Submarine & Other Matters

As a contrast to the usual submarine matters, here is an Australian Report partly about Australia’s “SEALs” officially known as the “Clearance Diving Team”.

Also mentioned is that Australians were quietly training in the Middle East in 2002 for the invasion of Iraq - a year before the actual invasion.

A problem identified by the Report is that the poor treatment of the divers "SEALs""is blamed on an international private contractor that "prioritised its clients by profit potential"."

The news article (below) is by Australia’s government owned ABC Newsdated November 26, 2018 and its link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-26/iraq-war-secrets-revealed-in-newly-declassified-report/10553150

PHOTO: A member of the Australian Navy's Clearance Diving Team 3 [aka: “SEALs”] in Iraq in 2003. (Photo courtesy the Australian War Memorial via ABC News.)

---

"Australian Defence Force's Iraq war secrets revealed in newly declassified report

By ABC defence reporter Andrew Greene November 26, 2018

A secret Army study has detailed the widespread logistical problems faced by Australian forces in Iraq 15 years ago.

“Key points:

· An elite Navy diving team had three sets of clothes and no laundry for three months

· A combat support squadron was deployed "without … combat body armour and camouflage clothing"

· Professor says the secrecy of the planning around Australia's involvement in Iraq led to issues”

The report, obtained by the ABC and marked "for Australian eyes only", revealed how frontline troops were often without crucial supplies for battle and military commanders struggled to get the personnel required.

According to the 156-page document there were also deep concerns about a vaccination program for soldiers that was described as "poorly thought out".

The research, to be declassified today, was compiled by Albert Palazzo of the Australian Army's Land Warfare Studies Centre.

Dr Palazzo's report, completed in 2008, concludes the Navy's elite Clearance Diving Team 3 endured the worst logistical support, and its members were treated like "second-class citizens".

University of New South Wales Professor Clinton Fernandes, who first secured the secret study, said it detailed how ADF personnel were quietly dispatched to US CENTCOM headquarters in Florida in 2002 to begin planning the Iraq war, a year before [Australian Prime Minister] John Howard announced Australia's involvement.

"What the document shows is that the Howard Government had decided early in 2002 that it was going to join the United States in any operation in Iraq whatever it might be, but it couldn't admit this to the public or even to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at large," he said.

"So only a few people within a very tight planning compartment were told about it.

"They had to plan in seclusion from the rest of the defence force — as a result there were lots of logistical problems."

No camouflage gear for combat support squadron.

Getting Australian personnel and equipment to the Middle East proved difficult, according to the report, because of the RAAF's "complete lack of strategic transport capability"
[Pete Comment: Australia did not acquire C-17A Strategic transport aircraft until 2006. The Hercules available in 2002 lacked sufficient range/speed/carrying capacity.]
and the government's "inability to provide the ADF with a clear indication of its intentions and a timetable for the commitment of forces".

"By failing to make a timely announcement on the nation's participation, the Howard government succeeded in boxing itself into a corner, while at the same time abdicating one of its few strategic decision opportunities to the United States," Dr Palazzo wrote in his report.

The report describes how "commanders also encountered problems in getting the staff they wanted", often because the people with the "optimum skills" did not have valid [often diplomatic] passports and visas .

[Pete Comment: similar visa/exemption problems which required diplomatic passports for Australian Defence Force personnel recurred as a controversial issue as late as 2014].

Dr Palazzo describes force preparation as "inconsistent" and notes that units were deployed with "different levels of equipment".

"The Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron deployed without key personnel items including individual protection equipment, combat body armour and camouflage clothing," the report reads.

No laundry or fresh clothes for 'second-class' divers

According to Dr Palazzo, "the unit with the most poorly thought-out logistic plan, and the recipient of the worst supportduring the deployment"was the Royal Australian Navy's elite Clearance Diving Team 3.

His report said it did not take the divers long to get the "impression that they were second-class citizens as far as logistics were concerned".

Much of the poor treatment of the divers is blamed on an international private contractor that "prioritised its clients by profit potential".

[Pete comment: For that important information see page 100 of the Report - unfortunately Totally Redacted I'm afraid :-) As revealing this information would breach Section 33(a)(iii) of “FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 -

SECT 33 [being]

Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations

A document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act:

(a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to:

(i) the security of the Commonwealth;

(ii) the defence of the Commonwealth; or

(iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth [of Australia];”]

"During their three months in Iraq, the divers did not receive a change of cloths (sic)," the report reads.

"They deployed with three sets of camouflage and lived in them for the duration. There were no laundry facilities at any of their locations in Iraq."

The "controversial and poorly thought-out" vaccination program to protect Australian personnel from biological weapon attacks is also heavily scrutinised in the document.

"News of the inoculation program came as a surprise to most of the troops awaiting deployment or already in the Gulf," the report reads.

"For some it caused considerable angst." [Article Text Ends]

See the actual declassified 156 page Report at Document Reader (at the bottom of the ABC News article) on which the ABC News article is based. Report is [Freedom of Information] FOI 027/18/19 declassified from SECRET AUSTEO report by Albert Palazzo “DEPLOY, SUSTAIN, RETURN AUSTRALIAN LOGISTICS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ” [Australian Army] Land Warfare Studies Centre, January 2008, at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-26/iraq-war-secrets-revealed-in-newly-declassified-report/10553150

Putin's Northern Fleet floating some time BEFORE it sank. Could it be Peter the Great battlecruiser (?) inside it.

---

It was early morning October 30, 2018 in Roslyakovo, within Russia's massive Northern Fleet complex a crane accident damaged Russia carrier Kuznetzov. At the same time Russia's largest, 80,000 tonne floating dock sank.

It has been left to Russia’s Minister of Industry and Trade, Denis Manturov (not the publicity averse Minister of Defense it seems!) to explain the floating dock will itself be refloated. But poor Denis doesn’t know when.

The floating dock is important because it helps maintain Russia’s nuclear propelled battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy (aka Peter the Great) currently involved in nuclear missile testing. The dock is also likely involved in the maintenance of Russia’s SSBNs.

Might a charitable large floating dock owner - maybe France, Greece, Germany, Britain, others (?) or his best friend Trump, loan poor Putin another one?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_dock#Modern_era

Pete

Commentsby Anonymous, of November 24 and 25, 2018, shed a useful spotlight on differing national requirements for Large Diameter (or Displacement) Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (LDUUVs).

For example the size, speed and sensors of a UUV are dictated by a country’s undersea patrol areas. A UUV should also be of a size to respond to unforeseen future duties.

