Quantcast
Channel: Submarine & Other Matters
Viewing all 2347 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

March 2017 Report: Nuclear Cruise Missiles - the Greatest Submarine Threat

March 8, 2017, 7:25 am
$
0
0
Pakistan's dangerous Babur 3 cruise missile (SLCM) enjoys its reportedly successful test in January 2017.
---

Hi Donors

I've just emailed Submarine Matters' March 2017 Report: Nuclear Cruise Missiles – the Greatest Submarine Threat out to you, as a WORD attachment. 

Please check your spam bin if you don't see it in your IN box.

Regards

Peter Coates
Director
Submarine Matters International
↧
Search

Might Australia's ASC Help the Netherlands Build Replacement Submarines?

March 9, 2017, 1:43 am
$
0
0
 The Netherlands still assists Taiwan in upgrades and maintenance for Taiwan's two Dutch built Hai Lung classsubmarines. Above are amounts in Euros the Netherlands charged for these services. These total 106 million Euros over 5 years (2010-2014). What would China think?
---

I’ve done a bit of research from Dutch sources (using right-click mouse to Translate). These  corroborate Kevin’s comments, over the last two years, on Dutch submarine replacement issues.

The two sources used below are:

-  Ravage “Havoc” magazine’s, April 3, 2016 articleon Dutch future submarine requirements, and

-  in square brackets a Marine Schepen “Navy Ships”, June 17, 2016 article.

The Dutch Defence Ministry in 2015 indicated the possibility of spending Euro 2.5 billion or more likely 4 billion all up on four new submarines. A Euro is currently about US$1.05. The Dutch Parliament needs to approve the budget.

BUILDING THE NEW CLASS - WITH AUSTRALIAN HELP?

The Netherlands now lacks submarine building facilities. The Netherlands may therefore have most of each submarine built in:

-  Germany by TKMS-HDW. Although TKMS builds far smaller subs, and/or 

-  in Sweden, with some Australian assistance? “In fact, there are only two parties with
   experience: Kockums of Sweden and Australian Submarine Corporation. Together they were
   involved in the construction of the Australian Collins-class, based on a 471-Kockums design.”

Some degree of joint venture is possible between Dutch shipbuilder Damen and (see Damen News Release on  Saab Kockums ). Joint action is possible within the “Golden Triangle” which includes Norway and Canada. Damen as a buyer and/or part builder may even be able to work with Kockums to sell submarines to Asia.


The Dutch Parliament should make “a final decision in 2018” on the expensive future submarine purchase.

SUBMARINE SPECS-REQUIREMENTS

The requirements of the Ministry of Defence for 4 replacement submarines include:

Length: 65m-70m

Crew: 50 or less

“Max Displacement” (so assumed to be Submerged) about "3,000 tons" hence Australia's experience with the just over 3,000 tons Collins is relevant.

Commissioned after 2025

Optronic masts and other advanced sensors.

AIP or LIBs if Japanese LIBs succeed.

Current batteries are “traditional-zinc”?

Under Submarine Wishes senior Dutch naval Captain (maybe a Commodore equivalent?) Hugo Ammerlaan indicated additional requirements in 2014, as follows.

- Broadly the same hull as the Walrus class]; with buoyancy characteristics flexible enough to operate
  in such different salt-temperature environments as the Baltic Sea and Red Sea.

- Technically at the level of 2025; 

- As quiet as other submarines in 2025; 

- Ample space for special forces with their equipment; 

- More room for crew members; 

- A means/weapon for warning shots (torpedos not useful, of course); 

- Weapons against helicopters; 

- SLCMs against ships and land (not Tomahawk or other long distance SLCM); 

- Internet [or more broadly communications?] above and below water; 

- A real galley space and no food fit only for microwave ovens; 

- Technology should be compatible with the above-water ships; 

- Suitable for mixed crewing, ie. men and women.

Netherland's submarines, like Australia's, need to have the range for long transits, hence a 3,000+ ton size. More specifically Netherlands submarines need to have the range-endurance in comfort for voyages all the way across the Atlantic from the Netherlands to the Dutch Caribbean and back - maybe with only one refuelling?

Pete
↧
↧

The Saudis May Eventually Buy DCNS Scorpene Submarines.

March 9, 2017, 7:56 pm
$
0
0
The Saudi Royal/political leadership meet Malaysia's main politicians in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 26, 2017. (Photo courtesy Reuters via Malay Mail Online).
---

The Saudi Arabian Navy is well equipped with 7 French built frigates and 4 corvettesbut lacks a submarine service. In an era of heightened tensions with submarine owning Iran (3 Kilos, 4 smaller subs and perhaps 40 mini-subs) the Saudis may believe they need a submarine counter.

Shephard Media, December 18, 2016 reportedthat: “Saudi Arabia has wanted to develop its underwater force for over a decade now but plans for six diesel-electrics attack boats that are suited for the shallow waters of the Gulf have not materialised. The main Western exporters of these types of submarine are ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, DCNS, Navantia, Saab Kockums, and Fincantieri, although there could be options from China, Russia and South Korea.” So the Saudi may have wanted small-medium sized subs for over a decade.

But, Saudi submarine leadership problems may exist. The Saudis traditionally assign middle to senior officer positions to the Kingdom’s thousands of princes. Officer positions are often valued for prestige rather than technical proficiency. Always more interesting to fly jets or take a frigate out for a day-long spin.

This places oily, unseen, submarines, that demand solid technical knowledge and reliance on “commoners” for safe operation as unpopular royal command possibilities. Hence royal command is one reason for the delay in building a submarine service.

Reportsin early March 2017 that Malaysia may make a deal with Saudi Arabia to train Saudi navy personnel on submarines may be militarily substantial or a warning to Iran that the Saudis could undertake a submarine arms race. The Saudis could buy 6 more effective modern submarines against Iran’s 3 older model Project 877 Kilos and smaller, untested, submarines.

Malaysia, of course, has 2 DCNS Scorpenes. It is also significant that the Saudis have a largely covert strategic alliance with another DCNS submarine owning country, Pakistan. Pakistan operates 3 updated AIP DCNS Agosta 90Bs and 2 older Agosta 70s. A possibility exists that smaller sized 1,500 ton Scorpenes are what the Saudis may eventually buy.

The Saudis would have already noticed that nuclear tipped Pakistani Babur 3 submarine launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) are steadily maturing. With such weapons the Saudis may gain superiority over the more powerful conventional Iranian armed forces. Submarine Matters' March 9, 2017 Report to Donors contains more details about the nuclear tipped Babur SLCMs. 

Pete
↧

When is peacetime damage to a submarine major?

March 13, 2017, 1:59 am
$
0
0

HMCS Corner Brook after the accident. Sonar smashed (Photo at Canada's CBC News)
---

When is serious, serious? The submarine didn't catastrophically rupture as the article argues, but...

HMCS Corner Brook suffered a grounding accident on June 4, 2011. The sub surfaced and returned to port under her own power. 

CANADIAN ARTICLE

Tim Dunne, wrote “Journalists sub-par on sub debate” on March 3, 2012 in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, Chronicle Herald. Here is part:

"When New York Times writer Paul Krugman observed, "The people who talk the most understand the least," he could easily have been thinking about some Canadian television reporters and commentators as they breathlessly told of the damage to the submarine HMCS Corner Brook.

The boat struck bottom in 45 metres of water near Nootka Sound on western Vancouver Island, June 4 of last year, cutting a four-by-five-metre hole in the boat’s front. CBC TV News showed "exclusive" photographs and alluded to efforts by the Royal Canadian Navy to covertly raise the vessel out of the water "under cover of darkness."

