There is a faction in the US SSN world (both submariners and SSN builders) who see the USN's future SSN(X) as an opportunity to re-introduce an updated, very expensive, hi-spec, "Seawolf II".

But for quantity building, and lower price, Congress and the naval brass (who need to budget for all types of naval craft) will likely opt for a submarine class more evolved from the Virginia SSN Block V and VI.

Some useful further reading is at https://news.usni.org/2020/11/20/navy-new-virginia-block-vi-virginia-attack-boat-will-inform-ssnx

KIRAN SHARMA and CLIFF VENZON, for Nikkei Asia, in an excellent article. reported, November 22, 2020:

"NEW DELHI/MANILA -- India and Russia are looking to export to the Philippines their jointly developed BrahMos supersonic cruise missile, a move that may unnerve Beijing, given its border standoff with New Delhi and territorial disputes with other neighbors in the South China Sea.

The BrahMos takes its name from two rivers -- the Brahmaputra in India and the Moskva in Russia. The missile is manufactured by an Indo-Russian joint venture, BrahMos Aerospace, which was set up in India in 1998 and is responsible for designing, developing and marketing the missile. 

...[In December 2019] the Philippines said that it planned to buy the BrahMos for the army and air force to boost its coastal defenses. [Philippine] Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the contract would be signed by the second quarter of 2020, and consist of "two batteries," according to the state-run Philippine News Agency.

...Equipped with stealth technology and an advanced guidance system, the BrahMos can be launched from air, land, sea and underwater platforms and can carry conventional warheads weighing 200 kg to 300 kg. It has a range of 290 km and is supersonic, shortening flight and engagement time. The missile's speed makes it difficult for targets to disburse. No known weapon can intercept it, according to BrahMos Aerospace.

...New Delhi and Manila earlier this month held an online meeting of their commission on bilateral cooperation, co-chaired by India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Teodoro Locsin Jr., his Philippine counterpart. They agreed to strengthen the two countries' defense engagement and maritime cooperation, especially in military training, capacity-building, goodwill visits and procurement of equipment.

China is likely to view these developments with concern, including the involvement of its ally Russia in supplying the BrahMos to the Philippines.

...On Oct. 18, the missile was successfully test-fired from the Indian Navy's indigenously built stealth destroyer INS Chennai, hitting a target in the Arabian Sea "with pinpoint accuracy," a Defense Ministry statement said. On Sept. 30, a BrahMos surface-to-surface ground attack cruise missile featuring many Indian-made subsystems was flight-tested. During the test, the missile cruised at a top speed of Mach 2.8...

..."Russia clearly sees China as a useful partner when it comes to their posturing vis-a-vis the West. But they are also being pragmatic when it comes to [their] defense exports," which are falling, [Harsh V. Pant, head of the strategic studies program at New Delhi-based think tank Observer Research Foundation] told Nikkei. He observed that apart from the Philippines, others, including Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, have also shown interest in the BrahMos. "If you have to make this defense venture economically viable, then exports are very important."

Under the Missile Technology Control Regime that India joined in 2018, avenues for selling the BrahMos overseas have opened up, said Pankaj Jha, a professor of defense and strategic affairs at O.P. Jindal Global University, pointing out that its range is being extended to 400 km from the original 290 km...."

See the WHOLE EXCELLENT NIKKEI ARTICLE

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, between the US, India, Japan and Australia, is steadily forming a vital networked defence structure in response to China's growing military power in the Indo-Pacific.
(Map courtesy Wikipedia).

The US is still the vital cog in the Quad. This is because the geographically, culturally and linguistically diverse nature of the Quad, tends to weaken it against centrally commanded, Chinese forces.

To redress this weakness increased all services, exercise, interactions of Quad members is vital, as well as common weapons, procedures and broader use of English whenever possible. English is very widely spoken in India, the US and Australia. Knowledge of English in Japan is improving.

In initial response to Pete’s perhaps extravagant claim that far in the future Australia and France may have a nuclear propelled/nuclear weapon submarine deal GhalibKabir made excellent comments on November 20, 2020. The Quad is a regionally useful arrangement at hand ie. very soon, rather than Australia-France Nuclear, which would be way down the track.

