Submarine & Other Matters

A Japanese designed Australian built submarine would look a few meters longer (more: fuel, batteries and accommodation space) than the major features diagram (Courtesy Japanese sales team via News Corp Australia)

---

S has made an interesting commentas follows:

“[S] analyzed cost of Soryu based on budget, and [S] concluded that Australia can build and maintain 10 submarines for 30 years (total cost 1,600B Yen) [= approximately A$20 Billion] under a proper management system.

Modification cost of 29SS to Aus 1 [per submarine for Australia] is 5 B Yen [A$62 million].

Adoption cost of US combat system is not high.

Premium [build] cost in Australia is 10B Yen

30years- operation cost is double of building cost.

Life cycle cost for 30 years = {basic cost (65B) +US combat (0B)+ modification (5B)+ premium (10B)}x 2= 160B Yen [= approximately A$2 Billion per submarine]

[S] January 18, 2016 at 1:15 AM”

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

The figures above in square […] brackets are in Australian dollars where

1B = 1 Billion Yen = 12.4 million Australian dollars (A$) at January 18, 2016 exchange rates.

Building and maintaining 10 submarines for 30 years (at total cost 1,600B Yen) [approximately A$20 Billion] appears to be an attractive all up price.

1. However if:

Building cost is {basic cost (65B) +US combat (0B)+ modification (5B)+ premium (10B) = 80B Yen = aproximately A$992 million

and

"30 years operation cost is double of building cost" = 2 x A$992 million = A$1.984 Billion

Then wouldn't total for "Building and maintaining 10 submarines for 30 years" = A$992 million + A$1.984 Billion = A$2.976 Billion per submarine = approximately A$3 Billion per submarine?

Making Total for all 10 approximately A$30 Billion?

Actually A$30 Billion is much lower than a September 2015 estimate of $40 Billion ($14 Billion "Build" + $26 Billion "Maintain").

2. I assume that the Maintain costs would not include personnel costs for (Navy + Defence civilian) pay and updating Combat System costs?

Pete

At Haifa Naval Base , in mid September 2014, missile boats and civilian yatchs welcome entry of Dolphin 2 class, INS Tannin or Rahav? Note how its blue hull and fin camoflage it against the Mediterranean Sea and sky.

---

The Israeli Navy (including the Submarine Service/Flotilla and the largest, corvette sized, surface ships are mainly based at Haifa in northern Israel. Haifa is Israel’s third largest city and the country’s largest port.

Israel's TKMS built Dolphin Submarines

The most important part of the Israeli Navy is the submarine service of 5 Dolphin class submarines. They are most important in overall tonnage, intelligence acquisition value, conventional weapons capability and the submarines are the only part of the Israeli Navy with nuclear weapons. The Dolphins are developments of TKMS's Type 209 and 212As.

The German Government (maybe cross-subsidised by the US Government) has paid about one third of the cost of the Dolphins. This is a post Holocaust German donation to Israel.

The Dolphin 1 class (early history) consists of three submarines:

- INS Dolphin (delivered 1999)

- INS Livyathan (in English "Whale" delivered 1999)

- INS Tekumah ("Revival" delivered 2000)

AIP Dolphin 2 class: The Dolphin 2s have fuel cell air independent propulsion (AIP) probably to allow them to sit on the seafloor.

The principal "SSBK" mission is to provide a first or second strike using "Popeye Turbo" missiles against Tehran. This may involve sitting on the floor of the Arabian and/or Mediterranean Seas for 2 to 3 weeks. Interestingly the Dolphin 2s (and maybe Dolphin 1s) have Triton anti-helicopter missiles.

The Dolphin 2 class consists of two submarines delivered and one (INS Dakar) on order:

- INS Tannin (Crocodile, delivered in 2012)

- INS Rahav (in English "Splendour" or "Prostitute"? delivered in 2014)

- INS Dakar ("Grouper fish" or "Swordfish" ordered 21 March 2012, expected operational 2019)

In (map above) see Israel's Naval Bases from north to south:

- Haifa (the main and largest base) located in northern Israel. As well as the submarines Haifa hosts 3 corvettes (Israeli Navy's largest surface ships) and smaller boats - all in the Missile Boats Flotilla. The corvettes are 1,200 ton Sa'ar 5-class (commissioned in 1994-95),

The Naval Training Base is also at Haifa, containing submarine operations school, missile boat operations school and naval command school. The naval training base also functions as the Israeli Naval Academy. Israel is a small place so most things are packed in together and most people know one another way back!

- Atlit Navy "SEAL" Base is 20 km south of Haifa. The "SEAL" unit might be called "Shayetet 13".

- Tel Aviv (Navy HQ) and likely navy supported SigInt and military intelligence center. Tel Aviv is Israel’s second largest city (after Jerusalem).

- Ashdod (Patrol Boats Squadron 916) is 30 km south of Tel Aviv,

- Eliat (patrol boats and maybe submarine replenishment, in south) is on the Gulf of Aqaba - with access to the Red Sea and then Arabian Sea (the SSBK station against Iran).

Haifa Naval Base is just on the land side of the breakwater to the left of "HAIFA PORT" as marked on the map. (Map courtesy Orange Smile maps)
---

Israeli Signals Intelligence (SigInt)

Navies are more than vessels (subs and ships) and "spit and polish" shore establishments. Communications and intelligence are equally essential.

The “Israeli NSA” (with the typically bland cover name “Unit 8200”) is manned by Israeli Defence Force (IDF) service members (including Navy) as well as by civilians. The Israeli NSA staff are mainly programmers and university graduates in engineering, computer science and other technological professions.

The Israeli Navy SigInt feeder network to Israeli NSA would come from naval bases (especially from Matam technology park, Haifa?) and from submarines and ships tasked with electronic intelligence gathering missions. Non-military inputs would also come from Mossad and Israel's FBI like "Shin Bet/Shabak".

The Israeli NSA would be co-located with the IDF's command, communications and all source military intelligence functions. All of them within Tel Aviv's IDF HQ at HaKirya. As aficionados of SigInt know SigInt is all about targeted collection and computer processing all serving customer analysts.

The Israeli NSA's main target would be terrorism. Russian operations (including Tartus) over the border in Syria would be another major target. Close relations-sharing with other NSAs are likely.

The Israeli Navy is one of the customers and larger vessel operations might be assisted by NSA work in real time.

An Israeli Dolphin (1 or 2?) submarine and a US vessel (a frigate?) at Haifa Naval Base, northern Israel. Great location, but shame about all the conflict and terrorism nearby. (Photos via Foxtrot Alpha)

---

Israel's main naval base is at Haifa. (courtesy). One can theorise where the nuclear "Popeye Turbo" missiles are stored and fitted into Dolphin submarines.
---

See previous Submarine Matters articles on the Dolphin Submarines: here (nuclear missiles), here (Israeli "218"), and here (some good out of water hull photos). Using "Dolphin" in search box reveals other Dolphin articles in Submarine Matters.

Pete

Just some (eg. without the sonar sensor arrays) of the components of an electricity hungry AN/BYG-1 combat system. See this image much larger and readable here.

---

The air independent propulsion (AIP) versus Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) debate or versus (LIB + AIP) all powering fully submerged Propulsion + Hotel Load (including combat system) continues. This debate extends back to US Combat System May Have Pushed Out AIP in the CEP, November 25, 2016 and beyond.

A short definition of combat system is: " The AN/BYG-1 is the latest combat system for the US Navy submarine fleet [and Collins]. It comprises tactical control, weapons control, [sensors] and tactical network subsystems each of them incorporates a variety of advanced process build software algorithms developed by a host of industry, government, and academia sources."

AIP may be most strongly advocated by Germany because German companies (including Siemens and TKMS) have the most demonstrably highly developed (fuel cell) AIP system. This translates into advantageous product definition in Australia's CEP.

