitigate political risk in major tenders, and - a major weakness for Japanese corporates - gets closer to their customers.

6 ( +11 / -4 )

My guy wonder if they have an automatic censored function. Let them have their French submarines.

-20 ( +2 / -23 )

I have to admit that I was surprised at the news. But I do agree with the above commentators that a combination of Japanese style inflexibility and opaqueness not to mention unease at Japanese nationalism led to the decision.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

When Japan was 'allowed' to re-enter the arms market, business pundits speculated Japanese firms would do a lot of foot dragging, for whatever reason. Here is the proof they were right on the money. Next time be more aggressive to save the sinking economy.

4 ( +9 / -6 )

I seem to recall that in the early days the Japanese were sure they would get the deal they were adamant that the subs had to be built in Japan due to the superiority of the skilled Japanese workforce and know-how over their Austalian counterparts doubtful abilities and workmanship. The govt later did a U-turn when the penny dropped that the Australians were determined to build in Australia. but as usual too little, too late.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Well, hope it's better built than French cars.

3 ( +14 / -12 )

At the end of the day, Japanese old-fashioned, opaqueness, lack of communication skills in English and an understanding of how western nations do business will always end in fail against international competition. It makes you wonder how they ever grew to be one of the biggest exporters in the world once.

10 ( +16 / -7 )

Well if Australia likes cheap and weak French products then so be it be don't hide behind a skirt to say it. Japan is the world's finest in submarine next to the US and Russia

Hum well DCNS haven been building submarines for more than 110 years for different countries including of course France. This article describes well the company:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/heres-the-amazing-list-of-submarines-this-french-company-has-built-for-other-nations-2016-4

From the article:

DCNS boasts of being the only company in the world that can supply both conventional and nuclear submarines, having built more than 100 subs for nine nations. The company’s prowess dates back to the beginning of the 20th century and the earliest days of sub technology with the Morse and Narval classes in 1899.

Given this kind of profile, there is no way that anyone rational would have chosen Japan with zero background in this field and particularly after the many scandals involving Japanese companies.

DCNS is just too strong.

13 ( +18 / -4 )

It makes you wonder how they ever grew to be one of the biggest exporters in the world once.

Cost leadership. We're coasting on the momentum from the 1980s.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Two points missed by commentators (one of which is referred to at the end of the article) are meeting the requirements of the Australians (long range, quiet and big) and more significance the highly politicised aspect of this issue in Australia.

Economically depressed South Australia was looking at missing out on huge public investment in that state, and the Japanese were reticent to let lots of construction go on there, let alone let lots of their technology go. The previous Prime Minister Abbott went as far as saying that subs wold not be manufactured in South Australia, and it was one reason why he was booted and replaced by Turnbull. Any tender had to incorporate manufacture in large-part or whole in South Australia to have a chance.

Interestingly the internal Australian political aspects crowd any reporting of this news in Australia and get next to no mention outside of Australia. Abe's hawkishness and Japanese weakness at presenting their tender may be factors but are dwarfed by the simple point of the decision being made in Australia and by Australians.

Sorry everyone, but the decision was always going to be affected more by things there than the stances and voices of interested parties outside of Australia.

2 ( +6 / -5 )

I dont think the Chinese played such a big role here, the Japanese suck at business and failed to win the bid. The Japanese techology is probably superior but they cant speak English and its their way or no way.Anyhow, was hoping they would get it. Lesson learned; next time they better pick up their game.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Australia never misses an opportunity to curry favour with China. Many Government schools have changed from teaching Japanese Language to Chinese.

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

randomator:

" Another fail for Abe. Hawkishness costing his country jobs. "

The Australian government cowtows to China, and you blame Abe?? I am not friend of the guy, but that it silly.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

the main reason the French got this is because they promised to do as much of the building etc in South Australia - a place where many government ship building contracts have been done in the past. With the closure of the car industry in the same State over the next couple of years, the national government couldn't afford to lose more local support with a federal election coming up, It's that simple....

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The Japanese techology is probably superior

Actually looking at the details, this appears not to be true at all. The DCNS pump jet propulsion technology is actually quite superior, this was a key factor in the Australian decision. Their technology is just better.

Also they will provide their stealth technologies utilised on board French nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarines (SSNs) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). Another very convincing argument.

By the way this is US which will be responsible for supplying integrated combat systems to the future submarines, as well as the submarine’s weapons.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

"Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the French-designed submarines would be built in the Australian manufacturing hub of Adelaide."

THIS is the main reason why they chose France (and would have chosen Germany next) over Japan -- Japan insulted them and said they lacked the ability to build subs domestically, and that they would be built in Japan with Japanese know-how (which doesn't mean much besides cutting corners these days... just ask Mitsubishi). That immediately led to a backlash, for which Japan tried to backstop and say they would assist in domestic production, but it was too late. The secondary reasons were political.

Strangerland: (from YuriOtani's comment) "My guy wonder if they have an automatic censored function. Let them have their French submarines."

Take note, Strangerland -- THIS is sour grapes! haha. You have to love the knee-jerk reaction on here saying that Australia choosing FRANCE is somehow currying favour with China. And now, of course, "Japan didn't want it anyway!", or "Let France have it!", etc. If it weren't a major loss for Japan, it would not be news.

I would say perhaps Japan will learn its lesson and not crap where it eats from now on, but they should have learned that a long time ago, and this is yet another deal they have lost as a result.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

I think a build with France is a sound option and a great win for France, but the decision was taken not to offend China. That is so obvious. Australia will soon be just another Chinese province anyway. Australians are thoroughly aware this, but are really powerless against an elite set on selling out their country and a media that screams xenophobia the minute somebody wants to stand up for the average Australian citizen in the face of the silent takeover. It would not be surprised to see a civil war in Australia in the next 30 years, once it becomes abundantly obvious that young, non Chinese Australians have no future in their own country.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

I think the main reason for choosing France was due to the competitive evaluation process (the Royal Australian Navy strongly recommended the winner). There are of course some domestics (i.e. promoting local Australian jobs, developing the local industry) and political considerations. China's opposition to Japan's tender was acknowledged by the Australian politicians but at the end is not crucial or important to sway the final decision. Australians decide what is best for Australia.

For this reason, the Japanese government has no right to ask for an 'explanation' from Australia. The same arrogant way, PM Abe asked why President Widodo (Indonesia) chose the Chinese High Speed rail system.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

" Many government schools have changed from teaching Japanese to Chinese "

And exactly how is this difficult to understand? Japan is in slow international decline while China is the new superpower. Simple fact that will only get more reinforced with time. If I had a kid in school I would tell him / her to study Chinese over Japanese for their future, s sake. It's 2016 not 1986, Japan,s peak has long passed.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Yeah this silly behavior of claiming that Australia chose France instead of Japan because of China is just plain BS. Could we stop with this crap please?

Some people shall really stop to be over sensitive with anything related to Japan and stop to always come up with the - this is the fault of Chinese that Japan loses. This is ridiculous.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Love those comments about 'quality Japanese products'. Let's not forget Mitsubishi and Takata and the thousands of apartment buildings that have been shoddily built using lies and deception. It seems that, the Japanese manufacturer's promises of quality products are far from the products they deliver. I'm sure this was a determining factor as well. Unfortunately, the world cannot trust in the quality of Japanese products anymore. I'm into guitars and the newer Japanese Fender Stratocasters are nothing more than a cheap Chinese piece of junk with a 'made in Japan' sticker on it for 8 or 9 times the price of its Chinese counterpart. There is no difference in quality, only price! Over the last two decades or so Japan has lost several of its international markets and its reputation for quality products because they are producing cheap junk with quality price tags. The rest of the world is not so stupid, but Japanese manufacturers and consumers seem to be. I'm actually quite glad Japan did not get this contract because I would hate to see the Australian navy involved in a recall for faulty products.

1 ( +8 / -6 )

Matt No I don't think Australia's decision is influenced by their relationship with China. I'm sorry to see this news as a Japanese but kind of understand the decision.

Japanese submarines are developed not only with high tech but also with low, or Japanese kind of craftsmanship tech. That's not state of the art smart tech but based on long time experience of Gite 技手, (it's not Gisyu, but Gite when it comes to Japan's Navy tech) from IJN era. Building Soryu boats in Australia, by Australians, that's going to be a dangerous project Australian engineers will face a lot of "culture shock" which doesn't mean Australian engineering is behind Japan's but simply different way of developing boats. That could jeopardize this very expensive project. Could become Australian version of F-35 project.

I guess this is a rational decision for Australians. But again, I'm joining Australian Navy to feel sad for this decision...