GhalibKabir comments:

“Not unless the Quadrilateral or whatever can walk the talk. Else, Australia will not get a nuclear SSN fleet as a [French K15 reactor] LEU based fleet needing refueling every 7-10 years is a costly thing to sink US$ 100-200 billion into.

Unless SIGINT collaboration, Undersea collaboration including bigger IUSS backed by UUV and UAV coordination materializes tangibly, the PLA will keep having an open field.

Most importantly, in case there are serious risks of flare-ups, unless there is serious signalling to China in terms of assured retaliation in terms of [Electronic Warfare?] EW response, [anti-satellite] ASAT retaliations on Chinese satellite constellations etc. China will brush this away like an elephant swatting away a fly.

To use underwater as an illustration, this is what it will take to make China take things seriously in the Indian Ocean and SCS

1. SIGINT/ELINT sats linked up across to P-8s, E-2Ds, RQ-4s/UAVs etc across from India to Australia

2. IUSS/SOSUS: These are to have links to AUV/UUVs and also to satellites above

3. Submarines: Along with UUVs, midget subs, AIP bearing SSKs, SSNs etc. need to be used in a 4 layer mesh. India, US, Australia, UK, France etc might need to collaborate here to manage the nearly 80 submarine plus innumerable UUV holdingPLAN.

4. Surface vessels: Right from sharing bathymetry data etc, major surface vessels need to carry good Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) suites and be able to coordinate

5. Air support, missiles and munitions: Again SEAD/DEAD suite bearing fighters, long range munitions, BVRAAMmissiles will need coordinated deployment to sustain parity or if not, a small 'first see, first shoot'chance against PLAN planes like the KJ-500 and KJ-600s and [Chinese stealth] J-20 and J-31 [aka FC-31]

This is the bare minimum needed... meaningless 'viagra for hermaphrodites' gestures like FONOPswon't cut any ice."

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-sets-up-coastal-radars-in-neighbourhood-to-keep-eye-on-china-1744751-2020-11-27

Map courtesy India Today.

The information below indicates the US not only provided "how to build" nuclear weapons and missile information for France's purportedly "homegrown" nuclear deterrent, but the US provided this information on the understanding France would pass it on to Israel.

US TO FRANCE

William Burr https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/william-burr wrote “U.S. Secret Assistance to the French Nuclear Program, 1969-1975: From "Fourth Country" to Strategic Partner” Dated May 26, 2011

at https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/us-secret-assistance-to-the-french-nuclear-program-1969-1975-fourth-country-to-strategic   Extracts of this long paper include:

“The Nixon administration secretly reversed a policy of opposition to, and non-cooperation with, the French nuclear program that began to emerge during the final years of the Eisenhower administration [ie. late 1950s to 1961].

... Nixon's decisions stayed secret until the summer of 1989 when Princeton University political scientist Richard Ullman published an article in Foreign Policy magazine on "The Covert French Connection." ² [Richard Ullman, “The Covert French Connection,” Foreign Policy, No. 75 (Summer, 1989), 3-33.]

...Supporting the decision to aid the French was the assumption, held by Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger, that making French nuclear forces more effective would strengthen the U.S. strategic position against the Soviet Union.

Drawing upon interviews with over 100 former officials, Ullman sought to puncture two myths: that the French strategic force ["force de frappe"] was "entirely homegrown," and that, owing to Washington's restrictive policy on the diffusion of nuclear technology, only the British had been a recipient of direct assistance.

Recently declassified documents show that during the summer of 1973, French defense minister Robert Galley directly asked for "‘negative guidance' on the trigger for the French nuclear warhead."(Document No. 47)

Defense Minister Robert Galley brought up a variety of problems where the French wanted help, such as multiple reentry vehicles, hardening of reentry vehicles (RVs/warheads), "negative guidance" for nuclear weapons design, and developing underground test sites so that atmospheric tests could end. The aid that the French were seeking would amount to assistance for a new generation of French missiles. As Kissinger aide William Hyland observed, this meant "crossing a line that was observed during previous cooperation." (Document No. 48)

Yet, Ullman also notes that his interview subjects acknowledged that "they had no confidence that anyone really knew what American scientists and engineers said to French colleagues over lunch and dinner once they had been given a basic license to talk." ⁵ [Ullman, “The French Covert Connection,” 20.]