[Pete Comments: Japan may deploy its future LDUUVs in the East China Sea, Sea of Japan or the Russian SSBN bastion near the Kamchatka Peninsula. Meanwhile the US may also use much larger Extra Large UUVs (XLUUVs), with much longer 6,000+nautical mile (nm) range, to tow sonar arrays on mid Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Ocean tracks.]

Timeline of Japanese UUV Development

In 2006, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) built a prototype UUV calling it “Marine Challenger 150” to demonstrate sensor and navigation technology. MHI adopted Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) as energy sources and studied other Fuel cell options.

See photos of the yellow colored “Marine Challenger 150” on pages 12 and 15 of this Japanese language MHI document https://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/484/484012.pdf. Marine Challenger 150 looks like a lightweight torpedo and may weigh “150”kg(?).

Marine Challenger 150 looks much like the lightweight torpedo sized REMUS 600 AUV

Also noting the larger REMUS 6000 won a Japanese civilian agency order in November 2018.

---

In 2014, the Japanese Ministry of Finance (MoF) started three stage development of UUV (total budget was US$27 million:

i) first research trial (manufacture of LDUUV), 2014-2016),

ii) second research trial (development of fuel cell, 2015-2017), and

iii) third research trial (2018-2020). See Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD)

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/others/service/kanshi_koritsu/h29/pdf/h29_gaiyo_open04.pdf

Also in 2014, the US Navy requested Japanese joint research on the development of UUVs.

In 2017, Council of External Adviser [to the MoD?] recommended amendments to the UUV plan, and the Japanese MoD accepted the recommendations.

Current Japanese Activity

In December 2018, the Japanese Cabinet is going to approve the development of a 10m long large LDUUV with funding to be US$37million for the years 2019-2024. [Pete Comment: $37 million is actually quite low. Costs may be minimized by previous Japanese and US development of UUVs over the last 12+ years.]

For the LDUUV development, the MoD will conduct demonstration experiments to detect sound waves in a large water tank at a naval facility in Iwakuni, in Yamaguchi Prefecture. This may be the same tank that the MoD’s Acquistion Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) is going to build - dimensions 35m long, 30m wide, 11m deep. The test facility will begin operations in fiscal 2021 at the earliest, although the timing for the restart of LDUUV development is not yet known.

A very informative Japanese language Sputnikarticle of November 20, 2018 (once translated) explains that one of the uses of this LDUUV will be to monitor Japanese territorial waters over the Senkaku islands in the East China Sea. Ownership of the Senkakus and surrounding territorial waters is also disputed by China and Taiwan. Under the seabed in the area may be usable oil and gas reserves.

A chronic shortage of [the Japanese] Self-Defense Forces personnel has also contributed to the MoD's view that developing LDUUVs is necessary.

PETE COMMENTS

A LDUUV 10 meters long may limit range to around 1,000nm. The LDUUV might be too small and lack power to pull a towed sonar array. Instead the Japanese LDUUV may have sonars on its hull of the LDUUV to detect Chinese, Taiwanese etc ships, patrol boats and submarines.

Communicating and full processing of the sonar data collected may depend on moving closer to the surface, maybe using a line and communications buoy, working to satellite. The satellite then downlinks messages to Japanese naval earth stations, naval vessels and aircraft. Possibly seabed line arrays may help the LDUUV communicate. Side scan sonars may help find Chinese seabed arrays and bottom-rising mines.

Full data the LDUUV collects may be on its computer hard-disk. Meaning it needs to return to its Japanese naval base (Japanese and US at Okinawa, Sasebo and Yokosuka?) to securely upload all the sensor records and have then process the data using Japanese (and others) mainframe computers.

After searching the international Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) website I located a civilian research (eg. JAMSTEC) (and perhaps dual-use naval) URASHIMA LDUUV (here) being developed by MHI (Photo above courtesy Mitsubishi Shipbuilding Co. Ltd).

Significantly URASHIMA is 10.7m long (meeting the 10m length requirement that the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) set for large diameter unmanned undersea vehicle (LDUUV) development). Other specifications for URASHIMAare: 7.5 tonnes weight (surfaced), 3,500m max operating depth, 300km range, and 3 to 4 knots speed. Its likely diameter and known 10.7m length would make it too large for Japanese 533mm torpedo tubes. Hence attachment on top of a submarine hull or slide or crane delivery from a ship (as in photo above) may be necessary.

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

Following Japanese Large Diameter Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) Developments, of November 27, 2018, Anonymous has commented, with further translation and [...] comments from Pete :

UUV technologies developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) consist of:

i) i) low frequency acoustic sensors for the detection of buried mines on the ocean floor,

ii) ii) underwater navigation using autonomous positioning by matching ocean floor topography,

iii) iii) low speed, long endurance movement using lithium-ion batteries (LIBs),

iv) iv) underwater modeling and simulation by using sonars, and

v) v) an integrated launching tube.

Further development of UUV propulsion is required [eg. using LIBs and/or hydrogen-oxygen or other fuel cells] as well as development of communication methods and networks.

Tactical UUVs [perhaps torpedo tube launched] can be (or need to be) operated at relatively short distances and for short time periods remotely by an the operator [perhaps seated in a submarine].

In contrast [usually larger] strategic UUVs can autonomously operate for a longer period.

The Japanese MoD has successfully demonstrated fuel cells and underwater optical Wi-Fi (for communication at ranges up to 120m) for LDUUVs. [Sonobuoys, seabed line arrays and submarine-to-LDUUV wires may also be useful for LDUUV communications.]

See https://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/484/484012.pdf(it is in Japanese and there are useful pictures of:
- MHI’s probably torpedo sized UUV on page 12.
- the UUV network including parent or networked ships, subs, helicopters, patrol aircraft and sonobuoys on page 13.

- another photo and diagrams and graphs, pages 13 to 16.

There were also comments from /Kjell pointing to a Swedish language documenton Russian UUV developments. To which I responded “The Russians are also making great progress in the commercial (oil) and naval use of AUVs, specially in the Arctic Ocean and perhaps in the Sea of Japan.”

Drone Swarms

KQN also commented “There is no doubt that AI will have a key role in autonomous UUV and UUV swarms.” to which I responded “Indeed Artificial Intelligence (AI) (old similar concept "Autonomous") will indeed have roles in UUVs and UUV swarms. China in particular may mass produce small UUVs to form swarms, especially for deployment in highly strategic areas like the South China and East China Seas and Sea of Japan.”

The 2018 South Korean Winter Olympics illustrated what 2 operaters, who are computer controlling drone swarms, can do. Those "Olympic" drones are of course small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. But from 40 seconds into the Youtube (through to 3 minutes) similar hardware and software capabilities also apply to UUVs finding and maybe attacking submarines and friendly UUVs.

