Give nukes a chance! Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV)

September 27, 2016, 2:31 am

≫ Next: Comparing Borei/Boreys with Ohios & Columbias - SSBN Program 2

≪ Previous: Russia's Recent SSBN Program 1

Nuclear weapons, have, let's face it, a rather bad press. But nukes can be thought of as cute, cuddly and useful if they save mankind (and yes womankind) as we know them. Nukes, to their credit may save us by stopping Asteroids, bent on destroying Earth.
---

The Leader and Follower detect, engage and destroy or deflect the Aseroid. (Diagram courtesy page 6 of this HAIV Document)
---

A Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV) is a spacecraft being developed by NASA to deflect dangerous Near Earth Objects (NEOs) such as comets and asteroids that threaten colliding with Earth. HAIVs focus on utilizing powerful explosives, such as nuclear bombs, to achieve deflection by detonating on the surface of the NEO to change its trajectory away from Earth. This method of asteroid impact avoidance is intended to be used on dangerous NEOs detected within a short time frame (less than 5 years) before a possible impact event with Earth. The idea came about when asteroid detection became accurate and since then, scientists and engineers have come up with a well thought out design for an HAIV.

Even a meteor of only 30 meters in diameter (but weighing an estimated 13,000 tonnes) caused major damage in Chelyabinsk, Russia .

After detecting many of the asteroids within our solar system and observing their composition through meteorite remains, NASA has identified multiple large asteroids that may collide with Earth. To combat these NEOs, NASA has come up with the following design for an HAIV.

The vehicle is split into two major parts; the leader craft and the follower craft. These can be boosted into space by a Delta IV M+"Heavy" booster rocket.

The leader craft is initially attached to the follower craft, but before impact the two crafts are spread out by an extendable pillar known as the AstroMast Boom. Furthermore, it contains the primary guidance systems including normal cameras and Lidar (light based radar). The purpose of this craft is to make an initial crater in the target NEO where the follower craft may detonate in. Doing this helps direct the explosive energy of the follower craft, hopefully applying enough force to change the orbit of the NEO.

The follower craftcontains the following:

· Solar panels and batteries to power both the follower and leader craft.

· A large antenna and communication electronics to relay information back to Earth.

· A camera to check on the status of the leader craft.

· The NED (Nuclear Explosive Device) which detonate upon impact with the NEO.

· Thrusters and fuel tanks to help the vehicle to travel towards the target NEO.

· Other support systems and fail safes in the case of a malfunction.

Once the leader craft impacts the NEO and makes a crater, the follower craft detonates its NED soon after. It also relays back whether the detonation was a success or failure which can be confirmed by observation from the Earth.

There are numerous factors that have slowed the development of the HAIV. These include but aren't limited to budget, law, and irregular NEOs.

Initial test missions have cost between $600 million to $1.8 billion and these were to test the feasibility of the guidance. A full mission may cost much more than this amount, especially in the case of a NEO detected with a short time till collision with Earth. With recent cuts to NASA's funding, it is unsure whether an HAIV mission will ever occur.

The use of nuclear explosive devices is an international issue and will need to be addressed by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty technically bans nuclear weapons in space. But saving the Earth looks like a "peaceful" use...more see."

Pete

↧

Comparing Borei/Boreys with Ohios & Columbias - SSBN Program 2

September 28, 2016, 2:05 am

≫ Next: Russia's Northern and Pacific Fleets - SSBN Program 3

≪ Previous: Give nukes a chance! Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV)

Diagram 1. Displacements are submerged.

---

Diagram 2. Columbia class SSBN-X features.

---

It is difficult, but not impossible, to compare Boreis/Boreys with Ohios and Columbia class (SSBN-X).

The respective Russian and US SSBN programs are out of phase instead of being of the same generation.
- Ohios were built 1976-1997 lasting until 2040s.
- Boreis entered/entering service 2013-2023, lasting until 2050s.
- Columbias entering service 2031-2050, lasting until 2080s.

Secrecy often makes specifications, like diving depth and submerged speed, ballpark figures rather than actual.

Quietness, discretion and efficiency of combat systems (including sonars, other sensors, databases and weapons), drives and crew quality are also impossible to compare with open sources or even in a technical sense. The will be more about Russian sonar and other equipment makers on September 30, 2016.

The Borei class are built by Sevmash, the largest shipbuilding complex in Russia.

Russia’s SSBN force consists of:

- 3 Boreis with further commissioning exercises and technical upgrades yet to be completed. One

Borei is deployed in Russia's Northern Fleet and two are in the Pacific Fleet. A fourth Borei is due

to be commissioned later in 2016.

- 6 Delta IVs (all near end of service life at 26 to 32 years old) and

- 4 Delta IIIs (on extended service life of 34+ years)

At least two Deltas are under long term maintenance at any one time.

SOME POINTS OF COMPARISON BOREI/BOREY AND OHIO SSBNS and COLUMBIA CLASS SSBN-X

SLBM Numbers

Boreis can deploy only 16 SLBMs currently (on the first 4 Borei Is, 64 total), perhaps 20 SLBMS for the 4 to 6 future build Borei IIs in the 2020s (up to 20 total) (64 + 120 = 184 all up). This is less than the 14 Ohio SSBNs, each capable of deploying 24 SLBMs = 336 total.

Variables make precise SLBM counts very uncertain. Numbers of MIRVs per SLBM, empty missile containers, future introduction of 16 SLBM US Columbia (SSBN-X)) class and New START regulations may mean eventual parity at 336 SLBMs each by the 2040s.

Submerged Speed/Noise

According to submerged speed for the Borei may be up to 30 knots (good for fleeing from danger and faster redeployments but noisy). Boreis also have pump jets for relatively quiet operation at 20+ knots. No quieter electric drive known.

Ohios have a quiet standard official figure of 20 knots. Keeping at 20 knots or below may be sensible for Ohios as they were built in the era of no pump jets. Their bare propellers are assumed to be noisy at over 20 knots. No quieter electric drive.

Columbia's are expected to have pump jets and quieter electric drive.

Reactors

The Borei has one ОК-650В nuclear reactor of a 1970s design and only up to 45% HEU which means 3 or 4 refuels are likely needed (perhaps every 10 years) over a 40 year Borei service life.

The Ohio class's S8G reactor last about 19 years between HEU refueling. See page 3 of Ronald O'Rourke’s Navy Columbia Class (Ohio Replacement) Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, of August 18, 2016 CRS 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41129 https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/R41129-1.pdf

The S1B reactor for the Columbia class does not need HEU refueling. The reactor meant to last the 42 year service life (see page 8 https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/R41129-1.pdf)

Crew size

Boreis have a smaller crew (probably Blue/Gold exchange system) of 107. Blue/Gold crews for Ohios and in future Columbias are/will be 155. This gives Ohios/Columbias an advantage in reducing crew exhaustion, decreased errors, increased attention, more coverage if crew members become ill, increased resources for damage control/safety.

Diving Depth

Boreis have a listed operational depth of 450m while Ohios are 240m. This may give Boreis a tactical advantage for evasion from SSNs, torpedos and depth bombs, and less chance of detection from the surface. But Boreis are still vulnerable to seafloor sensors and bottom rising mines. As Borei's main goal is being effective SSBNs their deep diving ability will be of little help to place them just below the surface to launch their SLBMs.

Protection of SSBNs

Russia has far weaker air and naval forces overall including: 9 mainly older Akula SSNs, 1 modern Yasen SSN, 5 Oscar class SSGNs (not specifically built to defend SSBNs) and 26 Kilo SSKs (probably too slow, and noisy when snorting, to guard SSBNs).

The US Navy has far larger naval and air forces to defend its SSBN force, including (at March 8, 2016) 55 high quality SSNs,

Patrols

There has been a sharp drop in Russian SSBN deterrent patrols since the fall of the Soviet Union around 1991. Patrols by selected year have dropped from:

1984 102

2002 0

2008 10

2011 5

2015 5

The 14 US Ohios might each average about 2.5 patrols to 3 patrols a year. Hence about 35 to 42 patrols per year total for the force.

Columbias are expected to have a higher number of patrols over their service lives due to less overhaul/refueling periods. For the 12 Columbias this may also average a total of 35 to 42 patrols.

These are just a few imprecise types of comparison.