 Thus, the actual conveyance of "negative guidance" may have been a matter outside of White House control. Certainly much more needs to be learned about the U.S. program of assistance to France.”

Pete Comment

Given US distrust of France’s independent foreign policy along with France’s independent nuclear program why was the US willing to help France. The joint enemy USSR was one reason. But I also theorise that French-Israeli nuclear cooperation in the 1950s (eg. France helping build the Negev/Dimona Nuclear Weapons Center and helping with Israel's Jericho missiles) continued in later decades.

In the 1960s, via France, the US secretly provide nuclear help to Israel, the US's most important strategic ally in the Middle East. US nuclear support to Israel occurring via France was more easily covered up. In espionage terms France acted as the deniable cutout for US nuclear weapon and missile intelligence to Israel.

FRANCE TO ISRAEL

Significant evidence of French nuclear assistance to Israel comes from a then serving US officer, who was both a military surgeon and military intelligence officer. He wrote about France’s early 1960s nuclear tests in the French Sahara.  This was US Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr, who in a 1999 report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center states "Progress in nuclear science and technology in France and Israel remained closely linked throughout the early fifties." 

Furthermore, according to Farr, "There were several Israeli observers at the French nuclear tests [in the early 1960s in the Sahara] and the Israelis had 'unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data.'"[6]"

Pete Comment

So in the early 1960s there were Israeli observers to French nuclear tests of weapons that were built with US help. 

Furthermore Israeli nuclear weapons scientists/engineers "had 'unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data."of nuclear weapons France built with US help. As Israel is not known to have conducted its own "hot" (ie. fission and fusion reaction) nuclear weapon tests Israel's nuclear weapons' development (via computer modelling) very much relied on French nuclear test explosion data. 

Excellent Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR)has an interesting article, of Dec 1, 2020, 

at https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/australias-gilmour-signs-launch-pact-with-momentus/:

“Australia’s Gilmour signs launch pact with Momentus”

“Momentus, a commercial space company offering in-space infrastructure services, and Gilmour Space Technologies, a hybrid rocket company based in Queensland, Australia, announced a new agreement for launch and orbital transport services.

...Gilmour Space is a venture-backed rocket company in Queensland, Australia that is developing new launch vehicles powered by lower-cost hybrid propulsion technologies. The Eris launch vehicle will debut its services in 2022 and offer lift-off capability to LEO in the 300kg class. A more capable variant, Eris Heavy, is intended to be commercially available in 2025 with a lift off capacity up to two tons. The Eris family of launch vehicles will launch from Australian and international launch sites, offering access to low inclination as well as Sun-synchronous orbits...”

[Pete Comment – a strong relationship with the Australian Government’s Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC) is evident. See the Youtube here https://youtu.be/tk_C9kpjoa8 also below]

READ THE WHOLE APDR ARTICLE

Sparked by GhalibKabir’s interesting comment of December 2, 2020 is my comment below.

Yes Russia is very unlikely to accept Indian export of BrahMos to Australia.

In any case Australia politically would reject joint Russian-Indian missile BrahMos because it is part Russian. Australia would be relying on the US to work out countermeasures Against BrahMos.

On an electronic intel level BrahMos might be packaged with hidden extra Russian spyware software. That may also render it inoperable in attempted use against target ships carrying Russian friend-or-foe transmitters.

Past Russian nuclear and missile assistance to India's Nirbhay, nuclear capable cruise missile, would also turn off Australia.

There may be more interest likely in Israel's small "Baby Boomer" SSB platform supersonic endrun Popeye Turbo n-SLCM.

More overtly (and in joint Australia-US character) is:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/01/australia/hypersonic-missile-australia-us-intl-hnk/index.html of Dec 1, 2020 "Australia partners with US to develop hypersonic missiles"

"(CNN) Australia will jointly develop hypersonic cruise missiles with the United States in a bid to counter China and Russia which are developing similar weapons, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said on Tuesday.

"We will continue to invest in advanced capabilities to give the Australian Defence Force more options to deter aggression against Australia's interests," Reynolds said in a statement.