Nammo has modernized a major innovation, 30mm supercavitating bullets (aka: shells, rounds, ammunition). These armor-piercing bullets could be fired from a helicopter, UAV-helicopter, small ship, patrol boat, land vehicle, water surface unmanned vehicle or LDUUV. They could be used against, mini or larger submarines, mines, incoming torpedos, boats-small ships, against other UUVs and tragically against divers.

These bullets, when fired by a LDUUV, would be much cheaper and multipe-use than if the LDUUV fired mini-torpedoes or itself exploded as a torpedo.

Above is the 30mm Nammo supercavitating bullet penetrating the water.
(Artwork 2018 Nammo BulletINpage 8)

---

11 seconds into this DSG Technology Youtube ("Norwegian Company" DSG presumably related to Norway's Nammo (?)) displays its 5.56mm and larger supercavitating bullets. Graphics about submarine use. Mention of use against submarine at end (2 minutes 55 seconds).
---

From the 2018 Nammo BulletIN article
https://www.nammo.com/globalassets/pdfs/bulletin/nammo-bulletin-2018_screen.pdf[PDF 3.2MB]

"While traditional ammunition is either stopped or deflected when it hits water, Nammo’s 30 mm Swimmer (APFSDS-T MK 258 Mod 1) swims straight through water, thanks to a groundbreaking design on the supercavitating projectile developed in cooperation with the US Navy [with USN developing similar 30mm bullets since 1994]. Jan Hasslid discusses the implications of this new technology" [page 8]

"...Nammo, through its Strategic Alliance Agreement (SAA) with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS), [became] one of the main providers of 30 mm ammunition for the US Armed Forces. [page 8]

Following the recent signature of agreements with the US Army and the US Navy, both services are now adopting Nammo’s 30 mm APFSDS-T MK 258 Mod 1, or “Swimmer”, for use from a multitude of platforms,..." [page 8].

"...The Swimmer round falls into the category of sub-caliber kinetic energy penetrators. These can most easily be described as arrows made out of very heavy materials that use the force of the impact rather than explosives to punch through armor. Traveling at speeds of more than 1 km per second, the energy generated by the impact melts the armor of the vehicle into a fluid and the arrow “swims” through the armored side of the vehicle. In the case of the Swimmer, the force of the arrow is sufficient to defeat anything except main battle tanks [so could penetrate a single or even double hull submarine] ..." [page 9]

"...What makes the Swimmer unique, however, is the combination of powerful armor penetration and its ability to swim straight through water. This effect has until now been considered impossible to achieve by ammunition fired from air through water. As demonstrated by a number of popular science TV programs, traditional ammunition is either stopped or deflected when it hits water. In a worst case scenario, a projectile could hit the surface, bounce off [richochet] and hit something else.

Thanks to the design effort for the kinetic energy penetrator originally developed for the Norwegian Army, and perfected by Nammo in combination with US Navy supercavitation [the bullet's shape of nose which may shake allowing bullet to fly through a gas bubble] concepts, the Swimmer avoids the ricochet in water problem through the use of a supercavitation nose design. This means that the projectile creates a bubble of steam around itself big enough to pass through, substantially reducing the friction that stops traditional ammunition. This enables the Swimmer to be used in defense of either ships or coastal areas against submerged and surface mines, small underwater vehicles, torpedoes and even small fast attack crafts that might be concealed by waves. This is valuable not only for naval vessels, but also for land vehicles defending harbors, bridges or other key locations."

[article ends on page 9].

Pete

Due to popular demand here is the poor Norwegian frigate story. The situation is more complex than a kneejerk reaction "navies with frigates/destroyers based on the Navantia F100 design are hiding safety design flaws."

November 8, 2008 - Collision

HNoMS Helge Ingstad is the fourth of the Fridtjof Nansen classfrigatesof the Norwegian Navy.

On November 8, 2018, Helge Ingstad collided with the 250m long tanker Sola TS (escorted by tug Tenax) in Norwegian waters. Helge Ingstad was severely damaged in the collision, began taking on water and intentionally beached itself to avoid total sinking and allow for the evacuation of the crew. Seven Helge Ingstad sailors were injured.

On November 13, Helge Ingstad sank where she had run aground, with only smaller sections of the superstructure remaining above water. Perhaps Helge Ingstad will not be operational again and might only be partly reconstructed to research why she sank so quickly. She was built by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantiain Ferrol, Spain, based on Navantia's Álvaro de Bazán (aka F100) class design.

Sola TS left Norway's Sture Oil Terminal (see blue dots). Helge Ingstad was moving southwest through the strait while Sola TS was moving north. Those on watch in Helge Ingstad may have not visually registered Sola TS as moving collision threat because Helge Ingstad did not notice Sola TS's navigation lights were moving (rather than being stationary at Sture Oil Terminal). Did Helge Ingstad fail to notice Vessel Tracking Service (VTS) instructions, Sola TS tracker satellite map beeping, or espcially Sola TS's large radar image? (Map courtesy MaritimeBulletin.net via FleetMon.com).
---

It is possible the Norwegian accident investigators are overstating any Helge Ingstad design errors instead of Norwegian Navy human errors. For example, did Helge Ingstad's crew follow the complete safety procedures of closing all water-tight hatches between compartments (to prevent flooding)?

---

Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad (high tide beached November 8, 2018 before it sunk more completely on November 13, 2018)

---

November 29, 2018 - Preliminary Norwegian Accident Board Report

"...29 November 2018 the [Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN)] publish[ed] a preliminary report on the accident and two interim safety recommendations.

This preliminary report is published to communicate the information obtained during the initial phase of the ongoing investigation. The purpose is to provide a brief update on how the investigation is progressing as well as a preliminary description of the sequence of events and disseminate safety-critical issues identified at this stage of the investigation.

This preliminary report also identifies areas that need further investigation and describes lines of investigation that will be followed up."

"Latest update: 29.11.2018"

Preliminary report 29.11.2018

"... The accident was a complex one, involving several individuals, bridge crews, vessels, a VTS and the interaction between them. The investigation is therefore demanding in terms of time and resources. The AIBN stresses that this is a preliminary report and that it may consequently contain some errors and inaccuracies. Because of considerations relating to the duty of confidentiality, classified material and the investigation process, the AIBN does not publish all its information at the present time...."

Appendix: Interim safety recommendations 29.11.2018"

see the Comments for more on Human Error vs Design

French President Macron (left) is only too happy to sell submarines, on better terms for France, to a temporary Australian Prime Minister (whose name is Scott Morrison) who is on the right.

---

France has been negotiating submarine delays and cost overruns with a minority Australian Coalition Government that may only last to March or May 2019. "The [Victorian State] election outcome has put the Scott Morrison government on course for a crushing defeat at next year's federal polls..."

