Submarine & Other Matters

Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida (left), Defence Minister Gen Nakatani (center), and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (right) (Photo courtesy gettyimages on Asahi Shimbun)

---

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with the women in his Ministry. Defence Minister Marise Payne (front row, left), Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (front row, between Turnbull and Kelly O'Dwyer's baby :) (Photo courtesy Reuters)

---

Japan and Australia sharing the same region gives Japan an important advantage over the French and German competition for the Future Australian submarine sale. The annual "2 + 2" talks between Japan and Australia cement the ongoing defence relationship (see Article below).

The next 2 + 2 talks may next occur in late November 2015. This meeting time may be favourable for Japan, when Japan, Germany and France put in their final bids by the November 30, 2015 deadline.

Japan and Australian have had a friendly high level regional relationship (political, economic, security etc) since 1951.

France has referred to Australia's alliance relations with France in World War One as part of its sales campaign. "It is more than 100 years since the Anzac legend was forged in places like Fromelles and the Somme in France, and today Australia and France remain the strongest of allies,” it says.“Our shared military heritage provides a solid foundation for a new endeavour to further strengthen this time honoured relationship.”

But World War One was a century ago. Australia has had much more recent frosty relations with France over: French nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific from 1966 to 1996. A related incident was France's DGSE spy organisation in 1985 blowing up a peace ship, Rainbow Warrior in the main harbour of Australia's closest ally, New Zealand. Australia's relations with France have been correct rather than truely friendly - part of the Anglos versus France thing. Maybe a high risk arms deal will change all that.

Australia, of course, had a combative relationship with Germany in World Wars One and Two, but things have improved.

JAPAN TIMES ARTICLE

"S" drew my attention to the following issue.

The Japan Times, October 26, 2015, reports http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/26/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-australia-planning-two-plus-two-ministers-meeting-late-november/#.VjWVP7crIgt[Pete has added two hyper links]

“Japan, Australia planning ‘two-plus-two’ defence talks for late November

[From Kyodo, Japan] -

Japan and Australia are making final arrangements to hold a meeting of their defence and foreign ministers, possibly in late November, with technological cooperation on submarines to be high on the agenda, according to a Japanese source.

At the “two-plus-two” meeting to be held in Australia, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defence Minister Gen Nakatani [with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister Marise Payne] will also seek to build trust with the new Australian government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that took power in September.

The previous prime minister, Tony Abbott, was known for having close ties with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

These will be the sixth talks of their kind. The last meeting was held in June 2014 in Tokyo.

Australia will be represented by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister Marise Payne.

The talks could be pushed back to December if circumstances do not allow, the government source said Sunday.

Japan is fiercely competing with France and Germany to be selected by Australia as a partner to develop submarines for its navy, with each country urged to submit proposals required for the competitive evaluation process by the end of November.

Australian officials have called it the “largest defence procurement program in its history.”

Japan is crafting a proposal based on the Maritime Self-Defence Force’s Soryu-class diesel-electric submarines, which are considered highly advanced.

The Japanese and Australian ministers are also likely to discuss ways to promote security cooperation and how to deal with China’s growing maritime assertiveness.

Turnbull, who won a sudden party leadership challenge, is labeled by Chinese media as pro-China.

Final arrangements are meanwhile being made for Turnbull to visit Japan in December.

BACKGROUND

From Official Brief http://dfat.gov.au/geo/japan/Pages/japan-country-brief.aspx

Political and security relationship

Australia and Japan have a strong and broad-ranging security partnership. Australia and Japan have taken practical steps to address regional and global strategic challenges of mutual concern. The United States is both Australia's and Japan's most important strategic ally, and the three countries progress cooperation on strategic issues through the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue mechanism. A trilateral leaders’ meeting was held in the margins of the Brisbane G20 Summit in November 2014. Australia and Japan consult regularly on regional security issues, such as North Korea's nuclear activities. The growing Australia-Japan defence relationship includes regular bilateral and trilateral exercises with the United States.

The 2007 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation (JDSC) provides a foundation for wide-ranging cooperation on security issues between Australia and Japan, including in law enforcement; border security; counter-terrorism; disarmament and counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; maritime and aviation security; peace operations and humanitarian relief operations (the two countries have worked closely together in Iraq, East Timor, Pakistan and elsewhere).

The JDSC also established the regular '2+2' talks between foreign and defence ministers. At the fifth 2+2 talks in Tokyo on 11 June 2014, Ministers agreed on recommendations to enhance security and defence cooperation, including the conclusion of negotiations on a defence technology and equipment agreement. Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Abe endorsed these recommendations during Prime Minister Abe’s July 2014 visit to Australia. Previous outcomes of the 2+2 process include an Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreementon defence logistics cooperation, which entered into force on 31 January 2013, and an Information Security Agreement on the sharing of classified information, which entered into force in March 2013.

Australian Prime Minister Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Abe held summit meetings in Tokyo on 7 April 2014 and in Canberra on 8 July 2014. The two leaders decided to elevate the security and defence relationship to a ‘Special Strategic Partnership’. The two leaders also decided to establish a bilateral cyber-policy dialogue to address common cyber threats and discuss ways to strengthen regional and international cooperation…more."

Pete

A US Navy website recruiting Clinical Psychologists http://www.navy.com/careers/healthcare/clinical-care/clinical-psychology.html#ft-key-responsibilities

---

Stress management is a growing area throughout the defence forces of Western countries. On the stresses of submariner life Submarine Matters reported on Royal Navy finding it Difficult to Recruit Submariners, October 1, 2015.

Now Michael Melia of Associated Press, via the US military's Stars and Stripes reports, November 1, 2015 http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-submarine-force-increases-stress-management-services-1.376454

"Navy submarine force increases stress-management services

GROTON, Conn. — The U.S. Navy's elite submarine force is stepping up stress-management services for its sailors, responding in part to elevated numbers of unexpected dropouts among younger service members.

A psychiatrist at Naval Submarine Base New London, Navy Capt. Steven Wechsler, has been meeting with sailors for the last three months at his office on the waterfront, going aboard submarines to introduce himself, and giving talks on issues surrounding deployments. The idea is to engage sailors who might be reluctant to seek out mental health professionals at a military clinic and keep them focused.

It's a model that the Navy intends to replicate at its six other homeports for submarines in Virginia, Georgia, Hawaii, Washington state, southern California and Guam.

Wechsler himself served in the submarine force for years, and he said that experience helps put sailors at ease. He understands the challenges that come with spending weeks at a time inside a cramped metal tube on stealthy missions, with limited communication home to loved ones.

"When the hatch is shut, that hatch is shut. They are contained within that environment," Wechsler said. "Somebody who is maybe a little more introverted is going to run into difficulty because they're in close proximity to other people all the time."

Options for exercise - one of the more popular stress relievers - are limited not only by space, but also concerns about banging around and making noise that could give up a sub's location. So Wechsler works with sailors on other strategies to improve resilience.

The Navy also has been working to overcome a stigma attached to mental health treatment, and officials say the submarine force's approach - a doctor "embedded" on the waterfront - is among several taken by various military communities.

A spokesman for the submarine force, Cmdr. Tommy Crosby, said the new services stem partly from the leadership's recognition of needs among a younger generation of sailors, as highlighted by a higher rate of dropouts - or "unplanned losses" - for mental health reasons. Other submarine force officials have described tendencies among millennials to include more reliance on feedback and less adaptability to setbacks compared to an older generation.

The submarine force's top enlisted sailor, Force Master Chief Wesley Koshoffer, said mental health issues have arisen for some younger sailors when they first encounter significant stress from a failed relationship, failure of a test, or discipline. He said the Navy has been investing more in teaching coping skills, building mentorship programs and other efforts to give sailors confidence to succeed.

The Navy ran a pilot mental health program a few years ago in Norfolk, Virginia, to see if it could cut down on the dropouts. After a year when submarine crews out of Norfolk had 22 "unplanned losses" for mental health reasons, the program cut that number in the following year in 14, according to Capt. Matthew Hickey, the submarine force's chief medical officer.

Wechsler said he has seen the vast majority of his patients return to duty.

"I can be there immediately when they're having a bad day as opposed to letting that bad day fester and develop a symptomatic response," he said."

Pete

Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 crashed (cause unknown) while enroute from the Egyptian coastal resort airport at Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg, Russia, on October 31, 2015. 224 people were killed.

The jet apparently exploded higher than 30,000 feet - too high to be shot down by a small man portable missile MANPAD of the type that may be available to terrorists. A larger, higher altitude, truck mounted missile is unlikely as the heat plume, as such a missile rose up, could be detected by the many satellites focussing on the region. Also experts assume terrorist organisations don't have the ability to use large ungainly, difficult to operate missiles. So - a bomb on board?

(Map diagrams above courtesy Washington Post via Maps On The Web)

---

Sharm El Sheikh Airport, Egypt (looking rudimentary security-wise) where the Russian airliner took off.

---

So how would a Russian security official in the employ of President for Life, Putin report on the crash of Russian airliner Flight 9268?

Even though ISIS (aka IS or ISIL etc) has claimed that it destroyed the plane it is important not to link the crash with Russia's new military venture against ISIS in Syria. There cannot be any contradiction with semi-official Russian news agencies like RT that are spreading the word that it wasn't terrorists.

Egyptian soldiers collecting personal belongings, into body bags, at the crash site (Photo courtesy Associated Press via Huffington Post)

---

The Russian official may be concerned about security standards at secondary Egyptian airports like Sharm el-Sheikh where the Russian airliner took off. The Russian may be concerned that baggage handlers, security gate and customs officers etc may be lax, or the possibility that they are security threats. Only a small minority might be sufficient to facilitate a bomb. That small minority may become significant given Egypt has almost 80 million Sunni Muslims. As ISIS is also very Islamic and overtly Sunni a significant minority of Egyptians might be susceptible to ISIS persuasion.

Unlike countries of the Middle East that have oil, Egypt is not wealthy enough to have all the high tech security equipment and experienced security advisers. Egypt's capital Cairo Airport would have much high tech equipment but less so secondary airports like Sharm el-Sheikh.

Western governments are increasingly coming to the conclusion that a bomb destroyed the plane: "The Americans seem to have reached this conclusion based on intercepted communications messages from the Sinai region."

An Airbus A321 in Metrojet colours - identical to the Russian jet that crashed.

On Putin's orders the Russian security official may well highlight the possibility that any bomb was due to the ongoing Islamic threat to Russia from Russia's client states in the Northern Caucasus. Caucasian Muslims, particularly from Chechnya and Dagestan, have long been designated the major terrorist threat to Russia. The advantage of saying "it might be the constant Caucasian terrorist threat" is that Putin can reduce and deflect any perception that it is Islamic terrorism reacting to Russia's new "boots on the ground" involvement in Syria.

Westerners can identify with Russian concerns given conditions in the Northern Caucasus were a formative influence on the Tsarnaev brothers who committed the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013.

Typically Russian security reacts to a possible Northern Caucasus terrorist bombing by organising an operation against Caucasian radicals, killing some in a shootout (to symbolise revenge) and perhaps finding evidence. See Suspected Volgograd suicide bombings mastermind killed in shootout, in 2014.

Through delay, vagueness and the hint that it is ongoing Caucasian terrorism a Russian foreign policy error and Putin's decision-making are thus saved from criticism by ordinary Russians.

If it was terrorism and a bomb the Russian security official might consider questioning the risks of continued Russian participation in Iraq and Syria, but he will probably remain mute.

