Quantcast
Channel: Submarine & Other Matters
Viewing all 2346 articles
Browse latest View live

More on China's Future SeaWeb

$
0
0
If the pink submarine is a 4,500 tonne Future Australian submarine moving within 50km of the Chinese coast - things may not end well. Chinese undersea SeaWeb sensors may alert (lightweight torpedo carrying) ballistic or cruise missile batteries that a potential target sub is within range. Chinese smart and mobile seafloor mines, sown among the sensors, are another threat.
---


The Chinese have proven themselves very patient and methodical island builders in the South China Sea. Why wouldn't they methodically sow a large pattern of undersea SeaWeb sensors out to 50 km off their coast in the South China Sea. Such sensor network construction can also compensate for the suspected lower quality of Chinese submarines

SeaWebs are mainly undersea sensors, databases and anti-submarine weapon cueing networks.

As the USNS Impeccable found in 2009 the Chinese resent intelligence gathering near their shores. Impeccable was also suspected of sowing US undersea SeaWeb sensors on the approaches to China's nuclear submarine base at Yulin/Sanya on Hainan Island. 





The ocean-island geographies of the South and East China Seas are tailor-made for the growing development of China’s SeaWeb networks. Such networks may include lines of sensors from Chinese island air/naval bases (eg, Subi, Fiery Cross and Mischief Reefs). See map above

Soon Scarborough Reef (or Shoal) only 140 miles (220 km) from Manila Philippines, may be added to the list of new Chinese island air/naval bases. A SeaWeb sensor line may also be strung between Scarborough and the large Chinese base island of Hainan (see red dashed line on the map below).



Harry Kazianis, writing in the Asia Times, has produced a very interesting body of articles on the China threat to Western interests in East Asia. His article “Coming soon to the South China Sea: Beijing’s best weapons of war”, March 25, 2016, in part, deals with China’s SeaWeb development:

"Sonar nets: While not an outright kinetic-style weapon, stringing together a sophisticated sonar network that could seekout US submarines – the very heart of America’s efforts to negate China’s A2/AD strategy — could provide a decisive advantage.

While there is little in English-based open source documents, Lyle Goldstein and Shannon Knight have uncovered various Chinese language open source materials that show Beijing is working on — as of at least 2014 — sonar net test sites in the East, South and Yellow Seas. It stands to reason that China has continued to work on and enhance such efforts. If Beijing were able to perfect such technology and deploy such a capability in such a manner where a new sonar net was set up in around China’s new islands in the South China Sea, such a system might make Washington very wary of deploying advanced nuclear-powered subs there in a crisis. As I explained back in 2014:

“If Beijing were to perfect such technology it could largely negate the military capabilities of America’s submarine forces, which in many respects are the foundation of the budding Air-Sea Battle operational concept [and very likely its successor, JAM-GC]. If China were able to field such a network … American subs could be pushed back beyond the range of such networks. This would impact the ability of American forces in a conflict to deliver kinetic strikes on the Chinese coast [and as well as China’s new South China Sea islands] by way of Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAMs). Considering the investment Washington is making in new versions of nuclear attack submarines, specifically a new version of the Virginia Class that includes a new payload module to carry more TLAMs, Washington would be wise to consider how to respond to Beijing’s latest move.”[see WHOLE ARTICLE BY HARRY KAZIANIS]


COMMENT

Large Australian, US or Japanese UUVs could perform and intelligence gathering tasks required near the Chinese coast. Such UUVs could be submarine, ship launched, air-dropped. They could also be  launched from friendly coasts or islands in the region. Being much smaller than subs UUVs are harder to detect. And no crews to lose.

Pete

Trump's Nuclear Triad - Amazing knowledge of American Prez to be.

$
0
0

 Future Leader of Free World Nuclear Bombs, Trump - a steady hand clutching his concepts.
---


China nuclear exploding. See  1:32  in - nuclear troops and nifty nuclear Mongolian ponies, attacking explosion. The implication seems to be that conventional war can be enhanced by nuclear weapons.
---



Nuclear black-mailing North Korea is much more dangerous. The third generation of the Kim Dynasty, in its own little thought bubble, may not quite know what nuclear war means.
---

South Korea, Japan and Australia can't rely on a US nuclear umbrella as it now appears to rely on a US leadership pendulum. Trump "foreign policies" being the main risk, perhaps becoming reality. Even Putin is looking logical and reasonable, by comparison.

India, France, Britain and Israel don't rely on the US nuclear umbrella.

Pete

Japan's First Ship-Sub FONOP in South China Sea starts April 3 - 6, 2016

$
0
0
Japan's older class JS Oyashio (SS-511) training submarine has no AIP but relies on lead-acid batteries. The Oyashio class preceded the better known Soryu class. This will be the first Japanese submarine visit to the Philippines in 15 years. Behind Oyashio can be seen 
destroyer JS Ariake (DD-109). (Photo courtesy Agency France Press-JIJI via Japan Times).
---

This submarine and the two Japanese destroyers (below) will be at the Philippine naval and commercial port of Subic Bay for a three-day port visit, from Sunday April 3 to April 6. The two destroyers, but not submarine Oyashio, will then sail on to Cam Ranh Bay Naval Base, Vietnam. This can be considered a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP). This is because the two destroyers will cross the large zone in the South China Sea defined by China's self-proclaimed Nine-dash-line (see maps below). 

Japan is providing increasing aid to the Philippines (including small observation aircraft and in future small patrol boats) and plans to give aid to Vietnam (if requested by Vietnam).

Japan probably sails naval ships across the South China Sea more frequently but this early April 2016 movement is quite widely publicised - so it may prompt a Chinese reaction, perhaps in several days.

Also at Subic then Cam Ranh Bay will be JS Setogiri (DD-156), Commissioned 1990, 5,000 tons full load of the Asagiri class. Upfront behind the gun is a Mk.16 (Type 74) ASROC anti-submarine rocket octuple launcher (this carries 8 rockets, each with a lightweight torpedo). Amidships are 2 x  quadruple Harpoon launchers. One MHI built SH-60J(K) anti-sub helicopter.
---

Third Japanese vessel at Also at Subic then Cam Ranh Bay will be JS Ariake (DD-109) above.
---

Note Subic Bay is at Luzon, the large northern island of the Philippines.
--- 

China has, by itself, decided to claim most of the South China Sea within its artificial "Nine dash line" (Map above) (Map courtesy GeoGarage).
---

CHINA'S RESPONSE SO FAR

In answer to “It is reported that Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force plans to send a submarine to the Philippines along with two warships that will then sail on to Vietnam. What is China's comment on that?”  The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs March 7, 2016 Press Conference spokesmen answered


“It needs pointing out that cooperation among relevant countries should be conducive to regional peace and stability instead of targeting a third party, still less harming the sovereignty and security interests of other countries. Japan once illegally occupied China's islands in the South China Sea during WWII. We are on high alert against Japan's attempt to return to the South China Sea through military means.”

The Chinese Foreign Ministry may again complain at Press Conferences on April 6, 7, 8, 2016. Watch this space.


Please connect with:


Submarine Matters reported previously on this FONOP at Japan's Navy and Aid Becomes More Active in the South China Sea, March 8, 2016.

As reported in Submarine Matters the article Subic Bay, Philippines, Still Important to US Navy, November 12, 2015 many US ships and submarines visit Subic and Manila Bays each year.

Pete

The long tradition of fixed ASW sensor and destruction arrays

$
0
0
Fixed anti-submarine detection and seamine systems have a long history.

 The UK Royal Navy (RN) successfully developed a hydrophone system and "indicator loop" magnetic anomaly technology during WWI. By 1918 it was an effecient system defending the RN Grand Fleet's base at Scapa Flow. The German submarine UB-116 was detected by hydrophones on 28 October 1918 attempting to enter the base. Two hours later UB-116 was detected by a magnetic anomaly system defending the base. Unfortunately for UB-116 that system was interlaced with a remotely controlled minefield which was exploded by electical impulse from on-shore RN personnel - thereby destroying UB-116. 

By 1941 the RN had deployed magnetic anomaly and hydrophone systems to defend strategic harbours all over the British Empire (see this long list) including several Australian harbours. The RN also shared all this technology with the US Navy to defend many US harbours (also on list) during WWII. The US then developed the much more extensive Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) since against the Soviet Navy from around 1950. The UK and presumably Empire/Commonwealth countries benefitted from SOSUS networks. 

