Submarine & Other Matters

Charles Wallace and Martin Murphy writing for Berlin, Germany’s Handelsblatt GLOBAL [English for global commerce newspaper] November 22 2017, report.

"German Shipbuilder Rapidly Sinking

...ThyssenKrupp’s Achilles heel is...along the wharves and dry docks in the northern city of Kiel, where the skeletons of dozens of ships and submarines under construction by [TKMS] line the shore. Despite all the evidence of feverish activity, ThyssenKrupp’s shipbuilding division is in a mess. Sources at the company told Handelsblattthat the division suffered an operational loss in the financial year 2016-2017, and that the dire situation is unlikely to change going forward. As a result, company sources told Handelsblattthat division chief financial officer Evelyn Müller will depart the firm by the end of the year.

If every dry dock in Kiel is occupied with a ship or sub[marine] under construction, how could the company be losing money? Because of technical and planning bottlenecks and delays, almost every ship is finished well behind schedule. The company actually loses money every time the Dom Perignon bottle smashes on a hull at launch. “No submarine is delivered on time,” said one source at the company.

This sloppy management convinced the Australian government to award a €34-billion contract for a fleet of new submarines to France’s DCNS shipyards in 2016, a huge blow to ThyssenKrupp’s ambitions. After that fiasco, company management promised a complete overhaul of its business – but nothing much seems to have happened.

One reason for the division’s poor performance is that it was starved [of] new investment by the group’s executives, who hoped to sell the business. But the timing was not right and “now the division is unsellable,” said one source at the company. The lack of investment means the firm is using old equipment. One source said that plans for new ships were sometimes drawn on paper rather than using computer modeling, which is quicker, cheaper and more accurate.

An example is the delays that have beset an order from Turkey for six submarines. The first sub should have been delivered in 2015, but so far none of the subs is even finished. “The order has blown through every cost and time limit,” said one executive. Because of these delays, ThyssenKrupp is contractually obliged to pay the Turkish government a penalty, now thought to be over €100 million, according to the employee. Other delayed projects also have resulted in huge penalty payments.

A bigger headache may be the shipyard’s business with Israel, the company’s largest customer. It is currently building a submarine and four corvettes for the Israeli navy."

SEE WHOLE HANDELSBLATT ARTICLE

COMMENT

The Argentine Navy, to protect its reputation and its Government’s reputation, is remaining vague and dispensing false hope. Memories associating the naval disasters of the Malvinas/Falkland's War and the fall of the Argentine Government are still strong.

A submarine that explodes deep underwater, quickly implodes, leaving very small fragments which may take months to be detected (amongst older wrecked vessels and discarded metal) and would then need to be judged as the remains of San Juan.

On 24 November 2017:

"Argentine Navy spokesman Enrique Balbi said evidence showed "an anomalous event that was singular, short, violent and non-nuclear that was consistent with an explosion".

"According to this report, there was an explosion," Mr Balbi told reporters.

"We don't know what caused an explosion of these characteristics at this site on this date."

But he said the search would continue until there was full certainty about the fate of the ARA San Juan, which has been missing for nine days.

[But it took a former US Navy captain to clarify] “The implosion of a submarine that falls deeper than its "crush depth" would make such a sound”, according to one former US navy captain."

COMMENT

Despite worldwide recognition that a submarine explosion/implosion occurred the Argentine Navy is still pushing hope that the crew could have survived.

On 26 November 2017

"Asked by a reporter about the chances the crew may still be alive, Mr Balbi left that as a possibility.

"We've been searching for 11 days but that does not remove the chance that they could still be in an extreme survival situation," Mr Balbi said."

Balbi places himself in a patriotic pose in front of the Sun of May on Argentina's flag.

COMMENT

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) has advised that its hydrophones point to an extensive ellipse shaped search area, that is 100 to 200 km wide, off the Argentine coast. If CTBTO was the only hydrophone owner "100 to 200 km wide" would be bad news as such an area might take months or years to effectively search.

The explosion/implosion may have resulted in small rusting fragments, collecting barnacles and seaweed, that becomes steadily harder to "image" as a submarine.

Much depends on the US Navy, and maybe others, having hydrophones and other sensors closer to the action - that can privately point to a much smaller, hence more useful, search area.

ARTICLE

Gleaned from Davide Castelvecchi's report of 27 November 2017 for Nature magazine. According to CTBTO six of its underwater stations are equipped with hydrophones. Two stations picked up the alleged San Juan signal (see Map 1. below), including:
- one station at Ascension Island, slightly south of the equator in the Atlantic, and
- the other in the Crozet Islands in the Southern Indian Ocean, half-way between Africa and
Antarctica.

These two stations saw the same signal. So an approximate 100 to 200 kms wide search area can be deduced.

Map 1. CTBTO's hydrophones on 15 November 2017 detected what is considered San Juan's explosion/implosion where the blue lines cross. However these CTBTO detection points are very distant from San Juan, yielding the 200 km wide ellipse in red.
---

The fact that the sound was detected with a good signal-to-noise ratio at Ascension and also at Crozet - 6,000 to 8,000 kilometres away from the source - means the source of the noise was loud (like an explosion/implosion).

Map 2. - The ellipse closer up - presenting a wide search area, with the additional problem of three dimentional depth. CTBTO is still assessing the margin of error in its hydrophone "localisation".