Japan is pushing its LIB (future in submarines) and already built broader diesel-electric propulsion system for the large Soryu. Japan can point to the Soryu being closer to the 4,000 ton weight of the submarine proposed for Australia than SSKs built by the German and French competition. I also suspect that the Japanese diesel electric system is already powering an AN/BYG-1 similar Japanese Combat System

France can point to comprehensive whole submarine integration experience for large nuclear submarines that even exceed 4,000 tons.

As an historical aside Japan could point to the 6,000 ton I-400 class submarines commissioned in 1944-45 and France could point to the 4,000 ton Surcouf commissioned in 1934. Meanwhile Germany packed the highest actual military value into the smallest submarine designs practical.

AIP, LIBS AND COMBAT SYSTEM COMMENTS

Returning to the present day in the German corner, January 15, 2016 comments from MHalblaub are:

"I doubt that an US combat system would today overload an AIP.

Just compare the computing power used in 1990 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Macintosh_classic.jpg(100 Watt for 8 MHz Motorola 68000 with 16/32-bit) and what we have today
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Imac_16-9.png(400 Watt for 4.0 GHz i7-6700K with 64/64-bit).

((Power usage is related to the display. The 21.5-inch display version needs just 300 Watt))
The Siemens Fuel Cells provide about 300 kW for a Type 212 submarine. Enough power for 1.000 iMacs with a "small" display.

Main application for computers on submarines are FFT-calculations to provide the nice water fall diagrams. Today's computer hardware has not only a 500 times faster clock speed. It also provides 4 CPUs and 64 bit data (another factor 8 for 32-bit audio - normal computer sound system just use 16 bit).

So the computers are about 4,000 times faster today. I doubt that an AN/BYG needs the same power than in 1990. GDs system was even installed on Brazilian Type 209 submarines just powered by Lead-acid Batteries (LABs).

The 300 kW on Type 212 were provided by 9 FCM 34 fuel cell modules with a power output of 34 kW each at 630 kg weight (due to the fact that 1 cell is reserve the actual power output is 270 kW). The FCM 120 modules with 120 kW weight 930 kg. So power output according to weight was increased by a factor of 2.

http://w3app.siemens.com/mcms/infocenter/dokumentencenter/cc/InfocenterLanguagePacks/SINAVY%20PEM%20Fuel%20Cells/sinavy-pem-fuel-cells.pdf

The first methanol reformer for submarines was tested in 1999:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050425213817/http://www.komo.uni-kiel.de/martech/workshop/AG3-Pomm.pdf

Fuel cells for submarines are mature systems. How many commissioned submarines use LIBs today? The three Japanese submarines will be commissioned far too late to make a decent decision in 2016. [Pete Comment - nevertheless LIBs are planned for the German designed future 216s https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-Boot-Klasse_212_A#Klasse_216 ]

Here on page 10 is a nice scaled and dimensioned drawing:
http://vzb.baw.de/publikationen/kolloquien/0/Vortrag_7_Brennstoffzellenantrieb.pdf
You can see how big the complete fuel cell system is and how the engine compartment (to the left) is quieted on Type 212 submarines - a double hull around the diesel engine compartment. Just the modules encircled with red and yellow belong to the FC (German: Brennstoff-Zellen - BZ) system. The area marked green is a regular switchboard necessary on every type of submarine (just ask for further translations)."

Providing a different view is Anonymous on January 16, 2016 commented:

"The 300 kW AIP module may or may not be sufficient without seeing the hardware architecture of AN/BYG.

I understand that the AN/BYG is a fault tolerant multi core multi processor parallel computing architecture. So if each of the node has 8 quad core Xeon or Itanium processors and say there are 512 nodes, the power consumption can get big very fast.

Essentially it is the same architecture as found today in big critical data centers, quite a bit more sophisticated than 1000 iMACs, much more like a supercomputer."

PETES COMMENT

It needs to be remembered that Combat System is just part of a submarine's "Hotel Load". Added to Hotel Load is Propulsion Load. So total reliance on AIP does not equal Combat System electrical demands.

While a submarine combat system may have a clock speed 1,000 times faster than say 10 years ago the software demands may have also increased greatly. This is similar to software demands keeping pace with and steadily passing current home computer hardware storage and speed capabilities.

Historically for a submarine's electrical power requirements AIP doesn't appear to have been rated as a high requirement for Australian submarines. The Collins planners could have included AIP as fitted or retrofitted. Lack of AIP has also not featured on media or official inquiry fault lists for the Collins.

However if the South China Sea may be one of the major patrol areas for Australian submarines then the rising quality of Chinese anti-submarine sensors needs to be anticipated. This boils down to an increased requirement for fully submerged operation in the South China Sea.

For a (say) 30 day operational mission in the South China Sea LIBs may not adequately or safely cover the whole period or whole speed range from (say) 4 knots to 10 knots. AIP may be needed for 4 knot operation and LIBs for 10 knots.

Meanwhile for transit from Fleet Base West (Rockingham) to the South China Sea at 10 knots (as fully submerged as possible ie. short snorting periods) LABs may well be inadequate. So LIBs may be the answer. This perhaps is making LIBs a high priority requirement in Australia's CEP.

Pete

Description	Power Density	Specific Power	Energy Density	Specific Weight
	kW/litre	kW/kg	Wh/litre	Wh/kg
Lead-acid (LAB)	0.12	0.08	90	44
Zebra	0.24	0.16	167	114
Sodium Sulphide (NaS)	0.021	0.17	170	117
Lithium-ion (LIB)	0.22	0.11	270	120
Siemens PEMFC BZM120 fuel cell	0.257	0.13		1200 MHalblaub comment 22/1/16
Silver Zinc see		0.13	500
Lithium Sulfur Battery or Li-S				325 Oxis 2014& here

The 2008 conference paper Submarine Power and Propulsion - Trends and Opportunities by Engineers at BMT Defence Services Ltd, Bath, United Kingdom at http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057650/BMTDSL-Submarine-Power-and-Propulsion-Conpaper-Pacific08-Jan08.pdf is very interesting. Page 8 of the paper contains Table.1 (above) - Battery & Fuel Cell Technologies.

Page 7 describes the Zebra battery [Ref 18]. ], a sodium nickel chloride battery, developed by Rolls-Royce for marine use. See German wikipedia entry on Zebra Battery.

Page 8 comments:

“Lithium ion designs have successfully been developed for automotive applications [Ref. 19]. Their energy density is over twice that of lead acids batteries and it is less than half the weight for the same energy at the 5 hour discharge rate. A unit which is 50cm by 40cm by 40cm has energy of 21kWh and can develop 100kW continuously (i.e. five hour discharge) or 200kW for short periods of time.

The Table looks like a good vehicle to add more recent data – post 2008.

Pete

Table comparing the Collins with the 3 CEP Contenders. As it is dated May 2015 there are some errors in "Submerged Displacement", "Range" knots (surfaced, snorting, fully submerged?) of the 3 contenders. Cruise missiles or not? (Table courtesy NewsCorp via Australian Made Defence)

---

I’m still writing my article on Russia’s decision to discontinue building Ladas/Amurs. Much to think through.

Meanwhile – this Reuters article Australian submarine tender narrows to Japanese and French bids, Germans lose ground-sources, of January 21, 2015, has many controversial assumptions. Can you pick them? See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-competition-idUSKCN0UZ316:

"[Tokyo/Sydney] The competition for a A$50 billion ($34.55 billion) contract to build Australia's next submarine fleet is narrowing to a race between Japan and France as a bid from Germany's ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKAG.DE) (TKMS) loses ground over technical concerns, multiple sources said.

Australia is expected to decide the winner of one of the world's most lucrative defense contracts within the next six months, ahead of a national election in which the deal and the jobs it will create is expected to be a key issue for the conservative government…."

[see WHOLE ARTICLE]

Pete

Photo or artwork? of the PAK FA, T-50 (Courtesy Sukhoi)

---

If the US is notoriously having problems developing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Russia is in even more dire strikes with its first ever stealth aircraft. This is the "PAK FA" (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation) also known as the T-50. Clearly Russian espionage to steal stealth secrets has not been good enough.