Remains of an engine from the crashed Russian airliner (Photo courtesy Maxim Grigoryev/TASS)
---

Passenger waiting at Sharm el-Sheikh airport. Perhaps 20,000 British stranded in Egypt will be evacuated by the UK Royal Air Force from November 6, 2015 (Photo and evacuation tip courtesy BBC via Huffington Post)
---

Pete

China's built-up, militarised island of Subi Reef is just above the center of the map above. With the US informing China beforehand, a US destroyer, USS Lassen, approached close to Subi on October 26, 2015. The South China Sea (see inset map above) stretches from Taiwan in the north to Borneo island and Singapore in the south, Vietnam in the west to the Philippines in the east. That sea's main trouble spots are the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands (which includes Subi Reef).

China is flexing its naval power by claiming that large areas of the South China Sea belong to it. China believes its right is strengthened by a rather weak argument that because the sea in question is most commonly called "South China Sea" it belongs to China under international law.

The US has been the most active country to reject such a Chinese claim. The US is demonstrating the right of ships and aircraft to pass close to islands claimed by China by conducting freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs).

Submarines cannot show the flag unless running on the surface (at a major disadvantage) or sitting in port. But subs can precede, follow up and protect surface ships that are showing the flag.

When USS Lassen (DDG-82) embarked on her freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) on October 26, 2015 she “was accompanied by two [US] maritime surveillance aircraft, a P-8A Poseidon and a P-3 Orion. Pentagon officials leaked information about the FONOP before it took place as well as after it was completed, but refrained from speaking on the record about the mission.”

Lassen's FONOP took her within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef. It is likely that Lassen was preceded by a US SSN from Submarine Squadron (SUBRON) 15, Guam, and possibly another SSN from that SUBRON followed her. These submarines, keeping watch with their extensive passive sonar and intercept systems, protected Lassen from surprises. Surprises would be mainly in the shape of Chinese surface warships and/or submarine activities.

China would anticipate the presence of US submarines for such politically and strategically important operation.

China for its part may have posted some Yuan class submarines along the previously advised route that Lassen took. I suspect Yuans were used because they would be China's best equipped subs to move into the Subi Reef area and wait for the Lassen on October 26. As the Yuan's have air independent propulsion (AIP) and other advances they would be better placed to discretely collect technical intelligence from the Lassen, other US ships and SSNs as these US ships/subs passed by..

DETAILS ON THE US SUBS AND USS LASSEN

Submarine Matters, on June 17, 2015, reported on Submarine Squadron (SUBRON) 15 which consists of 4 SSNs serviced by large shore installations and submarine tender USS Frank Cable all based in Guam. SUBRON 15 supports the activities of the Seventh Fleet headquartered in Yokosuka, Japan. At Yokosuka is Destroyer Squadron 15 which includes USS Lassen (DDG-82).

So although the Seventh Fleet is based in several far-flung places its powerful forces come together for key activities like the FONOP near Subi Reef.

It is unlikely that Australia or Japan will run their own FONOPs for the foreseeable future.

SUBI REEF

As indicated by Submarine Matters on September 24, 2015 China is building up several South China Sea islands into military bases very quickly. The islands can host air and naval bases and also long range intelligence sensors including radars. The islands it is building up most rapidly appear to be Mischief Reef, Fiery Cross Reef and Subi Reef.

Subi Reef, seen in three photos below, is being rapidly built up into an air and naval base - initially using sand dredging for landfill. The photos below, dated April 2015, June 2015 show rapid progress by August 2015 Subi. The reef-island has almost a completely enclosed harbour. Port facilities and a 3,000 meter airstrip will soon be built.

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

---

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

---

China is effectively claiming that improving or building on islands is really a right of defence which (in China's mind) spreads out to a much broader territorial right around the islands. The air and naval bases that will eventually be built will also provide practical weapons to defend China's purported rights and arguments.

China's activities in the South China and East China Seas contribute to international tension. Tension that is drawing such countries as Japan, Australia, Vietnam, the Philippines, India and, of course, the US, closer together.

Pete

Author of Underseawarfare article Admiral Agung Pramono, Commander, Eastern Fleet, Indonesian Navy (facing with swagger stick/baton). (Photo courtesy DC examiner)

---

Indonesian Submarine KRI Nanggala (402) (right click mouse to translate) and USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723) (Photo courtesy US Navy).
---

Here are three views of Indonesian submarine operations:

1. In US Navy’s Underseawarfare, Spring 2013, Issue No. 50 http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_50/IndonesianSubSquadron.html is an interesting articleby Rear Admiral Agung Pramono, S.H., M. Hum, Indonesian Navy. In its struggle for independence Indonesia used its Russian provided Whiskey-class submarines for special forces insertion during the low level conflict in Dutch New Guinea (now Irian Jaya) in 1962. Here are some excerpts:

"The History of the Indonesian Submarine Squadron

....The Indonesian Navy has long experience in operating submarines. For a significant period in the 1960s and 1970s, Indonesia operated the most powerful submarine force in the Asia-Pacific region, excepting the Cold War superpowers: 12 Whiskey-class submarines, two torpedo retrievers, and one submarine tender, all purchased from the Soviet Union. By comparison, no other Southeast Asian nation possessed a submarine force of any size, and in 1967 the Royal Australian Navy had only six submarines, of the Oberon class. [The Whiskey class like the Oberon class drew heavily on the design features of the German World War Two Type XXI submarine].

KRI Tjakra (S-01 and 401)

---

The Indonesian Navy received its first submarine, KRI Tjakra (401) from the USSR on 12 September 1959. This first submarine was commanded by Commander O.P. Koesno...

Three of the Indonesian Whiskey submarines used in Operation Trikora, the liberation of West Irian from the Dutch, 1962 (Photo courtesy Weapons Technology)

---

During the 1960s, in the heyday of the Whiskey class, these superb underwater units were used to regain West Papua from Dutch colonial control. There were three submarine deployments during the military operation—called JAYA WIJAYA 1 - against the Dutch forces in the West Papua.

KRI Nagabanda (403), KRI Trisula (402), and KRI Tjandrasa (408) successfully launched an attack on the Dutch forces in the West Papua area; in operation TJAKRA II, Tjandrasa managed to infiltrate the enemy’s area to land a group of Indonesian Special Forces on the island. For the success of that operation, the Indonesian Government awarded Tjandrasa and her crew with the prestigious “Bintang Sakti” medal. To the present day, Tjandrasa is the only naval vessel to have been awarded the medal. In April 1963, in operation VISHNU MUKTI, KRl Nagarangsang (404), KRl Tjundamani (411), and KRI Alugoro (406) again conducted a ‘show of force’ in West Papua waters.

...The declining relationship between the Republic of Indonesia and the Soviet Union in 1965 - resulting from Indonesian government action against the rebellion of the Indonesian Communist Party - led to a spare parts crisis in the Navy, which affected the submarines. To maintain an operational force, the Indonesian Navy decommissioned several submarines and used their parts to repair the remaining vessels. Since then, the number of the Navy’s submarines declined steadily. The last remaining Whiskey-class submarine, KRI Pasopati (410), was decommissioned on 25 January 1990 and now serves as a submarine museum in downtown Surabaya.

In 1978, prior to the decommissioning of Pasopati, Indonesia procured two Type 209/1300 submarines from West Germany—KRI Cakra (401)and KRI Nanggala (402)—to maintain the security of Indonesian territorial waters. These two German submarines have been overhauled several times in Germany, South Korea, and Indonesia.

...Having learned from its previous experiences, the Indonesian Navy has planned to gradually increase the size of its submarine force in the years to come. To begin, it has ordered three [Improved Chang Bogo] Type 209/1500 submarines from South Korea. The Navy expects to restore the glory of its naval forces, including its submarine squadron." See WHOLE ARTICLE

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

2. "50 YEARS OF SHARK KENCANA"

Separately - within http://weaponstechnology.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/kisah-kisah-kapal-selam-tni-al-50-tahun.html (right click mouse to translate) subsection:

- (scroll halfway down) 1963 - 64 details of a reconnaissance down the Western Australian
coast close to Perth (too cold)

- Confrontation with Malaysia

- (scrol three quaters) 1975 "Make angry commander RAN frigate" :-)

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

3. YOUTUBE

The following is a stirring youtube of the Indonesian Navy Power 2015 review, Yakhont missile firing and Indonesian Marines landing.

In the youtube:

60 seconds in - fairly new Diponegoro classcorvettes

2 min 30 secs - Submarine Kri Nanggala (402) inside and out

4 min 30 secs - many naval guns and missiles firing

6 min 15 secs - Yakhont anti-ship missile fired from Ahmad Yani class (ex Van Speijk class) frigate, destroys target ship

7 min - Indonesian Marines landing.

Pete

(Graphics on Slide 12 courtesy Cyber Agency) A combination or overlap of motivations and actions may lead to a leak of information. For example a Disgruntled Employee may appoach a Competitor, Foreign Corporation or Foreign Government. The Disgruntled Employee may stay in place while he thumb-drives information out to (say):

- a Competitor or Foreign Corporation who after months or years hires him as an employee or overpaid contractor

- a Foreign Government that he/she defects/immigrates to - then becoming a "foreign contractor", liberal activist for an authoritarian government or bona fide immigrant.

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

Clearly a noble tradition. Such inadvertent "sharing" of information may drive the price of weapons down, may create arms races, or may make stealth or improved nuclear weapons more obtainable for the have-nots. One case is China acquiring US F-22 and F-35 secrets as well as Su-33 secrets from Russia. Chinese espionage has led. Another case is Klaus Fuchs. (Map on Slide 10 courtesy Cyber Agency)

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

COMMENT

Attempted hacking of Western economic secrets by the Russian and Chinese Government and by Russian and Chinese arms companies is to be expected. Plain old hackers with no agenda other than to get into online secrets for the challenge “fun” of it are also a threat.

The “30 to 40 (hacking) attempts per night,” reported by TKMS (article below) may be a standard year round level aimed at submarine secrets, many other technical secrets and politically sensitive material held by a company. It would be the same for targeted companies and governments in France and Japan.

On a traditional human intelligence (HUMINT) level Russian and Chinese diplomats, “agents” and students would also attempt to gather secrets from Western arms companies, research institutes and Western governments. Dr A Q Khan (now 79) is a classic agent-student case.

Conference attendees and couriers should watch out for pre-blackmail or chain-cutter wielding “honey traps” and “honeypots”. Bad news!

MAIN ARTICLE

A large number of publications on November 9, 2015 have drawn from an articlein The Australian November 9, 2015. For example an article in Europe online said in quotation marks “…” http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/china-russia-reportedly-try-to-hack-into-australian-submarine-plans_421843.htmland I have added comments in square brackets […]:

“Sydney (dpa) - Spies from both China and Russia have tried to hack into German, French and Japanese plans to build Australia‘s future submarines…”

[TKMS, DCNS and the Japanese government - hold highly sensitive Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) questions and their highly classified answers in response to these questions.]

“The three bidders have been forced to rely on hand delivery of sensitive information and the Australian government has examined cyber-security with each of the foreign bidders.”

"We have about 30 to 40 (hacking) attempts per night, that‘s what our IT people say," according to Manfred Klein, [Senior Vice-President, Product Management, TKMS, Kiel, told The Australian]

"John White, chairman of the German group in Australia, told [TheAustralian] the attempted espionage was to be expected."