Pete and Anonymous

↧

Russia's Northern and Pacific Fleets - SSBN Program 3

September 29, 2016, 2:24 am

≫ Next: Comments: Lockheed Martin Chosen Combat Systems Integrator for Australia's Shortfin sub

≪ Previous: Comparing Borei/Boreys with Ohios & Columbias - SSBN Program 2

Click here to vastly enlarge map. Note blue Northern sea route - handy for inter-fleet transfer of submarines. (Map courtesy SOUTH FRONT Analysis Intelligence 2015)
---

Role of SSNs

For Russia's Northern and Pacific Fleet SSBNs SSNs may defend SSBNs at times of high tension and particularly if enemy SSNs are on the SSBN's tail. But Russia's current (Akula, Sierra, Victor and Yasen class) SSNs would not be in the vicinity of friendly SSBNs on routine patrols as the presence of SSNs may act as pointers to SSBNs nearby.

Enemy SSNs are a great threat to SSBNs. SSNs waiting outside of SSBN bases for SSBNs to enter or (especially) leave on patrol may be normal (eg. Russian SSNs outside Faslane, UK SSBN Base).

A Russian SSN may in future, or currently, launch one of its developing UUVs/AUVs on the approaches to Faslane to act as an extra picket.

Seabed Sensors

Lines of offensive and protective seabed sensors (with acoustic/SOSUS, wake motion, light etc) may be strung by Russia:

- from Kamchatka Peninsula down Kuril Islands chain to Japan

- Kamchatka Peninsula to Aleutian Island chain

- Kamchatka Peninsula to Sakhalin Island

- across the Bering Strait

- many narrows in the Arctic Ocean as well as Barents Sea

- across the northern Atlantic (Norwegian Sea and Denmark Strait, etc)

Some other issues

As the ice retreats with global warming, secure year-round ice-free access to both the Atlantic and North Pacific from Arctic bases will also be a priority for the Russian Navy.

Submarines are also useful in protecting economic interests. "China isn’t an Arctic littoral state, but it has exhibited a growing interest in the Arctic, consonant with a growing strategic relationship with Russia and economic interests in Russia’s control of the more promising Northern Sea Route to Europe and of Arctic resources."

Russian nuclear sites. Naval bases have blue balls.

Russia has two main SSBN bases:

NORTHERN FLEET

SSBNs are at Gadzhiyevo(see Strategic Fleet entry) (Yagelnaya Bay, Sayda Inlet) near Severomorsk within greater Murmansk area (see blue ball collection in northeast Russia).

Northern Fleet nuclear submarine Order of Battle (SSBNs, SSNs, no SSGNs) includes:

SSBNs

· Delta IV-class SSBN Verkhoturye (K-51)

· Delta IV-class SSBN Tula (K-114)currently undergoing overhaul

· Delta IV-class SSBN Bryansk (K-117)

· Delta IV-class SSBN Kareliya (K-18)

· Delta IV-class SSBN Novomoskovsk (K-407)

· Delta IV-class SSBN Ekaterinburg (K-84) (maybe permantly inactive after a huge fire in 2011).

· Borey class SSBN K-535 Yuriy Dolgorukiy^[15]

4 Victor classSSNs including:

· B-388 Petrozavodsk - commissioned November 1988

· B-138 Obninsk - commissioned May 1990^[7]

· B-414 Daniil Moskovskiy - commissioned December 1990.

· B-448 Tambov - commissioned September 1992

3 Sierra classSSNs are reportedly active including:

· Sierra I-class SSN Kostroma

· Sierra II-class SSN Nizhniy Novgorod^[14]

· Sierra II-class SSN Pskov (K-336)

6 Akula class SSNs

· Akula I-class SSN Pantera (K-317)

· Akula I-class SSN Volk (K-461)

· Akula I-class SSN Leopard (K-328)

· Akula I-class SSN Tigr (K-154) ^[14]

· Akula II-class SSN Vepr (K-157)

· Akula II-class SSN Gepard (K-335)

PACIFIC FLEET

SSBNs, SSNs and SSGNs are at Vilyuchinsk(see Strategic Fleet entry) – on Kamchatka Peninsula, giving Russia's (see blue ballcollection in farthest East Russia/Siberia)

Meanwhile the Pacific Fleet HQ (with most surface vessels) is located at Vladivostok strategically landlocked in the Sea of Japan. The closed (to foreigners and the unauthorised) town/base of Vilyuchinsk (wiki entry) is just 20km from the open city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (Kamchatka Peninsula). Vilyuchinsk has the advantage of being just south of arctic ice protection allowing its nuclear submarines to travel via the Arctic Ocean (often under the Arctic ice) to/from the Northern Fleet base. This is known by the Russian Navy as an inter-fleet transfer.

The first Borei SSBN (Alexander Nevskiy) arrived in Vilyuchinsk on September 30, 2015. Borei Vladimir Monomakh arrived in September 2016. See the Pacific Fleet nuclear subs below.

Active Nuclear Submarines of the Russian Pacific Fleet
#	Type	Name	Class	Year Comm -issioned
K-551	SSBN	Vladimir Monomakh	Borei	2014
K-550	SSBN	Alexander Nevsky	Borei	2013
K-44	SSBN	Ryazan	Delta III	1979
K-223	SSBN	Podolsk	Delta III	1980
K-433	SSBN	Svyatoy Georgiy Pobedonosets	Delta III	1981
K-150	SSGN	Tomsk	Oscar II	1991
K-456	SSGN	Tver	Oscar II	1991
K-442	SSGN	Chelyabinsk	Oscar II	1990
K-132	SSGN	Irkutsk	Oscar II	1988
K-186	SSGN	Omsk	Oscar II	1993
K-331	SSN	Magadan	Akula I	1990
K-419	SSN	Kuzbass	Akula I	1992
K-322	SSN	Kashalot	Akula I	1988
K-391	SSN	Bratsk	Akula I	1987
K-295	SSN	Samara	Akula II	1995

Pete

↧

Comments: Lockheed Martin Chosen Combat Systems Integrator for Australia's Shortfin sub

September 29, 2016, 10:00 pm

≫ Next: Why the Early signing of submarine design contract with DCNS?

≪ Previous: Russia's Northern and Pacific Fleets - SSBN Program 3

Just some of the components of the US made AN/BYG-1 Combat System to be Integrated by Lockheed Martin into Australia's future Shortfin submarines. The AN/BYG-1 is already integrated into Australia's current Collins submarines.

---

With the September 30, 2016 Australian Ministerial announcement:

“The Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne and the Minister for Defence Industry, The Hon Christopher Pyne MP today announced that Lockheed Martin Australia has been selected as the preferred Combat System Integrator for Australia’s Future Submarine Program, subject to further discussion on commercial matters…[see more]”

many comments can be made:

A submarine's combat system has three main components:

- sensors (especially sonars),

- weapons (torpedos, missiles and mines), and

- a massive onboard database (which benefits from the US/allies worldwide SeaWeb network).

Workstations in a submarine's main monitoring-decisionmaking Command Center form the user access portion of the combat system.

The Australian Government's announcement of Integrator of the AN/BYG-1 combat system benefits not just Lockheed Martin but Raytheon (which has not really "lost" the integrator competition) and General Dynamics. The three US companies are all players in providing the AN/BYG-1 combat system to SSNs of the US Navy.

The integration of the US AN/BYG-1 was always required of the 3 competitors (DCNS, TKMS and Japan) for Australia's early 2016 future submarine competition. So DCNS had no option of integrating its standard SUBTICS combat system into its winning Shortfin design. The US AN/BYG-1 was always Australia's requirement because:

- Having a common US-Australian combat system promotes interoperability between US nuclear
submarines and Australian submarines (making this an important aspect of the US-Australian
alliance).

- Integration of the AN/BYG-1 on Australia's future Shortfin provides continuity for Australia's
submarine service - as this combat system is already used on Australia's current Collins class
submarine.

The highly senstive nature of the AN/BYG-1 meant the US Government had to be confident that the DCNS document leak crisis of August 2016 was over. Sensitivity also meant only US companies (Lockheed Martin and Raytheon) were allowed to compete in the Combat Systems Integrator limited competition. In the building of Australia future Shortfin submarine, from about 2025 onwards, there may still be security, technical and business issues that devide the US combat system companies from DCNS.

For background here is some pre-September 2016 decision bid publicity (likely to timeout by October 2016) for Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

Pete

↧

Why the Early signing of submarine design contract with DCNS?

