Australia's low key FONOPS of disputed South China Sea islands

December 15, 2015, 11:58 pm

≫ Next: Australian Submarine Issues, Turnbull Tokyo Visit - December 18, 2015

≪ Previous: Canadian Defence Concerns with some concentration on Submarines

In late November 2015 BBC journalist Rupert Wingfield-Hayes was conducting a BBC private Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) near Mischief reef claimed by China. Wingfield-Hayes recorded the (late Nov or a week later voice...?) of an Australian RAAF airman whose Orion maritime patrol aircraft (see Youtube below) had been contacted by a Chinese Navy chap on an island. Wingfield-Hayes published an article on Dec 14-15, 2015 describing the encounter:

""China Navy, China Navy," the voice said. "We are an Australian aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation rights, in international airspace in accordance with the international civil aviation convention, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - over."

We heard the Australian message being repeated several times, but did not catch any response from the Chinese side.

The purpose of such flights is to demonstrate to China that countries like Australia and the US do not recognise its newly manufactured islands.

But they do exist and China is already enforcing a 12-nautical-mile exclusion zone around them, or trying to. At Fiery Cross the warnings began at 20 miles..."

Late November 2015 BBC journalist Rupert Wingfield-Hayes' BBC FONOPs near Mischief reef when he recorded an Australian Orion aircraft talking to the Chinese Navy. A longer explanatory Youtube is here.
---

The blue dots are some of the Spratly islands/reefs China is building up/fortifying in the South China Sea. Mischief reef is particularly contentious as it is only about 200 km from the Philippines island of Palawan (the BBC private aircraft FONOPS took off from Palawan then landed there). Philippine fisherman have long shared waters around the reef with Chinese and other fisherman, but now the waters are "China only". Strategic position and suspected undersea oil are worth more. (Map courtesy Philippine Government via BBC).
---

COMMENT-BACKGROUND

Australia under Operation Gateway conducts periodic Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) near islands that China is fortifying in the South China Sea. China has not been publically complaining about the Australian FONOPS because Australia has not been publicising the FONOPS. So like much of diplomacy all has been at a low key, unstated, non-confrontational level.

Australia clearly did not want to escalate the FONOPS to a fully publicised USS Lassen style confrontation. So a rhetorical device was constructed of a UK journalist (conducting a BBC FONOPS...) just happening to pickup an Australian-Chinese radio discussion (during a vague multi-day period).

Anyway China subsequently commented, but none too severely.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei responded mildly on December 15, 2015 to "Dorothy Dix Questions" about Australia's and the BBC's South China Sea FONOPS.

"Q: According to the BBC, an Australian military aircraft might have taken part in a freedom of navigation flight in the South China Sea in late November or early December. Is the Chinese side aware of that? What is your response?

A: We have made our solemn position clear on many occasions. I would like to stress again that there is no problem with navigation and overflight freedom in the South China Sea. We hope other countries, especially those outside the region, will watch their words and actions, rather than bringing up troubles and deliberately complicating the situation in the South China Sea.

Q: In late November, BBC journalists took a civilian aircraft around four reefs built by China in the South China Sea. They were warned off by the Chinese navy each time and they were further than 12 nautical miles from these reefs. Given that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea says that artificial islands do not have maritime territorial rights, how does that qualify as freedom of navigation being unaffected by China’s construction activities?

A: China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha islands. While exercising freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea in accordance with international law, relevant countries should respect China’s sovereignty and security."

No missiles or guns fired. May it stay that way.

Pete

↧

Australian Submarine Issues, Turnbull Tokyo Visit - December 18, 2015

December 16, 2015, 10:21 pm

≫ Next: Trident D5 and Bulava SLBMs compared

≪ Previous: Australia's low key FONOPS of disputed South China Sea islands

Prime Minister Turnbull met Prime Minister Abe at the G20 in Turkey, mid November 2015 (above). They are meeting again tomorrow, December 18, 2015. (Photo courtesy AAP via Australia's SBS News).

---

Turnbull visiting Abe in Tokyo, December 18.

As expected in Submarine Matters post of December 6, 2015 Australia's Prime Minister Turnbull is meeting Prime Minister Abe in Tokyo on December 18. Abe will be promoting the Japanese submarine, of course. The China problem will also be discussed.

As well as talks in Tokyo Turnbull (or members of his staff) may visit the MHI and KHI Soryu submarine building yards in Kobe, Japan.

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

Defence Minister Payne (red-orange top) next to Japan's Defence Minister Nakatani at the 2 + 2 talks, November 22, 2015. In front is Foreign Minister Bishop (white top) next to Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida. (Photo courtesy The Australian).

---

Insider Briefing, Adelaide, December 17

Meanwhile, in Adelaide, December 17, Defence Minister Marise Payne indicated/implied to industry insiders that the 2016 Defence White Paper, which will frame many submarine issues, will be released in early 2016. No submarine contender is likely to be chosen until after the 2016 Australian Federal Elections. The Turnbull Government would lose votes if it indicated which States or electorates would Not be involved in the submarine build. So instead the Government can imply, before the Election that all may benefit. The hard decisions of saying which contender wins (which in turn favours the Australian companies the contender has formed alliances with) are best made after the Election.

In Australia elections typically fall in the Southern Hemisphere Spring (the weather is warm and people positive). The most popular month is September - see Background on Next Australian Federal Election. Turnbull is a popular leader, whose Liberal National Party Coalition is very likely to hang on to power.

South Australia seems the most expectant and sensitive State on this issue. Hence all three contenders have rolled out promises that they will make Adelaide a submarine building and maintenance hub. After the Elections the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) a small submarine fixated party from South Australia, may become more powerful, at the expense of the Turnbull Government.

It was easy to pick Japan as the winning contender when Abbott ruled, but under Turnbull the winner is a well kept secret. Either that or the Australian Government (and the US) have simply not decided yet.

Pete

↧

Trident D5 and Bulava SLBMs compared

December 17, 2015, 4:24 am

≫ Next: One Million Pageviews Before Christmas

≪ Previous: Australian Submarine Issues, Turnbull Tokyo Visit - December 18, 2015

The Bulava (Russia's latest SLBM) is much lighter and shorter ranged than the Trident D5 (on left) - I wonder why?

Does the Trident D5 need to be longer ranged when launched from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, traveingl over the Russian landmass (much larger than the US) then hit missles in their silos in central Russia?

TRIDENT D5 vs BULAVA COMPARISION TABLE

SLBM	TRIDENT D5 (aka II or 2)	BULAVA RSM-56, SS-NX-30
Length:	13.42 m	12.1 m
Diameter:	2.11 m	2.0 m
Launch Weight:	59,090 kg	36,800 kg
Payload:	Up to 8 MIRV Mk 4 or Mk 5 warheads, 2,800 kg	One to six MIRV, 1,150 kg
Warhead:	Nuclear 100 kt or 475 kT	Nuclear, 100-150 kT
Propulsion:	Three-stage solid propellant	Three-stage solid propellant
Range:	12,000 km	8,300 km
Status:	Operational	Operational (on 3 Borei SSBNs)
In Service:	1990	2013 (January)

Presumably the Trident is also much more accurate than the Bulava?

