The deadline for bids to build Australia's Future Submarines is just days away. Political Editor TORY SHEPHERD visits the shipyards of the contenders for our biggest-ever defence project.
THE Japanese call submarines "underwater aircraft".
It's a sweet and steely echo of Senator John Madigan's now--famous statement that "submarines are the spaceships of the ocean".
People tittered when he said that, but it's true. The scale and complexity of a submarine is difficult to understand until you tour a shipyard.
There are enormous sheds filled with 10m-tall robot welders, submarine parts strewn like giant Lego sets, and endless networks of scaffolding and cables. The logistics of putting a submarine together are incomprehensible. 
In France, Germany and Japan, they're building boats that have to accommodate -humans for months at a time under water. You really don't want to spring a leak. Or run out of dunny rolls.
Imagine circles of steel more than four times taller than the tallest guy you know. They get packed up with different stuff - the engine room here, the torpedo tubes there, the kitchen, the control room. Eventually they are stitched together to make a beast as long as a soccer pitch.
They exist to deliver deadly force. To sink ships and other submarines, to spy, to dispatch special forces, to protect trade routes. Ultimately they are also a sign of strength, a submerged, flexed muscle.
The Advertiser has just -visited the shipyards of each of the three contenders to build Australia's next submarines. They have plenty in common.
Workers - almost all men - hustle around these semi-cities in hard hats and hi-vis. Often they travel around the extensive shipyards on bikes.
Security is tight. No photos are allowed, and sometimes no phones. A journalist's visit is rare, to step onto a submarine more so.
Orbiting these shipyards are all sorts of supporting industries. They are developing extraordinary technology: from virtual reality, to highly secure communication encryption, to top-end stealth technology. Oh, and underwater and flying drones.
They can already map the entire boat through computer-aided design, which will allow them to diagnose issues. One day they'll be able to use a 3D printer to make spare parts, it's said.
Another thing the three competitors have in common is their sales pitches. They are all aware of the importance of Australian jobs and the involvement of Australian industry. In Kiel, Kobe and Cherbourg, they're talking about jobs in Adelaide. They are also all focused on the broader strategic partnership they hope to have with Australia.
France's Chief of Navy, Admiral Bernard Rogel, said this was not a commercial proposition. "It's about how we can establish a special relation with another countryâ€¦ it is easier to have a relationship when we have the same submarines," he said.
And they all know the importance of public relations, which is why they asked The Advertiser to see their work.
Those are the similarities. There are differences that go beyond champagne versus sake versus beer.
THE STORY SO FAR In 2009, the Labor federal government declared in a Defence White Paper that Australia needed 12 submarines. And they should be designed and built "without delay".
Then there was a delay. Options were put on the table, then taken off again and not much really happened.
Fast-forward to 2013. The Coalition wins power after promising to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
Incrementally, semantically, the Government started backing away from the promise.
Tony Abbott seemed set on buying Japanese submarines. The Advertiser has learned that many in the Japanese Government believed the gig was theirs. Abbott probably chest-bumped Abe over it.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister David Johnston was being told about issues at the ASC shipyard: about the stuff-ups and the poor productivity on the Air Warfare Destroyers (at the beginning of the project).
Then last year, the floodgates burst and Senator Johnston said he wouldn't trust ASC to build a canoe. It was a shocking insult, and one that ultimately cost him his job.
Australians - South Australians particularly - were stunned. The Government was breaking its promise, and with it, their hopes of jobs. Polls slumped. MPs got worried.
Then, in a bumbling press conference, the new Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews, announced there would be a "competitive evaluation process" for what is known as the SEA 1000 project. Hardly anyone seemed to know what that was, but it turned out the plan was to have a sort of limited tender between France, Germany and Japan. Three bidders, each with three options: building in Australia, building at home, or a combination of both.
The deadline for their bids is in about two weeks.
Next week all the players will be in Adelaide - including Defence Minister Marise Payne, who will deliver a keynote address. So far, she has been cautious and quiet.
Meanwhile, it seems fairly certain there will not be 12 submarines to replace the existing fleet of six Collins Class submarines. If we don't get new submarines in time, it will be expensive to extend the lives of those already in operation.
THE MONEY This will be Australia's biggest-ever defence project. The Government has put a $50 billion price tag on it, for both the build and the maintenance. But that's rubbery.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute originally estimated the cost of building the Future Submarines at $36 billion. That was rounded up to a working figure of $40 billion. Germany has said it would build 12 submarines for the fixed price of $20 billion. These are all back-of-the-envelope estimates.
What the three contenders will provide the Government with is three options each, with three different costings. Until we know those, it's best to treat those headline figures with some scepticism.
THE CONTENDERS The competitive evaluation process is more about picking a partner to work with than coming up with a final product - but we know a bit about all of them.