Thanks Anonymous for your ongoing research. I've found it technically difficult to publish long Tables on blogger/blogspot. For that reason and to make output more topical I've divided the Submarine Propulsion Tables into three:

1. competitors to the West. They are North Korea, China, Russia and Iran.
: it is assumed North Korea is using old Russian propulsion designs
: China is happily buying MTU 396 and MTU 4000 submarine engines and building
MTU 4000 factories with European and UK (Rolls-Royce) help

: Russia seems to design and build its own diesels and motors, but, if its smart, it
should gain inspiration from any MTU/MAN designs and hardware available
: Iran, with its 3 older Russian built Kilo 877s would very likely rely on Russian
propulsion

2. Western and non-aligned countries, and

3. Australia (Collins and Future Submarine/Shortfin)

Submarine Propulsion Table 2^ndAttempt: Competitors to the West

Country/ Company	Type/ Details	Diesel engine	Motor, AIP (if fitted)	Alternatives
North Korea	Golf / Sinpo class derivative	1 to 3 E390ZC-1? Russian Golf class given to NK with 3 × diesels originally		MTU 16V396SE84 or MAN SEMT Pielstick
China	Ming class, Type 033	1 x E390ZC-1		MTU 16V396SE84 or MAN SEMT Pielstick
China	Song class (Type 039) & Yuan class (Type 039A or 41)	Likely use of 4 x MTU 16V396SE84 2 x MTU 20V4000M diesels are already being offered by China in its warships, eg. the P18 export version of China’s Type 056 corvette		16V diesel built by Yuchai Group see sources A and B or 12 cylinder MAN12PA4V200SMDSpage 6likely, given China now has a MTU 4000 factory and see MTU Report
Russia	Kilo class	2 x Kolomensky Zavod diesels see 2 1DL42 (ChN 30/38) last sentence& see whole document	1 x Elektrosila motor Russian	Likely to use 4 x MTU 16V396SE84 or Kolomensky Zavod dieselD500?
Russia	Lada/Amur class, just 1 testbed	1 or 2 x Kolomensky Zavod diesels V8D49 (and/or ED-2) ChN26/26 also see Russ site on D49	Elektrosila motor? on permanent magnets” AIP being developed	Kolomensky Zavod diesel D500?
Iran	Kilo class	2 x Kolomensky Zavod diesels see 2 1DL42 (ChN 30/38) last sentence& see whole document	Elektrosila motor?	Kolomensky Zavod diesel D500?

Pete and Anonymous

Due to the breakdown in the Argentine Navy's public relations process, evidence or rumours (depending on your inclinations) now point to this scenario.

Sea water entered San Juan through its snorkel. see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-28/ara-san-juan-water-entered-missing-argentine-subs-snorkel/9199446 of 28 November 2017

Comment - It is not unusual that a small amount of sea water through its snorkel can enter a submarine. But San Juan's snorkel pumping equipment may have been too old and faulty to remove the seawater before its volume became too much to handle. This has happened before with San Juan, but on 15 November 2015 became catastrophic.

On 15 November 2017 a San Juan crewman reported: "Entry of seawater by ventilation system to battery tank No. 3 caused a short circuit and the beginning of a fire in the balcony of battery bars, bow batteries out of service, at the time of immersion, propelling with a split circuit. I will keep staff informed," https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/11/28/Last-message-from-missing-Argentine-submarine-warns-beginning-of-a-fire/4701511880120/ of 28 November 2017.

Comment - Seawater in the snorkel system then entered San Juan's ventilation system, then gushed down to San Juan's batteries level. This seawater-battery contact produced hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas (once seawater caused electrical sparks ignite it) can then catch fire and explode.

Pete

Sources (but in particular North Korea’s Central News Agency (KCNA)) announced that a Hwasong-15 ICBM was test-fired at 3am Pyongyang time, November 29, 2017. It was launched near

Pyongsong, NK, and reached an altitude of 4,475 km over a flight distance of 950 km. It splashed down 53 minutes later at a planned point in the Sea of Japan. See MAP and Range Graph 1. below.

Wikipedia carries expert advice on the Hwasong-15 “Based on its trajectory and distance, the missile would have a range of more than 13,000 km (8,100 miles) – more than enough to reach Washington DC. and the rest of the US”. However preliminary calculations placethe range from 13,000 km on the high-end "with light to no payloads" to 8,500 km with more standard 500 kg nuclear payloads. See Range Graph 2. below.

COMMENT

With a "light to no payload" the Hwasong-15’srange indeed covers all of Earth's continents, except South America and Antarctica. So the Hwasong-15 could hit the city of Darwin Australia with a 500 kg nuclear warhead and Australia’s more southerly cities with a light to no payload.

Experts may be again under-rating the pace of North Korea’s ICBM-nuclear warhead advances when they“cast doubt on North Korea’s ability to master the technology needed to design a warhead capable of withstanding the enormous pressure of re-entry into the earth’s atmosphere and suggested the isolated country may still be years away from developing a credible delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon.”

MAP - Hwasong-15’s flight (Map courtesy CNN via Twitter 29 November 2017)
---

Range Graph 1. The Hwasong-15 ICBM's test-flight on November 29, 2017 (Diagram courtesy Australia's news(dot)com(dot)au on 29 November 2017)

---

Range Graph 2. Indicating Hwasong-15s of 13,000 km range with "light to no payloads"could hit Washington DC. and the rest of the US, (Courtesy many sources viaUS Public Radio International (PRI))

---

So should we be worried about North Korea's Hwasong-15s?

Pete

The Argentine Navy has ended the actual rescue effort for San Juan's crew, concluding “No one will be rescued”. There now remains a search effort for the wreck (or exploded/imploded fragments) of San Juan.

What Submarine Matters predicted on 18 November 2017 "Argentine Submarine San Juan Likely Sunk With All Hands" has unfortunately been accurate. Three days after San Juan went missing Submarine Matters commented:

"Generally and unfortunately submarines that have been "lost" for 2 to 3 days have sunk with all hands."

