Specifications of the Kongsberg-Hydroid REMUS 600 - Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV)

Vehicle diameter: 32.4 cm (12.75 in)
Vehicle length: 3.25 m (128 in), length varies depending upon module configuration.
Weight in air: 240 kg (530 lbs)
Maximum operating depth: 600 m (1500 m configurations available)
Power: 5.2 kWh rechargeable Lithium ion battery. (Second 5.2 kWh or 6.2 kWh battery tray is optional)
Endurance: Typical mission endurance is 24 hours dependant on speed and sensor configuration, operating environment and mission program.
Propulsion: Direct drive DC brushless motor to open two bladed propeller
Velocity range: Up to 2.1 m/s (4 knots) variable over range. Dependant on sensor configuration.
Control: 3 independent control fins providing yaw, pitch, and roll control. Altitude, depth, yo-yo, and track-line following provided. Optional forward fins available for lateral and pitch control.
External hook-up: Two connectors, one for shore power, and one for shore data. Alternatively, 802.11G wireless network provided via dorsal fin antenna.
Casualty circuits: Ground fault, leak and low voltage detection, housing leak detection, all sensors and systems have operational go/no-go fault indicators.
Navigation: Inertial/DVL navigator, Long base line acoustic, WAAS GPS, P-Code GPS.
Tracking: Acoustic transponder, acoustic modem, Iridium modem. Shipboard equipment provided with system.
Communication: Acoustic modem, Iridium, WiFi-2.4 GHz, 100 base-T Ethernet.
Standard sensors: ADCP/Doppler Velocity Log, Inertial Navigation Unit, Side Scan Sonar, Iridium, GPS, Pressure , Conductivity & Temperature
Optional payload sensors: User specified, but examples include Dual Frequency 300/900 kHz Side-Scan Sonar (SSS), Video Camera, Electronic Still Camera, Fluorometers, Multi-beam sonar, etc.
Software: REMUS-VIP GUI based laptop interface for programming, training, documentation, maintenance and troubleshooting
Emergency relocation: Emergency power system maintains GPS, Iridium, and acoustic transponder in the event of vehicle or CPU failure. Vehicle position and status is automatically transmitted via Iridium at regular intervals.

BACKGROUND

Developer of the Remus 600 is Kongsberg Maritime which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Kongsberg Group. As a leading Norwegian technology company established on 20th March 1814, the Kongsberg Group has the longest industrial history in Norway. More specifically the developer is Hydroid Inc a wholly owned subsidiary of Kongsberg Maritime.

Remus-Hydroid AUVs (“drones”) are modular and may be fitted with a large number of different types of sensors and have been used to aid in hydrographic surveys, harbor security operations, debris field mapping, scientific sampling and mapping, as well as many basic and applied research programs funded by ONR, DARPA and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense.

"Submarine launches undersea drone in a 1st for US Navy

By Michael Melia, Associated Press via Yahoo News, July 21, 2015 reports http://news.yahoo.com/submarine-launches-undersea-drone-1st-us-navy-204841889.html

GROTON, Conn. (AP) — In a first for the U.S. Navy, a submarine has launched and recovered [a Kongsberg-Hydroid Remus 600] underwater drone used in a military operation.

The attack submarine USS North Dakota returned to its base in Groton on [July 20, 2015] following a nearly two-month deployment to the Mediterranean Sea specifically to test the drone-launching capability.

"This was something they thought we could go do," Capt. Douglas Gordon, the vessel's commanding officer, said in an interview at the base. "We went out, and we proved that."

The drone was launched from a shelter attached to the top of the Virginia class submarine that can also be used for the undersea deployment of divers and special forces. Gordon declined to provide details of the mission.

The Navy sees the drones, also known as unmanned undersea vehicles, or UUVs, as a cost-effective way to extend the reach of its submarine fleet, which has been gradually shrinking in size since the end of the Cold War.

"We can do a dual mission," Gordon said. "UUVs do their thing while we do other operations."

Navy Capt. Carl Hartsfield, a program manager for undersea capabilities, said the feat reflects the Navy's commitment to integrating unmanned vehicles. He said the vehicle deployed by the North Dakota is from a class that is readily available on the commercial market and can be reconfigured to carry a wide range of payloads.

The Navy has used unmanned vehicles to simulate enemy submarines for training purposes since the 1970s, and they also have been used to detect mines and map the ocean floor. The military has been researching how to use them more for other purposes including intelligence gathering and even anti-submarine warfare.

The development of the undersea drones has been pioneered at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island, which in 2010 launched one that navigated its own way from Newport to Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in what the military called an unprecedented feat. NUWC has worked closely with private companies, academic institutions and other government agencies involved in similar research.

The drone deployed by the North Dakota was a [Kongsberg-Hydroid] Remus 600, a 500-pound, 10-foot-long vehicle that its maker, Hydroid, says can be equipped with video cameras, GPS devices and sonar technology. Gordon declined to say whether it was self-guided or piloted by a member of the submarine's crew."

Pete

A Russian designed older version Kilo class submarine. The export version is known as Project 877EKM by Russia's Rubin Design Bureau. India has 9, known as the Sindhughosh class.

---

Indian press articles on submarines too often report the Indian Government's vague plans to build X number of nuclear submarines over some indeterminate time period. The article below is different - much more down to Earth. The deal below with Russia could be interpreted as being part of Russia's campaign to sell 6 Amur/Ladas (with AIP and VLS) to India for India's future submarine competition Project 75(I).

Ajai Shukla for India's Business Standard, July 22, 2015 reports http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/anil-ambani-signs-splashy-russian-joint-venture-for-submarine-overhaul-115072200015_1.html :

"Anil Ambani [pictured] signs splashy Russian joint venture for submarine overhaul

Projects Rs 31,000 crore [US$4.87 Billion] of business from Indian and regional navies

Ajai Shukla | New Delhi

July 22, 2015

In a first for a private Indian defence company, Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Co Ltd (PDOC) announced on Tuesday a joint venture (JV) with Russia's Zvyozdochka submarine overhaul yard. This positions PDOC nicely for overhauling India's nine Russian-origin Kilo-class [known as Sindhughosh class in India] submarines, and several identical submarines operated by other regional navies.

In an announcement in Mumbai on Tuesday, PDOC stated: "The indicative value of work proposed to be undertaken by the proposed JV is approx. (sic) Rs 11,000 crore." [US$1.7 Billion]

PDOC also mentioned "potential additional revenues of approx. Rs 20,000 crore" [US$3.1 Billion] from the navies of Iran, Algeria and Vietnam.

A submarine undergoes an overhaul or refit - termed "medium refit and life certification" (MRLC) - every 10-15 years in its 30-year service life. This involves upgrading weapons, sensors and communications systems; and inspecting, repairing and replacing worn out parts of a submarine's two hulls (an inner "pressure hull" and an outer hull).

Refitting a Kilo-class (or 877 EKM) [Project 877 = older class Kilos, EKM = export version] submarine in India offers advantages like cheaper labour costs and saving on transportation to Russia and back. It also provides opportunities for indigenising sub-systems in the submarine, and develops expertise.

PDOC's statement says that Zvyozdochka will "provide complete technical assistance and support to the JV, including inter alia for enhancement of infrastructure at the PDOC facilities, training of engineers, etc. PDOC technicians will also be closely associated with the first refit to be carried out in Russia."

On August 29, 2014, the defence ministry had cleared a Rs 4,800-crore [US$750 Million] refit for six submarines. Mazagon Dock Ltd, Mumbai, was to refit [two German-origin HDW 209 Shishumar class submarines]. Meanwhile, Zvyozdochka and Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, would each refit two kilo-class submarines.

It is unclear whether the defence ministry is committed to the new venture between PDOC and Zvyozdochka; and, if so, whether it would change the arrangement it has already cleared. It is also unclear whether the defence ministry would disregard the experience already developed in two Indian shipyards - Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, and Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam (HSL) - which have refitted one Kilo-class submarine each. Furthermore, other Indian shipyards, including Larsen & Toubro, are competing for a chunk of the submarine overhaul business.

HSL, especially, has had a bitter experience with Zvyozdochka, reported by this newspaper (September 2, 2014, 'Russia delayed sub refit to weaken shipyard?'), in which the overhaul of a Kilo-class vessel, INS Sindhukirti, dragged on for nine years. Senior HSL officials made a strong case to suggest that Zvyozdochka experts deliberately prolonged the refit by ordering unnecessary work, to eliminate HSL from future Indian submarine refits.

