Japan to bid for Australia's naval ship development

I can see the Australian is going to demand they get built in Australia with Australian and work force. We been through this before with the sub deal. We would have 4 decent sub by now if they were built in Japan. I the deal with the USA will fall apart when Trump returns.

The Mogami class is by far the best of the four being considered. They are the most advanced frigates being made today. If Australia is smart they won't require a significant re-design to fit, say, a US made radar and combat management system like AN/SPY-6 and Aegis, but take what the Japanese ships have and go with it.

@John-San

I can see the Australian is going to demand they get built in Australia with Australian and work force.

Australia is asking only 8 out of 12 units to be built in Australia. First 4 units will be built at seller's country. Japan's rivals are already busy shipyard shopping in Australia.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/australia-not-concerned-by-possible-hanwha-acquisition-of-austal

Austral rejected Hanwha's takeover bid citing a probable government rejection, but to the shock of Austral Aussie government says they are fine with Hanwha takeover of Austral.

@Desert Tortoise

The Mogami class is by far the best of the four being considered.

Not according to Kiyotani san.

https://kiyotani.seesaa.net/article/503240147.html

If Australia is smart they won't require a significant re-design to fit, say, a US made radar and combat management system like AN/SPY-6 and Aegis.

Actually Australia is demanding the integration of Australian CEAFAR radar and an unspecified combat system.

Do not trust Australia, remember the deal with France?

@Wasabi

Do not trust Australia, remember the deal with France?

ShortFin Barracuda disaster was largely France's own making.

ShortFin Barracuda disaster was largely France's own making.

RIGHT, Australian break a contract but it was France fault???

Do not trust the Australian, they will break the deal if daddy USA tell them.

It's the Mogami-Class Multirole Frigate, the Mogami-Class Destroyer has never existed. The cruiser class was last built in 1937

Do not trust Australia, remember the deal with France?

France missed all design time frame targets by years putting the entire purchase years behind as a result. In the meantime increasing Chinese belligerence changed the regional tactical situation. Australia reevaluated and chose to pay out the French contract and acquire nuclear powered submarines instead.

Do not trust the Australian, they will break the deal if daddy USA tell them.

More anti US rubbish, they are in no way involved in this upcoming Frigate contract. Their yards are over capacity already.

Australian yards including expanded construction capacity is insufficient to produce the numbers needed in the time required so as mentioned the winning nation will get to build 4 or more gaining long term employment for its shipyards.

Either Japanese or Sth Korean designs could be easily serviced in those nations. However if there is a future conflict in that region it may be best to get them serviced in Europe away from conflict, making European designs a prudent choice.

In the end it will come down to what ticks Navy's requirement boxes and is within budget for the contract. Big ticket items are already in the pipeline.

Look at all the government-appointed "naval advisory boards" operating in Canberra doing a number of ill-defined and shielded from public review tasks; they are stuffed full of ex-US Navy admirals. Has become a bit of joke to the extent the Australian navy has basically become a retirement package for senior people from another country. The head of the "Australian" submarine program is actually an American admiral, who can't or won't reveal details of his racketeering plan to elected bodies.

No self-respecting, independent country in the world permits such a travesty. These are the textbook actions of a supplicant that lacks sovereignty. This who scam is nothing but a self-serving part of the US MIC cartel and to the Australian public's detriment. That country has always been an exploited and manipulated colony.

Look at all the government-appointed "naval advisory boards" operating in Canberra doing a number of ill-defined and shielded from public review tasks;

Shielded from spying eyes from unfriendly nations you mean.

they are stuffed full of ex-US Navy admirals. Has become a bit of joke to the extent the Australian navy has basically become a retirement package for senior people from another country. The head of the "Australian" submarine program is actually an American admiral, who can't or won't reveal details of his racketeering plan to elected bodies.

Buying US SSN's it is prudent to have those who know them on board to advise. Australia will lack the domestic capacity for knowledge and experience in this field for decades until personal experience is gained.

The US navy is the worlds premier navy, so it is no shock that many advisers come from the US and also from the Royal navy of the UK. Thats what allies do, share experience and knowledge to make all safer and more effective. This makes Australian navy units dependable when deployed with US or UK forces.

You miss the point. Canberra shouldn't be selling the family farm to buy nuclear submarines. Nor should the obsession with being a US deputy sheriff be driving foreign policy.

They should be building a truly independent, sovereign country with a multi-vector foreign policy that truly has a place at the table in a multipolar world. Australia would be well poised to seize that initiative, if only for the political class, which lacks spine, and hides behind the US skirt like a juvenile.