September 30, 2016, 1:48 am

≫ Next: Russia developing piezoceramic (sonar distorting) coating antennas

≪ Previous: Comments: Lockheed Martin Chosen Combat Systems Integrator for Australia's Shortfin sub

The advertisement in TheAustralian, in mid September 2016, was put up by prominent Australians including Dick Smith and John Singleton, questioning the wisdom of the Turnbull Government's April 26, 2016 future submarine decision. This may have been a significant reason for the Government's early signing of the design contract with DCNS today. (This advertisement above was reproduced on the internet by Crikey)

---

In addition to the Lockheed Martin announcement Australia's Defence Ministerial duumvirate made another major announcement on September 30, 2016 http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2016/09/30/first-contract-signed-with-dcns-to-commence-design-phase/:

“The Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon Christopher Pyne MP and the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne today announced the next significant step in the building of Australia’s Future Submarines with the signing of the [Design and Mobilisation contract] between the Government and DCNS to commence the design phase of the Program."Whole Announcement

- signing of the contract “was ahead of schedule”

- good for Australian industry especially Adelaide, South Australia's.

The Government has signed the design contract with DCNS earlier than intended to head off opposition to the decision to select the DCNS Shortfin. Basically signing nails down a legal relationship with DCNS that the Government could not plausibly walk away from. Walking away might today also involve the Government paying compensation to DCNS.

The design contract may set out an initial design period of about three years with design work mainly done at the DCNS submarine building yard/design center at Cherbourg, France and also significant design work in Adelaide. The design contract is just the first of a long series of Government-DCNS contracts and hurdles, involved in the Shortfin Project.

Other factors influencing the signing being “ahead of schedule” include:

1(a). Concern over the last few weeks that prominent Australians, including philanthropist Dick Smith and entrepeneur John Singleton, are running a campaign against the Australian Government’s decision to buy/build a new conventional submarine design (in the shape of the DCNS Shortfin Project) rather than buy a cheaper, existing, off-the-shelf, submarine design. Stories have appeared in News Corp Australia newspapers which have an excellent standard of national security coverage. The newspapers are headed by The Australian, and The (Sydney) Daily/Sunday Telegraph and The (Adelaide) Advertiser. The Government is probably concerned that further articles and advertisements, critical of its decision, may resurface in the press.

1(b). The high cost nature of the AU$50 Billion Project might become increasingly unpopular nationally when placed against civilian health, education and welfare funding priorities.

The above opposition to the Project has boosted pressure from pro-Project forces including:

2. the South Australian State Government (see State Premier Weatherill’s concern).

3. Federal Liberal MPs and Federal Liberal Senators from South Australia (including concern from Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne who just happens to be a Federal MP from South Australia).

4. Prestige and political need to confirm one of the Turnbull Government’s major political achievements to crow about - specifically the April 26, 2016 submarine decision which selected the DCNS Shortfin.

5. The very ship/submarine building orientated Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) political party has a near balance of power in the Senate and House of Representatives in Federal Parliament, Canberra. This allows NXT, if unhappy, to hold up Government legislation.

6. DCNS concern that the anti-Project forces might significantly delay or impede the Project.

7. Workers, voters and unions in South Australia concerned the Project might be delayed or impeded.

8. ASC, other arms companies and other politicians in other States concerned the Project may be delayed or impeded, and

9. A political and/or legal need to simultaneously announce the DCNS signing decision with the Lockheed Martin selection decision.

Pete

↧

Russia developing piezoceramic (sonar distorting) coating antennas

September 28, 2016, 5:39 pm

≫ Next: Swedish Submarine Industry Neutralised by Russia?

≪ Previous: Why the Early signing of submarine design contract with DCNS?

Could this be described as a piezorubber (polymer) coating?

(Diagram unrelated to Sputnik or Russian defence industry).

---

Russia's Sputnik news reports September 30, 2016 https://sputniknews.com/military/20160930/1045884198/submarine-antenna-sonar-stealth.html:

"New Antennas to Make Russian Submarines Invisible to Sonars"

"Russian submarines are going to be outfitted with new unique piezoceramic coating antennas capable of intercepting and distorting signals emitted by enemy sonars.

The new invention, developed by [the] OceanPribor Concern and the Krylov Research Center, under the auspices of the Foundation for Advanced Research Projects, is essentially a polymer membrane designed to cover the entire hull of a submarine.

These new antennas are expected to be installed both on the next generation submarines and on the submersibles that are already employed by the Russian Navy.

A source in the [Russian] Defense Ministry, [who is] privy to the development of the new antenna, told Russian newspaper Izvestia that the work is proceeding as planned, and that testing is expected to begin soon:

"We’re talking about a polymer membrane based on lead, titanium and zirconium oxides that can both absorb and transmit a signal. Essentially, this piezorubber coating transforms the submarine’s entire hull into a hydroacoustic antenna," the source explained.

The project, designated as Korsas ('Corsair' in Russian) is being funded by the Foundation for Advanced Research Projects, with OceanPribor designing antennas and sensors, and the Krylov Research Center working on integrating the piezoceramic coating into submarines’ outer plating.

The operating principle of the new antenna is fairly simple: the membrane captures a sonar signal, analyzes and distorts it, and then sends it back. The project’s cornerstone is a unique piezoceramic capable of absorbing and distorting acoustic signals. According to the source, research and development is expected to be completed by the end of the 2017."

↧

Swedish Submarine Industry Neutralised by Russia?

October 3, 2016, 12:10 am

≫ Next: Submarine Sonar Upgrades - Virginias, Collins and Shortfins

≪ Previous: Russia developing piezoceramic (sonar distorting) coating antennas

Features of the the Swedish Navy's future A26 (hugely expanded here). The A26 is the only submarine left featuring and marketing the horizontal multi-purpose lock (HMPL). This is what Saab calls the "multi-mission portal" (above and below). (Digarams courtesy).

---

Russia's Sputnik News has reported on the trouble Sweden's Saab is having selling submarines to Poland, Norway, the Netherlands and any other customer countries. Russia may be happy there are cracks between Sweden and the NATO countries, given there is occasionally popular support within Sweden for joining NATO.

Saab has been unable to sell its latest future submarine, the A26, or used smaller submarines, to other countries. With only the Swedish Government's order for two A26s (for delivery by 2022) the fixed costs of development for such a small production run may be too steep. Sweden-Saab would therefore prefer to share the development costs with customers.

If there are no foreign orders delivery of the A26s may be delayed to 2024 or longer.

The Swedish Government ordered the two A26s in March 2015. Saab may have hoped that the Swedish Government would follow up with orders for three additional A26s as replacements for the 3 existing Gotland class. Instead the Government decided on midlife upgrades for 2 of the Gotlands (HSwMS Gotland and HSwMS Halland) by 2020. Those 2 Gotlands could then be operational for 10-15 years, thus delaying a need for additional A26s for 10 or more years.

The Swedish submarine service also operates 2 Sodermanland class which will be retired once the A26s join the service. Resale of the 2 retired Sodermanlands (which boast AIP) remains a possibility.

The sale of Sweden's traditional submarine builder, Kockums, to German interests in 1999 weakened Kockum's competitiveness.

- an existing customer, Singapore, had been happy with 4 ex-Swedish Navy Challenger class and 2 Archer class). But in December 2013 Germany's TKMS, which owned Kockums, engineered a deal with Singapore which shifted Singapore's new submarine choice to a new German built submarine type, the TKMS 218SG.

- in 2014 Sweden, through Saab, regained control of Kockums. Unfortunately another existing Kockums customer Australia (that had bought 6 Kockums designed Collins class) was not interested in buying new submarines from Kockums.

Now, in 2016, with the increasing threat from Russia, there has been an increase in NATO solidarity among Baltic NATO countries including Poland and Norway. These two countries have strongly expressed an interest in buying from NATO countries that build submarines (effectively Germany's TKMS or France's DCNS). In June-July 2016 an operational alliance deal between Poland and Germany further increased the chances of a German sale.

There may be some concern that Sweden may be more susceptible to Russian pressure than "great NATO powers" Germany and France.
- this is because non-NATO, neutral Sweden is only a small-middle sized power. Its wholey Baltic position also makes it more vulnerable to the Baltic's nuclear superpower, Russia.

Suspicions may exist that Sweden may have been further neutralised by Russia. This arises from highliy publicised sightings, near Sweden's capital Stockholm in late 2014, of what Sweden first described as Russian submarine activity. Then Sweden backtracked saying the sightings (which included photographic evidence) were not Russian submarines at all. Was this backtracking due to quiet Russian pressure?

A concern would be if there was a prolonged period of NATO or Swedish tension with Russia. Would Sweden provide submarines, a steady flow of spare parts and would Sweden enable the combat system fitout of long range land attack cruise missiles desired by Poland? Russia would be the logical target for such missiles.