Now officials from HSL and other shipyards allege that Zvyozdochka has chosen to partner PDOC, a new player in the market, to comprehensively control the refit programme, which the Russians would be unable to do with a more experienced Indian shipyard.

Rivals point out that PDOC has never produced a single naval combat vessel of any complexity. It is true that the shipyard is long overdue on delivering a Rs 2,500-crore [US$393 Million] order for five Naval Offshore Patrol Vessels. Even so, Anil Ambani's Reliance Infrastructure has recently thrown its weight behind the shipyard, acquiring it in March from Nikhil Gandhi of Sea King Infrastructure Ltd. Ambani paid Rs 819 crore for an 18 per cent stake, and is committed to making a public offer for another 26 per cent of the shipyard.

Ambani is gung-ho about PDOC's prospects. At a seminar in Delhi on July 16, he spelled out an expansive vision of Pipavav Shipyard as a "Global Centre of Excellence" that would build warships of all kinds, from aircraft carriers to frigates to submarines.

Claiming that Pipavav Shipyard had assets worth over Rs 10,000 crore [US$1.57 Billion], Ambani played up its impressive shipbuilding facilities, including "the largest dry dock in the country and second-largest in the world", Ambani said he would invest another Rs 5,000 crore [US$790 Million] in the shipyard.

If Ambani's PDOC lacks experience, Zvyozdochka has that aplenty. Established in 1954, it has overhauled or refurbished more than 120 submarines and 90 warships. It remains to be seen how much of that experience and hold over the market it is willing to transfer to PDOC."

Pete

First aircraft.

The status of the Airbus Military A319 MPA (also called MPA319) (above) is difficult to discern. (Image Courtesy Airbus Military via naval technology (nt)).

The A319 MPA appears to be a European answer to the better known Boeing P-8 Poseidon. The A319A is (or will be) powered by two IAE V2527M-A5 or CFM56-5B7 engines providing a thrust of 26,500lbf or 27,000lbf. The twin-turbofan configuration provides a maximum speed of Mach 0.82. A319 MPA is based on the airframe of Airbus A319 commercial aircraft. Future buyers might include Germany, France and perhaps the UK.

The A319 MPA is (or will be) a long range maritime patrol and ASW aircraft which can be deployed in anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions. "The low-altitude loiter or search capability, exceeding range, endurance and fast transit speed make the A319 the best maritime patrol aircraft in its range." See full description.

____________________________________________________________________

Second aircraft.

In July 2015 the Japanese Navy sent two Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft to the UK’s Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT). This included a slow flypast with the weapons bay doors opened. (Photo Courtesy Chris Pocock via AIN article)

Chris Pocock at Aviation International News (AIN) July 17, 2015 https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-07-17/japans-new-maritime-patroller-makes-international-debut reports:

Japan’s New Maritime Patroller Makes International Debut

The Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) is on display outside Japan for the first time this weekend, at the UK’s Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT). The Japanese [Navy] flew two of the four-jet machines across the Pacific, the U.S. and the Atlantic to reach the show at RAF Fairford. They will move on next week to Djibouti for flight tests in hot and desert conditions, before returning to their base at NAS Atsugi outside Tokyo.

The P-1 is an indigenous development, designed to replace the [Japanese Navy's] aging P-3 Orion fleet. Powered by four IHI F7-10 turbofans each developing some 13,000 pounds of thrust, the P-1 has a range of 4,300 nm and can carry AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, plus sonobuoys and torpedoes for anti-submarine warfare. A mine-laying capability will be added later."FULL ARTICLE

COMMENT

It is a very complex issue (involving tradeoffs and emerging technical trends) when considering:

1. whether jets can fly anti-submarine patrols as effectively as propeller driven aircraft and

2. whether four engines should be chosen if one assumes four engines provide a significant margin of safety over two engines.

One reason Japan is marketing the new four engine Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) to the UK is that the UK's previous MPA was the four jet engined Hawker Siddeley Nimrod.

Pete

Have you even wondered how the Chinese media views the Peoples Liberation Army - Navy (PLAN) submarine service? While submarines are ideally quiet, submerged and solitary - the Youtube above depict lots of shouting, surfaced action and groups of subs charging.

--------------

A Chinese Yuan class submarine. This is perhaps a more realistic submarine experience. I like the stirring rendition of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata.

Though the Youtube at https://youtu.be/21XEInvvVn8 (click "Show More") describes the sub as "Song class" is also says it has "air-independent stirling circle propulsion (AIP)" (thankyou Sweden :) which makes it a Yuan class. It also carries a Chinese development of a French Thomson-CSF TSM-2233 attack sonar in the bow. It may well have a MTU diesel designed by Germany. Notice the "birthday cake" made of tropical fruit for a crew member - 4 minutes 25 seconds in.

Pete

BAE Systems Australia is completing Australia's two Canberra class Landing Helicopter Docks

on time, on budget at Williamstown dockyard, Victoria, Australia.

---

An article by several Reutersreporters indicates "Exclusive: Japan eyes British help to sink German bid for Australian submarine"http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/us-japan-australia-submarine-exclusive-idUSKCN0PX1FG20150723. The article indicates the Japanese government is in talks with at least two British firms (Babcock International Group and BAE Systems) to help a Japanese consortium win the Australian future submarine competitive evaluation process. Babcock does maintenance work on the Collins and BAE Systems employs 4,500 people in Australia.

The Japanese consortium includes MHI and KHI and the German competitor they wish to beat is TKMS. Japan may wish to boost Australian industrial participation in the project. Japan may also want cooperation from Sweden’s Saab in the Japanese sales campaign. France’s DCNS is also competing.

The Reuters article further reports “According to a company document seen by Reuters, the German bidder TKMS will train local contractors using advanced German manufacturing and production technology and help establish Australia as a naval shipbuilding and repair hub in the Asia-Pacific region.”

“…Australia's Abbot has described Japan as his country's "closest friend in Asia". With the United States also keen to spur friendlier ties between its two key allies in Asia, Tokyo has Washington's backing for made-in-Japan submarines packed with American surveillance, radar and weapons equipment, sources familiar with Washington's thinking told Reutersearlier...” See FULL REUTERS ARTICLE.

Pete

Lt. Cmdr. Maura Thompson, SSBN supply officer.
Better looking than your average submariner.
---

West Virginia's Exponent Telegram, July 26, 2015 reports http://www.theet.com/news/local/salem-native-keeping-u-s-safe-aboard-ballistic-missile-submarine/article_1a242ade-2fad-5d27-ac43-888b844226e8.html:

SILVERDALE, [Washington State] — A 2000 Liberty High School graduate and Salem, West Virginia, native is serving aboard one of the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, living and working at [the Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Washington State]..

Lt. Cmdr. Maura Thompson is the supply officer on USS Louisiana (SSBN 743), which is based [at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor] about 15 miles west of Seattle across Puget Sound. She is responsible for managing the food service and the logistical warehouse on board the ship.

“What I enjoy most is the sailors,” Thompson said. “On our submarine, we have only a little more than 150 total people, so I can get personally involved...".

USS Louisiana (SSBN 743) is one of the Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, also referred to as “boomers,” which patrol the world’s oceans for months at a time, serving as undetectable launch platforms for submarine-launched ballistic missiles..."

An Ohio class SSBN. Click image to expand or access very large image here. (Cutaway diagram courtesy American History). Each Ohio SSBN (16,764 tonnes surfaced) can fire 24 Trident II/Trident D5 missiles. Each missile can carry up to 12 MIRVed W88 (475 kt) warheads or 12 W76 (100 kt) warheads.

---

Just a small part of Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Washington State, USA (Photo courtesy Bremerton-Olympic Peninsula Council of the U.S. Navy League)

---

At times up to four Nimitz class supercarriers also tie-up at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor. Its a big base! (Photo courtesy kirotv .com).

BACKGROUND - COMMENT

There has been some resistance in the US Navy (and ex Navy men) to having women in US submarines - especially in "small" 8,000 ton SSNs. Such feelings are a disgrace to peoplehood.

Having a Lt. Cmdr just to run the supply section of a submarine shows how big the submarine is (with 2 x 155 person Gold/Blue crews per SSBN).