4 ( +6 / -2 )

February 2016:-

China has called on the Australian government to consider Japan’s wartime history when deciding whether to grant it a multibillion-dollar contract to build a new fleet of submarines. China’s foreign affairs minister, Wang Yi, pointedly said that Japan– one of three bidders for the contract due to be awarded later this year – was defeated in the second world war and Australia should take into account “the feelings of the people of Asian countries because of that part of history”. Wang was speaking in Beijing on Wednesday alongside the Australian foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, after annual strategic talks between the two countries.

April 2016:-

Japan misses out as Australia awards sub contract to France

The Chinese comments may or may not have had anything to do with the result. But what you cannot deny is that the Chinese got involved making comments in a trade pitch where they had no involvement at all. That is unacceptable.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

'Mitsubishi reacted in a statement, saying: “It is deeply regrettable that Japan’s capabilities were not sufficiently conveyed, which has led to the result announced today.”'

Actually, Mitsubishi need only look at two things to discern the reason behind the 'regrettable' decision. 1) Mitsubishi seems to forget that only last week it was apologising for yet another Japan Inc. MAJOR scandal in which it fudged the numbers for years to increase sales and get contracts -- not the greatest thing to have in your corner when bidding to build vehicles. This is also an across the board problem in Japan. 2) the arrogance of Japan, now once again proven with Japan DEMANDING an explanation from Australia about it's sovereign choices.

And so Japan continues to dig its own grave deeper and deeper.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

At the end of the day, it's about the national interest. The Australian government wanted the combination of technology, price & of course - the creation of local jobs. Adelaide has long been the worst performing capital city in Australia. Japan was in it for Japan's interests. Protecting the old boys' club of Mitsubishi & other affiliates to the zaibatsu. Keiretsu would've been rubbing their hands in glee. This should serve as a hard lesson to The Japanese government & overprotected J Inc. that the 80s have long gone. As Steve Ballmer once said - "You have to be a shark - keep moving forward or die".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I really don't believe Australians would allow national defense decisions to be influenced by China. French is actually good when it comes to sub development.

Also, someone above say US provides weapon system for Australian submarines only if they buy Japan's submarines, that's not true.Regardless of Japanese or French, Royal Australian Navy to deploy 12 submarines is a huge, great news for both Japan and US anyway.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One also should recall that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was involved in the construction of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California and the all thing got into a gigantic debacle. The company is responsible of faulty steam generators that led to the permanent shutdown of the San Onofre nuclear power plant.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-edison-nuclear-plant-20150728-story.html

I believe that the case is still pending in order to figure out how much Mitsubishi will pay in damages. There is no way that the Australians did not know about this by the way.

So given this kind of dramatic failure of Mitsubishi, they should better shut their mouth up instead of claiming that " Japan’s capabilities were not sufficiently conveyed". This is incredible arrogant not to accept that their competitors offer was just technologically superior.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

From what I have read on both sides the french will also be sharing a lot of info/expertise something perhaps the japanese werent ready to do? They will form and train aussie engineers and assist them for the next 25y I think.

Plus the aussies need submarines that can cross oceans rather than seas, something the japanese and germans werent offering. Did the chinese political aspect played a role? Perhaps but I would say np more than 5% in oz decisison to go with the french. They needed a country they feel ok to collaborate with for the next 50-60 years. As much as I love japan and japanese ppl the feeling of being 'stuck' in a business with them can sometimes be hard to accept.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

japanese technical superiority is a myth and the world is starting ti catch on. japan needs to stop putting a premium price on "japan quality" and start competing on an conomic level

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Sorry for the Soryu. Japan still has the Philippines it can push or donate the Soryus to.

@ Smith

Actually, Mitsubishi need only look at two things to discern the reason behind the 'regrettable' decision. 1) Mitsubishi seems to forget that only last week it was apologising for yet another Japan Inc. MAJOR scandal in which it fudged the numbers for years to increase sales and get contracts -- not the greatest thing to have in your corner when bidding to build vehicles. This is also an across the board problem in Japan. 2) the arrogance of Japan, now once again proven with Japan DEMANDING an explanation from Australia about it's sovereign choices.

They think everyone (must) sees the world through their, and only their ( the Japanese' ) eyes.

@ descendent ..

No doubt they'll portray themselves as victims who lost out despite concerted ganbari efforts.

As usual. How can anyone be wrong ?

@ igloobuyer

At the end of the day, Japanese old-fashioned, opaqueness, lack of communication skills in English and an understanding of how western nations do business will always end in fail against international competition. It makes you wonder how they ever grew to be one of the biggest exporters in the world once.

I know. By hook or crook, mostly, by crook.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No no, it's not China, it's not whale.

This is about project possibility, cost and economy. It's a rational political and technical decision of Australian national security.

I feel like I respect Australia more than many of you do.

You guys are so biased.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I was surprised that Tumbull gave contract to France because I thought he will give to Germany. Germany's industry has a good relation with China,and Tumbull visited China a few weeks ago,I thought that timing was very strange. I think Germany's Merkel wii not happy this happening because she had visited China 7 times.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I guess we'll never know the reasons for the failed bid, but that press release indicates that their pitch wasn't good enough. It would be really disappointing if Aus bowed down to Chinese opposition

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

japanese technical superiority is a myth and the world is starting ti catch on. japan needs to stop putting a premium price on "japan quality" and start competing on an conomic level

There is one thing the Japanese do know how to do, and that's manufacturing quality and precision. They may not know how to speak to international customers, they may be stuck in their ridiculous corporate procedures and rituals, but you cannot knock Japanese manufacturing quality.

I take it by saying competing on an economic level you mean the Japanese start producing far inferior products lacking quality at a cheap price just like the Chinese do.

0 ( +7 / -8 )

Actually looking at the details, this appears not to be true at all. The DCNS pump jet propulsion technology is actually quite superior,

Yeah your probably right, but dare say anything contra ire, and risk weaboo wrath )

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well, hope it's better built than French cars. lol thats like saying lets hope its built better than Japanese planes, now France make some of the worlds best and most advanced planes in Airbus. Im sure there subs are excellent as well, oh and much better value for money

2 ( +6 / -4 )

dcog: "I guess we'll never know the reasons for the failed bid, but that press release indicates that their pitch wasn't good enough. "

We do know, actually; Japanese inability to make a sales pitch internationally (domestically they can just force it on you and 'make you understand' later), their lack of quality products of late, and the fact that they spat on Australia at the suggestion that the be produced locally. That was the nail in the coffin. Turnbull is facing an election come July and putting domestic jobs as the priority has now more or less secured him the vote. Had he delayed in a decision and/or given it to Japan, who wanted to produce them here, he would have lost a lot of support. Also, made in Japan is garbage these days.

TigersTokyoDome: "There is one thing the Japanese do know how to do, and that's manufacturing quality and precision. "

Actually, no. They know how to label it that after having cut corners and lied. But what is the speech about that Mitsubishi is now making live? How about Takada? Olympus? Hahaha... 'quality products' indeed! They now make Samsung rip-offs and Chinese knock-offs and charge ten times the amount, later having to pay back customers for lying to them, or recall the products altogether.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japanese do make nice products, but in most cases its just a modification or "improvement" on some original design, and in many cases this improvement proves to be redundant and just another point of failure. Improvement just means making something foreign Japanese. jj067 mentions hand technology etc but most JSDF gear is just a mod of something from the U.S. Even this souryu subs technology came from the swiss so disappointingly, but expected, there is no game changer tech announcement there either.

-2 ( +4 / -5 )

The French were the only ones to agree to building the submarines in Australia which in turn will provide employment and return for Australians. Excellent choice and well done for Australia.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Wise decision! Japanese industrial standard is not compatible to anything else in this world. Even not a light bulb for replacement can be found in Australia.

-3 ( +5 / -7 )

It was not a failure of Japans making It is an Australian Governments decision as to where they want to purchase and build them but the Average Australian would prefer not to have them at all as Submarines are a sign of the past and the Australian Liberal Government Liberal Nationals Should not proceed at all when they really cannot afford them . Spending on war machines of this magnitude is like burning money to satisfy governments show of power that Leeds to world instability a portion of that amount would lift many hungry out of poverty and provide employment in projects that will increase the ability to provide future services and food to communities where poor with no work or income available . Why create more poverty with Killing machines devastation of countries Causing more Refugees to support It is just Plane stupid.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@smithinjapanAPR. 26, 2016 - 05:17PM JST

Actually, Mitsubishi need only look at two things to discern the reason behind the 'regrettable' decision. 1) Mitsubishi seems to forget that only last week it was apologising for yet another Japan Inc. MAJOR scandal in which it fudged the numbers for years to increase sales and get contracts -- not the greatest thing to have in your corner when bidding to build vehicles. This is also an across the board problem in Japan. 2) the arrogance of Japan, now once again proven with Japan DEMANDING an explanation from Australia about it's sovereign choices.

