International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Maritime dimension of the latest ME spat between Israel and the Paletsinians. Full details X-posted in the W.Asia td.

Israeli Warships Fire Missiles At Gaza While Hamas Takes Aim At Offshore Oil Platforms
As the Israeli bombardment of Gaza continues, the conflict has now added a maritime dimension.


https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... -platforms
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

The US is early retiring a number if its LCS warships,the USN Independence,the revolutionary trimaran FFG,after barely 11 years of service.Unfortunately, the LCS programme hasn't been a success with tech. problems plaguing the class, plus its inadequate armament . Acquiring more JSFs and other assets seems to be a better economic prospect for the USN hence the pensioning off of sev. LCS. I wonder whether they are fit enough for disposal to an ally....
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The first LCS's being retired were prototypes that were basically piloting Rumsfeld's bad idea of introducing the concept of prototyping (producing a couple of test vessels before the final design configuration and internal systems had been completed and approved) small ships in a Naval application. They differ so much from the final configuration that keeping them as a distinct baseline was cost prohibitive and the US Navy as it is did not want or like the concept of entering into ship production with prototypes. They are/were even bad test assets because their systems differed so much from those on later ships that testing on them still required a fair bit of repetitive work down the road. Same with using them as trainers. They are not fit to serve further in the USN or practically any other Navy unless of course cost (variance from other classes) was no object. I think upgrading them to standard LCS configuration basically cost 60-70% the cost of buying a new LCS so that's why the USN is not interested in keeping them. LCS's are not FFG's (that is a different program with a different class of ships that is larger and better equipped). They are corvette's designed for very specific littoral needs of the US Navy.

The US Navy will not acquire aircraft at the expense of ships. Though yes, they have recently indicated that they may accelerate their F-35C buy which makes sense since they don't have any other stealthy attack aircraft (manned or unmanned) on the deck at the moment and now works off of 3 of its aircraft carriers, with 2 additional ones in the process of being upgraded for it (by 2024).

Retiring the prototype LCS's has no material impact on the USN's combat capability as those early ships would have never deployed for any meaningful operational rotation given how different they were from the rest of the class. With the Connie class construction begun, the LCS's being upgunned, and the DDG-51 program still delivering 2 destroyers a year (with the Flight III set for delivery next year) , the USN has a decent pipeline of combat ships coming online each year as they get going on designing the next cruiser. There will be a steady flow of a new class/variant of ships going on their first operational deployment every couple of years or so for the US Navy. DDG-1000 goes out next year, followed by the Ford Class carrier, followed by the latest block Virginia SSN, and then the DDG-51 Flight III. The next 3-4 years will be busy in getting new classes or variants of existing classes into the ops rotation. Towards the end of the decade the USS Constellation (FFG-62) will be delivered and they are probably going to pick a second yard so that they could build 4 frigates a year (at two yards) starting around 2026-2028 timeframe.
Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 1116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Ashokk »

Indian Navy designs Oxygen Recycling System to mitigate current oxygen crisis
NEW DELHI: Amidst the second wave of Covid-19, the Diving School of the Southern Naval Command of the Indian Navy has conceptualised and designed an Oxygen Recycling System (ORS) to alleviate the existing oxygen shortages.
According to an official statement, the ORS has been designed by Lieutenant Commander Mayank Sharma of the Diving School. The system's design has been patented, and an application to this effect has been filed by the Indian Navy on May 13.
The Diving School has expertise in this area as the basic concept is used in some of the diving sets used by the school. Earlier, a similar idea on a miniaturised lab model was demonstrated to the Prime Minister during the Combined Commanders Conference at Kevadia on March 6.
According to a press release, the ORS is designed to extend the life of the existing medical oxygen cylinders two to four times, using the fact that only a small percentage of oxygen inhaled by a patient is actually absorbed by the lungs, the rest being exhaled into the atmosphere along with carbon dioxide produced by the body.
The first fully operational prototype of the ORS was produced on April 22 and underwent a series of in-house trials and design improvements at the Southern Naval Command, with third-party observers from ISO-certified firms.
Thereafter, on the directives of NITI Aayog, the system underwent detailed analysis and assessment by a team of specialists at Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) at Thiruvananthapuram. The team of specialists at SCTIMST found the concept and design of the Oxygen Recycling System feasible, and also suggested a few additional modifications.
The overall cost of the ORS prototype has been capped at Rs. 10,000 against an envisaged saving of Rs 3,000 per day due to the recycling of O2. Besides substantially enhancing the existing oxygen capacity in the country, the ORS can also be used to extend the life of oxygen cylinders used by mountaineers/ soldiers at High Altitude, for HADR operations and onboard naval ships and submarines.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Report on SoKo's plans for its first true CV of around 40,000t. A debate is also going on within SoKo whether it really needs a carrier when N-subs would be a better option to deal with NoKo's missile subs.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ma ... -overview/
Long report,full details in the link.