[may have been lost due to] "fire, explosion, flood or escape of poison gas can also occur due to malfunctioning of a sub's lead-acid batteries or torpedo propellant or warheads."

Seawater probably entered the snorkel mast (on and in the sail/fin/"conning tower")

- then followed the yellow line (see cutaway diagram above) into the ventilation system

- then gushed down due to pressure and gravity to the third "Electric batteries" bank (which is second

from the left - below the yellow line)

- saltwater in contact with these lead-acid batteries then caused a buildup of hydrogen

- that exploded due to rising hydrogen levels and short-circuit sparks.

(Diagram courtesy several sources above via REUTERS and International Business Times).

"Eternal Father, Strong to Save" The Navy Hymn for Submariners

Inspired by a most interesting article in DEFENCE CONNECT, 30 November 2017:

Two USAF B-1B Lancers have arrived at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland, Australia, as part of the US-Australia Force Posture Initiatives Enhanced Air Cooperation (EAC) program. The B-1Bs will be taking part in a training exercise with the RAAF. The Amberley Base has a long history with US Air Force squadrons.

"EAC activities involve short-term rotations of US aircraft through Australia for up to two months at a time. The first EAC activity commenced in February 2017 at RAAF Base Tindal [Northern Territory, Australia] with 12 USAF F-22 Raptors conducting combined training with RAAF F/A-18 Hornets." Tindal also has a long US history.

SEE THE WHOLE DEFENCE CONNECT ARTICLE

Also see Australian Defence Minister Payne's Media Release, 23 November 2017 "USAF B-1B Lancers to train with Royal Australian Air Force"

COMMENT

The EAC program demonstrates to potential opponents, like China and North Korea, that the US is Australia's ally and protector.

US fighters and bombers have defended Australia since the 1940s. This includes 10 USAAF Curtiss P-40 Warhawks that contributed to the defence of Darwin during the first Japanese air raid on Darwin on 19 February 1942. In that air raid there were 242 Japanese aircraft from 4 Japanese aircraft carriers and from land bases (see right sidebar).

Separately two B-1Bs demonstrated near North Korea, on or before May 2, 2017.

---

Pete

French magazine Mer et Marine (Sea and Marine in English) just over a year ago (October 7, 2016) published a very interesting article describing Naval Group's (was DCNS's) second-generation fuel cell (FC‑2G). That article is by Vincent Groizeleau at https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/submarines-dcns-unveils-fuel-cell-aip. Mer et Marine is a paysite with perhaps a limited number of free views of the article's many photos, diagrams and much more text.

The following is a summary of a small part of the article [with straight quotes where indicated]:

Naval Group’s Indret plant near Nantes, (in France) specialises in propulsion systems for the French Navy and for international customer navies. Since, around 2008, a team at Indret has worked secretly to develop a second-generation fuel cell AIP for submarine.

Naval Group's MESMA first generation AIP, now around 25 years old, [Pete comment...was partly successful. In MESMA a combustion chamber burns ethanol. This process is powerful but runs detectably hotter and for a shorter time than competing AIP technologies. Just 3 foreign submarines (that is 3 Pakistani Agosta-90Bs) are fitted with MESMA.]

(Diagram from Naval Group (was DCNS) via Mer et Marine)
---

Naval Group is therefore developing a second-generation fuel cell (with the acronym reversed in French being “FC‑2G”. In FC‑2G hydrogen is produced “[straight quote] from standard diesel fuel by chemical re-formation. In parallel with this effort, the group also developed a patented system to inject nitrogen into the oxygen supply line in the same proportion as in normal air resulting in a mixture that is far less reactive than pure oxygen. This ‘synthetic air’ is then injected into the fuel cells where it reacts with hydrogen to produce electricity.”

[Why FC-2G is better than competing approaches]

"[straight quote] Of the fuels considered by DCNS’s AIP engineers, fuel oil offered significant benefits over ethanol and methanol particularly in terms of safety: “methanol vapour is toxic in the event of a leak while ethanol is flammable at temperatures over just 13 to 14°C,” says Xavier Mesnet, a former submariner who today heads up the group’s Marketing and Development team. But this is not fuel oil’s only advantage. Fuel oil is easy to store and is the same as that used by conventional diesel-alternator sets. It is also readily available all over the world, and, “unlike hydrides, which require complex port and handling facilities, fuel oil is easy to store, purchase and transport”."

READ WHOLE MER ET MARINE ARTICLE

This 4 minute Youtube was published December 16, 2016. Presenters are Xavier Mesnet, Development and Commercial Support Director at Naval Group and Pauline Sibille, Naval Group Fuel Cell AIP Project Manager.
---

See current description of FC-2G on Naval Group's website as at November 4, 2017.

COMMENT

It would be interesting to know how much progress Naval Group has made since October 2016 in terms of packaging FC-2G for customer navies?
- Fitted or Retrofitted?
- For India's Navy for the Kalvari-class and Project-75(I)?
- any interest from the RAN for Australia's Future Submarine?

Pete

COMMENT

Since February 18, 2016“Submarine Implications of Woody andthe 3 Reef bases” Submarine Matters has been concerned about China laying Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) arrays on the seafloor: At that time I wrote:

“- For ASW and anti-shipping China can also string its undersea SeaWeb (SOSUS just part of it)
networks between the island/reefs and the Chinese mainland.”

ARTICLE

This concern about Chinese SOSUS has become more widespread.

On the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) The Strategist website Eli Huang from Taiwan has written a most interesting article which describes mainland China’s campaign to string SOSUS capable high speed undersea fibre optic cables between its recently militarised islands in the South China Sea.