Stealth not only involves snazzy wing and tail angles and recessed jets in the body, but radar absorbent skin and low emission electronics on the aircraft.

Russia is still at the stage the US was with the F-22 in the 1990s. After more than 10 years of development the Russians have only built six PAK FA prototypes and have minimised testing because the six are too dangerous to fly. In June 2014 the fifth prototype caught fire on the ground. Russia has not yet developed an adequate engine capable of “super-cruise” ie. with the ability of the F-22 to cruise above the speed of sound.

India, Russia’s PAK FA joint venture partner, is unhappy about the high costs and slow progress (in that regard see an earlier January 2014 report in Submarine Matters).

Russia is having problems affording the PAK FA project. Russia's invasion of Crimea and covert action program in eastern Ukraine, has led to Western economic sanctions. The flow of Western dual-use technology helpful to the PAK FA project has also slowed. Also low oil prices have damaged the oil-export-dependent Russian economy - leading to a decline in the Russian GDP of 3%.

Due to low revenue and high PAK FA prices Russia only plans to buy 12 PAK FAs in 2020 instead of the planned 60. By 2020 the US may have 500 stealth fighters (the F-22s and new F-35s) leaving Russia way behind. Much more detail here.

The PAK FA struts its stuff. Awesome jet blast! Every home should have one! :)

Pete

Submarine cables and thick landline cables are of great (and unsung) value to America's dispersed military functioning - see:

http://sofrep.com/46403/south-koreas-hidden-strategic-value-for-the-u-s-in-afghanistan/?doing_wp_cron=1453598283.7720980644226074218750

Toulon, the French Navy's main base. Homeport of many DCNS products including: current nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle, DCNS (and partners) built FREMM (multi-mission) frigates, Rubis SSNs and the future Barracuda SSN, (Map-diagram courtesy scoop)

---

French naval bases and Headquarters in metropolitan France (2015). On the northwest coast is Cherbourg (where (all?) French Navy submarines are built) and Toulon Naval Base is in the south, on France's Mediterranean coast. (Map courtesy wikipedia French Navy entry).

---

In Submarine Matters S is providing good comments on the Japanese approach to the sale of a future submarine to Australian. There has been some German information, particularly from MHalblaub, and it should not be forgotten that the Prime Minister’s wife, Lucy Turnbull, AO, remains President of the German-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

However there has been little information about France DCNS’ place in the competition. To that end Commentson January 24, 2016 from KQN are very informative, as follows. [Pete has added some links and some bolding]:

“On the US combat management system, pricing will depend on how the deal is structured. It is possible for Australia to get the same price that the USN is paying. That will be the floor price since the US will not discount beyond that.

Japan is jump starting an export defence business, so I bet it will be aggressive on pricing. It cannot afford to lose its 1st deal which happens to be a mega deal. After all to grow a business, you need to take on some debt. Japan will still benefit since after all, with or without Australia, it is investing into LIB Soryu 2. If it can get Australia to tag on, things will look better on the balance sheet.

Price wise, I would watch out on DCNS if I am Japan. DCNS is a state owned enterprise so you can never be sure what cost of money the French state will use on this business case (besides the EU is flooding financial markets with cheap money). State owned means government employees and that means without this deal, they are still on payrolls. And then the whole economy is bad, with near 11% unemploymemt.

If [the submarine] deal closes at the end of 2016, it gets dicy for the French government. April 2017 is election in France. [President of France] Mr Hollande may deem this a must win so he can get re-elected. Still France is a bit stuck on pricing as they cannot afford to fuss up Malaysia [which bought 2 Scorpene subs] with a low pricing here. France needs Malaysia to buy their [Dassault Rafale jet fighters]. To the extent that [France can leverage the Shortfin] from the Barracuda investment. France can also leverage this to lower its price just as Japan [leverages the Australian Super Soryu from the LIB Soryu Mark 2 investment].

TKMS in my view is the one that gets cornered on pricing. They cannot low ball so much to make the Koreans [with 209 and 214 derivatives] and Singaporeans [218s] mad, just in Asia alone. The German economy is out performing, there is full employment so this deal may not be so critical?

KQN and Pete

As indicated in Submarine Matters on October 30, 2015 at least two Americans (below) hold key roles in the future submarine selection and building process.

American, Donald C. Winter is the chairman of the Expert Advisory Panel for the Australian Submarine selection. Winter is also former Secretary of the US Navy and a former Corporate Vice President of Northrop Grumman. (Photograph Courtesy Northrop Grumman)

---

Rear Admiral (retd.) Stephen Johnson (above) was appointed by the Australian Government as General Manager, Submarines, in October 2015.

---

Submarine Matters', September 22, 2015 article The US Continues to Influence Australia's Future Submarine Selection in Many Ways in part indicated:

"...2. Given the highly confidential nature of combat system technology...it may be effectively up to the US which country [Japan, France or Germany] such technology can be transferred to.

- US technology transfer powers may limit Australian decision-making and also influence how our future submarines are built.

- It is widely believed in the submarine industry that the US would not wish combat system technology transferred to French submarine builders...."

On January 25, 2016The Australian picked up this same US combat system influence dynamic with Greg Sheridan's "Cautious US gives Japan edge in subs":

"...Serious doubt that Washington will be willing to provide the US Navy’s most advanced combat systems to Australian submarines if they are built by Germany or France is emerging as a trump card for Japan in the three-way battle to construct the new boats.

...The German manufacturers have countered this view by pointing out that Germany is a member of NATO in good standing and that numerous German-built subs have elements of American weapons systems.

...A senior American outlined to The Australian the reasons for Washington’s preference for the Japanese Soryu submarine to be the replacement for the Collins.

First, the US military’s assessment of the three design options is that the Soryu would offer the best capability to Australia. The Americans are looking to their allies to bolster an overall alliance capability, and in Asia that means primarily Australia and Japan.

...Second, the Americans believe the Soryu would offer the best interoperability between Australian and American submarines and between Australian and Japanese boats.

Third, they believe a Japanese option would greatly enhance “trilateral strategic co-operation” between the US, Japan and Australia. Enhancing such co-operation is a policy objective in all three capitals.

Finally, because Beijing is very much opposed to the Japanese option, Washington believes a defeat for Japan would be seen as a humiliation of Tokyo and a diplomatic and strategic victory for Beijing..."

There is much more in the WHOLE ARTICLE in THE AUSTRALIAN.

PETE's COMMENT

What the US wants is not automatically the last word. Prime Minister Turnbull has been an independent, creative thinker on many occasions in his long, non-government career.

China still remains Australia's largest current market. China will continue to hold that position for the foreseeable future. However the Chinese economy is weakening compared to the resurgent American economy.

Australia would not wish to be drawn into alliance obligations by the US or Japan against Chinese warships in such far flung sea-battlefields as the East China Sea.

The US may not be serious in offering Australia an SSN option from now to the medium term (2030s). If Australia bought the French Shortfin Barracuda France would probably offer the Barracuda SSN option to Australia for building in the 2030s.

Germany is likely to be offering the most efficient, compact and cost effective solution, in the TKMS 216.

Pete

January 26 is also India Republic Day. Above is a vertical interpretation of India's horizontal tricolour national flag. Deep saffron represents courage, spirit and sacrifice; white for truth, peace and purity; and, green for prosperity, faith and fertility. The Ashok Chakra in the flag represents the Laws of Dharma (righteousness).

The Constitution of independent India came into effect on Republic Day, January 26, 1950. This date was chosen as it was the anniversary of an earlier celebration Purna Swaraj "complete self-rule" Day, which was on January 26, 1930.

Every January 26, large military parades are held in New Delhi and the state capitals with representatives of the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force and traditional dance troupes taking part.

India Border Security Force Jawans in the early morning. (Photo courtesy AP/Bikas Das via Indian Express)

---

The grand parade in New Delhi starts with India's Prime Minister laying a wreath at the Amar Jawan Jyoti "the flame of the immortal soldier" at India Gate. Jawan (like the Australian Army "Digger") is a term of considerable pride.