China with land wars and/or Mao to cope with for decades was a latecomer - likely having magnetic anomally and SOSUS networks since the 1990s. China had "Passive bottom arrays protect harbor entrances, extending out to sea about 20-30 nm" by 1997. 

Now Chinese SeaWeb (Chinese sensors of all types on all platforms orientated to sea targets). Chinese SeaWeb is quicker reacting due to increased computer processing power and data storage capacity. China's NSA provides the essential network backbone. Such capacity makes Chinese SeaWeb better able to store and recognise the sonic (and other signatures) of foreign submarines. For example it is important to be able to distinguish between similar submarines such as Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian versions of the Kilo SSK. Once a Western (including Japanese) submarine is detected China is moving toward the ability to positively identify the nationality of a submarine or even identify an individual sub by its sonar signature or other signatures (including the submarine motion habits-routines of particular Captains).

The US-Western SEAWEB is assumed to be more advanced.

Non-acoustic (active or passive sonar) sensors may include:

-  magnetic anomaly
-  water pressure
-  non-natural water anomaly
-  IR light
-  visible light (underwater CCTV)
-  lasers-LIDAR
-  light emitting diodes (LED) bouncing light off the submarine hull
-  anti-submarine nets or lines
-  water temperature (from engine and hull heat)
-  unnatural chemical levels from AIP (sniffers) 
-  unnatural radiation
-  electronic emissions including sigint.

Weaponisation

In a wartime situation China's SeaWeb would be transformed from just an intelligence tool to being the trigger for various types of anti-submarine weapons. 

Around 30 seconds after detection a submarine could be detroyed by mines that are intergrated with these seafloor arrays including mines that float upward from the seafloor and/or mines that are rocket powered

Around 2 minutes after detection a torpedo carried by missile might destroy the submarine. The weapon to destroy the detected submarine could be an Anti-Submarine Rocket (ASROC). ASROCs have existed for decades. They can carry Common Very Light Weight Torpedo (CVLWT) which may weigh less than 100kg. Multiple CVLWT could be launched with the onboard "intelligence" to strike particularly vulnerable parts of the sub.

China has been steadily developing Anti-Submarine missiles with: 

-  a rocket engine, such as the CY-1 (supersonic flight out to 20km) 
-  or jet engines. The CY-2 uses a C-802 missile for subsonic flight out to 55 km. 

At the upper end of the anti-submarine spectrum China's DF-21D "carrier killer" ballistic missiles could deploy one or more light weight torpedos or depth bombs with conventional or nuclear warheads against high value submarine targets.   

Response

As Bryan Clark indicated in May 2015 a logical response to this greater sensitivity and lethality of anti-submarines sensors is increased use of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs). This saves manned submarines from harm or capture. UUVs can be launched and serviced by manned submarines. The relatively small size of UUVs makes them harder for undersea sensors to detect. Manned submarines can also install recharging and data download depots on the seafloor (one depot is called OceanWorks "sub-sea dock").

Types of UUVs

UUVs with sufficient range for a 100 km (round trip) reconnaisance mission, towards an opponents coast, might be the size and weight of a Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo. Hence launchable from current 533mm torpedo tubes. Such ranges are possible because UUVs do not have to move quickly (against higher water resistance) to perform a mission. Their propulsion would ideally be different from a Mark 48's

Shorter range missions could be performed by lightweight torpedo sized UUVs - including the Bluefin range of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs). These can also be launched in 533mm torpedo tube fitting containers. 

Near static missions can be performed by Wave Gliders and static pods have been used by superpowers since Operation Ivy Bells.

It does not necessarily follow that UUVs larger than heavyweight torpedos are necessary. These "large diameter" or "large displacement"LDUUVs may the latest "must have" according to some American corporations but electronics are increasing in capabilities while shrinking into smaller packages. 

There are always tradeoffs between weapon system choices. Rather than Bryan Clark's suggestion that a very large LDUUV launches several CVLWTs a very long range (even if slow moving) heavyweight torpedo would also make sense. Such a torpedo could pass over the undersea sensor danger zone and hit ships/subs in harbour or leaving harbour. 

Pete

Chinese and Japanese SeaWeb Systems

$
0
0
The Urashima "Platform" or LDUUV under development by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC). The Urashima Platform is 10 meters long and weighs just over 7,250 kg. There may be a dual-use version being developed by the Japanese Navy
---

Japan's MHI Undersea Navigating Mine Hunting UUV (S-10, TYPE 1) used with the JMSDF HIRASHIMA Type minesweeper. Perhaps this UUV can also operate with an Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)
---

At https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19245896&postID=3474881908092116258 S and Josh made some interesting comments in early April 2016.

S pointed out that the Japanese Ministry of Defense is conducting research on two kinds of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV). 

1.  A Large Displacement UUV (LDUUV) "for continuous warning and surveillance of threat and for long range delivery of underwater equipment" [Pete located Urashima Platform or LDUUV being developed by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC). The Urashima Platform is 10 meters long and weighs just over 7,250 kg. There may be a dual-use version used by the Japanese Navy (JMSDF)] and

2.  "mine detecting system which is used in combination with Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)." [Pete did a bit of research and located MHI’s Undersea Navigating Mine Hunting System (S-10,TYPE 1)

"Details are not known, but there are various technical challenges remained for both UUVs."

The shallowness and landforms of the East China and Yellow Seas would confuse hydrophone (SOSUS) portions of China's (future or developing?) SeaWeb (sensor, database and weapon) system so China would need additional sensor types.
---


Josh made some interesting points:

It seems clear that the PRC is deploying some kind of bottom based detection system. This may take the form of hydrophones, but its important to note that sonar conditions in this area, particularly in the shallower East and Yellow seas, would not allow a SOSUS-like system to work - the deep sound channels allowing for long range detection are not present. Passive acoustic detection would have to be much more localized. Other sensors might be deployed alongside or in place of hydrophones - ASW induction loops would be perfectly viable in most of the yellow see for instance. Magnetic sensors would also be workable at such shallow depths.

That said, there are problems that would likely challenge such a system.

1.  Probably the biggest problem, target classification in such heavily congested waters would be problematic. Nuclear plant noise would be fairly unique to an opponent SSN, but other noise sources would not be SSN specific or even sub specific, particular if the sensor involved was not acoustic or not cross referenced with other sensors (acoustic, radar, visual) that could help reject friendly or neutral shipping, submerged or not (assuming someone didn't do something snarky like intentionally simulate emissions of neutral shipping).

2.  The USN is known to have decoys [some older ones] and torpedo target simulators. They come in various sizes from external counter measures tubes (6"), trash disposal unit (9"), and full up heavy weight torpedo size. The larger models in addition to simulating passive sub noises and responding to active pings with an appropriate counter ping also generate a magnetic field to activate MAD sensors.

3.  The [seas near China] area involved is a double edged sword to the PLAN [Chinese Navy]: While it is their back yard and readily accessible to their units and even land based weapons, they are late comers to the party: the USN staked out that turf long ago. It is is likely that many operations laying sensors or cables are under some form of observation at this point, either by MPAs, SSNs, or the likely emplacement of the USN's own sensors on the sea floor. The USN first deployed such sensors half a century ago; it stands to reason that some kind of detection system has been in place. It may be the PLANs back yard, but to a certain extent the USN has a home field advantage. In addition to the USN's long time presence in the area, the US can train and test systems in sonar calibration ranges off its west coast and in the Caribbean out of range of any opponent navy; the PLAN is bottled up and has to test, train, and deploy with the constant threat of observation.

4.  While a land based rocket propelled torpedo weapon may by physically possible [is with the ASROC system used by Western navies and Russia and China], the targeting challenges associated with using it based solely on seabed emplaced sensor data make it unlikely to be extremely useful without some additional targeting information from some other platform. The tracks of such sensor are likely not weapon delivery grade to begin with, on top of all the complications mentioned above.

This isn't to discount the utility or wide spread use of a detection system or missile delivered ASW torpedo or nuclear depth bomb (particularly if an area was off limits to friendly subs and made a 'free fire' zone for all submerged targets). This is just to note some of the complications such a system would have to face (and its presumed USN counterpart).