Predictably the Bulava has MIRV capability.
---

A Russian Borey-class nuclear submarine successfully test-fired a Bulava strategic missile, the Russian Defense Ministry said. The ballistic missile was launched from a submerged position with all 16 rockets onboard the sub during the test.
---

Pete

↧

One Million Pageviews Before Christmas

December 17, 2015, 12:30 pm

≫ Next: Future Sub decision to be made in "first half of" 2016

≪ Previous: Trident D5 and Bulava SLBMs compared

Just a number, but its rare that milestones can be marked.

Tens of thousands of different people viewing Submarine Matters over the last few years helped achieve this.

To write about weapons and politics for such a large audience is a privilege and pleasure.

The following are some memorable songs in celebration. Ode to Joy and Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring are also Christmas songs.

I Thank You.

Pete

↧

Future Sub decision to be made in "first half of" 2016

December 18, 2015, 9:50 pm

≫ Next: French built, Greek Navy submarine Papanikolis (Y-2) Hammered Axis

≪ Previous: One Million Pageviews Before Christmas

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Australian counterpart, Malcolm Turnbull, hold bilateral summit talks Friday at the State Guest House in Tokyo. (Photo and description courtesy AFP-JIJI via Japan Times)

---

Following Prime Minister Turnbull's short trip to Tokyo to meet Prime Minister Abe, December 18, 2015, Reiji Yoshida for The Japan Times, same day, in part reported:

..."According to Japanese officials, during the closed part of the meeting, Abe explained Japan’s proposal for joint production of a modified version of Japan’s latest Soryu-class submarine, which experts say is one of the world’s best and quietest nonnuclear submarines.

Turnbull thanked Japan for its proposal but only said Australia will make a decision in the first half of the next year, the Japanese officials said.

France and Germany have proposed their own plans to export submarines to Australia. Canberra is set to choose one model through a competitive evaluation process.

In the joint statement, the two leaders also expressed “strong support for the United States rebalance” policy to maintain it military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

The U.S. is believed to be supporting Japan’s bid to export submarines to Australia, hoping it will further strengthen trilateral military cooperations in the region." Ends - see WHOLE ARTICLE.

Please connect with Submarine Mattersarticle of December 17, 2015 on the Turnbull visit.

Pete

↧

French built, Greek Navy submarine Papanikolis (Y-2) Hammered Axis

December 19, 2015, 6:26 pm

≫ Next: Simulated Chinese sub attack USS Reagon, Japanese & S Korean subs likely involved

≪ Previous: Future Sub decision to be made in "first half of" 2016

The Mediterranean light, and perhaps an artist's "colourised" enhancements, makes Papanikolis (Y-2) an unusually pretty sub :) (Photo courtesy)

---

It has been reportedthat Nikolaos Tasiakos, the last surviving member of the crew of Greek submarine Papanikolis (Y-2), died in mid-December 2015, aged 101.

The French built, Papanikolis (Y-2) had an outstanding career sinking Italian ships and sailing boats in WWII. Dropping and recovering British, New Zealand and Greek agents/commandos against German/Italian held islands was another of Papanikolis (Y-2)’s major functions. Some specs for this sub include 580 tons (surfaced), 30 crew, 7 x 533mm torpedos, 4 inch gun.

Wiki reveals: "Papanikolis (Y-2) together with her sister ship, Katsonis, formed the first class of Greek submarines ordered after the First World War. She was built at the Chantiers de la Loire shipyards between 1925–27, and commissioned into the Hellenic Navy on 21 December 1927. Its first captain was Cdr P. Vandoros.

Despite her age and mechanical problems, she participated in the 1940-41 Greco-Italian War under the command of Lieutenant Commander Miltiadis Iatridis, carrying out six war patrols in the Adriatic. During one of these, on 22 December 1940, she sank the small Italian motor ship Antonietta, and, on the very next day, the 3,952-ton troop carrier Firenze near Sazan Island.^[1] After the German invasion of April 1941, together with the rest of the fleet, Papanikolis fled to the Middle East, from where she would operate during the next years, carrying out nine war patrols in total.

Under the command of Commander Athanasios Spanidis, the former captain of Katsonis, she participated in two patrols in the Aegean Sea in 1942. During the first, in June 1942, she sank six small sailing vessels between 11 and 14 June, and proceeded to disembark SOE agents in Crete and receive a team of 15 New Zealand commandos.^[2] During the next patrol, from 31 August to 15 September, she unsuccessfully attacked an 8,000-ton oil carrier, and disembarked two mixed British-Greek commando teams at Rhodes, which succeeded in attacking the island's two airfields and destroying a large number of Axis aircraft^[2] in "Operation Anglo".

Coming under the command of Lieutenant Nikolaos Roussen, the submarine went into another patrol in November, offloading men and equipment at Crete. On 30 November, Papanikolis successfully ambushed and sank an 8,000-ton cargo vessel at the Alimnia islet, near Rhodes.^[3] On 17 January 1943, after carrying agents and equipment to Hydra, she captured the 200-ton sailing vessel Agios Stefanos and manned her with part of her crew, which sailed her to Alexandria, while the next day, she sank another 150-ton sailer.^[2] During subsequent patrols in March and May, she sank further 4 sailers, totaling 450 tons.^[2]

Papanikolis survived the war and returned to Greece after liberation in October 1944. However, she was severely outdated, and was decommissioned in 1945. The ship's conning tower was preserved and is on display in the Hellenic Maritime Museum at Piraeus."

Pete

↧

Simulated Chinese sub attack USS Reagon, Japanese & S Korean subs likely involved

December 20, 2015, 12:06 am

≫ Next: Christmas in Australia 2015

≪ Previous: French built, Greek Navy submarine Papanikolis (Y-2) Hammered Axis

MISSION

In Comments, on December 18, 2015, Anonymous [Dec 18, 8:49AM] asked “I was wondering whether you would comment on a recent story that a Chinese submarine conducted a simulated attack on a CVN. What would in your view constitute a simulated attack from a submarine?"

RESPONSE

Noting http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-submarine-practiced-missile-attack-on-uss-reagan/"

Another good source is http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/12/15/chinese-submarine-reportedly-simulates-cruise-missile-attack-on-uss-ronald-reagan/

The failing of these two American sources is assuming the waters in the area are only populated with US and Chinese vessels. These waters are (probably) the waters most congested in the world with submarines from South Korea, Japan and Russia. The waters are also congested with undersea sensor possibilities. So it is much more than a USN vs PLA-N vessel wargaming scenario.

It has been reported that the aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan (late October 2015) sailed from the south, through the Tsushima/Korea Strait, north into Sea of Japan. The Chinese submarine may well have been already in (moving slowly) in the Tsushima Basin (Sea of Japan) as attempting to follow Reagan (at 20+ knots) might be too untactically noisy or impossible (for an SSK) at 30+ knots.

---

It is strongly assumed a Japanese Soryu class or Oyashio class submarine is deployed in the Tsushima/Korean Strait at all times.

It is highly likely that a South Korean Type 209 or Type 214 submarine would also be in that Strait for several reasons including keeping an eye on the Japanese sub.

Either the South Korean or Japanese submarine may have detected the presence of the Chinese submarine* first - then informed via satellite Command Centers in Seoul or fleet HQ Busan and/or Tokyo or fleet HQ Yokosuka naval base (or copied in all of them). Message realtime relayed to Washington DC, USS Reagan and Reagan's surface escort(s) and a US SSN in the area of Reagan. The US SSN may usually be home based at Guam. The surface escorts and SSN may have separately detected the Chinese sub.