"They‘re trying to get into everyone‘s communications," White said. "Espionage and breaches of security ... you just assume it is happening. Everybody is in that game. It‘s a space that people play in. We don‘t suspect anyone, we suspect everybody."

[Final answers/responses from the three contenders are due November 30, 2015. The Australian Federal (Turnbull) Government is expected to pick a winner or eliminate one contender some time in 2016.]

Pete

Explosion of Fuel Cell AIP

S comments that submarines that use Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) have a superior performance in high speed situations and flexibility in operation compared with lead-acid battery (LAB) submarines with air independent propulsion (AIP). AIP is not as useful as extra battery capacity for relatively high speed cruising and quick recharging, because:

i) output of AIP is low and nearly constant (eg. 240kW for Stirling AIP of Soryu)

ii) Stirling AIP needs liquid oxygen (LOx) and kerosene which cannot be supplied by other ships.

iii) LIBs need no fuel other than standard diesel for the diesel engines. Such fuel can be supplied by ships.

iv) AIP uses particularly explosive chemicals, which are dangerous.

[Pete Comment - Here is a http://www.koreaittimes.com/story/55236/hhis-submarine-saw-explosion-hydrogen-tank November 4, 2015 report of an explosion of a fuel cell AIP hydrogen tank which occurred on November 3, 2015 very likely on a South Korean Son Won-Il Type 214 (KSS-II) submarine being constructed at HHI. The Chang Bogos (KSS-Is) don't have AIP:

"The explosion took place in Hyundai Heavy Industries’ submarine under construction on Tuesday [November 3], according to a local media outlet Money Today.

According to the report, the explosion occurred at the submarine at HHI's plant located in Ulsan on Monday morning. The fire was suppressed in 30 minutes and there was no casualty.

The explosion reportedly took place during the process of extracting remaining gas in hydrogen tank installed in the submarine. A local submarine does not generally [or ever] use nuclear energy as motive power but hydrogen fuel cells are installed in the tank instead.

"We are not able to disclose which type of submarine had the explosion accident," said the company's official, adding, "There will no problem in meeting the construction schedule."" ENDs

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

Soryu 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	Sekiryu /Holy Dragon	LAB + AIP	2013	2 Nov 2015	2017	KHI
25SS	8125	SS-509	Soryu Mark 1 not yet named	LAB + AIP	2014	2016?	2018	MHI
26SS	8126	SS-510	Soryu Mark 1 not yet named	LAB + AIP	2015	2017?	2019	KHI
27SS	8127	SS-511	Soryu Mark 2	LIB only	2016?	2018?	2020?	MHI
28SS	8128	SS-512	Soryu Mark 2	LIB only	2017?	2019?	2021?	KHI
29SS	8129	SS-513	Next- Generation Japanese Submarine	LIB only	2018?	2020?	2022?	MHI

1AU?			1st Australian class?		2022?	2024?	2026?

The following details provide an insight on future Soryu design and battery issues. This level of detail may gain considerable importance if Australia finally chooses an "Australian Soryu" design after the SEA 1000 CEP process. The information below is drawn from several of S's Comments on Submarine Matters here and here with several translation-changes be Pete for clarity.

Japan has an advantage over the French and German contenders in being able to integrate an Australian "soryu" into an ongoing continuous build program. By continuous build this does not mean Australian submarines will be built in Japan. It means is that Japan is constantly redesigning improved submarines and designing key technologies (such as Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs)).

Japan’s MHI and KHI are careful to build submarines on time and on budget with submarines being launched within the planned year and month.

The versions of the Soryu preceding any Australian Soryu (maybe to be called "1AU" or "SEA 1000"?) will be 27SS, 28SS and 29SS (see table). 27 to 29SS will be Lithium-ion battery (LIB) submarines which will replace the Soryu's existing Lead-acid batteries (LAB) and the Stirling AIP. A more powerful diesel engine will, via a generator, charge the LIBs.

"wispywood2344" has drawn and labeled this very useful diagram of the Soryu. A larger version of the diagram is at http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/others/Soryu_cutaway.svg.
---

It is not yet known how often (every 7 - 10 years?) LIBs will need to be replaced on Japanese or Australian Soryus. This is because LIBs are new technology and may be used in different ways by different navies.

Access To Replace LIBs

To permit replacement of LIBs using the mid access hatch (diagram above) there would need to be below the mid access hatch a hatch:

i) on the floor of the officer’s accommodation (6)

ii) on the floor of the mess/galley (7)

iii) between fore and aft batteries sections (5 and 8)

iv) (on the Australian Soryu) also a hatch between the aft battery section (8) and new battery section (10)

As the LIB cell modules are too heavy for manhandling they are moved on the submarine aisles by using horizontal and vertical hydraulic jacks.

If the Australian Soryu “SEA 1000” concept is the expected 6 - 8 meters longer than 29SS, more LIBs can fit into the design.

[Pete has added - Here is the lowering of LAB cell modules through the mid section hatch and down into the battery section of a South Korean Chang Bogo Type 209 submarine

https://youtu.be/yE9lmXHpRho?t=1m35s through to 1 minute 58 seconds]

Placing More LIBs (249) On Australian Soryus

On 27 to 29SS and the Australian Soryu an extra 240 LIB cell modules may be placed in the space (see section 10 of diagram (below) where the AIP's LOx tank assembly was. When those 240 are added to the existing 2 x 240 LIB cell modules existing battery spaces the submarines can have a total of 720 cells .

240 comes from Japanese Ministry of Defence Standard NDS F8016B“General rules for design of equipment with small stray magnetic field”, 5.3”Arrangement of main batteries for submarine” which specifies that submarine generally equips with directly connected 240 single cells as a group.

720 cells may mean an increased endurance (perhaps talking 2 to 3 weeks).

How it works. When snorting/snorkelling air is drawn into the diesels turning the generator, then the Motor to power the battery. When sub is fully submerged battery drives the motor, which turns propeller. The Soryu does not have reduction gearing system, as stepless speed control is conducted in the motor. (Diagram courtesy MARINEBIO)

---

Maximum Range and Power Using LIBs

S estimates 720 cells will give Soryus 3 - 4.5 times longer submerged range than current Soryus using LABs alone. S estimates energy density of LIBs is 2-3 times higher than current LABs. LIBs will permit higher fully submerged speeds the submarine has a new generator system and new motor(s).

S comments: If we adopt simple cubic rule between speed and power, maximum speed will be estimated to be 29-33knot/h for an extremely short period. S thinks actual speed will be lower than estimated value, but still high compared to LAB subs.

S assumed maximum power of 18,000-27,000kW@15min [for 15 minutes] is possible for propulsion motors operated by LIBs (5900kW@15min for current LABs submarine). However issues such as increased need for cooling and friction should be considered:

i) there would be high temperatures at "silent mode operation" where auxiliary fans and oil pumps ( for bearings) have been stopped, and

ii) increased energy for cooling and friction losses.

S thinks safe-efficient levels of maximum power of motors and maximum speed may be at a lower 12,000kW, yielding 25knot@1hour.

This compares with maximum fully submerged speed 18knot@1h for perhaps for the current Soryu and "dash" speed 20knot@15min.

Used lead-acid batteries for one or several? Collins submarines. Description is "They were/are manufactured in Australia [probably by PMB Defence] weigh something like 3 tons each cell and are about 1.5m high and a metre wide...The entire battery weighs in at about 450 tons [150 cells] (Photo and description overclockers forum Comment #9)

---

Reduction of Stray Magnetic Field Using LIBs

A stray magnetic field is undesirable in batteries. Reduction of stray magnetic field must be considered in cell arrangement and cell-to-cell connection according to Japanese Ministry of Defence Standard NDS F8016B. Rules of the arrangement and the connection are as follows:

i) width of each column of cell module should be the same. (240 = 20 columns x 12 cell modules) was decided based on these rule. In this case colums of 20 satisfies rule.

ii) numbers of each column are desirably multiples of four or must be at least an odd number (20 = 4 x 5) and number (12) of cell module in a column satisfies rule

iii) desirable numbers of cell modules in a column are multiples of four. (12 = 4 x 3). Logically speaking, if the rules are satisfied, other arrangements such as three groups of 24 columns or four groups of 16 columns are possible.

iv) polarity cancellation of a pair of neighbouring columns should be conducted by cross connection of these columns, and so on.

S and Pete

Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Key West (SSN-722) arrived in Subic Bay in early November 2015, for a routine port visit as part of its deployment in the Western Pacific. (Photo and description courtesy US Navy/Jeremie Yoder, file via Philippine Star)

---

Subic Bay is still visited by US Navy ships and submarines - this is partly a warning to China not to push the Philippines around. The Philippine Star, November 5, 2015 reports http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/11/05/1518688/us-submarine-arrives-subic-after-month-sea:

MANILA, Philippines — A United States Navy submarine arrived at Subic Bay on Wednesday [November 4, 2015] for a routine port visit as part of its deployment to the Western Pacific.

Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Key West was designed for various activities such as anti-submarine and anti-surface ship operations, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance.

The US Embassy in Manila said the USS Key West's crew of 150 sailors is looking forward to its first stop at Subic Bay after more than a month at sea.

"The 360-foot, 6,900-ton vessel remains one of the stealthiest, most formidable submarines in the world," the embassy said in a statement. Last August, USS Chicago [SSN-721] arrived at Subic Bay to show its latest capabilities. US hospital ship USNS Mercy [huge at 65,000 tons] also arrived for humanitarian and relief missions.

The aircraft symbol on left shows approximate location of Subic Bay Naval and former Clark Air Bases. Aircraft symbol at right is Guam. Guam is a small island hosting a large Air Base and Naval Base Guam. (Map screenshot courtesy Viable Opposition)

BACKGROUND

USS Key West and USS Chicago are two units of the US Navy's Submarine Squadron (SUBRON) 15 homeported at Naval Base Guam.

China has started also using hospital ships like the Peace Ark Type 920 perhaps partly competing in humanitarian soft power against with USNS Mercy for regional popularity. Peace Ark provided emergency services in November 2013, at Tacloban, Philippines just after Typhoon Haiyan while the US deployed 10,000s of servicemen after Haiyan.

Subic Bay was a base for the Spanish Navy in the 19^thcentury and was taken over by the US following the Spanish American War in 1898. It was a US Naval Base until 1942 when occupied by Japan (until recaptured by the US in 1945).

Subic Bay when a US Naval Base in the Cold War. Carrier shown is the USS Enterprice (CVN-65)

---

From the late 1940s to 1991 Subic Bay was a huge US base, along with nearby Clark Air Base, of great strategic value during the Cold War. Subic Bay Base was closed after 1991. Closure was due to a catastrophic eruption of nearby Mount Pinatubo dumping millions of tons of ash on the base. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was also a cause. After the closure enterprising Filipinos have created the successful Subic Bay Freeport Zonewhich is a duty free zone like Singapore and Hong Kong.

USN Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ship USS Boxer (LHD-4) is guided by tugboats as it docks at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, to join the Philippines-US Amphibious Landing Exercise starting September 18, 2013. (Photo, Jonas Reyes, Manila Bulletin)

---

After decades of agreements that gave the US great control of territory at Subic Bay and Clark Air Base the US-Philippines bilateral relationship now relies on Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) - a 10 year agreement signed in 2014. The EDCA seeks to bolster the U.S. – Philippines security relationship by allowing the United States to station troops and operations on Philippine territory. However, the Agreement clearly states that the U.S. is not allowed to establish a permanent base.