She did not reveal the cost of developing the missiles or when they would be operational.

Australia had set aside up to 9.3 billion Australian dollars ($6.8 billion) this year for high-speed, long-range missile defense systems, including hypersonic research..."

Likely synonymous with the US developing a larger longer range SM-6 - with SM-6 already ordered by Australia, Australia may be part funding the enlarged version. Further reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM basically in the BrahMos class.

Also see https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australia-is-getting-the-long-range-missiles-needed-for-a-contested-indo-pacific/“This is likely to be the SM6 [ https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27068/navy-to-supersize-its-ultra-versatile-sm-6-missile-for-even-longer-range-and-higher-speed ] missile” 

An authenticly hypersonic US missile, that might be passed on to Australia by the 2030s, is the under development "Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS)" missile.  

I haven't read much about Vietnam building an n-deterrent (with Russian help?) but it would make sense against China. However Vietnam might reason that it would need a too large, hence unaffordable deterrent, to give China pause. I see Vietnam has curtailed its nuclear energy plans.

Philippines is still under US Treaty/control [see Diplomat paysite] stopping Phils doing its own n-deterrent. 

I class Phils with Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar as being (understandably) too frozen in fear in Chinese headlights to contemplate a n-deterrent. It cannot be easy for the mainland Southeast Asian countries, knowing they are but a short Chinese tank drive away.

Indonesia already has the money to go nuclear, but that would form the major headache for Australia - enough for Australia to also go down the n road.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-01/taiwan-australia-worsening-relationship-china/12938540

of December 1, 2020

Not only HMS Vigilant (SSBN) has had severe COVID problems this year (see my November 2, 2020 report) but now her sister sub HMS Vengeance (SSBN) has had a major disruption due to COVID. 

See the UK Daily Mail's report of  December 4, 2020:

'Entire crew' of nuke-carrying Trident submarine based in Scotland 'is replaced after Royal Navy officer tested positive for Covid-19'

"A Trident submarine's entire crew was replaced after an officer tested positive for Covid-19, it was claimed last night.

Almost 170 Royal Navy sailors serving aboard HMS Vengeance were taken off days before a deployment, according to The Sun.

The crew had been living in strict isolation and had food delivered to their rooms along with regular testing.

...But Navy top brass reportedly had to overhaul the entire crew when an officer caught the virus.

Sources have pointed the finger at inspectors who came aboard HMS Vengeance while docked at the Faslane naval base in Scotland last week.

[needless to say] An insider told the newspaper: 'It would be a disaster if there was a Covid outbreak on a sub if it was on patrol.'"

SEE WHOLE DAILYMAIL ARTICLE

Further on my message that the French nuclear deterrent has never been entirely homegrown, is the 2010 UK-French Lancaster House Treaties. These have synonymous/working and overlapping instruments that include the 2010 Downing Street Declaration and 2010 Teutates Treaty.

The nuclear aspects of the treaties were aimed at improving nuclear wepaon management coordination between the UK and France (the only two Western European powers who actually own their nuclear warheads) and to reduce the high costs of nuclear weapon management. 

Most of their operational nuclear warheads are mounted on their 4 SSBNs each, ie. the 4 UK Vanguard-classand 4 French Triomphant-class.

"Lancaster", "Downing" and "Teutates" appear to be used interchangeably due to legal complexities and also to add bureacratic-security-cover over what are sensitive nuclear weapon matters.

A Major Nuclear Accident

Somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, on February 3-4, 2009, HMS Vanguard SSBN and the French Navy’s Le Triomphant SSBN collided - luckily in slow customary SSBN motion. Both sustained serious damage and limped home under their own power (?).

After this shock and for many other diplomatic and cost reasons the UK and France believed it high time to conclude what became the Lancaster House defence and security cooperation treaties, covering conventional and nuclear weapon matters.

Between the lines the UK and France also concluded SSBN patrol procedures (dividing the Atlantic up into national zones?) to avoid future collisions.