...Missing from the debate was that the damage was to the front of the submarine’s fibreglass casing. Four metres inside the damaged casing is the pressure hull, made of 3.8-centimetre HY 80 steel, and this is the main compartment where the crew and controls are located. While the vessel is in the water, the space between the casing and the pressure hull is flooded.

The special high yield (HY) steel alloy is designed to military specification to allow submarines to withstand the pressures of deep dives. This special steel has a yield stress of 80,000 pounds per square inch, corresponding to a depth of about 1,800 feet. While the casing was damaged, the pressure hull, able to withstand incredible stresses, was untouched.

There have been questions about why the navy took the ship out of the water at 4 a.m., "under cover of darkness." The RCN’s deputy commander, Rear-Admiral Mark Norman, explained that the 3,500-tonne submarine was raised out of the water on the navy’s syncrolift, timed to take advantage of high tide and to minimize water turbulence from other vessel traffic in the harbour.

... HMCS Corner Brook’s grounding should not be trivialized. It was a serious incident and had the potential to be a tragedy. However, commentators should not overstate the accident and ignore the important contributions which Canada’s submarines make to training, sovereignty and prevention of drug trafficking...” see WHOLE CANADIAN ARTICLE

A different account:

Wikipedia advises "On 4 June 2011, Corner Brook while diving off the coast of British Columbia slammed into the seafloor at 5.9 knots (11 km/h) at a depth of 45 metres (148 ft). Two sailors were injured in the collision and the submarine suffered significant damage, with a 2-metre (6 ft 7 in) hole in the bow. Two torpedo tube doors were torn off in the collision.[25] The submarine surfaced and made port without requiring aid.[10] The commander of the submarine was later stripped of his command following a board of inquiry.[26] Repairs and a major refit will keep the sub out of operational service until 2017.[27] 


Who’s right or wrong?

Pete
↧

Potential Concerns Over Australia-France Shortfin Cooperation Agreements

March 13, 2017, 7:36 pm
$
0
0
Australia wants to avoid weapon supply-intellectual property worries - from subs down to infantry weapons. On the latter a Vietnam veteran recalls “The 84mm Carl Gustaf Anti-Tank weapon [above] Manufactured in Sweden, we were unable to use them because the Swedes would not provide ammunition, as they did not support the war in Vietnam. That must have been a good contract.”
---


In wording as at 11am, March 14, 2017 AAP via Australia’s SBS News began its report:

“Australia must learn from an intellectual property disaster before work starts on a French-designed submarine fleet, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.

An uncertain political landscape in France could pose a risk to Australia's French-designed submarine fleet project.

The [Australian] federal joint [Senate-House] treaties committee is examining the submarine cooperation agreement between France and Australia at a hearing in Canberra on [March 14, 2017].

Government-owned French shipbuilder DCNS won the contract to design Australia's 12 new submarines, which will be built in Adelaide.

The treaty has an out clause of two years notice if France or Australia decide to withdraw, the hearing was told...”  See the WHOLE AAP via SBS ARTICLE now updated as at 12.46pm.

The committee heard witness views from ASPI's Andrew Davies - here is his opening address.  

Pete
↧
↧

Advise to Saudi Arabia on Acquiring Submarines, Minisubs or UUVs

March 15, 2017, 7:10 am
$
0
0
Youtube of a late January 31, 2017 suicide boat attack (20 seconds in) by Iranian backed Houthi rebels. This damaged a Saudi frigate off the coast of Yemen and killed two Saudi sailors. If the Saudis had submarine for monitoring might this rebel activity have been prevented?
---
  
As Saudi Arabia is so far behind the navies of powerful regional neighbours [1] in using submarines what steps could the Saudis take? 

My advice is Saudi Arabia should undertake the following, all at once:

-  utilising its submarine owning country connections (with the US, Europeans SSK owners and
   Pakistan) to monitor the Saudi's opponents including Iranian backed Houthi rebels in Yemenand 
   Iran itself,
-  seconding Saudi officers and senior crew to Pakistani submarine training establishments and then
   subsequently seconding them to Pakistani submarines.
-  if these secondments and minisub trials indicate subs are of value to Saudi Arabia could 
   consider:
   =  ordering lower cost, quickly built (by 2020?), S20s or at least refurbished Type 035 Mings from
       China (see next article about the Saudi increasingly looking at China as a weapons source)
   =  ordering medium sized subs from Europe or South Korea for delivery by the mid 2020s.
   =  asking Italy or South Korea to build minisubs (by 2020) 2 x 200 ton (Dolgorae type) or 400 ton
       HDS-400 minisubs .
   =  UUVs from US or Europe - ready soonest 2018 and at lowest cost? (mainly for radio intercept 
       duties)

[1] Large regional sub owning countries include Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and smallish Israel.

[2[ I’m aware submarines can monitor radio transmissions and phone calls but I’m unsure about the specifics. What makes submarines uniquely useful platforms to conduct electronic monitoring (in addition to close to the shore missions and undersea cables)? 

Pete
↧

Current/Potential Saudi, Chinese & Pakistani Military Cooperation Increasing

March 15, 2017, 10:41 pm
$
0
0
Tactical Report reports: "Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman Bin Abdulaziz, who also acts as Defence Minister, held talks with Chinese Defence Minister General Chang Wanquan on 31/8/16 in Beijing. He is said to have discussed with General Wanquan the possibility of the Saudi General Organization for Military Industries (GOMI) taking part in a project to build a type of a Chinese attack submarine with a Chinese assistance." See Tactical Reportlink.
--- 

COMMENT


The Saudis and other Gulf oil kingdoms are increasingly looking to China and Pakistan for weapons and manpower respectively. Saudi Arabia is the senior member of the loose economic and political Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) alliance which also includes Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman.

Reduced revenue from oil/gas may be changing the arms purchasing patterns of the Persian Gulf oil Kingdoms away from Western arms sellers and increasingly towards China. Submarines are an expensive item and Pakistan was recently announced as the buyer of 8 relatively inexpensive Chinese designed S20 Yuan derrvatives. The Saudis lack submarines making it concievable Saudi Arabia may form part or be added to the S20 purchase deal. Though a matter kept secret - perhaps the Saudis have part financed Pakistan's 8 x S20 submarine purchase in return for:
-  Pakistani training of Saudi submariners
-  Saudi secondments to Pakistani subs,
-  Pakistani submarine missions that support Saudi national security objectives
-  the ultimate Saudi aim that it form its own submarine service with Pakistani and Chinese help
-  also local submarine building with foreign help including South Korea's HHI. See report 4. below. 
-  other GCC members might also be involved, especially cooperating against the Iranian threat.

4 REPORTS

Of interest are three reports on Saudi, Chinese and Pakistani cooperation. The rarely publicised matter of a high level of paid Pakistani military assistance to Saudi Arabia has just become more public. Summaries drawn from these reports are:

1. Reportedon March 13, 2017 the GCC countries, in total, form the world’s largest importers of arms, but lower oil prices are encouraging members to consider cheaper arms suppliers. Also the GCC want to be less dependent on the US.
A project to build an oil pipeline from Palistan's coast, across Pakistan to China is on the mind of GCC oil producers. This has prompted high level visits from Pakistan’s Army Chief and Prime Minister, to their GCC opposite numbers.
...Pakistanis provide training to GCC armed forces and thousands serve in Gulf uniforms in most of the GCC’s militaries, including entire battalions of Pakistanis in the Saudi military. "So there is a very intimate relationship already that goes beyond any relationship ... with western countries", Mr Krieg said. "There is a dependency on Pakistan anyway."
2. Reported in The Hindustan Times, March 14, 2017: ""The Pakistan Army will send a brigade of combat troops to Saudi Arabia to strengthen defences along the kingdom’s vulnerable southern border in the face of threats from the Islamic State and Houthi rebels, according to media reports...in response to a request from Riyadh, which “wants the troops as an emergency response force”.