Another possible A26 customer is the Netherlands. In early 2015 there may have been agreement between Saab and the Netherlands shipbuilder Damen to consider building A26s. I suspect the Netherlands is also tipping in a pro-NATO buying direction - meaning from Germany or France, and not from Sweden.

The mighty F-35A.

---

Is Gripen vs F-35A still an issue?

Russia's Sputnik Newsalso notes, September 30, 2016, that Norway did not buy Saab's Gripen fighter. According to Sputnik Saab is still hoping to sell Gripens to Poland and the Netherlands. Or have both Poland and the Netherlands already chosen the F-35 and Sputnik is just trying to stir up ill-feeling against the US and the F-35?

Pete

↧

Submarine Sonar Upgrades - Virginias, Collins and Shortfins

October 3, 2016, 10:51 pm

≫ Next: Indonesian Visions, Straits and Fluctuating Submarine Numbers

≪ Previous: Swedish Submarine Industry Neutralised by Russia?

Australia's Collins class and future Shortfin class subs are likely to benefit from the US system of software-hardware sonar upgrades. This is within the broader sensor and data technology of the AN/BYG-1 combat system. It was announced on September 30, 2016 that Lockheed Martin would integrate the combat system into the Shortfin.
- Bringing up US-Australian sonar systems follows some Anonymous comments on Russian MGK sonar systems. There seems to be no rigorous way of comparing US and Russian sonar claims.

Virginias, Collins and future Shortfins are relatively large submarines with large, higher power, bow sonars to detect targets at a longer distance.

"The AN/BYG-1modernization program develops commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software and hardware upgrades to integrate improved tactical and weapons control capabilities for multiple submarine classes. The program integrates the tactical control, weapons control, and tactical network subsystems. The AN/BYG-1 is installed on the U.S. Navy's Los Angeles, Seawolf, Virginia and SSGN-class submarines, as well as on the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class submarines."

Wiki describes it as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Improved_sonar_systems:

Sonar arrays aboard Virginia-class submarines have an "Open System Architecture" (OSA) which enables rapid insertion of new hardware and software as they become available. Hardware upgrades (dubbed Technology Insertions) are usually carried out every four years, while software updates (dubbed Advanced Processor Builds) are carried out every two years. Virginia-class submarines feature several types of sonar arrays.^[55]

BQQ-10 bow-mounted spherical active/passive sonar array^[55]^[56] (Large Aperture Bow (LAB) sonar array from SSN-784 onwards)

A wide aperture lightweight fiber optic sonar array, consisting of three flat panels mounted low along either side of the hull^[57]

Two high frequency active sonars mounted in the sail and bow. The chin-mounted (below the bow) and sail-mounted high frequency sonars supplement the (spherical/LAB) main sonar array, enabling safer operations in coastal waters, enhancing under-ice navigation, and improving anti-submarine warfare performance.^[58]^[59]

Low-Cost Conformal Array (LCCA) high frequency sonar, mounted on both sides of the submarine's sail. Provides coverage above and behind the submarine.^[60]

Virginia-class submarines are also equipped with a low frequency towed sonar array and a high frequency towed sonar array.^[61]

TB-16 or TB-34 fat line tactical towed sonar array^[62]^[63]
TB-29 or TB-33 thin line long-range search towed sonar array^[62]^[63]

Presumably the Collins benefits from the same hardware/software update system? The Collins (see right sidebar) utilises a: "Thomson Sintra Scylla bow and distributed sonar arrays, Thales SHORT-TAS towed sonar array and Thales intercept array".

Pete

↧

Indonesian Visions, Straits and Fluctuating Submarine Numbers

October 4, 2016, 11:16 pm

≫ Next: Submarine Noise

≪ Previous: Submarine Sonar Upgrades - Virginias, Collins and Shortfins

Map A. Sea Depths The shallowness (less than 200 meters) of water surrounding most Southeast Asian nations has, to a degree, limited the takeup of submarines. Shallow water is often encumbered by reefs, many islands and larger landforms that define straits and narrows. There is also heavy ship traffic through many of the straits. These hazards are difficult and dangerous for submarines to move through. (Map courtesy US Centers for Environmental Information).

---

Indonesia currently has two mature age Type 209/1300s, KRI Cakra (401) and KRI Nanggala (402), both commissioned in 1981.

To remedy this situation Indonesia has on order two Improved 209s built in South Korea, named/numbered (KRI Nagabanda (403) (also called KRI Nagapasa(403). Which is correct?) and KRI Trisula (404). These are likely to be commissioned in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

A third Improved 209, KRI Nagaransang (405), is likely to be built at PT PAL (Surabaya), Java, Indonesia and perhaps commissioned in 2020 or later.

There have been many reports over the years that Russian and/or DCNS (French) submarines are also being considered. It would probably make much more sense to build additional 209s at PT PAL.

Indonesia may eventually want more than two submarines. The Indonesian Navy has more than 13,000 islands, seas and straits to oversee. Indonesian vessels have had confrontations with Chinese Coastguard vessels at the Natuna Islands at the northern end of the Indonesian Archipelago Also in the northern Archipelago Indonesia has experienced occasional confrontations with Malaysian surface vessels concerning Ambalat undersea oil resources (see Submarine Matters article).

Map B. the Straits - If the 2.8km narrow and 25m shallow Malacca Strait were blocked the Sunda Strait, as shallow as 20m, is inadequate to take up much ship traffic. The Lombok Strait, 20km wide and up to 250m deep is better proportioned to handle large ships.

---

Overall strategic visions are conveyed to the public from the highest level possible - which is the presidential. In a fine commentary Dharma Agastia records some of Indonesia's broad strategic visions requiring up to 12 submarines. These include visions from:

- former Indonesia President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, with his Minimum Essential Force

(MEF) in the Strategic Defense Plan (Renstra), and

- current President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo who, in 2014, held a “Global

Maritime Fulcrum” or Axis vision.

Disagreements between Indonesian factions are likely to exist behind the presidential visions. There are likely to be many attitudes in the Indonesian Navy, broader defence and industry development bureacracies about how many more than 2 or 3 submarines can be bought, maintained and crewed.

At one end of the spectrum Indonesia may only have one crew to operate just one of the current Type 209s (KRI Cakra (401) or KRI Nanggala (402)) at any one time. Meanwhile the nucleus of another crew may be in South Korea training to use the first Improved 209 (KRI Nagabanda (403)).

Another faction may want the 3 Improved 209s + two extra subs (for a total of five).

Others, seem to want a total of twelve submarines by the late 2020s for example 3 Improved 209s + 9 other subs (of Russian or French origin). Such a faction may be of submarine service origin because if the Indonesian Navy operated twelve submarines there may be no money or men left in the Navy for major surface ships.

Twelve might be justified by: expanding strategic responsibilities; Indonesia’s rising GDP enabling it to buy more; a return to Indonesia’s submarine glory days when it had twelve Russian supplied Whiskey class submarines (late 1950s to mid 1960s) used in the liberation of West Iran from the Dutch in 1962. The Indonesia Navy would also be mindful of the Australia's (perhaps excessive and unrealistic) plan to build 12 large SSKs from the late 2020s.

In low level "warfare" confrontations submarines might produce a feeling of doubt in opponents. Submarines are always fine intelligence collection platforms. The central government can also issue orders to submarine commanders on whether it is necessary to escalate actions.

Pete

↧

Submarine Noise

October 6, 2016, 1:38 am

≫ Next: Japan not at all likely to assist Taiwan in submarine building

≪ Previous: Indonesian Visions, Straits and Fluctuating Submarine Numbers

The following is an excerpt on acoustic quieting from Matt's excellent article February 3, 2015: Sea Denial: Analysis of the CSBA's Proposal The Case for Taiwanese Midget Submarines - Part I in Matt's website American Innovation.

Pete has added comments in [...] brackets.

Acoustic signatures for US and Russian submarines. [The Russian "Lead Ship Keel - 4th Generation SSN became the Yasen class. Of US subs "688" is Los Angeles SSN, 688I Improved Los Angeles, SSN-21 Seawolf class, NSSN Virginia class (Image Credit: Federation of American Scientists.)]

---

Stealth, first and foremost, is the most critical aspect of an attack submarine as it determines the submarine's relative survivability and is a prerequisite to the submarine acting as an effective area denial, power projection, or ISR platform.