You miss the point. Canberra shouldn't be selling the family farm to buy nuclear submarines. Nor should the obsession with being a US deputy sheriff be driving foreign policy.

You seem to have little understanding of Australia @JJE. Australia will determine what it needs as any nation does, then determine what it can afford or is willing to pay to get what it wants. This is a new capacity for the Australian military and it knows from past experience that getting new capacities come at a cost as it did when Australia purchased 2 escort aircraft carriers and bringing them into service in the 1950's. The initial cost is greatest.

They should be building a truly independent, sovereign country with a multi-vector foreign policy that truly has a place at the table in a multipolar world.

Australia is a truly independent country with close ties to traditional allies and friends. Meaning that often our international goals are similar or even identical. We are able to work together with others, be it in a uni-polar or multi-polar world. Will will not ignore our friends and those who support us, we are a nation with a small military unable to defend our large nation alone and we recognize that fully. We will not break away from allies to side with other unfriendly nations that embrace suppression of freedoms in their own land like China. We want the Chinese people to become free of such oppression. It will always be that way and to hope that Australia will somehow become neutral in the face of China/Russia/USA competitive dealings or military clashes is never going to happen, ever.

We back our mates, its how we are raised from the cradle in Australia. We dont stand off as friends fight for what we believe is right. We dont leave them to fight alone. We are not big or strong but with what we bring to the occasion we can help tip the balance or alter the outcome. We defended France twice in two world wars and lost 10's of thousands of lives doing so, because it was the right thing to do. We joined with Great Britain in defending freedom when the world needed it most, on the other side of the world and then in our own Pacific region.

You should expect Australia to stand up again if a serious conflict breaks out that effects and involves our allies, its who we are as a people. To do other wise would be un-Australian.

JJEToday 04:34 pm JST

You miss the point. Canberra shouldn't be selling the family farm to buy nuclear submarines. Nor should the obsession with being a US deputy sheriff be driving foreign policy.

They should be building a truly independent, sovereign country with a multi-vector foreign policy that truly has a place at the table in a multipolar world. Australia would be well poised to seize that initiative, if only for the political class, which lacks spine, and hides behind the US skirt like a juvenile.

You would love for America's allies to abandon it, but that's not what friends do. What's juvenile is what China is doing in the SCS. Also Russia is still the shortest pole in the world.

Wrong again. The reverse needs to happen. Canberra needs to cut the umbilical cord and strive out with an independent, neutralist, truly sovereign foreign policy worthy of a mature country - and one that will earn it respect and positive engagement on the world stage as a decent country.

Being a comprador who does other's bidding is nothing to be proud of.

Wrong again. The reverse needs to happen. Canberra needs to cut the umbilical cord and strive out with an independent, neutralist, truly sovereign foreign policy worthy of a mature country - and one that will earn it respect and positive engagement on the world stage as a decent country.

Australia is already a respected nation and a decent country. You cant support freedom and democracy from the sidelines, you pick a side. Australians are proud of supporting democracy around the world. Those who work against freedom, also speak of nations like Australia standing apart. Doing so makes them vulnerable and more easily bullied by the likes of China and Russia. We understand being alone makes us weaker than standing with friends.

Being a comprador who does other's bidding is nothing to be proud of.

Australia acts in its best interest and where possible, supports friends and allies. Being forced to do China's bidding by being alone without allies is not going to happen no matter how you or anyone wants to label Australia and its choices. We stand with like minded nations and China works hard to not be one of those. So be it.

https://kiyotani.seesaa.net/article/503240147.html

The author of that article is either very poorly informed or deliberately lying. His claim that the Japanese build their warship hulls to commercial standards is bs. I have been on enough Japanese and other nations warships to know Japan builds combat ships to the same high standards as the US Navy does, so close you could almost put a US Navy crew on a Japanese ship and they could operate it effectively in about a week or two of training. Everything, even the internal hull markings, are identical to US Navy standards. Damage control equipment and things like battle lanterns and sound powered phones follow US Navy practice. Japanese ships are built to a higher standard than the European ships I have been on. Japanese ships have none of the flammable materials inside that you find in European "combat" ships that have wood paneling and decorative false overheads with flush lighting. If the ship is hit and on fire or flooding all that decoratove crap has to be chopped away with axes to get at the fire or the leaks. Japanese ships are austere inside like US Navy ships with no decorative anything. Both navies learned hard lessons about damage control and fire fighting during WWII while the European ships I have been on don't reflect those lessons.

