Quantcast
Channel: Submarine & Other Matters
Viewing all 2353 articles
Browse latest View live

Japanese Sub Supporter Abbott Removed By His Party from Prime Ministership

$
0
0
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull to formally be sworn in as Prime Minister soon.
---

Foreign Minister and Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop (sitting with Turnbull) suggested to Tony Abbott today, to effectivey resign as Prime Minister. Julie Bishop is a centrist like Turnbull.
---

The very popular Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull formally announcing his challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Significantly Malcolm Turnbull made no deal with Japanese Prime Minister Abe or with President Obama for Australia to buy Japanese submarines. It was Abbott, Abe and Obama who made the secret deal in 2014.

Turnbull might possibly change policy - making for a truly Competitive Evaluation Process for Australia's Future Submarine but possibly not.

As the Australian Government has decided to build

-  9 x 6,000 ton (full load) future frigates in Australia (in the next 20 years) and

-  about 15 x (average 1,500 ton) corvettes/OPVs within Australia (in the next 20 years)

with all the excess costs that Australian shipbuilding involves - this still makes a fully Australian build of submarines highly unlikely.

Turnbull, as a former big businessman, might maintain the economic efficiency/cost savings of building the submarines overseas or what is perceived or presented as a "hybrid build" (perhaps 25% in Australia (including pressure hull steel) and 75% overseas).

Now that Turnbull has won the leadership the US Government might rapidly ask him/Australia to maintain the secret buy submarine from Japan deal.

THE RESULT

Malcolm Turnbull is set to become Australia's 29th Prime Minister after toppling Tony Abbott 54 votes to 44 in a Liberal leadership ballot at Parliament House in Canberra on September 14, 2015.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop convincingly defeated Kevin Andrews in a ballot for deputy Liberal leader. Julie Bishop apparently wishes to remain Foreign Minister.

Joe Hockey will not remain Treasurer and Kevin Andrews may not remain Defence Minister.

As Abbott is a devout Catholic - rumours that he will be appointed Ambassador to the Vatican have not yet been confirmed.

Pete

Australia expected to buy Only Eight future submarines

$
0
0
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (now sworn in) to date has had few views and little knowledge of defence issues. But he learns quickly. So his views and policies on future submarines are unpredictable (Photo courtesy Herald Sun)
---

Kevin Andrews, Defence Minister for 9 months. His submarine views very much depended on Abbott's views. Andrews may leave office by September 21, 2015, when a new ministry is likely to be announced.
---

Christopher Pyne may become next Defence Minister. He was considered an Abbott loyalist and has no real record on defence issues. Pyne is a Federal MP from Adelaide which may be his main qualification for Defence, with uncertain implications for submarine issues. (Photo courtesy Courier Mail).
---

It is becoming more certain that Australia now aims to buy only 8 submarines (not 12). Hence the upfront purchase price of $20 Billion is likely to drop to a lower amount. 

The official announcement of 8 submarines is expected to take place in the 2015 Defence White Paper that may be published in November this year (2015).

That 2015 White Paper has, to date, been drafted under an Abbott Government. It is unknown whether submarine numbers will change under the new Malcolm Turnbull Government. Unlike the outgoing Abbott Prime Minister Turnbull is expected to rely less on a defence power-base for his image. However Turnbull may rate highly the impact of submarine building on regional infrastructure development and therefore votes prior to Australia next election (perhaps in August 2016).

Turnbull may just continue Abbott's naval building policies or perhaps revise down submarine numbers to 6 (+ an option of 2 more, maybe).

News that the Australian Government wants 8 is unpopular with Australia's depressed shipbuilding industry (especially in Adelaide, Williamstown (Victoria) and Western Australia (mainly south of Perth)). Eight means less Government spending for the upfront price and downstream maintenance costs of the future submarines.

Australia’s likely decision to only build 8 submarines not 12 is due to:

-   the requirement for 12 submarines being uncosted and minimally justified in the 2009 White Paper (large PDF, see page 70, section 9.3) drawn up under the Rudd Government. 

-  the Australian government’s depleted revenue base. A major reason is less company tax from Australia's mining (especially iron), energy (especially coal) and manufacturing (car factories closing down) industries. The declining mining and energy industries are largely tied to Chinese demand (which is growing at a lower rate since the beginning of 2015).

-   the competing need for defence funding for Australia's growing commitment to fighting in the Middle East. This includes Syrian and Iraq air commitments and Iraq land commitments. 

-  the competition for naval funds for surface shipbuilding. This includes the Australian Government's intention, over the next 20 years, to build:

      =  9 x Future Frigates (which I estimate will weigh around 6,000 tons) under SEA 5000, and
      =  15-20 x "Corvettes" (which may average 1,500 tons) under SEA 1180 . 

The Corvettes (a term Abbott preferred) have also been called Offshore Patrol  Vessels (OPVs) and Offshore Combatant Vessel (OCVs). 

So a less defence minded Turnbull, further decline in Australia's revenue base and change in Defence Minister (the new one may be Christopher Pyne, a Federal MP for Adelaide) make submarine numbers unpredictable. But I think 8 or 6 future submarines is likely.

BACKGROUND ON NUMBERS

Historically the Australian Navy has asked for more submarines than it finally receives. As I advised in my On Line Opinion article Future submarine choices: more than a one horse race of December 11, 2014 I advised:

- for the UK built Oberon submarines (in RAN service 1967-1999) numbers for Australia shrank from 8 to 6


The Collins’ formula of 8 = 6 + (an option of 2 that were never ordered) may eventually be repeated for the future submarine.

Pete

Shortfin Barracuda Bid Maybe Competitive But Still Sketchy

$
0
0
Comments from HK (representing French views) for Submarine Matters' article Shortfin Will th Shortfin Barracuda Design Be Too Heavy = Costly? of August 31, 2015 indicated that the Shortfin Barracuda bid was still subject to considerable change:

HK commented September 1, 2015 at 3:41 PM: 

"Having given it some more thought, Shortfin Barracuda could well displace only ~4,200 tons (surfaced) [565 tons less than the Barracuda SSN figure] .

DCNS are on record saying that Shortfin is smaller than Barracuda. So... the obvious solution is to remove the nuclear reactor module. See [Diagram A] below, from the excellent Navy Recognition website: this ~8m long module (under the deck shelter) is not needed in the SSK. In SMX Ocean it was converted to a VLS launcher (with space to spare - likely for part of the AIP fuel cell/battery modules).


Diagram A - A blurry and difficult to read and understand publicity sketch of Barracuda SSN (Courtesy French Navy on Navy Recognition website). 
---

Delete it, and voila! That's ~500m3 saved... or 500t in displacement, as designers typically aim for neutral buoyancy.

This does have the unfortunate consequence of eliminating AIP, however. Also likely to reduce fuel, and therefore range.

As for the rest of the sub, the forward sections up to the deck shelter are likely common to both the SSK and SSN designs. The steam turbine propulsion module in the rear is big enough to accommodate 6 diesels, with space below for more batteries (in pink) and fuel. The electric module (in red) is sized for ~10MW, and probably does not need to be changed much.

If true, this would cut down Shortfin's design and production costs, as well as risk.

HK commented September 2, 2015 at 5:02 AM: 

Regarding Barracuda's power train, the E-motor is directly coupled to the propeller, for acoustic reasons. The reduction gear is only mechanically engaged to shaft and steam turbine at high speeds (likely ~20+kts).

So switching from SSN to SSK is easy: keep the e-motor, eliminate the reduction gear, steam turbine, turbo generators, and associated steam cycle equipment. Replace with 6 diesel generators. These are much more compact and can all fit on one deck. The batteries and fuel tanks go underneath.

Not sure what the thinking will be on whether to keep the 2 back-up 480kw generators currently located amidships [see Diagram B]. Makes sense to replace them with batteries IMHO."

Archimedes commented September 1, 2015 at 10:24 PM:

[along the lines] the TKMS Type 216 is even more risky than Soryu or Shortfin Barracuda as the 216 is definitely a paper submarine compared to the others. 

The Germans may not be as advanced in methanol reformer fuel cell AIP as the French solution. 

CRITIQUES

Concerns about HK's comments above included:

1.  To be compliant with Australia desire for a 4,000 ton (surfaced) submarine - scaling down the Barracuda SSN from 4,765 tons (surfaced) to a 4,200 ton Shortfin will not be easy. Many difficult recalculations of component size, hull thickness, acoustics and buoyancy-balance will need to be made.

1(a).  Space and balance calculations for more batteries and diesel fuel tanks need to be made.

1(b).  As the Shortfin, with its diesel engines, will not be as long as the Barracuda SSN this will alter the length to diameter ratio making the ratio a design problem.

2.  Will the Shortfin be allowed to incorporate the US combat/weapons system - a political and security issue - and will Shortfin include a VLS that can accommodate US made weapons?

3.  The power transfer to submarine's propeller in case of the Barracuda SSN is about 10 MW (or even 2 x 10 MW). That is 3 times the power of the electric motor on the 2,000 ton Type 212/Dolphin-class. Oversized tools or capabilities will not come for free.

3(a).  The Shortfin would need a complete new propulsion system because the whole system has to be reduced to electricity only (with no reactor-steam turbine input). 