Quieting technology has progressed steadily since the end of the Second World War with the advent of improved anechoic tiles, integrated electric drive systems (over mechanical), X-shaped stern control surfaces, pump jet propulsion systems (over conventional propellers), AIP technology, [elastic or dampner mounts for engines and other moving parts] etc. The acoustic signature of a submarine, which is measured in decibels, is an indicator of a submarine's relative detectability to passive sonar systems. The following is from the article "China's Anti Access Strategy: Submarine Force - Part I":

A decibel is "a unit used to measure the intensity of a sound or the power level of an electrical signal by comparing it with a given level on a logarithmic scale" (American English in Oxford dictionary, 2013). Decibels do not scale linearly. A 3db change is signifies a doubling power and a change of 10 db signifies the power increasing by a factor of ten. Therefore, the 636 Kilo class with an acoustic signature of 105 decibels is 10 times as loud as the 95 decibel acoustic signature of the Virginia class submarine.

The United States is widely recognized as fielding the most capable and stealthiest submarines with the Virginia and Seawolf class submarines. The following is from Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force by Andrew S. Erickson, William Murray, and Lyle Goldstein:

"Chinese observers are intensely interested in and closely follow other modern U.S. nuclear submarines, including the [Seawolf class SSN-21 USS Jimmy Carter, Seawolf}, and [Virginia class USS Hawaii (SSN-776)]. Highly detailed, full-page color photos of Seawolf- and Virginia-class submarines appear in China’s most prominent naval journals. These photos are usually accompanied by articles that imply an advanced state of technology and advanced acoustic quieting...

Chinese authors believe Seawolf possesses 'beyond-first-class performance' and is regarded as the most sophisticated and lethal submarine yet to go to sea, despite its 'tortuous development history'. The Chinese also respect Virginia-class submarines for their advanced technology and quietness...'Its acoustic signature is lower than that of the improved model of Russia’s Akula-class attack submarine and Russia’s fourth-generation attack submarine that will hereafter be in active service'.

Another analyst, in discussing the Virginia class’s acoustic achievements, reports, 'The Virginia-class has been called the world’s quietest submarine,’ with a cruising sound level that is only '1/10 that emitted by a Los Angeles class boat pierside'. The construction techniques used to build Virginia and its sister ships also evoke respect'"

The following acoustic signature figures are from Chinese Evaluations of the U.S. Navy Submarine Force and China’s Future Nuclear Submarine Force: [made into a Table by Pete]

Submarine Source	Decibels
Ocean background noise	90 decibels
SSN-21 Seawolf class SSN	95 decibels
Virginia class SSN	95 decibels
Russian Improved 636 Kilo class SSK	105 decibels
Akula class SSN	110 decibels
Improved Los Angeles SSN	105 - 110 decibels
Type 093 Shang SSN	110 decibels
Type 094 Jin SSBN	120 decibels

[China’s Type 094 Jin SSBN is the loudest, too loud to go on regular patrol. In 2009, USN ONI listed the Type 094 as being slightly noisier than Project 667BDR (NATO reporting name Delta III) from the late-1970s, some of which were in service through 2015 with the Russian navy.]

---

Relative detectability of Russian and Chinese diesel and nuclear powered submarines. Image Credit: US Office of Naval Intelligence, 2009.

↧

Japan not at all likely to assist Taiwan in submarine building

October 9, 2016, 6:03 pm

≫ Next: The future Columbia class SSBN(X)'s reactor may be as quiet as SSKs on Battery

≪ Previous: Submarine Noise

Anonymous in Comments at 29/9/16 8:36 AM conveyed a Dr Kashin's views about the strong unlikelihood of Japan, the US and others providing submarine assistance to Taiwan. This is in useful contrast to my September 21, 2016 article Taiwan's Teadrop Style Future Submarine - Japanese Assistance?.

Dr Kashin [1] a Russian defense expert, wrote in Sputnik News [article of Dec/09/2015, https://jp.sputniknews.com/japan/20151209/1290996.html in Japanese] that submarine technology transfer from Japan to Taiwan is highly unlikely. If you right-click mouse to translate Kashin's article you will see he said, along the lines:

Only the US can challenge China by anticipating the Submarine Project of Taiwan. The US could obviously assist Taiwan in a joint project on combat and sonar systems. But, issues on the energy system and structural elements, which are diesel submarine specific, are difficult to solve. Also, in the US, there are very strong opponents against introduction of non-nuclear submarines. The opponents have blocked any investment or technological development for manufacturing non-nuclear submarines.

As Japan has many problems with China, the Japanese government will never make a decision which triggers a harsh, long-term, confrontation with the Chinese government.

An indigenous Taiwanese submarine development and building project, if it drew from foreign technology, could possibly be implemented. If the US participated in the project as a major partner of Taiwan, the US would herself, draw huge criticism from the Chinese government. Possible partners with Taiwan, excluding Japan are France, Germany, Sweden, etc.

Japanese submarines are too big for Taiwan. However, if a contract with Taiwan were drawn up [by any assisting countries] it would be kept very secret.

[1] Dr. Vassily Kashin has a Ph.D. in Political Science, is a senior research fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University [one of Russia's top universities] - Higher School of Economics. He is also a leading research fellow at the Institute of the Russian Far East.

Anonymous & Pete

↧

The future Columbia class SSBN(X)'s reactor may be as quiet as SSKs on Battery

October 10, 2016, 9:59 pm

≫ Next: October Report to Donors - WHY AUSTRALIA IS BUILDING A LARGER SHIP NAVY.

≪ Previous: Japan not at all likely to assist Taiwan in submarine building

How should this diagram be altered to represent a Heat Exchange Reactor with Electric Drive? Diagram courtesy Bright Hub Engineering.

---

One of the quieting/stealth features on the future Columbia class SSBN(X) is a possible heat exchanger quiet mode in its proposed S1B reactor. This reactor is also called Columbia Program Element PE0603570N/Project 3219 (see page 32).

Apparently the S8G reactor on the current Ohio SSBN already uses a heat exchanger. I think it logical that the heat exchanger aspect will be carried over to the future Columbia.

Minimising moving parts contributes to quiet mode. Such a quiet mode may ideally be available when future Columbia's are operating at their (about 5 knots?) on station cruising speed.

The heat exchanger tip comes from Josh in Comments on 29/9/16 12:23 AM:

"And important attribute of the S8G fitted to Ohios is that it is a natural circulation reactor (at least at low power), relatively revolutionary at the time. The core is placed low and the heat exchanger placed high in the primary coolant loop such that the hot coolant rises to the exchanger then falls back down the other side of the loop once cooled off without the use of a pump. This eliminates an entire type of noise from plant, at the cost of size and weight apparently. The wider hull of a boomer makes this more practical to do in an SSBN than an SSN. Its not clear if the practice carried through to the Seawolf or Virginia's reactors; it might well not have been for size reasons or because more cost effective means of quieting coolant pumps became available (turbopumps, electrical systems that remove the 'snap' noise of pump engagement, etc).

Its also worth noting that any SSBN would spend its patrol at 5knts unless it was fired upon. The pump jet arrangement would only be advantageous getting to station. The Russians likely have much more reason to worry about being tracked during transit than the Americans due to their [Russian] base geography and possibility of USN SSNs off their SSBN bases at any given moment. The USN keeps boats deployed off Russian coasts at much more often than the reverse case, even during the cold war. I suspect its quite the rarity for an Akula [SSN] to appear off Maine [Kings Bay, Georgia SSBN Base] or [Bangor in Washington state] these days."

Other features contributing to the Columbia's quietness/stealth will be electic drive, X-plane rudders and pump jets - on these see this 2013 reference and a major briefing to Congress August 18, 2016 reference.

If all of these features are in the Columbia's and perhap future US SSN(X)s they may make them quieter than SSKs on battery mode.

Submarine Matters' mentions of Columbia class stealth are at articles dated September 28, 2016

and August 24, 2016.

↧

October Report to Donors - WHY AUSTRALIA IS BUILDING A LARGER SHIP NAVY.

October 12, 2016, 12:36 am

≫ Next: ASC Split into 3 - Media Release and Comments

≪ Previous: The future Columbia class SSBN(X)'s reactor may be as quiet as SSKs on Battery

The flotilla above is led by the LHD HMAS Adelaide (sister ship to HMAS Canberra). In the foreground is replenishment oiler HMAS Success. Between Adelaide and Success is a Japanese destroyer. (Photo courtesy http://www.ifuun.com/a201642528686/ ).

---

Hi Donors

I've been writing the Submarine Matters monthly report today:

WHY AUSTRALIA IS BUILDING A LARGER SHIP NAVY.