"...The brigade will be based in southern Saudi Arabia and will be deployed inside its borders to thwart possible attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels,"

"...Sources in Islamabad said Pakistan was apparently being sucked into the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen..."

3. An even greater estimate of Pakistani military cooperation with Saudi Arabia comes from The National of March 14, 2017 which reports: "Although the kingdom, like other Arab Gulf countries, does not make the numbers public, experts say there are as many as 70,000 Pakistanis serving across the Saudi military services [including Navy?] at any one time.”

4. MarineLink, October 11, 2016 reports "New Saudi Arabia Shipyard to be ‘World’s Largest’ 
Developers of a new shipyard in Saudi Arabia say the facility will be the largest maritime yard in the world providing a range of services, including large shipbuilding, large ship repair, offshore rigs fabrication and offshore support vessel repair...The new facility, a joint venture between state oil giant Saudi Aramco, the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, Lamprell (LAM.L) and Hyundai Heavy Industries, will be located in the eastern Saudi port of Ras Al-Khair, north of Jubail on the Persian Gulf. It is planned to be fully operational by 2021." 

Pete
↧

Bangladesh's 2 Ming Submarines are part Chinese Crewed

March 16, 2017, 10:10 pm
$
0
0
COMMENT

China is putting India's two nuclear submarines (INS Arihant and INS Chakra II) at Fleet Base East, Vishakhapatnam, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, under regular surveillance and kinetic threat of sinking. Chinese SSNs and SSKs frequenting the Bay of Bengal provide platforms for this surveillance, but the long China to Bay of Bengal (and return) missions are exhausting for Chinese crews. The missions are also well observed, through Malacca Strait/Andaman Sea sensors and Chinese submarine and submarine tender port stops in nearby Sri Lanka. 

So the two Bangladeshi Mings, partly manned (and likely part officered) by Chinese crews offer more regular, more covert, surveillance opportunities. China sold the Mings to Bangladesh at the heavily discounted $100 million each, partly because of this bi-nation crewing value to China.

YOUTUBE REPORTS

On March 12, 2017 Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, officially commissioned the 2 refurbished Chinese built Type 035G (NATO designation "Ming") class submarines, BNS Nabajatra and BNS Joyjatra.

Youtube 1.

This November 2016, 7 minute, Youtube here in English is an excellent analytical discussion of Why did Bangladesh Buy from China? Journalist/Editor, Bharat Bhushan interviews the Indian ex-High Commissioner to Dhaka/Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Youtube 2.

The following Youtube I think is mainly spoken in Bengaliwith a long stretch. 6:10 to 7:40. in English.

50 seconds obvious update modification to the bow sonar

1:23 good shot of the 2 Mings out of the water on a lift ship

2:00 Bangladesh initially interested in buying Songs($250 million per Song) and S20s but couldn’t 
        afford even the Chinese discount prices

2:25 the last two Mings China built have AIP [probably used as testbeds for the Yuan’s Stirling
        AIP]

2:30 Bangladesh paid $203 million Total for the 2 Mings

3:10 Bangladesh’s confrontations with Myanmar/Burma around 2008 finally convinced
        Bangladesh to buy subs. There were also, yet unproven, suspicions Myanmar might buy subs

3:40 Bangladesh needs assistance from many Chinese crew for operation of the 2 Mings

5:00 the 2 Mings may just be the first of a larger Bangladeshi submarine service

6:10 to 7:40 gives Specifications, especially for weapons and propulsion in English

7:18 admission the Ming’s quite old Yu-1 torpedos were “reverse engineered” by China from 
        Russian Type 53-51 torpedos

Please connect with Submarine Matters' China selling two Type 035 Ming-class submarines to Bangladesh of December 24, 2013.

Pete
↧
Search

China-Philippines Relations Poor - Chinese oil & submarine channel surveying

March 19, 2017, 11:32 pm
$
0
0
China is disadvantaged in being far from its main Persian Gulf sources of oil. Go here, scroll 1/4 way down and click on "China" tab. The Indian, and even more so, US navies can, in the Indian Ocean, block oil from reaching China. Hence China is trying to organise much closer sources of oil that China can control and extract itself in the South China Sea. China's needs and actions are influencing Philippine politics much more than in past years.

Philippine President Duterte and his Defence Minister/Secretary Delfin Lorenzana appear to have a more nuanced attitude (and disagree) about China's expansion into the South China Sea.

Lorenzana said on March 9, 2017 that he was "disturbed" by what he believes are survey missions by Chinese ships deep into the Philippines' 200nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Chinese survey missions included a warship detected 70 miles off the Philippine west coast and Chinese survey ships seen in the Philippines’ northeast and southeast seaboard.

Lorenzana voiced frustration on March 9 that since Duterte took office eight months ago, the Philippines had submitted about 12 requests to the Chinese Embassy to explain its maritime activities, but each time the Chinese Embassy had denied they had taken place.

The Philippines won an international arbitration decision in 2016 that invalidated China's claims to a Nine-Dash Line sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea. Duterte did not seek Chinese compliance but instead bartered the arbitration decision for $Billions in Chinese aid and soft loans.

Duterte seems to accept Chinese island building and its claims not because of good China-Philippine relations but because the Chinese military is so powerful the Philippine armed forces couldn't resist it. Chinese claims (on map above) include:

-  Benham Rise (or Plateau) is a 13 million hectare under sea region east of Luzon and is 35 meters underwater at its shallowest point. The "probability is extremely very high" there are massive oil deposits at Benham Rise. Lorenzana said that satellite imagery provided by allies [Pete Comment.  Probably the US] had tracked Chinese vessels for three months last year in Benham Rise, a vast area declared by the United Nations to be part of the Philippines' continental shelf.

-  Scarborough Shoal - (called Panatag Shoal by the Philippines and Huangyan Dao Reef by China) - a triangular atoll located 220 kilometers west of Luzon. The Shoal area may contain undersea oil. Duterte is allowing Chinese structures "environmental monitoring station" to be built on the Scarborough because China is too powerful and that even the US could not stop China, and

SUBMARINE RELEVANCE?

Lorenzana had received informationsuggesting China may be surveying seas (in Philippine waters) to map submarine channels for access to open Pacific waters. He said he had told the Philippine Navy to intercept Chinese survey vessels if they return [Pete Comment - Actual Philippine interception of Chinese naval survey vessels is highly unlikely].

See an earlier Submarine Matters' article China's South China Sea Island Base Building of September 24, 2015. This covered China's gradual militarization of Subi Reef, Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross Reef, all in the Spratly Islands, South China Sea. Now Benham Rise and Scarborough Shoal appear less military and more oil/gas exploration phase. By military island building China graphically signals how serious it is and then oil/gas exploration can proceed unhindered by countries with less conventional military power than China (ie. all countries except the US).

Pete
↧
↧

CEO of DCNS Australia's Sean Costello Quits Early

March 20, 2017, 7:17 pm
$
0
0
Drawing from the (Adelaide) Advertiser's, March 20, 2017 article:

Sean Costello, now former CEO of DCNS Australia, surprisingly quit on March 17, 2017. Because he lead the team that won the $50 Billion Australian future submarine contract (on April 26, 2016), the golden handshake on resignation must be substantial.