4.  How developed is the methanol reformer fuel cell AIP proposed for Shortfin? 
      See DCNS Youtube A below.

Youtube A - DCNS' three air independent technologies to extend fully submerged time/range. 
---


Here are two very detailed January 2015 analyses of the second generation methanol reformer – fuel cell AIP that may be being proposed for Shortfin

5.  Has DCNS produced a diagram of the Shortfin as good as TKMS' September 2015 diagram of the 216?

Diagram B - This is presumably an early design of the Barracuda SSN with lower weights and smaller dimensions. It is old, in French and difficult to read - hence also "sketchy". However it is still useful. The 2 small diesel engines of 480 kW each are assumed to be retained in the final Barracuda SSN design http://www.sous-mama.org/IMG/BarracudaSite02.jpg:

 ---

Diagram C - Another diagram of the Barracuda SSN. Difficult to understand what is what - sketchy. (Courtesy DCNS via defenceindustrydaily )
---


It is interesting how the Barracuda SSN's hull appears very much a scaled down design of the proven Triomphant class SSBN (Courtesy Frederic Petitieuois http://frederic.petitdieulois.perso.sfr.fr/racine/ssbn/ssbn0.jpg at http://frederic.petitdieulois.perso.sfr.fr/page_ssbn.php )


Pete

Turnbull Govt New Policy - 70% Future Submarine to Be Built in Australia

$
0
0
Lucy Turnbull (on right in photo) is also powerful. Among her current roles is President of the German-Australian Chamber of Industry and Commence (Photo courtesy Herald Sun).
---


With the end of Parliamentary Question Time finished in the first week of (Prime Minister) Turnbull's Government some observations can be made.

The replacement of Tony Abbott with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is worrying Japanese submarine sales teams in Adelaide and Canberra. There is concern that understandings to buy the Japanese submarine have now been cancelled.

Turnbull’s diplomatic style and attitude to any alliance with Japan is unknown. Abbott’s sudden closeness to Abe may need to be recreated by Japan.

Turnbull is politically a moderate while Abbott and Abe were kindred conservatives.

Turnbull’s wife, Lucy Turnbull, is powerful in her own right. Her most prominent past role was Lord Mayor of Sydney. Significantly she is the current President of the German-Australian Chamber of Industry and Commence. She is reputedly familiar with the future submarine project from the German point of view.

Turnbull's current attitude to the China military threat may not be the same as Abbott’s. The views of Turnbull’s Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews or a replacement, may be more influential. The trilateral Japan-US-Australia alliance (or quadrilateral - adding India) is probably still the informal though not official policy.

It has yet to be confirmed in Hansard (officially recording Parliamentary House of Representatives statements) whether Kevin Andrews, who is still Defence Minister, stated in Parliamentiary Question Time (September 17, 2015) that perhaps 70% to 80% of new submarine work could be done in Australia. If so this may signal a change in policy. Note that the current feeling by industry in Australia is that Australia will order 8 submarines overall – not 12.

[Fairfax, Sydney Morning Herald journalists reported (September 17, 2015) the same Andrews statement:
"I see that one of the bidders has said that they can build a significant part of a submarine here in Australia - some 70 to 80 per cent," Mr Andrews told Parliament. "That means that we're going to have more jobs, a significant part of that build, perhaps 70 to 80 per cent of submarines, built here in Australia." Note the DCNS offer described in the same article.]

Perhaps in Japan’s favour is that Australia still appears locked into using the US submarine combat system - giving the US considerable political, economic and alliance influence over Australia’s choice of submarine.

Japan needs to be prepared for “build in Australia” or at least the Hybrid Build option which may mean 70% build in Australia. The build percentage could conceivably include submarine steelmaking in Australia.

Pete

Near Catastrophic Russian Nuclear Submarine Maintenance

$
0
0
Readers may remember Submarine Matters’ article Russian Submarine Fire - Orel Perhaps a Write-Off? Of April 8, 2015. This was about a fire aboard the Orel (Oscar II class SSGN submarine, on April 8, 2015, which began during welding and cutting works. The fire started in the rubber insulation between the outer and the pressure hulls.

The main problem appears to be systemic - pockets of flammable gas from rubber, oil and grease  build up between the hulls – then the gas ignites on contact with a welder’s flame or sparks from hull cutters.

There was another similar but potentially catastrophic fire on a Delta IV SSBN,  Ekaterinburg K-84 in dry dock in December 2011, as recounted below. 





On December 29, 2011 a Russian Delta IV SSBN (Eekaterinburg K-84) experienced a rapidly growing fire in the bow. Four 4 torpedoes were in their tubes near the fire. More crucially 10 nuclear armed missiles (with rocket fuel and 40 nuclear warheads) were also onboard behind the sail (Photo courtesy Barents Observer, January 3, 2012
---


"....[on December 29, 2011] a fire broke out aboard Ekaterinburg [K-84], the second hull of the Delta IV class of SSBNs ...the submarine was undergoing dock repairs in a floating drydock...in the port of Roslyakovo (near Murmansk).  

Sparks from ongoing hull-cutting operations apparently ignited either oily residue or trash lubricants floating in the free-flood space between the outer and inner (pressure) hulls.  This space, which contains the submarine's cylindrical sonar array, is flooded when the submarine is afloat, but it is supposed to be drained when placed in drydock. 

In this instance, openings located under the sonar dome were welded shut, thus preventing the space from being fully drained.  The presence of water in the space should have been obvious to shipyard workers, especially given that the submarine was placed in the drydock three weeks earlier on December 8, 2011... 

About thirty minutes after the fire ignited, the rubber material within the free-flood space began to burn.  The flames then spread outside the space and onto the outer hull.  Subsequently the submarine’s anechoic tiles, which are made of rubber and used to reduce the amount of noise emanating from inside the submarine, began to burn, as did the adjacent wooden scaffolding... 

Adding to the seriousness of the accident is the fact that at least ten SS-N-23 Skiff ballistic missiles and four combat torpedoes were loaded aboard the submarine.  As this repair period was “unscheduled,” naval officials decided not to fully offload the submarine’s weapons. For “scheduled” repairs, all weapons are offloaded before repair work begins.  

The immediate danger of the fire was to the four torpedoes, which were amazingly still loaded into torpedo tubes that are located in a separate, confined space above the free-flood space containing the cylindrical sonar array.  Crew members were able to pull three torpedoes from their tubes, but the fourth torpedo was wedged inside the torpedo tube.  News video from December 30 clearly shows water being sprayed directly into at least one of the starboard torpedo tubes.

By 3PM local on December 30, shipyard workers had flooded the drydock in order to lower the submarine into the water.  This allowed seawater to flood the free-flood space between the outer and inner hulls, thereby dousing all flames and rapidly lowering the temperature within the space.  Shortly afterwards, the fire was reported to be completely extinguished...

Now that most of Russia is enjoying a week-long New Year’s holiday break, investigators and military officials will be able to better craft a story for the public while simultaneously trying to figure out who’s to blame.  The more things change, the more they stay the same."

COMMENT


The main risk with Ekaterinburg K-84 was probably less a nuclear fission explosion but more the risk of torpedo fuel and torpedo warheads exploding. If that happened then further back rocket fuel exploding, blowing warheads out of the tubes and rupturing the submarine's two nuclear reactors would be catastrophic.The city of Murmansk, population around 300,000, and probably a much wider area would then have a major radiation problem.

The two events (Orel and Ekaterinburg) have much in common and point to a whole range of Russian submarine safety problems.

Pete

China's Divine Eagle UAV - Threat to Submarines

$
0
0

China is developing a large twin-fuselage turbofan-powered UAV that could operate at altitudes up to  80,000 feet. It is known as Divine Eagle (also Project 973 or Shen Diao in Chinese). Its uses may include naval missions like the Global Hawk's Triton derivative (published ceiling 60,000 feet). The bus next to Divine Eagle appears to have been provided for scale. (Photo above and some details courtesy Air Force World July 4, 2015).

As at mid 2015 Divine Eagle was undergoing flight testsDivine Eagle may be a development of Russia's S-62 UAV concept. 

Submarine relevance is that Divine Eagle could loiter over contested South China and East China seas for 30+ hours with the ability to detect submarine snorkels by using cloud penetrating radar and electro-optical sensors. Divine Eagle is large enough to carry lightweight torpedoes for powered flight then torpedo mode. Divine Eagle could also act as part of a ASW chain using China's numerous small ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, ASW aircraft, ships or Chinese submarines. 

Divine Eagle's snorkel spotting capabilities means submarines in the South China Sea should, of course, be built for longer fully submerged range between snorts.   

It is suggested Divine Eagle could also mount a large metre-wave antennae between the fuselages for counter-stealth missions against stealthy UAVs (eg. the RQ-170), cruise missiles, B-2 bombers, F-22s and F-35s. 


Satellite picture of Divine Eagle large UAV next to that bus again. (Courtesy bellingcat August 23, 2015).

Divine Eagle's probable length may be 14 to 18 meters and wingspan 40 to 50 meters. It may weigh up to 15 tons, just over Global Hawk's 14.5 tons with the heavier weight perhaps for oneupmanship-propaganda reasons.  


Divine Eagle may operate from China's Sanya naval base on Hainan Island to cover the South China Sea. Naval air bases China is building on several islands (including Fiery Cross and Mischief Reefs (map above)) may provide emergency landing runways for Divine Eagle. Of course China's new South China Sea airfields would be principally used by aircraft (ASW, fighter-bombers, troop transports) and UAVs of shorter range.

Submarine Matters will provide much more detail and maps later this week on China's construction of small naval and air bases on South China Sea reefs.

Pete

Senator Marise Payne - Australia's first female Defence Minister

$
0
0

Senator Marise Payne, 51, has become Australia's first female Defence Minister. 

She is:

-  known as solid and a quiet achiever
-  politically a moderate 
-  from New South Wales
-  strong background in strategic and foreign policy
-  a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
-  listed as “Senator for Western Sydney”
-  she is preferable to other contenders for the job, who were Joe Hockey (no longer a Minister) and Christopher Pyne (he is nicknamed "the poodle" :-)
-  Germany is the other country I can think of with a female Defence Minister.

Also some comments from the Sydney Morning Herald.

