{"id":25839,"date":"2016-04-11T12:00:39","date_gmt":"2016-04-11T02:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=25839"},"modified":"2016-04-11T22:23:40","modified_gmt":"2016-04-11T12:23:40","slug":"why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Editor\u2019s note: The Strategist has invited all three SEA 1000 contenders to explain their approach to meeting Australia\u2019s future submarine requirement.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n At the end of November last year, Japan submitted to the Australian government its proposal for Australia\u2019s future submarine program.<\/span><\/p>\n The Japanese proposal is low risk and meets Australia\u2019s needs. It\u2019s a proposal based on our accumulated experience and the proven technologies of the Soryu-class submarine, which is the world\u2019s largest conventionally powered submarine. Seven Soryus are already in use by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force.<\/span><\/p>\n Several key questions have been posed about whether our proposal will be able to meet Australia\u2019s future submarine needs.<\/span><\/p>\n The following two posts will seek to explain to the greatest extent possible the truth about the capability of the Soryu-class and the reasons why the Japanese proposal is low-risk.<\/span><\/p>\n Can Japan\u2019s proposal meet Australia\u2019s cruising range requirement?<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s a concern, promulgated in some quarters, that the Soryu-class submarine won\u2019t be able to match Australia\u2019s requirements regarding cruising range. Such a concern is mistaken, for in Japan\u2019s pre-concept design, every effort was made to ensure that Australia\u2019s cruising range requirements would be met.<\/span><\/p>\n Given that cruising range can be determined by the quantity of fuel expended and fuel consumption efficiency, the Soryu-class submarine was the basis of a comprehensive study on an internal layout made in order to ensure effective use of space by extending the hull and re-designing partitions. That study led to the conclusion that by increasing the capacity of the fuel tank and working on its positioning, as well as extending the hull design, the pre-concept design will be able to meet Australia\u2019s cruising range requirements without any problems.<\/span><\/p>\n Is the internal space of the Soryu-class submarine too narrow?<\/strong><\/p>\n The size of the reserve buoyancy compared to submarines from other countries and the double hull structure has led to questions about whether the internal space of the submarine is overly narrow.<\/span><\/p>\n The estimated surfaced displacement of the Soryu-class submarine is approximately 3,600 tonnes, while its dived displacement is around 4,200 tonnes. So in relation to the reserve buoyancy of the Soryu-class submarine, there\u2019s no reason to believe that it possesses an excessive amount of reserve buoyancy compared to submarines of other nations.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, although it\u2019s true that one section of the Soryu-class submarine consists of a double hull structure, a highly space-efficient outfitting using 3D digital mock-up technology and design techniques that prevent reinforcement structures such as beams from restricting space have created a wide internal space while avoiding a growth in the size of the submarine itself. Furthermore, the extension of the hull has allowed a much wider internal space than in the Soryu-class submarine.<\/span><\/p>\n The internal space of the Soryu-class submarine has been shown to a large number of Australians familiar with the internal space of the Collins-class submarine. So far, there hasn\u2019t been any comments which indicate that the internal space of the Soryu-class is too narrow.<\/span><\/p>\n