Xcpt:
.
South Korea’s New CVX Aircraft Carrier Project: An Overview
Juho Lee 27 May 2021

Here is everything you need to know about the CVX project ahead of MADEX 2021

The booth for CV eXperimental (CVX), the project name for South Korea’s first aircraft carrier, at the MADEX International Maritime Defense Industry Exhibition this year will constitute 30% of the entire display area, according to Yonhap News. This decision is not just for pomp and circumstance. The Ministry of National Defense (MND) faces an uphill battle to convince the National Assembly and the public of the usefulness of CVX. Its request of ₩101 billion ($90 million) in funds for research into CVX for the 2021 fiscal year was denied by the National Defense Committee which only allocated ₩1 billion ($890,000) for this purpose.

The resistance may be hard to understand at first. Many nations consider aircraft carriers to be a point of pride, a symbol of their great power status. South Korea, however, faces very immediate security challenges, and many question whether an aircraft carrier, let alone a light aircraft carrier, can meet those challenges.

CVX history, dimensions, and capabilities
ROK Navy HHI LPX-II
Concept image of ROK Navy’s future LPX-II displayed on HHI stand during MADEX 2019
The CVX program evolved from the Landing Platform eXperimental (LPX) program which produced the largest ships operated by the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) so far, the Dokdo class amphibious assault ships. Preliminary plans, dubbed LPX-II, envisioned an amphibious assault ship like vessel that would also be capable of operating fighter aircraft. However, in Aug. 2020, the ROKN officially announced plans to acquire a fully-fledged aircraft carrier and the term CVX was introduced in Feb. 2021. The ROKN hopes CVX will be ready for operations by 2033.

The CVX is expected to cost ₩2.3 trillion ($2 billion) to construct and around ₩50 billion ($45 million) per year to maintain. It will be 265 m in length, 43 m in width and have a light and maximum displacement of around 30,000 tons and 40,000 tons respectively. The ship will be capable of operating 16 F-35B fighters as well as eight helicopters. It will also feature a high degree of automation and have a complement of 440 crew, excluding the air element. The carrier will have two islands, similar to the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth (QE) class, but lacks a ski-jump.

CVX will be equipped with the AESA radar being designed by Hanwha for the “integrated mast” on the KDDX destroyer. The S band radar will have a range of 300 km for long range detection of aircraft, while the X band radar will be used for short range detection. The carrier will also feature LIG Nex1’s torpedo acoustic countermeasure, Haegung (K-SAAM) surface to air missile system, and close in weapon systems (CIWS) for point defence.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

It may happen! Oz to dump the French conv. Barracuda sub which was earlier chosen for its v.ambitious sub acquisition,mired in contentious negotiations about its execution,which has come in for huge criticism within the country.
The ABC report 2 days ago is unavailable,so here is another just two months ago heralding the debacle.
This must also be taken into consideration by the IN/GOI when considering boats for the P-75I contest.The French have shafted us once on the costs of the Scorpene,we should not suffer a second time.
Watch the vclip too in the link.

https://independentaustralia.net/politi ... face,14846
Xcpts:
Government submarine contract sunk and unlikely to resurface
By Alan Austin | 1 March 2021,

There are a raft of problems with the submarines Australia proposed to buy from the French(screenshot via YouTube)
The submarine deal France proudly called 'the contract of the Century' appears to have collapsed, reports Alan Austin.

IF THERE WAS one thing which should unite all media commentators, economic and military analysts, and informed citizens in outrage against the Morrison Government, it is this. The Government has wasted billions of dollars on a deal to buy 12 new submarines which have virtually no chance of fulfilment.

As this is written, the head of the French naval construction company Naval Group, Pierre Eric Pommellet, is in Australia meeting federal ministers in an attempt to rescue the contract. Tragically for Australia – and for Monsieur Pommellet – not one of those ministers has the experience or competence to wrangle a successful result.

Many informed commentators in France, Australia and elsewhere now expect the much-celebrated deal to be abandoned. If that happens, replacing the current ageing submarines would be delayed many years, depending on the timing of the change of government to a capable administration.

Although defence is just one example of Coalition mismanagement, this is where Australia’s losses are arguably most devastating: both in billions of dollars wasted and in the risk to national security.