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

Bio details on Marise Payne's websitehttp://www.marisepayne.com/biography are:

After growing up in Sydney and the NSW Southern Highlands, Marise Payne went on to complete her education at MLC School, Burwood and her Bachelor of Arts and Laws at the University of NSW.

A member of the Liberal Party since 1982, Marise was the National Young Liberal Movement's first female President. She also served on the NSW Liberal State Executive for 10 years and at branch and electorate levels.

Having served as a political adviser to some of the most significant figures in Liberal politics of their time, Marise went on to a career as a public affairs adviser in the finance industry.

In 1997 Marise filled a casual vacancy to represent the people of New South Wales in the Australian Senate, making her inaugural speech on 2 September 1997. She was then elected in 2001, 2007 and 2013.

Marise has served as Shadow Minister for Indigenous Development and Employment, Shadow Minister for COAG [Council of Australian Governments] and Shadow Minister for Housing. She plays an active role in the Senate and has been a member of both Joint and Senate committees, including as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and as Chair of its Human Rights subcommittee.  

In 2013 Marise was appointed as Minister for Human Services in the Abbott Government.
From its inception in 2003, Marise was co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia (PFOD) group until February 2011 and is currently co-Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Rugby League group.

Based in western Sydney for over ten years, Marise has come to know the local community well and now works alongside local organisations and businesses to help the region develop its great potential.

Outside parliament, Marise continues to work in the community on issues as diverse as human rights, emerging technologies and the implications of our ageing population.

Away from politics, she is a committed fan of the St George/Illawarra NRL team and the Geelong Cats, an enthusiastic supporter of the arts in Australia, spends as much time as she can in the Southern Highlands and she cooks for therapy. Marise and her partner live in a newly built home in Mulgoa."
 

 (with those relevant to defence-submarines bolded)

Prime Minister - Malcolm Turnbull
Deputy Prime Minister and Infrastructure and Regional Development Minister - Warren Truss
Cabinet Secretary
 - Arthur Sinodinis 
Indigenous Affairs Minister - Nigel Scullion
Foreign Minister - Julie Bishop 
Trade and Investment Minister - Andrew Robb 
Attorney General - George Brandis
Treasurer - Scott Morrison 
Assistant Treasurer and Small Business Minister - Kelly O'Dwyer 
Finance Minister - Mathias Cormann 
Agriculture and Water Minister - Barnaby Joyce
Industry, Innovation and Science Minister - Christopher Pyne 
Resources, Energy and Northern Australia Minister - Josh Frydenberg
Immigration and Border Protection Minister - Peter Dutton
Environment Minister - Greg Hunt
Health and Sport Minister - Sussan Ley
Defence Minister - Marise Payne 
Communications and Arts Minister - Mitch Fifield
Employment Minister and Minister for Women - Michaelia Cash 
Social Services Minister - Christian Porter 
Education and Training Minister
 - Simon Birmingham
"

Pete 

Australia's $90 Billion Naval Shipbuilding More Complex Under New Government

$
0
0



The diagram above is courtesy The Daily TelegraphAugust 20, 2015. Note this is based on Defence Teaming Australia advice in mid August 2015, under different Abbott Government conditions. The $17 Billion might be for 8 submarines. 

While the promise of 70% of submarine work in Australia has been mentioned by the outgoing defence minister Andrews in Parliament this is not yet a formal commitment. 70% involves complex costings over a 20 year period.

The new Australian Defence Minister, Marise Payne, will be faced with a highly complex $90 Billion shipbuilding situation. 

She and the whole Australian Federal Cabinet will have to:

-  plan, conduct and complete submarine/ship selections which heavily rely on the knowledge/designs/industrial capacity/contractural clarity of overseas companies

-  decide on political priorities at the federal and state level (including rewards for past, present, future loyalty to the Turnbull government)

-  ensuring votes and jobs at the Turnbull federal and state levels

-  divide shipbuilding work (for submarines, frigates and patrol vessels) across four major shipbuilding states (South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales)

-  other Australian states and territories will also need to be given sub and shipbuilding work that they can efficiently do. 

More detail on the four majors:

-  home of the AustralianSubmarine Corporation (ASC) in Adelaide
-  ASC's efficiency was/is low as seen in the Collins build and the current Air Warfare Destoyers build (3 for $10 Billion - so far) about 200% over the price of highly efficient shipbuilding countries (eg. South Korea and Spain) 
-  But politically the votes of the 6 Federal Members of Parliament from South Australia were essential for Turnbull to become Prime Minister. 
-  Industry Minister Christopher Pyne is from South Australia

-  its relatively efficient shipbuilder, Austal, is at Henderson, south of Perth. 
-  Henderson is near Australia's main submarine base HMAS Stirling at Rockingham. 
-  making Henderson a logical place to assemble submarines and maintain them. 
-  But politically that may be impossible, even though Julie Bishop, a key kingmaker of Turnbull, is from Western Australia.
- Austal's Mobile Alabama shipyard builds the Independence class littoral combat ship.

Victoria 
-  relatively efficient shipbuilder BAE Systems Australia is at Williamstown dockyard near Melbourne, 
-  has a highly efficient record of building 10 x ANZAC class frigates 
-  and more lately handled the completion of the 2 x Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock (LHDs)

New South Wales (NSW)
-  Forgacs in Newcastle and in Tomago are involved in ship maintenance and building of ship modules

So the handling of $90 Billion project for the submarines, frigates and patrol vessels is Defence Minister Payne's main challenge and may make or break the Turnbull Government.

Pete

The US Continues to Inflence Australia's Future Submarine Selection in Many Ways

$
0
0
The senior member of Australia's future submarine Expert Advisory Panel, former US Secretary of the Navy, Professor Donald C. Winter (former Corporate Vice President Northrop Grumman). The competitive evaluation process (CEP) has apparently already selected the US made combat system. (Photograph courtesy US Navy)
---
A major challenge for new Defence Minister Payne and Prime Minister Turnbull, concerning the future submarine project, is handling the influence and involvement of the US.

70% of the future submarine may be built in Australia but if Australia accepts the US's pro Japan bid policy then Japan will win. Australia will have to tolerate Japanese inexperience while   Japan attempts to develop the build in Australia project. This may be expensive and risky for Australia.

US influence and involvement issues include:

1. Australia's on the record preference for the US combat system (which is a submarine's sensor-database-weapons package) that may amount to 30% of the cost of the submarine.
-  On February 20, 2015 Defence Minister Andrews declared: "...the Government has endorsed a set of key strategic requirements for our future submarines:...c) The combat system and heavyweight torpedo jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the preferred combat system and main armament." 
-  the US combat system has been modified at high expense then integrated into the Collins
-  see further Australian Ministerial and Defence-DMO support and planning for future use of the US combat system  

2. Given the highly confidential nature of the combat system it may be effectively up to the US which country such technology can be transferred to.
- US technology transfer powers may limit Australian decision-making and also influence how our future submarines are built.
- It is widely believed in the submarine industry that the US would not wish combat system technology transferred to French submarine builders.
- as the US is believed to have already transferred much of its combat system technology to Japan it is assumed that integration of the combat system into a future Australian submarine designed by Japan would not be a problem.
-  parts of the US combat system have been integrated with some German (TKMS) designed submarines. Such as Lockheed Martin modifying Brazil's Tupi (Type 209) class submarines to use US Mark 48 torpedoes  . So TKMS may stand between Japan and France in terms of ease of integration of the US combat system.

3.  The US public endorsement of the Japanese Soryu submarine as the best large submarine may be a continuing US policy.
-  Such a US policy my be counter to Australian media and broader public expectations that the German and French bids are clearly stronger.
-  US pressure on Japan to more fully enter alliances has cost the Abe Government in terms of Japanese public popularity. Japan winning Australia's future submarine competition could be seen as  a reward for Abe's trouble.
-  in terms of proconsular imperium Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, commander of the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, reportedly said Oct. 24 [2014] in Tokyo that then-Australian Defence Minister David Johnston was very interested in Japan’s Soryu-class subs. “I talked to him about it four years ago and I said: ‘You want to find the finest diesel-electric submarine made on the planet - it’s made at Kobe works in Japan,’

4. In terms of the Expert Advisory Panel the US has further influence in the submarine selection process.
-  Of the four Expert Advisory Panellists for the Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) the most senior is an American, Donald C. Winter. He is "senior" by virtue of his position as a former senior politician (US Secretary of the Navy) and former Corporate Vice President Northrop Grumman 
-  This may favour Japan and the US stake in the combat system.

5. The US combat system (known as the AN/BYG-1) is closely integrated with the Collins' current  weapons including: the American made Mark 48 torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles. The combat system is also tailored to the long range US Tomahawk land attack cruise missile system that Australia wishes to mount in the future submarine.

6. There is an argument that integrating the whole US combat system into the winning competitor's submarine design in Australia is more efficient in terms of minimising contractual disputes, commercial-in-confidence problems and US and Australian national security problems.

7. There is a counter argument that greater technical and cost efficiencies can be achieved by integrating the US combat system with the standard systems already used by the three competitors; France (DCNS), Germany (TKMS) and Japan (KHI, MHI and Japanese Government).

Along the lines of 7. - at Submarine Matters' Turnbull Govt New Policy - 70% Future Submarine to Be Built in Australia, September 17, 2015 "MHalblaub" (on behalf of Germany) made some interesting comments on September 21, 2015 8:58 PM along the lines:

Regarding "the combat system I have to mention a few thoughts:
Australia is accustomed to a US system. The US combat system offers inherited access to the US  SeaWeb.
- on the other hand each submarine type offered has a [standard] combat system which is slotted into  other combat systems.

So the question is which way is the better solution?
- fit an US combat system into a submarine or 
- fit features of the US combat system into a [one of the 3 competitors standard] combat systems.

I am under the impression the German ISUS system uses the consoles for either mission related jobs (like sonar tracking) or for submarine system related issues (like monitoring the engines). Each console can do every job. So a US system needs also to operate the whole submarine.

ISUS can already be modified to work with [long range land attack missiles. ISUS already is capable of operating a wide variety of torpedoes including the US Mark 48 torpedo and missiles including the US Harpoon... and other weapon systems.]

So what would be easier? Implement some SeaWeb features into an existing system with the Australian knowledge of the US combat system or implement all the other things into an US system?

It was also a wrong strategy to chose the US System without any competition. I can imagine the price..."


---

Just some of the components of the US made AN/BYG-1 Combat System. The AN/BYG-1 will very likely be integrated into Australia's Future Submarine.

Pete

Industry Minister Christopher Pyne Preempts Major Defence Policy

$
0
0
Industry Minister Christopher Pyne in full flight. His backing of his home state (South Australia) over other states and his manner (nicknamed "the poodle") may not have made him totally Defence Force compatible.
---

The Turnbull Government’s submarine build policies are becoming clearer in the direction of full build in Australia not just a 70% hybrid build as previously expressed. The policies of Defence Minister Marise Payne may have been pre-empted by Federal Minister for Industry, Christopher Pyne [Pyne/Payne will cause confusion…] when Christopher Pyne said the words below on Australia’s ABC, September 23, 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-23/pyne-gives-strong-indication-of-adelaide-sub-build/6797870:

Ministers Christopher Pyne, Jamie Briggs give strong indication of Adelaide submarine build

Federal Industry Minister Christopher Pyne has given his strongest indication yet that a full domestic build of Australia's next fleet of submarines will take place in Adelaide.

During an interview on 891 ABC [radio] Adelaide [on September 23, 2015], the SA-based MP said he wanted the State and Federal Governments to work together.

"The SA Government and Federal Government, will come up [with] a proposal, I hope, for a full domestic build at Osborne,[in Adelaide, South Australia]" he said.

Firms from Germany, France and Japan are competing to build the submarines after former Prime Minister Tony Abbott broke his pre-election promise in 2013 and put the tender out to what he called a "competitive evaluation process".

The South Australian Government wants the Coalition to honour its previous commitment to build the replacement to the Collins Class fleet at Techport, the shipbuilding facility it owns at Osborne in Adelaide.

Mr Pyne was tipped to take over as Minister for Defencefrom Kevin Andrews in Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's recent cabinet reshuffle but the role was instead handed to NSW Senator Marise Payne. [Pete’s Comment - perhaps it was thought Christopher Pyne would too strongly back the interests of South Australia over the interests of other states.]


Pete

China's Anti-Submarine (ASW) Capabilities Boosted - South China Sea, Base Building

$
0
0
Map 1. Around one half of the world's sea trade (including oil tankers) moves from the Indian Ocean, through the Strait of Malacca and into the South China Sea to major markets in China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. The South China Sea can be blocked by China - facilitated by the reef-islands China is turning into bases in the Spratly and Paracel islands (Map 1. courtesy http://fareasternpotato.blogspot.com.au/)
---

Map 2. Simplified map of Spratly Islands showing China's developing naval and air bases at Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef and Mischief Reef. 
---

The Spratly Islands is an ongoing territorial dispute between Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The dispute involves low-level military pressure techniques (such as military occupation of disputed territory, reef base building, sea "militia" actions, coastguard vessels and low flying aircraft harassment) to advance strategic land and undersea oil/gas claims. The sea is heavily used by cargo and warships on it and aircraft over it. All of the above countries except Brunei occupy some of the islands-reefs. The US, India, Japan and Russia are also involved. 

The Paracel Islands in the northern South China Sea are also heavily contested.

Australia's new Prime Minister, Turnbull, made a foreign policy statement on September 21, 2015, which roundly criticised China for its increasingly aggressive activities in the South China Sea (which particularly means the Spratlys as they are nearer to Australia than other disputed islands). He described China as "pushing the envelope". 

China's building of naval and air bases (using rapid sand dredging landfill) in the South China Sea is driving a geographical wedge between (Australia and some Southeast Asian nations) and their strategic and economic allies in Northeast Asia (including Japan and South Korea).

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

CHINESE WEAPONS BEING ESTABLISHED ON ISLANDS-REEFS OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

This island-reef base building has implications for Western/free world submarine operations as it will enhance China's anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities in terms of future deployment on the island bases of such weapons/sensors as:

-  undersea sensor arrays possibly extending from Mischief Reef (see Map 3. below) to China's Hainan Island or the Chinese mainland. "It appears that three acoustic monitoring sensors are linked up to different underwater fibre-optic detection networks."

- ASW aircraft (eg. the Orion like Y-8Q fixed wing and helicopters like the future Z-18F (see below)

- strike fighters (like the J-16J-10)

- emerging air superiority fighters like the future J-31 and  J-20 . The stealthy J-20 may be deployed around 2019 - with 2 engines and long range the J-21 is ideally suited to over water operations

- refueling aircraft

- anti-aircraft and anti-missile missiles

- missiles (cruise and ballistic) with ASW, anti-shipping and land attack capabilities

- ASW warships including new Type 056 corvettes (photo below) and Type 052C detroyers

- island-reef based radar, satellite up/downlink and signals interception stations

Map 3. An increasingly effective anti-submarine (and anti-ship) measure is undersea arrays which connect sensors and can be laced with mines (for remote electronic activation in wartime). China may well have laid a fixed undersea array from (aptly named) Mischief Reef (above map) to Sanya naval base on China's Hainan Island. (Map courtesy Quartz website)
---

China's new Type 056 corvette with numerous sonars (including towed array) and several weapons for ASW ops (Photo courtesy Navy Recognition website)
---

Next Generation Chinese Z-18F ASW helicopterfor finding, tracking and destroying enemy submarines. It is to be outfitted with a sonobuoy launcher, forward looking infrared radar (FLIR) system multi-mode 360° surveillance radar mounted under nose, a dipping sonar, and four weapon stations to carry anti-submarine torpedoes, depth charges and air-to-surface missiles. (Graphic courtesy Chinese Military Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHINA's ISLAND-REEF BASES IN THE SPRATLYS

Below I concentrate on the three most controversial and extensive Chinese air and naval base building efforts in the Spratlys. These are at Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef and Mischief Reef

Fiery Cross (or Yongshu in Chinese) Reef below - Satellite photographs indicate China had almost finished an enclosed harbour and 3,000 meter airstrip below,

Fiery Cross Reef (above) is shown in this handout satellite image dated September 3, 2015 (Satellite image via Reuters).

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

Subi Reef (or "Zhubi" in Chinese) below - with three photos indicating China's rapid progress in sand dredging landfill - April 2015, June 2015 and by August 2015 Subi is almost a completely enclosed harbour. Port facilities and a 3,000 meter airstrip will soon be built.


(Satellite image courtesy Victor Robert Lee and Digital Globe via The Diplomat

Subi (or Zhubi) Reef (above) 2 months later in August 8, 2015 (Satellite image courtesy CSIS/AMTI via Reuters)

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

Mischief Reef - image below shows a dredged sand retaining wall around an area 3,000 meters long for a runway and harbour, matching similar work on Subi and Fiery Cross.
Mischief Reef satellite image (above) dated September 8, 2015 and provided by CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative/Digital Globe September 14, 2015. (Photo via Reuters)

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

As the three reefs are near the Philippines that country is now seeking renewed US involvement in defence issues if at all possible. Japan is also assisting the Philippines with patrol boats and aircraft.

Vietnam is also concerned about the rapid Chinese buildup, hence Vietnam is also seeking and receiving political and some military support from the US, Russia and India.

It appears China's main justification in claiming the South China Sea is the name South China Sea. With rising Chinese national power comes expectations of control in this rising power's region - a type of Chinese Monroe Doctrine.

Pete

Japan willing to build in Aus says Industry Min Pyne, Japan Design Information - Table

$
0
0
Will an enlarged Japanese submarine (similar to the one pictured) win the future submarine competition and be built in Australia?

COMMENT

Industry Minister Christopher Pyne is playing up an aspect of the future submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) that was always there. This is two days since his last major defence announcement? That is that each of the three bidders must supply a Full Build in Australia option. Pyne's assertions today:

-  supports my theory that as the most senior politician (and MP) from South Australia he has to be seen by other South Australian MPs who voted for Turnbull as standing up for the interests of their State.

-  takes account of the possibility that if most of the submarines are not eventually built in South Australia at least he can say he tried. Other politicians, interests and scapegoats can then be blamed.

-  confirm his high status in the new Turnbull Ministry while increasing the safety of his electorate position in South Australia

-  redefine the role of Industry Minister in what under previous Governments would have been a matter for main carriage by the Defence Minister or Prime Minister. This may portend current or future power instability in the Turnbull Government. 

-  the relative lack of Defence Ministerial and Prime Ministerial comment on submarines this week appears to indicate tacit approval by those 2 Ministers with Industry Minister Pyne’s message and his right to communicate it. 

-  presumably new Defence Minister Marise Payne is fully engaged with the 2015 Defence White Paper editing and publication process (which includes more official submarine, future frigate and smaller patrol vessel announcements)

The SEA 1000 CEP is actually for an entirely new submarine that will weigh 4,000 tons (surfaced). The likely cost of 2 to 3 $Billion each (if built in South Australia) needs to be anticipated. This will be the world's heaviest conventional submarine. If new Treasurer, Scott Morrison, is talking of the need for restraint in the CIVILIAN budget why is Australia proposing to build the most expensive conventional submarine ever? 

Is the DEFENCE budget a special interest set apart from other budget realities?