According to the Commander, Submarine Force U.S. Pacific Fleet website the submarines at Bangor, Washington (longer title Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, Bremerton, Washington State, USA) include:

Submarine Squadron 17 (SUBRON Seventeen)
USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN 730)
USS Alabama (SSBN 731)
USS Nevada (SSBN 733)
USS Pennsylvania (SSBN 735)
USS Maine (SSBN 741)
USS Louisiana (SSBN 743)

Submarine Squadron 19 (SUBRON Nineteen)
USS Ohio (SSGN 726)
USS Michigan (SSGN 727)
USS Kentucky (SSBN 737)
USS Nebraska (SSBN 739)

Submarine Development Squadron 5 (SUBDEVRON Five)
USS Seawolf (SSN 21)
USS Connecticut (SSN 22)
USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23)

Pete

There are many emerging technologies that could be placed in or on a submarine. One technology is Submarine Launched Airflight Missile (SLAMs) or Submarine SAMs. These may normally be intended for SSK use but they may also be on Russian SSNs.

Unlike torpedos SLAMs have generally not been seen as essential equipment. Projects to develop SLAMs have risen and fallen for at least 45 years. In 1972 the UK tested a Blowpipe SLAM system on HMS Aeneas (P427) in 1972. This consisted of a cluster of four missiles on a mast that could be raised from a submarine's sail/fin. This system was then installed on an Israeli Gal class (modified UK built HDW 206) submarine.

Reasons why SLAMs have not been adopted may include difficult and slow operation making for low effectiveness and need for the submarine to expose itself to the attacking helicopters or maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs). However advances in SLAM technology may be making them a more worthwhile inclusion in a submarine.

Factors that may encourage submarine captain to use a SLAM include:

- whether it is a wartime emergency situation where the submarine has been detected, or detection is imminent, by a helicopter/MPA? Detection might be by helicopter dipping-active sonar or fixed wing maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) dropped sonobouy.

- whether the SLAM can be deployed in such a way that minimises submarine exposure?

- could increasing long range, or stealthier, SLAMs be arguments for greater use?

- by what mode is the missile deployed?

: from a mast or the sail (likely to lead to detection of sub)
: float-up container or

: by missile carried by torpedo (may be quickest method and less likely to lead to sub's detection)

- how quick is that mode? (the quicker the better to defeat the helicopter/MPA's actions or countermeasures).

- does the SLAM armed submarine (eg. a Kilo) have a major anti-aircraft role in support of other higher value submarines (eg. SSBNs)?

- does the missile carry added benefits/fuctions like anti-missile, anti-shipping or light land attack capabilities?

France and Germany have been marketing SLAM solutions. Russia is thought to have developed Strela-3 and Igla SLAMs and no doubt US companies have developed SLAM ideas at times. It is difficult to gauge how mature the technologies are.

DCNS has been marketing a mast launched Mistral SLAM concept known as A3SM (above). The Mast version comprises a missile housing (that remains watertight throughout the submarine’s operating range and diving depth) mounted on a hoistable mast and containing several short-range Mistral missiles that can be fired from periscope depth.

---

DCNS is also marketing aunderwater vehicle version above. It comprises a torpedo like capsule containing a medium-range (20 km) Mica missile that is torpedo tube launchable at any depth. The capsule is similar to the type developed for submarine launched Exocet anti-ship missiles.

---

Germany's TKMS has been developing the Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines (IDAS) SLAM system for Type 212 subs. It is described as 4 missiles housed in a launch canister in the torpedo tube using a IR seeker, fiber-optic data link between the control console and a single-stage, rocket motor providing a range of 20km. The operator on board the submarine may alter the course of the mission at any time. In addition, reconnaissance results and target images obtained by means of the seeker can be evaluated in the submarine.

Alternatively, the IDAS could, in theory, be fired from the Gabler Maschinenbau TRIPLE-M mast system. However the TRIPLE-M mainly features the "Muraena" RMK 30mm recoiless "autocannon" as the preferred solution for nosey helicopters or MPAs. The Muraena can also be used against small pirate boats (eg. trawler sized) that are not worth a torpedo.

These French and German concepts can only be fully assessed and compared when they are mature, tested technologies.

Meanwhile Russia may have developed a more mature SLAM system. Kilo submarines as well as Akula or Yasen SSNs can be fitted with launchers for missiles from the broad Igla family (perhaps "Strelets Igla-S" SA-N-24) missiles. They come in 1 to 3 shot containers for sail-surface firing. There are also 8 shot containers that may be torpedo tube mounted. Their range may be up to 6km.

The US, with its all nuclear sub force and only nuclear sub production, may value maintaining submarine stealth more highly - to the exclusion of developing SLAM systems.

Pete

The recently "discovered?" wreck may have been the Catfish (ex Fulton) - a Som class submarine. The Som class (above) were designed by US company Electric Boat.Catfish was perhaps built in Vladivostok in 1904 or built in the US then delivered to Vladivostok. Catfish was presumably transported by train (in sections). After some Black Sea Fleet service it was entrained to St Petersburg, where it joined the Baltic Fleet (1915). It sank in a collision on 10 May 1916. As the collision date is known the wreck’s location may have been known for 99 years.

---

Sweden's The Local, July 29, 2015 has produced a fabulous article which reports doubts whether the alleged submarine is old or modern and whether the dive company "discovered" a sub wreck already known to be there. Seehttp://www.thelocal.se/20150729/questions-raised-about-swedish-submarine-find

Ocean X Team members Peter Lindberg and Dennis Åsberg. Photo: Ocean X Team

Salvagers deny Swedish sub wreck was PR stunt.

Speculation was running high on Wednesday over the discovery of a wrecked submarine off the coast of Sweden, after the military said it was likely a Russian vessel which ran aground a century ago.

Swedish sub wreck an imperial Russian vessel (28 Jul 15)
Why are Swedes so scared of Russian subs? (28 Jul 15)
'If the Russians come our whole lives will change' (02 Jul 15)

After examining video footage by a group of salvage hunters purporting to show a wrecked underwater vessel in Swedish waters, the military concluded it was likely that of an Imperial Russian 'Som class' submarine which sank in May 1916.

As reported by The Local, the submarine was found about 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 kilometres) off the east coast of central Sweden. Ocean X Team, which made the discovery, said the vessel was around 20 metres (66ft) long and 3.5 metres wide.

An examination by the Swedish Armed Forces showed that it was built for the Imperial Russian Navy in Vladivostok in 1904 and integrated into the naval fleet in the Baltic Sea in 1915. It ran aground with an 18-member crew a year later.

"We won't take this forward with a technical analysis, because there is no military interest any more. We have done our bit and have reported it to the government. They will take it further and then they have to agree with Russia about what to do," spokesman Jesper Tengroth told The Local on Tuesday.

The Foreign Ministry confirmed late on Tuesday that they had contacted the Russian embassy in Stockholm for informational purposes but declined to elaborate further.

“We never comment on what emerges in talks with representatives from other countries,” press spokesman Johan Tegel told the TT newswire.

The Russian embassy also refused to comment.

The alleged wreck of the Catfish looking very modern. Significantly this picture of the "wreck" is not covered by the usual barnacles or seaweed. There appears to be minimal rust or corrosion, after 99 years underwater.

---

However, earlier in the day, after some experts claimed the submarine “looked modern”, the find caused quite the stir in Sweden, which has a long and rather colourful history of hunting for mystery underwater vessels.

In October last year, Sweden's navy launched a massive hunt for a foreign submarine, suspected to be Russian, in the Stockholm archipelago. The military subsequently confirmed that “a mini-submarine” had violated its territorial waters, but was never able to establish the vessel's nationality.

ANALYSIS: Why are Swedes so scared of Russian submarines?

Questions about the process of the latest Som class submarine discovery are now being raised in Sweden, with some suggesting that it was known from the start that the wreckage was the century-old Imperial Russian vessel.

Social media speculation saw Ocean X Team, which is set to launch a TV project later this year, being forced to respond to claims that the expedition was only a PR trick.

“No, I don't know anything about that. It may either help or hinder us. For us there is no money in the submarine. Personally, I would actually have preferred that it had not been made public so soon, but it happened,” Ocean X Team member Stefan Hogeborn told the TT newswire.