The article “China’s cable strategy: exploring global undersea dominance” is dated
December 4, 2017. The following is just a small part of Ms Huang's article:

“...China sees cable networks as an essential element of its One Belt, One Road initiative. Undersea cables will ensure that Beijing is well placed to influence media and psychological operations as part of its ‘three warfares’ strategy. In the military arena, such a cable network creates a strategic advantage in anti-submarine warfare for the Chinese navy. It will form an irreplaceable part of China’s underwater observation system in the South China Sea. This ‘underwater great wall’ includes a number of subsurface sensors connected through optical cables to a central processing and monitoring facility in Shanghai. The system will function much like America’s SOSUS network, which employs fixed sensor arrays to detect Soviet submarines. A Chinese system could erode American undersea warfare advantages in the South China Sea.

Undersea cables have been described as Taiwan’s Achilles’ heel. In the event of a conflict across the Taiwan Strait, the cables will be prime Chinese targets: cutting them will cripple Taiwan’s international communications. And the damage wouldn’t be confined to Taiwan. There are at least 10 international submarine cables between Taiwan and Asia–Pacific countries. Damaging Taiwan’s cables would disrupt international business and financial markets, leading to severe economic effects on regional countries, including Japan, Singapore, Indonesia and Australia...”

Eli Huang is an assistant research fellow of the Prospect Foundation in Taiwan. She is also special assistant to Dr Chong-Pin Lin, former deputy minister of national defense in Taiwan. The views expressed in this post are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Prospect Foundation.

SEE THE WHOLE THE STRATEGIST ARTICLE

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

Separately from the Article. China's claimed islands are in red above, most are being miltarised with 100,000s tons of sand and concrete for sea ports and airports on which weapons are placed. Dual civilian-military use undersea cables can carry SOSUS arrays, For example, from Mischief Reef-Woody Island-Hainan Island-mainland China. (Map courtesy amti.csis, janes and lawfareblog).

---

Scroll across to the South China Sea on this TeleGeography-Huawei Marine Networks interactive submarine cable map to see how intense cable laying across the South China Sea is becoming.

Pete

As the seagull says - its interesting that since October 2017 none of the German Navy's fleet of six Type 212A submarines seem to be available for operations.

Drawing from a report of October 20, 2017 by Sebastian Sprenger for DefenseNews:

“Navy officials blame bottlenecks in the procurement of spare parts for the submarines’ downtime. While a comprehensive package of spare parts was a key aspect of any new acquisition during the Cold War, cost-saving measures adopted since then have resulted in parts no longer being kept in reserve....”

Of the German Navy’s 6 subs “U-Boote”:

U-31 is being overhauled at TKMS’s Kiel shipyard until December 2017 or is that 2018?

Is U-31 operational yet?

U-32 is out of service, awaiting a maintenance spot at TKMS’s Kiel shipyard

U-33 is being overhauled at TKMS’s Kiel shipyard until February 2018

U-34 is out of service, awaiting a maintenance spot at TKMS’s Kiel shipyard

U-35 was moved into TKMS shipyard at Kiel after an X-plane rudder blade was damaged during a

diving manoeuvre off Norway on October 15, 2017. Damage to be repaired by?

U-36 is being overhauled at TKMS’s Kiel shipyard until May 2018

GERMAN SOURCES

Germany's shz.de online on October 20, 2017 reported once translated into English:
"SPARE PARTS BOTTLENECK: Marine misery: Germany's submarines are all broken" (in German the article says "kaputt"). To translate this German language article Right-click mouse, then "Translate to English".

As at December 2, 2017 the situation does not appear to have improved https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutsche-u-boote-101.html

Are any of Germany's submarines available or operational as of December 6, 2017?

Pete

It is well known Israel has nuclear weapons and considers Iran its main future nuclear threat. But what issues is Israel facing with its main first and second strike platforms - the Dolphin submarines?

Launch Points

To assure a future nuclear armed Iran that Israel’s submarines could destroy Iran in a second strike Israel requires sound geographical deployments (see map below). As Israel’s Dolphin submarinebase at Haifa is on the eastern Mediterranean this provides unimpeded access to a second strike launch zone (say) 30 nautical miles (nm) offshore. There is the great advantage of only a short time (2 or 3 hours) from leaving Haifa to arriving at a launch point.

Other close options for launch points, eg. the Red Sea or Gulf of Aqaba, would take days and are easily blocked in time of war. The Suez Canal and Red Sea were both blocked in the Arab-Israeli wars of 1956 and 1967. These waterways are too shallow and/or narrow to be submarine friendly.

Submarine passage through the Suez Canal by international law must, very indiscreetly for a submarine, be on the surface. The risks that an Iranian Kilo submarine or aircraft might intercept a Dolphin are very real, as a Dolphin exits south from the Suez Canal or Red Sea.

This leaves the Arabian Sea, off Iran’s southern coast, as the only other, barely viable, launch zone. But major problems are arduous voyages over excessively long distances. This all complicates calculations of lead times and reduces Israel’s ability to plausibly threaten Iran with a second strike.

From Haifa, via the Suez Canal and Red Sea, to the middle of the Arabian Sea a return trip is just over 6,000nm and takes 30 days at a rapid snorkelling speed of 10 knots. For distance calculations see. With the Dolphin’s “maximum unrefuelled range [of] 8,000 nautical miles” this leaves little fuel for operating on station or fleeing pursuers. Refuelling from a submarine tender or friendly base (if there is one) may well be necessary. Refuelling becomes highly specialised if a Dolphin II also needs AIP chemicals. Refuelling has to take into account the possible need for emergency high-speed tactics, which burn up fuel rapidly.