As continuity of leadership is so important in the extremely complex and long term submarine project this early resignation has surprised French and Australian defence circles.


DCNS Group Chairman, Herve Guillou (left) and ex-CEO DCNS Australia, Sean Costello (on right)
(Photo courtesy Australian Defence Business Review, October 7, 2015).
---

DCNS Australia Chief Operating Officer Brent Clark will become interim CEO. See whole Advertiser article.

COMMENT

Might the confusing management arrangements that bedevilled the Collins Project (see latter part of 2016 article) now creep up on the DCNS Shortfin Project? 

Increasing disorganisation caused be rapid turnover of leadership positions of DCNS (the main foreign partner) may adversely impact on US company Lockheed Martin (combat system integrator for the future submarine project) and other major contractors.

Pete
↧

"Fourth" new Indonesian Submarine to be Built

March 20, 2017, 8:22 pm
$
0
0
PT PAL shipyard at Surabaya, Java, Indonesia. PT PAL will assemble Indonesia's third Improved Chang Bogo (Type 209) submarine and hopes to build a fourth (and following) Type 209s.
---.

Indonesia’s state owned PT PAL shipyard in Surabaya, Indonesia, has for several years planned to build the third of three new Type 209 submarines. The first two were built in DSME's shipyard in South Korea. The 209s are called “Improved Chang Bogo class” in South Korea.

In mid March 2017 news emerged that Indonesia had plans to build a “fourth and following” Type 209 submarines for the Indonesia Navy. Indonesia’s Antara News Agency on March 20-21, 2017, reports: 

“...Of the three submarines ordered, one is totally assembled by the Indonesian workers while the fourth and following orders will be done fully by Indonesian workers..." 

Indonesia’s PT PAL hopes to be able to build Type 209 submarines independently of South Korea. Indonesia sent 206 technicians to South Korea to be educated in submarine building. 

See whole Antara report.

COMMENT

Indonesian naval analysts have indicated for years that Indonesia really needs 12 submarines to police and defend the 1,000s of islands, straits and narrows of the Indonesian Archipelago. It may be no coincidence that 12 subs is also the number preferred by the Australian Government for the RAN (Australia being the middle power just south of Indonesia).

As well as making the deal for 3 x Type 209s with South Korea Indonesia has for years been in talks with Russia and a shorter time with DCNS to build extra subs to reach the 12 total. 

I think Indonesia buying or building additional 209s is much more logical and efficient than owning  two completely different submarine classes. Also significant is that Indonesia has owned 2 x 209s, of the Cakra class, for many years, apparently finding them satisfactory.

On Indonesia's Type 209 purchase see this earlier Submarine Matters' report, Slight delay in Indonesia accommodating two Chang Bogo submarines of March 1, 2016.

Pete
↧

SORYU-Oyashio Build, Launched and Commissioned Table

March 21, 2017, 6:30 pm
$
0
0

SORYU-Oyashio TABLE as at March 22, 2017
SS
No.
Build No
Name
Pennant
No.
MoF approved amount ¥ Billions & FY
LABs, LIBs, AIP
Laid Down
Laun
-ched
Commi-ssioned
Built
By
5SS Oyashio
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
 15SS Feb
2004
15SS
Nov
2006
15SS
Mar 2008
 MHI
&
KHI
16SS
Soryu Mk 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
KHI
25SS
SS-509
¥53.1B FY2013
LABs + AIP
22 Oct 2013
12 Oct 2016
Mar? 2018
MHI
26SS
8125
SS-510
LABs + AIP
2014
?
Mar 2019?
KHI
27SS First
Soryu Mk 2
8126
SS-511
LIBs only
2015
2017?
Mar
2020
MHI
28SS  Second
Soryu Mark 2
8127
SS-512
¥63.6B FY2016
LIBs only
2016?
2018?
Mar 2021?
KHI
29SS First of
New Class
?
?
¥76B FY2018
LIBs only
?
?
2023?
MHI?
Table courtesy of exclusive information provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP=air independent propulsion, LIBs=lithium-ion batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen.

The latest news is the commissioning, on 13 March 2017, of 24SS (Sekiryū). It is the eigth Soryu Mark 1 (powered by LABs and Stirling AIP) that is now serving. There are just two more Soryu Mark 1s (25SS and 26SS) to be commissioned in March 2018 and March 2019 respectively.

27SS, the first Soryu Mark 2 will be the first LIBs only submarine to be commissioned (probably in 2020). 
↧

Comparison of Soryu Modes of Electrical Propulsion Table

March 21, 2017, 7:04 pm
$
0
0
On March 16-17, 2017 Anonymous made some comments that I have semi-translated and turned into a table.

The rows below show:
-  current Soryu Mark 1s (Stirling AIP & LABs)
-  future Soryu Mark 2s (LIBs only) and

As well as two hypothetical Soryu models:
-  Soryu X (Fuel Cell (FC) AIP & LABs), and
-  Soryu Y (Stirling AIP & LIBs))

Soryu modes of electrical propulsion are compared according to criteria in the first column.

70 day mission =
20days transit
+ 50days surveillance
Soryu Mark 1s (AIP & LABs)
Soryu Mark 2s (LIBs only)
Soryu X
(FC-AIP & LABs)
Soryu Y
(AIP & LIBs)
Numbers of batteries 1] [2]
480 LABs
576 or 672 LIBs
480 LABs
480 LIBs
Submarine size (length)
length 84m

78-83m
same

same


Crew shifts
3 shift crew routine
Same
Same
Same
max fully submerged period in theory
period - (actual)
in days [3]
LABs+AIP
16-17 days
(15 days)
LIBs
7-8.5 days
(6-7.5 days)
LIBs
+FCAIP 32
(33)
LIBs+AIP
20
(19)days on
Percentage LOX unused
most LOX kept in reserve
N/A
30% of LOX kept in reserve
most of LOX kept in reserve
frequency of snorting/recharge [7]
theory
(actual)


6-12 hours LABs


Within 6 days
(1-2 days)


1-2 days on FCAIP+LABs


5days
(1-1.5days) LIBs
LIB types used and [4]
none
Lithium Nickel Aluminium oxide (NCA)
none
Lithium Nickel Aluminium oxide (NCA)
The future? [6]
No Soryu Mk. 1 new builds after 2014 [5]
Evolved LIBs or Li-Sulphur Batteries (LSBs)
none
none




























[1] Although the combination of AIP + LIBs had some advantages the JMSDF preferred increasing the number of LIBs (576 or 672 LIBs on Soryu Mark 2s) compared to only 480 LABs on current Soryu Mark 1s). Major reasons for the change in propulsion were the low utilisation ratio of AIP and need for high speed performance.

[2]  The reasons why the Japanese Navy (JMSDF) gave up AIP for the Soryu Mark 2s (LIBs only)) are not clear. Possible reasons are:
i)   poor endurance of Soryu Mark 1s due to weight and bulk of the 2 x LOX tanks
ii)   low frequency of AIP use
iii)  complex operation of diesel engines, AIP and LABs
iv)  demand for high speed performance, which low submerged speed Stirling AIP cannot efficiently contribute to
v)   LIBs last more years than LABs ie. LIBs can function for more cycles. Lithium Titanate (LTO) shows an extremely long life time, and total life time cost may be the same or less than for LABs.
vi) Though there is an another attractive option, ie. AIP+LIBs, instead of increased LIBs, AIL+LIBs was not selected. This suggests that the contribution of increased LIBs (96 or 192 LIBs) was greater than that of AIP. Presumably based on operational experience and submarine tactics, the JMSDF prioritize high speed performance (such as longer period at max silent submerge speed) over long submerge period at low speed provided by AIP.