According to the team the only information known to them at the time of finding the sub was that they had been tasked with the mission by an Icelandic company with Russian connections to locate an unidentified submarine.

“When we analysed the video footage we thought that there were quite a few things that made it look like a relatively modern submarine, so we contacted the marine on Monday. When they saw the material they were also surprised, they thought it looked well-preserved,” Ocean X Team diver Dennis Åsberg told TT.

He said the divers did not get paid for the expedition, but that the Icelandic company funded all costs. The Ocean X Team company usually makes its money from finding expensive goods in old wrecks, such as champagne and port, and selling it."

Pete

Image courtesy CBC. Canada's CBC reports, July 29-30, 2015. A 2 meter piece of wreckage was found on Wednesday-Thursday, July 29-30, washed up in the town of Saint-André on the northeast coast of the French island of Reunion. It may be part of a wing of a Boeing 777 jet, the same kind of plane as MH370, but this is not confirmed. Réunion (French: La Réunion) is a French island with a population of 845,000 inhabitants located in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar.

---

Reunion island - capital is Saint-Denis in center of map.
---

Water's edge by town of Saint-Andre (above) northeast Reunion island. (Map courtesy Agence France Press (AFP))

---

Police (gendarmes) carrying two meter piece of an aircraft - possibly from MH370. (Photo courtesy UK Telegraph)

Please connect this with earlier Submarine Matters articles on the MH370 search:

Chinese Fleet Searching for MH370 March 31, 2014

MH370: Australia building relations with China March 28, 2014

Chinese Satellite Gaofen-1 Possible Sighting of MH370 Debris March 23, 2014

MH370? Aircraft Checking Pieces of Debris in Indian Ocean March 20, 2014

Pete

One of the Netherlands four large conventional Walrus class submarines that need to be replaced.

---

The islands of the Dutch Caribbean are an ocean away from the Netherlands. Such constant long range blue-water responsibilities require larger submarines than the usual Western European SSK.

---

The Netherlands is running a replacement process for its four large Walrus class submarines with the aim to have the first new submarine operating by 2024-25. The Netherlands again wants large subs due to its commitments to the islands of the Dutch Caribbean and other long range tasks. It has quiet intelligence gathering commitments in the Indian Ocean area which includes (at a better known level) anti-piracy.

At Comments in http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/sweden-and-netherlands-replacement.html Kevin provided some interesting insights into the Netherlands’ needs. The Dutch have with the Walrus class a unique position within NATO. The Walrus is the only sub in NATO capable of both littoral operations and long range ocean patrols. The Walrus replacement must be in the 2500 to 4000 ton range, depending on the company designing the sub.

The Dutch rekenkamer (general Audit committee) have released a devastating June 2015 report on the state of the Dutch subs (and the military in general). Most of the equipment of the Walrus is not supported anymore and spares cannot be bought from the suppliers, putting into doubt operation of the Walrus out to 2024.

In the Walrus replacement process the Netherlands has been talking to Sweden, Norway and Germany.

It is well established that SAAB-Kockums seeks to design and perhaps build the four relacements. SAAB in January 2015 announced an "exclusive teaming agreement" with Dutch shipbuilder Damen. That is the reason why Damen shipyards is talking to SAAB/Kockums. Damen only has experience in maintaining subs not building them. The Netherlands would need to build any large Swedish designed sub not SAAB-Kockums. SAAB/Kockums need to reconstruct Sweden’s submarine building industry but the Dutch cannot wait for such rebuilding if the Walrus replacements are to be ready from 2024-25. The SAAB - Damen corporate alliance does not prevent the Dutch government from selecting another design such as the Type 216 [or Shortfin Barracuda?].

Another plan is (or was) to build the new subs domestically in partnership with Norway. Yes Norway ! see “While the [Dutch] MoD is currently exploring a variety of options it sees Norway as a potential partner for co-developing and building submarines.” This is even though Norway would probably be seeking a much smaller sub. An immediate problem of a Dutch-Norwgian alliance is that the company that built the Walrus class no longer exists and Norway has never built subs.

Another alternative is buying the German Type 216 design and building 216s in Dutch Damen shipyards. Kevin believes “The Type 216 can be operational in 2020”. Kevin indicated “It will be more logical if a German design will be selected. The German subs will at the end of 2015 be under Dutch Command [presumable this is under NATOs COMSUBNATO arrangements?]. It will be more cost effective if the logistics of the 2 countries are the same.”

EU guidelines prevent the Dutch government from buying military equipment outside the EU, (the exception are items that cannot be bought in the EU like fifth generation fighters). So buying Japanese subs to replace the Walrus subs is not an option for the Netherlands.

WHY A LARGE SUBMARINES? - STRATEGIC NEEDS

Walrus subs have long range responsibilities to support Dutch and broader NATO objectives in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It is known for the past few years that Walrus subs operate near the Somalian coast for NATO anti-piracy duties and in the Caribbean for the gathering intelligence on drug smuggling.

A more specific objective for Walrus subs has been deterring Venezuela's claim to Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire islands of the Dutch Caribbean. Former president Hugo Chávez of Venezuela threatened in the early 2000s to invade these islands - a threat countered by Dutch and US warships. For the last decade a Dutch warship is always present in the Caribbean and a Dutch marine battalion is stationed on Aruba and Curacao as a deterrent.

The decision on the Walrus replacement may occur in September 2015.

Please connect with Submarine Matters:
- Sweden and the Netherlands Replacement Submarine Needs, February 19, 2015

Pete

The above cartoon says many things. It is a comment on the four members of the Advisory Panel for the Competitive Evaluation Process, on avoidance of "where to build" issue, a club wielding Defence Minister Andrews and Senator Nick Xenophon (smelling a rat). "Yamamoto" is more likely a slightly xenophobic reference to the famous WWII Admiral rather to a (or the) actual Shipyard. (Cartoon courtesy of Your Democracy http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/30346)

There has been no news or statement that I have seen from the Advisory Panel since it was appointed on June 5, 2015. One can only assume it is designed to endorse and dignify the suspected captain's pick. However Minister Andrews is doing his best to allay suspicions of a pick.

Michael Owen of The Australian, July 30, 2015 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/japanese-subs-bid-not-a-done-deal-defence-minister-kevin-andrews/story-e6frg8yo-1227462411438

"Japanese subs bid not a done deal: Defence Minister Kevin Andrews

Concerns about the capability of Soryu-class submarines have been raised by Defence Minister Kevin Andrews a day after Japan’s ambassador promoted the vessel as the closest to fulfilling Royal Australian Navy requirements.

Mr Andrews…told The Australian that while there was some strategic benefit to the Japanese bid to build Australia’s next-generation fleet of submarines, capability was the key criteria. “The Soryu is about the size that we’re looking at, but there are also other questions in terms of its endurance,” Mr Andrews said

“Obviously we are interested in strategic alliances with like-minded countries in the area, but at the end of the day it is going to be the capability of the submarine that counts. We’ve got to have a submarine which is as good and preferably better than the Collins."

“It has got to be able to travel very long distances and sit under the water for long periods of time and come home.” …He rejected repeated claims by Labor that Tony Abbott had done a secret deal with Japan, pointing to an expert oversight [Advisory] panel chaired by former US secretary of the navy Don Winter and including former Federal Court judge Julie Anne Dodds-Streeton." WHOLE ARTICLE

Pete

Abbott walks in front of the uniforms and new ship HMAS Canberra - Abbott's left profile displayed. Notice Abbott is not part of the group but their great leader, staring at something in the distance - profound.

Prime Minister Abbott likes to be photographed/associated in left profile with weapons and uniforms whenever possible. At least Prime Minister Abe was in the military. Note that Defence Minister Andrews rarely, if ever, enjoys (or is permitted) such weapons/uniform photo opportunities.

Abbott dressed in an Adelaide shipbuilders uniform (or Bob the Builder?) proudly displays his left profile. AWD HMAS Hobart behind, of course. Abbott again stares at that thingy in the distance - profound ;-)

---

This morning to make the public forget the rightful sacking (sorry umm "resignation") of Australia's Parliamentary Speaker Bronwyn Bishop Australia's current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, announced a A$40 Billion shipbuilding program. The rather vague announcement occurred on a small radio station (891 ABC) in the city of Adelaide. The shipbuilding work may include:

- 8 "Future Frigates" possibly weighing 6,000 tonnes, to gradually replace the ANZAC class frigates in the 2020s. The Future Frigates will be multirole but with greater emphasis on ASW than the new Air Warfare Destroyers, and

- up to 20 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OCVs) of various modular shapes and sizes also being called "Corvettes" - weighing between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes

All this increases the likelihood that Australia's future submarines will be built almost totally offshore, in Japan or Germany or France - while the combat system will be mostly designed and built in the US. Australia cannot afford the extreme extra costs of building all its warships and submarines in Australia.