Other platforms may have detected the Chinese sub including P-3 or P-8 patrol aircraft with sonobuoys, ASW helicopter with dipping sonar, Tsushima Strait's possible undersea sensors, or a combination of several platforms.

A simulated missile attack from a Chinese submarine on USS Ronald Reagan?

The certainty of a missile simulation might be defined by default as "out of range of torpedos" eg. in Klub/Sizzler ASCM range but out of known Chinese torpedo range.

The simulation may have perhaps begun with a Chinese satellite or Chinese naval base 1. sending targeting information and orders (S Korea, Japan or US picking up traffic) on VLF or ELF radio frequencies intendeed for the Chinese sub.

Presence of Chinese submarine may include:

2. sonar feedback off the hull revealing sea-space location

3. electronic emissions (eg. mast mounted fire control radar) voices, mechanical sound from/in the

sub

4. opening torpedo tube hatches

5. flooding torpedo or cruise missile tubes (less likely as this may be too close to an imminent launch)

6. Chinese submarine surfacing in vicinity of the Reagan, if Chinese Captain assumes his simulated

attack has, so far, gone undetected (eg. against carrier USS Kitty Hawk in 2006).

An out of sequence combination of any or all of 1 to 5 and maybe then 6. Even only 1. and 2. may together have been enough evidence.

Pete

↧

Christmas in Australia 2015

December 21, 2015, 2:26 am

≫ Next: China's second aircraft carrier part of arms race - Part 1

≪ Previous: Simulated Chinese sub attack USS Reagon, Japanese & S Korean subs likely involved

Australia's Christmas (being Southern Hemisphere) is the hottest time of year. Temperatures average around 30ºC (86ºF) during the day and 17ºC (63ºF) at night.

Christmas feasts are frequently at midday on December 25 and often seafood (especially prawns/shrimp on the barbie), ham and turkey, duck or black swan (yummy :)

a collins sub enjoys a tropical sunset at christmas
---

The beach on a hot christmas day

---

a typical australian christmas carol
---

aussie christmas 1958
australia was more british then

---

3 days to go :)

Pete

↧

China's second aircraft carrier part of arms race - Part 1

January 3, 2016, 2:27 am

≫ Next: China's carrier aircraft and weapons - Part 2 of 3

≪ Previous: Christmas in Australia 2015

China's announced 2 days ago that the second carrier will have a ski-jump carrier like Chinas first carrier (Liaoning) and weigh in the 50,000 ton class (like Liaoning).

COMMENT

While China is quickly constructing at least 3 stationary aircraft/naval bases in the South China Sea (mainly on Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief Reefs) China is constructing mobile aircraft carriers more gradually. China's carrier program is partly in response to a low level carrier arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.

While Liaoning is classed as a training and testing ship the second carrier will have a greater operational function.

The low level regional carrier arms race involves several countries. US Navy has superior, developed, 100,000 ton carriers that China cannot match for the short-medium term. But as the US Navy has world-wide responsibilities it can only spare 2 or 3 carriers for any crisis in China's northeast Asian region. It may be two decades before China has built up carrier forces to challenge the US's in the region,

China's involvement in the carrier arms race is more immediately to equal or match carrier forces of regional powers. These powers include:

- India with two carriers (INS Vikramaditya and under construction the first of the new Vikrant class)

- Japan, which has 2 carrier like Izumo class helicopter -"destroyers". With ski-jump modifications the Izumos or a future class may be able to accommodate short takeoff and vertical landing F-35Bs.

- Australia - significantly its 2 Canberra class landing helicopter docks have ski-jump bows that may facilitate F-35B operations. Clearly the ski-jumps were incorporated into the Canberra designs to give the option (with modifications) to handle any future Australian F-35B's or US F-35Bs or AV-8B Harriers.

Possibly owing to military intelligence tipoffs overt analytical publications became aware of the possible second carrier construction in Dalian Shipyard in September 2015. These publications made very accurate predictions - in line with China's announcement 2 days ago (that the second carrier will be a ski-jump carrier like the first (Liaoning) in the 50,000 ton class).

ARTICLES

IHS Janes, September 26, 2015 acquired this photo of Dalian shipyard work above - with the comment:

"Until it becomes clear whether an angled flight deck is to be installed, it remains possible that the vessel could be either a carrier (CV) or an assault ship (LHA), as a large hangar and flight deck would be a feature of both."

Airbus Defence and Space acquired some imagery (see yellow rectangle satellite image at top) around September 22, 2015.

Based on the yellow rectangle image and other material IHS Janes, September 28, 2015 analysed/predicted:

"An unidentified hull in an advanced state of construction…China's first indigenous aircraft carrier.

While a conclusive identification of the hull as an aircraft carrier cannot be made until work is observed on the upper decks and potential flight deck, the slow pace of assembly and outline suggests a military hull under construction...beam of about 35 meters. The incomplete bow suggests a length of at least 270 meters for the completed hull."

COMMENT

35m and 270m coincides closely with China's first aircraft carrier Liaoning's beam and length at the waterline (w/l). This suggest the second carrier may be the same class as Liaoning. Under the Rule of Thirds (third of the carrier force ready for operations) a third Chinese ski-jump carrier may be constructed around 2020.

It seems that Chinese Government could not or chose not to hide the second carrier under construction. As with the 3 stationary aircraft carriers in the South China Sea the West will just have to become accustomed to China's gradually rising naval strength.

More on China's second carrier in Part 2 (of 3) tomorrow...

Pete

↧

China's carrier aircraft and weapons - Part 2 of 3

January 4, 2016, 2:52 am

≫ Next: North Korea's 4th Nuclear Test & Another SLBM Ejection Test

≪ Previous: China's second aircraft carrier part of arms race - Part 1

China may not yet have decided the balance of aircraft, guns and missiles on the second carrier. If China adheres to Russian practices there will be a high proportion of guns and missiles and smaller than Western aircraft compliment.

China's second carrier is likely to have much in common with Liaoning (above) . The second carrier may carry more aircraft and fewer guns and missiles than the Liaoning.

After years of rebuilding Liaoning in the 2000s Liaoning began sea trials in 2011. It was commissioned as a testbed in 2012 and also began air launch and recovery trial in 2012 of the J-15 and helicopter takeoffs with assistance from the Brazilian naval air arm.

But China does not yet have a fleet of aircraft or pilots ready for carrier operations. So the Liaoning is being used to test and train them, a task that experts say will probably take several years. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35207369

Unusual for a carrier Liaoning has wide range of missile and gun systems that are not present on Western aircraft carriers. This includes 12 large 7 tonne P-700 Granit SSMs, 3 x HHQ-10 (FL-3000N) 18 cell SAM systems (above left) and 3 x Type 1030 [Phalanx like] Close in Weapons Systems (above left). The second carrier may well have fewer missiles/guns but more fixed wing aircraft.

Testing J-15 takeoffs and landings on the Liaoning.
---

The second carrier is likely to have more jets and helicopters than the 36 on the Liaoning. China is testing the J-15 fighter-bomber on the Liaoning (photo above). The J-15, likely to be used in the second carrier, is considered a derivative of the Russian Su-33 carrier fighter. The 4^th generation J-15 has been compared to the Super Hornet though the J-15 suffers from the drawbacks of ski-jump launch (lower all up weight, lower fuel load, shorter range) and lack of Chinese carrier based refueling no “buddy” refuelling capabilities are believed to greatly reduce its effective range.