If the narrows to the south of Israel are blocked or unusable for other reasons then the longer route, via the Strait of Gibraltar and around South Africa (Cape of Good Hope) is even further. This means 12,000nm over a 50 day transit (one-way). This adds up to (2 x 50 days) + 30 days on station = a 130 day mission. For a conventional submarine with only 35 to 45 crew this would be too exhausting, leading to major drops in efficiency and safety. Three indiscrete refuelling and reprovisioning cycles would likely be required.

Missiles

Perhaps the simplest way to avoid distant launch point operations is to increase the range of the Dolphin’s nuclear tipped land attack missiles. But details of these missiles are unclear. Israel advertises its SLCM as an unlikely and major modificationof the Popeyeair to surface missile (also see this reference). The Israeli SLCM is advertised to have a range of 1,500km. They may be:

1. long and one-stage rocket propelled allowing them to operate at the edge of space at least at

supersonic speed over their whole trajectory. Speed and high altitude would make them more

difficult to shoot down. But having sufficient range from undersea launch and with a sufficient payload are major technical hurdles of such small rockets. Or

2. Israel’s answer to the US Tomahawk SLCM. Drawbacks are SLCMs' subsonic speed and

relatively low and vulnerable altitude would limit their value as second strike weapons.

My theory is the so-called “Popeye Turbo”, as it applies to an alleged SLCM, is a cover name developed by Israel and the US for an Israeli derivative of the US Tomahawk. A derivative created by US Tomahawk scientists/technicians who retired to Israel, assisted by Israel’s well known talent for technical intelligence gathering.

An alternative theory is that “Popeye Turbo” is a small SLBM tested by Israel in the Indian Ocean in 2002. This was a test also involving India. India at a minimum could have provided Israel with a launchpad, testing airspace and sea-space because Israel testing SLBMs in the Mediterranean or close waters would meet much international political resistance. Perhaps a deal included Israel assisting India in developing the mini-SLBM Sagarika/K-15. To control publicity the 2002 missile test was plausibly witnessed by the US, probably after being alerted to watch it.

Israel’s “Popeye Turbo” SLCM, miniature SLBM or Israeli Tomahawk may well be launched through the Dolphins’ horizontal 650mm torpedo tubes. Such missiles from launch zones 30nm west of Haifa can already hit Tehran.

Conclusions

If Israel’s next class of three submarines (Dolphin 3s?) are largerthan the current Dolphin 2s, then larger, longer range missiles might be mounted.

Israel’s Dolphins would very likely launch their SLBMs or SLCMs from the Mediterranean Sea because alternative launch points involve indiscrete movement, choke points and/or excessively long voyages.

One day Australia might need to consider similar issues Israel is facing now, that is second strikes using missiles mounted on conventional (for Australia “Future”) submarines.

Pete

KQN made interesting comments on December 5, 2017 on China's undersea surveillance system, islands and missiles. This Chinese surveillance system relies on hydrophones and other undersea sensors backed up by confirmation and weaponised patrols by Chinese submarines, surface ships and aircraft.

I will first refer to the low earth orbiting (LEO) portion of China's undersea surveillance system. Hydrophones can "cue" LEOs, that is "alert" LEOs that a potential target has been detected by hydrophones and the target's approximate location. The latest Chinese LEOs are probably the Chinese Yaogan-30 reconnaissance / "spy" satellites - the subject of today's post below.

Drawing on: Satellite Observation December 3, 2017 and N2YO .

China launched (see coverage paths above courtesy Satellite Observation):

- 3 Yaogan-30s on September 29, 2017 (dubbed the green Yaogan-30-01 triplet)

- 3 more Yaogan-30s on November 24, 2017 (the red"Yaogan-30-02" triplet), and

- 3 more Yaogan-30s are expected to be launched soon (dubbed the future blue Yaogan-30-03"
triplet).

All 6 satellites (and 3 later) will have a 600km low earth orbit (LEO) with a 35° inclination.

Satellite Observation has an interesting analysis:

- each triplet is not flying in close formation so this suggests they are not used for signal intelligence
triangulation to pinpoint the source of an electromagnetic signal (eg. a surface ship).
- Each of the 3 satellites in each triplet are too far away for triangulating signals, since the satellites
are not even in line of sight of each other.
- also at 600 km this is below the 1000km optimal orbit for signal intelligence satellites
- instead each satellite of each triplet have been phased 120° apart, providing maximum revisiting
- 3 x 3 revisits means a high revisit rate (almost constant)
- high revisits from a 600km orbit suggests small optical [Comment also perhaps including infra-red
for night and synthetic aperture radar (SAR)) satellites to see through rain and shallow water].

The observation is made: "...the satellites have a good coverage of the Pacific, India, China, North Korea and even Japan, but the most northern and southern parts of the globe are not covered: the satellites spend their time in the band of latitudes relevant to Chinese national security concerns...In conclusion, the Chinese are building a high-revisit constellation, in all likelihood for tactical use."

See MORE TEXT AND DIAGRAMS ON THIS AT SATELLITE OBSERVATION

COMMENT

Perhaps likely optical/infra-red naval viewing targets include surface ships, surfaced submarines and even snorkels. Other sensors including SAR might be useful detecting shallow running submarines including submarine wakes.

Technical advances in China's reconnaissance satellites may one day make (non-AIP) conventional submarines, like Australia's, that need to regularly snort, unviable.

Other viewing targets may be stealth aircraft, SLBMs and SLCMs being launched and in flight.

Pete

Most countries have or crave tanks, except the Vatican, which boasts an armoured,
airmobile, Popemobile.

Developed countries usually have at least one heavyweight main battle tank (MBT) type for urban warfare, deserts and the ideal tank country of rolling hills. Countries with large enough defence budgets can afford some specialised tank types.