Australia's Future Submarines may only be operational in 2035 and cost more than $50 Billion+ 25%. In an excellent article Andrew Greene, Defence Reporter for the Australian Government owned ABC, reportsDecember 5, 2018:

“Future submarines could arrive late and cost more, confidential negotiations reveal”

"The first of Australia's new submarines could arrive late and cost substantially more than expected as Defence attempts to finalise the terms of the $50 billion project.

The ABC understands Defence recently offered a two-year extension to the French company building the future submarines as it tries to lock in a crucial final agreement.

Senior sources confirmed the "unprecedented" offer to allow an extra two years and 25 per cent cost increase was initially rejected by the French owned shipbuilder, Naval Group.

[France] instead wanted a three-year schedule delay and for an allowance of a 30 per cent increase in delivery costs, but the company later backed down.

The ABC can also reveal that negotiations between Defence officials and Naval Group became so tense that a former senior bureaucrat was hired in a bid to help resolve protracted disagreements.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Naval Group, then known as DCNS, had been selected for the lucrative project in 2016.

The French bid was successful in a competitive evaluation process (CEP), beating rival offers from Germany's TKMS and the Japanese Government.

Unlike a regular military tender process, the CEP did not involve detailed commercial contracts being submitted to the Defence Department.

Defence officials and Naval Group representatives have since been locked in tough negotiations over details of the program to produce 12 submarines to replace Australia's ageing Collins Class fleet from the mid-2030s.

The Coalition is now anxious to complete a crucial Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA), which will guide the submarine program for decades, before next year's election.

Defence Minister Christopher Pyne insisted there was "no real deadline for the SPA"but said he had "an unformal deadline of signing [it] before the election".

The Defence Department is refusing to confirm or deny any details of the confidential talks, telling the ABC the negotiations on the SPA were in the "final stages"..."

SEE WHOLE ABC ARTICLE

COMMENT

While Naval Group's workforce are attempting to launch the (delayed for years) French Barracuda SSNs Naval Group does not have the workforce or fullscale testing to get the Australian Project on track.

There are no water flow results from the so far delayed not yet launched Barracuda for the French Navy. So Australia cannot be sure that Australia's Future Submarine (which will have the Barracuda hull shape) will move efficiently and quietly in the water.

Pete

(Above and Below) USS Finback, in a "Lifeguard" role, in 1944, saves the
late George H W Bush who died November 30, 2018.

Above video is from a US TV network (not Youtube) so may time out soon.
---

By Stephen Huba, TribLive, December 5, 2018 https://triblive.com/local/allegheny/14372628-74/god-bless-andrew-palenchar-george-hw-bush-wrote-family-of-local

"'God bless Andrew Palenchar' - George H.W. Bush wrote family of Hempfield man who saved him during WWII"

Seventy-four years ago, Andrew Palenchar emerged onto the deck of the USS Finback and reached down to grab the soaking wet arm of George H.W. Bush.

That rescue off the Pacific island of Chichijima [about 240 km north of Iwo Jima] profoundly shaped the man who would become the 41st President and [Andrew Palenchar] who served 35 years in the military, including tours in Korea and Vietnam.

Palenchar voted for Bush in 1988 and “loved” him as president, said his brother, Mike.

“He was pretty proud of Bush. He really liked him,” said Mike Palenchar, 80, of Fort Allen. “He used to say, ‘Back then, during the war, I never would have dreamt he would become president of the United States.’ ”

The World War II chapter of Bush’s biography is well known, as was his penchant for writing thank-you notes and letters.

The story of his rescue came full circle in February 2017 when, after Andrew Palenchar’s death, Bush wrote to his daughter, Sandra Bourassa of Aurora, Colo., to express his gratitude and condolences.

“Needless to say, I have a special place in my heart for the men who served onboard USS Finback— the men who saved my life. They were outstanding in every way, and the best America had to offer,” Bush wrote.

The former president died [November 30, 2018] and will be buried Thursday in Texas. In the letter to Bourassa, he described his fellow seaman as a “patriot who served his country with pride and honor and who loved his family and friends.”

Mike Palenchar, himself a Navy veteran, said he plans to frame the letter and display it in his home.

Both men served in the Navy during World War II — Lt. j.g. George H.W. Bush as the pilot of a Grumman TBM Avenger, a torpedo bomber, and Seaman Andrew Palenchar as a crewman on the USS Finback, a submarine patrolling near the island of Chichijima.

Bush had been shot down but managed to stay alive on an inflatable raft until the Finback reached him. Palenchar was at the helm and the first man on deck, according to his obituary.

“He said they picked up quite a few (aviators). He said Bush and them were soaking wet,” Mike Palenchar said.

Bush was kept aboard the Finback for about two months, until he was returned to the USS San Jacinto, an aircraft carrier, to participate in operations in the Philippines.

Palenchar, who returned with the crew of the Finback to Pearl Harbor, went on to a long career in the military, serving in Korea and Vietnam. He retired as an Army lieutenant colonel in 1979 and moved to South Carolina.

“How he made it through all those wars, it’s unbelievable,” his brother said.

Palenchar did not talk much about the Bush rescue over the years. He declined an invitation to attend the Bush inaugural parade in 1989. But he always thought highly of the president, Mike Palenchar said.

“My brother was a strict Republican,” he said.

Bush’s letter, dated Feb. 27, 2017, closes by saying, “To you and all your family, Barbara and I send our respects and our heartfelt condolences. God bless Andrew Palenchar.”"

Stephen Huba is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Stephen at 724-850-1280, shuba@tribweb.com or via Twitter @shuba_trib

FURTHER READING

1. "MISSION: LIFEGUARD American Submarines in the Pacific Recovered Downed Pilots"
by NATHANIEL S. PATCH
https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/fall/lifeguard.pdf and

2. From "Save Our Souls: Rescues Made By U.S. Submarines During WWII"
By Douglas E. Campbell https://www.scribd.com/book/309983262/Save-Our-Souls-Rescues-
Made-By-U-S-Submarines-During-WWII:

"At last count, nearly 2,400 people can claim that their lives were saved by a U.S. submarine during World War II.

Of that number, 523 Allied aviators could claim that distinction after crashing their aircraft into the sea and being saved by a submarine operating in the “Lifeguard League.”

The remaining number were a collection of other military and civilian personnel along various walks of life.

Some of those rescued went on to retire as senior military officers including U.S. Navy Admirals, some back to missionary work, some to manage large companies in later years, some to philanthropic endeavors to pay everyone back for saving their lives.

It is a story worth telling."

Pete

India's leased Chakra II Akula class SSN (above) needs replacing or supplementing with another leased Akula.