The Treaties

The Lancaster House Treaties of 2010 [actual text] are two treatiesbetween UK and France for defence and security cooperation.^[1][2] They were signed at 10 Downing Street (UK Prime Minister's main office, London, UK) on November 2, 2010 by UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.^[3]

Under the 2010 Lancaster Treaties umbrella is the Downing Street Declaration, which covers conventional weapon matters and the nuclear weapon matters that I’m interested in, eg:

• Collaboration on the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of both countries' independent nuclear deterrent capabilities. This included building a new joint facility at Valduc nuclear weapons center in France that modelled performance of nuclear warheads and materials to ensure long-term viability, security and safety. This was supported by a new joint Technology Development Centre at Aldermaston Nuclear Weapons Establishment in the UK.

and

• The two countries began joint development of some of the equipment and technologies for the next generation of nuclear submarines.

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

Under the 2010 Lancaster Treaties umbrella in the joint Nuclear Weapons management realm is the Teutates Treaty [actual text] between the UK and France on Joint Radiographic / Hydrodynamics Facilities (Valduc and Aldermaston).

“Teutates” was the Celtic God of War (tribal defensive) in ancient Britain and Gaul (no less). So it is an appropriate name for a nuclear weapons treaty.

After the post 2009 rush to conclude these treaties in 2010 all may have gone swimmingly until the UK Government’s big Brexit blunder impinged on UK-French nuclear weapon management. This will be explored next week.

The recent assassination of Iran's top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was carried out remotely with the help of preparatory humint, satellite warning/part cuing, artificial intelligence (ie. complex software) in the Nissan shoot car, a facial recognition camera for targeting, hooked up to a machinegun (likely heavy) in the Nissan. Finally there was a bomb with about a 3 second timer to blow up the Nissan.

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was traveling with his wife in a [semi] bulletproof car in the city of Absard, east of Tehran on Friday afternoon, November 27, 2020 when he was killed. Fakhrizadeh's car and a car full of bodyguards were surrounded by a security detail of three other vehicles (telltale security outrider motorbikes?). The convoy had to go though a narrow, one-way, "kill zone" (see Diagram below). After going around a distracting roundabout, which semi-hid the Nissan.

Fakhrizadeh was shot at least three times by a medium-heavy machinegun in the Nissan that was parked approximately 150 meters up ahead. The Nissan later exploded after maybe 3 seconds, perhaps further damaging Fakhrizadeh's car. 

Conflicting sources (with much unlikely information) are here and here. 

COMMENT

Months of humint and sigint planning allows for a complex remote operation.

The satellite could have been used to cue the radio dish/antenna on the Nissan to provide 20 seconds notice that the right/expected convoy (with telltale outriders) was approaching.

(See Diagram for killzone channeling) A high spec camera in the Nissan would have been configured  to capture the target’s face through glass OR the operation planners already knew which car Fakhrizadeh was traveling in.

Fakhrizadeh's car may have only been resistant to standard 7.62mm ammunition. If the machine gun was of a heavy calibre - say .50 calibre (12.7mm) (eg. an M2 or equally common Russian Kord) with special armour piercing bullets, they could easily get to Fakhrizadeh.

Even if the heavy machine-gun failed to fire - an automatic timer in the Nissanwas set to explode blowing up Fakhrizadeh's still approaching car. The explosion also had the advantage of destroying any remaining assassinating country evidence. 

Before the operation there would be little difficulty transporting the assassination equipment in pieces across any one of Iran's many loose land and sea borders (see Map below). Iran is surrounded by such loose and/or contested borders as Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. This presents endless opportunities for any determined state based assassination operation.

DIAGRAM - Points 1, 2 and 5 appear correct although the equipment was more likely hidden in a Nissan car, not an open air "pick-up". But 3 and 4 are clearly wrong: Fakhrizadeh (the VIP) would not get out of the car (that was protecting him) "to investigate the noise". Doctrine: A fired upon VIP armoured car speeds away from the threat. (Diagram coutesy USA Today Sun, with some old information as at November 30, 2020).
---

Pete Comment

Of interest to Australia. 1,300 US Marines will be permantly based at Guam, much closer to Australia than previously. This is along with a 3,700 Marine force rotating through Guam.

What impact that will have on the up to 2,500 per year Marine Rotational Force [through] Darwin (MRF-D) Australia agreement is unknown (?) and will need to be worked out.