Oh, let's face it. The submarine decision was probably sealed before the news re the cars broke out.

Overall, Australia has chosen its national pride and some jobs over ensuring maximum reliability on actually getting its submarines. If they had went for Japan, they'll at least HAVE submarines - Japanese crank out SSKs like sausages. Now they are relying on a country that ... let's just say Suffren has been building for close to 10 years now when they should have it out in 5 and ship number 3 is planned to take eleven years. So when is Australia actually going to SEE its Collins replacement?

As for the litttle Mitsubishi sneeze, that kind of deviation in military equipment will never make the news - it'd be buried under secrecy.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

daito_hakApr. 26, 2016 - 02:35PM JST From the article: DCNS boasts of being the only company in the world that can supply both conventional and nuclear submarines, having built more than 100 subs for nine nations. The company’s prowess dates back to the beginning of the 20th century and the earliest days of sub technology with the Morse and Narval classes in 1899. Given this kind of profile, there is no way that anyone rational would have chosen Japan with zero background in this field and particularly after the many scandals involving Japanese companies.

DCNS is just too strong.

Can't argue with that - solid reasoning there.

I would say that this has nothing to do with Australia pandering to China, though. They have clearly stated that they see China as a military threat. Could be shy they want more subs ....maybe

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why all the Japan hate here?

At least Japan can make submarines and cars and electronics, etc. Australia has to get another country to build subs because they're copied versions of a Swedish sub don't work?

Why is Australia getting 12 new subs when they can't even keep enough people and supplies to have 3 of their subs operating now? The last sub they built was in 2003 (and that is like new in the world of subs) and they need to trade it in already?

Something is fishy (pun intended) here.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Actually, Mitsubishi need only look at two things to discern the reason behind the 'regrettable' decision. 1) Mitsubishi seems to forget that only last week it was apologising for yet another Japan Inc. MAJOR scandal in which it fudged the numbers for years to increase sales and get contracts -- not the greatest thing to have in your corner when bidding to build vehicles. This is also an across the board problem in Japan. 2) the arrogance of Japan, now once again proven with Japan DEMANDING an explanation from Australia about it's sovereign choices.

The company involved in the scandal is not the same company that would have made the subs. The scandal is trivial compared to VW's diesel scandal and involves a product that is not sold outside of Japan. Further, Mitsubishi would not have been the sole contractor. The subs would have been produced in conjunction with Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

What evidence do you have that this is an "across the board problem in Japan"? Most Japanese companies are not involved in bidding for sovereign military contracts in foreign countries. Indeed, this is one of the first.

I have no idea who came up with the claim that Japan is DEMANDING an explanation. Here is what was said in Japanese.

中谷元・防衛相は記者団に「大変残念だ。豪州に説明を求めたい」と述べた。

The verb here is 求める (motomeru) which simply means to seek or ask. It has absolutely no connotation of demanding. It looks to me that whowever did the translation was either (1) incompetent or (2) trying to stir up trouble.

And so Japan continues to dig its own grave deeper and deeper.

Right you are. Now is a good time to leave Japan.

now France make some of the worlds best and most advanced planes in Airbus. Im sure there subs are excellent as well, oh and much better value for money

Airbus is based in France but it is not a French company in terms of ownership or manufacturing. It is more of a German-French consortium with manufacturing and assembly in Germany, France, Spain, the US, and China. Engineering takes place in a number of countries including Russia. Further, Airbus produces airframes, not complete planes. Engines come from various companies including RollsRoyce, Pratt & Whitney, and a consortium that includes Japanese companies.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Reasons why Japan (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) lost:

Lack of expertise dealing with doing business in foreign countries Lack of effective communication between the Japanese government and Australian government Recent Mitsubishi fuel economy scandal Comments made by Japanese delegates regarding Australia's technological capabilities as being inferior The French DCNS and German TKMS submarines were technologically superior and had greater range compared to the Japanese Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Soryu class submarines.

Politics had very little to do with Japan losing. If anything, politics would have been in Japan's favor considering that the US was pushing Australia to make the deal with Japan, rather than France or Germany, as it would strengthen their Pacific Alliance.

So the blame is on the Japanese government, particularly the Abe administration and Mitsubishi.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@bullfighter

While I acknowledge that your Japanese brethren can build nice things, you might want to teach them a thing or two about international relations and business, because the suck horribly at it. English language isnt an excuse; you have interpreters standing in line to do that for you. All they do is appeal to the Japanese speaker, like a 3rd party so you dont have to confront the client directly, and allot of Japanese understand English, they just play dumb through the interpreter. Its an extremely annoying experience, you sometimes feel like the interpreter is not a neutral party and is siding with the Japanese. They need to learn the craft of human relations, western style, instead of using the "I cant speak English" excuse for everything

As for AUS, I really cant understand why they would source their national defense to another country; at least develop and colab with several domestic and international companies and then claim it as your own.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Kazuaki Shimaki: "Overall, Australia has chosen its national pride and some jobs over ensuring maximum reliability on actually getting its submarines. "

"Chosen national pride"?? You say that like Australia looking to employ its own people instead of awarding Japan and Japanese jobs is a BAD thing. Why the heck WOULDN'T they want to employ their own people and boost their own economy by doing so?

bullfighter: "What evidence do you have that this is an "across the board problem in Japan"?"

Excuse me? Scandals are NOT across the board in Japan inc? I think it would be easier to say which companies AREN'T involved in scandals these days than listing those that are. But as for which parent company is currently mired in scandal and was bidding for this contract, you're right, it's only Mitsubishi.

"I have no idea who came up with the claim that Japan is DEMANDING an explanation. Here is what was said in Japanese."

It is in various media across the world at the moment, and an accurate translation of motomeru in this case, or are you telling me that "regrettable" here has the same nuance as when what happened in Kumamoto was called 'regrettable'? Oh, but I'm sure Gen pleasantly asked with smiles why Australia chose France over Japan, just like when they said Australia is not capable of domestic production, they didn't really mean what was said, right?

"Right you are. Now is a good time to leave Japan."

Ah, the bottom of the barrel, non-argument that always comes out when the poster has no defence. Well done.

trouble: "At least Japan can make submarines and cars and electronics, etc. Australia has to get another country to build subs because they're copied versions of a Swedish sub don't work?"

So, how would that have been different if Japan had been awarded the contract? It would still be another country making them -- but in another country to boot! At least this way Australia is working with a country that will make the product in AUSTRALIA, and therefore Australia is not only involved, but the contract creates a whole lot of jobs to boot. No one is hating Japan at all -- people are just getting defensive about Japan not having been awarded the contract; they are even blaming it all on China, for example. Pointing out the reasons why (including deflection) is not 'hate', and asking someone to leave (as bullfighter did) because they cannot argue against said reasons is not a valid retort, either.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The French have good reputation in making weapons and military equipment for the past decades (not sure whether it is compliment or what....)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

5petals

Even this souryu subs technology came from the swiss

Switzerland is a land lock nation when have they developed a sub? Do they use it on Lake Geneva? LoL

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@tirring,

thanks for the correction, swedes, not swiss

My point is the kockum engine technology was not developed by japan

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Many Government schools have changed from teaching Japanese Language to Chinese. well China has massive growth potential with its billion+ consumers 300million middle class, Japan doesnt, who can blame them

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The Japanese bid was the early favorite and the contract promised to become Japan’s first fully fledged military technology transfer since World War II.

Mitsubishi reacted in a statement, saying: “It is deeply regrettable that Japan’s capabilities were not sufficiently conveyed, which has led to the result announced today.”

The level of English here makes me seriously wonder if something wasn't lost in translation........