Josh, S and Pete

Submarine decision "Coming Soon" embattled Turnbull, possible Early Election

$
0
0
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull looking a bit tired as his Government is doing less well. But there may be an early submarine decision. (Photo courtesy Andrew Meares, Australian Financial Review)
---

COMMENT

The political problems of the of the Turnbull Government may result in an early Election with the likelihood of haste and some confusion in the submarine decision.

In the political environment of the Australian Election Campaign Prime Minister Turnbull is attempting to gain political capital by flagging the likelihood of an early Future Submarine decision. This decision may be on:

-  which of the three contenders has won, and

-  may indicate how many submarines (if any) are built overseas and how many in Australia. The proportion of work in Australia and $Billions to be spent is the most politically high profile issue.

Turnbull may not specify which Australian States will get most of the submarine work, rather he is more likely to say all will do work.

It is Industry Minister, Christopher Pyne who, coming from South Australia, who will say (or imply) that most submarine work will be in the key State of South Australia. It is in South Australia that  Turnbull's Coalition Government may lose many House and Senate seats to Labor, the Greens and to the submarine fixated Xenophon Team.

ARTICLE

AAP via Australia’s Channel 9 News reports, April 5, 2016, http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/04/05/12/31/submarine-decision-coming-soon-turnbull

"Submarine decision coming soon: Turnbull

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says a decision on Australia's biggest ever defence contract will be made shortly.

...Industry Minister Christopher Pyne on Monday suggested the winner would be announced before the election, which could be held on July 2 [2016] if Mr Turnbull opts for a double-dissolution.

Mr Turnbull told reporters on Tuesday in Sydney..."Announcements about that will be made shortly," he said.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten told reporters in Perth the government needed to fulfil its 2013 election promise to build 12 submarines in Australia. "Our test is straightforward for submarines - build them here, maintain them here, sustain them here," he said..." [see WHOLE AAP-9News ARTICLE]

Pete

Submarine "Announcement" Likely to be 12 Built in South Austrlia - No Winner

$
0
0

Turnbull's main target is beating Labor in the Election, not announcing the winning contender.
Cartoon by Valdman for the (Adelaide) Advertiser, April 7, 2016
---

Prime Minister Turnbull's main pre-Election concern is, unsurprisingly, to win votes in South Australia and other shipbuilding States. Turnbull needs to head off submarine build uncertainty which the Labor opposition in South Australia and nationally, is exploiting.

Turnbull's "submarine announcement" might be restricted to saying, his Government has decided  that:

1.  all 12 submarines will be built in Australia

2.  with final assembly in South Australia (but Turnbull may not risk saying "ASC")

3.  BUT with significant work (undefined) from the other Shipbuilding States/Territories which just happens to be ALL other States/Territories 

[Turnbull won't be saying the descending order of work in other States/Territories, which may possibly be:

-  Western Australia (especially Civmec)
-  NSW (maybe mostly at Tomago, maybe steel from Wollongong)
-  Victoria (Williamstown)
-  ACT (DoD, RAN, uniformed, officials, politicians, their staffs, many public servants, white collar consultants and some electronic component offsets)]
-  Tasmania
-  Queensland
-  Northern Territory (port upgrades in Darwin)

As any building decisions only need to be set in stone by 2026 Turnbull (who probably won't be PM in 2026) has a lot of wriggle room. The first of the new subs will, after all, only be launched in 2031 and commissioned in 2033. This is noting the mid-life upgraded Collins class will operate into the 2030s

No announcement as to the actual winning COUNTRY/company contenders necessarily needs to be made until after the Election.The winning contender announcement is less political if all contenders will be said to build all subs in Australia anyway.

Meanwhile Industry Minister Pyne (from South Australia) will say this is a huge win for (normally Labor voting workers in) South Australia.

Noting that Twitters of Tweets don't make it to Submarine Matters but alerting to an article link is appreciated :) over the last 6 hours Pyne continues to talk to AAP/9News and in that same article Labor Leader Bill Shorten points to Turnbull's political vulnerability on submarines 

As no final WHERE TO BUILD decision needs to be made until 2026 everyone is happy.

Note that where-ever a submarine is built subs are only put together from parts overwelmingly made in the winning contender's country - anyway.

Like any 2016 Election Promise a decision by a new-different Government in the early 2020s may be totally different. Such a 2020s Government may well decide to have the first one or two submarines built in Japan, Germany or France. 

But six to ten then built in Australia will be in the Collins tradition.

Pete

Quantum Entanglement for Submarines made Easy

$
0
0
The US Government, more precisely the USN, wishes to patent "quantum entanglement" technology
 for submarine positioning, navigation, ASW and mine detection. It is meant to be undetectable by enemies. See the funky video below - groovy music!


Submarines under Arctic ice apparently rely on inertial guidance to position and navigate. This is because thick ice can block the positioning signals that submarines usually rely on. Those signals may be from GPS satellites or VLF stations and other frequency range submarine radiocommunications. Ice also blocks a submarine's extended antenna or antenna buoys.

Using active sonar to avoid banging into things is too indiscrete and hurts cute dolphins and whales' hearing.

So the US Government wishes to patent quantum entanglement which is, in theory, so far, undetectable by an enemy. But Russian scientists, or spies, love a challenge.

Perhaps the US and UK have also thought of using the method for seafloor sensors in the littorals to detect wandering enemy subs?



Pete

Arrium - Pyne's Submarine Steel Claims Don't Stack Up

$
0
0
The MP from South Australia, Christopher Pyne, has made some hopeful, damage-control, claims regarding Arrium and Future Submarine submarine steel which seem to show a lot of ignorance.

Australia's ABC News Online, April 8, 2016 reported:

“While the Federal Government is not promising a bailout package, Mr Pyne strongly indicated this morning the company could get contracts linked to the next fleet of submarines.

"Because of the Government's commitment to the 12 subs, the nine frigates, the patrol vessels and so on, there will be a whole body of work coming through the pipeline," Mr Pyne told Channel 9.

An industry source told the ABC Arrium does not produce the type of steel needed to build submarines but said it could modify its operations or produce steel beams supporting the construction of the submarines….”

COMMENT

The steel plant at Whyalla, owned by Arrium, makes “long steel” products - mainly steel reinforcing bars and beams for homes and buildings. 

It is possible that Arrium could gear up to make the few hundred tonnes of steel beams needed in Australia's Future Submarine project. But this would only be needed in the mid 2020s based on the Turnbull Government's plans to delay the Future Submarines build until the late 2020s. For an Australian submarine build, first steel might only be cut in 2028.

The example of any Australian company making submarine steel overwhelmingly involves a fundamentally different type of product, that is flat steel for submarine hulls. 

The precedent of an Australian company producing submarine steel seems limited to Port Kembla-Wollongong based Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd. This only involved Bisalloy making 8,000 tonnes of steel in the 1980s-1990s for the Collins submarine program. There was research and development involvement from BHP. 

Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) was also involved - see "High-strength steel and welds"here


It is unlikely an Australian steel maker could make submarine steel with economies of scale or have an export market for that steel. It is highly unlikely that the submarine contenders Japan, Germany or France would rely on Australia to be the sole/only source of submarine grade steel for the winning submarine type. Unsurprisingly Japan, Germany and France would value their own steel industries' ability to make highly strategic submarine steel.

Germany, France and Japan would probably be nervous about their key classified pressure hull steel technology finding its way to any foreign companies affiliated/associated with Australian steel companies. Germany, France and particularly Japan would worry about Chinese affiliated companies due to Western strategic distrust of China and economic competition with it.

Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (PART ONE)

$
0
0
Republished with permission from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

This article originally appeared in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute blog, The Strategist, on April 11, 2016, at the string http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-1/

"Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 1)

11 Apr 2016 | Sumio Kusaka, Ambassador of Japan to Australia.


[pictured is Soryu submarine SS-505, which is Zuiryu "Sword Dragon"]
---

At the end of November last year, Japan submitted to the Australian government its proposal for Australia’s future submarine program.