---

Flowing from December 2018 reports it is likely several Indian entities will eventually agree to lease another Russian SSN. Indian entities would include the Indian Navy, Ministers of Defence and Finance and maybe Indian Department of Atomic Energy? all cleared by Indian Prime Minister Modi?). Leased would be anotherimproved Akula (aka Project 971) SSN (in Russia “multi-purpose”) nuclear submarine from Russia.

The agreement would be with all the Russian opposite numbers as well as Russia’s weapon export agency Rosoboronexport. This new leased Akula is expected to be operational in time (2022?) to replace India’s currently leased Akula (known as Chakra II (was Russian Nerpa).

India's lease history is:

- Chakra I (a Russian Charlie-class) in 1988 till 1991,

- Chakra II in December 2011, notionally till 2021 or 2022,

- new lease would be another Akula, named "Chakra III"? from 2022?

In late November - early December 2018 the Indian Navy inspected and discussed leasing terms for one of two Akulas, namely:

- “Bratsk” (commissioned 1989 into the Russian Navy), and

- “Samara” (commissioned 1995 into the Russian Navy).

Right-click mouse to translate Russian article indicating both Bratsk and Samara were transferred in 2014 to Russia’s Northern Fleet repair and base complex for overhaul and deep modernization. Also see interesting Akula specification towards the end of that Russian article.

Bratsk and Samara's 4 year overhaul 2014-2018 is a long time. So it is unclear how far “overhaul [including derusting water tanks and refueling the OK-650M reactor] and deep modernization” has actually progressed.

A figure of US$3.3 billion ((Rs 23,000 crore = 230,000,000,000 Indian rupees). has been discussed. But it is unclear what that figure includes (eg. just major repairs to bring one of these old Akula’s up to delivery to India status or covering the whole 10 year lease cost)?

India’s naval chief Admiral Sunil Lanba also reportedly discussedan apparent linkagebetween the new Akula lease with the construction in India of [what would be 6 x AIP Amurs under Indian Project 75(I)] SSKs.

PETE COMMENTS

Some might claim that India leasing yet another Russian SSN is a step backward from India concentrating on developing Indian built SSNs.

However a new Akula lease would benefit India’s long term build 6 SSNs project. Indian technicians and engineers should be able to examine what upgrades Russia is making to Bratsk or the Samara while they are being upgraded. Indian technical observations can be transferred officially or unofficially to India’s current SSBN and future SSN projects.

Bratsk or the Samara should include many modernised features not present in India’s current Chakra II. The features may include improved data processing, more effective sensors and more potent weapons interface (maybe greater ability to deliver anti-ship, ASW and land attack missiles?).

While India has not developed its own SSNs it is important to protect Arihant-class SSBNs with one or two of its leased Akula SSNs. Perhaps Indian SSBNs from now on might predictably leave or enter Fleet Base East, Vishakhapatnam, on deterrent patrols. In those cases SSBNs particularly need Indian SSNs to patrol against waiting Chinese SSKs, Bangladeshi SSKs and particularly Chinese SSNs.

FURTHER READING

India Todayhttps://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-close-to-sealing-rs-23-000-crore-lease-deal-for-russian-n-sub-1401875-2018-12-04

Additional liaison agreement details from Russia https://sputniknews.com/military/201812051070410027-india-lease-nuke-submarine-russia/

Pete

Following Submarine Mattersarticle of December 4, 2018 Gorka L Martinez Mezo has made December 8, 2018 comments on the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad sinking. Gorka comments:

"I'm really surprised by the tone of this conversation. I wonder what makes Australian ASC workers, with little practical experience in building ships better than their Spanish [Navantia] comrades working in Ferrol which had quite a bit more experience in shipbuilding. Nor does Australian construction standards differ from Spanish ones as the ships are designed and built under widely used international standards for both civilian and military ships.

On the Norwegian incident, maybe we’re obviating the fact the frigate was hit by a 140.000 ton oiler when doind 17 knots. I wonder how other ships in the same class would have fared.

The crew had left the ships 11 min after the impact, so looks like no major damage control efforts may have been performed.

On the Norwegian imput in the construction phase, all the ships were inspected and certified by the Norwegian navy team detached in Ferrol and the watertightness of the ships was specifically tested as requested by the customers, the ships also being subjected to shock tests. All the tests were passed without any issues and approved by the Norwegian team. The watertightness tests were exhaustive and all the points from the Norwegian team, some in excess of the acepted construction standards, were passed.

The F-100s were also subjected to these same tests when they were being built as were ships built previously like the F-80 frigates built using the FFG-7 design.

As the ship is still underwater, looks like the members of the investigation commission are making some accusations without access to all the evidence.

Reading the reports in the Norwegian press, looks like the Norwegian Navy isn’t as keen to finger pointing as the commissioners. "

PETE COMMENT

The ability of Russian-sponsored hackers “to access personal information about Czech government employees” may be a real worry because:

- it may help point to any Czech employees who are acting undercover in Russia, and

- short of that it may point, via Czech government personnel files, to any personal vulnerabilities of

Czech employees (eg. alcoholism? gambling debts? suspicions of corruption?) that Russian

intelligence can exploit. This is noting Czechoslavakian State Security personnel (1945 to 1990)
looked fondly to the Russian KGB, until 1991.

ARTICLE

"Czechs accuse Moscow of ‘most serious wave of cyberespionage’ in years" on INTELNEWS, December 5, 2018, https://intelnews.org/2018/12/05/01-2450/ :

"The main domestic intelligence agency of the Czech Republic has accused Russia of “the most serious wave of cyberespionage” to target the country in recent years. The claim was made on Monday in Prague by the Security Information Service (BIS), the primary domestic national intelligence agency of the Czech Republic. Details of the alleged cyberespionage plot are included in the BIS’ annual report, a declassified version of which was released this week...."

SEE REST OF INTELNEWS ARTICLE

Following Submarine Matters, December 5, 2018 article "Australian Future Submarines likely 2 years Late + Maybe $20 Billion Extra"

an Anonymous has commented:

The Germans have never built a sub in the 4,000t range before (neither had Kockums & we know the problems that caused).

The French have built nuke boats that big & bigger & build d/e subs of a similar size to Germany.

The Japanese subs needed a plug of at least 6m to be added (not enough fuel & even Japanese sailors complain about internal space). The South China Sea (SCS) is not that far from Japan (especially the naval base on Okinawa).

Australiain subs come from Rockingham Fleet Bast West, near Perth, Western Australia, and go a lot further than SCS.

The biggest risk with Japan was their lack of experience with not only military exports but overseas weapon builds. Japan has not exported a submarine since before WW2 and I am not aware of Japan ever doing an overseas build for any naval ships or submarines before.