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How many more tourists do we need now to make up for lost submarine revenue?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Again wrong since Kockums only provides the AIP system not the diesel engine. The engine is a co-development with MAN Diesel & Turbo. The Sub itself is a Japan original design. Japan was one of the best in designing sub during WW2 like the I-400 type which was bigger then the Soryu type and was able to launch a plane. Why don't you quit while you are ahead?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There is one thing the Japanese do know how to do, and that's manufacturing quality and precision. fair comment, but they tend to charge a riduculous premium for it, Japan doesnt get it that premium product doesnt mean you can charge 3 times as much for it, this is 2016 not the 80s.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Collin class stage 2 !!! We can not build sub in Australia We don,t make the type of steel nor the length required. That why the collin class never work. All this money wasted a total waste of money. The only good it has done is create Job Australia can,t fill but they will with tradesman without the tactical skills. Please tell me what steel mill in australia that produces 40 meter length. The only plate mill is Port kembla and their max is 15meters. You will have to build a whole new blast fernis and build a complete new rolling mill that is capable of throwing out 40 meters length. No, they will used the 15 meter lengths and weld them together. these sub are 12meter i diameter and they will leak worst then the collin class.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Auhhh, The soryu-type built in Japan only costs 56 billion yen or around 500 million dollars. The Australian built is calculated as 3.5 billion a pop.(43 billion dollars US for 12 subs). Now which is demanding a ridiculous premium?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

There is one thing the Japanese do know how to do, and that's manufacturing quality and precision.

I am not sure why you think it is something related to Japanese as a whole, are you implying Japanese have special genes for manufacturing quality and precision that other does not have? I heard more Japanese inc recently in the news for falsification, opaqueness, fraud , price fixing than for achieving something of quality or precision.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The French submarine is a nuclear submarine that will be adapted for conventional propulsion....and the French have zero record of underwater warfare....sorry...but it is true...

The Japanese model should have the highest specs..and they have a pretty record as far as underwater warfare is concerned.....

But the German submarines will be the most dangerous ones.... even the Russians is scared of German submarines... all the Russian submarines is benchmark to the German submarines... All submariners still sit up and pay attention when they hear the word ...."U Boat"

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Lucky Japan, lucky Germany. One would hope our dear French friends know what they are in for by building submarines in good 'ol Oz. This whole exercise is not about building submarines, but employing thousand of very strike happy workers. Not only that but also using local steel, imported from China of course And obviously keeping hundreds of senior navy personal and the connected gravy train in the cash. Dare say their Barracudas will endure the same faith as the present Collins toys. Permanently under repair and whenever operational, parked in a Chinese owned port, like Darwin for instance. Kanpai and Prost, the only way to endure this BS.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Citizen2012: Japan have the skilled tradesman that can work a 40 meter length of Bisaloyde plate steel into the precise diameter using heating touches. France, Germany and Australia have the skilled tradesman that can that can work this plate steel very close to precise diameter using hydraulic presses. The second method is not as good for resisting pressure as the Japanese method. That why Japanese sub can go deeper and longer then other sub.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

John-San

Not quite, Japan uses a completely different grade of steel which has a much higher tensile strength compared to the other nations including the US.

No other nation has a sub that can dive deeper than 500m.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

triring-

Smart militaries understate their capabilities. Only 500m? Tensile strength is simply a measure of stretch (pullability). Useful when judging elevator cables. not the only criterion for judging any material as suitable for purpose. Particularly a sub which at depth might be subject to other stress forces such as compression.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mr Abe has no opportunity now to boast about profits from arms deals as a result of his constitutional amendment. That is the biggest consequence of this, and the fact Japan might not count their chickens in future.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

“I would hate to see the Australian navy involved in a recall for faulty products.”; “world cannot trust in the quality of Japanese products”

Well, at least the “inferior “ J’s can make their own subs, planes, cars, electronics, PlayStations, you name it.

Superior Australians had to rely on the French to do it for them this time; last time it had to be the Swedes.

Talk about a donkey telling someone else is an asinus!!!!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I believe Japan wasn´t truly interested in the project, because it would actually lose money if it went through. Now, I foresee Japan having to rescue the said venture in the future, probably even financing it due to the slowing and splitting of the EU.And not to mention with the fast development of Japanese technologies,soon these classes of subs will be outdated,and probably drone types will be replacing the present ones.Also,the electronics in theses vessels are probably mainly from Germany, Japan and the U.S.So let´s wait and see, best of luck to our great ally Australia.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The Japanese "businessmen" tried to do it the Japanese way and wanted Australia to follow along. However, they weren't having it and went with France. This is the problem with Japan Inc is they don't understand the need for speed and less red tape. For some stupid small decision to get approved you need 10 stamps. If one Exec is out of the office for a week on business then everything is stopped until they get back to provide their stamp of approval.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@smithinjapanAPR. 26, 2016 - 09:14PM JST

"Chosen national pride"?? You say that like Australia looking to employ its own people instead of awarding Japan and Japanese jobs is a BAD thing. Why the heck WOULDN'T they want to employ their own people and boost their own economy by doing so?

Because ultimately, the defense industry serves the armed forces and not the inverse. You have to remember that Australia's defense budget is not huge, and the armed forces have a need to maximize the utility of every dollar. Further, they need equipment they can use, if possible with relatively firm in-service dates so they can plan.

The price of this choice is that the equipment will certainly cost more than if they had just imported something direct from Mitsubishi and Kawasaki. The increase will be less predictable and further they don't know when they'll get it because they have no real clue how many little troubles will plaque the conversion of Barracuda into something they can build in their own shipyard.

Despite the supposed economic advantage of building at home, it never trickles down to the military in the form of a larger procurement budget. If it costs twice as much for example, it'll come out of personnel or training, or they'll write a new defense review claiming they can make do with fewer subs after all (yeah right). That's the real price paid in choosing national pride - less defense capability, unless you are ready to claim that those French Barracuda-mods will be so much better that say 8 coming in five to ten years later will do the job of 12 Soryu-mods five years sooner.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why are Japantoday users so intelligent? After reading comments posted on other news websites, I found that comments here are completely different from others. It's on a whole new level of intelligence!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Regardless capacity of Submarine, Australian Politicians and some of peoples involved in Submarine tender process do not want technology from Asian country. You believed it or not. It's true. French has to build one that Australia required. I can predict the Sub will deliver late and many technology problems in Sub when the French Company deliver Sub to Australia Navy. Also budget will blow out. Japan should sell Sub to the countries that appreciate Japanese technology. I know Japanese Sub will not be won the tender when the Australia changed to call tender to build Sub for Australian Navy because there's noised when former PM Tony Abbott said Australia will buy Sub from Japan. Stephen Conroy said Japanese Sub technology is not Japanese technology. He pointing out about licensed Stirling Diesel engine from Kockum AB Sweden. Actually Stephen Conroy know nothing about Submarine. Like Senator Stephen Conroy, other politicians do not want or look down Japanese technology for Australian Submarine. Even some Politicians go too far by saying they don't want Submarine from WWII enemy nation and Australia security will be risked. The answer was cleared when unelected PM Malcolm Turnbull ousted elected PM Tony Abbott and appointed Marise Payne as defense Minister. Some pro French said French Submarine is world quietest Submarine in the world. Whatever they say Japan has to accept it because French has yet to build the Submarine that French proposed to Australian Navy. That French Submarine has better than German and Japanese Submarine or not but we have to wait and see when the French Company delivers it to Australian Navy. One thing I wasn’t convinced that is current Australian Collins Class Submarine was better than Japanese Submarine. Collins Class Submarine was known as under water Orchestra and worst Submarine by Western standard. Is really the Japanese Soryu Class Submarine not better than Collins Class Submarine?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan's inexperience internationally, traditional manufacturing methods and it's disciplined meticulous quality focused work culture are risks factors in its abilities to deliver the submarines. ASC is not up to scratch for technology transfer from the Germans. The political incorrect way is ASC can't build anything. The French win make sense. Make a couple of subs in France while the Aussies retrain themselves to assemble submarines.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Google "Australian politics, Japan’s lack of experience behind failed bid to build subs" and you should find a really good news article about this. I strongly suggest people to read it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Obviously Australia was afraid to offend its erstwhile friend China by buying Japanese submarines.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

another quiet win for France technology. It was Japan itself that turned to France for working industrial robots during Fukushima because their cutesy ones have no practical application. With government support and experience behind it, the France bid is the safer choice so that works out.

The Japanese bid was inflexible from the start and without previous experience it would have been a "regrettable" failure. Australia just wanted subs, it didn't want to have to deal with oyajis

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Why all the Japan hate here?

Because this website is heavily populated by expats who don't like the current Japanese government, and who take pleasure when Abe fails. I think many also have a love-hate relationship with Japan generally. There are so many things they find annoying about the country that they can't help but feel pleasure when the traditional ways of doing things don't work out.