I've just emailed it to you with a WORD attachment. Please check your spam bin if you don't see it in your IN box.

For other readers wishing to recieve WHY AUSTRALIA IS BUILDING A LARGER SHIP NAVY please donate A$50. Please use the Donate Button on righthand sidebar. Once I have received your Donation I will email this report to you. Over the next 11 months I will then send you 11 more monthly Reports - that is one report on the second Wednesday of each month.

Regards

Pete

↧

ASC Split into 3 - Media Release and Comments

October 12, 2016, 2:00 pm

≫ Next: Duterte visiting China October 19-21, 2016 - Philippines Arms Sources

≪ Previous: October Report to Donors - WHY AUSTRALIA IS BUILDING A LARGER SHIP NAVY.

ASC is to be split into 3 in 2017. Above is an ASC bloke in front of HMAS Hobart, the lead Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD).

---

The confusing Defence Ministerial Duumvirate of Payne and Pyne, with Finance Ministerial endorsement from Cormann, have produced the following Joint Media Release on the long expected separation of ASC into 3 new government owned companies.

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE

Supporting Australia's future shipbuilding capability

MC 48/16

Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann
Minister for Finance
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Senator for Western Australia

The Hon. Christopher PyneMinister for Defence Industry

Senator the Hon. Marise PayneMinister for Defence

11 October 2016

ASC plays a crucial role as part of our naval shipbuilding, repair and maintenance industry. To ensure that it is best placed to support the future needs of Australia’s future shipbuilding capability, the Government will separate ASC into three individual Government owned companies.

These three new companies will support the key capabilities of:

Shipbuilding;
Submarine sustainment; and
Infrastructure.

The separation of ASC will deliver a more flexible approach to managing the investment required in shipbuilding infrastructure to support the Government’s historic continuous shipbuilding program.

The new submarine sustainment and shipbuilding companies will continue ASC’s important role in the sustainment of the Collins Class submarines and finalisation of the Air Warfare Destroyers respectively.

The creation of these three new companies follows a strategic review of ASC, which was conducted in 2015. The review sought to identify the best possible corporate, capital and governance arrangements to help maximise the future success of ASC and the Australian naval shipbuilding industry.

It is important to note that the Government does not have a plan to privatise these three new companies.

These changes will have no impact on ASC employees’ current terms and conditions and will provide the right structure for the growth of the workforce as a result of major infrastructure investment and the construction of Offshore Patrol Vessels, Future Frigates and Future Submarines.

Work will begin immediately to separate ASC into the three new companies, with the full separation expected to be completed in 2017.

The Government will also enter into discussions with the South Australian Government on the future of the Common User Facility at Techport to ensure a cohesive approach in support of future naval projects.

The Government recognises the significant value to our nation of a skilled naval shipbuilding workforce. The Government is prepared to invest in the skills and knowledge base of the Australian naval ship building industry, and is prepared to commit to a long-term investment to make sure this important industry enjoys a sustainable future in Australia and that these critical skills are maintained.

For more information see Q&A [which is the Factsheet: ASC Structural Separation] [ENDS]

COMMENT

Andrew Davies and Mark Thomson at ASPI Strategist made some useful comments on October 12, 2016, including:

"...Yesterday the Australian government (with the PM and three cabinet ministers in attendance) announced that it’s going to split ASC into three separate but still government-owned companies, to ‘support the key capabilities of shipbuilding, submarine sustainment and infrastructure’. It was heartening to see some movement on the issue. It’s vitally important that government gives serious thought to the industrial arrangements for projects that will cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars—something we noted last year.

At yesterday’s announcement, the government was at pains to note that it ‘does not have a plan to privatise these three new companies’. So what’s been gained and lost by the split? On the positive side, the newly created businesses will be able to focus single-mindedly on their respective specialisations. And the separation will provide greater public transparency into the business performance of the three components (though the government won’t necessarily see that as a benefit).

On the negative side, we’ll see corporate overheads (including board positions) multiplied by three. At the same time, interactions between the three newly created companies will generate additional transaction costs...

...It’s interesting that yesterday’s announcement made no mention of submarine building. That’s probably because there’s no submarine construction at the moment, and likely won’t be for some years, given that the contract with DCNS for the commencement of the design phase for the future submarine was signed only two weeks ago. By retaining ownership of the infrastructure in Adelaide, the government now has the option of simply letting some space to DCNS for the construction phase, rather than once more going into the submarine building business itself. And it can also opt to move the now separate submarine sustainment business to Western Australia (where ASC already has a maintenance facility) if space at Osborne is at a premium...."

See the whole ASPI Strategist article Interpreting The ASC Split, October 12, 2016 by Andrew Davies and Mark Thomson.

↧

Duterte visiting China October 19-21, 2016 - Philippines Arms Sources

October 12, 2016, 5:13 pm

≫ Next: Australia's Future Frigate Competitors - Strengths and Weaknesses

≪ Previous: ASC Split into 3 - Media Release and Comments

Duterte is visiting China October 19-21, 2016. Here (July 2016) Duturte meets troops of the Philippine Marines and Army. (Photo courtesy Camille Ante for Manila Bulletin).

Drawing from a Russia Today (RT)report of October 11, 2016:

Relations are souring quickly between the Philippines and the United States, as President Rodrigo Duterte and 250 Filipino business executives [will visit China October 19-21, 2016] to discuss partnership prospects.

COMMENT

Duterte has expressed interest buying or being given arms by China. Many Western commentators think this is unlikely as the Philippines are already mainly equipped with US supplied arms.

Note that China can sell/donate to the Armed Foreces of the Philippines (AFP) arms originally made or designed in the US, particularly infantry weapons for the Philippine military. This is for its main role of counter-insurgency (internal security). For example:

- the Philippines basic weapon, the M16 rifle (aka AR-15 and M4) is widely available on the world market outside of the US, Note"Together, numerous companies in the United States, Canada, and Chinahave produced more than 8,000,000 [M16] rifles of all variants. Approximately 90% are still in operation."

- China can also obtain supplies of M16s (for donating to the Philippines) from the vast number of countries that use M16s

The Philippines also has an arms industry that China could help develop. The Philippines may still make M16s itself (manufactured under license by Elisco Tool and Manufacturing.^[174] ).

China could also buy stocks of non-US designed weapons already used by the AFP. See the vast range of weapons the Philippines uses. Including:

= sub-machine guns from Germany, Pakistan and Israel

= sniper rifles from Switzerland and Germany

= light machine guns from South Korea, Belgium and Singapore

= there are also many other items of electronic equipment and vehicles (eg. Turkey, UK and Japan)

from non-US sources and made in the Philippines (scroll down the Wiki website).

China also has a vast arms industry to do the essential re-equipping of the Philippine Navy and Air Force. The Air Forcealready has many non-US suppliers.

Pete

↧

Australia's Future Frigate Competitors - Strengths and Weaknesses

October 13, 2016, 10:56 pm

≫ Next: Chinese Export of Submarines to Pakistan Now Confirmed by China

≪ Previous: Duterte visiting China October 19-21, 2016 - Philippines Arms Sources

Australia's Future Frigates may well require a 48 (or more) cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System partly to hurl Tomahawk land attack missiles (the above VLS system has 64 cells).

---

COMMENT

While Australia's 12 Future Submarines is the most expensive Australian shipbuilding project it must be remembered that actual building of them will only commence around 2026.

The 9 Future Frigates will perhaps be the second most expensive Australian shipbuilding project. Significantly Frigate building may start in 2020 after the winning contractor (drawn from the shortlist of three) is selected in 2018 (or earlier).

So today I'm commenting on some of the likely strengths and weaknesses each of each of the 3 shortlisted Frigate competitors:

The Frigate Project remains wide open, noting DCNS being chosen for Australia's future submarine surprised most.

It is then difficult to pick whether the UK Type 26 GCS, Italian FREMM or modified Navantia F100 will win. Australia has been associated with Navantia so much (3 AWDs, 2 LHDs and 2 future replenishment ships) that there may be competition enhancing benefits if Navantia was not chosen again.

WORKING OUT:

The UK Type 26 Gobal Combat Ship (GCS)'s comparatively under-developed design (and more uncertain pricing situation) add to risks for Australia.

- these ships for the UK RN will not have been commissioned until several years after Australia's

2018 decision point.

- the UK RN wants less Type 26s than expected - so the unit price will rise.

- the initial design has the advantage of having the 48 VLS Australia may well want.