The author also disparages Japanese sonars when in fact they are among the world's best. The author also disparages the quieting of Japanese ships, another falsehood. Last he implies Japanese ships would be expensive when in fact Japan manages to build complex high technology warships like the Maya and Mogami class in less time and for far less money than US or European yard can.

ShortFin Barracuda disaster was largely France's own making.

RIGHT, Australian break a contract but it was France fault???

The French yard was not fulfilling the terms of the contract. They were years behind on design drawings, over budget and the promised work sharing was not happening. The Australian government was going to cancel the contract for non performance regardless of any offer by the US and UK.

Either Japanese or Sth Korean designs could be easily serviced in those nations. However if there is a future conflict in that region it may be best to get them serviced in Europe away from conflict, making European designs a prudent choice.

Service them in Australia. Many EU nations would be afraid to cross the Chinese by repairing Australian combat ships during a conflict with China.

A secondary but important consideration is the lengthy transit from a combat zone in the Pacific to a European yard. Could a badly damaged ship make it? It might not make it past Guam depending on how badly damaged it was. Better to try and effect repairs as close to the operating theater as possible. Remember the RN lost HMS Sheffield towing it back to the UK from the Falklands after it was hit by a missile.

Actually Australia is demanding the integration of Australian CEAFAR radar and an unspecified combat system.

That is likewise incorrect. The current requirement is for the ship to be as close as possible to the original foreign design with the only changes allowed to meet Australian safety standards. The requirement to use a CEAFAR radar was removed.

The Australians made a mess of the Hunter class frigate program by requiring a UK design to carry Australian radars integrated into an American Aegis combat management system with a Swedish tactical interface. These systems are not like adding something to your computer plug and play. Integrations of such dissimilar systems takes years of work on software coding and testing. It appears that since the Light Frigate is supposed to be economical to buy and operate the RAN wants to keep changes to the bare minimum necessary to achieve desired safety standards.

JJESep. 3 06:00 pm JST

Wrong again. The reverse needs to happen. Canberra needs to cut the umbilical cord and strive out with an independent, neutralist, truly sovereign foreign policy worthy of a mature country - and one that will earn it respect and positive engagement on the world stage as a decent country.

Being a comprador who does other's bidding is nothing to be proud of.

Being an ally of the US is more respectable than being a disgusting police state or serving those states.

Service them in Australia. Many EU nations would be afraid to cross the Chinese by repairing Australian combat ships during a conflict with China.

Most would indeed be serviced in Australia where most will be built. But Australian yards are not to scale, at least in peacetime, to service or repair more than a couple at a time as the ongoing construction in yards takes up space as well.

I was projecting that if more capacity was needed, European yards may offer a safer solution being well away from an Asia-Pacific conflict. Even though the EU may stay out of it, the US would pressure NATO allies to at least preform servicing on naval units and other non combat support. Perhaps they would balk if it is not written into any contract. But many contracts include service life support regardless of whether they are involved in conflict at the time.

I was projecting that if more capacity was needed, European yards may offer a safer solution being well away from an Asia-Pacific conflict. Even though the EU may stay out of it, the US would pressure NATO allies to at least preform servicing on naval units and other non combat support. Perhaps they would balk if it is not written into any contract. But many contracts include service life support regardless of whether they are involved in conflict at the time.

There are two large shipyards in Subic Bay one of which has graving docks large enough for the largest ore carriers and tankers, ships much larger than the largest aircraft carrier ever made. The other is the former US Navy Shipyard. It remains in use building new ships and providing support to existing ships. There is a drydock there large enough for a Nimitz class.

Japan has no shortage of drydock space and excellent efficient commercial shipyards and navy yards at Maizuru, Sasebo, Kure and Yokosuka. The US has a shipyard in Guam. There are also floating drydocks that, just as in WWII, are self propelled and can be moved to the theater to provide additional repair facilities. Shipyards in India could be employed assuming that in a big naval conflict with China India will be involved. The US also has a ship repair facility in Bahrain. You are proposing passing by these to tow ships all the way to Europe. It is not needed.

Oh yeah, I forgot Singapore. There are major commercial shipyards there including the old Royal Navy Shipyard at Sembawang (a place us old Westpac sailors know simply as "the Wang") and a new facility owned by Seatrium on newly reclaimed land on the southwest corner of the island nation in what is called Tuas Port. There is also the modern Singapore Navy Shipyard at Changi Bay.