Was this the right decision for Australia? Not sure. Yes, the French were a bit more eager to offer to build the submarines in Japan. But given the disaster of the previous Australian sub project, I think the Japanese were honest in saying that they thought a domestic build was a bad idea. I honestly would be surprised if the new submarines are built even nearly on time and anywhere near the original budget. But if the Australian government wants to subsidise jobs through defence spending, that's their choice. I just hope next time the Australian public does not complain about the overspend.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Australia wanted to build in Aussie. Japan did not trust Aussie craft anship. France was not arrogant. Both German and Japan were more concerned on final products than creating jobs in Australia.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I don't know true but here says collins submarine than Soryu

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/the-submarine-problem-deeper-than-meets-the-eye

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"It's better this way anyway, rather than to have the racist Australians get our superior technology that might get stolen by the Chinese."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tiring

Again wrong since Kockums only provides the AIP system not the diesel engine

I think the selling point was stealth, and a diesel engine is not very stealthy, but the Kockum sterling technology is

Why dont I stop while Im ahead? Yeah, better, arguing with a weaboo can be tiring....)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

While I acknowledge that your Japanese brethren can build nice things, you might want to teach them a thing or two about international relations and business, because the suck horribly at it.

Right you are. That's probably why not a single Japanese automobile company has never been able to sell even one car outside of Japan, why Japanese shipyards have never sold a single ship to a foreign company, why there is not a single Japanese manufactured railcar running on a foreign railroad, etc. Presumably the Germans also "suck horribly" just like the Japanese because they did not get the contract either.

Excuse me? Scandals are NOT across the board in Japan inc?

Scandals are not peculiar to Japan. Have you not read about VW and GM? It's hard to get higher profile than VW or GM. Mitsubishi Motors is a very minor producer.

"I have no idea who came up with the claim that Japan is DEMANDING an explanation. Here is what was said in Japanese." It is in various media across the world at the moment, and an accurate translation of motomeru in this case

The New York Times, Japan Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, Bloomberg, etc. do not report any "demand" being made. I could find the term "demand" only in one Australian newspaper headline. Demand is NOT an accurate translation of motomeru.

But as for which parent company is currently mired in scandal and was bidding for this contract, you're right, it's only Mitsubishi.

How many times to I have to explain this?

There are many companies with Mitsubishi in the name including one that makes pencils. The company that is "mired in scandal" is Mitsubishi Motors. The company involved in the submarine bid is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Mitsubishi Motors is partly owned by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries but at one point the largest stockholder was Daimler-Chrysler. US investment funds have also owned a large fraction of the stock. In any event they are two different companies.

One would hope our dear French friends know what they are in for by building submarines in good 'ol Oz. This whole exercise is not about building submarines, but employing thousand of very strike happy workers.

Spot on. Oz labor relations today often sound like Britain in the 1970s - featherbedding and strikes. As a Japanese, I am happy to see this contract go to the French. I don't want to see Japanese arms exports expand and if they do I want the jobs to go to workers in Japan.

The Japanese "businessmen" tried to do it the Japanese way and wanted Australia to follow along. However, they weren't having it and went with France.

So why did the Germans also lose out? Did they try to do it "the Japanese way"?

It was Japan itself that turned to France for working industrial robots during Fukushima because their cutesy ones have no practical application.

Not true. The foreign robots first used at Fukushima came from the US arm of a British company that specializes in military level technology. A joint French-Japanese venture to develop robots for Fukushima was announced in September, 2015. I found no reports indicating that such robots are already operating.

Why all the Japan hate here?

Because this website is heavily populated by expats who don't like the current Japanese government, and who take pleasure when Abe fails. I think many also have a love-hate relationship with Japan generally. There are so many things they find annoying about the country that they can't help but feel pleasure when the traditional ways of doing things don't work out.

Which makes a Japanese like me wonder why they stay in Japan.

Both German and Japan were more concerned on final products than creating jobs in Australia.

I would imagine that the guys in those submarines, especially if they are at war, will not be thinking of how many Australian jobs were created but rather is our technology better than what the enemy has.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Triring: Bisalloy Steels is a high-tensile and abrasion-resistant quenched and tempered steel plate. One mayor factor why these sub will became show ponies is the weather environment and the end cost. Adelaide has continuous days of over 40c. a few summers back they had 16 days in a row over 40c and 65 days continuous over 30c and in winter it can get as low has 8c at night. That why the Japanese will not commit to building sub in Adelaide, The produce will be useless and the Japanese know this. Australia will have to come up with a total different way of building. Like housing in a control environment. Which is another add on cost. They will be using Australian steel it was announced today but Australia (we) do not produce this capacity nor have the blast furnest nor the rolling mill for the capacity for 40 meter lengths. We only have the capacity to produce 15 meter lengths. Which means welding 3 lengths together which will cause big problems when under extreme pressures, We will have to build new mills ( more add on costs) because we committed to using Australian steel made locally. This $50 billion sub deal is only to buy electoral seat in South Australia pure and simple. End result will be a 12 show ponies which will not be able to do the job required. Triring: Read my commits. I am all for the subs to be build in Japan because of they produce the steel, they produce the length required and have the better environment to build. Japan have skill tradesmen with the methods of heat forming which is a lost skill in Australia manufacturing. So please read first.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well on this one, unfortunately, I wont be joining you in yelling Bonsai as you lost. Tiring mentions the I 400 subs; I think they are now sitting at the bottom of a harbor in Hawaii? You tried to use it against the US at panama but were defeated before you could, now its in US hands who gave you the props you deserved then sunk it.You try to give you the benefit of the doubt and perhaps engage in Western style communication, but it always comes back to the inferiority complex, manifesting as something superior. The adults in the room will give you the praise you so desperately are seeking, but it cant be a one way deal. I am not a Marine Engineer, but something tells me that Japanese dont have all the proprietary knowledge and technology when it comes to all thing engineering like tensile strength etc. Since the defeat of Japan, Im sure the U.S. and others have studied and took what they needed from any Japanese techniques. Some weaboos here seem to know way too much about US submarines, but thats interesting as forgein nationals are not allowed in those spaces to work. Now you are privy to information like its dept is limited to 500 meters and japanese have developed better tensile strength in their hulls? Umm, sorry, but that one seems a stretch unless you have access to ultra top secret data that the rest of us dont, and being a weaboo, that doesnt give you access, as much as you would like to. Point is, you need to grow up, stop acting like a ten year old and join the world.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"I won't be joining you in yelling Bonsai..."

Ahhh, isn't that cute? "Bonsai!"

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hehe, 'PINE TREE'!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bonsai bonzai whatever, thats your job to know all things japanese...lol

The ultimate prize for any weeaboo is to become a Japanese;once you do that aint no coming back. I dont know dudes situation, but in his post he comes across as a vintage weeaboo thats now a Japanese.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The question now is whether Abe and company will act with some class, unlike when Japanese firms lost the high speed train competition in Indonesia. Please try again, but do build some communications capability and some engagement. The coldness with which most Japanese big firms and government officials act is not a good selling point. Some introspection might be nice.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Will Australian be able to pay when sub is completed? Now Japan and Germany can build new advanced subs to wealthy countries that Japan Inc. Haven't deserted.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@toshiko

Perhaps, but all the wealthy countries like Sweden and the U.S. have their own technologies that they sell to the Japanese. Maybe some rising African countries like Nigeria or eventually the Philippines, but @ 50 billion, that seems years away. Right now viet nam etc are buying 2nd hand boats from Japan.Not to dis the Japanese, as I first posted Im sure their tech is superior because the refine original and improve it. They just wait on somebody else to come up with the original.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This will be my last final comment on this subject. Japan did not deserve to win the bid. Japan is the third biggest economy yet they are still in the dark ages when it come to international political and social policies. like environment ( whaling and energy ) ( child exploitation) the latest Mac adverts, racial discrimination, (Cigarette packets with indigious american smoking a pipe) and it,s minimum wage. All that would be targeted by Australia unions placing the Australian, Japanese friendship at risk. The Union would not stand idle when hearing of workers being pay half of the Australian minimum wage on sub project. All Japan import would be bar form entering the country. I could not see Japan every lifting the minimum wage or adhering to international demands to stop whaling and being told this is not proper ( the Mac add and the Cig packs). The only reason they just sign the international agreement on carbon output was it might persuade the Australian Government give them the sub built program.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Interesting read. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-27/barnes-what-are-the-submarines-really-protecting/7361554