- uncertainties over the UK RN and UK shipbuilding revenue/budget following BREXIT may be a

higher risk negative for Australia.

- against that the UK may offer a low price for export or foreign build Type 26s given the UK's

post-BREXIT trade uncertainty.

The Italian Fincantieri FREMM Frigate (also see wiki right sidebar) is already a working ship design with 5 Italian FREMM frigates active (including 4 ASW versions).

- has a 6,900 tonnage with long endurance and other capabilities.

- this FREMM has efficient engines for the long ranges Australia faces.

- the Italian Government is far more progressed in planning and funding its FREMM than the UK

Gov with the Type 26.

The Navantia F100 derivative has hull commonality with Australia's AWDs meaning risk reduction for Aus. That 5 F100 frigates have already been built for the Spanish Navy also reduces risk.

- against this Australia was/is unhappy with the Navantia designed AWD going overtime, over

budget.

- may be noisier than the Italian FREMM.

- Navantia designing and successfully (half) building the LHDs for Australia (on time and budget) is

a Navantia advantage.

- but Navantia having also won the 2 x Replenishment ship contract in 2016 may give Navantia too

much market power in eyes of Australian FF selectors.

So "which competitor is better?" is wide open.

BACKGROUND

The following is a portion of the WHOLE April 18, 2016 Media Release by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and the [then one and only sole] Minister of Defence, Marise Payne.

In [...] brackets I have put in hotlinks to the shortlisted Future Frigates] :

"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 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....

Future Frigates

First pass approval for the Future Frigates. Three designers

- BAE Systems with the Type 26 Frigate;

- Fincantieri with the FREMM Frigate and

- Navantia with a redesigned 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.

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

COMMENTS (TWO)

See my Comments of April 18, 2016 on the Media Release. Also see this excellent ANI commentary on likely Australian SEA 5000 Future Frigate requirements.

Pete

↧

Chinese Export of Submarines to Pakistan Now Confirmed by China

October 15, 2016, 11:31 pm

≫ Next: Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov may conduct first airstrikes (against IS).

≪ Previous: Australia's Future Frigate Competitors - Strengths and Weaknesses

COMMENT

After numerous unconfirmed Pakistani reports going back to 2011 at last China has officially confirmed it is providing submarines to Pakistan. Perhaps 4 built in China and 4 built in Pakistan.

The actual type of submarine China will supply to Pakistan is unknown.

- if it has AIP it is most likely to be a development of China's Yuan class. In that case it may be a S20. As Pakistan has a French designed MESMA AIP system in its 3 latest French designed Agosta 90B Khalid class submarines Pakistan may be pressing for China to include AIP in the 8 future submarines..

- if it is has no AIP (making it cheaper) it may be a non-AIP S20 perhaps derived from China's older Song class.

CHINESE ARTICLE

On October 15, 2016 the People's Republic of China’s state owned media outlet China Radio International (CRI) reported http://english.cri.cn/12394/2016/10/15/2281s942655.htm. Here is part of the report:

“Submarine exports to Pakistan officially confirmed”

“On Wednesday [October 12, 2016], China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation confirmed a project to export 8 attack submarines to Pakistan, China Shipbuilding Online reports. The corporation held a conference to discuss the details of the arrangement.

The corporation's chairman, Hu Wenming, said the conference aimed to continue the spirit generated by Chinese President Xi Jinping's speeches on the Belt & Road Construction Work Symposium.

...Reuters reported back in April that Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif approved the deal and called the deal could be "one of China's largest overseas weapons sales once it is signed".

The deal could cost between 4 billion to 5 billion USD, Reuters quoted a Financial Times report..." See WHOLE CRI report.

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

Daily Pakistanreportedwith additional details on October 16, 2016. Here is part of the report:

“BEIJING/KARACHI – China will export eight stealth attack submarines to Pakistan [by 2028.] as part of a deal signed earlier this year, according to People’s Daily.

…Four of the eight submarines will reportedly be built at Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works (KSEW) while the remaining four submarines will be built in China.

The majority of analysts speculate that the new submarine will be a lighter export version [S20] of the People Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)’s …Yuan-class conventional attack submarine, excluding the sub’s AIP system, which might be procured independently.

According to IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Type 041 Yuan-class is “a diesel electric attack submarine (SSK), potentially with Stirling air-independent propulsion, that is armed with YJ-2 (YJ-82) anti-ship missiles and a combination of Yu-4 (SAET-50) passive homing and Yu-3 (SET-65E) active/passive homing torpedoes.”

…The first four submarines are expected to be delivered by the end of 2023; the remaining four will be assembled in Karachi by 2028. The new subs are expected to form the sea-based arm of Pakistan’s nuclear second-strike triad.

The Pakistan Navy is in middle of upgrading its undersea warfare capabilities. In June, Turkish state-owned defense contractor STM won a contract for the mid-life upgrade of three Agosta 90B-class (aka Khalid-class) diesel-electric attack submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion systems.” See WHOLE DAILY PAKISTAN report.

It is not precisely known what submarine China has designed for Pakistan. Above is a model of the future S20 export derivative of China's Yuan class submarine.
---

Pete

↧

Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov may conduct first airstrikes (against IS).

October 16, 2016, 4:55 pm

≫ Next: China Experimenting With New Submarine Detection Concepts

≪ Previous: Chinese Export of Submarines to Pakistan Now Confirmed by China

Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (above) may be conducting airstrikes against Islamic State as early as November this year (2016).

COMMENT

If Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov becomes operational against an enemy this will be a first for Russian carriers. In Russia's/Soviet Unions entire naval history its aircraft carriers have never operated in a shooting war (ie. using aerial canon, missiles or bombs against an enemy).

In terms of battles with then "modern" battleships Russia's last and only battle was the Battle of Tsushima - a huge defeat for Russia in 1905.

SPUTNIK ARTICLE

Drawing from a October 15, 2016 Sputnik newsreport:

Russia’s only strike carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, part of Russia’s Northern Fleet, will enter the eastern Mediterranean, late October/early November 2016, for operations off Syria. It may conduct airstrikes against Islamic State (in Syria) and/or the Free Syrian Army. Aircraft aboard Kuznetsov include Su-33’s and MiG-29K’s all modified for ground attack.

Kuznetsov also carries helicopters and is fitted with anti-air and anti-ship missiles. It displaces 60,000 tons and has a crew (including airwing) of 2,000.

Separately, more Russian Kalibr missile strikes on Islamic State may occur in late 2016. In early October it was reported that three small missile corvettes (Mirazh, Serpukhov and Zeleniy Dol), armed with Kalibr cruise missiles, had left Black Sea Fleet anchorages, with an expectation of missile strikes in Syria.

Pete

↧

China Experimenting With New Submarine Detection Concepts

October 17, 2016, 6:48 pm

≫ Next: DCNS's 3,000 t concept submarine, SMX 3.0, at Euronaval 2016

≪ Previous: Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov may conduct first airstrikes (against IS).

From scientific paper "The SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography) Mission: Spaceborne Radar Interferometry for Oceanographic and Hydrological Applications" (See image much larger and clearer at last page of https://swot.jpl.nasa.gov/publicationFiles/oceanobs09_swot.pdf)

---

Global Gravity Anomalies map - an example of what is possible (though probably not using technologies mentioned in article below).
---

USEFUL LINK

Please connect the article below with Satellite Detection of Submarines, April 11, 2012which describes US, Russian and Chinese detection.

ARTICLE

Stephen Chenof the South China Morning Post has published a most interesting article of 17 October 2016 http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2028686/chinas-latest-space-mission-step-towards-pla-tracking

“Is China’s latest space mission a step towards PLA tracking of nuclear submarines?”

Chinese scientists are working on a space-based device that could track gravitational ripples produced by submerged submarines

China’s manned space programme has so far given its astronauts few opportunities to fulfil military roles, but that will all change when its space station is completed in the next six years.

One task on their to-do list could be detecting and tracking nuclear submarines from space, using a technological breakthrough achieved by Chinese scientists.

The two-man Shenzhou XI spaceship [for the Shenzhou 11 Mission] that blasted off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in Inner Mongolia on Monday morning will soon dock with the Tiangong-2 space laboratory, launched last month, which is carrying the world’s first space-based cold atom clock.

The ultra-accurate timepiece shares its core technology with cold atom interferometers, which can measure tiny changes in gravitational pull with unprecedented sensitivity, and one of the devices, to be built and put on the Chinese space station, could potentially be used to track nuclear submarines.