January 26 is also Australia Day.

Indian and Australian cooperation goes even deeper than cricket. (Photo AP via Indian Express)

---

On a personal blog note.

- before 2008 my website was called Spying Bad Things often using mainly open source information supplied by a lovely woman from a US department, as a conduit from the wider Washington community. Memories :)

- Much of my website (called Australia by the Indian Ocean) 2008 - 2012 was inspired by Anonymous, originally from India. He provided many ideas and open source information on missiles, submarines and other things to do with India's growing position in the world.

- specialising on submarines further afield came after 2012 with renaming to Submarine Matters.

Blogging doesn't pay much but fascinating situations arise.

Happy India Republic and Australia Day.

Pete

This Soryu submarine Combat System flow chart (and a vast amount of information) is in wispywood2344's website, passed on by S. More below.

---

Submarines are very complex especially the way their display terminals, mainframe capacity databases, sensors, weapons and people interact. All these elements make up the combat system.

This Australian Defence Force slide display (2015) of the Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP) has this longer definition of combat system (above).

---

The Australian Federal Government has invited both Raytheon and Lockheed Martin (facility in Adelaide) to participate in the process for selection as the integrator for the combat system for Australia’s future submarine.

All eyes have been on the three way (Japan, Germany and France) submarine (CEP) contest but what may make or break the future submarine project also includes how efficiently the combat system is integrated.

This invitation to integrate the combat system is restricted just to those two US companies because of the top secret nature of the US AN/BYG-1 combat system. The US AN/BYG-1 combat system (already in the Collins) is the only combat system considered and approved by the Australian Government for the future submarine.

This approval was made public in a Ministerial Media Release on 20 February 2015 "the Government has endorsed a set of key strategic requirements for our future submarines:

a) Range and endurance similar to the Collins Class submarine;

b) Sensor performance and stealth characteristics that are superior to the Collins Class submarine; and

c) The combat system and heavyweight torpedo jointly developed between the United States and Australia as the preferred combat system and main armament."

Integrating the US AN/BYG-1 combat system may entail up to a third of the cost and effort to build the future submarine. Adding to the complexity and cost of this integration is that a third US company, General Dynamics is deeply involved in modernising/developing the AN/BYG-1.

If Japan is chosen in the CEP the US companies and Australian companies will need to work with Japanese companies to replace the Japanese combat system (below) or adapt parts of the Japanese combat which are already the same or similar to parts of the AN/BYG-1 combat system.

Soryu submarine Combat System flow chart appearing in wispywood2344's website passed on by S. Image much larger here which also contains a Comprehensive Reference List. This Soryu flow chart can be conceptually compared with the more detailed component chart (below) for the current AN/BYG-1:

Just some (eg. without the sonar sensor arrays) of the components of the AN/BYG-1 combat system. See this image much larger and readable here.

---

More detail on the Japanese (Soryu) Combat System (components and estimated prices) will be in a Submarine Matters article soon.

Pete

Lada Class Saint (or "Sankt") Petersburg, the one and only Lada completed. (Photo Russian Navy)

---

Russia hopes that it could develop the 4th generation Lada class have been discontinued mainly because Russia has been unable to develop satisfactory air independent propulsion (AIP) technology for the Lada. See January 2016 reports from Russia.

At the root of the problem is lack of Russian research-building financial and labour resources for AIP. This has made the Lada and related export Amur class, uncompetitive. This is compared to AIP equipped submarines from Germany, France, Sweden, South Korea, China and Japan.

Prospective Amur customers have probably been offered the existing Improved Kilo (636) class instead. This is assuming customers would not accept a Russian offer of a future "fifth generation" Kalina class SSK (more on the Kalina below) with the Kalinas only likely to be operational (with AIP) in the Russian Navy in the mid 2020s.

Customers, including the Russian Navy and some foreign customer navies have waited 15 years for Russia to develop an AIP. But Russia has devoted much effort into making up submarine development and construction time lost in the early 1990s - early 2000s. In early 1990s - early 2000s the disruption of the Soviet Union falling apart meant low defence budget flowing through to unfinished submarine builds and loss of expert labour for submarine building and research. The catchup process since 2010 has mainly focussed on creating two new nuclear submarine classes:

- the Borei class (aka Borey, Project 955) SSBN, and

- the Yasen class (Project 885) SSGN or "multi-purpose" SSN

These nuclear submarine development and construction projects have come at the expense of creating AIP for a whole new Lada/Amur class SSK. Russia's main conventional and nuclear submarine designer, the Rubin Design Institute (see left sidebar in Rubin's website) has been over-extended with all its submarine projects. This is in the context of defence budget shortfalls brought on by:

- Western economic sanctions in response to Russia's ventures in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine.

- Russia’s increasingly threatening posture in the Baltic. This reduces the likelihood that Baltic countries that invented the most modern AIP would supply AIP technology and designs to Russia. This includes Germany (fuel cell AIP) and Sweden (building new advanced versions of Stirling AIP).

- more importantly low world oil prices have led to low oil revenue for the Russian Treasury and hence less revenue to fund increasingly ambitious defence programs, and

- expensive defence programs particularly include Russia interventions in eastern Ukraine and in Syria.

Lack of foreign orders for Russian SSKs (other than 6 Kilos for Vietnam (almost finished) and 1 Amur for Morocco (in limbo)) has also led to a lack of money to fund Russian AIP and a new Lada/Amur class.

As Russia has been unable to develop AIP for submarines, mainly Russian Navy media releases, has artificially created "progress" by naming two further generations of submarines (fourth and fifth) to replace its last actual submarine generation - the Kilo "third generation".

Fourth generation Lada/Amurs are now out so a sort of Five Year Plan to build the "fifth-generation" Kalina has been declared. Customary face saving and denial has been part of the declaration process.

The Kalina Future - LIBs?

The Kalina Project may take until the early 2020s to launch an AIP Kalina and until the mid-2020s to fully test and commission it.

It is significant that until then the Russian Navy has ordered six additional Improved Kilo class (636.3) submarines for its Pacific Fleet. It is possible the six may be retrofitted with Russian AIP once AIP is developed.

Given China’s earlier interest in buying four Ladas China may be the first customer for Kalina Class submarines.

Russia would realise China would reverse engineer some features of the AIP and other advanced Russian submarine features. But Russia needs the foreign exchange from the export submarine business and Russia may want to further deepen its alliance position with China.

Alternatively Russia may be able to develop (through research and intelligence collection) Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for Kalina submarines. This may make an AIP step unnecessary. Russia may develop LIB technology jointly with China or receive LIB technology from China. China may already have a deep enough espionage network in place in Japan and South Korea (maybe also France and Germany?) to collect substantial LIB secrets.

BACKGROUND - RUSSIA's FIVE CONVENTIONAL SUBMARINE GENERATIONS

In information on Russia’s Rubin Design Bureau website – at http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/en/projects/naval_engineering/conventional_submarines/ Russia’s post World War evolution of conventional diesel-electric submarines includes five generations:

Soviet Foxtrot class SSK.

First Generation - Whiskey Class (Project 613, 236! built), Zulu Class (Project 611, 26 built) and Foxtrot Class (Project 641, 74 built) - all heavily influenced by the most advanced World War Two German submarines.

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

Second Generation – the ocean going Tango Class (Project 641B, 18 built). Arguably an evolution of late model Foxtrots and/or Zulus.

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

Third Generation – Kilo Class (Project 877 and Improved 636, a total 57 built so far for both classes). The first Kilo (of the Project 877 series) was commissioned into the Soviet Navy in 1980. Production of the early Kilo (Project 877s) began in 1980 and continued until 1999. Upgrades, particularly adding Club missile capability continue. Production of the first Improved Kilo (of the Project 636 series) began in 1996. Production of six new 636.3s (for the Russian Navy) will begin in 2016 for likely completion of the six in the early 2020s. Russia like other customers would have preferred to have AIP as an option.