Like a fish out of water: Australia's submarine project is a flop
Like a fish out of water: Australia's submarine project is a flop
Australia's submarine project launched by the Abbott Government is an abject failure, writes Dr Binoy Kampmark.

Responsibility for the project
Multiple failures are evident. The most basic is accountability. Since negotiations with France began, Australia has had three prime ministers, three deputy PMs, three failed treasurers, five defence ministers and four ministers for defence industry. Of the 15 individuals to have held these portfolios, seven have left the Parliament. None remaining has the competence to deliver for Australia or the mettle to take responsibility. The current Defence Minister is in hospital on leave.

Political priorities paramount
A major factor in dashing into the connection with France was the set of promises the Coalition hoped to make chasing votes. In the run-up to the 2019 election, then Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne promised hundreds of new jobs, the “majority of which will be based in South Australia".

Cost and defence considerations were secondary.

Many military observers were dismayed at Australia taking the French Shortfin Barracudas over the lower-cost and more suitable alternatives tendered by Japan and Germany.

Design and cost errors
Several of Australia’s specifications were plain foolish, as Binoy Kampmark summarised for IA. A nuclear submarine with a diesel-electric engine is a fail. An American combat system won’t work in a French vessel because the Americans and the French do not talk. Lead-acid batteries will be obsolete well before the subs are delivered.

France’s original tender documents put the cost of the project at between $20 billion and $25 billion. The cost in the initial agreement signed in late 2016 was $50 billion.

By February 2020, the Parliamentary Library research service reported that the acquisition cost:

‘... is in the order of $80 billion in out-turned dollars and the estimate for sustainment might roughly work out to be around $145 billion ...’

Today, estimates range up to double that quantum.

White elephants of the sea: The French-Australian submarine agreement
White elephants of the sea: The French-Australian submarine agreement
The Australian navy has made an agreement to purchase a dozen submarines from France, but the deal isn't without complications.

Missed deadlines
Delays so far have pushed back delivery of the first Barracuda from the mid-2020s to the early 2030s and now to the 2040s. The latest missed date was finalising the critical Strategic Partnering Agreement which governs the entire project. This was due before last Christmas.

Australian content in labour and components
This is the main area of contestation between the French company and the Morrison ministry. The Defence Minister is holding out for 60 per cent local input, down from 90 per cent when the project was first announced. The French now insist it must be much less as Australia cannot deliver. This was not settled before the production agreement was signed in 2018.

How many subs are needed?
Replacing the current six Collins-class vessels is certainly justifiable and possibly increasing that to seven or eight.

Comparisons with other countries suggest 12 is excessive.

Taiwan with a similar population to Australia’s and much greater defence vulnerability has four. Canada with a much higher population also has four. Argentina and Spain with roughly twice Australia’s population each have two. Germany which has a population more than three times Australia’s and is a major submarine manufacturer has six. Brazil with eight times the population has six. Mexico with five times the population has none. New Zealand with arguably the same defence vulnerability as Australia has none.

Twelve is thus excessive, especially as this Government has borrowed $73 billion on average each year for the past seven years – a total debt blow-out of $541 billion – while all well-managed economies have substantially reduced their debt.

Failure to invest in Australia
There is one justification for 12 subs. That is if Australia expands its own submarine industry and builds them for other countries as well. If Sweden with less than half Australia’s population can do this, Australia certainly can. Not many, however, believes the current Coalition Government has either the vision or the competence to attempt this.

The current Collins-class submarines were commissioned by the Hawke Government in 1987. Construction began in Australia in 1990 and continued until 2003. The technical problems encountered in the early years were gradually overcome. The six subs will now remain in service until the mid-2040s, subject, of course, to when the Coalition loses office.

A proficient administration can do it.

Australia's submarines: More magical thinking
The submarine decision demonstrates our thinking is still mired in a passing world despite the magical thinking inherent in the government’s statements. James O’Neill reports.

Excessive secrecy, even from the Senate
Compounding all these failures is Morrison’s Cabinet refusing to be answerable to the Parliament. In an ugly confrontation in last month’s Senate Economics References Committee, Defence Department head Greg Moriarty refused point-blank to provide documents which the Committee had the constitutional right to access.

Independent Senator Rex Patrick warned Moriarty:

“There has been an order for the production of these documents. You have advanced public interest immunity and you are quite entitled to do that. The Senate considered that public interest immunity and, in this instance, has rejected it. From that point on, you are basically verging on contempt. The Minister is verging on contempt.”

Moriarty steadfastly refused the Committee’s requests, insisting he would do the bidding of the craven Minister and Cabinet.