ARTICLE

Miguel Ortiz at We Are The Mighty December 4, 2020 reports 
 https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-trending/camp-blaz/ :

"Camp Blaz [Guam] is the first new USMC base in nearly 70 years" 

On October 1, 2020, the United States Marine Corps activated its first new base since 1952. Marine Corps Base Camp Blaz will host roughly 5,000 Marines of III Marine Expeditionary Force on the island of Guam. The Marines will relocate from their current station in Okinawa, Japan over the next five years. 1,300 Marines will be permanently stationed at Camp Blaz while the remaining 3,700 Marines will serve as a rotational force.

The new Marine Corps strategy in the Pacific calls for a smaller, more agile and lethal force. “We have to spread out,” said the Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger. “We have to factor in Guam.” Camp Blaz will allow the United States to distribute its premiere amphibious fighting force across the Pacific. Operating from Guam, the Marine Corps will be able to respond to a wider array of aggressive actions from China...."

Chuck Yeager died on December 7, 2020 at the age of 97. This is a very advanced age for someone in the high fatality early rocket/jet Test Pilot calling. 

NPR, December 7, 2020 reports on his death, his career and his major media portrayal in The Right Stuff  - a great movie. 

Yeager is most famous for breaking the sound barrier (Mach 1) in a decidedly dangerous rocket plane. Yeager did not have the high mathematics/physics college education required of a Test Pilot these days. But he was a precise, gifted, natural pilot, also a showman with charisma. America needs heroes and he delivered at great personal risk.

Here is a rare example of a US journalist (Julia Ioffe - clearly with good access) sympathetic to the health of intelligence personnel. See Ioffe being interviewed on Youtube here and above. 

In the Youtube, Ioffe refers to the CIA investigators identifying Russian intelligence use of the directed energy weapon against US officers in Australia here .

US intelligence agencies are reluctant to put anti-Russia issues (eg. Russian developed directed energy weapon use) to Trump or his loyal Secretary of State, Pompeo.

This is because bureaucrats are ever mindful of Trump's pro-Putin/Russian sympathies. There is also a yawning lack of intelligence security concerning Russia at the White House. Trump is reputed to happily discuss relevant intelligence with Russian friends.

US officers are physically suffering while the Trump Administration does not confront
well-documented Russian use of directed energy weapons.

See further detail, at Julia Ioffe'sGQ article, on the use of the weapon by FSB officers in Australia - against US officers. 

Also see Australia's government owned ABC article.

COMMENT

Help is on the way - but perhaps only after January 20, 2021. It is highly likely that the new foreign policy officials under the Biden Administration will be taking Havana Syndrome (ie. use of directed energy weapons) seriously.

In response to GhalibKabir's fine comments, of December 9, 2020, on nuclear weapons proliferation to-from China, I add further comments below:

Finding US Overt sources is quite easy. Finding non-US sources is more difficult.
---

SOURCE 1 

Mainly https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/ 

“China was embroiled in nuclear proliferation scandals throughout the late 1980's and early 1990's, particularly with respect to its sale of RING MAGNETS to Pakistan in 1995. [38] 

[Wikipedia - "A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation contributed in Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges. China has also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chashma Nuclear Power Complex and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid-1990s.^[50]" ] 

[Missile Threat In November 1992, China sold 34 M-11 [aka. DF-11] missiles to Pakistan. Satellite images showed missile canisters were delivered at Sargodha air base near Lahore.¹³ The Chinese government initially denied these allegations, accusing U.S. intelligence agencies of fabricating evidence of the transfer. The United States reimposed limited sanctions in response.¹⁴ After Beijing provided a more explicit commitment to adhere to the MTCR guidelines and to stop exporting missiles, the Clinton Administration lifted the sanctions in 1994.¹⁵ Although China pledged not to transfer missiles to Pakistan, it reportedly continued to assist Pakistan in developing its own indigenous missile capability.¹⁶ In 1992, China attempted to sell to Iran 500 DF-11 missiles. However, the deal was terminated due to U.S. pressure.¹⁷ A reported 30-50 DF-11 missiles may have been sold to Iran in 1995, although this remains unconfirmed.18 ] 

China provided Pakistan with a nuclear bomb DESIGN (used in China's October 1966 nuclear test). 