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5petals

The sterling engine was not offered nor requested. Japan's offer was to replace conventional lead acid batteries with high energy density Litium Ion batteries.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Triring: Bisalloy Steels is a high-tensile and abrasion-resistant quenched and tempered steel plate. One mayor factor why these sub will became show ponies is the weather environment and the end cost. Adelaide has continuous days of over 40c. a few summers back they had 16 days in a row over 40c and 65 days continuous over 30c and in winter it can get as low has 8c at night. That why the Japanese will not commit to building sub in Adelaide, The produce will be useless and the Japanese know this. Australia will have to come up with a total different way of building. Like housing in a control environment. Which is another add on cost. They will be using Australian steel it was announced today but Australia (we) do not produce this capacity nor have the blast furnest nor the rolling mill for the capacity for 40 meter lengths. We only have the capacity to produce 15 meter lengths. Which means welding 3 lengths together which will cause big problems when under extreme pressures, We will have to build new mills for these ( more add on costs) because we committed to using Australian steel made locally. This $50 billion sub deal is only to buy electoral seat in South Australia pure and simple. End result will be a 12 show ponies which will not be able to do the job required. Triring: Read my commits. I am all for the subs to be build in Japan because of they produce the steel, they produce the length required and have the better environment to build. Japan have skill tradesmen with the methods of heat forming which is a lost skill in Australia manufacturing. So please read first.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

John-San & Blattamexiguus

Read this and learn.

http://gentleseas.blogspot.in/2015/01/japan-offer-to-australia-soryu.html

He gives you an apple to apple comparison of grades of steel each nation uses.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's amazing how many submarine, defense, stealth technology, international lobbying, and procurement experts there are among the Japanese English teaching community!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triring: Did you read my comment. please tell me where I has stated that Japan steel is inferior. I am agreeing with you. dcog9065: I was only staying in Japan if Mitsubishi won the bid because I am quaiflied Fitter/ Metal fabricator /1st class welder plus I can read Japanese detail technical drawing and have limited Japanese. I was hoping to get employ by Mitsubishi on this sub project. I wanted to learn the heat forming techniques which have been lost to Australian metal tradesmen. I am, with my Japanese partner heading back to Australia to live. There is no future for me nor my University educated partner who can only get a minimum wage job because of the lack of work for professorial women and bias towards women in general here in Japan. So I feel that my comments on this subject has credit.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

John-San

It never crossed my mind that you mentioned Japanese steel are. The Bisalloy Steels you mention developed by Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd.(Duh) is basically a brand that doesn't really give any information on how much stress it can resist.

Now for the heat forming techniques I recall seeing it on TV (Sugoidesune Nippon) concerning ship building in Japan. I don't know if they have any vids left but I'll give you the link of the specific program they showed it.

http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/shisatsudan/backnumber/2015/0034/

The technique was pretty straight forward using heat for the steel to expand and then quickly pouring water to contract into the shape you are aiming. It looked as if it was more of an art then science. Although it doesn't give you specifics like the temperature setting of the burner or the water temperature but I am guessing it will change relative to the ambient temperature, the specific material and thickness so gaining that information is not that important.

In any case I believe Youtube will have the specific show on their library if you are interested.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Triring; I not a pretty straight forward is a skill art that take a decade for a tradesmen to master and the weather on that day humidity all come into accounts and Japanese are the best at it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Because this website is heavily populated by expats who don't like the current Japanese government, and who take pleasure when Abe fails. I think many also have a love-hate relationship with Japan generally. There are so many things they find annoying about the country that they can't help but feel pleasure when the traditional ways of doing things don't work out."

Nice attempt at spinning it.

You should say it as it is.

This site is populated majoritarily by gaijin who simply hate the J’s, their country, culture and modus vivendi.

Yet, try to get then out of J-land!!!

When all you have to do is criticise EVERYTHING about a country and its people, there’s more to it than just a dislike for “its current Government”.

Sorry I don’t buy your attempt at sugar coating it.

Australia made its decision, good look to them; they ought to learn how to do it themselves, something they have never been able to do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There appears to be a lot of inaccurate information and misconceptions on the reasons Japan didnt get this submarine contract. First and foremost, appeasing China had zero impact on their decision not to award the contract to Japan. Doubling the size of their submarine fleet is a direct response to China's expansions that the idea of teaming up with Japan would not have offended the Chinese any more than the reasons for obtaining extra submarines in the first place. In fact the Australian government was put under pressure by the US to award the contract to Japan. Even with this pressure, the evaluation panel, that had several American navy Admirals on it, couldnt help but agree the French option was the best deal. As it turned out pressure from the US State Department that America would not allow its weapons and sonar technology in an European designed vessel was withdrawn when President Obama announced it was Australia's sovereign decision and that he would remove that obstacle.

Some here also seem to imply that the Germans lost out too because they also werent prepared to build the submarines in Australia. This is not true. The Germans were the first to offer to build in Australia knowing recognising reactions from the Australian public. Japan’s reluctance to build in Australia was not just because they wanted complete Japanese manufacturing but also because it was worried that certain secret Japanese technologies would be exposed if manufacturing took place in Australia. It didnt help to insult your buyers stating that they werent smart enough to handle the technologies you had on offer. So too for this same reason, some unique technologies werent going to be offered to Australia for fear they may leak out. The French on the other hand were very open and offered their latest silent propulsion technology that only a few nations, and not even China possess.

I can certainly understand the Japanese pride displayed here but what was actually offered in the Japanese bid was simply not that good. It was an ad hock approach modifying an existing model in an attempt to win over the potential buyers. The most very basic of criteria was at very least the new submarine needed to match the range of the old dog subs Australia were wanting to replace. The Japanese offering didnt even meet this simple criteria. The original offering from Japan had smaller living quarters than the old Collins class. Only when it was pointed out this was the case the Japanese offered a enlarged version but it was not an integrated approach just an after thought. The Australians and the Americans are joint developing their own torpedo technologies, the Japanese had doubts it would would even be able to be incorporated into their hull design. The Japanese bid didnt just slightly miss out, it was a resounding last. They misguidedly thought because previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott gave them the nod that that was sufficient and thought they could get away with an inferior product. Tony Abbott was diposed for his "One Man Rule" approach to government and the Australian Parliament and voting public got sick of it and removed him. The new Prime Minister then ensured that a proper competitive tendering process was undertaken and with that competition Japan didnt step up to the task. They simply thought American pressure would be enough but when the Americans backed off they didnt have much hope.

There is much criticism here that Australian manufacturing wont be up to the task. The idea of teaming with a proven submarine parter is to avoid the same pitfalls that befell the Collins Class submarines. The Collins existed on paper only and their reputation foundered while trying to sort out unforeseen bugs in purchasing and then building a complex machine that had prior only been on a plan. The Shortfin Barracuda is a conventionally powered version of a high tech submarine that will be the premier of the French Navy when the first is launched next year. That gives the French ten years to sort our all the bugs and issues before the first of the Australian submarines come into service. All that development and unforeseen problems will all be ironed out without any cost to the Australian build. That's very appealing to Australia after the faltering start with the Collins class. Mentioned here by some is that Australia doesnt have the capacity to produce the length and type of steel required. But thats the point of bringing this project to Australia is so that they can develop this ability. Its not just about building 12 subs and walking away, its about creating new industries in the process. Believe it or not Australia is the fifth largest weapons supplier in the world. They build lots of unique naval ships for many navies around the world including the USA. Introducing new steal technologies wouldn’t just be used for 12 submarines but also expand their ship building capabilities.

This also flows on to the maintenance of the Submarines themselves and the industries associated with that and the need for those to operate these subs till 2060. The Japanese offering had a maximum of a 19 year service life, considerably shorter than the 30 years as required by the Australian Navy. It takes so long to design tender and build these things they have to have a long life. The Japanese couldn’t offer the long term service and supply of hardware for such a long period. The French Submarines have special hatches to facilitate total upgradability throughout the long life of the submarine. The Japanese had compatibility issues with how to modify it and how Australians were going to maintain the thing long after Mitsubishi had walked away. The French on the other hand made a 50 year commitment. Which would be easy for them as long after they have moved onto another class of submarines they will have a steady parts supply as Australia will probably still be operating this fleet of their early designs. This type of arrangement was seen in Australia's F-111 fleet they were kept running longer there than in the USA and the Americans offered them an abundance of cheap parts. Given the Japanese haven’t had any major weapons export of this type it was impossible to tell what long term commitment Japan would really deliver.

I think Australia should be applauded for getting the most sophisticated conventional submarines in the world and not caving into foreign governments and special interest groups and bringing some of the employment and new technologies to their own people to benefit them as well and local industries. Its rare any government does that including Australia. This was a first attempt for Japan so there will be many opportunities to come. When I read the full quotes there was not a 'demand" to know why Japan was not successful in its bid, it was to ask where it faltered so that it may be successful in the future.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Yes, Australia could learn all it needs to build submarines from YouTube.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You can learn a surprisingly large amount from youtube. Just because a person is not standing beside you suddenly reduces the quality of the information?