The Japanese proposal is low risk and meets Australia’s needs. It’s a proposal based on our accumulated experience and the proven technologies of the Soryu-class submarine, which is the world’s largest conventionally powered submarine. Seven Soryus are already in use by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force.

Several key questions have been posed about whether our proposal will be able to meet Australia’s future submarine needs.

The following two posts will seek to explain to the greatest extent possible the truth about the capability of the Soryu-class and the reasons why the Japanese proposal is low-risk.

Can Japan’s proposal meet Australia’s cruising range requirement?

There’s a concern, promulgated in some quarters, that the Soryu-class submarine won’t be able to match Australia’s requirements regarding cruising range. Such a concern is mistaken, for in Japan’s pre-concept design, every effort was made to ensure that Australia’s cruising range requirements would be met.

Given that cruising range can be determined by the quantity of fuel expended and fuel consumption efficiency, the Soryu-class submarine was the basis of a comprehensive study on an internal layout made in order to ensure effective use of space by extending the hull and re-designing partitions. That study led to the conclusion that by increasing the capacity of the fuel tank and working on its positioning, as well as extending the hull design, the pre-concept design will be able to meet Australia’s cruising range requirements without any problems.

Is the internal space of the Soryu-class submarine too narrow?

The size of the reserve buoyancy compared to submarines from other countries and the double hull structure has led to questions about whether the internal space of the submarine is overly narrow.

The estimated surfaced displacement of the Soryu-class submarine is approximately 3,600 tonnes, while its dived displacement is around 4,200 tonnes. So in relation to the reserve buoyancy of the Soryu-class submarine, there’s no reason to believe that it possesses an excessive amount of reserve buoyancy compared to submarines of other nations.

Moreover, although it’s true that one section of the Soryu-class submarine consists of a double hull structure, a highly space-efficient outfitting using 3D digital mock-up technology and design techniques that prevent reinforcement structures such as beams from restricting space have created a wide internal space while avoiding a growth in the size of the submarine itself. Furthermore, the extension of the hull has allowed a much wider internal space than in the Soryu-class submarine.

The internal space of the Soryu-class submarine has been shown to a large number of Australians familiar with the internal space of the Collins-class submarine. So far, there hasn’t been any comments which indicate that the internal space of the Soryu-class is too narrow.

Is the lifespan of Japanese submarines too short when compared to Australian boats?

Until recently, Japanese submarines were used for a period of 18 years before being retired. The operational lifespan of the submarines was determined by the National Defence Program Guideline (NDPG) taking into consideration factors such as not exceeding the pre-set number of submarines to be retained by Japan (originally 16), technical obsolescence, and the introduction of new submarines incorporating technical improvements.

Japan decided to increase its submarine fleet to 22 vessels based on the 2007 NDPG, so a decision was made to extend the service life of our submarines by six years.

It’s not true to say that Japanese submarines can’t endure for long periods of time. If the Royal Australian Navy desires to use the submarines over a long period of time, the same level of technological checks that we carry out on our own vessels now will enable such desires to be met.

Some have said that corrosion of the double hull structure is the source of the submarine’s shorter lifespan, but that’s simply not true. The construction of the Soryu-class submarine in sections allows for an appropriate level of anti-corrosive maintenance. Japan has never experienced any major fault’s which have interfered with the operation of its submarines.

These appropriate anti-corrosive technologies were developed to allow our submarines to operate in a range of environments, even in harsh warm waters conducive to corrosion. Japan believes that such technologies will guarantee the effectiveness of Australian submarines which will also operate in the same maritime environments.

Sumio Kusaka is the Ambassador of Japan to Australia"


© Australian Strategic Policy Institute


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

PETE'S COMMENT

Ambassador Kusaka's advice is in line with information provided to Submarine Matters over the last few months:

Under subheading “Is the internal space of the Soryu-class submarine too narrow?”

This is the first time I’ve seen an officially published “estimated surfaced displacement of the Soryu-class submarine is approximately 3,600 tonnes”. This is very similar to the recalculated surfaced displacement of "3,700 tonnes" that Anonymous produced in the March 11, 2016 article Table. 

Note that this is forseen Wispywood2344 in a 11/3/16 10:31 PM comment [wait 10 seconds for auto-search] pointed out that “Soryus [displacement of] 2950 tonne, and this is the official "standard" displacement [whatever that means?] not "surfaced" displacement. See official specification of Soryu class submarine http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/gallery/ships/ss/soryuu/501.html
 [right click mouse for “Translate to English”].

So reserve buoyancy indeed doesn't seem excessive and there is more mission/crew space than the old misconstrued figure of 2,950 tonnes suggested.

Under subheading “Is the lifespan of Japanese submarines too short when compared to Australian boats?

Reasons for shorter life are very much along lines S has provided over the last few months – especially at S’s comment on 11/3/16 11:12 PM [wait 10 seconds for the auto-search] and at this Submarine Matters article of March 16, 2016.

Regarding “National Defence Program Guideline (NDPG)” see specifically 
NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDELINES for FY 2014 and beyond, December 17, 2013”
page 31 of http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2014/pdf/20131217_e2.pdfwhich indicates the Present number of “16” submarines, which is to be increased to “22” in Future.

PART TWO is due out tomorrow.

Pete

Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (PART TWO)

$
0
0
Republished with permission from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

This article originally appeared in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute blog, The Strategist, on April 12, 2016, with the string http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-the-japanese-proposal-is-low-risk-part-2/

"Why the Japanese proposal is low risk (part 2)

12 Apr 2016 | Sumio KusakaAmbassador of Japan to Australia.


[ASPI Strategist]  Editor’s note: The Strategist has invited all three SEA 1000 contenders to explain their approach to meeting Australia’s future submarine requirement.
The first post in this two-part series explored several key questions pertaining to Japan’s ability to meet Australia’s future submarine needs. Those questions concerned cruising range, internal narrowness and operational lifespan. This second post will further explain the truth about the capability of the Soryu-class and the reasons why the Japanese proposal is low risk.
Is Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) necessary?
A concern has been expressed that since modern submarines are required to spend long periods of time submerged and to secretly evacuate to safer waters, AIP capability is indispensable. Yet it isn’t included in the Japanese proposal.
As a result of incorporating lithium-ion batteries into our submarines that surpass the capabilities of AIP, Japan doesn’t believe that AIP is an indispensable capability for modern submarines.
Japan has experience operating seven submarines installed with AIP systems. But after considering the evolution in lithium-ion battery technology—higher energy density, greater safety, faster recharging times—Japan decided not to install AIP systems on submarines that will be built from 2015 onwards. [see 27SS Soryu Mark 2, LIBs only in SORYU TABLE below] 
The new Soryu-class submarine will use lithium-ion batteries instead of AIP as that technology has led to improvements in submerged endurance and speed capabilities, thereby allowing operators to continuously traverse waters using a wider range of possible speed options that simply aren’t available to AIP.
We believe that this new Japanese technology will provide a capability that exceeds that of AIP.
Are lithium-ion batteries reliable?
There’s a concern that lithium-ion battery technology isn’t yet sufficiently developed to use in submarines.
As above, Japan made a decision to install lithium-ion batteries on any submarines to be built from 2015 onwards. Prior to their installation in submarines, our battery technologies have gone through a vigorous and complete verification testing. They’ve been thoroughly evaluated in over 20 different types of tests and no issue has been found concerning their reliability. Those tests include short-circuit tests, shock-resistance tests, drop tests, overcharging/over-discharging tests, seawater soaking tests and heat tests. The results clearly demonstrate that reliability isn’t an issue. With this assurance, we finally decided to install lithium-ion batteries in our own new submarines.
What does submarine cooperation mean for the ‘special strategic partnership’?
An argument has recently emerged in Australia suggesting that deepening defence and security cooperation with Japan would narrow Australia’s strategic flexibility and pose a strategic risk to Australia. But is a point of view that regards Japan as a source of strategic risk for Australia correct? Japan and Australia share the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, open markets and free trade, and we have a ‘special strategic partnership’ based on our mutual strategic interests.
Australia, along with a large number of other nations, has welcomed the more pro-active contribution Japan will make to the peace, stability and prosperity of both the region and the world in line with Japan’s ‘Positive Contribution to Peace’ based on the principle of international co-operation. It’s in that context that one should regard the deepening of security and defence co-operation between Japan and Australia.
As has been the case for many years now, Japan and Australia have been deepening security and defence cooperation based on our past 2+2 discussions and agreements. The Australian government’s 2016 Defence White Paper also endorsed the strengthening of security and defence cooperation between Japan and Australia. Our participation in the CEP for the future submarine program is just one part of a much wider and more diverse story. If we were to follow the logic of the argument, which is based on opposition to Japan and Australia deepening our defence and security cooperation, we simply are left asking ‘why?’