Nuclear submarines can be massive, with the largest measuring more than 170 metres in length and displacing 48,000 cubic metres of water, and when they cruise several hundred metres below the ocean’s surface they generate many gravitational ripples. An extremely sensitive detector could catch and analyse the invisible ripples to locate and follow the submarine.

Using cold atom interferometry to detect submarines is a controversial technology, with some scientists saying the enormous engineering challenges involved mean it will never work, especially over the long distances involved when using a space-based platform. Others think it’s worth a try.

China could be the first nation to do so, according to a researcher at the Beijing-based China Academy of Space Technology, which has initiated and designed most of China’s space projects.

The cold atom interferometer would be part of a super-cold atom laboratory in the space station’s experimental module, said the researcher, who declined to be named because he was not authorised to speak to the media about the project.

“The technology’s potential military value is not discussed in public, but it’s an open secret in the research community,” he said.

Professor Tu Liangcheng, who has studied the precise measurement of gravity at Wuhan’s Huazhong University of Science and Technology, said the Chinese government had substantially increased funding for submarine detection technology in recent years.

“There is a shift in the navy’s attitude to submarine warfare,” said Tu, who has been involved in military research projects.

In the past, China paid more attention to developing its own submarines and the technology to make them quiet, powerful and able to stay submerged for longer. It largely ignored the activities of other countries’ nuclear submarines, unless they ventured into Chinese waters.

But funding for submarine-hunting technology, including gravitational measurement, had now increased significantly, Tu said.

The change reflects China’s ambition to develop a “blue-water” navy able to protect its national interests along important maritime trade routes spanning the globe.

Tu said the Chinese navy desperately wanted to be able to track foreign nuclear submarines, but it was 30 years behind the capabilities of the United States when it came to submarine-detection technology.

“Now we have enough money, and China’s strength in this field of research in on par with the US and Europe,” Tu said. “But the pressure is high, there is high expectation of a quick breakthrough, and we are short of hands.”

There are many ways to measure gravitational variations. The US-German gravity recovery and climate experiment (Grace) mission, launched in 2002, uses a pair of satellites to measure “bumps” – fluctuations – in the earth’s gravitational field.

But the cold atom interferometer to be placed on the Chinese space station should be more precise because it will be able to measure bumps at the atomic level.

Because the movement of single atoms is difficult to observe directly, the device will split a beam of slow-moving atoms in two and then merge the beams to produce a band with interference patterns.

The up and down movements of the atoms caused by gravity would change the look of the patterns, and scientists could use the information to detect gravitational anomalies in a specific area.

Professor Zhan Mingsheng, who led a research team studying space-based cold atom interferometers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics, said Chinese scientists would be able to shrink the device, currently the size of a room, to something that could fit comfortably into the back of a car.

But he was sceptical about whether the technology would be able to detect a submarine in the foreseeable future.

“The biggest problem is noise,” he said. “The technology is very sensitive indeed, but also because of the sensitivity it can become an ear that can hear everything. The signal that you want to detect will simply be drowned out and lost in the background noise.”

The device would also suffer disturbances on a large platform such as the space station, where a lot of equipment could cause trembles. Even an astronaut’s cough could produce a false alarm, Zhan said.

The space-based detector would also have to compete with other platforms, such as planes and ships, which were closer to the target and likely to produce more precise locking, even though they could not offer the same global view as the space station, Zhan said.

Once a nuclear submarine entered a big, deep ocean such as the Pacific, it used to be believed that it would remain undetectable until it surfaced. But a space-based submarine detection platform could locate it precisely.

[Detecting Nuclear Submarine Radiation: Neutrinos]

Besides the cold atom interferometer, China might consider other unconventional ways to detect submarines.

Nuclear submarines’ fission reactors produce neutrinos, extremely small particles can pass through materials such as water and walls without effort, potentially exposing a submarine’s location.

China has built some of the world’s largest and most advanced neutrino detectors, one at Shenzhen’s Daya Bay nuclear power plant and the other at a hydropower station in Sichuan, which at 2.4km below the earth’s surface is the world’s deepest underground laboratory.

Cao Jun, the researcher who led the Daya Bay neutrino detection project, said that detecting the elusive particles from a source 50km away, using current technology, required a detector weighing 20,000 tonnes. But new neutrino detection technologies were emerging, which might satisfy the military’s need for a portable platform.

A future technological breakthrough might enable scientists to develop neutrino detectors that could be placed on ships or space stations, Cao added.

The US and Europe also launched cold atom interferometer projects, but they were either cancelled or delayed, mainly due to funding shortfalls, and some Western scientists have expressed interest in joining the Chinese project…

See WHOLE South China Morning Post article

1. Do you think China might deploy these technologies as submarine detectors in the next 20
years?

2. Which technology, interferometers of neutrino detection, might hold the most promise?

↧

DCNS's 3,000 t concept submarine, SMX 3.0, at Euronaval 2016

October 18, 2016, 11:57 pm

≫ Next: China Winning the Aid to Philippines Auction

≪ Previous: China Experimenting With New Submarine Detection Concepts

Scale model of the 3,000 tonne concept submarine, SMX 3.0, on display at the DCNS stand, at Euronaval 2016. (Photo courtesy Navy Recognition)

---

Newswire Today, October 17, 2016, carries the following DCNS Press Release at http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/161240/:

"DCNS Unveils SMX®3.0 - the Submarine Concept Ship Tailored to the Needs of
Generation Z

NewswireToday - /newswire/ - Paris, Ile-de-France, France, 2016/10/17 - DCNS has unveiled its new submarine concept ship SMX®3.0 at Euronaval: The submarine has been tailored to the needs of Generation Z and will be at the control of vessels from 2025 - DCNSgroup.com.

The submarine features on board 3.0 technologies, better power management, unequalled operational performance and system upgradeability facilitating vessel maintenance.

With a displacement of 3,000 tonnes, SMX®3.0 integrates the latest digital technologies for strengthened operational efficiency and significant versatility of use. DCNS and Dassault Systèmes are partnering on this project to design a ship tailored to improve the level of comfort for the women and men onboard. The on-board data systems are now completely interconnected, robust, secure, fast and upgradeable.

Humans at the centre of the system: Tomorrow, submarine systems will produce many thousands of terabytes per day which will need to be managed and stored. In order to manage this; DCNS is developing digital solutions to enable improved responsiveness and functionality. The combat or platform-operation systems have been designed around more efficient, intuitive and fluid MMIs. The data management applications will allow operators to be more focused on their value-added functions. Capable of intervening at all times on the submarines systems, the commanding officer and their crew will be even more informed and in control of their vessel.

Unequalled operational performance: Equipped with a versatile vertical launch system which can be used for launching both drones and missiles, SMX®3.0 extends the scope of its warfare capabilities. Furthermore, SMX®3.0 has greater capacities for countering cyber-threats. Its hydrodynamic shape and masking coating ensure the submarine has unequalled acoustic discretion. Thanks to its database management systems, SMX®3.0 enjoys much improved sensor performance.

Better power management: Through this concept ship, DCNS offers the AIP FC2G (Air Independent Propulsion Fuel Cell Second Generation) anaerobic propulsion system. Certified by DCNS, this system, of which the complete shore-based system is currently being industrialised, demonstrates all the advantages of a safe and versatile solution.

Upgradeability and facilitated maintenance: System maintenance and modernisation have been addressed right from the design phase thanks to the many 3.0 technologies, including a real time diagnosis of ships, big data management and detection of weak signals. This is supported by an onboard computerized infrastructure produced on the same principle as civil data centres with a strengthened resilience. This complete infrastructure guarantees great upgradeability and capacity to adapt to evolution in technology.

About DCNS

DCNS (dcnsgroup.com) is a European leader in naval defence and a major player in marine renewable energies. As an international high-tech company, DCNS uses its extraordinary know-how, unique industrial resources and capacity to arrange innovative strategic partnerships to meet its clients' requirements. DCNS designs, builds and supports submarines and surface ships. The Group proposes services for naval shipyards and bases. In addition, the Group offers a wide range of marine renewable energy solutions. Attentive to corporate social responsibility, DCNS adheres to the United Nations Global Compact. The Group reports revenues of €3.04 billion and has a workforce of 12,953 employees (2015 data)."

See WHOLE PRESS RELEASE including contact details.

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

See more EURONAVAL 2016 (25th Naval Defence & Maritime Exhibition & Conference) News at Navy Recognition. Euronaval 2016 goes from October 17 to October 21, 2016 (seeProgramme).

↧