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

Fourth Generation – Lada Class discontinued (Project 677) – was to be export marketed as the Amur 1650 and smaller Amur 950. The first of the Lada Class, was the St. Petersburg (lets call it L1) entered sea trials in 2004 but was unsuccessful due to no mature AIP and broader diesel-electric propulsion problems. L1's displacement, at 1,800 tons (surfaced) is 25% smaller than submarines of the preceding Kilo Class. Significantly two other submarines in the Lada Class (lets call them L2 and L3) have not yet been completed.

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

Fifth Generation – future Kalina Class (the future first of class can be called Kalina 1). Likely to look like the Lada. Kalina 1 may be ready for trials after 2020 fitted with Russian AIP (when developed) or Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs).

Russian shipyards, exports vessel building, naval bases and repair. It is significant that the St Petersburg shipyard cluster includes the Admiralty Shipyard where most of Russia's nuclear and conventional submarines are built. (Diagram courtesy "Russian Navy has a Funding Problem" in Stratfor 2016).

---

Please Connect With:

- Russian SSK Development - Kalina Class Awaiting Any AIP, April 4, 2014 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/russian-conventional-submarine.html

- Russian Submarine Development, Rubin Designer’s Views, January 23, 2014 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/russian-submarine-development-rubin.html

- China’s Yuan Class Submarine Related to Russia’s Kilo and Possibly Lada Classes, April 7, 2012, http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/chinas-yuan-class-submarine-related-to.html and

- National Interest's 5 Most Lethal Russian Submarines, July 11, 2015.

Pete

The Indian armed forces Andaman and Nicobar [Island] Command (see bases above) now operates one or more P-8I patrol aircraft and Searcher-II UAVs to track Chinese submarines and surface ships passing through the islands to/from the Straits of Malacca.

---

US Company Boeing is successfully marketing and deploying the P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.

Major customers include:

- the US Navy - many delivered and on order. Some (like Patrol Suadron 45) operating or passing through Hawaii, Guam, Kadena-Okinawa and Singapore with major interest in Chinese (and probably Russian) submarine operations in the East and South China Sea. Also interested in conjunction with other allies (like India) in tracking Chinese submarines passing through the Straits of Malacca.

- Royal Australian Air Force - 8 on order with an option of 4 more. Some may be delivered in 2017. Australia may well buy some large Triton UAVs to work in conjunction with the P-8s.

- Indian Air Force - ordered 8 P-8I (I for India) called "Neptunes" (not to be confused with the old Neptune P-2s). All 8 P-8Is now delivered.

The US may have had some misgivings given India's close relationship with the Russian military. However weighed against this India's aims to use the (possibly lower spec) P-8Is to keep track of Chinese submarines and surface vessels would benefit US national interests against China.

India has one or two P-8Is patrolling the Andaman and Nicobar island area. India may be doing this in conjunction with US, Singaporean and (occasionally) Australian aircraft tracking Chinese submarines entering and leaving the Straits of Malacca area. For the ISR and possibly ASW mission Indian is also operating (Israeli built) Searcher-II UAVs in the Andamans/Nicobars. Also see an article in The Diplomat on Chinese submarines and India's Andaman and Nicobar Command.

- UK Royal Air Force - 9 ordered in November 2015. See Submarine Matters article.

- the Royal New Zealand Air Force may be a possible future customer for a few.

- Italy and Norway may be interested in buying or leasing P-8s.

This August 2015 youtube indicates many differences and advantages of the P-8 compared to the P-3.
---

COMMENTS

It is often forgotten that ASW is only one of a P-3's or P-8's role. Safer anti-surface ship and overland ISR operations may be promoted through higher, faster flying.

The P-8 has major differences in structure and the way of functioning which takes some realising by many who are accustomed to P-3 Orions. The P-8 flies faster and higher than the P-3. Higher flight means less reliance on magnetic anomaly sensors and greater reliance on dropping sonobuoys. Higher faster flight means one P-8 can transit faster and arrive on station faster than a P-3. One P-8 can search more sea area faster than one P-3, so fewer P-8s may need to be acquired.

For overland ISR missions P-8 operation faster and higher contributes to safety against SAMs and small arms fire (eg. 14.5 mm AAA on peaks in mountainous Afghanistan) compared to lower, slower flying P-3s.

Many P-3 advocates automatically see the P-8's difference as failures, perhaps with much "failure" to be like the P-3.

The P-3 may be suited to low and slow flight with a magnetic anomaly detection (MAD) booms over water. It appears that Indian and UK P-8s are/will be fitted with MAD booms. Australian P-8s might also be so fitted and US P-8s fitted and/or retrofitted with MADs. This is also noting P-8 can fly low when needed.

Low-slow may be useful for Laser or Lidar detection of submarines, but Lidar may be less suited to high-fast P-8s.

Pete

Stirring Indian Navy recruitment? and Boeing sales youtube for India P-8Is. 32 seconds in P-8's electro-optical sensor detects a (likely Kilo) submarine's attack? periscope. Sonobuoys then dropped etc. 2:40s one of India's last Harriers fires expensive missiles at dinghies (serious need for Harrier cannon!). I wonder if Pakistan also wants to buy P-8s?
---

The following are February 1, 2016 commentsby Josh on on Submarine Mattersarticle P-8 Poseidons becoming operational and sales success, of January 31, 2016. I have added links and supporting material in […] brackets:

“High altitude has a host of advantages, including:

- fuel economy,

- immunity from AAA/MANPADS [Anti-Aircraft Artillery like 14.5 mm ZPUheavy machine guns and small MAN-Portable Air Defence Systems - missiles like Strela-2s]

- increased airframe life

- increased transit speed, and,

- wider sensor field of view/horizon.

About the only drawback is the loss of MAD detection and decreased accuracy of sonobuoy drops.

[Sonobuoy drops] can be addressed by delaying parachute deployment, spin stabilizing the buoys, and using dropsondes to identify wind patterns at lower altitudes.

[On dropsondes see KaZaK Composites Inc’s Low Cost, Precision Aerial Dropsonde Delivery Vehicle response to a US Navy 2006 project or tender? http://www.navysbir.com/06_1/184.htm]

MAD is used for target localization, not initial detection, so it seems likely the USN has decided this step can be handled by active sound sources, either the multi-static active coherent [MAC] source upgrade for the P-8

[The Multi-Static Active Coherent (MAC) sonobuoy system uses a single noise source sonobuoy and multiple receiver sonobuoys. By using multiple receivers, the MAC system can theoretically cover more volume and provide greater sensitivity since the sound echoes can be correlated over multiple receivers. This requires a great deal of sophisticated analysis software and high degree of operator skill to interpret results.The MAC will hopefully promote P-8 ability to conduct wide area ASW searches.]

or a traditional AN/SSQ-62 DICASS type buoy.

It could be these systems are NOT being offered to allied nations (particularly India) or that allied nations might not have the resources to upgrade their aircraft in a timely fashion and want to retain MAD as a back up/stop gap. The only major savings of deleting the MAD boom is relatively minor cost and fuel savings.

I'm not aware of diesel fumes being a detection method since [Autolycus on] the Shackletons were taken out of service. I'm not sure the USN ever used the technique.

LIDAR might be viable in sufficiently shallow water but it doesn't appear to be capable of large volume searches. I'm not aware of any underwater search sensor using lasers in service outside of the ALMDS mine detection system, though I know green lasers have been used for mapping shallow water areas of coastline.”

Josh [and Pete]

The Chinese Everspring advertisement for Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) use by submarine carries the above photo - what appears to be a (or the) Type 092 Xia class SSBN. The description "48 hours continuously under the water of 1,000 meters for one charge" suggest the batteries are for emergency backup if a submarine reactor fails. "1,000 meters" is very deep diving!

---

In Submarine MattersRussian Submarine Industry - Lada discontinued - no AIP -LIBs? of 28 January 2016 I commented:

"The Kalina Future - LIBs? ...Russia may be able to develop (through research and intelligence collection) Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for Kalina submarines. This may make an AIP step unnecessary. Russia may develop LIB technology jointly with China or receive LIB technology from China. China may already have a deep enough espionage network in place in Japan and South Korea (maybe also France and Germany?) to collect substantial LIB secrets."