Furthermore, Japan regards Australia as a trusted partner which is why it concluded a bilateral agreement concerning the transfer of defence equipment and technology. Under assurances given by Australia based on the agreement, necessary technology will be transferred from Japan to Australia in the event that Japan is chosen as a partner for the future submarine program. The technology transfer will ensure that Australia will be able to possess and exercise its own sovereign control over its submarines.
Sumio Kusaka is the Ambassador of Japan to Australia"

© Australian Strategic Policy Institute

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


PETE'S COMMENT

Re subheading "Is Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) necessary?"

This is very much in line with what S has reported for the last 6 months. With S advice summarized in the SORYU Tables. These Tables have become more accurate and comprehensive than information released by French and German sources. 

Ambassador Kusaka advises "Japan has experience operating seven submarines installed with AIP systems" That would be SS-501 to SS-507. Then 3 more (SS-508 to SS-510) are also "LABs + AIP" Soryus, and are in the pipeline. 

Now Ambassador Kusaka has confirmed that the first Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) only Soryu, which is designated SS-511, was Laid Down in 2015. I call it the first Soryu Mark 2 due to its propulsion differences from the preceding Soryus.

I think AIP fails to have a "wider range of possible speed options" mainly because it must be switched on for minutes before it can sharply accelerate the submarine and AIP's chemicals are also rapidly used up at speeds over 8 knots. 

[See page 16 hereThe [Figure 9] plot shows how the 150kW Stirling engine AIP starts to give the SSK endurance below 8 knots thus allowing extended poise in the Baltic Sea operating area where transit times to the patrol areas would be small.]

Both Japan and, even more so, Australia have longer transit times to patrol areas. For Australia this makes the marginal value of AIP very low in our very long missions compared to classic-Baltic-AIP (or parked just outside Singapore) patterns.

SORYU TABLE (with earlier Oyashios, as at April 12, 2016)

SS
No.
Build No
Name
Pennant
No.
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
LABs, LIBs, AIP
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
5SS
8105
Oyashio
SS-590/ TS3608
¥52.2B
FY1993
LABs only
 Jan 1994
Oct 1996
Mar 1998
 KHI
6SS-15SS
Oyashios
10 subs
8106
-8115
various
SS-591-600
¥52.2B per sub
FY1994-FY2003
LABs only
 Feb 1994
Mar 2008
 MHI
&
KHI
16SS Soryu
Mark 1
8116
Sōryū
SS-501
¥60B FY2004
LABs + AIP
Mar 2005
Dec 2007
Mar
2009
MHI
17SS
8117
Unryū
SS-502
¥58.7B FY2005
LABs + AIP
Mar 2006
Oct 2008
Mar
2010
KHI
18SS
8118
Hakuryū
SS-503
¥56.2 FY2006
LABs + AIP
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
Mar
2011
MHI
19SS
8119
Kenryū
SS-504
¥53B FY2007
LABs + AIP
Mar 2008
Nov 2010
Mar
2012
KHI
20SS
8120
Zuiryū
SS-505
¥51B FY2008
LABs + AIP
Mar 2009
Oct 2011
Mar
2013
MHI
No
21SS
No 21SS built
22SS
8121
Kokuryū
SS-506
¥52.8B FY2010
LABs + AIP
Jan 2011
Oct 2013
Mar
2015
KHI
23SS
8122
Jinryu
SS-507
¥54.6B FY2011
LABs + AIP
Feb 2012
Oct 2014
7 Mar 2016
MHI
24SS
8123
Sekiryū
SS-508
¥54.7B FY2012
LABs + AIP
Mar 2013
2 Nov 2015
Mar? 2017
KHI
25SS
8124
SS-509
¥53.1B FY2013
LABs + AIP
22 Oct 2013
Nov? 2016
Mar? 2018
MHI
26SS
8125
SS-510
¥51.7B FY2014
LABs + AIP
2014
?
Mar 2019?
KHI
27SS
Soryu
Mark 2
8126
SS-511
¥64.3B FY2015
LIBs only
2015
2017?
Mar
2020?
MHI
28SS
8127
SS-512
¥63.6B FY2016
LIBs only
2016?
2018?
Mar 2021?
KHI
29SS
?
?
 1st of New
Japanese  Class
LIBs only
?
?
2023?
MHI?
Aus1
?
?
1st of new Aus class (if Japan chosen)
LIBs only
2028?
2030?
2033?
in Aus or Jpn?
Aus2 to 12?
?
?
between 5 and 11 additional Aus subs
LIBs only
from 2029?
from 2031?
from 2034?
??
Table courtesy of information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries,  
AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = lithium-ion batteries.  

Pete

Australia's hot SEA1000 Future Submarine website

$
0
0

The Australian Department of Defence's "SEA1000" Future Submarine website is surprisingly interesting.

At http://sea1000.gov.au/ click GET STARTED

“THE PROGRAM” at http://sea1000.gov.au/the-program/  introduces some bold claims of "affordable" and more puzzling "regionally dominant".
Dominant over who?
China?


Click "MENU" towards top left corner to navigate around the site.

Click http://sea1000.gov.au/submarine-essentials/faqs/scroll down and you’ll see

"WHAT'S NEEDED IN AN AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINE?
·     These areas of importance to Australia’s sea borne trade and historically central to its defence, involve operations at great distance from Australian bases and support facilities.

·     To support such operations, Australian submarines will need to deploy further forward and earlier than surface fleet units if they are to build strategic deterrence of an opponent’s plans, as was done by the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror.

·     This means that Australia’s submarines will have to go a long way to carry out their missions and be able to stay for periods of weeksto attack the enemy in times of war, to inform on developments in times of tension and to provide intelligence to support national security objectives in times of peace.

·     Existing off-the-shelf submarine designs cannot perform effective operations that comply with these requirements.Even at very slow speed for best fuel consumption they can barely reach pivotal operational areas in the South China Sea and the interface between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and even then can then stay for only a day or two.

·     These existing submarine designs can travel to distant bases only with extensive pre-planned logistics support. The recent deployment of a German submarine over the 8,500 kilometers from its home base to the east coast of the US could only be undertaken with an accompanying logistic ship in support.

·     In contrast, the larger Australian Collins class submarines regularly deploy the 12,000 kilometers from Fremantle to Hawaii (the distance from Washington to Athens) as a routine training operation.  Last year, HMAS Sheean completed a 37,000 kilometer deployment that included high tempo multi-national exercises off Hawaii.


·     Optimum operational performance under these conditions can be provided only by a submarine design considerably larger than the off-the-shelf designs. Crew must be large to ensure performance over long, intensive missions. As a rule of thumb, each crew member represents one day of mission endurance – the Collins crew is around 60.

·     Unsurprisingly, the off-the-shelf designs, with crews of around 30, are usually sent by their operating navies on deployments of less than 30 days.

·     To sustain larger crews, Australian submarines need the ability to provide, without replenishment, larger outputs of power, food, water and fresh air over long periods. Cooling demands in warm tropical waters require increased electrical capacity.Performing roles such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance requires equipment for which there is not enough space in the off-the-shelf designs.

Evil enemy sub sinks peaceful passing steamer.

THE END

  Pete

US Destroyer Recklessly Sails Too Close to Peacefully Passing Russian Jets

$
0
0
USS Donald Cook intentionally speeds up to 18 knots in attempt to intercept peacefully passing Russian Su-24 "Fencer" F-111 ski
---


Captain of Donald Cook, Loootenant Commander Johnny "Cutey" Rambo with Yankee aggression shoots down peace loving fighter bomber.
---


Days after US ships swooped dangerously close to Russian jets the White House remains deafeningly silent - and has no rhythm.

Footage of the incident, which took place on April 11 and 12 in the Baltic Sea, shows USS Donald Cook ruthlessly bristling with nasty Rambo within 100 feet of Russian Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft.