[That test was CHIC 4, October 27, 1966, Warhead 548, 12kt test yield]

These designs were later passed to Libya by the A.Q. Khan network, and discovered by IAEA inspectors in 2004 after then [Libyan] President...Qadhafi [who very foolishly - look what subsequently happened to him and his country!] renounced his nuclear weapons program and allowed inspectors to examine related facilities [in Libya]. The plans contained portions of Chinese text with explicit instructions for the manufacture of an implosion device. [39]”
---

SOURCE 2

Mainly https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/chinese-nuclear-program

Concentrates (at length worth a SubMatts' article in itself) on help to China from a US traitor, perhaps semi-official 1940-60s far left Curie cluster? French helpers and (no doubt permitted by the Soviets) the brainy but malleable, Klaus Fuchs (using his stolen from UK/US knowledge and expertise)  

Source 2 goes onto help FROM China 

"...during the 1990s. On one visit, he was told that the CHIC-4 (see above) the bomb used in China’s fourth nuclear test—was designed simply enough so that “anybody could build [it]” (Reed and Stillman 231).

Chinese scientists passed the CHIC-4 bomb technology to Pakistan, and allegedly conducted a nuclear test for Pakistan at Lop Nur on May 26, 1990. Additionally, China sold intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) albeit without nuclear warheads to Saudi Arabia, sold missile components to Iraq [can't find details], and trained Libyan nuclear experts in Beijing [maybe not much evidence?]. China has also tolerated the North Korean nuclear weapons program; after Pyongyang’s first test in 2006, China’s ambassador to the UN affirmed that “China does not approve of inspecting cargo to and from the D.P.R.K.” (328)." 

[China - North Korea relations is an ongoing story. With China thinking even a nuclear armed North Korean Buffer Zone (between China and US-SK forces) is better than no buffer zone at all.] 

At last some worthwhile submarine news. 

Italy is buying and will probably do the building of what I think are the world's first 4 submarines that combine AIP and Lithium-ion Batteries.

These will be Type U212 NFS (for Near Future Submarine) Todaro Class Batch-III submarines.

AIP and Lithium Batteries will probably allow them to fully submerge longer than any other "conventional" (diesel-electric) submarines. 

See a good description with a cutaway diagram at https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/italys-new-type-u212-nfs-submarine-program-moving-forward-with-occar/

PETE COMMENT

Under the "Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters"competition India is shopping for follow-on naval fighters. India started receiving Russian MiG-29K carrier fighters from 2010, but India has become unhappy with defects in these MiGs and difficulty sourcing spare parts. Indian industry is also trying to convince the Indian Navy to buy 50+ navalised indigenously developed Tejas fighters. But, reading between the lines, the Indian Navy is cautious over the suitability of Tejas in a carrier role - in terms of ramp launch aerodynamics, heavy weight and arrested landing ruggedness. 

Purchase of F/A-18Es, West European or post MiG Russian Su fighters, can be seen as replacements (by 2028?) for the MiG-29Ks and probably also the Tejas navalised fighters. 

India is world renowned as a determined haggler particularly where jet buys are concerned. If the Rafale deal for India's Air Force is anything to go by, a 7 year delay and Indian pressure to have the winning aircraft license built in Indian factories, is entirely possible. To further complicate matters the Indian Navy "Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters" acquisition process may have merged. This may be with the Indian Air Force"MMRCA 2.0" process for 114 Air Force multi-role combat aircraft. For your average Western arms dealer, negotiating India's technocratic, multi-dimensional, acquisition system is more difficult than learning Vedic Sanskrit while piloting a pogo stick. Good Luck unsuspecting sellers :)

ARTICLE

The Aviationist ably reports December 15, 2020 in part:

"An F/A-18E Super Hornet completed the launch from a ski jump ramp during a demo at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. Here’s the first image.

Although the demonstration was carried out in August [2020], and the news was out since then, the first photo of an F/A-18E Super Hornet completing a ski jump launch at NAS Patuxent River, MD, has just been released.