The informal radio station form of announcement is calculated to provide good news for Adelaide without providing essential details or promises. Abbott's radio implication that all the shipbuilding work will be done in Adelaide will attract a posse of State Premiers, Federal politicians and major businessmen - all beating a path to Abbott's door.

Said posse will honour Abbott and be grateful when he throws some ship design, management and building contracts in their general direction. Some work will shift from Adelaidians, knowing their luck wouldn't last, off to Williamstown dockyard in Victoria and also to Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania, ACT and Queensland. Much, or most, of the design work must actually occur overseas among major foreign contractors.

More detail is here - note that journalists have been forced to fill in the blanks with history and conjecture as we await official detail from Mr Abbott.

- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-04/navy-ships-worth-40-billion-to-be-built-in-south-australia/6671230

- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-04/major-shipbuilding-plan-expected-for-sa/6668956

So far the 3 Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) have cost 9 A$ Billion total - so the 8 Future Frigates and up to 20 OCVs will cost over A$40 Billion in today's dollars. In any case, as the Future Frigates and various OCV hulls will be continuous build, no meaningful dollar value can be put on them.

Somewhere in the background Defence Minister Kevin Andrews is playing some role in Mr Abbott's show. More concrete details by Prime Ministerial Media Release may follow in the next few days, next week or after the Defence White Paper is released.

Pete

Some possible options for Australia's Future Frigate SEA 5000 Program (Diagram Courtesy News . com). Note that the Australian Navy has felt left out of the Iraq War where Australia's Air Force and Army have been serving. Australia's Navy want a mass Tomahawk land attack capability that has served the US Navy so well in wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So Australia's Navy have been pressing to have mass Tomahawk land attack capability introduced in the Future Frigate Program.

---

Despite Abbott's would-be military vanity he and Minister Andrews do generate useful vision statements, on their watch, regarding naval defence programs. The following Media Release covers Future Frigates, OCVs/OPVs, AWDs and to an extent submarines.

Australia cannot afford the extreme extra costs of building all its warships and submarines in Australia. All this surface shipbuilding, now in the pipeline, increases the likelihood that Australia's future submarines will be built almost totally offshore. Offshore submarine building certainly reduces the strength of the German and French options to build the Australia's future submarines in Australia. Japan, which has been relied on build in Japan, gains. Meanwhile the combat system/weapons third of the submarine project will be designed and built in the US uncontested.

"Joint Media Release – Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – The Government’s plan for a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry

4 August 2015

The Commonwealth Government is delivering a long-term plan for a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry. Over the next 20 years the Government will invest over $89 billion in ships and submarines for the Navy.

This critical investment will generate significant economic growth and sustain several thousand Australian jobs over decades. It is a key part of our commitment to a safe and secure Australia.

The Government will implement a continuous build of surface warships in Australia. This means that Australia’s shipbuilding workforce will build Navy’s Future Frigates and Offshore Patrol Vessels.

It’s the first time that any Australian government has committed to a permanent naval shipbuilding industry.

This strategy will transform Australia’s naval shipbuilding industry and put it onto a sustainable long-term path, giving the workforce certainty into the future.

The former government failed to commission a single naval warship from an Australian shipyard for the six years it was in office. This created the current shipbuilding ‘valley of death’. The Coalition Government’s plan will put an end to the boom-bust cycle that has afflicted the naval shipbuilding industry.

Today, the Government announces that it is:

Bringing forward the Future Frigate programme (SEA 5000) to replace the ANZAC class frigates. As part of this decision, we will confirm a continuous onshore build programme to commence in 2020 – three years earlier than scheduled under Labor’s Defence Capability Plan. This decision will save over 500 hundred jobs and help reduce the risks associated with a ‘cold start’. The Future Frigates will be built in South Australia based on a Competitive Evaluation Process, which will begin in October 2015.
Bringing forward construction of [link added by Pete Offshore Patrol Vessels (SEA 1180)] to replace the Armidale class patrol boats by two years, with a continuous onshore build commencing in 2018 following a Competitive Evaluation Process. This decision will maintain around 400 skilled jobs that would otherwise have been lost. It will also reduce the number of man-hours that would be wasted on the Future Frigate programme if the existing workforce was disbanded and reconstituted, setting it on a stronger path for earlier completion.

In the short term these two measures will sustain around 1,000 jobs that would otherwise have been lost. Once both programmes ramp up they will guarantee around 2,500 Australian shipbuilding jobs for decades.

The third major pillar of the Government’s naval shipbuilding plan will be based on the outcomes of the Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) for Australia’s future submarine.

Overseen by an independent panel of experts, the CEP will ensure that capability, cost, schedule, and key strategic considerations – along with Australian industry involvement – are carefully and methodically considered by the Department of Defence. There will be more submarines and more submarine-related jobs in Australia.

Addressing the serious cost overruns, delays and productivity problems affecting the Air Warfare Destroyer programme is essential to restore public confidence in Australian naval shipbuilding and ensure future projects deliver world-class capabilities for the Defence Force and value for taxpayers.

Following a forensic audit, and building on significant improvements made through the recent interim phase of reforms, the Government is acting decisively to reform the AWD programme. By the end of October 2015 substantial additional shipbuilding management expertise will be inserted into the AWD programme and an additional $1.2 billion will be invested in the programme budget.

The Government will also undertake further reform of ASC to ensure Australian shipbuilding is best structured to support a continuous build programme and future naval projects are delivered on time and on budget.

To this end, the Government has commissioned a strategic review of ASC’s shipbuilding capacity. The review will consider how best to implement long-term arrangements.

Recognising that the Adelaide shipyards and workforce are strategic national assets, the review will consider options to ensure they are structured to support the Government’s commitment to naval shipbuilding. This will include discussions with the South Australian Government on the future of its Common User Facility at Techport, which forms an important part of the Adelaide shipyards.

The outcomes of the review will be considered in conjunction with future decisions on submarines and surface shipbuilding programmes.

The Coalition Government’s historic investment in Navy capability will be a centrepiece of the fully-funded Defence White Paper that will be released later this year. It will set out the Government’s plan to equip the Australian Defence Force to meet current and future challenges.

Media contact:
Brad Rowswell (Minister Andrews’ Office) 0417 917 796"

The link for the Joint Media Release is http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2015/08/04/joint-media-release-prime-minister-and-minister-for-defence-the-governments-plan-for-a-strong-and-sustainable-naval-shipbuilding-industry/

Also see highly related http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2015/08/04/minister-for-defence-joint-press-conference/

Pete

Two of Taiwan's four submarines were launched during WWII. Both are theoretically operational, but only safe for training - and probably only safe in a shallow harbour. One is Hai Shih (ex US Tench class that was GUPPY converted). The other is Hai Bao/Pao (SS-792) (ex US Balao class also GUPPY converted) (pictured above).

---

Cut away of Taiwan's latest 2 submarines of the Hai Lung class, (also known as Chien Lung class) commissioned in 1987-88 (Diagram courtesy Dutch Submarines . com)

---

Submarine Matters' article Netherlands Needs New Submarines Quickly has led to many comments below that article regarding Taiwan's needs. This is because the Netherlands supplied Taiwan with Taiwan's most recent two subs. These were of the Hai Lung class (pictured above) supplied to Taiwan and commissioned into the Taiwanese Navy way back in 1987-88.

COMMENT

Taiwan has sought newer submarines for decades. This has been complicated by Taiwan's reliance on the US - which does not build suitable conventional submarines (SSKs). US backing is needed in the face of China's ability to prevent any actual conventional submarine builder from helping Taiwan.

Conventional submarine builders Germany, France, Spain, Japan and Sweden have been placed under Chinese political and economic pressure not to sell subs to Taiwan, not to help Taiwan build subs or even sell submarine components to Taiwan. The US would not allow Taiwan to buy Russian SSKs. Middle countries that have built subs under licence, like India, Australia and South Korea, have also been warned by China not to sell to Taiwan.