USS Donald Cook makes numerous passes at low altitude, buzzing over the cockpits of nervous pilots Yuri and love partner Ivan.

USS Cook appeared on collission course with Russian Baltic Sea Fleet base at Kaliningrad enclave only 70 nautical miles off its bow.

USS Cook then mercilessly attempted to reverse over a Russian Navy KA-27 Helix anti-sub helicopter seven times. Frightened pilots not same.

This is not first USS Cook attempt to rundown passing Su-24 fighter bombers. On 12 April 2014,  this time in the western Black Sea, USS Cook made twelve close-range passes over unarmed Su-24 "Fencer" fighter jet shrieking like Bambi on crack.

Bad, bad, Navy!! 

A new close in weapon system is being perfected to bemoan hapless Russian pilots...





Yankee provocation revealed.

MHI Establishes MHI Australia Pty Ltd in Sydney as Japanese Sub Visits

$
0
0
It is interesting that while a Japanese Soryu submarine is visiting Sydney the Japanese submarine bid leader MHI has established MHI Australia Pty Ltd. in Sydney. Note reference to "Future Submarine" in Media Release below. 

The Media Release carried by Business Wire, April 14, 2016 at http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160414006763/en/MHI-Extends-AustraliaOceania-Reach-Establishing-MHI-Australia . Here is a portion:

"TOKYO--()--Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) (TOKYO:7011) launched operations at MHI Australia, Pty. Ltd. in Sydney. Creation of the new entity has two overriding ambitions: 1) to strengthen ties with Australia’s governmental institutions and economic and industrial sectors, and 2) to serve as a base for developing relationships with Australia’s academic bodies, including universities and research institutes. MHI Australia will help drive proactive sales support as well as broad information gathering to reinforce MHI’s business structure in the Australia/Oceania region as well...

… Upon inauguration of its new strategic entity in Australia, MHI President and CEO Shunichi Miyanaga commented: “Over the years, starting with delivery of a steam turbine for a power generation plant in Collinsville, a town in the suburbs of Townsville, Queensland in 1969, the MHI Group has supplied numerous thermal power generation systems, compressors, and metals machinery to Australia, helping contribute to Australia’s rapid development. Today, together with the Japanese Government, MHI is participating in the process to pick a partner for Australia’s Future Submarine program. With the establishment of MHI Australia, we hope to integrate the MHI Group’s full technological strengths and experience in large-scale project management across a wide spectrum of business areas. Working in lock step with the advanced initiatives being taken in Australia’s industrial and academic sectors, we will bring new waves of innovation in diverse Australian industries, so that we may grow and prosper together.”..."


See FULL MEDIA RELEASE AND CONTACT DETAILS AT BUSINESS WIRE.

Pete

Has Germany's TKMS Won the CEP?

$
0
0
Hamish McDonald in Australia’s The Saturday Paper, April 16, 2016 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/world/south-and-central-asia/2016/04/16/japanese-unlikely-supply-our-submarines/14607288003128has written a most surprising article with the expectation that Germany’s TKMS has won the Future Submarine CEP.

Here is a portion but its best to read the whole article at The Saturday Paper site.

“Japanese unlikely to supply our submarines”

"…The Defence Department is understood to have completed the “competitive evaluation process” called for by former prime minister Tony Abbott a year ago after his secret “captain’s call” in favour of Sōryū boats built in Japan caused a mutiny in Coalition ranks. Its recommendation will shortly go to the national security committee of Malcolm Turnbull’s cabinet…

…Increasingly, defence circles think the bid by Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems looks the safer bet. An associated German shipyard provided the design and back-up for the RAN’s trouble-free Anzac-class frigate program. TKMS has built about 160 submarines since 1960, including 50 in the local yards of foreign navy customers, not to mention the hundreds of U-boats turned out by its predecessors in Kiel. At least the Americans won’t have to work with the French…"


COMMENT

I haven't seen other commentaries that Germany has won. The final decision still needs to get through the Turnbull Government Cabinet.

Nevertheless perceived German (TKMS) strengths include:

-  choosing Germany is less likely to offend China which genuinely fears a militarily resurgent Japan 

-  Germany’s long experience as a builder of submarines tailor-made for specific customer needs 

-  Germany makes the well known MTU 4000 diesel modified for marine use

-  Germany has the most experience and most success in overseeing foreign build projects (just look how South Korea is churning out Type 209s and 214s)

-  Germany is not dedicated to building new, possibly risky, Lithium-ion Batteries into a Australian submarine, but instead could build standard Lead-acid Batteries

-  Germany has no issues of difficult to weld submarine steel or short operational submarine life

-  Germany can supply the most advanced, proven air independent propulsion (AIP) if Australia eventually favours AIP


-  German designed 209s and 214s have already included some elements of the US combat system for US weapons including the Mark 48 torpedo.

Pete

Major Aus Government Announcement - 3 Surface Vessel Types, Shortlists

$
0
0
PETE'S COMMENT

Australia's Turnbull Coalition Government has made a major announcement today which covers a continuous building program for three surface vessel classes. These are Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), Future Frigates (FFs) and Pacific Patrol Boats (PPBs).

The announcement, by Prime Minister Turnbull and Defence Minister Marise Payne, is in the Media Release, of April 18, 2016, below http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2016/04/18/prime-minister-and-minister-for-defence-continuous-naval-shipbuilding/ .

The announcement is aimed at improving the Coalition Government's chances of winning the next Federal Election, which appears very likely to occur on July 2, 2016.

The announcement in particular is aimed at improving the Turnbull Government prospects in South Australia, which is described as a swing state, where Coalition MP and Senate positions may be lost. South Australia was promised the FF build months ago and the OPV build was also thought likely in South Australia. This helps protect the seat of the most important Government MP in South Australia who is the Industry Minister, Christopher Pyne. South Australia is heavily contested between 4 parties: the Liberals, Labor, Greens and the emerging Xenophon Team.

The other major beneficiary of the announcement is Western Australia – with the most prominent MP being the Foreign Minister (also Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) Julie Bishop. Austal at Henderson (part of Perth) Western Australia specifically benefits. Western Australia is normally Liberal, that is pro-Coalition but Labor is significant. The shipbuilder Civmec is likely to benefit in Western Australia. Civmec also owns Forgacs shipbuilding sections interests at Tomago, NSW. The Defence Minister Marise Payne is a Senator from NSW.

Cairns in Queensland gains from PPB maintenance.

The big loser is Williamstown dockyard in Victoria, considered a Labor heartland. The Coalition has few seats in Victoria to lose, so this shipbuilding announcement doesn’t favour or even mention Victoria.

A future submarine announcement, however, may benefit Williamstown Victoria, and also South Australia and Civmec Western Australia. If any announcement on submarines is made before a July 2, 2016 election it is likely to imply but perhaps not specifically promise that all submarines will be built in Australia. There is probably insufficient time and political risk in the run-up to an Election of specifying the actual winning contender (or a shortlist of two). 

The Media Release is below http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2016/04/18/prime-minister-and-minister-for-defence-continuous-naval-shipbuilding/   In [ brackets I have put in hotlinks to the shortlisted vessel type or range of vessels] :
"Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Continuous Naval Shipbuilding
18 April 2016
The Turnbull Government is securing a sustainable long-term Australian naval shipbuilding industry.
Today the Government is announcing the build locations for 12 Offshore Patrol Vessels and up to 21 Pacific Patrol Boats, in addition to nine Future Frigates previously announced.
These announcements provide for two shipyards to implement the Government’s commitment to a continuous build of naval surface ships in Australia. Major warships will be built in Adelaide and minor vessels in Henderson, Western Australia.
These three projects will ensure Australia retains a sovereign capability to build and sustain its naval vessels. Together they represent close to $40 billion worth of investment in Australia’s future naval capabilities and our naval shipbuilding industry.
They will directly secure more than 2,500 jobs for decades to come. They will also generate thousands of additional jobs with suppliers.
Offshore Patrol Vessels
·       First pass approval for the Offshore Patrol Vessels, with construction to begin in Adelaide from 2018, following the completion of the Air Warfare Destroyers and transfer to Western Australia when the Future Frigate construction begins in Adelaide in 2020.  This approach ensures that jobs and skills are retained in Adelaide.

·       As part of the Competitive Evaluation Process three designers have been shortlisted; 

     -  Fassmer of Germany, http://www.fassmer.de/shipbuilding/naval-vessels/ ] and 
     -  Lurssen of Germany http://www.luerssen-defence.com/en/naval-vessels/opvs ]

     to refine their designs.

·       This program is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion and will create over 400 direct jobs.
Future Frigates
·       First pass approval for the Future Frigates. Three designers

     -  BAE Systems with the Type 26 Frigate; 
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Combat_Ship Type 26 ] 
     -  Fincantieri with the FREMM Frigate 
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_multipurpose_frigate ]
         and 
     -  Navantia with a redesigned F100 
         [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n-class_frigate F100 ]

have been short-listed to refine their designs. The frigates will all be built in Adelaide, incorporating the Australian-developed CEA Phased-Array Radar.

·       The Competitive Evaluation Process is on schedule to return second pass approval in 2018, which will allow for construction to commence in Adelaide in 2020.

·       This program is estimated to be worth more than $35 billion, and will directly create over 2000 jobs.
Pacific Patrol Boats
·       Combined first and second pass approval for the replacement Pacific Patrol Boats.  Austal Ships Pty Ltd has been selected as the preferred tenderer to construct and maintain up to twenty-one replacement steel-hulled Pacific Patrol Boats in Henderson, Western Australia.

·       Subject to negotiations, this program is estimated to be worth more than $500 million and will directly create over 130 jobs.

·       Austal proposes to conduct support of the replacement Pacific Patrol Boats including deep maintenance from Cairns, Queensland. In total, through-life support and sustainment (including deep maintenance) for the Pacific Patrol Boats is valued at a further $400 million over the life of the boats.
Today’s announcements are central to the Government’s comprehensive Naval Shipbuilding Plan. These three significant ship builds will deliver the necessary infrastructure requirements across the Adelaide and Henderson shipyards. They will create new jobs, develop necessary skills and broaden cooperation between industry and government.
The Turnbull Government is committed to maximising the opportunities for our Australian Defence industry to participate in these shipbuilding programs. Through the Defence Industry Policy Statement the Turnbull Government will reset the relationship between Defence and industry, driving jobs and innovation which will have spillover effects into the wider economy.  In particular, the new Centre for Defence Industry Capability will help small to medium enterprises identify opportunities to join the supply chains necessary to deliver these ambitious naval shipbuilding projects.
After six years of Labor inaction in which more than $18 billion was ripped from the Defence budget, the Turnbull Government is getting on with the job of securing our long-term national security and economic prosperity. The Government’s historic continuous build program will ensure the Navy receives its future capability requirements while delivering the certainty that shipbuilders need." 
ENDS

Submarine Winner or Two May Be Announced Before May 4, 2016

$
0
0
Forced by steadily sinking popularity into an early (July 2, 2016) Election, Turnbull may be desperate enough to announce a submarine Winner (or 2 Finalists) early.
---

The run-up to the Australia Election on July 2, 2016 is a highly fluid, complex time regarding any submarine Winner decision. The CEP process is much more fluid, open to political priorities, than a formal Tender process.


"The [Australian Government's] National Security Committee will today consider the navy’s recommendations on which of the contending [submarine] designers from Japan, France and Germany to choose."

The advice may be for one Winner or a shortlist of Two Finalists. If two there may be a more formal selection process until 2017 to decide the final Winner.

As the Winner or Two Finalists of the submarine contest is a high cost matter and important policy decision Australian electoral conventions would mean any announcement on the Winner would be before May 4, 2016 (or alternatively beforethe traditional Sunday election calling day (making it May 8). These are the likely dates the Election will be called (marking the beginning of the Caretaker Period). If not before the Caretaker Period any submarine Winner announcement would be after the Election Date of July 2, 2016.

The Turnbull Government (which may lose the Election) appears desperate enough to take the political gamble of announcing the submarine Winner or Two so early.

Once a final Winner is declared the Winner would be on firmer ground to negotiate contracts with Australian companies for joint ventures in what parts of Australia, contractors and sub-contractor/suppliers.

Pete

Soryu Cutaway Diagrams - Evolution Towards Soryu Aus.

$
0
0
Wispywood2344 has drawn this cutaway of future Soryu Aus. - very relevant if Japan is chosen to design the future submarine. This diagram was originally at Wispywood2344's  
Here is Wispywood2344's website - right click mouse to Translate into English. 
---

Wispywood2344 has drawn the estimated (educated guess) diagrams above and below. 

Below is the first batch of ten Soryus (the Mark "Mk" 1s). They have Stirling AIP and Lead-acid Batteries (LABs). The first, SS-501, was Laid Down in 2007. The last of the ten Soryu Mk.1s built is SS-510 which is due to be Commissioned in 2019 - see Soryu Table below. To see the diagrams further enlarged and with clearer section numbers, see 

Due to perceived safety, efficiency and weight problems with the AIP Japan will not carry AIP over to the two submarine (SS-511 and SS-512) of the Soryu Mk.2 class. The other major difference in the Mk.2s is Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs). Japan has done sufficient research and testing of LIBs to say that all future Japanese submarines, Mk.2s onwards, will have LIBs. LIBs have quicker charging and greater storage qualities compared to LABs. Reliability over 10 years of operational life might only be estblished in 2027 - just prior to any Soryu Aus being Laid Down.

Looking at the section numbers the changes from Mk.1 to Mk.2 may include:

1)  Abolition of Stirling AIP system [section 9]
2)  Abolition of LABs (total 480) [section 5, 8]
3)  Adoption of LIBs (480 + approximately 240 = 720 LIBs) To lower ther center of gravity and reduce stray magnetic field, modification of hull may be considered to arrange LIBs on the bottom floor of Soryu Mk.2s [section 5, 8, 13]
S comments The estimation of features of Soryu Mk.2s (SS-511 and SS-512) [see SORYU TABLE below] is very interesting, because:
-  these Mk.2s have no very expensive (2 Billion yen) (see column "MoF approved amount ¥ Billions" in the TABLE) AIP but still have a budget that makes each 12 billion yen more expensive than the Mk.1s. 
-  Nothing is reported on the Mk.2 features except LIBs, but, we cannot explain this budget increase due just to an increased number and price of batteries (720 LIBs vs 480 LABs, 6 vs 3 million yen/battery)." 
-  The increase for the Mk.2s may also be due to 
    =  a new snorkel system which includes a small generator (needed to quickly recharge the LIBs)
    =  new diesel generators, 
    =  fully adopting the floating deck, and
    =  new sonar system. 
-  But still no new GX6 torpedoes (the Type 89s will remain).
4)  Existence of unassigned area (probably be assigned to accommodation) [sectoin ?,??]

To see the diagrams further enlarged and with clearer section numbers, see http://blog.livedoor.jp/wispywood2344/others/Soryu_Cutaway_Variants.svg.
---

If Japan is chosen the Soryu Mk.2s will also evolve into what may initially be called "Soryu Aus." The Soryu Aus. would then likely be given a permanent Australian name - possibly an Australian submarine officer or crewman.

In terms of sections the changes from Mk.2 to Soryu Aus will include.
1)  Insertion of double-hull compartment [section 14]
2)  Additional fuel tanks, for longer range, installed outside the pressure hull
3)  Maybe one or two additional diesel generators (perhaps conventional 12V25/25SB) (for the larger Soryu Aus.) installed inside the pressure hull. 
Note that higher power generator system and high capacity LIBs make it possible to shorten the snorting time - improving discretion (and perhaps extending engine life). 
Whether Japan’s newly developed (still Top Secret) diesel generator system will be exported or not is unclear - so it is possible 3 or 4 of the current lower powered Kawasaki 12V25/25SB might be in Soryu Aus. 
4)  There may also be a Vertical Multi-Purpose Lock (VMPL) in one section (perhaps for Tomahawks, Large UUV or stores) [section 14, 13, ? and ??].
Wispywood2344 has also drawn this Soryu Aus. cutaway (same as diagram at top). It is likely that the contents of the submarine will be expanded - spread through the two empty sections. 
---

SORYU TABLE (with earlier Oyashios) as at April 19, 2016
SS
No.
Build No
Name
Pennant
No.
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
LABs, LIBs, AIP
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
5SS
8105
Oyashio
SS-590/ TS3608
¥52.2B
FY1993
LABs only
 Jan 1994
Oct 1996
Mar 1998
 KHI
6SS-15SS
Oyashios
10 subs
8106
-8115
various
SS-591-600
¥52.2B per sub
FY1994-FY2003
LABs only
 Feb 1994
Mar 2008
 MHI
&
KHI
16SS
Soryu Mark 1
8116
Sōryū
SS-501
¥60B FY2004
LABs + AIP
Mar 2005
Dec 2007
Mar
2009
MHI
17SS
8117
Unryū
SS-502
¥58.7B FY2005
LABs + AIP
Mar 2006
Oct 2008
Mar
2010
KHI
18SS
8118
Hakuryū
SS-503
¥56.2 FY2006
LABs + AIP
Feb 2007
Oct 2009
Mar
2011
MHI
19SS
8119
Kenryū
SS-504
¥53B FY2007
LABs + AIP
Mar 2008
Nov 2010
Mar
2012
KHI
20SS
8120
Zuiryū
SS-505
¥51B FY2008
LABs + AIP
Mar 2009
Oct 2011
Mar
2013
MHI
No
21SS
No 21SS built
22SS
8121
Kokuryū
SS-506
¥52.8B FY2010
LABs + AIP
Jan 2011
Oct 2013
Mar
2015
KHI
23SS
8122
Jinryu
SS-507
¥54.6B FY2011
LABs + AIP
Feb 2012
Oct 2014
7 Mar 2016
MHI
24SS
8123
Sekiryū
SS-508
¥54.7B FY2012
LABs + AIP
Mar 2013
2 Nov 2015
Mar? 2017
KHI
25SS
8124
SS-509
¥53.1B FY2013
LABs + AIP
22 Oct 2013
Nov? 2016
Mar? 2018
MHI
26SS
8125
SS-510
¥51.7B FY2014
LABs + AIP
2014
?
Mar 2019?
KHI
27SS
Soryu Mark 2
8126
SS-511
¥64.3B FY2015
LIBs only
2015
2017?
Mar
2020?
MHI
28SS
8127
SS-512
¥63.6B FY2016
LIBs only
2016?
2018?
Mar 2021?
KHI
29SS
?
?
 1st of New
Japanese  Class
LIBs only
?
?
2023?
MHI?
Soryu Aus.1
?
?
1st of Aus class (if Japan chosen)
LIBs only
2027?
2030?
2033?
in Aus or Jpn?
Soryu Aus.2
 to 12?
?
?
between 5 and 11 additional Aus subs
LIBs only
from 2029?
from 2031?
from 2034?
??
Table courtesy of information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries,  
AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = lithium-ion batteries.  
 ---


The Soryu evolution through to Soryu Aus is clearly very complex, but S and Wispywood2344 have done much to make the Japanese submarine evolution known. This may, to an extent, allay fears that Japanese submarines are unknown territory compared to German and French submarines.

Pete

Submarine Decision "soon". Narrowing Down to TKMS and DCNS?

$
0
0
Youtube featuring the DCNS Shortfin contender - published April 14, 2016. DCNS and TKMS seem to be the favourites.
---


This Australian ABC News, April 20, 2016 reportstrongly eliminates Japan from being the winner, but offers few indicators as to why.

“The Federal Government is preparing to announce the successful bidder for Australia's new fleet of submarines next week.

Key points:

-  Unknown if a final decision on the subs contract has been made
-  Coalition MPs and senators in SA have been pressing the Government for a decision
-  Window for announcement narrows with Budget looming
-  The ABC understands Cabinet's National Security Committee discussed the three international bids
    for the $50 billion contract last night [the night of April 19, 2016]

While it is not clear if the committee has made a final decision, it has all but eliminated the Japanese bid to build a fleet of 12 submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's ageing Collins Class subs.

That leaves France and Germany still in the race.

Defence department officials have had reservations about the Japanese bid from the outset, because it emerged as an understanding struck between former prime minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Officials feared there was less enthusiasm in the Japanese bureaucracy for the deal and that would undo it in the long run…”

PETE’S COMMENT

Announcing the submarine decision "soon" appears essential to the Turnbull Government's political prospects in South Australia in the runup to the 2 July, 2016 Election. It is still unclear whether one clear "Winner" will be announced or a shortlist of two.

1. If the Japanese flotilla (Soryu submarine + 2 destroyers) leaving Sydney is a consideration in this timing then an announcement after Tuesday 26 April (on the 26th the flotilla is due to leave) is likely. A decision from 27 to 29 April would mean less embarrassment/less a snub for Japan and less embarrassment for the Turnbull Government/Australia. 

If the Japanese flotilla leaving is a consideration this suggests Japan has not won.

2. Fridays for announcements are usually considered politicly advantageous here in Australia - so a Friday 29 April submarine announcement might be likely.

3. The announcement (if made) would very likely be before the Federal Budget Day (3 May) and before Caretaker Period (with Caretaker probably 4 May onward). 

INDICATORS

One indicator though may be that Australian Defence Minister and the Chief of Navy have seemingly ignored the presence of the Japanese (almost an ally) flotilla in Sydney Harbour. Maybe ignoring Japan’s flotilla indicates correct procedural neutrality or maybe this is to minimise embarrassment to a losing contender. The Defence Minister has recently released Media announcements on several much more minor issues than an important flotilla in Sydney (see some minor issues at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/marise-media-releases-archive/).

Another circumstantial indicator is the decision of the Prime Minister’s wife, Lucy Turnbull AO, to stand down as Honorary President of the German-Australian Chamber of Industry and Commerce. This was announcedon April 13, 2016. Perhaps a consideration in separating from the Chamber was that TKMS is a Member of the Chamber. Lucy Turnbull’s timely and correct decision was mentioned by Sky News on April 19, 2016 and by the (Adelaide) Advertiser on April 18, 2016

Pete

Japanese weapon sales - Many future possibilities.

$
0
0
The MHI designed and produced Type 10 Main Battle Tank. Its relatively light 44-48 tonne weight eases transportation. It uses less fuel and one would expect that it can be produced and marketed at a lower price than competing, much heavier, Western tanks (like the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2) It can be seen as primarily defensive when destroying other tanks.
---  

I thought I should write a few broad thoughts about Japan and weapon selling.

If Japan has not won the Australian future submarine competition
-  and last minute phonecalls between Prime Ministers Abe and Turnbull have not restored Japan to
   the competition.

Then Japan's evolution to being a country with a normal defense force and a normal defensive weapons exports sector offers other opportunities:

Considerations include:

The rising threat from China appears to be increasing the interest of Southeast Asian (SEA) countries in re-equipping their defense forses with more modern weapons 

-  Chinese military power in the region is rising more quickly than any US pivot.

-  There is also concern (certainly in Australia) as to whether the US pivot can be sustained. 
    =  there is a future possibility of US isolationism, if Trump becomes President
    =  a partial US withdrawal from Japan/Okinawa may occur for military reasons, to put US forces
        out of range of Chinese fighter bombers and conventional missile strikes. 

-  in terms of market competition South Korea and the US are the major Western competitors to
   Japan in the supply of weapons to SEA countries

-  of hostile countries Russia and China are also export competitors

-  as current political and legal-constitutional sensitivities diminish Japanese arms sellers and
   politicians will feel less inhibited about selling weapons 

-  Japanese weapons may currently have many components licenced from the US, which may limited
   the ability of Japan to export these weapons. Increased Japanese development of components
   should reduce this limitation.

-  China's rise, nuclear North Korea, and a more unpredictable Russia probably justify an increase in
    Japanese GDP devoted to Defense. The current 1% of Japanese GDP is too low for a normal 
    Defense Force. 

-  A higher percentage of Japanese GDP allocated to Defense will fund a larger domestic market for
   Japanese weapons. This can flow on to more competitive pricing and economies of scale for 
   weapons production for export.

This "Defense" section of the MHI website is one indication that Japan may be able to export many weapons types in future.

Pete 
Viewing all 2346 articles
Browse latest View live