[3]  The fully submerged period of a Soryu Mark 1 (LABs + AIP) is said to be as short as 2 weeks. So AIP is possibly not used for ordinary missions. Possible uses of AIP are as follows:
i) emergency such as combat
ii) modulation of snorting-recharge timing to avoid undesirable timing which may be caused by Low energy density of LABs.
The maximum discharge of LABs and LIBs are assumed as 30% and 90%, respectively. Further discharge leads to irreversible damage to batteries.

[4]  12 years ago the JMSDF demonstrated that the energy density of prototype LIBs was twice that of LABs. The LIBs for Soryu Mark 2s are much better than the LIBs prototype.

[5]  See the SORYU-Oyashio Build, Launched and Commissioned Table of March 22, 2017 (below).

[6]  A future sub with AIP and LIBs may have an excellent indiscretion ratio. But, improved LIBs or Lithium-Sulphur Batteries (LSBs) are a more feasible option for the JMSDF.

[7]  For LABs, more frequent snorting-recharge avoids the submarine running out of electrical power at a bad place and/or time. For LIBs, frequency of snorting-recharge drastically decreases. A lower longer frequency for LIBs of snorting-recharge every 6 days is possible, but, after 6 days snorting-recharge takes longer.

Anonymous and Pete
↧
↧

Japan's Carrier JS Izumo to Defy China

March 23, 2017, 12:43 am
$
0
0
In May 2017 Japan will despatch the carrier JS Izumo to run a type of Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOPs) against China's new empire on sea. Japan continues to develop and increase the size of its (defensive under the Constitution) “helicopter destroyers”. As viewers would notice these are really small-medium aircraft-helicopter carriers. They are of similar size to Japan’s former WWII carriers. While the current four carriers (see below) are mainly for helicopters they are capable of carrying F-35Bs fast strike fighters - a reality not lost on China.


The carriers JS Izumo (83) and newly commissioned JS Kaga (84) certainly don't look like "destroyers". (Photo courtesy Reuters and South China Morning Post)
---

1.  CARRIER CAPABILITIES

1. In commentsof 20 and 22 March 2017 Anonymous discussed activities of Japan’s four carriers:
    -  the 27,000 ton JS Izumo (and Izumo’s sister ship JS Kaga (commissioned in March 2017)).
       They can each carry:
       =  medium size helicopters (eg. SH-60Ks and MCH-101s). These helicopters' 
           functions are mainly ASW but they are also capable of anti-shipping, mine counter measures,
           ground attack and troop carrying, or
       =  be modified to carry larger aircraft, eg. F-35B VTOL strike aircraft and V-22
           Osprey fast troop carrying tiltrotor craft.

   -  19,000 ton smaller carrier JS Hyuga(and Hyuga’s sister ship JS Ise). They can each carry:
       =  medium sized helicopters. and
       =  for Western aircraft carriers Hyuga and Ise are unusual in actually carrying some destroyer
           armaments, ie. 16 x Mk 41 VLS and 6 x LWT tubes. 


Carrier comparison. From top ROK's Dokdo class Landing Platform Helicopter,  UK Invincible class,  Charles de Gaulle (France of course), Izumo, USS Nimitz (Diagram courtesy kmozzart).
---

2.  JS IZUMO IN SOUTH CHINA SEA (May 2017)

According to REUTERS JPN Japan is sending Izumoto the South China Sea in May 2017 to visit Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines (President Duterte may be invited aboard ("If [he has] time."). On this voyage see first part of this Youtube.

Might Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia also be added to the list?

The South China Sea activity will be Japan’s biggest show of naval force in the region since WWII. Japan will likely send other ships (identities not yet known, but typically they would include a destroyer, replenishment ship and maybe a submarine (for ASW practice)).

3.  JS IZUMO at MALABAR 2017 in July 2017

Izumo will participate in the ASW themed Exercise MALABAR 2017, to be held off India between the USN, Indian and Japanese navies, in July 2017.

Izumo will return to Fleet Base Yokosuka, Japan in August 2017.

4.  CHINA OPPOSES IZUMO’S SOUTH CHINA SEA VOYAGE

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying was reallly, really angry about Izumo's South China Sea voyage. On March 16, 2017 she said:

“Out of its selfish interests, Japan has been stirring up troubles and creating splits in the South China Sea. Their behaviour has prompted dissatisfaction and opposition of the Chinese people. If the Japanese side insists on doing so, or even attempts to get militarily involved in the South China Sea, harm China's sovereignty and security, and heighten regional tensions, the Chinese side will definitely take firm actions in response.”

[Hua continued] “I want to remind the Japanese side that they are not a party concerned in the South China Sea issue, and that they have a disgraceful history of occupying China's Xisha [Paracel] and Nansha [Spratly] Islands during its war of aggression against China. The Japanese side should reflect upon the history, and be discreet with its words and deeds, instead of making waves in the South China Sea and impairing regional peace and stability.”

Pete Comment – Clearly China approves of its own increases in power projection into the South China Sea but cannot imagine other countries have rights.

Anonymous and Pete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A postscript:


IJN Sōryū. At 19,000 tons the same size as JS Hyuga and Ise. A good name for a submarine class :) The Sōryū carrier was part of the Pearl Harbour strike, bombed Darwin, then was sunk at Midway. 
↧

Might Nuclear tipped SLCMs Deter the Chinese Bully?

March 23, 2017, 9:07 pm
$
0
0

Nuclear tipped Tomahawks are featured 40 seconds in.
---

Even compared to Trump China is a more extreme and unsubtle bully in its foreign relations with less powerful nations in the Asia-Pacific. Australia really needs to consider submarine torpedo tube launched nuclear tipped cruise missiles (SLCMs) to be capable of deterring future Chinese aggression. Perhaps the future Shortfins will mount such nuclear SLCMs.

Perhaps the US restarting production of the BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack [Cruise] Missiles – Nuclear (TLAM-A) with a W80 thermonuclear warhead may be the quickest way to nuclear arm Australia, Japan and South Korea. Perhaps nuclear TLAM-As still exist disassembled in storage?

To give an idea of plain Chinese bullying behaviour Angus Grigg and Laura Tingle have written an excellent commentary in the Australian Financial Review, March 23, 2017, which begins: 

"Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has urged Australia not to take sides as happened during the cold war, warning strategic tensions in the region threatened prosperity, as he held out the prospect of greater access for Australian products and services to China.

On the first day of his official visit [to Australia], the Premier issued a less than subtle reminder that Australia enjoyed a $US50 billion trade surplus with China last year and suggested this could be jeopardised by instability in the region.

"We don't want to see taking sides, as happened during the Cold War," he told a lunch hosted by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at Parliament House on [March 23, 2017]...”

See the whole Australian Financial Reviewcommentary

Pete
↧
Search

Indian Submarine Propulsion Reactor Needs - Arihant, Aridhaman & Chakra II

March 27, 2017, 1:23 am
$
0
0


Photo of  "S-1"land based prototype reactor at Kalpakkam for India's Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) (Arihant) Program. S-1 went critical on November 11, 2003, was declared operational on September 22, 2006 and photographed (above) in early August 2009. Kalpakkam is an Indian nuclear enclave 45 km south of Chennai, on India's lower east coast. Kalpakkam is shorthand for the longer, more formal, name of the nuclear enclave which is the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) (Photo courtesy The Hindu).
---


[Update as at March 27, 2017] The Submarine Matters article below was originally published in October 2015 - which explains why the comments below it are of October 2015. The article is suggested reading before I publish an overt update on India's nuclear submarine program on March 30 or 31, 2017.