ARTICLE

ABC Online, September 25, 2016 reports.

All three international bidders for the multi-billion-dollar contract to produce Australia's next fleet of submarines would prefer to build in Australia, according to Cabinet Minister Christopher Pyne.

…Industry Minister Mr Pyne has confirmed Japan is open to an Australian build process, and said all three countries were prepared to offer a local build option.

"All three of them are now saying they'd prefer a domestic build,"Mr Pyne told Channel Nine this morning.

…Mr Pyne holds a South Australian seat that is considered marginal and has played up the prospects of Japan's interest in building in Australia.

"As a South Australian that is music to my ears but we will go through the proper processes and we'll make an announce at the appropriate time," he said.


…Labor's defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said he was happy to hear all countries were providing a local build option. But he said Mr Pyne had not indicated that the Government will rule out building the submarines overseas. "When Chris Pyne and Marise Payne and Malcolm Turnbull receive those bids they should only consider the three domestic build bids."

SPECIAL INFORMATION

On a less mainstream media matter special correspondent to Submarine Matters“S” indicated today that:

As [the Japanese Navy] does not like to lengthen submarines, if there is not significant structural change, the length of SS29 [may be laid down 2018 and commissioned 2022 - see table below] is expected to be 84 meters. That is the same as the [current Soryu and future Soryu for Japan] length of  SS28, i.e. 84m.

If the length of SS29 mod-AUS [Japanese designed future submarine for Australia] is 88m (submerged weight = 4500-4600t) for additional fuel and improved endurance - the extra range of 5000nm [to achieve the 11,000 nautical miles range that Australia wants] is achievable without loss of performance in my opinion. I expect some increase (plus 1-2knot/h) in the snorkel speed for 29SS by scaling-up the diesel engines.


The cost of the US combat system integration is not reported, but the cost related to the submarine information processing subsystem consisted of:

 i) computer for calculation on sonar and launch controller and 

ii) display of target is reported. 

The cost of the submarine information display for 19SS in FY2014 is 420M\ (5M$,100\=1.19$)|. [source of information provided to S undisclosed]

SORYU SUBMARINE PRODUCTION-DESIGN TABLE


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
LIB only
2018?
2020?
2022?
MHI







1AU?


 1st Australian class?

2023?
2026?
2029?



















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

Pete

DCNS's Shortfin Barracuda Bid Becoming Clearer

$
0
0

(above) Xavier Mesnet, Development and Marketing Director, Submarines and Surface Ships, DCNS, speaks about DCNS's efforts in support of Shortfin Barracuda for SEA 1000 CEP. 

DCNS also plans to compete in the future frigate (SEA 5000) and smaller patrol vessel (SEA 1180) evaluations. 
---

 

While current French SSNs and SSBNs are shown in this Youtube the computer aided design and command center interiors that go into them would be similar in an Australian Shortfin Barracuda. 
---

DCNS Group opened its DCNS Australia subsidiary on November 19, 2014

PETE's COMMENT

The prospects of French competitor DCNS (led in Australia by Sean Costello former Chief-of-Staff to former Defence Minister David Johnston) may have improved now that a hybrid or full build of the future submarine may occur in Australia.  

DCNS's Shortfin Barracuda bid is firming up as the milestones for the Barracuda SSN become closer.

"Anonymous" (below) speaks with authority and there are no noticeable language differences that require cleaning up.

ANONYMOUS' COMMENTS

In Comments for Submarine Matters’ article Shortfin Barracuda Bid Maybe Competitive But Still Sketchy of September 16, 2015. “Anonymous” on September 20, 2015 10:11 AM said:

“Barracuda first of type construction is complete. The next 6-8 months will be spent getting systems on line, with sea trials likely to start before mid-2016. So it's safe to say that the level of risk is being rapidly reduced.

The extent of changes from SSN to SSK is greatly exaggerated on this blog. The front half of the sub will barely change at all. They may simply convert some of the trim tanks to dual use for more transit fuel. There is already storage for some fuel aboard as evidenced by the presence of two emergency diesels. 

Only one hull section (rearmost propulsion section) will require complete redesign, in order to accommodate diesels, fuel and batteries. This involves a scaling of the Scorpene propulsion module, using similar components. Hardly revolutionary stuff however. There will certainly be no arbitrary down-scaling of hull thickness, or complete redesign of 80% of the hull components.

All the talk about methanol reforming is off base. The AIP solution - if required by the client - will be 2nd generation fuel cell. This has been demonstrated at scale, on land, so is somewhat more advanced than just a paper design, though still early days. If the customer is smart, they will order the first sub without AIP, and give the technology time to mature. Better to retrofit a fully mature AIP module at a later date, than to make such a critical selection now when the technology is advancing so fast (certainly faster than the submarine build process!).

Without AIP, Shortfin will be closer to 4,200t (surfaced), having one less hull module than Barracuda SSN. The reduced length to diameter would actually improve drag.

The US may indeed kill Shortfin Barracuda by denying integration of their combat system and weapons. DCNS have expressed their willingness to work with whatever combat system the RAN wants.”

Pete

US and France in Talks with India to Assist India's Nuclear Submarine Program

$
0
0

India's indigenous nuclear testbed submarine INS Arihant. Structure incorporates some Russian and possible French features. Reactor draws on much Russian assistance.
---

Russia has leased INS Chakra II to India. But Chakra's large size and much aging technology may well encourage India to seek French and US help to build a smaller, more modern, SSN.
--- 

COMMENT

India’s news provider The Economic Times (see specific article link below) has reported early discussions of US and French shipbuilders with India regarding possible future assistance for India’s nuclear propelled attack submarine (SSN) program.

The Economic Times article has sufficient detail and the tone to be credible. This is unexpected news. While there have been rumours over the years that France assisted India with some structural features of nuclear submarine Arihant, Russia has been India’s more obvious source of nuclear assistance. 

Over the years Russia:

-  Leased INS Chakra I (a Russian Charlie class SSGN in 1988-91).

-  Assisted India with the reactor and structure for the Arihant – a nuclear propelled testbed submarine, and

-  Has leased to India INS Chakra II - a Russian Akula class multi-purpose nuclear submarine, from 2011 for a 10 year period.

The reasons for the Chakra II lease may be for Indian crew and technicians to gain nuclear experience, probably working with Russian advisers, probably with some technology transfer. Chakra II is most likely non-operational. As Chakra II weighs 8,000 tons (surfaced) it is probably too heavy (with construction and maintenance costs too high) to be a prototype SSN for India. As the Chakra II-Akula class is a 30 year old design its technology may be too dated and loud in operation to be used as India's model SSN - to launch a class of 6 Indian SSNs over the next 20 years. Russia’s much more modern Yasen class SSGNalso suffers from being 8,000 tons (surfaced) probably too heavy for India’s budget or needs.

As well as selling nuclear technology to India France may see the technology as a sweetener for France to win the Project-75I tender for 6 AIP SSKs. In doing so France could head-off any Russian strategy to offer further nuclear submarine assistance jointly with 6 Kilos or Amur SSKs to India for Project-75I. France’s Barracuda SSN (see the article below) would be more the size, 4,765 tons (surfaced), and modernity that India wants in an SSN.

The US has much submarine technology (eg. sonars, combat system features, better reactors and vertical launch systems) that India would find attractive. This is also in the context of India now being the US’s second largest conventional weapons buyer.

If the talks with the US and France concerning SSNs fall through, India may always gain in terms of leveraging more sensitive nuclear submarine technology from Russia. Any Russian, US or French technical assistance for an Indian SSN would also flow through to India’s SSBNs which are still under development.

Submarine Matters article India's Unnamed Project for 6 SSNs Begins, May 29, 2015 carried an Indian report that India wanted 6 SSNs, mainly based in or near Visakhapatman (the main naval base on India’s east coast) orientated against the geostrategic threat from China. Such a threat would probably come from Chinese SSNs and SSBNs and perhaps eventually Chinese carrier groups. 

Issues for Australia

For Australia the prospect of the US and France helping regional power India with key nuclear technology is less of a proliferation worry because India already has nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons. It is hoped that India would not use its nuclear submarine force to dominate the Indian Ocean in ways detrimental to Australia.

If talks eventually lead to a joint US-France-India build of a small, more economical, SSN then that may be a much more useful future nuclear propelled submarine to sell to Australia than the overly large and crew intensive Virginia SSN or limited reactor Barracuda SSN. Of course Australia is not contemplating buying nuclear submarines for the foreseeable future.

ARTICLE


India may get US, French cos as partners for building nuclear submarines

NEW DELHI: For the first time India has options when it comes to finding a partner to build a military nuclear asset. Besides Russia, ship builders from France and the US have started initial conversations with the defence ministry on participating in an Indian effort to build a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines 

Russia has been the traditional ally of India when it comes to sensitive technology and strategic systems 

But a Navy plan for constructing six new nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) to patrol the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and beyond has prompted 'discussions' with the two western nations, sources familiar with the development told ET. The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared Navy's proposal in February. 

The Indian SSN project — expected to cost over Rs 1 lakh crore [more than US$5 Billion] — is an ambitious plan to design and produce a nuclear attack boat with the help of the private sector. If this materialises, it will propel India into a select league of the five nuclear powers that have such a capability. SSNs are nuclear powered submarines, but do not carry nuclear warheads, relying instead on conventional weapons and stealth to hunt ships and other submarines. The last country to enter this club was China in 1974 with its Han class boats. 

Sources told ET that senior representatives from the submarine branch of a leading US conglomerate have met key Indian defence ministry officials regarding the project. The efforts included a top level meeting in July. The discussions have been kept low key given the sensitivity of the project and details are not available. 