The remedy
Thus the solution is for the people of Australia to get rid of this secretive bungling regime at the earliest opportunity: to save hundreds of billions of dollars and to ensure effective military capability.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by John »

Philip wrote:Fair enough,I was only showing the range of corvette designs available from 1000t to 2000tRu ones well known,and our ASW warfare problem with lack of vessels and P-28's limited performance.
Moving it to intl Naval discussion. One of the most prominent/popular designs for 1000-3000 tons is GoWind class I believe it started out a patrol vessel but DCN saw the potential in it as export platform (already lined up few countries including Egypt, UAE, Malaysia and Argentina). It has no funnel so the design looks pretty unique.

Which leads us to RMN’s Maharaja Lela class LCS they are horribly delayed due to spec changes and communication issues between local SY and DCN. Currently the price has already escalated to 500 mill $ each and it doesn’t even have a air defense system (tender process under way). Goes to show the importance of not blindly falling for promotional material and fully calculating out the cost before signing on the dotted lines.

I bring it up because of this news hopefully this time around they can finish up work and get it inducted soon.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... -programme
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Iran's largest ship the Karg fleet tanker/ support vessel caught fire and sank in the Gulf. Yet another one of the mysterious explosions,fires,etc. that has plagued Iran in recent times.The "usual suspects" responsible?

An Iranian vessel ,the Makran is also along with a frigate, is en-route transiting the E.African coast to an unknown destination carrying 7 small missile craft suspected to be heading for Venezuela.Other eqpt.,perhaps missiles may be aboard. Each of these Pekyaap-2 high speed craft of 57 ft. in length, can carry two Kowsar/Nasr short range anti-ship missiles ( range 18nm) and 2 12.75 inch torpedoes. Typically used by the IRGCN in the confined waters of the Gulf in large number.Will the Makran also reach its destination unscathed? Troubling times for the Iranian navy,watch this space....
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by chola »

The Hyundai carrier design is even better. Note bow thrusters and ramp.

Image
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:Understand the budget issues but that aside, there is a need for a cruiser class, it won't be just a "pride" project:

1) Fleet defence which is the role of the US Tico class, we have nothing that can protect a CAG. It is basically every ship for itself when you only have 32 Barak 8 even on our latest P-15bs -- you would need multiple ships to match a Tico with over 100 VLS cells,

2) Larger more powerful missiles for roles like ABM, you need a cruiser class to fit missiles that can reach space,

3) Radar and surveillance fit, the bigger the vessel, the larger the radar and other instruments (and the power they required) can be placed.

Please read up on the 10K ton American Ticonderoga class cruisers. They form the key element in the CAG protecting an American carrier.

The chinis have launched 8 12K tons Type 055s with 8 more planned. They will serve like the Ticos in the chini CAG. And they are big enough to house ballistic missiles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2 ... siles/amp/
There is nothing that is special about the Ticos besides them having a larger magazine (which becomes less of an issue if you take away the offensive mission from the DDG's and equip them for a similar mission) and dedicated space for AEGIS Command and Control which is probably their most important feature and more difficult to replicate on older destroyers (lack of space). But that is something that can be engineered into a DDG variant if desired by trading away other missions and roles. Also note that most if not all of the dedicated USN BMD ships are destroyers and not cruisers. The Flight III DDG-51's (14 under contract or construction with about 10-12 additional to be procured in the future) are more powerful than any Tico ever will be and the newer weapons have a higher probability of kill so those magazines go further then what magazines of 25-30 years ago did (SM2 replaced by SM2-IIIA, and SM-6, ESSM replaced with ESSM II, and SM-3 Block 1+ and II etc). There is no difference in terms of what type of weapons the destroyers and the cruisers can carry. In fact a larger DDG-51 can be made to basically completely replace what the Ticos can do if the US Navy wants to (though one could argue that in the Flight III configuration they get the perfect 80% solution with a significantly more capable radar, EW suite and more modern wapons) produce a dedicated escort AAW ship. But with Aegis Baseline 9 (in-service), and 10 (in service by 2024/5) this becomes less of an issue because they do not have to have such a clear delineation between AAW, and BMD ships as vessels can perform those taskings concurrently and thus better respond to evolving needs.

The US Navy isn't even building a cruiser, DDG(X) seems to be headed towards a more offensive focused destroyer and the DDG-1000 class is being upgraded to fit a dozen long range (3,000 km) hypersonic weapons instead of their AGS which, if funded, would have launched shorter ranged projectiles. With modern phased array technology, networking and advances in weapons, there is quite a lot of area-defense capability that one could provide even smaller non dedicated surface combatants so one should probably do away with the mindset of equipping specialized vessels for these roles and think about how more multi-mission combatants can collectively achieve the same.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5136
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by chola »

Brar ji, I appreciate the answer!