Please connect with Submarine Matters US and France in Talks with India to Assist India's Nuclear Submarine Program, September 29, 2015.

INDIA'S INDIGENOUS REACTOR PROGRAM FOR SUBMARINE

The land based prototype reactor at Kalpakkam was designated "S-1" in India's Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) (Arihant) Program, 
"S-2" - was INS Arihant itself with its 83 MW 1st or 2nd generation reactor
"S-3" is INS Aridhaman the first true SSBN (yet to be launched) which will have a more powerful 2nd or 3rd generation reactor.

The Indian indigenous nuclear submarine program, that produced the Arihant, continues under some  secrecy. Secrecy is not total because Kalpakkam and its parent organisation, the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), need to demonstrate to politicians and the public that the large amounts of taxpayers money is spent wisely with progress made in the nuclear projects.   

•  Work on the Indian nuclear sub program dates from the 1970's and was referred to as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) Project .

•  The prototype nuclear propulsion plant at Kalpakkam (photo) was developed under the program "Plutonium Recycling Project" or "PRP" under direction of BARC or Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC). Kalpakkam nuclear enclave is 45 km south of  Chennai on the lower east coast of India.  

•  The Kalpakkam-Arihant prototype plant went critical on November 11, 2003 and after further development was declared operational on September 22, 2006. It was only shown to the press once, in early August 2009, about one week after the July 26, 2009 launch of the Arihantitself. Apparently only one photo (above) was cleared for distribution. 

•  Most sources list the prototype and the Arihant reactors as being rated at 82.5 MW. There are around 13 fuel assemblies with each assembly having 348 fuel pins.


Major components of Arihant's reactor were made by Indian companies, including:
-  the reactor vessel, made of special grade steel by Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi. 
-  steam generator by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and 
-  Pressure valves were made by Audco India, Chennai.

ARIHANT's REACTOR PERFORMANCE

There is a great deal of difference between a nuclear propulsion reactor in a submarine and a land-based atomic power station to produce electricity. While a land-based atomic power plant gets backup from other power stations on the electrical grid, a submarine nuclear propulsion reactor only has some weak diesel engines for emergency backup. A propulsion reactor has to be miniaturised to fit into the confined space of a submarine and be lightweight but strong enough to endure the shock due to moderately powerful underwater explosions. The reactor must also withstand the pitch and roll of a submarine. The reactor must also be capable of rapidly accelerating and decelerating the submarine - unlike a land-based power plant which ramps up gradually.

The Arihant's 83 MW reactor went critical after many sea trials. Extrapolating from known data on Russian submarines and their reactors - the Akula class has a 190 MW reactor but turbines that are rated at just 32MW. Going by the roughly 20 percent power rule here, the turbines on the Arihant are likely to be around 15 MW, or about 20,000 horsepower. Rating them at higher than that doesn't seem to make much sense, and the figures placing them at 47,000 hp (on wiki right sidebar) seems ludicrous - that sort of power would propel the Arihant's estimated 6,000 tons (surfaced) (perhaps 7,000 tons submerged) bulk past 37 knots (like a high speed SSN). A lower power rating and a speed in the SSBN range of 24 knots seems far more likely. A ballistic missile submarine isn't meant to sprint across the oceans - it's meant to be a ghost, running silent and deep, popping up to deliver its apocalyptic cargo when the time calls.

Arihant, with its 83 MW reactor, must be considered an interm and experimental test bed. The 83 MW reactor is not powerful enough for the second of class INS Aridhaman SSBN. Aridhaman, to carry a larger missile load, may weigh around 8,000 tons (surfaced). So a more powerful reactor, approaching Chakra II's 190 MW reactor, may be India's objective. 

INDIA INTERESTED IN CHAKRA II'S 190 MW REACTOR

A major reason for India funding Chakra II (ex Nerpa Akula's) completion and 10 year lease is Indian interest in developing a reactor with something approaching 190 MW.  It is logical to assume that India has a prototype 190 MW reactor at Kalpakkam with Russian advisers for technology transfer. The Akula SSNs, like Chakra II, use the OK-650 reactor rated at 190 MW. It uses a low end 20%-45% HEU reactor. The OK-650 may have been first used 1980 and is still being placed on new Russian submarines - such as 2 on the Borei SSBN in 2009. The OK-650 and other 190 MW Russian submarine reactors are made by the OKBM Afrikantov company.


Of nuclear submarine powers India may still have reactors less advanced than China's but ahead of Brazil. The most advanced remains the US. USS Nautilus was launched in January 1954 and its reactor went critical in December 1954, under two years after the land based prototype went critical. The US provided the UK with its best reactors and helped the UK build copies. France may have received direct US-UK assistance or they tacitly permitted "espionage" by France.

INDIA INTERESTED IN FRENCH AND US REACTOR ASSISTANCE

As at September 2015 India appears to be encouraging Russia, France and the US to compete in providing nuclear submarine assistance to India. Russia is an overt provider of assistance while France and US may claim that are not actually assisting in Indian submarine reactor development.


Biswajit Pattanaik advised in Comments[Oct 2, 2015 8:42PM] India may want a reactor similar to the K15, 150 MW that France has in the Barracuda SSN. Years ago a retired Indian Navy Admiral said the Navy asked BARC to develop a 190 MW with HEU for possible use for the 2nd Vikrant class aircraft carrier and future SSBNs and SSNs that will appear after 2025 time frame. Biswajit understands India is seeking French assistance to increase the life of the Indian reactor from the current 5-8 years to around 10-15 years. India may also be talking to French reactor builder AREVA about converting the K15 from LEU to a new HEU type reactor. 

Ultimately India would be very interested in developing a reactor approaching the capabilities of the US Virginia class's ninth generation S9G reactor which uses higher HEU of 90+ % and lasts the lifetime of a submarine (33 years).

SOURCES

Sources used include:

 -  Atomic Power Review, August 11, 2013:

-  On the Wings of a White Swan, also August 11, 2013, and 

-  "Warhawk, Jun 23, 2014"

Pete
↧

South Korea to be 2nd Country To Install LIBs for Submarines

March 27, 2017, 10:19 pm
$
0
0
Anonymous reported on March 25, 2017 that China, South Korea (SK) and Japan are all developing next generation batteries. SK is developing a submarine that uses Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs). Anonymous says he used to think that the first fuel cell FC-AIP+ LIBs submarine would be developed as a TKMS + Siemens’ collaboration. But, SK may utilise TKMS' FC-AIP patent first, to create a FC-AIP + LIBs submarine. Of course the safety or reliability of SK LIBs remain unknown. 

Insufficient information concerns China and LIBs for diesel-electric submarines to judge when China will install LIBs for the electrical system.

SOUTH KOREAN ARTICLE

After using right-click mouse to translate the following Doga A.comSK article Pete has further translated it to more logical English.

The article’s author, Son Hyojoo hjson@donga.com, for Doga A.com, of March 23, 2017, reports http://news.donga.com/Main/3/all/20170323/83474430/1  

"Longer ~" First applied to domestic lithium battery, propulsion power for next generation submarine”

“The first [South Korean (SK)] submarines to be powered by LIBs will be 3 x 3000-class Jang Bogo-IIIs to be deployed by the SK Navy from 2030.

The SK Defense Agency announced that it held a detailed design review (CDR) meeting on July 23, 2016 on the applicability of a LIB system to the Jang Bogo-III (Submarine Placement-II [KSS-III Mark 2s?]). The detailed design review meeting was the final decision stage to determine the feasibility of LIBs for submarine and the possibility of producing a prototype.