Similarly, French representatives have also approached the Indian side for exploring avenues for cooperation on the project in the past few months. While the French submarine manufacturer has not commented on the project, the Indian side is interested in the new 'Barracuda' SSN being developed by French ship builder DCNS. A senior DCNS representative refused to take questions on the matter. 

The new nuclear submarine for the French Navy is currently under construction and is expected to start sea trials by next year. The Barracuda was also showcased at the Defence Expo held in New Delhi last year. As reported by ET, India is also in talks with Russia to lease a nuclear attack submarine — a newly built, customised boat that could give engineers a first-hand look at construction technology and process.”

Unlike a nuclear missile armed submarine (SSBN) that is designed to carry out a nuclear strike, nuclear propelled attack boats (SSNs) are considered less sensitive, with their primary role being hunting vital enemy naval ships and submarines. While foreign assistance on SSBNs is a complex matter, there have been examples of nations sharing non-nuclear technology for SSNs. France is at present assisting Brazil with its first nuclear submarine project. The deal involves France helping Brazil with the non-nuclear components of the submarine, with the South American nation using its own reactor and fuel.

India's first SSBN, the INS Arihant, is currently undergoing sea trials in Vizag. It is expected to carry out a weapons test shortly. The only SSN in service with the Navy at present is the INS Chakra, an Akula class submarine on a 10 year lease from Russia to train Indian crew for such operations. 

FURTHER COMMENT

Please link with:





Pete

Positive Response to HMAS Sheean's visit to India and Malaysia

$
0
0
Submarine HMAS Sheean in Vishakhapatnam Harbour, India's Fleet Base East. Sheean participated in AUSINDEX-15, September 2015 (Photo courtesy Australian Defence).
---

Collins class submarine, HMAS Sheean, exercised off Vishakhapatnam, in September 2015, with Australian, Indian vessels and Indian P-8I Neptune ASW aircraft.
---

HMAS Sheean then sailed to Butterworth port, Penang, Malaysia, September 2015, for R&R (Photo courtesy New Straits Times Online)
---

Note Penang (state capital George Town), is a small island on northwest coast of Peninsuala  Malaysia. HMAS Sheean is then sailing, October 2015, to Sepanggar Naval Base, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia (on island of Borneo (on island of Borneo – on right). Ambalat contested undersea oil area is just south of Tawau, Sabah. Malaysia is in two main parts (Peninsuala and on Bornea) which complicates Malaysia’s naval functioning!
---

COMMENT

Submarine news from Malaysia reaches international headlines infrequently - peace reigns. A day ago Australia’s Collins class HMAS Sheean tied up at Butterworth port, Penang, Malaysia (see photo and map above) for some rest and recuperation for the crew.

In September 2015 Sheean voyaged from Fleet Base West, Rockingham, Western Australia to exercise off India’s east coast base at Visakhapatnam in AUSINDEX-15. Along with Sheean were HMAS Sirius (replenishment ship), HMAS Arunta (Anzac class frigate) and a RAAF P-3 Orion. Indian warships included INS Shivalik (frigate), INS Ranvijay (destroyer) and INS Shakti (fleet tanker). Most deadly for Sheean may have been the participation of one of India’s new P-8I Neptune (not Poseidon in Indian service) maritime patrol aircraft.

In October 2015 Sheean will proceed to Malaysia’s Sepanggar Naval Base, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. That base is not coincidentally near to the Ambalat undersea oil area that is an issue of some dispute with Malaysia’s neighbour Indonesia. Naturally Australia is neutral regarding Ambalat. Sheean will exercise with one of Malaysia’s two Scorpene class submarines, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman

After the exercise HMAS Sheean will return to Fleet Base West, Rockingham.

ARTICLE

Singapore’s AsiaOne, September 29, 2015, reports http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/ferry-users-get-pleasant-sub-prise

"Ferry users get a pleasant sub-prise

BUTTERWORTH - The jaw-dropping sight of a jet black submarine crossing paths with ferries here turned a humdrum morning commute into an exciting ride for a few hundred ferry passengers [see Sheean and Penang ferry in photo above].

The 77.42m-long Australian submarine had ferry commuters busy clicking on their mobile cameras and posting pictures on social media yesterday.

HMAS Sheean from Australia is here for the crewmen's holiday before they start a joint exercise with a Malaysian submarine later.

It rolled into Butterworth's deep-water wharf where tugboats nudged alongside it at 11.30am.

Since the news hit The Star Online yesterday, readers have called asking if they could go to the wharf for a closer look. The wharf, however, is off-limits to the public.

Submarine Commander Jason Cupples said the crew was here for a visit.

The Collins-class submarine will be involved in the joint exercise with Scorpene-class submarine KD Tunku Abdul Rahman in Kota Kinabalu on Oct 12 and 13.

"We have 60 crew members who want to experience the local cultures and food. "The submarine will be here until Oct 2," Cupples said.

Retiree Ahmad Ishak, 57, heard about the submarine's arrival and brought his five-year-old grandson on a ferry ride just to get a closer view of the vessel. "I've never seen a submarine before, although the Royal Malaysian Navy has two. "It's truly an experience to see such top-secret military transport docked right here," he said when met on the ferry at the Sultan Abdul Halim Ferry Terminal yesterday.

Student Koh Zhi Zhang, 14, from SKM Hwa Lian in Temerloh, Pahang, said it was also his first time seeing a submarine. "This is my first time in Penang and I'm so lucky to see it," he said.

In a statement, the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) said the Australian crew was also planning a courtesy call on the naval officer in Penang.

HMAS Sheean will return to Fleet Base West, Australia once the exercise concludes, the RMN spokesperson added.

The vessel is armed with guided surface-to-air missiles, sub-surface guided torpedoes and mines, and has a surface range of 11,500 nautical miles and a dived range of 400 nautical miles."

Pete

Royal Navy finding it Difficult to Recruit Submariners

$
0
0

Life on a Royal Australian Navy submarine.
---


US Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Andrew Crandall describes his job as a fire control technician on the USS Montpelier SSN,
---


In 2010 UK TWOSIX.tv presenter Kate McIntyre visited HMS Torbay (an SSN) to take a look at the roles and life on board a Royal Navy submarine and to talk to submariners and their families
---

Perhaps all navies (except the US Navy) have trouble recruiting and retaining submariners. 
James Dunn, for MailOnline, via Daily Mail Australia, August 23, 2015, reports http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3207736/Youngsters-don-t-want-serve-Royal-Navy-submarines-t-log-Facebook-waves.html

Youngsters don't want to serve on Royal Navy submarines because they can't log on to Facebook while under the waves

•   Submariners spend up to 90 days under water on tours lasting up to a year
•   It's a problem for the Navy which saw 1,740 sailors quit early in 12 months
•   Consultants helping recruit says people now want better work life balance
•   Submariner role asks too big a lifestyle change for social media generation

The Royal Navy is struggling to recruit young people as they are no longer willing to tolerate the isolation of underwater life.

It's part of a wider trend that has seen all the armed forces struggling to meet recruitment targets as the social media generation expect more from their employers.

The news has emerged as part of research by PA Consulting which has been trying to help the Royal Navy tackle its staff shortages.

Nick Chaffey, head of defence consulting, told TheSunday Telegraph that society has moved faster than we think over the last few decades. 'For example, the fact that if you are a submariner, you are locked in a tin can under the water and that's it for at least a considerable chunk of time.

'The fact that you are disconnected from the world wide web and Twitter is actually a significant barrier to recruiting young people.

'You have got a disconnect between the needs of the role, and potentially the excitement of the role and the expectation and demands of the next generation of employee.'

The firm claims that young people now expect more from their employers, change jobs more often and look for a better work life balance.

Its led to a slowing in recruitment and swathes of soldiers, sailors and airmen leaving the ranks which has meant numbers have dipped below the government's downsizing target of 82,000 three years before the deadline.

This is despite multi-million pounds media campaigns to attract new recruits.

Submariners can expect to spend up to 90 days underwater at a time but tours can last nearly a yer, with six and a half months spent submerged.

In the Navy, 1,740 sailors quit early in the last 12 months,  higher rate than in the Army or RAF.
Mr Chaffey said it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract bright young people when they are expected to make such a drastic change to their lifestyle." see WHOLE ARTICLE

Pete

Likely Specs of the Future Japanese Submarine for Australia

$
0
0
The Soryu first of class (No. 501) - what Australia's future submarine may well look like.

This is a work in progress mainly derived from comments by "S" over the last few months. S's information, from what I call the Japanese military-industrial complex, has frequently been unique and inline with other open sources. I will update and fill out details as new information and corrections come in.

There is a firmer Japanese intention to build the future submarines in Australia. See Reuters' excellent article Japan says ready to build all submarines for Canberra in AustraliaSeptember 29, 2015.

I'm under the impression that Japan will likely win. The US probably still wants that. A winner needs to be qualified to receive the mainly US developed combat system which Australia has already announced Australia will use as a "key strategic requirement" (see item c) See Lockheed Martin Combat System Laboratory that has just opened at Mawson Lakes un Adelaide. If not Japan then probably Germany. 

The internal Japanese name for Australia's submarine class is (as at September 2015) SS29 mod-AUS. See the Soryu Table below. Japan is making a 29SS first for its own Navy. Japan's 29SS will , perhaps be laid down in Kobe, Japan in 2018. 

If Australia accepts that 29SS will be a part-prototype for the 8 to 12 SS29 mod-AUS submarines to be built in Australia then the Australian sub is unlikely to use Air Independent Propulsion (AIP). Australia did not use AIP in the Collins and "no-AIP" was one of the enlightened decisions involving the Collins. AIP involves high cost, heavy weight additions, balance-buoyancy problems and most importantly can be particularly dangerous due mainly to poison and/or explosive gases. However Australia is likely to use Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) that are becoming the standard high capacity, quickly charged battery type.