On the map are the historically key strategic bases from of Cam Ranh Bay (Vietnam) and Subic Bay and Clark Air Base (Philippines)
---

In some respects the US Cold War bases in the Philippines acted as a balance against Russian air and naval power centred at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. The end of the Cold War meant a decline in Russian strategic power in Vietnam. This removed much of the reason for basing major US forces in the Philippines.

Subic Bay may grow in strategic importance due to China's increasing challenge (particularly in the South China Sea) and a resurgent Russian military in the Asia-Pacific region.

Pete

Cross-section diagram courtesy Victoria Class Submarines - With Focus on the Electronics Fit a website with a huge amount of Victoria class information and many photos. (Much larger image is here).
---

In the area of submarines the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has much in common with the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).

The UK Royal Navy (RN) submarine service exerted/exerts a lasting influence on the RCN and RAN due to:

- extensive training in and around the UK on Oberon class submarines, on earlier UK submarines and for RCN only on the Victoria/Upholder class

- using almost identical equipment (the Oberon subs) for decades in all three navies

- widespread secondments of officers and maybe some crew between these navies (sometimes on UK SSNs) and

- immigration of some RN officers and crew into the RAN (and probably the RCN).

Having a great power developing, using and relying on SSKs is beneficial for SSK users like Canada and Australia. Hence the UK's Oberon served Canada and Australia well. Notably Germany and Japan have maintained conventional submarine only navies without nuclear distractions or diluting effort into SSNs…

Canada's 3 Oberons ("oboats") Commissioned 1965, 67 and 68. 2 "paid off" in 1998 and last in 2000. (Photo courtesy Corvus and RCN via Haze Gray (another comprehensive website!)). Meanwile first of 6 Australian Oberons commissioned from 1967, last one decommissioned 2000 (details from Submarine Institute of Australia and aussubs100)

Following decommissioning of the Oberons from the RCN and RAN (in 2000 for both navies) both navies experienced years of mechanical/maintenance troubles with their replacement submarines Victoria and Collins respectively. Another similarity may be availability. For Australia 2 to 3 Collins might be available due to limited crew numbers. Of Canada’s four Victorias maybe 2 to 3 available at any one time?

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

Victoria (ex Upholder) class submarine. The hull similarity to a Russian Kilo submarine is uncanny (other than the Victoria's upper cruciform tail plane). Perhaps some good espionage against Russia occurred? (Photo courtesy Gasengi dot-com)
---

Canada operates four Victoria class diesel electric submarines SSKs (no AIP) designed by the UK in the 1970s, built by Vickers in the UK 1980s, commissioned into the the RN as Upholder class 1990-94. End of Cold War in early 1990s made them Peace Dividend Surplus by 1994. Bought be Canada 1998, recommissioned into the Royal Canadian Navy 2000-.

Specifications include: 2,200 tons (surfaced) 2,400 tons (submerged), Complement 48, 8,000 nm range. 6 torpedo tubes with 18 Mark 48 HWT (probably mine capable)

Canada's submarine bases are within two Canadian Forces Bases (CFBs). Two subs are based on left/Pacific at CFB Esquimalt (on the Strait of Juan de Fuca (who had an exciting life :). The Atlantic base is at CFB Halifax at right.

---

HMCS Victoria (operational) and Chicoutimi (operational) operate out of Canadian Forces Base CFB Esquimalt, British Columbia Canada as part of the Maritime Forces Pacific (MARPAC) fleet in the Pacific Ocean.

HMCS Windsor (operational) and Corner Brook (in Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP) until 2017) are based at CFB Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada and operate in the Maritime Forces Atlantic (MARLANT) Fleet for operations in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

Professor Paul Mitchell, October 27 2015, has produced and excellent essay on life in a submarine https://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/navies-narratives-and-canada-s-submarine-fleet This and the Canadian operating environment will appear next week on Submarine Matters.

Question: Have there been many "near misses" of being stuck under the ice?

Pete

Model of a TKMS-HDW Type 206 submarine - ugly but effective. 206s weigh 450 tons (surfaced) 500 tons (submerged), 23 crew, 8 torpedo tubes (Photo courtesyfind model kit)

---

NavalTodaydotcom, November 12, 2015, reports http://navaltoday.com/2015/11/12/columbian-navy-acquires-two-subs-from-germany/

Columbian Navy Acquires Two Subs From Germany

Two [Type 206(see photo above)] submarines left the ThyssenKrupp Shipyard in Kiel, Germany and headed to Colombia, November 11, [2015] and are expected to arrive at the Naval Base ARC Bolívar by November end.

...The newly arrived [206s] will receive the same names as their predecessors, namely ARC Intrepido and ARC Indomable and will be used for drug interdiction operations.

The purchase agreement for the [206s] was concluded in August, 2012, between Colombian Ministry of National Defense and the German Federal Ministry of Defence.

Modernization and upgrades were performed by [TKMS] in Kiel, Germany. Each of the submarines has a displacement of 500 tonnes, accommodates 23 people and measures 49 meters.

These units will strengthen the existing fleet of two ocean-going Pijao-class, [TKMS] Type 209 submarines and replace the two Italian made SX-506 submarines (see photo below) with 40 years of service in the Colombian submarine force.

Columbia's two (90 ton (submerged) SX-506 mini-subs (Scroll 2/3s down here for photo and specifications)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both 206s being loaded on BBC Sapphire for the journey to Columbia (Photo courtesy Kieler Nachrichten)

---

I was also leafing through the Kieler Nachrichten as usual :) the other day when I noticed an article in it published: Sunday, 08.11.2015 in which Frank Behling reported the 206 being loaded on a ship (see photo above)http://www.kn-online.de/News/Aktuelle-Nachrichten-Kiel/Nachrichten-aus-Kiel/Kieler-Marinearsenal-Kolumbianische-U-Boote-reisen-huckepack:

"Colombian submarines traveling piggyback

...The overhaul of [206s] for Colombia had according to unconfirmed information only [cost ] in the lower double-digit million [Euro] range. While [ex] "U 23" and "U 24" [are now] "Indomable" and "Intrepido" [return to] use, German sister boats"U 16" and "U 18" [have been sold to Columbia for cannibalization - spare parts].

COMMENT/BACKGROUND

I have a theory that the Columbian 206s will be heavily involved in monitoring drug/narco submarines and low profile boats travelling from Columbia to central America and Mexico. (see map below).

If the anti-drug function is central then it would be interesting to know the extent that US anti-drug and military money funded the 206s? US funds may have perhaps (?) gone to the Columbian military or to the German Government and onto TKMS to part-fund the upgrades to the two 206s. Such part funding may explain the low costs of the 206 upgrades (perhaps as low as 10 million Euros each judging from the Kieler Nachrichten article.

The 206s modernization/upgrades may include new sonars, electronics in the combat system, air conditioning for warmer tropical water and climate, new paintjob in Columbian Navy colours and de-rusting for the steel hulls.

The two Pijao-class (ARC Pijao and ARC Tyrona), Type 209/1200 submarines are 40 year old, commissioned in 1975, they were upgraded in 2009 and 2011 but would be nearing retirement in the 2020s? TKMS may have priced the 206 renovations at low prices as a sweetener to encourage Columbia to perhaps buy Types 210mods in the next decade.

(Map courtesy Honduprensa) The mainly cocaine drug flows north from Columbia and Venezuela to central America for further transporting up to the US.
---

One of Columbia's Pijao class sub Type 209/1200s (just 1,200 tons surfaced) sails slowly into the East (or West) (Photo courtesy Pan American Defense)

Pete

The latest Soryu, SS-508, "Sekiryu, Holy Dragon" being launched at KHI shipyard, Kobe, around November 2, 2015 (Photo courtesy Sankei(dot)com sent by "Unknown" Thanks :)

---

Soryu 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	Sekiryu /Holy Dragon	LAB + AIP	2013	2 Nov 2015	2017	KHI
25SS	8125	SS-509	?	LAB + AIP	2014	2016?	2018	MHI
26SS	8126	SS-510	?	LAB? + AIP	2015	2017?	2019	KHI
27SS	8127	SS-511	Soryu Mark 2	LIB only	2016?	2018?	2020?	MHI
28SS	8128	SS-512	?	LIB only	2017?	2019?	2021?	KHI
29SS	8129	SS-513	Next-Generation Submarine	LIB only	2018?	2020?	2022?	MHI

1AU?			1st Australian class?		2023?	2026?	2029?

LOOK AT JAPAN'S NEXT GENERATION SUBMARINE

S commented hereon November 14 and 15, 2015 about Japan’s Next Generation Submarine which may be 29SS (no LAB, no AIP, LIBs only). 29SS perhaps to be laid-down at MHI in 2018 for launch in 2020 (see 29SS in red in Soryu Table above).

29SS is especially important for Australia because it will be the first new generation Japanese submarine that immediately precedes the submarine Japan is designing for Australia (“1AU” also in red on Soryu Table). This is if Australia chooses Japan.

Prior to the Next-Generation Japanese Submarine being built there are many standard planning and budgeting documents and procedure to be completed years beforehand. The following gives a glimpse of some of the procedures and issues with the next-generation 29SS. S’s specific comments with some English translation by Pete [S is invited to correct Pete’s translation if its meaning looks incorrect]:

"Changes of hull architecture as well as four major improvements (new torpedo, further reduction of vibration, new sonar system, and enhanced snorkel system) will be incorporated into the 29SS design.

[S has provided a summary of the 29SS project plan.] "It is expected.

- That 29SS will be nearly the same size as the Soryus [28SS and earlier – see Soryu Table] but 29SS will have longer compartments than current Soryus"

[see diagram below - For first Australian sub if current AIP compartments (9 and 10) are deleted then that will allow all other compartments to be lengthened - including Crew's Accommodation (2) for longer bunks for the taller Australians, longer Torpedo Section (1) to take 2 or 3 UUVs as well as 20 HWTs. More space on lowest level for extra diesel fuel and Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs)]

- "The performance of the 29SS design architecture including crushing [pressure hull yield] strength will be demonstrated and validated based on experiments on the prototype [does S mean 29SS is the prototype?]"

The 2012 Financial Year planning and authorisation document “FY2012 Policy Report by Bureau of Finance and Equipment of Japanese Ministry of Defense” indicates:

"(5-1b) Needs of implementation in FY2013

Inhibition of enlargement due to the improvement of submarine performance is urgent issue in terms of target strength and reduction of ship price. Since the result of the study will be reflected in the newly designed submarine by conducting this study from the FY2013, the study is needed to start in this [2013?] fiscal year.

(5-1c) Reason for non-application of existing organization and equipment.

Although high density rigging [arrangement] of equipment [has been] carried out to inhibit [limit] enlargement in modern submarine [the Soryu?], the [arrangement has] already reached [the] limit. In the next generation submarine [29SS] with new equipment such as the new sonar, enlargement of hull is a concern. For this reason, the extension of length of compartments which contributes to the streamlining of the equipment of submarine is being considered. The solution of reinforcing the current pressure hull architecture with larger reinforced materials is expected to cause enlargement and increased price of the next generation submarine [29SS]. Adoption of new architecture is [therefore] needed.

(5-2) Efficiency

In this study, the system design required for the prototyping and evaluation of components and equipment will be conducted, various models (machined model, welded assembly model) will be prototyped, and their crushing [pressure hull yield] strength will be measured.