You would be crazy to try it out on such a large and expensive program (cultural differences and language barriers to be added in as well).

Australia should have started on evolved Collins 10 or 20 years ago. They should also have invited Kockums to tender once Kockums was taken over by SAAB. SAAB is a defence contractor Australia has had a long (and ongoing) relationship with.

Quite a few unwanted Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) submarine engineers (when it became clear Collins 2 was not going to happen) joined SAAB. Even so, SAAB and ASC have recently signed 2 way support agreements. This is because SAAB recognises ASC still has considerable engineering knowledge building 4,000t submarines. SAAB can use this ASC input regarding SAABs A26 Ocean Extended Range version that SAAB hopes to sell to the Netherlands.

In many ways, SAAB would have been the easiest for Australia to work with.

A Collins II like Cutaway of Australian Future Submarine. Click on image to make it larger. (Coutesy Australian DoD via Australian National Audit Office on April 27, 2017.)

To illustrate Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) uses of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) above and below are illustrations of a ASW detection networks utilising SOSUS with hydrophones also being used to relay data by underwater sound waves.

Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs see huge Sea Hunter more mature as the ACTUV) also play a part by interacting with UUVs, SOSUS, surface ships and aircraft. (Diagrams are now dead links (here and here) retrieved from still living Submarine Mattersarticle of March 13, 2016 ).

---

Separately The Japan News (same as The Yomiuri Shimbun (?)) November 30, 2018, reports:

Unmanned undersea vessels (UUV) eyed to detect subs [especially slow moving SSKs].

"The [Japanese] government has begun to consider introducing unmanned underwater vehicles capable of detecting submarines and other vessels with a view to beefing up warning and surveillance capabilities against subs dispatched by the Chinese military or by other countries to the East China Sea, where the Senkaku Islands of Okinawa Prefecture are located.

The [Japanese] Defense Ministry intends to start developing prototype models in fiscal 2019 and aims to start operations using the unmanned vehicles in fiscal 2025.

The government plans to advance projects to further the use of unmanned underwater vehicles and also aircraft. When the National Defense Program Guidelines are revised at the end of the year, they will likely emphasize greater use of such vehicles.

The unmanned underwater vehicle the government envisages using in warning and surveillance activities is 10 to 15 meters in length and can be programmed to self-navigate in a certain area for several days or up to about a week. It will be given the ability to detect submarines and surface ships with its sonar, and also use its artificial intelligence to self-navigate and pursue these vessels.

As water temperature, salinity concentration, seabed topography and other factors have effects on warning and surveillance activities, and detecting submarines, the unmanned vehicles will be enabled to carry out oceanographic observations and gather necessary data.

The Defense Ministry has made an appropriation request of ¥ [US$37 million] in the fiscal 2019 budget for test production and aims to complete a model by fiscal 2024. The Ministry intends to install highly efficient fuel cells to increase the duration of underwater operations. The unmanned vehicles will not be given attack capabilities.

According to the Ministry, unmanned underwater vehicles for surveillance of submarines are also being developed by a U.S. company, and a prototype already exists. The U.S. Navy is said to be considering the introduction of this model.

With regard to development in Japan, its first domestically built model for underwater mine detection, a vehicle about 5 meters in length, is set to be introduced and scheduled to start operations in 2022.

The government intends to refer to further use of unmanned vehicles, which require no crew aboard, in the new National Defense Program Guidelines, as a way of establishing a policy of further adopting such vehicles.

In recent years, Chinese submarines have been very active in the East China Sea. As destroyers, submarines and anti-submarine patrol aircraft of the [Japanese Navy] have been conducting warning and surveillance activities around the clock, it is said that there is a chronic shortage of crew members and ships.

"If we can use unmanned underwater vehicles at all times, our warning and surveillance capabilities will markedly increase," a senior official of the ministry said.

On the other hand, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito held a meeting of their working group on [November 30, 2018], ahead of making decisions regarding the new National Defense Program Guidelines. Discussions were held on improvement of the Self-Defense Forces' defense capabilities in "new areas," such as in space and cyberspace or when confronted with the use of electromagnetic waves.

At the meeting, the government side explained to the ruling parties that it intends to include enabling the SDF to possess "cyber-counterattack capabilities," enhancing their capability to interfere with an adversary's electromagnetic waves, among other measures, in the new guidelines." ENDS

DARPA and its customer, the US Navy, have been developing Towed Airborne Lift of Naval Systems (TALONS) for years. In September 2015 DARPA demonstrated a prototype of the low-cost TALONS, a fully automated parafoil system designed to extend maritime vessels’ long-distance communications and improve domain awareness.

Towed behind boats or ships (eg. the Littoral Combat ship (above)), TALONS can carry ISR and communications payloads of up to 70kg between 150m and 450m in altitude. This is many times higher than current ships’ masts (only up to 61m above the waterline) and greatly extends the sensor’s range and effectiveness.

By October 2016 information became more specific. DARPA tested TALONS aboard the Sea HunterASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV). Compared to destroyer or frigate’s mast-mounted sensors the TALONS parasailing sensor array increased surface track radar range by six times. TALONS also doubles a vessel's electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) discrimination range, and more than triples omnidirectional radio range.

The ACTUV has a more effective anti-submarine capability when towing a kilometer long undersea sonar array. While towing this and using its hull sonars an ACTUV can interact with UUVs, seabed SOSUS sensors, surface ships, satellites, patrol aircraft, large UAVs, earth stations and command HQs. When an ACTUV tows a sonar array this frees up surface ships and submarines from towing duties. Ships and submarines can only tow undersea arrays at great expense and be vulnerable to enemy action due to slow and predictable towing patterns.

An ACTUV can also follow a conventional submarine (SSK) for more than a week, until the sub's batteries and AIP have run out forcing the sub to the surface.

Pete

An excellent JHU Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) July 2017 Youtube. From 1 minute, 3 seconds it illustrates a US submarine using a Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS). Great on submarine and at 2min, 34 secs looks like USNS Impeccableor a sister ship.
---

Following The Sea Hunter ACTUV's Over and Undersea Towing Abilities, December 11, 2018 an Anonymous made an interesting comment (below) on Decmber 12, 2018:

Beware of other countries trying to snatching towed undersea arrays. Even manned platforms can be victims:

For example http://www.marinebuzz.com/2009/03/11/china-warns-usnavy-ocean-surveillance-ship-to-stay-away-from-hainan-island/

“The trawlers came within 25 feet of USNS Impeccable, as part of an apparent coordinated
effort to harass the unarmed ocean surveillance ship. A crew member on a Chinese
trawler used a grapple hook to snag the towed acoustic array of Impeccable.”

Grabbing a Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) array must have been a nice intel coup for China.