Chinese force aside China is a much larger and attractive a market for all products for all countries than Taiwan is. So there are many positive reasons why, for example, Germany will sell submarine engines to China and Sweden will sell AIP systems to China instead of Taiwan.

Taiwan's old anti-communist credentials are no longer considered important enough to gain sufficient cooperation from the US. This is a further complex situation where around one million Taiwanese happily trade with China or live in China. The US is also happily trading with communist Vietnam. China also underwrites or owns much of the US economy.

Some Taiwanese see a submarine project brokered by the US as a way to restore US political, military and economic support - in another sense restoring US recognition of Taiwan's right to exist.

The US especially, under the moderate Democrat Obama, is not anti-Chinese or anti-Communist enough to damage relations with China to the degree some in Taiwanese want. Taiwan may have to wait for another Republican hawk like George W. Bush (Jr) to enter office before the US might help. As the US 2016 election runup stands Hilary Clinton won't change Taiwan's sub situation and even if Republican Trump were elected, his personal business interests may well preference China over Taiwan. Are there any election eligible US Republican anti-Communists with a Presidential chance?

An additional problem is some Taiwanese want the US to broker a submarine deal in order that the US buys the subs first - in order that the US "sells' the subs to Taiwan for a highly US subsidized low price.

Another disincentive for the US is that the US Navy and submarine industry do not want to have any financial or project dealing with SSKs. For the US Navy this is because SSKs unit for unit are less capable than the US SSNs. For US industry the price/profit per SSN is much higher than for an SSK.

China's growing ASW capabilities, including China's undersea sensors and growing submarine numbers mean Taiwan will need ever more expensive, larger, more capable SSKs. If Taiwan replaced its 4 sub fleet one for one it may well need subs that are SSNs to constitute any kind of deterrent against China's rapidly growing SSN and SSK fleet.

The US won't give/sell SSNs to Taiwan. It is more reasonable that the US quietly assures Taiwan that US SSNs will defend Taiwan - to a reasonable extent.

REFERENCES

The following are useful:

Over the years Defense Industry Daily (DID) has compiled a longer and more detailed account of Taiwan's fruitless replacement submarine efforts - particularly Taiwan’s Force Modernization: The American Side, July 21, 2015. Taiwan's submarine problems are best seen from a combined arms perspective including consideration of surface ships, naval airpower and land-based anti-shipping and anti-submarine missiles - particularly in the Taiwan Strait.

DID notes: [The Taiwanese] are even reportedly considering building their own boats from foreign designs. Australia’s experience suggests that this course may be fraught with peril, and Taiwan has a number of technology gaps to address: ship design technology, torpedoes, sonar, propulsion systems, combat systems, and submarine periscope lenses [to which could be added submarine steel].

Meanwhile http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/taiwans-submarine-saga/ puts up a range of "US will do it" options that are not in America's economic, political or strategic interests to do.

http://news.usni.org/2015/07/08/essay-chinas-submarine-solution-for-the-taiwan-strait indicates China's skill in building a Yuan sub force that makes for major strategic problems for Taiwan and the US to counter this force

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150722/1024934686.html of July 22, 2015 describes how China is rapidly building its ASW strength - rendering Taiwan's replacement submarine efforts largely irrelevant.

Please connect with Submarine MattersTaiwan's Aging Submarine Force Limited by Mainland China of February 5, 2014 - you will notice little has changed.

So unless the US builds around 8 large SSKs in the US under a new Republican President, after 2016, Taiwan is likely to wait forever for an effective submarine force.

Pete

Diagram dated around October 2014 courtesy Jane's, International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), FAS and WSJ.

On the occasion of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima 70 years ago today it is relevant to look at SSBNs - the ultimate first-strike and second strike-nuclear deterrence weapons.

- SSBNs are the vehicles carrying most of the world's rapidly usable and most protected nuclear warheads.

- Since the end of the Cold War (1991) there has been a small reduction in SLBM warheads (or at least megatonnage (explosive energy)) over-all in SSBNs from the US and Russia.

- The UK and France have remained the same depending on whether one is counting number of warheads or raw megatonnage.

- The new SLBM powers, China and India, have added to the warhead numbers, megatonnage and danger of mistakes.

- added to the known SLBMs is the highly secret issue of nuclear armed submarine cruise missiles that may belong to all of the countries in the diagram and also to Pakistan, Israel and perhaps North Korea.

It is a difficult to argue whether the value of deterrence is worth the risk of even one nuclear detonation mistake or intentional exchange. Yes nuclear deterrence probably prevented World War Three between the US and Russia (and China) in the Cold War? But is the risk of World War still as acute as in the Cold War? And who is going to disarm (stand-down) first anyway?

These are counter-factual questions for which there are no answers.

Only humour is left.

Dr Strangelove (above) may be faintly based on Edward Teller and Wernher von Braun.

Pete

In comments below http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/australias-naval-shipbuilding-blueprint.html“S” has provided very interesting views on Japanese-Australia submarine issues. This is concerning the Soryu and Collins.

The actual submarine designs that are being proposed for SEA 1000 will be significantly different from current subs - but discussion has more substance when on the basis of current subs. The Japanese proposal, which will likely win the SEA 1000 CEP, is likely to be an evolution of the Soryu.

One concern is that the operational period of postwar Japanese submarines, including the Soryu is significantly shorter than the 30 year average for submarines designed in Europe or the US.

I have clarified the English in S’s responses and hope this clarification is faithful to his intended meaning. On August 5, 2015 S indicated:

That he thought that having set views on average years of operation of a submarine without considering the rate of operation is “meaningless.”

“Submarine hull will experience physical, chemical and chemical-physical degradations such as fatigue, corrosion and stress-corrosion cracking. Also, mechanical parts such as diesel engines, batteries systems and AIP systems will deteriorate. These degradations will come up only under actual operational conditions. For example, if there is no repeated surfacing-submerging, the fatigue of the hull caused by repeated application and release of external stress is not experienced.

It is said that the rate of operation of the Soryu submarine is 80%. As operational period of Soryu is 24 years, actual operation period becomes ca. 19 years (= 24 years x 0.8). In the case of the Collins submarine, the rate of operation is obviously lower than that of the Soryu. For the Collins’ 60% operational rate over a 30 year operational period, the actual operational period becomes 18 years (= 30 years x 0.6) which is nearly same as that of Soryu.

[Best to consider the] increase in numbers of submarines [and] also improvements in the rate of operation.”

On August 6 I asked S five questions – and below each I have provided S’s responses, also provided on August 6. I have added follow-up questions in bolded italics.

1. Why is the "operational period of Soryu 24 years"?

S answered “Submarine operational periods used to be as short as 18 years, and JMSDF [Japanese Navy] was criticized. Also National Defense Program Outline FY 2011 decided to increase number of submarine to 24 including 2 training submarines.”

Was the previous requirement for 16 or 18 submarines?

2. Why not 30 years like Germany, France and almost all other submarine builders?

S answered “Submarine building span in Japan is in line with Long-term or Mid-term Defense Buildup Plan and technology innovation.”

So are the following factors important in the number of years of operational life for a Japanese submarine?:

2.1 Is there a need for continuous build by KHI/MHI?

(The pattern of launching and commissioning one submarine per year appears to be very important. Continuous build would keep the workers (eg. welders) busy and would make budgeting more certain for the JMD and KHI-MHI.)

2.2 I have a theory that the reason the Yield Strength of the pressure hull steel is very high (at NS110 = HY156 see Table) is due to deep diving needs. So does deep diving put greater stress on the pressure hull – leading to more rapid degradation – resulting in shorter operational life?

3. What happens if Australia needs to lift availability of its Japanese built submarine to 80% in time of strategic need?

S answered “I think that Australia may reduce defense cost as a result of reduction in number of submarines.”

4. What happens if Australia wants to cut the NS110 pressure hull and reweld it to do major maintenance work (including large parts replacement on the propulsion system) or major emergency repairs?

S answered along the lines: Hull cutting significantly weakens the pressure hull thus limiting diving depth. [JDS Asashio (see SS-589 converted to testbed submarine TSS-3601 preceded Oyashio Class has an NS110 and NS80 pressure hull like Soryu Class) required hull-cutting for the experimental fitting of the large Stirling AIP system. After this hull-cutting the submerged depth of Asashio was limited.]