(5-3c) Confirmation of the effect

Prototyping and testing will be conducted from 2013 FY 2015 and from FY2014 to FY2015, respectively.

In it is planned to carry out the test.

(6) Timing of validation

Policy assessment (post-project evaluation) will be conducted in FY2016.

[S is “FY2012 Policy Report by Bureau of Finance and Equipment of Japanese Ministry of Defense” on the internet in English or in Japanese? Pete]

Soryu Diagram drawn by "wispywood2344". A larger version of the diagram (with larger numbers) is at http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/others/Soryu_cutaway.svg.
---

LITHIUM SULFUR BATTERIES (LSBs)

Energy density diagram comparing batteries including Lead-acid (LABs), Lithium-ion (LIBs) and Li-S or Lithium Sulfer (LSBs) in watt-hour per kilogram (Wh/kg) and watt-hour per litre (Wh/l). LSBs are projected to be superior. (Diagram courtesy Oxis Energy)

---

On November 15, 2015 at 2:25 PM Sadvised that "a few days ago, Japanese battery company GS YUASA announced (in Japanese language News Release http://www.gs-yuasa.com/jp/newsrelease/article.php?ucode=gs151114132202_191) that GS YUASA had succeeded in developing Lithium Sulfur Battery (LSB) with an excellent charge-discharge performance. This LSB with lithium anode and sulfur/porous carbon composite shows high energy density of 1000mAh/g (In the case of Japanese submarine with voltage of 450V, 1000mAh corresponds to 450kWh which is 10 times bigger than current LABs. ) and inhibits reduction of capacity with charge-discharge cycle. Submarines with LSB will show excellent performance from low to high speed regions. But, as metal Lithium is highly reactive to water, overcoming the safety issue will be a key element for practical application LSBs for submarine. Frankly speaking, it will be quite tough."

Pete Comment - So LIBs may be the new in-operation batteries for submarine from the 2020s while LSBs may be the next advance in batteries for use from the 2030s. Please connect with Submarine Matters http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/li-s-or-lithium-sulfer-batteries-lsbs.html of June 1, 2015.

PMB Defence [LABs and LIBs]

A snippet - PBM Defence (Australia’s Collins current supplier of LABs) may be effected by the future submarine purchase because the CEP may well be requiring Lithium-ion Batteries [LIBs] only. Possibly all 3 contenders in the CEP have approached PMB. See PMB mention on page 12 in this well produced brochure http://www.defencesa.com/upload/media-centre/publications/fac/3295/Techport%20Australia%20Brochure%20June%202015.pdf .

Pete

Australian Prime Minister Turnbull meets German Chancellor Merkel. From left, Australian Finance Minister Senator Mathias Cormann, German State Minister (in Foreign Office) Maria Boehmer, Prime Minister Turnbull, German Chancellor Merkel, Lucy Turnbull and German politician Volkmar Klein (Photo courtesy AFRweekend)

---

Turnbull and Merkel share a joke during Turnbull's mid Nobember 2015 visit to Berlin.

(Photo courtesy News(dot)com(dot)au)

---

Cutaway of a TKMS-HDW Type 216. The 216 is likely the submarine Germany is offering in the Australian future submarine CEP. (Diagram courtesy Submarine Dossier )

---

Readers may recall Submarine Matter’s article Japan's Submarine Sales Advantage, 2 + 2 Talks With Australia of November 1, 2015 where I wrote:

“Japan and Australia sharing the same region gives Japan an important advantage over the French and German competition for the Future Australian submarine sale. The annual "2 + 2" talks between Japan and Australia cement the ongoing defence relationship”

Now a pivotal article from The Australian reveals that when Australia’s Prime Minister Turnbull met Chancellor Merkel, in Berlin last week, Australia also negotiated Defence Minister and Foreign Minister “2 + 2” talks with Germany.

This development is of major significance if Australia does not negotiate equivalent 2 + 2 talks with France during the life of the Australian future submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP). The CEP may extend into late 2016 until a winner is picked or at least one contender is eliminated. As Australia now has 2 + 2 arrangements with Japan and now with Germany this may (or may not) be an indicator that France may be eliminated.

The following are some excerpts of an article (some parts I’ve bolded for emphasis) that political correspondent David Crowe for THE AUSTRALIAN, November 14, 2015, reported http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/malcolm-turnbull-to-boost-ties-with-germany/story-fn59nm2j-1227608547216?sv=6e64b912efb1461e9d64f63d4d525c6a

“Malcolm Turnbull to boost ties with Germany”

“Australia will create a new defence and foreign affairs compact with Germany under a deal between Malcolm Turnbull and his counterpart, Angela Merkel, that dramatically broadens a $17 billion economic relationship, with an eye to huge export growth as well.

In the Prime Minister’s first major foreign policy initiative, the two countries will set up a new strategic partnership including annual summits of defence and foreign ministers and a joint effort to combat terrorism.

…The agreement spans defence, trade and economic policies to act upon a high-level report from an advisory group that includes Mr Turnbull’s wife Lucy, [Australian] Finance Minister Mathias Cormann [originally from Belgium and speaks German fluently] and more than a dozen prominent individuals from both countries.

…A key finding of the report, obtained by The Weekend Australian, is that the two nations should start a “2 plus 2” strategic dialogue between defence and foreign ministers along the lines already in place with Britain.

This is being put in place and is the first agreement of its kind between Australia and any nation in continental Europe.

…Government figures said the breakthrough agreement reflected an elevation in the Germany relationship, recognising it has been the “odd one out” when Australia had “2 plus 2” co-operation with the US, Japan and China, as well as Britain.

…The stronger defence ties are a boost for Germany in its bid to help build the next fleet of Australian submarines, a delicate political issue in South Australia with competition from Japan and France to do the work..."

Read the WHOLE ARTICLE in The Australian

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

Wording in DFAT Briefs Significant?

Along the lines of a "2 + 2" - within the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Brief on relations with Germany "the establishment of a high-level strategic dialogue involving foreign and defence ministers" is mentioned under "Significant recent developments".

I didn't see the same sought of wording in the DFAT brief for France.

Pete

The following are excerpts from a Nautilus Institute commentary of November 17, 2015 regarding the November 7, 2015 mysterious missile test seen by millions over Southern California,

A Trident missile the Navy tested off Southern California Nov 7, 2015 shown from the Fourth Street bridge over 110 Freeway in Los Angeles. Photographer Preston Newman was on a photo shoot at the time. (Photo courtesy Preston Newman Photography, on Instagram at @Newman_Photos)

"Nuclear War and Daily Life

Most of the time, nuclear weapons and nuclear war are out-of-sight, out-of-mind.

For one day, millions of Americans were reminded that they live in the edge of nuclear chaos. A Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile fired on November 7 from offshore Los Angeles set ordinary folks abuzz all the way to Nevada.

…Strategic Command put out a press release fairly quickly stating that it was ours and not to worry. At least about UFOs. They fired another Trident from the same launch site two days later, this time in daylight, and STRATCOM released more information. This was an operational-shakedown test for an Ohio class submarine, [USS Kentucky (SSBN-737)] that is normally hidden deep mid-Pacific carrying its load of nuclear warheads when it’s not in its home port in Bangor, Washington.

...After a long overhaul and refueling of its reactor, [a US SSBN] has to fire two missiles (without warheads) before it is certified as able to put to sea and ready to fire nuclear-armed [Trident II D5] missiles. All very banal—just another day in ensuring the United States is ready for the full “spectrum of conflict with nuclear adversary” as the briefing aboard the submarine relates in a photo released four days later by STRATCOM.

Pre-test missile launch briefing session on an Ohio class SSBN.

---

These tests have been going on for decades, and the plan is to keep this missile in service for more decades. Each missile carries up to 4 thermonuclear warheads ranging from 100 to about 500 kilotons…that’s about 8 to 42 times the size of the nuclear weapon that destroyed the city of Hiroshima in 1945. And each Ohio [SSBN] submarine has 24 launch tubes…

Why the launch took place at night was not stated. It might have been due to atmospheric conditions above the target zone at Kwajalein Atoll, or some other operational consideration in the Western Test Range as explained in this video by Northrop Grumman, one of the companies involved in the business of preparing for nuclear war.

Approximate path of test missiles from Southern California Range Complex to Kwajalein Atoll target area (close to or at red star)

---

...If social media is any indication, it appears that many Americans will see the start of a nuclear war announced by missile liftoff as the invasion of aliens. Many others apparently will welcome the resulting apocalypse as the start of the long-overdue end-times from the Book of Revelations.

…They will also see a lot of incoming re-entry vehicles and it will look very different to the eerily beautiful missile plume at night.

Marshall Islanders have been looking at this end of Gravity’s Rainbow for decades, watching multiple re-entry vehicles flash out of the sky to smash into the instrumented atoll on their former home at Kwajalein—except if this were nuclear war, they would also see gigantic nuclear explosions in the millisecond before they were blinded and then vaporized, pulverized, incinerated, and irradiated.

…Not to be outdone, on November 15, the Russians night-fired two Bulava missiles from the Borey class submarine Vladimir Monomakh from near Kola, hitting the Kura test range on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Far East.

…These days, social media may be the first warning that the Americans, Russians, Chinese, or North Koreans receive of missile lift-off heading in their direction. In 2013, the United States postponed a Minuteman missile test due to concern that North Korea might “mis-perceive” such a firing as aimed at them, or sending too strong a nuclear threat against North Korea that might lead to North Korean response.

Thus, how instantaneous social media reports of submarine, bomber, missile, and other indicators of nuclear attack will play into the nuclear command-and-control systems and decisions of nine nuclear-armed states is a good question—especially as these contagious reports may give false positives, false negatives, or simply miss the action altogether."

Pete

Click here to vastly expand map (Courtesy Melting The Ice). Map of Canada with its 370 km Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary being a particular interest to guard - even from American fisherman and oil interests. Russia even more interesting. Many chokepoints suited to Canada SSKs - perhaps Labrador Sea through to Ellesmere Island. From west, Beaufort Sea to Ellsmere Island and all the narrows in between. Protecting US coast (south of San Diego and Strait of Florida?) from Central America drug drop-offs by sea.

---

PETE'S COMMENTS

The following is a broad ranging discussion on Canada's defence concerns with some concentration on submarines, related aircraft and surface ships.

Canada's four SSKs protect Canadian interests while complimenting the SSNs of the US Navy:

- with Canada frequently operating in the Arctic Ocean, Pacific West coast (North (sea-lanes, oil, strategic) Arctic down to Central America? coast (anti-drugs)) similar goals and distances on the Atlantic east coast (up past Labrador Sea).

As Canada’s SSKs are non-AIP they would need to snort every day or two given the risk of being trapped under thick Arctic ice. This would limit far northern strategy and tactics compared to, up to 3 months submerged (food limited), SSNs of Russia, US and perhaps UK SSNs in those waters.

The increasing rate of northern ice melt is increasing the northern areas that SSKs can operate (not only in warmer months but in mid Winter).

Northern waters are increasingly frequented by Russian icebreakers, oil and gas tankers even in Winter. The Russians need increased watching - especially over competing oil claims. The Northern Sea Route and Northwest passage are becoming increasingly valuable ocean highways that shortern naval and commercial "sailing" times. See map at bottom of this article.

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

In the Comments section of Submarine Matter’sSimilar Canadian & Australian Sub Experiences – Victoria/Upholder Class, November 12, 2015

Nicky and Pete have had ongoing discussions of what type of replacement submarine Canada might opt for or be suitable. On a growing scale TKMS 214s, DCNS Scorpenes, Saab A26s, 218s,

Soryus (if Japan offered), TKMS 216s, DCNS Shortfin Barracudas.

BRAD JOHNSON'S COMMENTS

Canadian defence specialist, Brad Johnson, added a wealth of comments towards the end of Comments section not only on submarines but aircraft and surface ships (including future Frigates that Australia may be interested in). I've added one or two words and links for clarity. Brad commented:

"New Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has made three commitments:

- strong military, financed by a deficit budget, which permits rebuilding defence infrastructure.

- committed to current defence spending levels plus planned increases,

- plans to opt for a cheaper fighter aircraft than the F-35 so those funds can be diverted to the Navy.

A replacement for the Victoria Class may not occur soon. A US$?1.5 billion planned mid life overhaul will probably occur keeping the subs functioning until 2025 or so.

By 2025 the hostile public attitude towards the Victoria’s submarines may still delay replacements.

Another problem is many other military acquisitions will come due in the 2025 time frame, such as the big ticket F/A-18 Super Hornets, new Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue (FWSAR) aircraftand frigate/destroyer replacements.

Canada's and Australia's submarine requirements are very similar (other than Arctic ice AIP) hopefully a success for Australia on that front will make it easy for Canada to make a follow on order.

Fingers crossed Trudeau isn't a repeat of Chretien/Martin Liberal government [1993-2006] for the military. There are good reasons to be optimistic but only time will tell. Trudeau only mentioned pulling out the F-18s from over Iraq and Syria. The Polaris refueling tanker, two Aurora surveillance/ MPAs and embedded "trainers" as far as I know are staying in Iraq.

Yes, I have read about the ordeal the Collins Class has been, it is amazing how many Canadians are absolutely convinced the Victoria/Upholders were a rip off. The reality is the Victoria/Upholders cost Canada practically nothing, the initial cost was a horse trade for leasing the subs in exchange for a base lease for Britain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_Unit_Suffield?) zero dollars exchanged. The end of lease price was one dollar (or one pound, I am not sure). Most of the rest of the cost were funds that would have been allocated to Canada's then existing Oberon SSKs anyway.

A Canadian Victoria (ex Upholder) class sub in chilly seas (Photo courtesy Royal Canadian Navy website)
---

[on the Victoria/Upholders] This is not to say there have not been problems, but I have some sympathy for the position of the British. Yes, their mothball procedures left something to be desired, yes there were some deficiencies in their construction (notably the wiring insulation, at least partially to blame for the tragic fire on the HMCS Chicoutimi), but they offered these subs back when they were still in operation. When Canada delayed acquiring them for the better part of a decade, they likely did not allocate funds for a proper decommissioning, resulting in things like salt water left in internal tanks.

Had Canada taken possession immediately (which like I said would have cost nothing as the operational fund would have come from the Oberon funds), the could have brought the same British crews that were on them to train Canadian crews. The refit to Canadian (US) weapon systems could have been a rolling refit, as crews trained on the submarines with the British weapon systems.

Overall all though I don't think the British are blameless in the poor condition the submarines were received in, but I think the bulk of the blame lies squarely with the unnecessarily delays in acquisition by the Canadian government, and most of the deterioration and damage happened during this nearly decade long acquisition with the subs rusting in wet dock. They could have sent a team to inspect the subs and make recommendations and pay for a proper decommissioning and storage in dry dock.

At the end of it even with the damage, these subs were still an excellent deal. Chicoutimi was all but destroyed in the fire, the other subs needed deep refits that the Chretien government was unwilling to pay for. Had Chretien allocated the proper funds, most of the availability issues of the subs would have been taken care of.

At this point the Victoria Class seems to be doing quite well, and is even scheduled for a $1.5 billion dollar upfit.[mid-life overhaul]

Destroyers and Frigates

On paper both Canada and Australia plan on having some very impressive middle power navies in the future. Currently we are without a single functional destroyer [the last of the 1970s launched Iroquois Destroyers, HMCS Athabaskan has been having severe engine troubles], or a single functional supply ship.

The 12 [Halifax class] frigates were just upfit [overhauled] and pretty much tip top, with added air defence capabilities to make up for the lack of destroyers. Plans are big Arctic patrol ships, 15 surface combatants (likely a mix of excellent Royal Danish Navy frigates, 4-5 Iver Huitfelt-class frigates to replace the destroyers and 8-10 Absalon multirole frigates to replace the current frigates), 2-3 supply ships and a heavy ice breaker are planned. As a couple Mistral class assault ships and some SSNs and you have pretty much as good a Navy you could expect a nation the size of Canada to have. The problem of course is this is all just on paper and Canadian defence acquisitions do not have a habit of going smoothly.

SSNs

As far as SSNs go, the US has worked extremely hard for reasons I don't understand to make sure Canada never acquired them. During the big push to acquire SSNs in the late 1980s, not only would they not sell their SSNs to Canada but they blocked the sale of British SSNs. This is in spite of the fact the fuel design in US nuclear subs and to some extent the reactor design is based on work done at the atomic research facility in Chalk River LaboratoriesManitoba.

They even found a way to block the sale of the French SSNs [smallish Rubis class SSNs used from 1983 to this day]. It was the drama of the SSN acquisition (and the end of the Cold War) that left Canada with no submarine replacement plan for the Oberons when the Upholders became available.

I don't know what the reasoning is for the strong US opposition to Canadian SSNs?, but I suspect it hasn't changed. Roadblocks from the US combined with the public's apprehension regarding nuclear power make me think that permit of SSN acquisition is a bridge too far more likely kill the submarine program entirely than result in operational SSNs. Advancements in AIP technology make SSNs less important anyway.

Given that Canada's and Australia's submarine replacement needs are so similar, it would be a very positive sign to see some teamwork here. Canada just like Australia has a strong preference for US torpedoes and fire control systems on their subs, similar operational requirements and a similar relationship with the US navy, a combined effort on submarine acquisition would make a lot of sense."

[See this 2007 article on the US opposing Canada's SSN search. It could be the US does not want Canada's Arctic oil interests too well protected by any future Canadian SSNs. Also SSNs might contribute to excessive Canadian independence... :) ]

PETE'S COMMENT

In terms of joint Australian/Canadian future submarine interest (or combined buying) it is probably a case of our nations at many levels informally liaising, rather than any formal [Anglo-French Concorde :( like] liaison. Canada may have some buy-from-NATO realities that Australia doesn't have. Australia has Japanese interests that Canada doesn't have (to my knowledge).

So I think the RAN and RCN, industry organisations, scientific and research bodies can all email each other and meet at High Commissions (Defence and Naval Attaches?) when opportunity arises. Maybe open ended understandings can be reached but not firm agreements that may come back to haunt in the flexible commercial and public realms.

Australia's current submarine buying program (and positive experience with the Super Hornets) can yield much that is useful for Canada. Canada appears to be ahead in the frigate and offshore patrol vessel acquisition process - which would be generating many valuable pointers for Australia.

I'll write future articles on ice melt (and oil) implications, sub surveillance on drugs and Antarctic problems.

As ice melts the economic and strategic value of the Arctic increases. Submarines and surface warships can stay in wider areas of the Arctic even over Winter. Note shaded "Potential oil and gas fields" - Much Russia is claiming. (Map and commentary courtesy Business Insider Australia ). - see map much enlarged at http://static.businessinsider.com/image/53750c126bb3f72e37360e2c/image.jpg

Pete

The Table may be the most accurate published comparison of the three Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) contenders. (Table courtesy of News Corp Australia, 2015) Still, there are many inaccuracies for the picky:
- the Table is a mix of current capabilities (which is wrong) and estimated future capabilities (more correct). Clear current mistakes are:

- conventional Barracuda's surfaced Displacement is likely to be 4,200-4,765 tonnes. Submerged displacement is unknown.
- 216's website give a surfaced displacement of around 4,000 tonnes, so the "Submerged Displacement" in above Table will likely be considerably more than 4,000 tonnes.

- Soryu's Weapon Stowage believed to be equivalent of 20 heavyweight torpedos (HWT)/Harpoon missiles OR 10 torpedos/Harpoon + 20 (smaller) mines = 20 HWT equivalent.
- 216 likely has at least 1 vertical launch system = about 6-7 more missiles or other uses.

- Soryu's current range is believed to be 6,100 nm but the "Super SoryuAU" (name first christened here) estimated range in 2025 may be more like 11,000 nm.

- The TKMS Type 216 website gives normal crew of 33 - 33 may be short mission but 216AU may vary up to 60 for long mission.

- Cruise missile capability (Tomahawk or other AN/BYG-1 compatible) are very likely required.
- The Australian government has already set the combat system to be the US AN/BYG-1. If the US refuses a contender access to this combat system that contender will be eliminated.

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

This Submarine Matters article has three parts– with just 10 days to go before final responses are due for Australia’s future submarine CEP.

1. Perhaps Greater Australian Competition

A November 18, 2015 news report that that two shipbuilding companies Forgacs (NSW) and Civmec (WA) may unite to compete more fully against large shipbuilders in SA and Victoria. This will hopefully boost competition in the submarine, frigate and offshore patrol boat builds.

"Newcastle [NSW] shipbuilder Forgacs expects selling its defence engineering division will lead to significant investment and more jobs. Western Australian firm Civmec, which employs 1,500 workers at its base in Henderson near Perth, wants to buy Forgacs.

It plans on making the Tomago shipyard Civmec's east coast headquarters, with the acquisition expected to create a leading national firm.

Forgacs chairman Peter Burgess said the deal is dependent on the approval of Civmec's shareholders..."

See Submarine Matter’s Australia’s $90 Billion Naval Shipbuilding More Complex Under New Government, September 21, 2015.which mentions all of these shipbuilding industry competitors, including there locations.

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

2. Rising scholar Mina Pollmann, has written an outstanding article of November 19, 2015, for The Diplomat. The following are excerpts. I have bolded some parts for emphasis.

“How Will Australia Choose Its Next Submarine Builder?

As France, Germany, and Japan promote their bids, a look at Australia’s wishlist for its next submarine class.

Mina Pollmann (Photo courtesy Alexander Brown/ The Hoya)

This week, the three companies competing to build Australia’s next generation of submarines publicly discussed their proposals at the Submarine Institute of Australia’s ..Conference held in Adelaide, South Australia. The November 30 deadline for the Japanese, German, and French bidders to submit their proposals for a modified Soryu, the Type 216, and the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A, respectively, is rapidly approaching, and the competition for the $20 billion prize intensifying.

…Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has offered to transform Australia into the shipbuilding hub of the Asia-Pacific, a proposal recently echoed by France’s state-controlled DCNS.

....Of course, there are also strategic considerations – former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was known to favour Japan in order to cement the “special relationship” between the two democratic U.S. allies. Even though Abbott’s ousting by Malcolm Turnbull has helped ameliorate the perception of favoritism towards Japan, the underlying logic of a U.S.-Australia-Japan alignment remains sound.

Turnbull replacing Abbott might even end up being a win for Japan – now, if the Japanese option is recommended and chosen, no one can accuse the decision makers of bias and the Japanese bid can be recognized as objectively in the best interest of Australia.