A surprisingly large number of interesting facts could be gained from youtube; for example the number of blades on enemy sub propellers and their shapes (Usually a well guarded secret, but youtubers manage to catch just about anything), photos of subs under construction or in for repairs (Remember the 688i damage photo that showed the spherical sonar array in the bow? Wooops)

Don't dis something as powerful as youtube or wikipedia. It might not be perfect but they are quite powerful informational tools.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That why Japanese sub can go deeper and longer then other sub. where do you come up with this tripe, the longest sub that can stay submerged are nuclear subs, they produce all there own oxygen/water from within. the only limiting factor is how much food and toilet paper they can hold, without that the crew start to get p**sesd. most nuclear subs can stay submerged for 3 months,traveling at any speed they wish as they only need to refuel every 20yrs. can stay longer if supplies and the crew arnt too stressed. no Japanese sub can do that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@wtf,

I think what is saying is that the Japan sub can go deeper, due to its superior stress resistant and tensile strength steel properties. Either way, it seems a stretch to say its superior to an USN sub, but the swedes during war games went undetected by the USN so perhaps they are on to something. Im sure the USN, by far, has the most advanced weapons platform, and perhaps sub chaser technology? as well.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@5petalsAPR. 27, 2016 - 06:32PM JST

Either way, it seems a stretch to say its superior to an USN sub

Actually, for one reason or another, USN is not exactly a world leader in high strength steels. The LAs were HY-80 and the Seawolves were HY-100. The Russians for another example were up to AK-32 steel for the Akulas (about HY-140 equivalent).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ive been told that Japan holds several patents on steel production so perhaps your right, but there are few people privileged to information when it comes to USN submarine construction, and I would be willing to bet a large sum that nobody here does and is any position to comment on it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Joel Matherson

The Shortfin Barracuda is only a modification by name since switching a nuclear reactor to a diesel engine is packed with various problems. Basically for all intent and purpose it only carries on the name and will an entirely new sub from scratch due to weight distribution management and space management. A nuclear reactor is a small but heavy mass that has various sub systems that are completely incompatible with conventional diesel engine with primary and secondary coolant system requiring a lot of water and a mixture tank so not to dump large amount of super heated water right into the ocean which becomes a source that can been traced. On the other hand the fuel tank and exhaust manifold are relatively light and bulky in size with the diesel engine that is long compared to the steam generators. This completely ruins the weight distribution requiring to switch various other components in the front and re-figure the ballast tanks and it's compartments.

Before you know it the entire interior layout is redesigned making it a complete new sub.

I don't know if the Australians had realized this fact and if they did then they are heading into Collins fiasco part two but I guess the ones who had decided on this misadventure will be long gone and the ones who had been chosen at that point would be feeling the heat.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The United States did not publicly endorse any option, saying it was Australia’s decision.

The U.S wanted Australia to pick Japan and they mede it clear that they wouldn't supply their most advanced weapons systems if it wasn't a Japanese submarine

So they "made it clear", huh? (rolls eyes)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki

No the US can obtain the same grade steel Japan utilizes it just that like John-San and I have been discussing about heat forming techniques that they had lost and can't fabricate the material to conform it into a hull so they had to down grade the steel since the hydraulic presses stress the grade of steel Japan utilizes too much causing the material to buckle.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Don't worry!! Japan will still get a lot of the business. Japanese companies are the only ones in the world that can produce certain knowledge-knowhow/capital intensive technologies for materials and advanced circuits for the submarines. That work will be subcontracted to Japanese companies.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Australia could learn all it needs to build submarines from YouTube.

Well, maybe, but just to be safe they should also consult Wikipedia.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I expected Japan to loose the bid, although admitted their technology was probably superior, on Japan terms. what this means, as anyone familiar with Japan will know, is that they craft everything for the Japanese market, miniaturizing, precision, all uniquely Japanese, but all this has little application outside of Japan. As was discussed here and elsewhere, it would be too troublesome to redesign the hull for the colab with other countries vertical weapons platforms, propulsion and living habitat. There is also the language barrier for post sales support and engineering The ease of doing work and cooperation amongst Anglo Saxxon countries (which is self evident to anyone who has worked in Japan) vs the superiority complex (or inferiority, either way its always a pain to deal with) and isolated pigheaded japanese mindset. To be sure, there were some in the delegation that wanted to be shed of that, but as noted, others were very resistant to anything but their terms. I had a feeling this would manifest, and so it did, and it comes as no surprise really. China will be blamed but they are just a distraction; its Japans fault but I also suspect that nothing will come from it but self pity and blaming others.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Looks as if someone is living under a rock not really understanding how JP corporations are doing business around the world.

MHI has hundreds of overseas offices doing business with various overseas corporations providing products and service including after sales maintenance and pre-sales consultation. Multi-national corporation such as Boeing, Airbus, GE,etc. all praises MHI contribution in collaborative co-development.

Unlike a certain PRC corporation that submitted documents in Chinese for an international bid, Japanese corporations with a long history providing service in a multi-national enviorment provides all documents in the language that is requested.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

your otaku knowledge of all things military and defense is impressive, as is your defense of mitsubishi and IHI, but please do explain, without the otaku stats, why the Japanese fumbled this up? No blamming outsiders either.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

5petals

Japan didn't fumble Australia picked the French due to political concerns. They are having an election in July and the present majority party can't win without SW states votes. The SW backed by ASC wanted maximum involvement which the French offered. MHI on the other hand considering the consistent past history ASC had in not being able to deliver on time or within budget offered the first two to be built in Japan with ASC workers coming over to Japan and provide training so they can get it right when they are off to do it by themselves. I'm sure the French will provide advisors but they are not going to get the support of the full construction faculty in France and will not have a constant eye on each and every worker constructing the subs at ASC.

Now which offer do you think is more probable in constructing a sub right from the first time?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Triring: The Swiss Auguste Piccard built a submarine diving to the deepest point of the see. Japanese living on the see can not dive so deep. They don't have the technology, except what they copied. Can't recall that in Japan ever something has been developed that impacted the humanity in a magnitude like telephone, airplane, Internet or so. Only copy and modify like the rest of Asia.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ghost rider

Have you ever hear of the Shinkai 6500 Deep-submergence vehicle? As for the Bathyscaphe Trieste that Auguste Piccard designed and rode, it was built in Italy not Switzerland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@tina

wrong. It was the British. The Japanese turned a British engineer, who taught them how to do it, read up its a famous story

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry are two different entities. If you can't figure that out then I guess you are lost to figure anything.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Joel Matheson - thanks for a very insightful post.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Tina

You can check it out here

https://acidhistory.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/rutland-sempill/

not to take away from the japanese contributions to the development of the carrier, Im sure they were decades ahead of the U.S. but it appears the brits were the first to use them

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Guess Australia played the "neutral" card as not to offend China and other South East Asian countries. Can't really blame the Aussies.........

2 ( +2 / -0 )

5petals, yes Japan hired British engineers and built the world first aircraft carrier

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%B3%B3%E7%BF%94_(%E7%A9%BA%E6%AF%8D)

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Australia welcomed France offering to create subs in their land. Don't have to be newest. People will be upset if subs are built somewhere else. Japan Inc. forgot how they do business in USA. They make product for USA in USA and do not import made in Japan to USA.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

5petals

You seem to know it all and are well aware that everything the J's do it's because someone else has invented it; clearly they are incapable of the creative process, as you're too happy to inform us all.

However, a slight correction needs to be added to your preaching the J's incompetence in everything technical; they do NOT COPY! They have licensing agreements whenever needs be.

J-land has been a democracy since 1945; in democracy "copying" IP means a challenge in the Courts; see recent Olympics logo debacle, if yer don't know the difference between copying and proper licensing of someone else's work.

Likewise, damages and criminal liability, (i.e. a stretch in the nick), usually follow from IP infringements; in case yer don't know it!

Have yer stopped one second to think why is that all the other intelligent Nations and beautiful peoples out there are not taking the J's to task, considering all they do all day long is copy?!

There yer have it and, learn something for a change.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@peeper tom

Yes, they do get the license, but the point is they wait on the outsiders to develop and field the invention, and then buy the license and then copy / change it. Ive seen them not even bother with a license, but it can be argued that you cant put a utility patent on everything.

In the West, we say, "we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us" Meaning, we appreciate, and therefore build on what they did for us. In Asia (not unique to Japan), the motto seems to be, "take it, then deem it inferior, change it, then call it your own" Sorry, I cant really buy into that paradigm but perhaps you can

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I don't think any contracts have actually been signed. Australia is going into election mode in the next couple of weeks, with a "caretaker" government in place between the election announcement and the election.