On the issue of less than 30 year operational life the preferred Japanese measure seems to be comparing the Japanese sub with German and French subs according to days actually on operational missions. However, I think non-operational time in salt water (which can rust/corrode hulls) at Fleet Base West should also be taken into account.

The hull structure will be partly double and partly single hull instead of the all single hull on the Collins.

The pressure hull will not use Japan's most secret pressure hull steel alloy known as naval steel NS-110. Instead an alloy that is easier to cut and reweld (for major maintenance in Australia) will be used. I would guess that it may have a US scale HY value of HY-120 or HY-130. Countries involved in formulating a new or existing alloy would include Australia, Japan, maybe the US and possibly also Sweden. Given experience with Collins steel Australia has demonstrated it can make submarine steel. Australia making the steel (probably at Wollongong or Newcastle) might be considered part of the 70%-80% of the “Full Australian” build.

SPECIFICATIONS

Length:
88 meters [source S comment Sept 26, 2015 3:17AM
Beam:
9.3 meters [approx - up from current Soryu measure of 9.1 meters]
Draft:

8.5 meters [approx - this is current Soryu measure]
Displacement:

3,600 tons (surfaced) / 4,500-4,600 tons (submerged) [source for all 
displacement figures S comment Sept 26, 2015 3:17AM]

Speed:

13 knots surfaced / 20+ knots max submerged [current Soryu]
 10 knots cruise [approx]
Range:
10,000+ nautical miles [approx] at 10 knots  [approx?]
Crew:
60 [approx?]
Operational depth:
900 feet (275 meters) test depth [same as "shallow" official Soryu depth]
Propulsion:


Diesel-Electric using Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)
2 or 3 Kawasaki 12V25/25SB diesel engines [or are MTU 4000 sub versions  available?]
6+ MW [approx] permanent magnet motor [APDR Oct 2015 edition, Vol. 41, No.8, page 44]
4,500 hp surfaced [est extrapolation]/ 8,500 hp submerged [est extrapolation]
1 shaft / 1 propeller
Armament:
6 x 21-inch (533mm) torpedo tubes for 30 Mk 48 torpedoes or sub-launched Harpoon SSM or Tomahawk land attack or mines or UUVs. No VLS.

                                         AN/BYG-1 combat system with compatible sonars + other sensors
                                        
                                         Maybe detachable Dry Deck Shelter for divers or 
                                         diver delivery vehicle or LDUUV

est = estimated, extrapolating from Soryu

approx = approximate, extrapolating from Soryu
------------------------------------

The increase in displacement (surfaced) up from 2,900 tons (for the Soryu) to 3,600 tons for the SS29 mod-AUS, is probably due to the need for extra diesel fuel (for 10,000+ nautical miles range, up from 6,000) and more diesel engine capacity for faster Lithium-ion Battery charging requirements.

SORYU TABLE 
(which provides the context from which the Australian submarine will be developed)

One of the strengths of Japan overseeing the build of the Australian submarine is that the Japanese military-industrial complex (Japanese Ministry of Defence, Navy, KHI and MHI) is very stable but also constantly innovates.

Each of the Soryus (in the table below) is built on the lessons of each previous Soryu. The Soryu as a group have been developed on the basis of the preceding Oyashio class (11 subs, 1998 - present)  and Harushio class (7 subs, 1990 - 2 may be still training/testbeds).


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
LIB only
2018?
2020?
2022?
MHI







AUS


 SS29 mod-AUS

2023?
2026?
2029?
in Aus


















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

I'll add new figures, comments and corrections as they come to hand.

Pete

Narco Subs and Low Profile Vessels Run Drugs

$
0
0
Semi-submersibles ('Snorkel Subs') capable of ballasting down to lower their surface profile, and controlling their running depth, but not fully submerging. These are quite rare with only a few ever captured. (Photo and description courtesy H I Sutton)
---

This Japanese WWII Type A Ko-hyoteki mini-sub, captured by US forces on Guam, may be one source of inspiration for the size and even color of the Snorkel Sub at the top. Do drug lords do research?
---

As with all matters submarine it was only a matter of time before Submarine Matters touched on Narco-Subs. A narco-submarine (also called narco-sub, drug sub and Bigfoot submarine) is a type of custom-made ocean-going motorised submersible or low profile vessel (LPV) built by drug traffickers to smuggle. They are especially popular with South American drug cartels to export cocaine to Mexico, then overland to the US.

The first known vessels, date to 1993, were low profile vessels (LPVs) that could not dive: most of the craft was sat low with little more than the cockpit and the exhaust gas pipes above the water. Newer narco-submarines are semi-submersible with snorkels designed specifically to be difficult to detect visually or by radar, sonar and infrared systems.

By 2008, US officials say they were spotting an average of ten per month, but only one out of ten was intercepted. Few were seized, as their crews scuttle them upon interception and they sink within a minute or so. By 2009, the US detected as many as 60 narco sub related events.

Cargoes carried are typically several tons of cocaine. They cost up to two million dollars to construct, the submarines can move enough cocaine in a single trip to make a small profit.

They are often assembled in the Columbian jungle/mangroves including heavy equipment such as propulsion gear and generators. Despite the costs, some of the craft are intended for one-time use, being abandoned at sea after a successful delivery such are the profits – but high dangers from law enforcement and other cartels.  

The design and manufacturing techniques employed in their construction have reflected skill and verve not often seen in Columbian society. The boats have become faster, more seaworthy, and of higher capacity than earlier models. An 18 m long narco-submarine can reach speeds of 18 km/h and carry up to 10 tons of cocaine. They are typically made of fiberglass, powered by a 225-260 kW diesel engine and manned by a crew of four. They have enough cargo space to carry two to ten tons of cocaine, carry large fuel tanks which give them a range of 3200 kilometers, and are equipped with satellite navigation systems. There is no toilet, and accommodation is cramped.

The complicated routes of narco-subs and suface vessels from South America through Mexico (on land) to the US. See red arrows from bottom of map from Columbia to Acapulco and  Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico.
---

Because much of its structure is fiberglass and it travels barely under the surface, the vessel is nearly impossible to detect via sonar or radar, and very difficult to spot visually. The newer models pipe their exhaust along the bottom to cool it before venting it, making the boat even less susceptible to infrared detection. They are most easily spotted visually from the air, though even that is difficult as they are camouflaged with blue paint and produce almost no wake. They have ballast tanks to alter the vessel's buoyancy so that they ride low in the water.

Typical Narco-Sub Specifications

Hull material: wood, fiberglass, or steel 

Length 12–24 m

Freeboard 0.5 m

No Li-ion Batteries 

Engines: single or twin diesel

Fuel capacity: 5.6 cubic metres

Range: 3,200 kilometers

Speed: 11 km/h or more

Crew: 3

Capacity 4 — 12 metric tons

Control: human or remote

On 3 July 2010 the Ecuadorian authorities seized a fully functional, completely submersible diesel electric submarine in the jungles bordering Ecuador and Colombia. It had a cylindrical fiberglass and Kevlar hull 31m long, a 3m conning tower with periscope, and air conditioning. The vessel had the capacity for about 10 tonnes of cargo, a crew of five or six people, the ability to fully submerge down to 20m, and capable of long-range underwater operation.

The most common "semi-submersible" are low profile vessels (LPVs) like the one above. A boat designed to run awash - very low to minimize radar cross-section and almost no visual silhouette. (Photo and description courtesy H I Sutton)
---------

In August 2005, U.S. authorities discovered an unmanned semi-submersible in the Pacific Ocean. What they discovered was a "torpedo"-style cargo container (instead of a full-featured self-propelled ship). It used a ballast tank (submersion control) to keep it at about 30m under water while being towed by a boat. This particular "torpedo" was planned to be towed by a fishing vessel. If a patrol ship is spotted, the "torpedo" cargo container is released. While still submerged, it was designed to automatically release a buoy (concealed as a wooden log so as to be mistaken for marine debris by authorities. The buoy contains a mechanism to temporarily raise and then lower its antenna and transmit its coordinates in encrypted form a few times per day.

Smugglers normally unload their cargo onto fast power boats for the final leg to shore and the semi-submersible is scuttled. None have been sighted unloading at North American ports or beaches. In 2006, a 10 metre long sub was found abandoned on the northern coast of Spain, where the authorities suspect the crew had unloaded a cargo of cocaine before fleeing. In March 2006, the Calabrian mafia ('Ndrangheta) ordered a shipment of 9 tonnes of cocaine to be transported by a narco-submarine from Colombia to Italy, but the vessel was discovered by the Colombian police while it was still under construction. More see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine


Inside of a low profile vessels (LPV) with the engine/fuel balancing the 100+kgs drugs in the bow-cargo hold.(Diagram courtesy H I Sutton).


Legal situation

When semi-submersibles are stopped at sea, their crews usually scuttle them, sending both the boat and the cocaine to the bottom in a minute or so and leaving no evidence of trafficking. Until 2008, in accordance with maritime law, the crew was rescued and, if there was no physical evidence of wrongdoing, released without criminal charges. To address this legal loophole, the US Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act was enacted in September, 2008, making it a "felony for those who knowingly or intentionally operate or embark in a self-propelled semi-submersible (SPSS) that is without nationality and that is or has navigated in international waters, with the intent to evade detection." The penalty is a prison term of up to twenty years in the U.S.

National security issues related to torpedo style cargo containers, semi-submersible vessels, and submarines used for smuggling and/or terrorist activities were reviewed in an August 2012 article in Homeland Security Affairs. Also presented are behaviours indicating shifts in methods of operating by drug traffickers and the corresponding risk to national security.

Depth charges and 20mm canon are proving increasingly effective in deterring narco-subs while dispensing with court costs.