The J-15 itself could be considered only in the development stage. J-15s were only introduced in 2013, with only 21 built so far.

Pete

↧

North Korea's 4th Nuclear Test & Another SLBM Ejection Test

January 6, 2016, 3:20 am

≫ Next: Japanese pre-emptive strike on North Korea possible future option

≪ Previous: China's carrier aircraft and weapons - Part 2 of 3

Summary

The big red blotch (above) marks approximate location of North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site - where the 4th test occurred underground. At around 10 kilotons yield the explosion is typical of a mainly fission bomb (normal atomic bomb). This is noting the world's first atomic bomb test, in July 1945, was more powerful at around 20 kilotons (Hiroshima bom was around 15 kilotons).

Some fusion of hydrogen isotopes (eg. Tritium and Deuterium for boosting a fission reaction) have been included by North Korea on a trial basis. But this does not mean North Korea tested a "Hydrogen Bomb". A fusion-boosted-fission bomb would need to yield around 30 kilotons to be a convincing test. While a normal two-stage Hydrogen Bomb would need to be about 100+ kilotons yield to convince observers that is was a true Hydrogen Bomb.

Western, Chinese and Russian analysis over the next few days of the chemical remnants of this latest North Korean nuclear test will indicate what type of bomb it was.

---

More Detail

Reports on January 6, 2016 are that North Korea has claimed it conducted a "successful hydrogen” bomb test. This would be its fourth nuclear test.

The device was apparently tested 10 km underground at the Punggye-ri test site in the far northeast North Korea (see map above). The explosion was detected as a magnitude 5.1 earthquake by the US Geological Survey (which has sites dotted around the world, including sensors in South Korea and in China as well as satellite backup).

The test is the second since Kim Jung-un (third in the Kim Dynasty) appointed himself - then began consolidating power through fear and highly advertised executions.

The South Korean Meteorological agency confirmed the "earthquake" was man-made ie. a bomb. The bomb might conceivably be 100s tons of conventional explosive, a normal atomic (fission) bomb, fusion boosted fission or a true two stage hydrogen bomb. It will take days for USAF WC-135 Constant Phoenix"chemical sniffing" aircraft and other sources to confirm what type of bomb it was.

The nuclear test may represent an improvement in North Korea's nuclear weapons device and nuclear explosive capabilities.

If North Korea has actually conducted a hydrogen bomb test this may the first of several tests to prove reliability.

But "hydrogen bomb" need not mean the very powerful two stage hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bomb can include a far less powerful fusion boosted fission device. Such a fusion boosted fission device may have been detonated by Pakistan in 1998 – then design plans and some parts passed to North Korea via the proliferation of A Q Khan with the help/knowledge of Pakistan’s military and political bosses.

Example of a fusion boosted fission device which might more likely be closer to North Korea's claimed "hydrogen bomb".

---

North Korea may have tested a fusion boosted fission weapon (example diagram above). This usually refers to a type of nuclear bomb that uses a small amount of fusion fuel to increase the rate, and thus yield, of a fission reaction. This is technically a partial hydrogen bomb but not the much more powerful two stage fusion device more popularly known as a Hydrogen Bomb.

North Korea probably did not test what is commonly considered the much more powerful 100+ kiloton Hydrogen Bomb (diagram above). Above is a basic design of a two stage Hydrogen Bomb (using the Teller–Ulam method). Radiation from a circular primary fission bomb compresses a secondary section containing both fission and fusion fuel. The compressed secondary is heated from within by a second fission explosion.
---

Almost simultaneous is Washington Free Beacon's report on January 5, 2016 that a North Korean SLBM ejection test occurred on December 21, 2015. If that ejection test was successful that may also represent an improvement of North Korea's nuclear weapon capabilities. This time in terms of less vulnerable weapon delivery means. The Free Beacon reports that North Korea conducted this latest SLBM test near North Korea’s eastern port of Sinpo after a similar attempt was said to have failed in November 2015. An ejection test may just mean blasting (maybe with compressed gas) an inert missile out of a submarine chamber or out of a floating pontoon. Not necessarily including actual ignition of a missile’s first stage rocket motor.

Aficionados of nuclear weapons might assess that North Korea has just announced improvements in the three important areas (device, nuclear explosive and weapon delivery means) of a nuclear program.

US, South Korea and maybe Japan are believed to mainly consider countering North Korea’s nuclear threats with anti-missile missiles and perhaps pre-emptive strikes on North Korea’s known missile launch points (which may eventually include submerged submarines). South Korea estimates North Korea has several nuclear devices as well as 2,500 – 5,000 tons of chemical weapons. US defence officials have hopefully questioned whether North Korea is capable of putting a nuclear warhead onto a missile.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry and the Secretary General of the UN (who is a South Korean) have called an emergency Meeting of the UN Security Council.

More on the chilling world of nuclear weapon design is here.

Pete

↧

Japanese pre-emptive strike on North Korea possible future option

January 6, 2016, 10:00 pm

≫ Next: NK Nuclear Test Results and Implications - Don't Hold Your Breath.

≪ Previous: North Korea's 4th Nuclear Test & Another SLBM Ejection Test

Japanese Defence Minister Nakatani would have been very busy in the last 48 hours given all the bad news from North Korea. (Photo courtesy newslookup(dot)com)

---

COMMENT

North Korea's latest nuclear test and SLBM ejection test has stimulated ongoing discussions on possible future responses. These North Korean intentions or nuclear advances have put strategic relations with Japan under some strain and review.

Submarine launched Tomahawk missiles are something the US and UK have used in the Middle East though only against countries with weak or no real military forces. Russia has recently launched Tomahawk-like Kalibr missiles but only against weak enemies.

As North Korea has ballistic missiles well within range of Japan, Japan may consider developing quick striking ballistic missile forces. See the last section Japanese Ballistic Missiles/Rockets of this post.

ARTICLE

While many Japanese comments on pre-emptive strike on North Korea have been deleted from the Internet some remain.

Reuters via Business Insider December 23, 2014 reports http://www.businessinsider.com/r-japan-pm-set-to-launch-new-government-defense-minister-may-rile-china-2014-12?IR=T

“Abe was expected to tap Gen Nakatani for the defense portfolio in a nod to worries about growing threats from nuclear-armed North Korea and China.” [Nakatani was subsequently appointed Defence Minister. "Gen" is just a first name not a former military high command position.].

“Nakatani is a former defense minister who is in favor of Japan having the ability to hit enemy bases pre-emptively in the face of imminent attack.”

“"If you think what would happen if the United States withdrew, we must consider (acquiring) the ability to respond, because we cannot just sit idly and await death," Nakatani told Reuters earlier this year [2014].”

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

In September 10, 2014Reuters via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/japan-us-military-weapons_n_5794414.html reported:

"TOKYO, Sept 10 [2014] (Reuters) - Japan and the United States are exploring the possibility of Tokyo acquiring offensive weapons that would allow Japan to project power far beyond its borders, Japanese officials said, a move that would likely infuriate China.