5. Can this pressure hull cutting-rewelding work be done in Australia?

“Aside” [this depends?] “whether JMSDF agrees NS110 technology transfer or not, advise from Japan is required, because Japan has an experience of hull-cutting of [the NS110 and NS80 pressure hull for the] “Asashio”.

Thankyou S.

Please connect with previous Submarine Matters articles, including:

Technical Problems: Fuel Cell AIP and Hull Cutting of June 25, 2015, and

Major Soryu hull life issue? – Maintenance/Emergency Welding in Japan only? Of June 5, 2015.

Pete

Launch of the first of class Soryu ("Blue (or Green) Dragon") (Japanese そうりゅう ) at MHI's shipyard in Kobe, Japan, December 2007. Australia's future submarines are likely to be launched nearby in Kobe (from 2025-25 onwards) at MHI and/or KHI. (Photo courtesy Japan Times).

---

I think it is useful, when considering how the Soryu will (or may) evolve into Australia's future submarine, to illustrate the possibilities in tabular form.

S has been very helpful in the construction of the Table. The "16SS" through to "29SS" sequence appears to be Japanese Ministry of Defence's (JMD/MoD's) terminology for planning and funding submarine authorizations year after year.

16SS can be called the beginning of the sequence of "Soryu Mark 1s" which have diesel engines and Lead Acid Batteries (LABs) as their primary propulsion and Stirling Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) as secondary propulsion.

For the future Soryus 27SS and 28SS LABs will be replaced by Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). For them and Japanese submarines onwards Stirling AIP will be removed. These changes could justify future 27SS or 28SS being described as the first of the "Soryu Mark 2s". Possibly they will be given another Japanese name instead of Soryu and possibly they may have a fuel cell AIP emergency backup.

29SS with greater certainty will be a new submarine class (no longer called Soryu). It is likely that Australia's future submarine will be a derivative of 29SS - perhaps 500 tons to 1,000 tons heavier than 29SS to fulfil Australia's submarine content requirements (eg. much more diesel fuel capacity and one or more vertical multi-purpose locks (VMPL)).

When Australia's first new submarine is laid down in Kobe, Japan (perhaps in 2023) major changes to Japan's submarine production/build pattern will occur. KHI/MHI will cease their overall one submarine per year alternating build pattern and will build an average of one Japanese submarine and one Australian submarine per year. This will be the first rapid increase "spike" in submarine production in Japan since WWII.

Anywhere from 6 to 12 Australian submarines will be built. US and Australian technicians will be present in Japan installing and testing the mainly US developed combat system of sensors-database-weapons (perhaps 30% +of a submarine build effort).

SORYU TABLE

In the Soryu Table below:

- LAB means Lead Acid Battery.
- LIB is Lithium-ion Battery,
- AIP is Air Independent Propulsion (Swedish-Kockums designed Stirling)

When Soryu (Blue (or Green) Dragon) (in Japanese そうりゅう ) is translated into English it oftens comes out as "Ssangyong". Obviously a more complex translation process than German or French.

SS No.	Building No.	Pennant No.	Name/Namesake	LAB or LIB & AIP *	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi-ssioned	Built By
16SS	8116	SS-501	Sōryū (そうりゅう) / Blue Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2005	Dec 2007	March 2009	MHI
17SS	8117	SS-502	Unryū (うんりゅう) / Cloud Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2006	Oct 2008	March 2010	KHI
18SS	8118	SS-503	Hakuryū (はくりゅう) / White Dragon	LAB + AIP	Feb 2007	Oct 2009	March 2011	MHI
19SS	8119	SS-504	Kenryū (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2008	Nov 2010	March 2012	KHI
20SS	8120	SS-505	Zuiryu (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2009	Oct 2011	March 2013	MHI
22SS	8122	SS-506	Kokuryū (こくりゅう) / Black Dragon	LAB + AIP	January 2011	Oct 2013	March 2014	KHI
23SS	8123	SS-507	Jinryū (じんりゅう)/ Benevolent Dragon	LAB + AIP	Feb 2012	Nov 2014	March 2016?	MHI
24SS	8124	SS-508	?	LAB + AIP	2013	2015?	2017	KHI
25SS	8125	SS-509	?	LAB + AIP	2014	2016?	2018	MHI
26SS	8126	SS-510	?	LAB? + AIP	2015	2017?	2019	KHI
27SS	8127	SS-511	Soryu Mark 2	LIB only	2016?	2018?	2020?	MHI
28SS	8128	SS-512	?	LIB only	2017?	2019?	2021?	KHI
29SS	8129	SS-513	Next- Generation Japanese Submarine	LIB only	2018?	2020?	2022?	MHI

1AU?			1st Australian class?		2023?

The Japanese Ministry of Defence seems to be steadily generating more website material - part of public transparency - which I will explore in future articles.

Pete

The one and (perhaps still the) only female Submarine Officer in the German Navy, Janine Asseln, has created considerable interest over the last 2 years. (Photo courtesy - the German Navy's magazine).

---

Submarine Officer Janine Asseln in front of her submarine "U-Boot"U-31. This is at the Eckenförde Naval Base (where all Germany's submarines are based) on the Baltic Sea. See references to Eckenförde here (Photo: DPA)

The German online newspaper local.de reports April 3, 2014:

Women are a very rare sight on submarines, but the German Navy has welcomed its first female officer, Janine Asseln, who is The Local’s German of the Week.

Since the beginning of the year, 27-year-old Asseln has held the role of fourth watch officer on the [HDW 212] U-31 Delta.

She is the only woman in the German Navy to be granted a commission on a submarine. Traditionally it was believed a female presence onboard brought bad luck.

“Anyone can handle being above water,” said Asseln, whose father and grandfather were both in the navy, and inspired her career choice. Only in Norway have female submarine officers started to become more the norm [since 1985].

[She grew up in Eckenförde in Schleswig-Holstein near the naval base she now works from]. Being on a submarine was, she said, always a dream of hers - but one which her mother and grandmother viewed with a little scepticism.

“They're all proud of me now,” she said, adding that her boyfriend was too. Asseln lives and works as the only woman alongside a team of 27 men.

Her boyfriend finds it tough, she said, when she's away for long stretches. “But he's completely behind me,” she said.

Like any member of the Delta crew, she had to earn respect from her submarine mates. “Of course they have a jab to see what you're made of,” she said, adding that everyone onboard “has to be able to do everything”. This requires a high level of ability.

For instance in an emergency, everyone needs to know which vents should be open or closed. For the most part, watch officer Asseln uses a periscope to keep an eye out above water, or help plan the route the submarine is taking.

But living onboard the submarine can be a bigger challenge than being an officer as there is very little space to move around in.

“I have more bruises than I could count in the beginning,” Asseln said.

Submarine Officer Janine Asseln on Youtube, April 2014.
---

Submarine Officer Janine Asseln pointing out the her bunk in a shared sleeping compartment shared with male colleagues (Photo courtesy German online news).

As for being a woman, Asseln gets no special treatment. She has her bunk with the men and got used to it relatively quickly. “Everyone has their own sleeping bag,” she said, but she admitted there is nearly no privacy.

Asseln has a curtain to hang up when she gets changed and said she tends "not to stand around in my underwear”.

The [U-31] Delta crew heads out on its next mission in May when it will make for England and then over to Norway. Asseln has already been out on one long deployment.

As it stands, she is set to stay part of the team for the next few years.

Hopefully like her, other women will also make their way underwater."

Women in Europe have led the way on jobs in submarines.

Please connect with Submarine MattersWomen in US Navy Submarines! of July 27, 2015.

Pete

Thailand's surrounding sea depths (see map above) severely limit operations for any future Thai submarine service. The lightest blue (almost white) for the seas/oceans on the map indicate sea depths of less than 200 meters around Thailand's whole coastline. This is for Thailand's west coast (Andaman Sea) and especially east coast (Gulf of Thailand - out to hundreds of kilometers). (Map courtesy US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)).

Perhaps Thailand should be considering submarines of 500 tons or less. Mini-submarines are harder to see in shallow water and are several hundred $million cheaper for three. Perhaps South Korea's 200 ton Dolgorae class or even North Korea's 300 ton Sang O class?