"At this meeting, it was decided that the LIB system is suitable as the main propulsion power supply system for the Jang Bogo-III  (see Submarine Matters’ reference) B-II. [B-II can be taken to mean Mark 2] " Based on this, SK will lay the foundations for developing the LIB system in earnest.

If the submarine LIBs are successfully developed, performance will improve in many aspects such as energy density, battery life, submersible power, maintenance and so on compared with the lead-acid battery [LAB] system applied to existing SK developed submarines.

Samsung SDI is developing a lithium battery battery by participating in the project led by the next generation submarine project of the radiation agency[?]

[Comment – Is South Korea’s next generation submarine project a [South] Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) “radiation” project? Noting KAERI has a small 100MW reactor design known as “SMART”) This is also noting DSME has “Nuclear Propulsion Ship” on its “New Technology [Maritime] List”].

"The submarine-mounted lithium battery system is being developed in advanced submarine operating countries such as Germany, France and Japan,"said Chung Il-shik, chief of the next-generation submarine business. "We are already developing globally- It is meaningful to utilize it in. "

Doga A.com article Ends

TABLE

Anonymous has created the following Table of Advanced Batteries for Submarine by Generation.


Name
Composition or abbreviation
Energy density [kW/kg]
(theoretical)
Note
First Generation
LIB
Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide
LiNiCoAlO2 or NCA
260
27SS, 28SS
Lithium Cobalt Oxide
LiCoO2 or LCO
200 (1014)
Shinkai 6500
Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide
LiNiMnCoO2 or NMC
200

Lithium Manganese Oxide
LiMn2O4 or LMO
140 (410)
Proto-type by JMSDF
Lithium Iron Phosphate
LiFePO4 or LFP
120 (575)
LFYP (China) is family of LFP
Lithium titanate
Li4Ti5O12 or LTO
80
CEP- Japan
LAB
LAB

40

LSB
LSB

(ca.2500)

Second
Generation LIB
Lithium Ion Silicate
Li2FeSiO4
(1584)
High Safety, low cycle performance

Lithium Manganese Silicate
Li2MnSiO4
(1485)
High Safety, low cycle performance

COMMENTS

Anonymous commented: Second gen LIBs (Lithium Ion Silicate or Lithium Manganese Silicate) show excellent properties such as very high energy density and safety. Their main drawback may be low cycle performance. Studies to overcome this issue are being conducted.

Two routes of advanced battery development may be as follows:

Route 1  LABs --- First Gen LIBs --- Second Gen LIBs --- LSBs

Route 2  LABs--- First Gen LIBs --- LSBs

Pete Comment:I think TKMS is doing most of the design work for the KSS-III 3000-class Jang Bogo-III just as TKMS designed the KSS-ls and KSS-IIs.  But I think TKMS does not say it is involved in Jang Bogo-III design because of the cruise or ballistic missiles SK will install in Jang Bogo-IIIs. These missiles may be seen (by China and North Korea) as capable of (but not actually carrying) nuclear warheads.

The other German company Siemens might also say it is not helping with FC-AIP for SK because FC-AIP would make the Jang Bogo-III a more efficient missile carrying platform.

Anonymous and Pete
↧
↧

Peter Jennings' Australia-Japan Strategic Cooperation Commentary

March 29, 2017, 2:17 am
$
0
0
China is not the only country that claims and builds on islands, reefs and shoals in the South China Sea. Above is a map of the Spratly Islands, South China Sea. What looks like the US Stars and Stripes is, in fact, Malaysia's flag. The red flag with large star, dead center, is Vietnam's. Flat Island and Commodore Reef etc are claimed by the Philippines.
---

Peter Jennings, the Executive Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has written a thought provoking commentary, of March 29, 2017. The commentary is an “edited extract of a speech he delivered to the Japan Institute of International Affairs in Tokyo [on March 28, 2017]” 

His main themes are: challenges to the global order generally; especially in the Asia-Pacific, and the need for greater Australia-Japan strategic cooperation.

Some parts I disagree with but I agree with most.

I disagree on:

-  countries “quite explicitly challenging the rules-based order, specifically:
   :  “Russia invaded and annexed the Crimea in 2012 it broke a European norm”.  I think Russia has
      had a naval base/enclave in Crimea since 1783. The change of status/government in Ukraine 
      upset a strategically stabilising Russian influence. Russia used its power to retain the enclave.
      Significantly this Russian resistance is no worse than the US maintaining its enclave/naval base
      at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba even though the legitimate government of Cuba has opposed the
      base for decades. Equally the government of Spain has opposed the British enclave/base of 
      Gibraltar since 1727. Britain secured Gibraltar by force of arms in 1704.
   :  Iran has forces in neighbouring countries that may be even more legitimate than the concept of 
      great powers and middle powers far from that region injecting their naval, ground and air forces
      into the oil rich countries near Iran (especially Iraq and Syria).
   :  Israel is a constant disturbance to regional stability eg. in the Syrian (Golan Heights) territory and
      illegal Israeli settlements in "Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 including East
      Jerusalem". See United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 adopted on 23 December 2016.
      Israel's anti-rules based ownership of nuclear weapons gives Israel a feeling of immunity when it 
      is bombing targets in Syria and invading Lebanon. Israel's illegal ownership of nuclear weapons
      is also a major motivation for Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.
   :  China considers some South China Sea islands its own just as other countries (Vietnam, 
      Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei etc) in the region consider other South China Sea islands their own       and build structures on them (sea map above).

The most extreme challenger to the international order is North Korea but that goes unmentioned
  
I agree on:

-  Need to build closer military and strategic Australia and Japanese partnership for regional stability.
-  that ASEAN is not a strategic alliance hence fragmented and ineffective in holding China back
-  that Japan has much to be worried about China’s rapid military expansion in military capability. 
-  but even more so Japan should worry about North Korea’s rising nuclear military capability
-  useful common ground for Australia-Japan that includes:
   :  the uses and maintenance of F-35A, “Joint Strike Fighter”
   :  anti-submarine warfare,
   :  ballistic and cruise missile defences,
   :  maritime and air combat capability (eg. Aegis destroyers, maritime patrol aircraft, large
      reconnaissance UAVs etc)
      UAVs etc)
   :  space cooperation
   :  cyber offensive, defensive capability and cooperation.
   :  closer interoperability in all military functions with US and Japan
   :  special forces capabilities for counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency

With mention of “high-end military operations” - could this include submarine operations from Australia in the South China Sea and/or even into the East China Sea?

Agree that when President Trump visits Japan later in 2017 Turnbull (and his advisers) could be invited to participate in trilateral talks with Abe and Trump for two hours). China should be confident of its own place not to try to scuttle trilateral talks with more Demarches of the type that scuttled the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue in June 2007. Again, see Peter Jennings' commentary here.

Peter Coates
↧

Poland May Buy 2 Used Australian Frigates - HMAS Melbourne & Newcastle?

March 30, 2017, 12:43 am
$
0
0
COMMENTS

The Polish announcement of the possible sale to Poland of two used Australian Adelaide-class frigates (based on the US Oliver Hazard Perry-class) comes as a pleasant surprise.

The two frigates that might be sold to Poland, logically would be the two youngest Adelaides (that were built in Williamstown dockyard, Victoria, Australia (1985-1992)). They are: 
-  HMAS Melbourne (FFG 05) launched 1989, still operational in 2017, and
-  HMAS Newcastle (FFG 06) launched 1992, still operational in 2017,
Both have many types of armament including Standard SM-2 Block IIIA missiles from Mk 41 VLS launchers.

As the Adelaides are heavily based on a US design and subsequent upgrades the future, possible sale would presumably have US approval.