They're all working on modified versions of their existing submarines, with technological improvements and other changes. The German company, TKMS, is part of the ThyssenKrupp multinational behemoth. They say they'll update their 212 to a bigger version, the 216. They are keen to build up the infrastructure at Techport and build them all there rather than in their Kiel shipyards.
The Japanese Government is offering a slightly bigger version of its Soryu submarine, to be built by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki in Adelaide, or Kobe, or a combination. They're pushing the exclusive angle.
"We have never exported submarines before because they're so expensive, too precious (and) our motivation is clear - we want to help a friend in need," Government spokesman Hidehiro Ikematsu said.
The French, through naval shipbuilders DCNS, is working on a non-nuclear adaptation of the Barracuda submarine that it builds in Cherbourg, which it will call the Shortfin Barracuda.
Then there's the cultural side. French shipbuilders said they probably didn't need as much space to make baguettes; the Japanese said they'd make changes. "The giant rice pot (on the Japanese submarine) feeds up to 100 people. I don't think you need that â€¦ they might need a barbecue grill, a barbie. We're conscious of those things," Mitsubishi Heavy Industries executive adviser Noboru Flores said.
THE POLITICS After the original kerfuffle over Mr Abbott and "Option J" - the Japanese option - the playing field seems to have levelled. Many involved with the Japanese bid believe that under new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull they have a better chance, because it no longer looks like a "captain's pick". Every official The Advertiser met insisted there was no "secret deal".
Their optimism is bolstered by their ties to the United States, which is thought to be keen on strengthening the three-way relationship.
However, the Japanese Government has not exported defence technology before, so there are concerns about the process. The Government was "disappointed" that it became a competitive process after it was convinced it was all theirs.
In meetings with Japanese officials, The Advertiser was told they were planning to work alone with the Australian Government.
"Initially, the Australian Government told us that Japan is the only country that can help Australia, because Japan is the only friend who actually builds and operates large submarines, long-range submarines," Mr Ikematsu said.
The Germans and French are also talking about strategic and industrial relationships. TKMS proposal manager Bernd Kulmus said they wanted to build for the industry, and would buy ASC if needed.
"We can work as a design partner, we can work as a joint venture owner of the shipyard, we can own the entire shipyard - whatever the Government wants us to do," he said.
In the end, of course, the Government should pick the best strategic option. But the real politics will kick in when they have to pick where to build the subs.
Labor is pushing for them to keep their promise of building 12 in SA. Throw in the wildcard of popular independent Senator Nick Xenophon fielding candidates as part of a campaign for 12 Adelaide-built subs and things really get willing.
THE MARKETING Germany was first off the rank. They began early with an unsolicited bid to build 12 submarines for $20 billion.
The French, before long, launched a charm offensive.
The Japanese were left far behind, and now concede they're struggling to catch up.
They are all wooing the Government, the media and the public. Anyone flying from Adelaide to Canberra is bombarded with big billboards with ships or submarines or related technology. There are advertisements and meetings and lunches and media tours around the facilities.
If you've never been on a media tour before, you probably picture a bunch of journalists living it large on the company's purse. And that's partly true.
But they're also gruelling schedules, often from sunrise to sundown and beyond, with hours touring factories and shipyards and watching PowerPoint presentations and having slightly awkward lunches with people who want to sell you something.
Yes, there was a cruise down the Seine in Paris and excellent wine in a former presidential palace in Berlin and luxurious Kobe beef in Tokyo. But there were also hours learning about the technical details of building submarines and getting to grips with the politics of a foreign land.
THE NEXT STEP Over summer, submarines will go quiet (ish) as the Government contemplates the offers and the release of the Defence White Paper. Meanwhile, things are moving along on the oft-overlooked ship projects; particularly the Future Frigates.
And then, hopefully in   March but maybe later, we'll be on the way to deciding the biggest Defence project the nation has ever embarked on. And sometime in the 2030s, we'll see a new submarine launched. Christened with champagne, or sake, or beer.
Tory Shepherd travelled to France courtesy of DCNS, Germany courtesy of TKMS, and Japan courtesy of the Japanese Government.
WHAT DOES AND DOESN'T FLOAT OUR BOAT FRANCE Pros : The French have done well on selling their proposition, and they have a submarine that almost fits the size requirements.
Cons : The Barracuda is nuclearpowered, and Australia wants a conventional, diesel powered boat. Some say that's apples and oranges.
GERMANY Pros : They have a long and productive history of exporting submarines, and a name for industrial engineering.
Cons : They need to do a dramatic enlargement which some pundits think will cause pesky problems. It's a question of whether size matters.
JAPAN Pros : The Soryu's 4000-tonnes, just shy of the size Australia needs. They're tight with the US, who will provide the combat systems. They say that'll make it more exclusive.
Cons : Japan has not exported Defence technology before, and there are lingering doubts they'll be able to, or that too much willget lost in translation.