The take off from the ramp at Patuxent River was conducted as part of a demo arranged for the Indian Navy, which has been in talks for the potential acquisition of Super Hornets for its STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) aircraft carriers, such as the INS Vikramaditya and the under-construction INS Vikrant.

...Interestingly this wasn’t the first time a Hornet carried out ski jump take offs. [US] Air Force Systems Command, dated 1991, says that between 1982 and 1986 “a metal ramp was constructed that could be modified to give ramp exit angles of 3, 6, and 9 degrees. The ramp was 112.1 feet long and 8.58 feet high at ‘he exit when configured for the 9 degree exit angle, measured from the horizontal...The minimum ground roll for the F/A-18 was 385 feet at a gross weight of 32,800 lbs. This ramp effectively reduced the takeoff roll of the F-18 by more than 50 percent..."

SEE THE WHOLE EXCELLENT AVIATIONIST REPORT

An F/A-18 Super Hornet completes a ski jump launch demo for the first time on Aug. 13, 2020 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. (Photo courtesy US Navy photo by Eric Hildebrandt via The Aviationist.)
---

Kym Bergmann, the Editor of Australia's Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR), has written an excellent article, dated 16 December 2020, entitled:

"Conventional submarine trends in the Asia-Pacific: size definitely matters"

Its probably the best article I've read on conventional submarines all year.  

From its introduction: "An almost universal trend in the design of diesel-electric submarines is that they are getting larger.  This can be observed in regional navies as diverse as those of Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Australia.  What they all have in common is a requirement for their submarines to be increasingly capable – particularly in overall combat power, range and endurance.  They are also all professionally led, high technology forces with close ties to the USN." 

The article looks in greater depth at South Korean, Australian and Japanese sub size increases, while it notes Indonesian subs have remained small.  

It then continues with a key section "Factors driving this inevitable size increase..."

The article then goes on to examine the critical outcome of sub size growth, which is rapidly rising price.

See this Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter (APDR) article on submarines here.
__________________________

As well as submarines APDR continually publishes key articles on regional-to-broader international weapons systems, support and policy subjects, on "Land, Air & Space, Sea, Joint Projects, Cyber Security, IT, Simulation & Training and Government Policy & News".

APDR also has a very useful search engine, going back many years.

Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter is my main daily reading - with its short and long articles. 

Pete

Thank you all who have read, and especially you who have commented, on Submarine Matters this year. 

Here is a poem of hope for Christmas - circulated on the Internet anonymously, with Southern Hemisphere updating by me. 

T'was just days before Christmas,
And all through the town,
People wore masks,
That covered their frown.

The frown had begun
Way back last Summer,
When a global pandemic
Made life a bummer.

They called it Corona,
But unlike the beers,
It didn’t bring good times,
It only brought tears.

Contagious and deadly,
This virus spread fast,
Like a bushfire that starts
When lightning strikes parts.

Airplanes were grounded,
Travel was banned.
Borders were closed
Across air, sea and land.

As the world entered lockdown
To flatten the curve,
The economy halted,
And folks lost their nerve.

From March to July
We rode the first wave,
People stayed home,
They tried to behave.

When Spring emerged
The lockdown was lifted.
But some became careless,
Some of us drifted.

Now it’s December
Northern Hemisphere spiking,
Even in Sydney,
Not much to their liking.

Frontline workers,
Doctors and nurses,
Try to save people,
From riding in hearses.

This virus is awful,
This is COVID-19.
And only just now
Hopeful vaccines

It’s true that this year
Has had sadness a plenty,
We’ll never forget
The year 2020.

And just ‘round the corner -
The holiday season,
Can we be merry?
Is there even a reason?

To decorate the house
And put up the tree,
Maybe no one will see it,
No one but me.

But outside my window
The Sun shines strong,
And I think to myself,
One day Good comes along!

So, I gather the ribbon,
The garland and bows,
As I play those old carols,
My happiness grows.

Christmas is not cancelled
And neither is hope.
If we lean on each other,
I know we can cope. 

Merry Christmas to all!

If World Peace broke out this Blog would be rapidly out of business. But still, I'm sure most agree, it would be worth it.

See this British Imperial War Museums(IWM) Youtube here and below: