The price of silence: the submarine offered to Australians by TKMS was too Noisy
2 weeks ago, behind doors closed in a shipyard in the German port of Kiel, an Australian delegation explained the secret reasons behind the decision to enter into exclusive negotiations with DCNS for the award of the contract of 12 submarines, a $ 150 billion contract from $. It is a moment that left the Germans KO: for the first time, it was explained that they had lost the bidding because the submarine proposed to the Australia had a "level of radiated noise (...)". unacceptable ".
Summary
A submarine too noisy
Doubts about batteries
Cost projections (...)
In the world of submarines, the noise is equivalent to a possible detection and death. When the Germans have pressed issues Australian officials to have more detailed explanations, they stayed on their hunger: "this information is confidential," they were told the Australian.
A submarine too noisy
Exchanging a short and muscular, the truth emerged: DCNS had won the biggest contract in the history of the Australia because it had reached the "sound of silence". As a platform of espionage against China, and in the event of a conflict, proposed by the French submarine was regarded as more discreet than those proposed by the Germans and the Japanese.
But it is a decision with 150 billion of AUS$ in game - 50 billion for construction (32 billion €) and 100 additional billion for maintenance over the life of the submarines (64 billion €)-that the Germans dispute fiercely, at least in private. And this decision could undermine relations with Berlin, in the same way that the rejection of the Japanese proposal has affected relations between Canberra and Tokyo.
Confidential debriefing on the German proposal was held under bad auspices, on Friday, May 13, at the historic shipyards in Kiel.
Five Australian Defence officials, led by the Director general of the program "Future submarines", Commodore Mike Houghton, stood before 11 senior representatives of German manufacturer TKMS, and German ministries of defence, Economic Affairs and Foreign Affairs. The presence of government officials was the image of the investment of the Germany in the tender, to the involvement of Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The delegation of Australia, that a German observer described as 'shameful in their body language', handed a document marked "confidential - sensitive", summarizing the reasons for the decision.
At the same time, across the world, the head of the program "Future submarines", Rear Admiral Greg Sammut, headed the 12 and 13 may a delegation to explain to several ministries in Tokyo, including the Ministry of defence, to explain to the Japan why their proposal was refused.
The question of discretion also played a key role in the Japanese defeat.
If at Kiel, Australian officials hoped that the Germans would be a passive audience, they themselves are heavily wrong.
Led by the vice-president of TKMS, Dieter Rottsieper, the Germans have questioned tenaciously every assumption made by the Australians. They began 2 hours meeting in ensuring that the decision to reject their proposal was not influenced by politics, the press or other factors. The choice was based entirely on the need to choose a submarine than those of the neighbours in the region and which could be maintained throughout his life in Australia.
But, they explained, the truth was that, although the Germans have put forward an excellent project for the local industry for the maintenance of submarine, the submarine itself was not good enough.
The delegation explained that "the critical point" was that their submarine was too noisy.
In particular they were told with a deliberate lack of precision, their submarine would have been too noisy at a particular frequency, which is very important for the Royal Australian Navy - an apparent reference to the ability of submarines to gather intelligence near the coast without being detected.
The Germans responded by asking how often it was and why the tender process had not insisted on this point.
Australians have responded that this information was confidential and that they were not convinced that TKMS has understood the importance of this issue for the Australia. They explained that the problem of discretion implied that the German proposal could never give a submarine than those of the neighbours of the Australia.
The Germans insisted, asking this noise came, indoor facilities, the propeller of the hull? Once again, Australian officials have refused to answer.
A German Observer stated: "the power of the German military-industrial complex could easily have solve a technicality like this, if only the Australians had been clearer about the issue until we deposit our proposal."
Behind the scenes, DCNS has worked hard year last to instill doubt in the minds of Australian officials about the noise level of the submarine proposed by TKMS.
DCNS has modeled its estimate of the noise emitted by the submarine proposed by the Germans using the signature sound of his own submarine rockfish, smaller. She then compared this estimate with the signing of the new Barracuda submarine on which is based the submarine suggested the Australians.
The French have also loudly touted their revolutionary propulsion system: a pump-jet, which will replace the propeller on the Australian submarine, the "Shortfin Barracuda".
Paris has argued that this would give underwater sound higher than that of the German U - 216 and Evolved Soryu Japanese silent tactical speed. Australian officials have strongly impressed by the fact that, where the Barracuda accelerates, the french submarine is much quieter than the models proposed by the Germans or the Japanese.
If the German delegation was told that the noise was the key factor in the final decision, it was also informed of other perceived problems in the proposal which they had made.
The Australians have explained to them that the model pre-concept proposed to the defence at the end of the month of November "was not balanced" and that the optimization of the concept "was not completed.
Doubts about lithium-ion batteries
They explained that they had reservations about the safety of the proposed batteries, lithium ion battery, which should be installed on both the German and Japanese proposals. 2 countries maintain that the lithium ion batteries, which are 4 times more efficient than batteries traditional lead acid are safe, despite small fires with these batteries on recreational equipment, cars and aircraft.
Last March, the France publicly warned about the dangers that lithium ion batteries could cause aboard a submarine. The Australian delegation clearly explained in Kiel that it shared those concerns.
The Australians have also expressed their skepticism about the ability of TKMS to increase size, both of Siemens engines and their current submarine hull, to build a submarine of over 4,000 t - almost double the submarines being constructed.
Optimistic cost projections
Moreover, Australians explained that the Germans cost projections were too optimistic, even when they claim that there is only a negligible extra cost by building all of the submarines in Australia.
The German proposal provided that the price of the construction of 8 submarines (without combat system) would be a little less than 12 billion from $, and 12 submarines (including the combat system) would cost 20 billion.
The delegation of Australia told the Germans that this cost estimate does not reflect the technical challenges and that it was well below "expectations.
TKMS explained that build 12 submarines in Australia will cost no more than build them in Germany. An internal estimate of the Australian Government still provides an additional cost of approximately 15%.
Australian officials explained to the Germans that he was not in their proposal analysis sufficiently substantiated to justify that extra cost is also limited as they claimed.
After a delicate, often tense, almost 2 hours, meeting the delegation of Australia and the representatives of the shipyard naval Germans have gone to lunch. It is has not been less tight, according to participants. The Germans who had participated, were far from being satisfied with the explanations given.
"This will have serious consequences for our bilateral relations," said one of them. "We do not believe that our proposal was evaluated fairly. We are very disappointed. »