…Finally, cooperation with the United States is a key factor. Conventional submarines, which are better at operating in Asia’s shallow coastal waters, can complement and augment the United States’ all-nuclear undersea fleet. Australia’s allergy to nuclear submarines may have started as a liability, by hindering technology cooperation with their patron-ally, but now may be the best guarantor for continued integration between U.S. and Australian forces – and more importantly, their interests.

Australian Defense Minister Marise Payne provided some insight …: “The selection balances key considerations, including high levels of interoperability with our key ally, the U.S., opportunities to de-risk the combat systems, and synergies arising from commonality between Collins and future submarines.”

The Australian government is expected to decide which international partner Australia will work with early next year – but don’t be surprised if the decision keeps getting pushed off. In Payne’s words, “The Government does not intend to be rushed. This is too important a decision for that.” But a non-decision will have important consequences, as Australia’s neighbors are also modernizing their undersea fleets. Even after a winner is chosen, it will take another three years to finalize the processes and details of the deal.

…After all, it’s not just the submarines contract that shipbuilders must be prepared to deal with. Even though the three-way competitive evaluation process for building eight or 12 submarines has been getting the most attention, the Australian government is also preparing to award contracts for a fleet of frigates to replace the eight ANZAC Class frigates and a new fleet of up to 21 offshore patrol boats in the coming months.”

SeeWHOLE ARTICLE AT THE DIPLOMAT.

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

3. Japan to get last major sales opportunity with Australia on Sunday, November 22, 2015.

The Japan Times reported November 17, 2015 that:

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and Defense Minister Gen [not Nakatani rose to Army Captain in the military “Gen” is just his first name] Nakatani will meet Sunday in Sydney with their Australian counterparts [Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Defence Minister Marise Payne], officials said [November 17, 2015], with Tokyo aiming to pitch the advantages of teaming up to build Australia’s new fleet of submarines.

During the so-called two-plus-two [or "2 + 2"] security meeting, Kishida and Nakatani are expected to seek an edge over the German and French bids for what Canberra calls its “largest defense procurement program in history....”

So much is happening as the November 30, 2015 CEP deadline approaches.

Pete

On the night of 31 May 1942 three Japanese midget submarines entered Sydney harbour. One became entangled in the boom net across the harbour, and her occupants blew her up. A second entered the harbour and fired torpedoes at the heavy cruiser USS Chicago. They missed the Chicago but one hit the barracks boat HMAS Kuttabul, killing 21 naval ratings. (Photo and description courtesy AWM) The submarines were modified versions of the Pearl Harbour midget submarines. They were Type ‘A Kai 1’ (improved version 1) 24 metres long, 47 tons and carried two 18 inch Type 97 torpedoes, 2 crewman.

---

Japan's Minister of Defense Nakatani (closest to camera) and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kishida (civilian clothes) pay their respects and lay wreaths at a World War 2 Japanese midget submarine display during a visit to the Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre on November 22, 2015 in Sydney, Australia.

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

Minister for Defence – Joint Communique– Sixth Japan-Australia 2+2 Foreign and Defence Ministerial Consultations, November 22, 2015. 20 items discussed. Key items included:

2. special strategic partnership between Australia and Japan

7. Japanese Ministers explained Japan’s commitment to fulfilling all the requirements in the Competitive Evaluation Process underway to select an international partner to assist in the delivery of “Australia’s Future Submarine.” Australian Ministers welcomed Japan’s participation in the Process and noted Japan’s commitment to it.

12. expressed their strong opposition to any coercive or unilateral actions that could alter the status quo in the East China Sea.

13 and 14 South China Sea

19 and 20 Japan and Australia’s key alliances with the US and Trilateral Strategic Dialogue (TSD).

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

Andrew Greene Australian ABC News Defence and National Security Reporter has provided a useful article November 22, 2015 that http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-22/japan-urges-australia-to-send-clear-message-agaisnt-27self-rig/6962012:

"South China Sea: Japan urges Australia to send clear message against 'self-righteous' Chinese military activity

[Sydney] High level talks between the Australian and Japanese governments have opened with a plea for both nations to come together to send a "clear message" against Beijing's military build up in the South China Sea.

Japan's Defence and Foreign ministers are being hosted by their Australian counterparts for bilateral meetings in Sydney.

In his opening remarks Japanese defence minister Gen Nakatani accused China of "attempting to change the status quo by force" in the South China Sea.

He said the attempts were "based on self-righteous assertions which are incompatible with international law and order".

One of China's controversial activities is building artificial islands in disputed regions. See how reefs are being converted intomilitary facilities.

"I believe that it is important that our two nations and our region come together and send a clear message that such attempts will not be condoned," Mr Nakatani added.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told her guests the two countries enjoyed "a special strategic relationship" and one that Australia "valued greatly".

"We share common values and interests. Our relationship is also based on a commitment to supporting peace and security in the region," Ms Bishop added.

Defence Minister Marise Payne [weighed in with similar sentiments] describing the Australia Japan relationship as "one of Australia's highest priorities for defence engagement".

"Japan is our key partner in the region for Australia. We have very valuable shared interests in both regional and international peace, in stability and in prosperity," Senator Payne said.

"Clearly a strong Japan both economically and strategically is fundamental to the stability of North Asia."

Earlier Ms Bishop and Senator Payne accompanied Japanese foreign minister Fumio Kishida and Gen Nakatani at wreath-laying ceremonies at the HMAS Kuttabul memorial and midget submarine at Garden Island.

This morning the four ministers also toured the Royal Australian Navy's new flagship HMAS Canberra.

Today's discussions will focus on options to strengthen the defence and security relationship, including countering the threat of terrorism.

Japan will also press its case for building Australia's next generation of submarines to replace the ageing Collins class fleet." Ends

[On November 22, just after the talks Nakatani said"This is not just about a chance for defence equipment and technologies, this will lead to co-operation between Japan and Australia, and amongst Japan, Australia and the United States, which I believe will contribute in ensuring freedom of navigation in the Asia-Pacific."

Mr Nakatani said because the subs would also have US-Australia-developed combat systems, if Japan was chosen then Australian future submarines would be "a model for strategic cooperation between Australia, the United States and Japan"]

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

Please connect with Submarine Matters':

- Japan's Submarine Sales Advantage, 2 + 2 Talks With Australia, November 1, 2015, and

- "Final" Responses for CEP Due in Ten Days - Japan has last word, November 20, 2015.

Pete

P-8 Poseidon. 440+ knots, 1,200+ nm (4 hours on station). Lack of a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) for some or most, is controversial. US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) deleted the requirement for the P-8 to be equipped with magnetic anomaly detection equipment as part of an effort that reduced weight by 1,600 kg to improve endurance and range. (Diagram and specifications courtesy http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/p8.htm)

---

The P-8s also have a hydrocarbon sensor which detects fuel vapors from diesel-powered submarines and ships. (Diagram courtesy Gulf News)

---

Submarine Matters reported on Two of the Possible Choices for the UK's Next Maritime Patrol Aircraft, on July 23, 2015. That article discussed two alternatives to the P-8 Poseidon likely choice. The alternatives were the Airbus A319 MPA and Japan's Kawasaki P-1 MPA, both in development.

Patrick Wintour, UK Guardian, November 23, 2016 now reports:

[UK Prime Minister] Cameron will also announce on [November 23, 2015] the purchase of nine new Boeing P8 maritime patrol aircraft [MPA] for surveillance, anti-submarine and anti-surface ship warfare. They will replace the Nimrod aircraft scrapped in 2010 that left a glaring hole in the ability to detect enemy submarines in UK waters, such as at the entry point to the submarine base in Faslane.

They will be designed to protect Trident submarines and the two new aircraft carriers. The maritime aircraft has been a specific request of the Royal Navy after the loss of Nimrod. These roles require an aircraft that can carry torpedoes as well as being fitted with a broad range of sensors, including radar and sonobuoys that are operated from the rear of the cabin by a team of specialists. These aircraft will also provide maritime search and rescue and surveillance capabilities over land.”

See additional details concerning the P-8 decision and implications on bases in Britain at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34898079.

COMMENT-BACKGROUND

Hence the Japanese P-1 and Airbus competitors have been eliminated. One reason would be the US's long experience of designing and operating large long range MPAs, including the early P-2 Neptune (1947 - 1984) and P-3 Orion (1962 - present). Also the P-8 is already operational, in full production - so the UK will probably receive them more quickly than the, in development, P-1 and Airbus aircraft could have become available.

On concerns of the higher altitude P-8s operate at. There is a tradeoff in that higher altitude aircraft are faster and longer range, using fuel more economically. Such aircraft can patrol wider areas than lower altitude aircraft. Hence fewer higher altitude aircraft needed. The P-8s can drop sonobuoys that are so low altitude they are on the surface or act as “dipping sonars” as they float and/or sink:

Underlining the UK's desperate need for its own maritime patrol aircraft capability is a BBC report of November 23, 2015:

"An RAF plane is "conducting activity" off the Scottish coast, the Ministry of Defence says, amid reports of a Russian submarine being spotted in the area. A Royal Navy Frigate and submarine are also thought to be involved in the search, along with Canadian and French maritime patrol aircraft…"We can confirm that allied maritime patrol aircraft based at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period are conducting activity with the Royal Navy," a statement said.”

A further advantage of high and fast operation - it should not be forgotten that P-8s used by the US, India , by 2017 Australia and soon the UK also have a major ground surveillance mission. In this mission low, slow flight mode would be inefficient and leave them vulnerable to surface to air missiles.

P-8 inside and out.

Pete

USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) tied up at Fort Hill Wharf, Port of Darwin, northern Australia. The wharf and port where future US Navy ships tie up is now owned (well leased for only 99 years!) by a Chinese company called Landbridge Group. See September 17, 2013, We finally made it to Darwin! But Australia's leaders ignorant?

---

An increasing US presence in Port of Darwin and Marine barracks in Darwin. Fleet Base West, south of Perth, already hosting US carriers and submarines (SSNs and SSGNs) for visits.

---

Darwin. See Fort Hill Wharf (just to the left of this map of Port of Darwin) where US ships tie up. (Map courtesy ABC)

---

It would appear that the sudden changeover in Australia's Prime Ministers in mid September 2015 frustrated any careful Ministerial, Cabinet or Prime Ministerial consideration of a major alliance matter. This was the national security implications of the sale of strategic Port of Darwin to a Chinese owned company called Landbridge Group.

The Chinese company won't need to be told what type warship or submarine is visiting. It will just need to note the preparation patterns over 99 years to draw an accurate picture.

Over 1,000 US Marines and an amphibious assault ship are rotated through Darwin each year as part of the US pivot/rebalance. Other US and allied warships visit the port more frequently.

Basically in September-October 2015 Australia gained a new Prime Minister and new Defence Minister. Much was in disarray. So a sale of a strategic port to Chinese company Landbridge slipped through the cracks and we told the US about it two days after the sale.

So we told you after we did it. What's your problem allies!!

13 October 2015 - China's Landbridge wins Port of Darwin for $506m

Then, two days after the sale:

15 October 2015 - Australian bureaucrat Defence Secretary Richardson [first?] discussed the matter face-to-face with US Deputy Secretary of Defence, Robert Work, in Washington DC. This is according to Defence Minister Marise Payne.

So it appears the US was told after the sale - and then as a courtesy.

A month later Australia’s ABC, reported on the seeming ignorance of new Prime Minister Turnbull regarding the major defence significance of Port of Darwin, of US sensitivities and perhaps even Japanese naval security sensitivities.