The comments that followed, such as from KQN, prompted me to do a bit of research. I located Everspring Global Limited:

"Everspring Global Limited is an authorized distributor of Thunder Sky Battery Limited or Winston Battery Limited, since 2001. Thunder Sky Battery Limited or Winston Battery Limited was founded in 1998, designing and manufacturing dynamic solid-state Lithium ion Power Battery, which has been applied patents over 26 countries and regions. With the features of smaller size, lighter weight, lower cost, longer life and larger capacity, our main products, including the dynamic rechargeable lithium batteries of 50AH, 100AH, and 800AH, have been worldwide used for both industrial and military applications, such as Electric Bicycles, Electric Motorcycles, Electric Cars, Electric Buses, Trains, Torpedo, Submarine..." [more at http://www.everspring.net/distributors.htm]

Everspring Customer Applications include, see right sidebar “Submarines in China” String is http://www.everspring.net/product-battery-customer-submarine.htm . Everspring explains:

“Submarine

Submarine in China equipped with Solid State Lithium ion Power Battery. Solid State Lithium ion Power Battery is safe and the possibility of explosion is very low. It can work not only at low temperature(-25℃),but also at 75℃.TS-LP5453B battery packs of 220V,500Ah in submarine can drive 48 hours continuously under the water [suggest the batteries are for emergency backup if a submarine reactor fails] of 1,000 meters for one charge. [with emails for sales to US, Europe, etc]

Sales Contact:

Europe: sales-euro@everspring.net

USA: sales-us@everspring.net

Rest of the World: sales-row@everspring.net ”

BUT CAN RUSSIA HOLD UP ITS SIDE?

An article by Dave Brown in Lithium Investing News reports in part: Liotech: Large Lithium Battery Plant Opens in Russia January 19, 2012

"The world’s largest lithium-ion battery plant, a joint venture between the Chinese lithium battery manufacturer Thunder Sky Group and Russian state run agency RUSNANO, was recently opened in Novosibirsk, Russia. Novosibirsk is a heavy industrial (including aerospace and nuclear) Russian city in southwestern Siberia which is increasingly into IT.

…The Liotech commercial venture has already reported to have signed a number of contracts to supply lithium batteries. Chief Executive Officer of Liotech Alexander Erokhin indicated that the company has seen interest in Liotech lithium batteries from businesses in the Russian military industrial complex..."

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

[Comment - In 2014 China was the world's third largest Lithium producer and second largest reserves. Russia wasn't listed. But trade sanctions (perhaps targeting dual-use technologies like LIBs) and low oil prices means Russia, with its lower value ruble, cannot ensure Lithium supplies for LIBs.

Eugene Gerdenfor InvestorIntel reports Russia focused on securing stable lithium supply as demand for products grows, January 4, 2016:

"The Russian government plans to create conditions for a significant increase in lithium production and lithium products during the next several years.

According to Yuri Gerner, Director General of the Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrates Plant (NCCP), one of the world’s leading manufacturers of the nuclear fuel for NPPs and for research reactors, the majority of global producers of lithium products have their own raw material base, which allows them to significantly save on production costs, however Russia, to date, has experienced serious problems with stable lithium supplies.

According to an official spokesman of Denis Manturov, Russia’s Minister of Industry and Trade, (a person, who is responsible for the development of lithium industry in the Russian government), lack of the domestic raw material base seriously restricts the ability of Russia to produce lithium products at competitive cost.

The situation is aggravated by the ongoing economic crisis in Russia and the devaluation of the national currency – ruble, which results in a significant increase of the cost of raw material.

...In addition to the supplies of raw materials, a particular attention will be paid for the increase of production of lithium-ion batteries in Russia."

A clear 2011 technical explanation of LIBs from Liotech, joint Russian RUSNANO - Chinese Thunder Sky venture.

---

Eugene Gerden continues: "One of such projects is expected to be re-launched by Liotech, a subsidiary of Russia’s nanogiant Rusnano, which involves the resume of the operations of the existing Russian plant for the production of lithium-ion batteries.

The plant was built by Liotech in cooperation with the Chinese Thunder Sky during the period of 2009-2011, while total amount of investments in the project exceeded 13.5 billion rubles (US$300 million).

According to initial plans of Liotech, the design capacity of the plant should be 400 million ampere-hours. Thunder Sky had promised to acquire the 85% stake of the plant, however decided to leave the project at the beginning of 2013. In summer 2014 Liotech decided to suspend its production, due to a significant decline of demand for its production in the domestic market, caused by the financial crisis in Russia.

…In addition, there are also plans for the active use of lithium-ion batteries in the Russian defence industry, and in particular in the production of unmanned vehicles and other combat equipment and weapons."

PETES COMMENT

So China (with Thunder Sky - Winston - Everspring) appears to have the intention, money and Lithium supplies to develop LIBs for submarine. LIBs as an emergency backup for SSBN and probably SSN reactors. This may be a step towards full LIBs for SSKs (diesel-electric subs) such as an Improved Yuan class.

Russia (with Liotech) may be the junior partner in a joint Chinese-Russian LIB effort. Russia may have the intention but not the money or Lithium supplies given its current economic problems.

Russia may, however, be able to barter its higher technical know-how (especially in nuclear subs and reactors) for Chinese LIBs or for more Chinese backing of Liotech.

Pete

If Su-35s (with long range air to air missiles) become widely available to the Russian and Chinese air forces they may cause headaches to the limited numbers of F-22s (but F-35s and 3rd/4th generation Western fighters will help). See much larger image.

---

In Comments for a January 2016 Submarine Matters article Anonymous provided a large number of links and comments January 27-30, 2016. I’ve selected parts and made the odd comment in [...] brackets:

For the F-22, the fact that it's available in only limited numbers will be a problem if we have to fight multiple wars simultaneously, or if we get into a conflict with a power such as China, which can field overwhelming numbers of aircraft. [however China has onlymodest numbers of modern jet fighters compared to the F-16s, F-15sand other 4th generation Western fighters and many F-35s on the way].

See http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/11/05/is_a_missile_truck_the_solution_to_one_of_the_scariest_wargames_ever__107528.html :

"[The RAND study] analyzed a U.S.-China air war over Taiwan made the bold assumption that every air-to-air missile fired from a U.S. F-22 hit a Chinese fighter (100 percent kill rate) and that every Chinese missile missed the U.S. F-22s (0 percent kill rate). In their simulation, the United States still lost the fight. The F-22s ran out of missiles and the Chinese fighters were able to go after vulnerable tankers and command and control aircraft. A far more detailed simulation the following year showed the same results. Even though U.S. F-22s were pegged with a 27-to-1 qualitative advantage over Chinese fighters, their diminished numbers and the fact that they had to fight from long range meant the Chinese had vastly superior numbers and won the fight."

Hence, the interest in "missile trucks" which can provide fire support for the limited number of available F-22s. An early example of this concept was the proposed B-1R:

The shelved B-1R "missile truck" concept.
---

When it became clear the B-1R wasn't going to be built, the use of longer-ranged missiles on the existing B-1s was considered:

"One of the recommendations by RAND in its latest study on Chinese air power, is to arm the B-1 bomber with 20 or more Patriot or SM-2 missiles in air-to- air role to engage Chinese fighters during a conflict in Taiwan. This strategy will allow the USAF to engage a large number of Chinese fighters beyond the range of their missiles and disengage before any survivors can react."

The new LRS-B bomber is also being studied as a potential missile truck :

"As part of the Air-Sea Battle Concept, the LRS-Bcould act as a large missile platform working in concert with the F-22 and F35. Both smaller aircraft have limited internal bay capability and limited range. Upon confronting enemy air defenses during interdiction and anti-fleet operations, the smaller aircraft could act as spotters while a LRS-B defeats the initial wave of interceptors with air-to-air missiles, allowing the F-35 and F-22s to retain their weapons and carry a larger amount of strike weaponry."

Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) are also being considered for the missile truck role, especially by the Navy, since UCAVs can be launched fromcarriers, while the LRS-B cannot:

It all sounds nice. But there's a problem! That problem is; the proliferation of stealth technology.

In addition to the Indo-Russian Stealth fighter effort the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, and even the Turksare working on their own Stealth designs.

Some of these projects will implode when it's discovered just how difficult and expensive it is to build a stealth aircraft.

But eventually, air battles will increasingly feature stealth fighters on both sides, which will shorten detection ranges and increase the chance of a close-in dogfight. This will deny us the luxury of showering our foes with long range AMRAAM shots before they get close.

Once that happens, the F-35, with it's poor dogfight performance, will be in trouble, but then again, so will everyone else, since all these new fighters will have helmet-mounted sights linked to all-aspect InfraRed Air to Air Missiles (IR AAMs) with high off-boresight capability. This will cause loss rates to approach 1:1 no matter what kind of fancy stealth tech the fighters have.

Of course other technologies, such as lasers and AI, will also affect the situation, but it's too soon to determine exactly how.

As for the shape of future air battles, the only certainty is uncertainty.

An August 2015 youtube of the French Dassault Neuron UCAV. Competition for US X-47 project?

---

The following is all from Pete:

Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)

"The Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) represents a more advanced and deadlier offshoot of the tried-and-true Unmanned Aerial Vehicle aircraft group." See examples.

The Northrop-Grumman X-47B may be the most developed multi-role UCAV so far, but much more development is required. A related project was the Boeing X-45 UCAV.

The General Atomics Reaper can be seen as the most developed and used ground attack UAV-UCAV.

The Boeing X-37 "Spaceplane" can be seen as highly mobile "surprise" spy satellite and potentially a bomber.

An artist’s conception of Boeing’s UCAV-UCLASS which could perhaps first be used in the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) role. (Courtesy US Naval Institute)

---

The US Naval Institute (Feb 2, 2016) reporteda use for 6th generation UCAVs in a more immediate timeframe:

“The Navy’s [carrier launched UCAVs called] Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) effort is being retooled as primarily a carrier-based unmanned aerial refueling platform — one of several Pentagon directed naval aviation mandates in the service’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget submission.

The shift from UCLASS to the new Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) will be made alongside an additional buy of Boeing F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets over the next several years and accelerated purchases and development of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).”

Developing the F-35s and introducing UCAVs is a big ask for the large but tight US defense budget.

LRS-B or perhaps closer F-35 lead disposable UCAVs, such as the Predator C - Avengers (above) may be practicle in the late 2020s. This is called "bot herding". Good for contested air space?

Anonymous and Pete

China's 335 kg WB-LYP10000AHA Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) being developed for (or already in) China's 2nd batch of Yuan class submarines. China is also marketing this battery to Russia, presumably for Russian Kalina submarine use.

---

The Yuan class (Type 039A or 41) diesel-electric submarine. The first Yuans probably have Stirling AIP (and standard lead-acid batteries).

---

Following on from Submarine MattersChina into Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for Submarine - Can Russia Keep Up? of February 2, 2016, I’ve done further research on Chinese submarine propulsion and come up with:

It is significant that China's Winston Battery company (aka Everspring or Thunder Sky) has been developing Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for China's latest conventional (diesel-electric) Yuan class submarine. The Yuans carry numbers Type 039A or Type 41.

Chinese marketing of LIBs at: "Winston Battery WB-LYP10000AHA in large submarines"

http://gwl-power.tumblr.com/post/106634862416/winston-battery-wb-lyp10000aha-in-large carries the highly significant wording ("Posted 1 year ago"):

"The technical information gives some ideas about the size of the battery pack for the Yuan-class of diesel-electric submarines to be equipped with an air-independent propulsion system (AIP) powered from large battery banks.

The battery pack consists of 960 pcs of the WB-LYP10000AHA cells making the total energy of 31 MWh. The lithium battery is saving some 260 tons of weight against the original lead-acid pack. With this pack the Yuan-class (B-class) diesel-electric submarine can drive 3,300 nautical miles or it can stay under water for 800 hours (33 days). This indicates the average onboard consumption of the submarine when not moving is some 38kW/h."

1. Does 31 MWh, 3,300 nm over 33 days look reasonable?

Comment - This compares with:

- 2,800 nm over 20 days for German Type 212A fuel cell AIP and

- 2,900 nm over a 30 day period for Soryu Mark 2s using LIBs.

PETEs COMMENT

The first batch of Yuans are widely thought to have standard lead-acid batteries and Stirling AIP. The "B-class" of the Yuans may mean the second batch/Mark 2 Yuans that have LIBs instead of (or as well as) the Stirling AIP. A December 2015 US report to Congress (page 91) states "The YUAN SSP is China’s most modern conventionally powered submarine. Eight are currently in service, with as many as 12 more anticipated." So the 12 may be the second batch - maybe with LIBs?

As can be seen below China is also marketing submarine capable WB-LYP10000AHA batteries to Russia.

The specific Lithium-ion in the battery is LiFeYPO4 (hence the "LYP"). China's near economically exclusive access to Yttrium (Y) means China has a major advantage in offering Yttrium in its manufactured products. For battery experts the advantage of LiFeYPO4 over plain LiFePO4 is"additional Yttrium at the cathode of the LiFeYPO4 cells speeds up electron transfer especially at cold temperatures". This would be advantageous for Chinese Yuans and Russian submarines starting their engines at sub-zero northern winter temperatures and then contuing through the cold saltwater of winter seas (down to minus 2 Celsius before the water ices up).

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

For sale to Russia http://winston-battery.ru/products/cells/wb-lyp10000aha (explains in Russian) "This site [dated 2014] is a project of the company IP Corporation, the official partner of Winston Energy Group Limited in Russia.

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

SPECIFICATIONS OF WB-LYP10000AHA SUBMARINE CAPABLE LIBs

at http://www.everspring.net/txt/product-battery-LYP10000AHA.htm:

“WB-LYP Series

Model:	WB-LYP10000AHA
Operating Voltage:	2.8-4.0V
Nominal Voltage:	3.2V
Nominal capacity	10000Ah
Max Charge Current (Continuous):	<< 1 CA
Max Discharge Current (Continuous):	<< 1 CA
Max Discharge Current (pulse):	<< 20CA
Standard Charge/Discharge Current	0.5CA
Cycle Life: (80%DOD)	5000
Cycle Life: (70%DOD)	7000
Operating Temperature (Charging ):	-45-85 deg. C
Operating Temperature (Discharging):	-45-85 deg. C
Dimension (mm):	687×367×756
Weight (Kg):	333kg +/- 3000g
Temperature Durability of Case	<< 200 deg.C
Self Discharge Rate:	<< 3% monthly

Specifications can be changed without notice (12.10.2011).

Documentations: [ User Manual ]

2. Do these specs look reasonable for submarines?

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

THUNDER SKY DIAGRAMS DATED 2015

Thunder Sky Winston Energy Group Limited website

Diagram above is "SPECIFICATIONS FOR THUNDER SKY WINSTON RARE EARTH LITHIUM YTTRIUM POWER BATTERY" and below is "CHARGE AND DISCHARGE CHART[S]". Diagrams and Charts are much enlarged here.

Contact Address is: Thunder Sky Winston Energy Group Limited, Thunder Sky Winston Industrial Park, No.3 Industrial Zone, Lisonglang Village, Gongming Town, GuangMing Dist, Shenzhen [a huge city, dubbed China's "Silicon Valley" in southeastern China!], China, Tel: +86 755 86026789/36615068/36615069.

COMMENT

Submarine Matters will devote much more attention to Chinese submarines and surface vessels, and also Chinese jets.

Pete

This is where the February 6 - 7, 2016 "satellite" launch took place. Sohae Launch Center also known as (Tongchang-ri or Tongch'ang-dong or Pongdong-ri Launch Center) is a rocket launching site in Cholsan County, North Pyongan Province, North Korea. The base is located among hills close to the northern border with China.