China's increasingly large defense budget affords light tanks for muddy, slushy, snowy, mountain warfare and jungle warfare. China's latest notable light tank is the VT5.

The VT5 saves weight by having "...an automatic bustle-mounted ammunition loading system, which allowed [it] to reduce the crew to 3 men.

...Due to its light weight the VT5 is much more mobile than [Chinese] main battle tanks, such as Type 96 and Type 99. It can be used in mountainous areas that are not accessible to main battle tanks. For example the Indian T-72 orT-90 main battle tanks [tellingly] can not go high in to the mountains. At high altitudes air becomes thin and their engines start to loose power. So high in the mountains the new Chinese tank should not encounter any heavily-armored opponents.”

The VT5, on display at an arms bazaar, has pixelated camouflage because enemy sensors take longer to detect a vehicle with such camo and it looks good. (Photo courtesy Military-Today)

To the right of the VT5 is another armoured vehicle in rather loud blue pixelation, perhaps not strictly for camouflage. A Business Insider author describes the blue camo thus: China “unveiled a shocking maritime camo scheme on a variety of armoured vehicles and missile batteries [see at 1min 40secs] in their September 3, 2015 military parade. The blue pixelated camo makes little sense for land combat vehicles, even an amphibious vehicle would lose its need for a bright blue camo scheme as soon as it left the water. Perhaps the Chinese chose the colour scheme to signal a rhetorical shift in the focus of their armed forces on naval strength.”.

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

Separately China’s one stop shop for weapons’ sales, NORINCO, let the VT5 light combat tank strut its stuff in August 2017. Military attaches of 50 countries were awed beyond gobsmacking by the VT5 display of great Middle Kingdom tank craftsmanship. This was at a tank racing circuit in China’s Inner Mongolia autonomous region. The VT5 can do 70 km/h - significantly faster than contemporary British and German tanks.

---

Pete

Image courtesy Times of India.

---

Hi Donors

I've just emailed you the December 2017 Donor Report: INS Kalvari Commissioned December 14, 2017.

Leadin - "Twelve years after the 6 x SSK Project-75 began INS Kalvari (S50) has finally been commissioned, on December 14, 2017, by Prime Minister Modi. France’s Naval Group was chosen in 2005 to build the six Project-75 Scorpenes at Mumbai – with the subs becoming the Kalvari class.

Twelve years might be an average time to design and commission a new submarine type, but the Kalvari class Scorpene design is mostly off-the-shelf."

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

Regards

Pete

Director

Submarine Matters International

On December 15, 2017 Defence reporter Andrew Greene at Australia’s ABC News Online, wrote:

“...Australia's $50 billion Future Submarines program has been hit by allegations of fraud, with [an Australian] Commonwealth official being investigated for misappropriating funds.

The investigation has been confirmed by senior defence officials following questioning from South Australian Senator Rex Patrick during a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra.

"Defence is conducting an investigation into some allegations in relation to financial management," [Australian] Defence Department Secretary Greg Moriarty told the committee.

"I don't want to go into further detail while there is a proper process underway," Mr Moriarty added.

It is believed the Defence Department employee under investigation was involved in the establishment of Australia's Future Submarine Office in France.

The secure facility in Cherbourg houses submarine designers, naval architects and engineers, bringing together staff from France's Naval Group (formerly DCNS), and Lockheed Martin as well as the Australian government....”

SEE REST OF THE ABC ARTICLE

I wonder if Prime Minister Turnbull knew about the fraud issue when he openned the Australian Future Submarine program office at Cherbourg in July 2017? "Cherbourg, France, July 9, 2017 – Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and Lockheed Martin Australia today welcomed the official opening of Australia’s Future Submarine Office by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in the presence of the French Ministry For The Armed Forces, Florence Parly." (Details and photo courtesy Naval Group Australia)

---

PETE COMMENT

The submarine industry worldwide recieves more than its fair share of corruption and bribery allegations.

As the “secure facility in Cherbourg” conducts higher than merely Top Secret work any corruption is a worry.

Poor program security already and the possibility of foreign agents blackmailing or bribing corrupt officials working in such a facility is a worry.

Pete

India’s 6,000 tonne INS Arighatprototype SSBN launch on November 19, 2017 is less of a surprise when one considers GhalibKabir’s adviceon December 12, 2017 that INS Arihantand another 6,000 tonne nuclear sub (now known as Arighat) were under construction since 2006. Their reactor specifications were apparently frozen at 83MW, meaning they could not be built much larger than 6,000 tonnes - if a cruising speed around 20kt was maintained.

Perhaps the need for a continual high level of SSBN budgetary funding prompted Indian SSBN builders to disseminate large Aridhaman propaganda for so long. Propaganda could also be seen as public relations (PR). As early as July 14, 2014 Aridhamanwas to be “launched into water soon”. Submarine Matters as early as August 24, 2014 doubted the ambition of India's SSBN and SSN programs.

So the non-appearance of a much larger INS Aridhaman SSBN may be due to India’s current inability to produce a reactor much more powerful than 83MW. Another limitation seems to be the immaturity of any 7,000km range SLBM (called K-5 or K-6). So India is not indulging in a rush program to produce a 13,000 tonne SSBN large enough to mount K-6s.

India’s SSBN Program at its most basic seems to have several requirements including sufficient reactor power, SSBN size to accommodate large enough SLBMs to carry a sufficient payload over a sufficient range. More specifically:

A. Develop, test and fine tune 2 x 6,000 tonne prototypes (INS Arihant and INS Agrihat) and

then

B. launch 2 small 7,000 tonne SSBN by 2022 which will have 8 x (very limited 3,500km range K-4s) 1.3m diameter, 10m long. The medium range K-4 can reach only a limited number of significant targets within China– these include:

Suspected Chinese IRBM hardened silos and TEL hiding places

The PLA’s Western and Southern Theatre Command HQs and troop concentrations

See Southwest China map for provincial capitals with comparatively large southwest Chinese populations, including:

- Tibet provincial capital Llasa with population about 1 million

- Yunnan provincial capital Kunming with about 7 million people and

- Sichuan provincial capital Chengdu with about 15 million

- Guangxi provincial capital Nanning 7 million

- Guizhou provincial capital Guiyang with about 5 million

For a 7,000 tonne SSBN it is preferable to use a slightly uprated 90 MW reactor. This is possible, assuming 6,000 tonne Arihant of 83MW reactor is a development of the Russian 70MW - 90MW VM-4 reactor. Hydronamic improvements can be made to the sail/fin and pump jet propulsor or a slower cruising speed may be acceptable

and/or

C. skip the 7,000 tonne SSBNs and go straight to 13,500 tonne SSBNs powered by an Indian-Russian development of Russia’s well used Russia 190 MWt OK-650 reactor. A 13,500 tonne SSBN needs the capability to launch, from Bay of Bengal bastion waters, a true 7,000km intercontinental SLBM with warheads in range of Beijing. Specifically 12 x K-6 SLBMs, 12m long, 2m diameter.

Maybe the above US SLBM comparitive image is useful if K-4 can be equated to a light warhead Polaris A2 and the K-6 equated to a Trident I C4. This would mean the K-6 would be over twice the overall K-4 SLBM weight. (Image and broader data is at the FAS website).

---

SLOW PROJECT?

India may not need to develop SSBNs at a cracking US vs Soviet Union Cold War pace because India's main SSBN opponent, China, is not developing SSBNs quickly. This is as far as overt sources can know. Also one must remember China launched the first of its nuclear submarines (Type 091s) in 1970. Balanced spending, that satisfies Indian civilian expectations, is essential in that democracy.

Pete

Thanks to Anonymous's 2 comments of 20 December 2017 on which this Submarine Matters article is based. Following a Norway-German government-to-government agreement signed in June 2017 Norway and mainly Germany’s TKMS are producing 6 new Type 212CDs. CD means Common Design. Earlier, in February 2017, the 212CD purchase decison was referred to a Type 212NG.

This article discusses the pros and cons of having an extra diesel engine for the new Type 212CD.

Naval Today, on November 1, 2017 reported“According to TKMS, the class 212CD will combine the low signatures of the class 212A with extended range, speed and endurance to allow worldwide operations.”

A German language Kieler Nachrichten article of December 7, 2017 (once translated) reported“…..it is planned that six identical submarines of the new class 212CD will be procured [4 for Norway and 2 for Germany]. The [German Navy’s] 1st submarine squadron currently has six Class 212A boats. Through the cooperation with the Norwegians, the [German Navy’s numbers will increase] to eight submarines. The first new addition is scheduled for 2027.”

An increase in a submarine's speed may be achieved by reduction of hydrodynamic resistance and increase in propulsive power. As 212CDs are based on 212As (which already have very low hydrodynamic resistance) greater speed can be mainly achieved by increased propulsive power.

Possible propulsive measures include more powerful diesels, motor and lithium-ion batteries (LIBs).

- The 212CD may use the Type 214's 2 x MTU 16V-396diesels (amounting to 3.96 MW) much higher than the Type 212A's 1.2MW (see Table page 3) diesel

- these 2 diesels could work to a Type 214's 2.85MW Siemens Permasyn Motor. This would be an

increase over the 212A’s existing 1.7MW Siemens Permasyn Motor, and

- Lithium Iron Phosphate LIBs may be relied on to give 212CDs high power when fully submerged.

- A low power fuel cell AIP may be retained or dispensed with.

So, the single diesel generator on the 212A (though it permits miniaturisation in the Baltic) may be replaced by a more powerful two diesel generator arrangement. Favouring two diesels is:

- Extra power necessary to generate enough electricity for LIBs.

- Two diesels are more reliable if one breaks down.

- Two also provide the option of servicing one diesel at sea while the other continues to operate.

The trade offs of using different one or two diesel generators arrangements are as follows:

- Current beam (6.8m)/ one generator [low power] but keeps the 212 usefully compact

- Current beam (6.8m)/ parallel two generators [lack of repair "elbow" room - bad for

maintainability]
- Current beam (6.8m)/ tandem two generators [extends length of whole submarine]
- Wider beam/ parallel two generators [requires redesign of whole submarine]

Using MTU12V4000 instead of current MTU16V396

Although a major change to two diesels was canvassed above, a less radical solution may be the use of just one MTU12V4000. Just one diesel is an important requirement of the German Navy to keep 212s small enough to handle or exploit Baltic conditions. For example a 212 only 57m long can sit in to smaller holes in the Baltic seafloor than a 214 that is 65m long. A shorter submarine can also turn more sharply on its axis (without hitting rock obstructions) than a longer submarine.

A 212CD equipped with one MTU12V4000 not two MTU16V396s may be still LIBs capable. Having just one MTU12V4000 diesel also makes it easier to adopt a TKMS's future Methanol Reforming FC AIP. Many common features and spare parts between 212As and 212CDs also means lower through life costs

Comparing the MTU12V4000 and MTU16V396

MTU12V4000s are more powerful than MTU16V396s. Increased power is particularly important given the higher-faster charging capabilities of LIBs.

For the quotes below try opening http://www.tognum.com/fileadmin/fm-dam/tognum/press/2011/MTU_Submarine_Charging_Unit_12V_4000.pdf which reports:
- “A submarine charging unit with a 12V4000 submarine engine does have smaller dimensions

compared to a 16V 396 SE design. However, the mechanical power [of a MTU12V4000] is

noticeably increased to 1,300 kilowatts (kW) at 1,800 rpm.”