ABC News reports November 21, 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-20/turnbull-gets-it-wrong-on-whether-darwin-port-used-by-military/6958404:

"PM Malcolm Turnbull gets it wrong on whether Darwin port is used by military"

By political reporter Anna Henderson

Updated Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 1:02am

"Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made a significant error in trying to justify the decision to lease Australia's crucial northern port to Chinese interests, by claiming it is not used by the military.

Key points:

Malcolm Turnbull's statements on Darwin port questioned

PM previously claimed port was not used by military, but facility is advertised as catering to "frequent naval visits"

NT Government has leased port to Chinese-owned company

The Northern Territory Government sparked international controversy last month when it decided to lease the Port of Darwin facilities to a Chinese-owned company.

Some defence analysts have warned the company, Landbridge, has strong links to the Chinese Communist Party. They have also warned China will use the lease strategically to secure a presence in the north of Australia.

The ABC has also been told US president Barack Obama raised the sale directly with Mr Turnbull in a face-to-face meeting this week.

On [November 20, 2015] Mr Turnbull was questioned by Darwin radio station MIX 104.9 about the sale of the port.

"The port that is being leased is not being used by the military, it is a commercial port," he said.

But according to an announcement by the Darwin Port Corporation on November 16, the lease includes East Arm Wharf commercial port outside Darwin and the Fort Hill Wharf close to the city's CBD.

Fort Hill Wharf is advertised as a "cruise ship and Defence vessel facility"..."catering to "frequent naval ship visits"...international and domestic....

A spokesman for the Prime Minister has since issued a media statement, which said Mr Turnbull was making the point that the Darwin facility "is a commercial port not a military port".

The Prime Minister has repeatedly defended the lease arrangements.

The Prime Minister also stressed Defence could step in and take over management of the port for national security reasons. [during a war or something?]

"...Fort Hill Wharf that are used not only by the Australian Navy but also the militaries of other countries as well, so it would be good if the Prime Minister, when coming to the north, knew what he was talking about," Mr Gosling said.

see WHOLE ARTICLE.

Port of Darwin is in good hands with China's Landbridge Group. (Photo of operations in China courtesy Landbridge website)

USS America (LHA-6) coming to Darwin in 2016 "...and conduct on-load and off-load,”

Perhaps the company leasing Port of Darwin for 99 years will get a hint before ships visit? Diesel tankers or US preparatory teams on Fort Hill Wharf anybody? (see NT News)

Pete

The US developed AN/BYG-1 combat system is on the USN's SSNs and SSGNs and on the Collins subs. A typical workstation display above. (Diagram and description courtesy General Dynamics)

---

The 3 contenders are currently finalising their final responses to the CEP with 5 days to go. But it is US and Australian alliance dynamics and the electrical power needs of the US provided AN/BYG-1 combat system that may be thoroughly under-rated issues. Combat systems are the networks of sensors, weapons, data bases and other electronics that submarines rely on and fight with.

In terms of alliance dynamics Submarine Matters' The US Continues to Influence Australia's Future Submarine Selection in Many Ways, September 22, 2015, pointed out that US alliance issues include:

1.  Australia's on the record preference for the US AN/BYG-1 combat system,

2.  Given the highly confidential nature of combat system it may be effectively up to the US which of the 3 countries can access the combat system technology, and

3.  The US public endorsement of the Japanese Soryu submarine as the best large submarine may be a continuing US policy. "Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, commander of the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, 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,’"

Now a sheer physical requirement may also be crucial. That requirement is high electical power needs of the US combat system and for the high transit speeds required of Australian submarines. Its needs are probably more like the needs of Japan's part US derived combat system and less like Germany's and France's air independent propulsions (AIP) compatible lower power combat systems. AIP only delivers a small amount of power while the US combat system is built around the power output of its largest user group - which are large, high electrical power producing, US nuclear submarines.

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

Along these lines the following comments on November 21, 2015 are useful to revisit:

In comments the issue of maximum submerged speed of the three contenders in the CEP came up:

Anonymous [on Nov 21, 6:37PM] commented:"...A. It is not the Max speed that matters, it is the transition [transit] speed that is critical for Australia. The batteries of the submarine are consumed by 2 factors: the propulsion load and hotel load (stuff like air conditions, lights, combat systems...etc). The propulsion load is about the square or cubic of the speed. So, if you want to double the speed, you need about 4 times (2X2) or 8 times (2X2X2) of propulsion load.

And so, how does the Type 212/214 achieve that "superior" endurance? Sail at very slow speed (4 to 5 knots), very low crew numbers and a much less power hungry but less capable combat systems (so much less hotel load). It takes 2 weeks to cover 1500km, and [Australian] submarines have to sail nearly 7,000km to reach the operation area. If we do it in German's way, we have to return to base (with 70 days provision as in Collins) before we reach our target.

Our Collins (and the future submarine) are transitioning at 10+ knots, have a much bigger crew, a much more power hungry combat system. So what is practical on Type 212/214 will not be true for the Type 216 (and that is a power consumption far beyond the fuel cell AIP on board Type 212/214 can practically provide). So even the Type 216 [needs to] have 4 diesel engines (twice the number on board type 214) in order to recharge the LIB fast enough.

Soryu has a higher transitioning speed, have a much bigger crew and a more power hungry combat system than the type 214/212. Not as ["crazy" high?] as our Collins but it is more close to "reality" than the spec. of type 216 on newspapers.

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

Australia's Rex Patrick writing for ASPI's Strategist website reinforces the high power consumption needs of the combat system point.

"A second issue with the [AN/BYG-1 combat system that will be included in the Australian future submarine] is that of power consumption. It’s well known the BYG, of nuclear submarine origin, has large power consumption needs that increase the submarine’s ‘hotel load’. In turn, this adversely effects the submarine’s all-important indiscretion ratio. Noting the impact this will have on the submarine’s operational stealth, it’s hard to appreciate how Navy can simply ignore this issue."
[More detailed Rex Patrick views on the AN/BYG-1 are in the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR) Vol. 41 No. 8 (subscription) October 2015, pp. 36-39. APDR has commentary on Australian future submarine issues in all of its (usually monthly) editions.]

Advocates for German and French submarines frequently mention the value of AIP systems or submarines (like the Type 212 and 214) which are specifically built around AIP systems.

AIP however never appears to have been rated as a high requirement for Australian submarines. The Collins planners could have included AIP as fitted or retrofitted. Of the Collins major faults, diesel engine reliability and diesel fuel tank problems have been mentioned. Perhaps electrical reliability is also a problem. The lack of AIP has not featured on the media fault list.

AIP has also not been a major item in the future submarine debate. So

1. Maybe the US combat system's high electrical power needs effectively cancels out the AIP option.

Another assumption may be the high electrical needs of motors during the standard fast and long transit legs of (likely) most Australian sub missions. So:

2. Fast transit speeds preference large engine capacity and high (LIB) battery capacity which further pushes AIP down the requirements list.

The French response made on Submarine Matters that AIP may be retrofitted if it is thought necessary, may not be a weakness at all.

Pete

Defence Minister Payne trying to keep the submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) on track. (Photo: Andrew Meares via Canberra Times)

---

Rarely are there behind the scenes newspaper articles concerning:

- arms company marketing tactics,

- the thin technical knowledge of defence bureaucracies, and

- the consequent Government reliance on arms companies to explain the technical intricacies of the company's submarine products.

Maybe Governments also rely on arms companies to do much of the marketing (eg. on subs and "Joint Strike Fighters") to ordinary citizens (whose tax money ultimately pays for these weapons)?

Fortunatly Phillip Thomsonfor The Canberra Times, November 26, 2015 has reported on the above issues. Here are some excerpts from his article. I've bolded and redded some parts for emphasis :

"Defence has handed redundancy payments to people they have re-employed as contractors

…The Australian government was warned during the inquiry that its purchase of Joint Strike Fighters could be risky if it continued to cut expert public servants from the Defence Department [DoD].

Defence would find it harder to tell the difference between facts and ambitious marketing claims, said Mr Bussell, a Defence scientist of more than 30 years.

"Industry do a wonderful job at developing technologies but they also do a wonderful job at marketing those technologies," Mr Bussell said.

The committee inquiry has been investigating the capability of Defence's physical science and engineering workforce.

"Unless you have the in-depth detailed expertise to question those marketing claims you're putting yourself at risk of buying a product that doesn't perform to a specification you thought it might," he said.

"It takes a long time for defence scientists and engineers to develop a degree of expertise that allows them to look through the cracks of those marketing brochures."

Professionals Australia ACT director David Smith said "we don't have the expertise to be a smart buyer" in procurement and sustainment because in too many areas the in-house technical experience was one deep or at most three deep.

Mr Smith said the risks of being an ignorant buyer existed in Defence's naval activities as well with two key senior naval engineers working on submarines possibly accepting voluntary redundancies.

"[Defence] will have no internal expertise [in submarine naval architecture] if that happens,"he said.

Alan Gray, a public servant specialising in technology for 25 years, said Australia's technological advancement behind the scenes was lagging behind neighbours in the Asia-Pacific.

"Too little attention is being paid to recruiting [physical science and engineering] workers," he said.

A range of fields Defence would need people to work in included satellite and communications technology, sensing, propulsion, mechanical engineering, modelling and simulation and next generation batteries.

He co-authored a report with Dr Martin Callinan which called for Defence to have a plan for how it would deal with its technical workforce in the future in the face of disruptive technologies and to better scrutinise in which cases it was best to use contractors compared to in-house staff." See WHOLE ARTICLE

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

PETE'S COMMENT

So the Defence Science and Technology Group within Australia’s DoD appears to be suffering from disruptions and leakage of technical knowledge. This is in addition to that other technical knowledge base, the Defence Materiel Organisation ('DMO'), being disbanded and absorbed, on 1 July 2015, into the DoD's Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. Also a new Prime Minister and new Defence Minister with new political advisers/offices also are surely causing disruption.

I assume the 3 CEP contenders have suffered the uncertainty and doubt this disruption has caused? Of course the 3 contenders would be reluctant to talk about this publicly!

Pete

Japan's Submarine Sales Advantage, 2 + 2 Talks With Australia

Political and security relationship

Increase in Stress Management for US Submariners

Russian Airliner Crash in Sinai - Terrorists from Northern Caucasus?

Chinese and US Submarines Likely Kept Watch on USS Lassen

Indonesian Submarine Operations and Youtube

Beware of hackers, human spies and employees!

Exploding Fuel Cell AIP. Safer alternative of LIBs in Soryus

Subic Bay, Philippines Still Important to US Navy

Similar Canadian & Australian Sub Experiences - Victoria/Upholder Class

Columbia's Newly Renovated TKMS Type 206s

Look at Japan's Next Generation Submarine, LAB, LIB, Li-S/LSB Batteries

Australia to have "2 + 2" Talks with Japan and Germany, but not with France (so far)

Bit of a SLBM Scare to brighten these dark nights

Canadian Defence Concerns with some concentration on Submarines

"Final" Responses for CEP Due in Ten Days - Japan has last word

Japan - Australia "2 + 2" Talks, November 22, 2015, Going Well

UK Chooses the P-8 Poseidon as its New Maritime Patrol Aircraft

US told 2 Days After - that Port of Darwin sold to Chinese Company

US Combat System May Have Pushed Out AIP in the CEP

Buying Subs, Australian DoD's Disrupted Technical Knowledge