Poland is an especially valued US NATO ally - as Poland shares borders with:
-  the Russian naval-air-army base enclave of Kaliningrad (to Poland’s north - see map below), and
-  Belarus which hosts many Russian military forces (to the east of Poland)  
Poland also feels vulnerable on its Baltic coast from Russia’s Baltic fleet, from Russian missiles, jets and the ex-Red-now-Putin Army.

Since 2000 Poland has already been operating two former Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates:
-  ORP Generał Kazimierz Pułaski (272), and
-  ORP Generał Tadeusz Kościuszko (273)
Launched in 1978 and 1979 respectively and still operational.

These two Polish frigates would be compatible with the two Australian Adelaides in many ways, but they appear to have far fewer weapon and sensor upgrades than the Adelaides.

Poland sees the frigates as integral parts of Baltic defense and its strategy of long range power projection under NATO structures.

Also the two to four frigates might provide ballistic missile defense (BMD) using Polish platforms for SM-3 missiles - meaning  Poland would not be totally dependent on US provision of SM-3 BMD. Naturally an unlikely Iranian missile threat is advertised – not the more obvious threat from Putin's missile rattling.
  
DEFENSENEWS ARTICLE

Jaroslaw Adamowskifor DefenseNews, March 29, 2017 reports

“Poland eyes frigates from Australia, submarines”

WARSAW, Poland — Poland may purchase two Adelaide-class frigates, based on the Oliver Hazard Perry-class vessel, from Australia for its Navy, said Michal Jach, the chairman of the Polish parliament’s National Defence Committee.

“The acquisition of used Adelaide frigates from Australia would represent a major upgrade for Poland, it would raise the combat capability of our Navy,” Jach said at the Safety Forum 2017 conference in Szczecin, Poland, as reported by local news agency PAP. “These units were modernized and equipped with modern weapons and systems several years ago. After a good negotiation, we will have to pay several hundred million zloty for this. A fully equipped frigate is worth about U.S. $700 million...”

SEE WHOLE DEFENSENEWS ARTICLE.

See much larger/more readable image. Some of the upgrades to the Adelaide-class frigates. These include Mk 41 VLS which presumably could take SM-3 BMD missiles.
(Diagram courtesy Defense Industry Daily).
---

Poland has a long, sad history of being constantly under threat of invasion - then actually invaded. Russia remains the greatest ongoing threat (conventional and nuclear). Kaliningrad functions as the headquarters of the Russia's Baltic Fleet, ringed by Chernyakhovsk (air base), Donskoye (air base) and Kaliningrad Chkalovsk (naval air base) and hosts powerful Russian ground forces. 

Also making Poland nervous is Belarus. In Belarus Russia seems to be adding to the already powerful Russian military forces that Belarus hosts.

Pete
↧

Indian submarine update - Slow progress commissioning.

March 30, 2017, 11:10 pm
$
0
0
PETE COMMENT

India is facing a rapidly increasing submarine threat from:
-  Chinese SSNs and SSKs visiting (and perhaps patrolling) the Indian Ocean
-  2 x Ming SSKs just commissioned into the Bangladesh Navy, and
-  8 new S20s for Pakistan under construction over the next decade. This is in addition to Pakistan’s
   current force of 3 x AIP Agostas.

This gradually increasing regional submarine threat suggests India should speed up its launching and commissioning of new submarines. Of the few countries that build all submarine classes (SSKs, SSNs and SSBNs) China has a high defence budget [$215 Billion in 2015 (SIPRI)] - but SSN/SSBN development has still been slow. 

Like China India is a relative latecomer to submarine design and construction – so India, from a low base, needs to develop submarines quickly. India’s design, building and commissioning of SSKs, SSNs and SSBN has been even slower than China’s partly because India devotes a much lower budget to defence [only $53.6 Billion in 2015 (SIPRI)].

Pete has discussed the following with an Anonymous knowledgeable about Indian submarine matters.

SLOW SUBMARINE CONSTRUCTION

Since Pete wrote India's Plans for 21 More Subs including SSNs of August 24, 2014 India has only launched 2 Scorpenes of the Kalvari class though - none have been commissioned (yet).

[Pete Comment] India’s desire for 6 to 12 AIP SSKs under Project-75I (for India) may be obstructed by India’s (more precisely DRDO’s) desire that the winning submarine company should transfer advanced AIP technology to India. Advanced AIP secrets are tightly held due to their high strategic and commercial value.

[Pete Comment] The launch of India's first true SSBN, INS Aridhaman, was expected to occur as far back as late 2012/early 2013 but no recorded launch yet. INS Aridhaman is apparently ready to be launched and start trials later in 2017. I suspect the delay is in developing an efficient, quiet reactor for Aridhaman and the 3 x SSBNs to follow.

The reactor problems are also likely to be the main reason no progress has been made in the project to build 6 indigenous SSNs. I’ve read somewhere that the SSN program has been suspended until some SSBNs (starting with Aridhaman) have finally been commissioned. 

Anonymous advises - The Russians have not been very receptive to India’s need for SSN help. Russia has not permitted to lease Yasen type SSNs or handed over Yasen blueprints.

WEAPONS PROGRESS

While there has been only slow progress in launching submarines India has made greater strides in developing missiles for submarine launch. Missiles under development for submarine include

-  the BrahMos supersonic cruise (tested to 450 km with eventual range of 800 km) is capable of
   anti-shipping and (nuclear warhead) land attack. As of now BrahMos has been tested from
   underwater pontoons and will likely be installed on the Kilo subs initially. If the 6 to 12 future
   SSKs for Project 75I end up with VLS they may start with BrahMos initially.
-  the Nirbhay SLCM ( 1000 km initial up to 1500 km finally) for longer range land attack are. 
-  India is likely to fit K-15 SLBMs to its future SSBNs after initially fitting the BrahMos and 
   Nirbhay SLCM to Indian SSKs and SSBNs.

Aridhaman with  its 8 silos for K-4s will weigh at least 7000 tons. “Aridhaman needs a larger reactor.”

SLOW REACTOR PROGRESS

Following on from Indian Submarine Propulsion Reactor Needs - Arihant, Aridhaman & Chakra II of March 27, 2017. 

India (probably like China) is only making slow progress in developing powerful submarine reactors that are sufficiently quiet for stealthy operation. India has been heavily reliant, for decades, on Russian assistance for submarine reactors. But Anonymous advises “The [83 MW] PWR made by BARC for Arihant is inadequate.”

“I for one heard unverified news in Delhi last year that BARC has succeeded in providing close to 25,000 kW shaft horsepower which implies a 125-140 MW reactor... I am not ready to believe this as I mentioned before Russian help has slowed down despite [Indian Prime Minister] Modi [offering inducements of leasing] another Akula and [buying the] S-400 SAM system in 2016......" 

Pete Comment - So India is closely protecting the rate of its reactor progress and progress in developing nuclear hulls. Russian assistance in reactor development and testing also remains mostly classified. Only optimistic references to SSK building schedules and missile launchings are regularly publicised.

It is odd the above Youtube talks of INS Aridhaman currently being tested at sea and being inducted/commissioned in 2018. The oddity is that I have seen no reports of Aridhaman even being launched! Would politicians (Prime Minister? Defence Minister?) and other Indian VIPs pass up the opportunity to be reported present at the launch of India's first true SSBN?
---


Indian submarine numbers - with a wide gap between "Desired" and actually "Held" as at November 13, 2015. Numbers still current due to slow progress. (Diagram courtesy Indian Express).
---


Pete and Anonymous
↧
Viewing all 2347 articles
Browse latest View live
Search