- “Another major design objective was the reduction of the specific fuel consumption [sfc]

[of MTU12V4000s] in combination with greater operating flexibilities for different scenarios.”

- “The new engine foot for [the MTU12V4000] includes an integrated shock limiter. Its compact and

easy to install design results in very low effects of the foot’s dynamic behavior on the structure-

borne noise signature of the engine.”

Alternatively open BMT Defence Services Ltd’s “SUBMARINE POWER AND PROPULSION: BALANCING THE ENERGY ELEMENTS”https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6097995/BMTDSL-Sub-Power-and-Propulsion-Confpaper-Pacific-Jan12.pdfand especially note the tables in the first 3 pages.

Pete Comment

If the MTU12V4000 in operational practice proves as powerful, efficient and reliable as hoped it will be a good replacement for the MTU16V396 and other diesels.

Mainly Anonymous and (a bit) Pete

The wreck of HMAS AE1, Australia's first submarine, has been found 103 years after it was lost on September 14, 1914 in waters just north of Australia. AE1 was the first Allied [1] submarine lost in World War I. AE1's disappearance marked Australia's first WWI disaster. AE1 had 35 crew, drawn from Australia, New Zealand and Britain.

[1] Germany's SM U-15 was the first submarine sunk in WWI, on August 9, 1914.

The 2017 search team succeeded in finding AE1 using a survey ship, deep water cameras and a UUV with Side-scan sonar floating 40m above the seafloor. More funding, a reduced search zone due to previous searches, side-scan technology and possibly magnetometers, made the difference.

AE1 was found in more than 300m of water. 300m was way below AE1's 61m (see sidebar) "test depth" so the end likely came quickly, from extreme water pressure, in an implosion.

The discovery solves Australia's oldest naval mystery.

That finding AE1 took 103 years may be an indicator how difficult and prolonged the search for Argentina's ARA San Juan may be.

HMAS AE1 sunk in Papua New Guinea's, Duke of York islands. The search was funded by the Australian government including the Australian National Maritime Museum. Also funded by the Silentworld Foundation and Find AE1. (Map courtesy BBC)
---

HMAS AE1 was a UK built E-class submarine sold to the RAN. The “A” designates Australian vessel.

At 55m long, 760t (surfaced) and 810t (submerged) AE1 was a large submarine for 1914. Her 3,000nm (5,600 km) range at 10 knots made her semi-ocean going.

HMAS AE1. (Photo courtesy Sea Power Centre via Australia's ABC).

---

Deep water camera photo of AE1 on the seafloor deeper than 300m. (Image courtesy the Australian Government via the BBC).
---

There was no concerted search for AE1 in 1914 because Australia was busy fighting WWI and in 1914 there was no sonar gear to search for sunken submarines. Searches for the wreck began in 1976, but found nothing until late 2017.

From Wikipedia– “Several factors have been identified as increasing the difficulty of finding AE1.

The volcanic nature of the region has resulted in a rugged and highly variable underwater topography, with a high frequency of wreck-like acoustic anomalies. Much of the region is deep water, limiting the number of techniques and tools that can be used to locate and verify shipwrecks.

Volcanic activity can also disrupt the local magnetic field, affecting the operations of magnetometers. Eruptions and underwater earthquakes cause the underwater landscape to change, and have the potential to break up or bury a shipwreck.

Due to heavy military activity around New Guinea during World War II, along with the disposal of ships in later years, there are large numbers of other shipwrecks (both located and unknown) in any potential search area.”

The Australian Government has (or is) designating the AE1 site a war grave, in cooperation with the Government of Papua New Guinea.

Pete

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

Christmas feasts are frequently in the cooler evening on December 25. often with cold seafood (especially prawns/shrimp on the barbie), cold ham and warm turkey and cold beer.

I miss the really cold christmases in germany were i spent two years in 1965-66.

a collins sub enjoys a tropical sunset at christmas

---

SURFIN SANTA AND FRIENDS IN AUSTRALIA

-------

A CHRISTMAS BEACH wildlife SCENE IN AUSTRALIA
---

a christmas carol of brotherhood, even between strategic competitors
---

have a merry, safe and caring CHRISTMAS in submarineland :)

Pete

TKMS Lost Australia's Submarine Competition for Good Reasons

Argentine Navy Dispensing False Hope

Wide Search Area for San Juan May Take Months/Years

Germany & Rolls-Royce Help China - Best Diesels for Submarines

Water Enters Snorkel, Reaches Batteries, Hydrogen Gas Explodes

North Korean Hwasong-15 Barely An ICBM "with light to no payload"

Argentine Navy Ends Submarine Rescue Effort - Just Searching Now

US Bombers and Fighters Defending Australia

Naval Group's Second Generation Fuel Cell (FC-2G) AIP Progressing

Chinese's SOSUS in South China Sea On Dual-Use Cables

With Few Spares Germany's 6 Submarines Are Broken "Kaputt"

Israel's Dolphin Submarine Nuclear Strike Issues

China's LEOs Work With Its Undersea Surveillance System

China's VT5 Light Tank Superior to Indian, British & German - Sometimes

December 2017 Donor Report: INS Kalvari Commissioned December 14, 2017

How Secure is the Australian Future Submarine Facility at Cherbourg, France?

India’s Arighat Prototype Limited by Reactor Power & Missile Maturity

The TKMS Type 212CD - MTU12V4000s vs current MTU16V396s

Australia's HMAS AE1 Submarine Found After 103 Years

Hot Merry Christmas From Australia 2017