As caretaker governments cannot sign-off on major contracts (and a $50b submarine purchase is hardly a "minor" matter), I doubt if we'll know for certain which company or country has been awarded the Australian submarine contract until after the election in July.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guess Australia played the "neutral" card as not to offend China

Well I thought so too at first. A considerable number of land and Australian companies is now owned by China after all. I think at the end of the day it comes down to this: (1) France will build the subs in Australia, creating jobs. (2) Turnbull gets to distance himself from Abbott, and sell the "jobs" thing at the upcoming election.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

bullfighter: "Scandals are not peculiar to Japan."

I didn't say they are peculiar (nor particular) to Japan -- just that they are across the board in Japan... something a little more particular, and even more particular is how easily it is not only forgiven, but accepted. You're not denying that is proof that you accept it as well, as much as you try and deflect.

Triring: "Japan didn't fumble"

Japan most certainly DID fumble, even if the political concerns you mentioned are the only concerns in question. You said they chose the French because the French offered to build in Aus with maximum Aus involvement. Not only did Japan NOT offer to do that, they insulted the Aus ability to build and said they were incapable. You don't do that in negotiation, and they therefore fumbled BIG TIME. You don't like it, but the bottom line is Japan screwed this one up for themselves, same as they did with the train deal in Indonesia. Don't blame other nations, it was Japan's insults and inability to negotiate, as well as all the political opaqueness and scandals (including with the parent company of Mitsubishi here).

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Smithy

It's not an insult when the Australians themselves admits and considers ASC incompetent with track records showing they have failed time after time not being able to deliver on time or on budget with third party inspection stating they have failed in even some minor tasks as welding a pipe properly. Basically it's called professional criticism.

Japan cares of our own reputation as well as others so we offered to train people in Japan but NO ASC wants all the money for themselves and think they can do the same thing because they are too big to fall.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You never criticize your customer, this is how adults play in the world of business, and its a very basic but well understood concept, probably understood at the junior high school level in developed countries.. I mean, after you got the contract and the client is on the hook, you may, even then its not professional as youll just end up screwing yourself long term.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Another fail for Abe

Abe not only failed, but failed miserably.

I remember Japan has a GDP of similar size to that of China just a few years ago. Now it is only one third.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@5petalsAPR. 29, 2016 - 04:23PM JST

You never criticize your customer, this is how adults play in the world of business, and its a very basic but well understood concept, probably understood at the junior high school level in developed countries.. I mean, after you got the contract and the client is on the hook, you may, even then its not professional as youll just end up screwing yourself long term.

The flipside of what you are saying is that you don't offer honest opinions to your customer in hopes he buys something he won't regret. You just tell him what he wants to hear until he's, as you say, hooked, and then you just keep charging him to rectify mistakes he won't have made if you had been straight up with him at the outset.

It may be the Western way, but whether I want to credit it such a positive term as "adult" ... hmm, have to think about that.

I hope it doesn't end this way, but around 2030 if Australians don't see the subs or they run into even more sneezes than Collins, what would they be thinking?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Time to start paying attention to Japanese media and blogs to see how they'll massage this.

Media control? Japan is already an expert in this.

Wonder why Japanese don't speak freely like all others in the world?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@shimzaki,

Your talking about transparency. insulting is not the flip side of transparency. insulting is arrogant, and its a deal killer; it shows a lack of business skills and tact. I think weve all had this conversation with Japanese, and would rather not do it. If you get the feeling that your struggling or its a strain, then its not business. In Japan, you must lower yourself, or constantly praise and self depreciate, then they feel they can trust. This is not how the rest of the world does business

0 ( +2 / -2 )

5petals

"Ive seen them not even bother with a license"

Have you now????

Well then you're just sitting on a mine-field of legal challenges and fat compensation pay-outs. However, because you're too nice of a geezer, with only J's interests at heart (why come to call them incompetent in everything, if not for that?), you're just turning a blind eye to the J's little misdemeanours. Let the poor sods get on with "stealing" what they could never get through their own endeavours, enne?

"you cant put a utility patent on everything"

Well, I'm pretty sure you know that your patent is protected only in the country of registration; if yer wish go further, then WIPO (among other types of protection) is your best friend. But then again, why am I telling you something yer fully conversant with? Silly me.

And of course, yer totally right.

Japan copies absolutely everything from much more intelligent gaijin. After all, the inability to reason and process complex data is well beyond their capabilities. It’s in their genes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia will get its EU submarine. I think it has to do more with its ties to the EU than fear of China. Looked at my score and say no love :( Suppose people on Japan today have no sense of humor if they even understood my joke. My guy asked me to explain it. So I say it was up to Australia to make the best deal for them and not Japan. I say that Japan moves forward and not let this come between our friends.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@5petalsAPR. 29, 2016 - 05:33PM JST

Your talking about transparency. insulting is not the flip side of transparency. insulting is arrogant, and its a deal killer; it shows a lack of business skills and tact.

How do you divide "transparency" and "insult" in this case? As far as I know, the Japanese did not go like "Those idiot Aussies can't build a truck". They just said they didn't figure the Aussies can do it. I'll call that transparency.

The Aussies can feel they were insulted. I just hope they get the combination of the luck and skill they need to make this feeling justified. It'll look very funny in 2030 if the subs don't show up.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Obviously, some of former defense personals who are in Submarine Committee trying to discredit and look down Japanese Submarine technology even they went to pride of Australia worst Submarine Collins Class ability and Collins Class Submarine will kill Japanese Soryu Class Submarine every time they fight. I think such as ridiculous comparison claimed was to discredit Japanese Submarine technology. Why Australia Government and Australia Defense Ministry do not support ASC to build another fleet of Submarines if Collins Class Submarine was better and superior to modern advance Soryu Submarine? Here are some of former and current defense personals and politicians do not want technology from Asia country. They never thought Japanese technology is better than European technology. They choose French Company over Germany because French glue is must better than German glue. By the way, Japan must happy about not chosen as winner of next generation of Australia Submarines because you can never trust Australian Union workers and their technology.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/the-submarine-problem-deeper-than-meets-the-eye

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think the position that Australia are somehow siding with China here is pretty silly. Australian governments tend to be verifiable Americaphiles by nature and would certainly be far more interested in leaning to this side of the equation than the Chinese...IF this were the crux for the primary decision.

But it isn't. Technology, employment, cost etc all factor in here and the French bid was better for Australia. I'd say Australia probably really wanted the Japanese bid to fit the bill - it would have made sense at every level, but when you are making decisions based around this kind of money, you have to think it through carefully.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

5petals

You never criticize your customer, this is how adults play in the world of business,

They aren't just a customer but also a business partner since they are the ones who is going to actually construct them. When a business partner is not making them to the correct configuration are not meet the level of competence required then it is the other business partner's responsibility to point out the problem and try to rectify it.That is what professional criticism is.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Chop Chop

That article had various factual errors and a lot of presumptions made by the writer. Basically it just a opinion piece that anyone can write.

5petals

The bid was to search for a business partner not an off the self product that would be built in the product of origin. In which case the bidders equally have a say in it. Basically Australia pursued the nation that had no conditions and went for France. That's all.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I remember Japan has a GDP of similar size to that of China just a few years ago. Now it is only on.e third

And shortly after the end of World War II, the Chinese GDP was a tiny fraction of the of the US. Now it is expected that it will surpass that of the US.

The important figure, at least in terms of quality of life, is GDP per head, not total GDP. GDP per head in China was $12,609 in 2014 while in Japan it was $37,595. The Swiss economy is small compared to that of China but the per head GDP was $58,997 in 2014.

Size matters but there is more than one element to the economic anatomy of a country.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Here's another take on it and well worth a read:

http://hotcopper.com.au/resources/insight-how-france-sank-japans-40-bln-australian-submarine-dream.6952/#.VyQ0i7SY7ok

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ive come up with the answer needed . Australia should build the submarines using Japanese and Chinese workers French and German designers and Italian supervises Russian Managers and Swedish Engineers all making it a top secret from the Americans just incase the tell the North Koreans what their like . Really it don't matter, as Submarines are obsolete even before their built . Cannot hide them in the ocean. Cannot Hide on the ocean, as from out of space still can be found by spy satellites. So why waste the money when it could be used to end world poverty .Feed and house the hungry, and the poor . Then help them provide work to enable production of food and other related industries. See its a win, win , for all , Grow food forget silly wars ban all religions as they fight in the names of their gods. Wow !!! No Subs needed. Work provided for poor and food for all.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

anyone who has lived in japan or has a pulse on japan knows why this bidding failed. even if they would of won it, one can only imagine the fiasco to follow with language, culture, and all kinds of other to deal with.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, instead they will get the Wal-Mart of submarines. Hilarious!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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