I wouldn't put it past the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, North Koreans etc. to try
grabbing the entire ACTUV if they had a chance. Hopefully, these will only be
deployed in areas where they can be protected by other assets.

Compare this with the more subtle approach used by the U.S. and Britain when
[stealing] someone else's towed array:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-Conquerors-biggest-secret-a-raid-on-Russia.html

"[HMS Conquerer] was pulling a device long coveted by the British and Americans, a 2 mile
string of hydrophones known as a towed-array sonar. It was the latest thing in
Soviet submarine-detection technology and Conqueror’s job was to steal it. To do so,
the bow was equipped with electronically controlled pincers, provided by the
Americans, to gnaw through the three-inch-thick steel cable connecting it to the
trawler. The name of this audacious exercise in piracy? Operation Barmaid.

[...Towed-array sonar...is passive and does not emit a signal. It floats at a prescribed depth, trailing behind a ship or submarine, simply listening for enemy submarines. Because the hydrophones are spaced out, they can achieve a multi-dimensional fix on a target, and are less vulnerable to noise from the host vessel. The American and British navies imagined themselves to be far ahead in this technology and were disturbed to discover that the Russians were matching them."]

Quite underwhelming is the (current) Australian Government's not very original naming of the Australian Future Submarine as the "Attack class".

This will cause future confusion as the world's most common submarines (conventional or nuclear) are, after all, attack submarines. Whenever attack submarine is mentioned it may be necessary to distinguish between Australia 12 future Attack submarines and the world's 300 odd already existing attack submarines.

Perhaps this most mundane name may have been chosen because the (current) Australian Coalition Government may have had to agree the name with the replacement Australian Labor Party (very likely coming to power in May 2019). "Attack" being a very low common denominator.

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

Here is the December 13, 2018 Media Release of the (current) Defence Minister naming Attack. Significantly, he also adds, in a low key way, something more important:

“I can also announce the negotiations between the Commonwealth and Naval Group on all key provisions of the Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) have been completed,” [then why not sign NOW?] Minister Pyne said.

“I congratulate everyone involved in achieving this significant milestone.”

The SPA will be signed in early 2019 and will govern the delivery of the Attack class over the decades to come...."

COMMENT

The ability of the current Defence Minister to sign the SPA before the May 11 or 18, 2019 Elections may be curtailed because the Coalition Government has a minority in both Houses of Parliament. That is Australia's Federal Parliament is double "Hung". (Current) Defence Minister Pyne is unusually reliant on consensus from the Labor Party Opposition concerning the terms of the revised SPA.

Details of Coalition Government's minority weakness are that it has, in the:

- Senate (see right sidebar ) only a minority, 31 of 76 seats, and

- House of Representatives (see right sidebar ) only a minority, 73 of 150 seats.

This means the current Government may be forced out of office if the Opposition Labor Party and Crossbenchers decide to block the Budget "Supply" Bills in April 2019 .

Pete

Showing how debates in Submarine Matter's reflect more broadly held naval debates, below is part of Andew Greene's and David Lewis' excellent article in Australia's Government owned ABC News:

“Prime Minister urged to examine 'plan B' for submarines”

A group of retired naval officers who served at the highest levels has warned Australia is spending an "excessive" amount of taxpayers' money on its new submarines.

Rear Admiral Peter Briggs, Commodore Paul Greenfield, and Commodore Terence Roach have signed a joint letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison urging him to change course.

In the letter, the former officers urge the Government to consider commissioning a new generation of the Collins Class fleet.

"We are strongly of the view that the Government should evaluate a second option, at very low cost and without impeding the present approach," the letter states.

"The alternative option, that we believe could be cheaper, quicker and less risky and offer a greater level of Australian industry participation, is to build an evolved version of the Collins Class.''

The group has asked the Government to invest $50 million in a two-year study to assess the merits of building a so-called "son of Collins"..."

In this March 2018 Youtube Professor Simon Holland provides an excellent presentation, with graphics, on submarines comms.
--

Youtube above - at about 3min 35secs Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF) is raised. with the ability to reach subs at their safe operating depths, maybe 500 meters down. ELF transmitters need to be very long (rather than very high) and on special geologic environments. The USN has ELF antennas
- Clam Lake ELF Transmitter Wisconsin to Michigan (US mainland)
- Hawaii
- 6min 15sec Daventry UK (for USN? UK Royal Navy and other NATO? subs)
- INS Kattabomman in southern India (Indian Navy and USN?)
- Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt in north Western Australia for USN, UK RN? and
RAN
- 6m 35s a "secret" one in Antarctica, breaking the international agreement that the Antarctic not
be used for military purposes (probable cover use is "Research"?)
- 6m 55s ELF transmitters dangerous to health?
- 8m 5s dangerous to passing Qantas passenger jets?
- 8m 30s irritating whales?
- 9m 10s back to submarines
- 9m 25s underwater communications docking stations
- 9m 40m satellite based system, known as Submarine Satellite Information Exchange Subsystem
(SSIXS)

Diagram (above) courtesy Daniel Olson's, October 11, 2015 excellent description on the Clam Lake WI Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Transmitter [to submarines] website. Part of Daniel's description is:

"[During the early years of the Cold War, late 1940s on, the] U.S. started to look at weapon systems that would be able to survive any type of attack without the loss of function. The U.S. Navy discovered that weapons systems that operated mainly in the ocean waters would be the most resilient. [Following Polaris, used from 1961.] This concept was the basis on why the U.S. Navy enacted the TRIDENT weapons system used on the U.S. nuclear submarines in 1979 (Klessig 4).

The U.S. Navy looked at extremely low frequency (ELF) radio transmissions as a way of communicating to these weapons systems from within the country’s boundaries. The use of ELF transmissions would allow for the U.S. Navy to keep their nuclear submarines submerged and still be able to receive a message without being susceptible to attack from enemy ships or aircraft (Kruger 1).

Researchers had started to come up with ideas that certain types of radio waves could penetrate ocean depths in the 1950’s. The U.S. Navy then started its own research that dealt with trying to produce an ELF radio wave that could penetrate into the depths of the oceans. The Navy produced three projects using the concept of ELF transmissions: Sanguine, SEAFARER, and ELF (“Extremely Low Frequency” 2001)..."

See much more on ELF principles and history (Projects Sanguine and SEAFARER) on Daniel Olson's website.

The September 2017 Youtube above gets particularly interesting on the future Columbia class SSBN's differences and cost issues 2 minutes, 20 seconds in.