While Japan's intensifying rivalry with China dominates the headlines, Tokyo's focus would be the ability to take out North Korean missile bases, said three Japanese officials involved in the process.

They said Tokyo was holding the informal, previously undisclosed talks with Washington about capabilities that would mark an enhancement of military might for a country that has not fired a shot in anger since its defeat in World War Two.

The talks on what Japan regards as a "strike capability" are preliminary and do not cover specific hardware at this stage, the Japanese officials told Reuters.

Defense experts say an offensive capability would require a change in Japan's purely defensive military doctrine, which could open the door to billions of dollars worth of offensive missile systems and other hardware. These could take various forms, such as submarine-fired cruise missiles similar to the U.S. Tomahawk.

U.S. officials said there were no formal discussions on the matter but did not rule out the possibility that informal contacts on the issue had taken place. One U.S. official said Japan had approached American officials informally last year about the matter."

Japanese Ballistic Missiles/Rockets

See Submarine Matters:

- Japan's Epsilon Rocket, An ICBM in Waiting, December 22, 2013.

and earlier

- Japanese Rocket and Missile Expansion Possibilities, February 23, 2012.

Pete

↧

NK Nuclear Test Results and Implications - Don't Hold Your Breath.

January 7, 2016, 5:42 pm

≫ Next: North Korean SLBM Test - Ignition as well as ejection?

≪ Previous: Japanese pre-emptive strike on North Korea possible future option

Obama at his strongest. Many people are waiting for US leadership and resolve against North Korea's long march to a Hydrogen Bomb. Like Chamberlain Obama is looking a bit lame. Might take a "madman" like Trump to make Kim III sit up and take notice.

---

Evolving nuclear weapons programs need many tests.

It is notable that authorities in 2013 said very little about North Korea's purposes for the preceding 2013 test.

The 2013 and this latest test may have always been for a primary for an H-bomb.

Kim III and the Kim Dynasty in the longer term seem to have grandiose but not immediately realizable weapons goals. Then they eventually achieve those goals.

Further seismic data, US chemical sniffing jets and other intel sources will likely reveal much more in the next 48 hours but results may be only issued to small groups within the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5), South Korea and Japan.

As with the 2013 test the US may not want to provide analysis that points to a North Korean H-Bomb program progressing. This would cause loss of face for the US Obama administration, intel and military communities.

Western militaries and politicians seem powerless to slow North Korea’s nuclear program – shades of appeasement to counter German acts and rearmament in the 1930s?

"Madman" Ronald Reagan did wonders facing down the Soviet military empire in the 1980s. Does the US need a "madman" like Trump to facedown Kim's nuclear nation-building?

Pete

↧

North Korean SLBM Test - Ignition as well as ejection?

January 8, 2016, 7:08 pm

≫ Next: North Korea's Three Sinpo-Golf SSBKs Being Built Heavier

≪ Previous: NK Nuclear Test Results and Implications - Don't Hold Your Breath.

Kim Jong-un may have witnessed the Dec 21, 2015 test, depicted with. Some NK announcer perhaps said "Ignition. We have main engine start." (Photos via (South) Korea Times, January 8, 2016)
---

More bad news on North Korea's accelerating nuclear weapon program and specifically on North Korea's December 21, 2015 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) ejection test. World powers remain powerless.

In its January 4, 2016 report Washington Free Beacon only had sufficient information to indicate an ejection test had been conducted with no evidence of subsequent ignition of the missile's first stage rocket motor.

In a new report of January 8, 2016 Washington Free Beacon has received extra information from North Korea indicating first stage (rocket motor) ignition occurred (see above Youtube). If true this means North Korea has progressed further along secure lethal nuclear missile delivery than first feared by Western intelligence.

The North Korean SLBM tested is known as the KN-11 "Musudan" believed to be based on a SS-N-6 SLBM obtained covertly from Russia then reverse engineered by North Korea.

The actual submarine type thought to have ejected the KN-11 is known as the "Gorae" (Whale) believed by US intelligence to be either a refurbished Russian Golf II-class submarine (Project 629A built between 1966 - 1972). Or the ejection test submarine may be an indigenous North Korean submarine based on the Golf II design.

These disturbing North Korean developments are becoming an urgent international matter. Meanwhile President Obama is caught like a deer in the headlights by his fruitless gun control campaign - his preferred legacy. US gun control policy has been failing since about 1645 when the US was a motley collection of British colonies.

Pete

↧

North Korea's Three Sinpo-Golf SSBKs Being Built Heavier

January 10, 2016, 6:49 pm

≫ Next: Likely submarine decision in late 2016. Japan, TKMS, DCNS battle it out.

≪ Previous: North Korean SLBM Test - Ignition as well as ejection?

H I Sutton of Covert Shores has produced this excellent artwork (above and below) depicting a North Korean Sinpo class SSBK fring one of its two SLBMs. Click here to greatly enlarge image and text below.

---

North Korea Naval Bases and Fleet HQs. Mini-submarines and Sinpo-Golf "SSBKs" might operate out of Sagin Ni (under West Sea Fleet Command) and/or Sinpo - Mayang Do and Chaho Submarine Bases (under East Sea Fleet Command). The likely North Korean nuclear missile launch points (including SLBMs) would have been defined by Russian, Chinese and Western military intelligence for years, with constant sensor surveillance and cueing of first and/or second strike forces. Golf SSBKs could also be seen as Sinpo class depending on the extent of modernisation-component replacement. SSBK means conventional diesel electric propelled submarine capable of firing large nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. (Map courtesy US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA))

---

QUESTION

At threadNicky asked Jan 11, 2016 5:51AM:

"So how likely did the North Koreans reverse engineered and brought back to life the Golf-class and what Variant of the Golf class SSB have they reversed engineered. How easy would a sonar tech be able to find them."

RESPONSE

I estimate the NKs renovated or are renovating around 3 (military "Rule of Thirds") of their very old ex-Soviet Golf SSKs up to SLBM capability. In 1993, ten Golfs were sold to North Korea for scrap.^[5] According to some sources, the North Koreans are attempting to get these boats back into service.^[6]

The NKs probably used/are using contractors (on a state-sanctioned or venal/covert basis) from Russia and maybe China in this renovation effort to SLBM capability. The lack of Iranian or Pakistani experience with SSBNs or SLBMs makes contractors from Iran or Pakistan less likely.

It would be unnecessary to reverse engineer whole Golfs but mainly integrate some modern features (especially electronics and engines) into the three Sinpo-Golf SSBKs.

Sinpo-Golf SSBKs could also be seen as Sinpo class depending on the extent of modernisation-component replacement. Sinpo class, if 1,000-1,500 ton displacement have been considered too light to launch SLBMs in a stable and safe way for the submarine and for the 2 or 3 SLBMs.

In the 1950s the Russians saw the stability-safety deficiencies in the 2,000 ton Zulu V class. More recently Washington Free Beacon (read US intelligence) January 8, 2016 reported:

"Defense officials said the successful test followed an earlier test failure on Nov. 27 [2015] that nearly sank North Korea’s [presumably 1,500 ton Sinpo?] missile-firing submarine, known as the Gorae, or Whale. The November [2015] ejection test caused significant damage, and the submarine was observed returning to the port of Sinpo listing at a 45-degree angle.".