---

Thailand's major strategic issues are on land. Thailand's politico-military power is well served by non-aligned neutrality, overall good relations with its immediate Southeast Asian neigbours (Malaysia, Myanmar, Laos) tense but manageable relations with Cambodia. Indonesia is a middle power with no tensions with Thailand(?) Australia is no threat. China and India are the great regional powers.

Thailand's debate "Do we need submarines" has continued for decades. So why does Thailand want submarines? To protect fisheries? Anti-drug smugglers? To intercept refugee boats? For intelligence gathering? To satisfy an ally who demands or expects submarine activities?

To detect and intercept fishing boats, drug smuggling boats and refugee boats best requires patrol boats. Patrol boats do not need to look through a periscope or hide. Patrol boats operate by having constant radio contact, radar and visual sight. Satellite links help. Thailand's patrol boats and larger ships deter by being seen.

The Thai Navy is big enough to handle navies of its immediate neigbours. Is India a threat? Or is the possibility of future unimagined threats sufficient to justify a submarine purchase?

Is China the main threat? If so buying submarines off China builds military bilateral relations - cash for good relations. China is probably no longer prepared to provide soft loans or write off debt-costs. With slower Chinese growth and China's 2015 financial/stockmarket shocks China is probably expecting hard currecy payment for the three submarines. Has that demand hindered the Thai-China submarine deal?

China has already excessively reduced the price per submarine (now US$333 million with training + spares included). The standard international price for a submarine is around US$500 million and then AIP costs extra. Training and spares over several years is often another $500 million per sub.

Additional reasons to have submarines are to keep up with the neighbours in a regional submarine race - for political and strategic power, deterrence and prestige.

Looking internally into Thailand it needs to be asked "Has 2014's political crisis given the Army power that makes the Navy jealous?

Is the Navy therefore entitled to have an expensive weapons system because the Navy does not have the same level of power?"

Please connect with Submarine Matters:

Thailand Puzzling Whether to Buy Chinese Submarines, July 16, 2015

Thailand may eventually purchase two submarines, March 25, 2015.

In the map above the lighter the blue the shallower the water. The average depth of the Baltic Sea is 53 meters but the maximum depth is 459 meters. 459 meters is more than deep enough for submarines to hide in - if they choose the right hiding places - and those hiding places do not conceal the presence of an opponent's sea-floor (or tethered) sensors. (Map courtesy European Environment Agency)

The Baltic Sea presents a challenging and dangerous submarine operating area in peacetime due to its undersea geography. This geography includes overall shallow and highly variable sea depths, many rocks and islands making for many narrows and rocks to get stuck in or collide with. However there also many sea-floor depressions/variations to hide in.

In peacetime and wartime the intensity of ASW surveillance makes submarine operations on the surface and even at snorting depth dangerous. In Baltic operations quiet on-battery and/or on-AIP operation may be essential. It is probably no coincidence that the two nations that have developed the most efficient and commercially successful AIP systems (Germany (with fuel cell) and Sweden (Stirling engine)) may well spend most of their operating time in the Baltic.

The approaches to sea bases and coastal cities/ports frequently have sensor protections using undersea arrays such as:

- Malsten station (old probably non-operational hydrophones/sonar and magnetic anomaly) and much more operational, modern and geographically dispersed equipment

- approaches to Helsinki Harbour (hydrophones/sonar, magnetic anomaly and more modern sensors)

- Russian Baltic Fleet Base at Kaliningrad Enclave much more extensive and intensive. Few details about Russian hydrophones escape the Russian information censors. Naturally Russians submarines have many types of ASW sensors and the Russian Northern Fleet deploys test sensors

Russian Submarine Operations

Little seems to be known in the open-source world about Russian submarine operations in the Baltic. Russian Kilo submarines and even Russia's one or two Ladas appear unsuited due to their relatively large size and lack of (known) AIP.

Russia, of course, has relied on highly developed nuclear propulsion solution for its AIP-like needs. But the Baltic is the wrong environment for nuclear propulsion as nuclear is assumed to be noisier than AIP, tends to preference large submarine solutions far heavier than 2,000 tons (surfaced), promotes speed which is a major danger in Baltic operations and nuclear submarines are an expensive asset to be at risk from highly intensive Baltic ASW forces and dangerous natural geography of the Baltic.

Russia submarines may well have been detected by Baltic countries hundreds of times since 1945 carrying out what look suspiciously like intelligence gathering missions in those countries territorial waters. The number of Russian submarines publically reported may well have been kept secret from Baltic and international publics due to:

- the need to keep secret the efficiency of anti-submarine sensors (including sea-floor arrays) in detecting Russian (or friendly countries)

- the much greater political, economic and military power of Russia compared to all other Baltic counties. Non-NATO Baltic countries Sweden and Finland are particularly careful not to offend the Russian giant by publically identifying clearly Russian submarine acoustic signatures and radio transmissions.

- normal diplomatic practice which keeps sensitive international issues secret

- the natural secrecy of Governments-Navies relating to all submarine operations

- for a defending Navy (like Sweden's) to be publically seen as unable to counter submarine intelligence gathering against one's country can be embarrassing all round.

- as the weaker country, compared to Russia, Sweden is forced by Russia or finds it more politically convenient, to recant and deny there was any Russian submarine incursion in the first place

Note how the detection and weaker country recanting process plays out in Russia vs Sweden October 17-24, 2014:

"A large military operation is launched to search for an allegedly damaged submarine in Kanholmsfjärden in the Stockholm archipelago. Encrypted transmissions sent on an emergency radio frequency used by Russian units were recorded. The sources of the transmissions were identified as a submarine and a military site in the Kaliningrad [Russian Naval Base] region.^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17] On 19 October [2014] the military said there had been three separate sightings and released a [photograph] of the unidentified submarine to the public.^[18] There were also suggestions that the Russian Oil-tanker NS Concord was involved as a mother-ship for smaller underwater vehicles as it maintained a pattern of criss-crossing outside Stockholm during the investigation.^[19] A Russian research ship equipped with a submarine holding bay, R/V Professor Logachev,^[20]^[21] was also in the area and turned off its location transponder.^[22]^[23]

Several days later, the hunt was still on as [Swedish] officials were certain that foreign underwater operations were still ongoing.^[24] More than 100 sightings were now reported, said [Swedish] Supreme Commander Göransson.^[25] Paul Schwartz at Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, said the photograph could be a Russian Lada-class submarine.^[26] Sources later said it was certainly at least one mini-submarine and that advanced image analysis "reveals part of a submarine superstructure with two masts behind it".^[27] On April 2015 Rear Admiral Anders Grenstad has told Swedish newspapers that the Armed Forces reported to the Swedish government that [despite the mountain of evidence] the suspected underwater vessel was in fact only a civilian “working boat” [Such is the need to deceive for bilateral relations between the Russian giant and its weaker Baltic neighbours].^[28]"

This October 2014 Submarine Matters article contains more detailed descriptions of recent Russian mini-submarines in the Baltic.

Tomorrow some surprisingly advanced Russian UUVs will be revealed.

Pete

Specifications Remus 600 "Drone" launched by USS North Dakota

Indian Company Signs Contract for Kilo Submarine Maintenance.

Two of the Possible Choices for UK's Next Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Camera Footage of Action Inside Chinese Submarines

Japan Looking at UK Help to Win Australian Submarine Competition

A woman in a US Navy Submarine!

Submarine Launched Airflight Missile (SLAMs)

Mystery of the Catfish, Som class submarine, wrecked in Swedish waters

Salvagers deny Swedish sub wreck was PR stunt.

Where is Reunion island? Right here. Maybe part of MH370 found.

Netherlands Needs New Submarines Quickly

"Build in Japan" not a done deal?

Tony's Navy - Future Frigates, OCVs and his left profile stare

Australia's Naval Shipbuilding Blueprint for the Next 20 Years

"Joint Media Release – Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – The Government’s plan for a strong and sustainable naval shipbuilding industry

Taiwan's Replacement Submarine Hopes. US won't help.

SSBNs Still Quite Dangerous - Hiroshima's 70th Anniversary Today

Japanese Submarines – Critical operational life and hull cutting issues

A Table to Describe Soryu to Future Australian Submarine Build

Janine Asseln - First Female Submarine Officer in the German Navy

Does Thailand Need Submarines At All?

Baltic Sea Submarine Operations - Russia, Swedeen and Finland.