Since 2017 Toshiba has continued the development of a second generation Lithium-ion Battery (LIB) type using Niobium Titanium Oxide (NTO)(aka titaniumniobate (TNO)). NTO is composed of TiNb₂O₇. NTO’s energy density (160-200Wh/kg?) is twice that of Lithium Titanate Oxide (LTO). NTO also has longer charge/discharge cycle life (5000 cycles?) and has higher stability than LTO. In June 2018 Toshiba announcedit had made a deal with a Brazilian mining company to mass produce NTO in 2020 (also see https://www.energytrend.com/news/20180627-12359.html).

NTO’s energy density and cycle life is also reportedly superior to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP). LFP, that Europe’s SAFT is developing, has an energy density of 90-120kWh/kg and cycle life of 1000-2000) .

[ See this good Niobium in LIBs website (which, on its last page, favourably compares NTO (aka TNO) with LTO, NCA and LFP. Complete string https://www.cbmm.com/-/media/CBMM/Resource-Center/PDFs/Mobility---Mobilidade/Niobium-in-Li-Ion-Batteries.ashx ]

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

While European countries have made statements that they are developing LIBs for submarines, Japan has made concrete progress. Japan has actually launched a medium-large conventional submarine (the Oryu) with LIBs. This will give regional superiority (compared to other SSKs) to the Oryu and the Japanese LIBs submarines that follow it.

The two main First Generation LIBs for submarine that Japan has been developing are:

NCA– (Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide) produced by Japanese company GS Yuasa. This is the LIB type in the Oryu. Oryu is a Soryu Mark 2 (aka Mk. II) (see TABLE 1. and 2. below). NCA has high energy density, but has a relatively short cycle life and less stability, and

LTO(Lithium Titanate Oxide) produced by Toshiba. Following Japan’s policy of continual evolution in submarines the Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) is developing a next generation LIB known as LTO. LTO LIBs will be smaller and more efficient than current NCA LIBs. Studies are being made in FY2017 and 2018. LTO’s are being developed in a Aus$1 billion program 2019 to 2023. Also, new silent [electromagnetic?] propulsion is to be developed. LTO and silent propulsion may be applied to Soryu Mark 3s or a new submarine class to follow the Soryu [see TABLE 2.]. Japan proposed LTO LIBs in Australia’s submarine competition (CEP, SEA 1000). LTO features has a longer cycle life and higher stability, but this is at the expense of low energy density.

Further details on NCA and LTO are at these 2 Submarine Matters article (here and here) both of October 17, 2018.

TABLE 1. LIBS BY GENERATION (provided by Anonymous)

	Name and abbreviation	Composition and abbreviation	Energy density [kW/kg] (theoretical)	Note
First Generation LIBs	Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminium Oxide NCA	LiNiCoAlO2 or NCA	260	On Soryus Oryu (27SS) & 28SS. From Japan's GS Yuasa
	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 LFP	LiFePO4 LFP LFYP in China is family of LFP.	120 (575)	China. Separately SAFT
	Lithium titanate LTO	Li4Ti5O12 or LTO	80	Toshiba. Offered to Aus in CEP
LABs	LAB		40
LSBs	Lithium-sulfur LSB	Li2S3 LSB	theoretically about (2500)
Second Generation LIBs	Lithium Ion Silicate	Li2FeSiO4	(1584)	High Safety, low cycle performance
	Lithium Manganese Silicate	Li2MnSiO4	(1485)	High Safety, low cycle performance
	Niobium Titanium Oxide NTO	TiNb₂O₇NTO	160-200Wh/kg?	Toshiba

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

TABLE 2. SORYU & Oyashio Program as at December 17, 2018

SS No. Diesel Type Motor	Build No Name	Pennant No.	MoF approved amount ¥ Billions FY	LABs, LIBs, AIP	Laid Down	Laun -ched	Commi ssioned	Built By
5SS Oyashio 2 Toshiba motors	8105 Oyashio	SS-590/ TS3608	¥52.2B FY1993	LABs only	Jan 1994	Oct 1996	Mar 1998	KHI
6SS-15SS Oyashios 10 subs 2 Toshiba motors SMC-7?	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 12V25/25SB SMC-8	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	15 Mar 2013	2 Nov 2015	13 Mar 2017	KHI
25SS	8124 Seiryū	SS-509	¥53.1B FY2013	LABs + AIP	22 Oct 2013	12 Oct 2016	12 Mar 2018	MHI
26SS end of SMC-8s	8125 Shoryū	SS-510	¥51.7B FY2014	LABs + AIP	2014	6 Nov 2017	Mar 2019?	KHI
27SS First Soryu Mark 2 12V25/25SB diesel first SMC-8B motor	8126 *Oryū*	SS-511	¥64.4B FY2015	LIBs only (NCA type)	2015	4 Oct 2018	Mar 2020?	MHI
28SS Second Soryu Mark 2 12V25/25SB SMC-8B	8127	SS-512	¥63.6B FY2016	LIBs only (NCA type?)	2016?	Oct 2019?	Mar 2021?	KHI
29SS First Soryu Mark 3 12V25/31S SMC-9?	8128	?	¥76B FY2017	LIBs only?	?	?	2023?	MHI?
30SS Second Soryu Mk 3 12V25/31S	8029?	?	¥71.5B FY2018	LIBs only?	?	?	2024?	KHI?

Table from information exclusively provided to Submarine Matters. LABs = lead-acid batteries, AIP = air independent propulsion, LIBs = Lithium-ion Batteries. ¥***B = Billion Yen. MHI = Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, KHI = Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation of Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

---

Thankyou Anonymous (further translation by Pete).

SECRET AUSTEO Report Declassified: Australia's Iraq Preparation Problems 2002

“Key points:

Will somebody give Putie a break after his floating dock broke?!

Japanese Large Diameter Unmannned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV) Developments

Japanese LDUUV Developments 2 & Korean Drone Swarms.

Nammo's 30mm ASW, Anti-UUV, Supercavitating Bullets

Norwegian Frigate Helge Ingstad Collision - Human Error vs Design

Australian Future Submarines likely 2 years Late + Maybe $20 Billion Extra

Submarines can be Lifeguards - Late President George H W Bush

Another Leased Indian Akula SSN will Guard its SSBNs

Interesting Comment Norwegian Frigate Sinking, Tests or Crew?

Russian Re-Penetration of Czech Intelligence

Thoughtful Comment on Australian Future Submarine Choices

Japan may use UUVs, SOSUS and USVs in East China Sea

The Sea Hunter ACTUV's Over and Undersea Towing Abilities

The Care and STEALING of Towed Sonars "SURTASS"

Australia's New Underwhelming Future Sub Name. SPA next year.

Retired Senior Naval Officers Propose a Collins II Submarine

Excellent Youtube & Description - Submarine Communications

The Columbia Class: New US Ballistic Missile Submarine

Japan’s NTO aka TNO (2nd Generation LIB) Development