The Soviets/Russians built the Golfs twice as heavy (around 3,000 tons) in the late 1950s to provide a stable-safe launch point for the 3 SLBMs. All this may mean NK may be adding extra tonnage to its Sinpo design to make it a viable SSBK.

These Sinpo-Golf SSBKs are probably very noisy due to their obsolete shapes and reverberations of incompatible equipment. This deficiency is made worse for NK by many Western, Chinese and Russian sensors (including sonar) being cued against the Golfs and against other potential NK nuclear missile launch points.

Due to easy detection of the Sinpo-Golfs SSBKs NK would likely pursue a stategy of keeping them in NK (missile and aircraft) protected waters - much as China has done with its noisy Type 094 Jin SSBNs.

The general assumption of North Korea nuclear missile crews, that firing their missiles is the last thing they do before the crews themselves are "nuked", would apply to silo, land-mobile and SSBK crews.

Regards

Pete

↧

Likely submarine decision in late 2016. Japan, TKMS, DCNS battle it out.

January 11, 2016, 1:09 am

≫ Next: An astronaut's tribute to David Bowie 1947 - 2016

≪ Previous: North Korea's Three Sinpo-Golf SSBKs Being Built Heavier

1. Likely decision will only be publicised in late 2016.

The Australian Government in December 2015 said it will make a decision “in the first half” of 2016 on who wins the Australian future submarine competition.

Pete’s Comment:Given the deep domestic political implications for the Turnbull of making a submarine decision I think it likely that Turnbull will make that decision after the next Federal Election. Too many election sensitive interest groups will be unhappy with be unhappy on "what it means to their State and Electorate". If a normal Australian Federal Election is held the earliest possible date for a simultaneous House/half-Senate Federal election is 6 August 2016.^[1]

However the most popular months for Turnbull time the Election are after August - in September or October 2016. Therefore a submarine decision is most likely after the election ie. late 2016.

2. Japanese determination to have a lower upfront price than TKMS and DCNS.

In Comments in early January 2016 “S” provided three main sets of information. The following is the main politican one. The battery and budget sets will follow later this week:

The Japanese government is “extremely serious” in wanting to win a submarine bid.

The Japanese government has therefore asked MHI and KHI, the joint makers of the Soryu, not to place priority on profitability in the bidding war. As a result, they could possibly have an edge over the German and French companies (informed sources said).

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel [on behalf of German TKMS’s bid] has reportedlywarned the Australian side that Canberra’s relations with China could deteriorate if it awards the submarine contract to Japan, whose ties with an increasingly assertive China have recently been strained. [Pete notes I have seen no major statements from China that supports Chancellor Merkel’s contention. If there are major statements grateful if the TKMS sales team, Adelaide, can provide them.]

Japanese Ambassador to Australia, Sumio Kusaka

---

3. Japanese Ambassador to Australia and the big picture.

In Brendan Nicholson's article in The Australian, January 4, 2016 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/japan-plays-for-the-submarine-prize/news-story/dc65e959e418395e91795412fb44bc6f(subscription) here are short parts of a long interview of Japanese Ambassador to Australia, Sumio Kusaka. Kusaka "scoffs at suggestions that language and cultural differences could make it difficult for Japan to build Australia’s" [new submarines].

[Kusaka continued]...“Which brings us to the submarines, Australia’s biggest defence project. Depending on whether the government opts for eight vessels or more, the submarines will cost between about $12 billion and $20bn to build, and it will take another $30bn to sustain them through their lives.”

...“It is an Australia-first policy they have in mind. A very trustworthy commitment,” the ambassador says, adding that Japan is the only country in the world to have constructed and operated a 4000-tonne conventional submarine."

“In contrast, France’s plan for a conventionally-powered “short-fin” Barracuda submarine based on its nuclear-powered Barracuda-class subs would be a huge challenge, Kusaka says. “In our case there is minimal engineering risk. We have proven reliability. That is very important."

…"The region’s peace and prosperity are so important to the US, Australia and Japan that it is only natural for the three nations to co-operate." [Pete's Comment - a reminder that the US is providing one third of the submarine - in the shape of the Combat System/Weapons]. See WHOLE ARTICLE in The Australian.

Pete

↧

An astronaut's tribute to David Bowie 1947 - 2016

January 11, 2016, 8:47 pm

≫ Next: Japanese Submarine Costings – Oyashios through to Soryu Mark 2s

≪ Previous: Likely submarine decision in late 2016. Japan, TKMS, DCNS battle it out.

Bowie in life. Photo courtesy Beyond Anxiety & Depression which he suffered from.

---

Singer David Bowie's death (January 10, 2016) is tragic. He was comparatively young at 69. Bowie followed no record industry marketing trends but remained a superstar since 1969 (Space Oddity) and then wrote and performed many more hits - with sharp changes in persona. He declined a Knighthood from Queensy-Babe in 2003.

With my interest in things military and technology Bowie's song "Space Oddity", better know as "Ground Control to Major Tom", is the most memorable. Here its sung by Bowie.

Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield was/is impressed by the song and with Bowie's permission sung it while floating in the International Space Station in May 2013. I think Hadfield sings it well - not a case of "don't give up ya day job". Below is Hadfield's rendition - now a tribute to David Bowie.

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

Several hours ago (January 11 Northern Hemisphere time) Hadfield was interviewed about Bowie's passing. Here is the interview above.

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

Goodbye Ziggy.

Pete

↧

Japanese Submarine Costings – Oyashios through to Soryu Mark 2s

January 12, 2016, 10:42 pm

≫ Next: Oyashio - Soryu Table, Aus Future Submarine Program, ¥ in, Dragons out

≪ Previous: An astronaut's tribute to David Bowie 1947 - 2016

The Soryu class (at top) and Oyashio class (middle). Their main weapons are the Harpoon anti-ship missile and the Type 89 (Mk 48 very similar) torpedo.

---

It is useful that Japan is publically providing Soryu Budget Estimates (below) as they have deep significance for future costings for Australia’s “Super Soryu” class (possible) future submarine. Becoming familiar with Japanese financial-military-industrial thinking is important.

Note that for most submarines exported worldwide the export price is often twice the price "charged" to the builder's own navy. Hence a US$500 million for German Navy TKMS-HDW 212 when downgraded to 214 may cost US$1 billion to a customer. As Australia may be Japan's first submarine customer necessary Japanese organisational changes and translation of millions of pages of design and "owners" manuals may represent substantial extra costs to Japan and maybe to Australia.

TKMS and DCNS cannot produce such future sub for Australia costings because their SSK submarine solutions are more theoretical than actual (noting Shortfin SSK would, in 2025, be very different from France's not yet launched Barracuda SSN).

Submarine Matters main Japanese source "S" has provided detailed comparitive figures for major parts of the Soryu program in Comments of early January 2016. Some further English translation has been done by Pete.

Japan calculates the price of its Soryu using cost accounting equation (1) GCIP (where GC = selling, general and administrative expenses, I = interest rate, P = profit ratio). As the Japanese Government has requested MHI and KHI to make nil profit in equations (1) MHI and KHI may go into the “red” depending on the circumstances.