Pete

Indian Submarine Propulsion Reactor Needs - Arihant, Aridhaman & Chakra II

$
0
0

Kalpakkam nuclear enclave 45 km south of  Chennai is on India's lower east coast. At Kalpakkam submarine test reactors and other nuclear facilities are located. Kalpakkam is part of  the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) India's military nuclear organisation. For a much larger map click on http://www.newindigo.eu/uimg/AtomicEnergyEstablishmentsinIndia.jpg (Courtesy Creativity India
---


Photo of Arihant's land based prototype reactor at Kalpakkam which went critical on November 11, 2003, was declared operational on September 22, 2006 and photographed (above) in early August 2009 (Courtesy The Hindu).
---

Please connect with Submarine Matters US and France in Talks with India to Assist India's Nuclear Submarine Program, September 29, 2015.

The Indian indigenous nuclear submarine program, that produced the Arihant, continues under some  secrecy. Secrecy is not total because Kalpakkam and its parent organisation, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), need to demonstrate to politicians and the public that the large amounts of taxpayers money is spent wisely with progress made in the nuclear projects.   

•  Work on the Indian nuclear sub program dates from the 1970's and was referred to as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) Project .

•  The prototype nuclear propulsion plant at Kalpakkam (see photo and map above) was developed under the program "Plutonium Recycling Project" or "PRP" under direction of BARC or Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC). Kalpakkam nuclear enclave is 45 km south of  Chennai on the lower east coast of India.  

•  The 
Kalpakkam-Arihant prototype plant went critical on November 11, 2003 and after further development was declared operational on September 22, 2006. It was only shown to the press once, in early August 2009, about one week after the July 26, 2009 launch of the Arihantitself. Apparently only one photo (above) was cleared for distribution. 

•  Most sources list the prototype and the Arihant reactors as being rated at 82.5 MW. 
There are around 13 fuel assemblies with each assembly having 348 fuel pins.



Major components of Arihant's reactor were made by Indian companies, including:
-  the reactor vessel, made of special grade steel by Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi. 
-  steam generator by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and 
-  Pressure valves were made by Audco India, Chennai.

ARIHANT's REACTOR PERFORMANCE

There is a great deal of difference between a nuclear propulsion reactor in a submarine and a land-based atomic power station to produce electricity. While a land-based atomic power plant gets backup from other power stations on the electrical grid, a submarine nuclear propulsion reactor only has some weak diesel engines for emergency backup. A propulsion reactor has to be miniaturised to fit into the confined space of a submarine and be lightweight but strong enough to endure the shock due to moderately powerful underwater explosions. The reactor must also withstand the pitch and roll of a submarine. The reactor must also be capable of rapidly accelerating and decelerating the submarine - unlike a land-based power plant which ramps up gradually.

The Arihant's 83 MW reactor went critical after many sea trials. Extrapolating from known data on Russian submarines and their reactors - the Akula class has a 190 MW reactor but turbines that are rated at just 32MWGoing by the roughly 20 percent power rule here, the turbines on the Arihant are likely to be around 15 MW, or about 20,000 horsepower. Rating them at higher than that doesn't seem to make much sense, and the figures placing them at 47,000 hp (on wiki right sidebar) seems ludicrous - that sort of power would propel the Arihant's estimated 6,000 tons (surfaced) (perhaps 7,000 tons submerged) bulk past 37 knots (like a high speed SSN). A lower power rating and a speed in the SSBN range of 24 knots seems far more likely. A ballistic missile submarine isn't meant to sprint across the oceans - it's meant to be a ghost, running silent and deep, popping up to deliver its apocalyptic cargo when the time calls.

Arihant, with its 83 MW reactor, must be considered an interm and experimental test bed. The 83 MW reactor is not powerful enough for the second of class INS Aridhaman SSBN. Aridhaman, to carry a larger missile load, may weigh around 8,000 tons (surfaced). So a more powerful reactor, approaching Chakra II's 190 MW reactor, may be India's objective. 

INDIA INTERESTED IN CHAKRA II'S 190 MW REACTOR

A major reason for India funding Chakra II (ex Nerpa Akula's) completion and 10 year lease is Indian interest in developing a reactor with something approaching 190 MW.  It is logical to assume that India has a prototype 190 MW reactor at Kalpakkam with Russian advisers for technology transfer. The Akula SSNs, like Chakra II, use the OK-650 reactor rated at 190 MW. It uses a low end 20%-45% HEU reactor. The OK-650 may have been first used 1980 and is still being placed on new Russian submarines - such as 2 on the Borei SSBN in 2009. The OK-650 and other 190 MW Russian submarine reactors are made by the OKBM Afrikantov company.


Of nuclear submarine powers India may still have reactors less advanced than China's but ahead of Brazil. The most advanced remains the US. USS Nautilus was launched in January 1954 and its reactor went critical in December 1954, under two years after the land based prototype went critical. The US provided the UK with its best reactors and helped the UK build copies. France may have received direct US-UK assistance or they tacitly permitted "espionage" by France.

INDIA INTERESTED IN FRENCH AND US REACTOR ASSISTANCE

As at September 2015 India appears to be encouraging Russia, France and the US to compete in providing nuclear submarine assistance to India. Russia is an overt provider of assistance while France and US may claim that are not actually assisting in Indian submarine reactor development.


Biswajit Pattanaik advised in Comments[Oct 2, 2015 8:42PM] India may want a reactor similar to the K15, 150 MW that France has in the Barracuda SSN. Years ago a retired Indian Navy Admiral said the Navy asked BARC to develop a 190 MW with HEU for possible use for the 2nd Vikrant class aircraft carrier and future SSBNs and SSNs that will appear after 2025 time frame. Biswajit understands India is seeking French assistance to increase the life of the Indian reactor from the current 5-8 years to around 10-15 years. India may also be talking to French reactor builder AREVA about converting the K15 from LEU to a new HEU type reactor. 

Ultimately India would be very interested in developing a reactor approaching the capabilities of the US Virginia class's ninth generation S9G reactor which uses higher HEU of 90+ % and lasts the lifetime of a submarine (33 years).

SOURCES

Sources used include:

 -  Atomic Power Review, August 11, 2013:

-  On the Wings of a White Swan, also August 11, 2013, and 

-  "Warhawk, Jun 23, 2014"

Pete

TKMS Reducing Reliance on ASC in South Australia?

$
0
0
Chairman of TKMS Australia, Dr John White. (Photo courtesy Noelle Bobrige via News Corp Australia)
---


 Model of a TKMS Type 216, the German contender for Australia's future submarine, at a defence exhibition. (Youtube published December 5, 2013).
---


Full cutaway of a TKMS Type 216 (Courtesy defense-update
---


Part cutaway of TKMS Type 216. Note at least one Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock (for Tomahawk cruise missile vertical launch and other uses) and some larger torpedo tubes (for swim out capability or LDUUVs). Crew may be an efficient 35. A small crew that takes into account Australia's usual  crew shortages). (Diagram courtesy TKMS via news com au). 
---


COMMENT

TKMS in the West Australian (see article below) considers shipbuilders at Henderson, Western Australia, as more than capable of building sections of submarines and/or assemble whole subs. But TKMS is also saying most of the work can still be done in South Australia and that the Type 216 will have a longer range than the proposed Australian Soryu.

Much of the Future Frigate and Offshore Patrol Vessel work was prematurally promised to South Australia by Abbott on August 4, 2015. The work was meant to be announced after the planned October release of the 2015 Defence White Paper. But Abbott rushed forward the announcement to ensure MPs from South Australia voted for him in any leadership spill - this did not work.

Abbott's haste has confused the normal process of dividing up of shipbuilding work - a process that usually takes years. Clearly South Australia cannot get most of the work in Future Frigate and Offshore Patrol Vessel assembly AND Submarine assembly.

Now that South Australia feels entitled to all three shipbuilding projects this is an unworkable expectation from the point of view of other States and the new Turnbull Federal Government. This  entitlement would also compound ASC's famous inefficiency. ASC, which wishes to assemble the subs in South Australia, is currently building 3 Air Warfare Destroyers at a cost of AU$10 Billion (so far). That is 200% more expensive than the world's most efficient shipyards, in Spain and South Korea.

Hence contenders like TKMS (while being asked to compete themselves) are also trying to encourage some competition between the major Australian shipbuilders.

TKMS is hedging that work can be done in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria. New Defence Minister Marise Payne, from NSW, will also need to guarantee that sections will be built in NSW.

One only hopes a Collins II "efficiency build" is not repeated - in Adelaide or elsewhere.

ARTICLE


Nick Butterly (in Canberra) for The West Australian, October 5, 2015, reports, https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29720117/german-company-backs-wa-for-subs/ :

German company backs WA for subs

TKMS "...says WA could play a central role in building Australia’s next generation submarine if it wins the multibillion-dollar contract to replace the ageing Collins Class fleet.

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems believes the shipbuilding infrastructure at Henderson, south of Perth, is world-class and would be perfect for building sections of boats - or even entire submarines.

“There’s the capacity to do the whole submarine there if you wanted to,” TKMS Australia chairman John White said. “It’s really just a question of what the Government wants to do.”

TKMS is considered the leading contender to win the submarine contract after Tony Abbott was removed as prime minister. 

...[Nevertheless] "TKMS would base the bulk of its submarine work in Adelaide, where thousands of manufacturing jobs had been lost because of the death of the local car industry.

...WA-based shipbuilder Austal has long said that it would like to play some role in the submarine contract - possibly managing the project...."WHOLE ARTICLE

Please connect with Submarine Matters' Australia's $90 Billion Naval Shipbuilding More Complex Under New Government, September 29, 2015

Pete
Viewing all 2353 articles
Browse latest View live