---

Airbus Defense & Space and 38 North provided this satellite image (above) of the Sohae Launch Center on February 4, 2016. This is where the February 6 - 7, 2016 "satellite rocket" launch took place.

---

An excellent commentary on the February 6 - 7, 2016 launch and North Korea's dual-use space rocket-ICBM program.

---

Reutersreports, February 6 - 7, 2016. Parts of the report are:

North Korea launches rocket it says carrying satellite

North Korea launched a long-range rocket on Sunday carrying what it has said is a satellite, South Korea's defense ministry said, in defiance of United Nations sanctions.

...The rocket was launched at around 9:30am Seoul time (7.30 p.m. ET) in a southward trajectory. Japan's Fuji Television Network showed a streak of light heading into the sky, taken from a camera at China's border with North Korea.

…North Korea, barred under U.N. sanctions from using ballistic missile technology, had notified U.N. agencies that it planned to launch a rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite, triggering opposition from governments that see it as a long-range missile test.

…Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the launch "absolutely unacceptable", especially after North Korea had tested a nuclear device last month.

"To launch a missile after conducting a nuclear test goes against the U.N. resolution. We will respond resolutely, coordinating closely with the international community," he told reporters.

Japan had said that it was ready to shoot down the rocket if it threatened the country, but did not take any action to do so, Japan's NHK reported.

North Korea has said that its most recent nuclear test, its fourth, was a hydrogen bomb. However, the United States and other governments have expressed doubt over that claim."

COMMENT

The credibility of this event as a peaceful "satellite" launch depends on whether a viable, working satellite was launched. If a satellite burns up in the atmosphere after a few minutes, hours or days it is not a genuine satellite. The test can then be easily described as a missile/rocket booster test - generally for future placement of nuclear warheads on top - warheads that follow a ballistic path.

In any case a missile or rocket booster is a dual-use means of launching satellites or warheads. Much of the launch and guidance computer hardware and software is also dual use.

Note that Japan also has a dual-use Epsilon rocket/missile program. Japan also stresses that Epsilon is a peaceful satellite booster.

Pete

Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull inspects a naval guard (in this case from the Royal New Zealand Navy) (Photo courtesy INQUIRER(dot)net).

---

The Australia Government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is suffering from a low revenue problem. This makes it difficult to pay for important social programs and difficult to buy submarines. There may be a 50% chance of an early Election - in March or April 2016.

Reasons for this are:

- lower demand from China for Australian coal and iron ore mean there has been a sharp reduction in Australian State and Federal tax revenue. The reduction being in income tax, company tax and mining royalties.

- this means that the Turnbull Government must find sources of revenue elsewhere. The Turnbull Government has suggest increasing Goods and Services Tax (GST) from the current 10% to 15%. The GST is a consumption tax which is legally and, in practice, easier to collect than company or income tax.

- however a GST increase is unpopular with the public, opposition parties, and unpopular with Members of Parliament in Turnbull's own Liberal party.

- Over the last 2 days Turnbull has withdrawn the GST increase suggestion. But:

- Turnbull still needs to increase tax revenue.

- This makes it more likely that Turnbull will hold an early election first (in March or April 2016) (using a double-dissolution trigger. Then Turnbull will announce tax revenue (GST or other unpopular) increase measures in the regular May 2016 Budget.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election#Election_date "On 2 November 2015, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated: "I would say around September–October [2016] is when you should expect the next election to be."^[8] However in December 2015, the ABC reported that some "senior Liberal MPs" had been seeking an election as early as March 2016.^[9] An election held at this time would require a separate half-Senate election to be held in late 2016 or early 2017 (unless a double dissolution were to occur in advance of the March 2016 poll).^[10]

Factors important to Turnbull include:

1. he and his Party are still decisively ahead in the Opinion Polls (averaging 54% to the ALP's 46%). But Turnbull's lead/popularity could decline by August 2016 after which a normal election might be held.

2. so it is best to hold an election early before the Opposition Shorten ALP increases in popularity.

3. Turnbull does not have a majority in the Senate. A Double Dissolution could give Turnbull that Senate Majority so he can pass new Tax Laws and other financial Laws. The collapse of the rightwing Palmer United Party in the Senate (with key resignations) means there is a power vacuum that Turnbull's center-right Liberal Party can fill. Turnbull could win at least 3 Senate seats currently held by Senators formerly in the Palmer Unite Party.

4. An important though more minor consideration is the expensive financial Submarine cost. This would be perceived by many Australian as a drain on revenue. So it is better that Turnbull can claim he has the tax revenue to pay for the submarines.

5. There is also a submarine political cost in that the Turnbull Government that may prompt Turnbull to announce the Submarine Winner Decision until after an Election. This is because some States and Electorates will be unhappy that they will not get jobs from the decision.

So there is a strong chance (I would say 50%) that Turnbull will trigger a double dissolution process by March 2016 resulting in an early election in April or early May 2016.

For Japan, DCNS and TKMS this would allow Turnbull to keep his promise of making a submarine decision in the “first half of 2016” http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/future-sub-decision-to-be-made-in-first.html . Low revenue also makes it more likely Turnbull will decide on only 8 submarines.

Pete

Trainee Australian Submariners - After a few years difficult to retain. (Photo courtesy RAN via NavalToday)

---

Noel Towell reports in Australia's Canberra Times, February 4, 2016 http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/hello-sailor-navy-offers-50000-per-man-in-bid-to-keep-sub-fleet-afloat-20160203-gml880.html:

"Hello sailor! Navy offers $50,000 per man in bid to keep sub fleet afloat

Sailors on Australia's submarines will be given annual lump sum payments of up to $50,000 just for staying in their jobs as navy bosses grow increasingly desperate to keep crews on the boats.

The navy's high command hopes the big money offer will end their long struggle to hold on to enough sailors to maintain Australia's vital submarine warfare capability.

The unprecedented offer of different pay and working conditions to one arm of a Defence service follows a frank admission by top naval brass that the ranks of Australia's submarines crews are under-strength and fragile..." see WHOLE ARTICLE

COMMENT

Its no use buying and maintaining submarines that cannot be crewed. Continuing shortages of Australian submariners (meaning only 2.3 subs can be crewed?) suggest two courses of action:

1. Australia should only buy 8 or even 6 new submarines because Australia constantly has problems crewing even 6 Collins.

2. Buy the submarine that uses more advanced labour-saving automation meaning fewer crew can operate it. This is the TKMS Type 216. The 216 only requires as few as 33 crew. The Japanese and DCNS subs need more than 50 crew.

Pete

One Japanese estimate for Build + Maintain 10 submarines in Australia

Israel's Dolphin Submarines, Naval Bases and SigInt Network

Return of AIP, LIBs and LABs Debate - Especially between Germany and Japan.

Battery and Fuel Cell Technologies Compared

Controversial Reuters Article on "Germans lose ground"

Russians sobbing over long delayed PAK FA, T-50, stealth fighter.

South Korea’s Hidden Strategic Value for US in Afghanistan

French versus Japanese Competition on Australian Submarine Pricing

US Quietly Pro Japan in Submarine Pick

Happy India Republic Day - and Australia Day

Chart of Japan's Soryu Submarine Combat System, and AN/BYG-1 Integration

Russian Submarine Industry - Lada discontinued - no AIP - LIBs?

P-8 Poseidons becoming operational and sales success.

P-8 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) detection technologies.

China into Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) for Submarine - Can Russia Keep Up?

US 5th Generation and UCAV Fighter Issues - Fighting Chinese Hordes

Chinese Yuan Submarines to use Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)

North Korea Launches "Satellite" - Japan Also Has Dual-Use Missile

Australian Tax Problems May Mean Early Submarine Announcement

Ongoing Australian Submariner Shortage - I suggest Buy The 216

Trainee Australian Submariners - After a few years difficult to retain. (Photo courtesy RAN via NavalToday)