Calculate price = overall cost + interest + profit + packaging & transport cost --- (1)

Overall cost = manufacturing cost + manufacturing cost * GC --- (2)

Manufacturing cost = direct material cost + processing cost + direct cost --- (3)

Interest = overall cost * I --- (4)

Profit = overall cost * P --- (5)

First year costs (design cost, jig & tool cost, testing cost, technical collaboration fee) belong to direct cost in equation (2)

SORYU TABLE (latest)

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 Soryu Mark 1	LAB + AIP	March 2005	Dec 2007	March 2009	MHI
17SS	8117	SS-502	Unryū (うんりゅう) / Cloud Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2006	Oct 2008	March 2010	KHI
18SS	8118	SS-503	Hakuryū (はくりゅう) / White Dragon	LAB + AIP	Feb 2007	Oct 2009	March 2011	MHI
19SS	8119	SS-504	Kenryū (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2008	Nov 2010	March 2012	KHI
20SS	8120	SS-505	Zuiryu (けんりゅう) / Sword Dragon	LAB + AIP	March 2009	Oct 2011	March 2013	MHI
22SS	8122	SS-506	Kokuryū (こくりゅう) / Black Dragon	LAB + AIP	January 2011	Oct 2013	March 2014	KHI
23SS	8123	SS-507	Jinryū (じんりゅう)/ Benevolent Dragon	LAB + AIP	Feb 2012	Nov 2014	March 2016?	MHI
24SS	8124	SS-508	?	LAB + AIP	2013	2015?	2017	KHI
25SS	8125	SS-509	?	LAB + AIP	2014	2016?	2018	MHI
26SS	8126	SS-510	?	LAB + AIP	2015	2017?	2019	KHI
27SS	8127	SS-511	Soryu Mark 2	LIB only	2016?	2018?	2020?	MHI
28SS	8128	SS-512		LIB only	2017?	2019?	2021?	KHI
29SS	8129	SS-513		LIB only	2018?	2020?	2022?	MHI
1 Aus			Super Soryu for Australia	LIB only	2022?	2024?	2026?	in Aus

Table courtesy of updates provided to Submarine Matters by Japanese sources. LAB = lead-acid batteries,

AIP = (Stirling) air independent propulsion, LIB = lithium-ion batteries.

---

In the case of 19SS, build expenses (53 billion yen) consist of government supply (23 billion yen) and build cost [labour?] (30 billion yen). About fifty percent of build cost is parts or material cost. [One billion yen currently = 12 million Australian dollars]

"Execution" (build) expenses tend to decrease every year, which are 60, 58.7, 56.2 and 53 billion yen for 16SS, 17SS, 18SS and 19SS, respectively.

The currently operational Oyashio class are the forerunners of the operational Soryu class. The Oyashios have a very similar internal and external structure to the Soryus. The Oyashio class does not have AIP so it has a shorter hull (at 81.7 meters) than the AIP equipped Soryu Mark Is (84 meters). The Oyashios also lack full rubber (Anechoic tile like) coatings on the outer hull. These differences explain some of the differences in cost between Oyashios and Soryus.

The cost of the Oyashios was 52.2 billion yen (type 5SS, FY1993 Oyashio). The cost rose to 59.8 billion yen for the AIP equipped Soryu Mark 1’s (designated type 16SS, FY2004 Soryu). A reference is “On the current status of foundation of ship building and technology” by Japanese MoD, FY2011 March.

From this comparative data, it can be concluded that the cost of AIP is high. [Pete’s Comment: The operational and safety downsides of AIP for Soryu also worried/worries the Japanese Navy]

In fact, the total cost of the 4 AIP engines for Soryu 19SS (FY2009 Soryu) was 4 billion yen [about A$50 million upfront + high running costs].

The last of the Soryu Mark 1s (ie. with AIP) will be 26SS (which will cost 52 billion yen).

Turning to future non-AIP Soryus [Mark 2s], specifically 27SS and 28SS, each will cost 64 billion yen. Within that cost there is:

- an increase of 1.5 billion yen for the introduction of Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)

- possible extra cost for the (possible) introduction of the new snorkel system

- removal of the AIP engines will save 4 billion yen per submarine.

"If Australia selects the Japanese submarine, the submarine will be very reliable, because there are three prototypes, i.e., 27SS, 28SS and 29SS."

DETAILED COSTINGS FOR 28SS (the 2nd SORYU MARK 2)

In December 2015, the budget for 28SS was announced by the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD). MoD requested 71.5billion yen. Judging from the budget, MoD expected higher performance from the 28SS compared to the preceding 27SS, but Ministry of Finance (MoF) was not impressed with MoD's expectation. As is correct the MoF approved budget stands and is less, at 63.6 billion yen (excluding some initial year costs).

28SS’s MoD Requested budget [1] was 71,527,717,000 (FY2016-2020) yen

The detailed request is as follows:

1) 118,833(FY2016),

2) 71,408,884 (FY2017-2020),

3) 6,830,844 (FY2017),

4) 24,290,039 (FY2018),

5) 23,682,417 (FY2019),

6) 16,605,584 (FY2020).

28SS’s MoF Approved budget is 63.6 billion yen [2], cost of first year (FY2016) is excluded.

For references see:

[1] http://www.mod.go.jp/j/yosan/gaisan/h28/gaisanyoukyu.pdf , “Detailed FY2016 Budget Request”, Page 672, Request No (Left column) 47.

[2] http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/271016.pdf , “Defense Programs and Budget of Japan - Overview of FY2016 Budget Request”, Page 8/56.

Also note:

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/yosan/gaisan/h27/gaisanyoukyu.pdf , “Detailed FY2015 Budget Request”, Page 626, Request No (Left column) 40, and

http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_budget/pdf/270414.pdf , “Defense Programs and Budget of Japan - Overview of FY2016 Budget Request”, Page 8/66.

Details from S on batteries, torpedos and snorkels to follow later this week.

Pete

↧

Oyashio - Soryu Table, Aus Future Submarine Program, ¥ in, Dragons out

January 14, 2016, 7:11 pm

≫ Next: Analysts indicate US hopes Australia buys the Soryu

≪ Previous: Japanese Submarine Costings – Oyashios through to Soryu Mark 2s

OYASHIO - SORYU TABLE (latest as at January 17, 2016)

SS No.	Building No.	Pennant No.	MoF approved amount ¥ Billions) & FY*	LAB, LIB, AIP **	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi-ssioned	Built By
5SS Oyashio	8105	SS-590/ TS3608	¥52.2B FY1993	LAB only	Jan 1994	Oct 1996	March 1998	KHI
6SS- 15SS Oyashios 10 subs	8106 -8115	SS-591 -600	¥52.2B Per sub FY1994 -FY2004	LAB only	Feb 1994		March 2008	MHI & KHI
16SS SoryuMark 1	8116	SS-501	¥60B FY2004	LAB + AIP	March 2005	Dec 2007	March 2009	MHI
17SS	8117	SS-502	¥58.7B	LAB + AIP	March 2006	Oct 2008	March 2010	KHI
18SS	8118	SS-503	¥56.2	LAB + AIP	Feb 2007	Oct 2009	March 2011	MHI
19SS	8119	SS-504	¥53BFY2009	LAB + AIP	March 2008	Nov 2010	March 2012	KHI
20SS	8120	SS-505	¥51B	LAB + AIP	March 2009	Oct 2011	March 2013	MHI
21SS	8121	SS-506	?	LAB + AIP	January 2011	Oct 2013	March 2015	KHI
22SS	8122	SS-507	¥52.8B	LAB + AIP	Feb 2012	Oct 2014	March 2016?	MHI
23SS	8123	SS-508	¥54.6B	LAB + AIP	March 2013	Nov2 2015	2017?	KHI
24SS	8124	SS-509	¥54.7B	LAB + AIP	2014	2016?	2018?	MHI
25SS	8125	SS-510	¥53.1B	LAB + AIP	2015	2017?	2019?	KHI
26SS	8126	SS-511	¥51.7B	LAB + AIP	2016?	2018?	2020?	MHI
27SS Soryu Mark 2	8127	SS-512	¥64.3B	LIB only	2017?	2019?	2021?	KHI
28SS	8128	SS-513	¥63.6B	LIB only	2018?	2020?	2022?	MHI
29SS	8129	SS-514	?	LIB only	2019?	2021?	2023?	KHI
Aus1 *******			Super Soryu Australia	LIB only	2023?	2025?	2027?	Kobe?
Aus2 to 6?			Super Soryu Australia	LIB only	2024?	2026	2028	in Aus?

Table mainly courtesy of updates provided to Submarine Matters by Japanese sources. Note that it summarises the 11 submarines of the Oyashio Program (5SS - 15SS) then continues through the Soryu Program (16SS onwards)

* The Dragon names have been removed – while important in Japanese culture such names are not important to Australian or Americans. Instead the column is filled with Japanese Ministry of Finance (MoF) approved Budget Amounts in Yen (¥) Billions (B) (¥1 Billion = A$12 million on Jan 15, 2016). FY = First Year of Budgeting. These Yen and FY years were provided by S to Submarine Matters for the article of January 13, 2016.

** LAB = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIB = lithium-ion batteries.

On January 16, 2016 in the Comment Thread S explained:

“The budgets for the Soryu are 20SS (¥51B), 22SS (¥52.8B), 23SS (¥54.6B), 24SS (¥54.7B), 25SS (¥53.1B) and 26SS (¥51.7B). [I found a gap in the Table, 21SS was missing, now fixed. S do you have the ¥B figure for 21SS?] The fluctuation of the cost is due to a combination of yearly small modifications and a continuous effort toward cost reduction as follows:

- the MoD investigates the flow of funds to private companies on payee, expenditure and contract for procurement of submarines, and confirms that there are no problems. The cost audit after fulfillment of submarine building has been conducted from FY2002.

- as a result of effort toward cost reduction including use of government supply, adoption of open tender and reduction of man-hours, the executed price has gradually decreased from FY2004 to FY 2007.

The man-hours of the second batch of MHI and KHI launched submarines (18SS and 19SS respectively) is about 10% lower than for the first batch (that being MHI 16SS and KHI 17SS) achieved by reduction of man-hours. This is achieved through learning, setting of standard man-hours for similar work and through time management.

PETE COMMENT

The broad future decisions on the Australian choice (of Japan, TKMS or DCNS) are up to the National Security Committee of the Australian Cabinet with a decision likely late 2016. Much will then depend on a managerial-industrial mix of Australian companies and the "winner" (eg. Japan) building 2/3s of the subs and US companies (Raytheon and/or Lockheed Martin (as possible integrator) for 1/3 = Combat System and Weapons). Ideally Japanese expertise/experience will have main carriage of the 2/3s + 1/3s integration as a it would be messy if all three countries were constantly negotiating throughout the Program.

Undelining that the Submarine Program would not be just an Australian-Japan affair is that politically powerful Lockheed Martin has opened a Combat System Laboratory in Adelaide. A US citizen (Rear Adm (rtd) Stephen Johnson US Navy) has already been appointed General Manager, Australian Future Submarine Program - presumably he is well placed to manage and balance US, Japanese and Australian interests.

Regarding “Aus1 ***” in the Table the dates and places where the subs are built inevitably involves opinion. Aus1 is the first of class for Australia. It may make sense to have it built in Kobe, Japan to ease initial construction, testing and certification issues. From Aus2 the numbers only go up to Aus6 in the Table because only 6 subs might be built (based on the formula 6 + 2 (maybes) used for the Oberons and Collins). Building Aus2 to Aus6 in Kobe need only be a last resort if a re-run of the Collins or Air Warfare Destroyer (see 2010 onwards) problems are developing. Such a things-going-wrong situation obviously needs to be picked up early (eg. in 2023).

Whatever happens, if Japan is chosen, the materials for the submarines will mainly be produced in Japan (mainly by MHI and KHI?) and the Combat System in the US.

As with other Japanese ventures in Australia (eg. car factories) a large number of Japanese managerial and technical advisers should be in Australia.

The clear record of Japanese submarine building discipline should produce a positive industrial and political (Federal and State levels) experience, thus minimising anarchy.

A useful and basically new background reference on the Future Submarine (Collins Replacement) Program is here.

Pete

↧

Analysts indicate US hopes Australia buys the Soryu

January 16, 2016, 4:24 pm

≫ Next: One Japanese estimate for Build + Maintain 10 submarines in Australia

≪ Previous: Oyashio - Soryu Table, Aus Future Submarine Program, ¥ in, Dragons out

An earlier meeting of Prime Minister Turnbull and President Obama, This was at the APEC Meeting in Manila in mid November 2015 where Obama unexpectedly invited Prime Minister Turnbull to Washington tomorrow (on January 18, 2016) (Photo courtesy AAP via SBS Australia).

---

In the influential US National Interest website American academic and policy analyst Micheal J. Greenand Australian academic and policy analyst Andrew Shearer have written an excellent analysis of January 17, 2016. This is concerning Australian Prime Minister Turnbull’s visit to Washington on January 18, 2016. Parts of their analysis, most relevant to Submarine Matters, include the following. I have bolded the submarine part:

"On Monday, Australia’s new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull makes his first official visit to Washington, D.C.

The two countries’ interests, values and perspectives are largely aligned, and support for the Australia-U.S. alliance is strong and bipartisan in each.

…The Australian government supported the recent U.S. freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea, and recently a Royal Australian Air Force plane flew through contested maritime territory. Yet the administration was blindsided by news that a Chinese company would be given a long-term lease over strategically important commercial port facilities used by the U.S. military in Darwin; according to American officials, the matter was not raised by the Australian side at ministerial talks that took place immediately before the deal was announced.

…Another area the leaders should discuss is how Australia and the United States can work more closely with Japan in light of Prime Minister Abe’s recently passed security reforms. The three countries have a track record of close cooperation—for example, in stabilization operations in East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq, in responding to natural disasters such as the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami and in shaping regional institutions. But the relaxation of constraints on the Japanese military’s right to exercise collective self-defense, and on the export of Japanese defense technology and equipment, opens up significant opportunities to strengthen trilateral security cooperation and the ability of the three militaries to operate together.

The most pressing of these [opportunities] is the replacement of Australia’s current fleet of aging diesel electric submarines. Appropriately, the administration has been careful not to take sides in the intense competition among France, Germany and Japan to partner with Australia in the development of the new submarine. But senior U.S. officials and military officers are in no doubt both as to the superior capability of the Japanese Soryu class and to the long-term strategic benefits to the United States and the region of an interoperable fleet of Australian and Japanese conventional submarines equipped with U.S. combat systems—particularly in an increasingly contested maritime environment in which undersea warfare will be critical”…

See WHOLE ANALYSIS.

↧