But the DDG 51 Flight IIIs are 10K tons. It is the same size as a Tico cruiser. Continue in the original IN thread for P-18 discussion.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

chola wrote:Brar ji, I appreciate the answer!

But the DDG 51 Flight IIIs are 10K tons. It is the same size as a Tico cruiser. Continue in the original IN thread for P-18 discussion.
Comparing tonnage is probably not an optimal way. Especially since you are comparing a modern ship (one that was launched this month) to a decades old cruiser. DDG-51 Flight III is a multi-mission combatant that can do a lot more including area-BMD. A modern (clean sheet) cruiser with a dedicated BMD/AAW combined mission (you have to have that if you are escorting a CBG - it makes no sense otherwise) is not even going to be in the same ballpark of the Tico. In fact, initial CGX designs put it north of 15K tons, and the LPD based vessel proposals (see video) were north of 20K tons. The point was that multi-mission ships are now far more capable and even the US Navy has now given up on building dedicated AAW/BMD cruisers because of this. Their next combatant is a DDG which sits in between the Burke and the Zumwalt in terms of displacement. So even they are getting out of the mindset of building dedicated AAW (and by extension BMD and hypersonic defense) combatants and more towards ships that are multi-mission but highly capable across this mission set (defending the carrier is still priority #1 because of how much the offensive strike capability that it carries (compared to a combatant or even submarine). With modern phased array radars, IPS, and other technologies, you can now do this. The only thing you cannot do on a smaller vessel, is have the magazine size. But then it is probably wiser to have your magazine spread across a wider number of combatants for many reasons since you are now in an environment where across the mission set (AAW, BMD or strike) your sensor and shooter do not need to be on the same platform (or even the same type of vessel).


Shwetank
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Shwetank »

The so called "The Battle of May Island" is one of the most extraordinary and absurd naval incidents of all time. A parade of Murphy's law in action (though not throughout the incident, it could have been much worse) and demonstration of the incompetency of British leadership starring the disastrous K-class submarine which went on to kill 100s of men before finally being retired from service. The details were little known as the incident was so embarrassing to the Royal Navy, it had been classified for decades.

The video below is very well done and the visualizations are amazing and help explain the convoluted chain of events better than any text could, don't let the length bother you, it's a gripping watch:


I think members should keep in mind how easily designs and doctrines can go wrong (submarine warfare was still in its infancy), even for what had been the premier world naval power for a century and also how incidents get hushed up for the image of the service, with regards to how people complain about new projects in India and ofcourse the media amplifies and broadcasts any possible failure
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ince-2016/
German Navy To Deploy A Frigate In Indo-Pacific Region For The First Time Since 2016
With the deployment of a frigate in Indo-Pacific region, the German Navy wants to send a signal for free sea routes and the observance of international law in the region.
Martin Manaranche, 30 Jul 2021
German Navy press release

The ship will be underway for a good six months. It will sail through the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal via the Indian Ocean to Australia and East Asia. On the way, exercises are planned with the navies of Australia, Singapore, Japan and the United States of America. In addition, there will be formal visits, port visits at the highest diplomatic level.
By sending the “Bayern” to the South China Sea, the German government is underscoring its guidelines on the Indo-Pacific published last year. The region is of great strategic importance.
“More than 90 percent of the world’s foreign trade is conducted by sea, much of it via the Indian and Pacific Oceans,” the guidelines state. These maritime trade routes, and with them the supply chains, must be kept free and secure.
The voyage of the frigate “Bayern” to the Indo-Pacific sends a signal that Germany is becoming more involved in the geopolitically central region of the 21st century. Together with its value partners, the Federal Republic stands up for the preservation and defense of a rule-based international order.
......
Gautam
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Possibly, a huge shakeup in the Australian Submarine program -

Going nuclear: PM to announce $90b French submarine deal is dead

The Morrison government is poised to tear up the troubled $90 billion contract with French shipbuilder Naval Group and partner with the United States and United Kingdom to switch to an American-made nuclear-powered submarine.

One source said the dramatic move would be justified that the shift to nuclear technology was required in light of the changing strategic circumstances as China becomes more aggressive in the region.

As an interim step, there were suggestions the US was planning to operate some of its Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines out Perth’s naval base, HMAS Stirling.

The British government, which also operates nuclear-powered submarines, is expected to support Australia with reactor technology locally.

US President Joe Biden is scheduled to give a press conference at 7am Australian time on a “national security initiative”.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton is currently in Washington DC along with Foreign Minister Marise Payne for annual defence and diplomatic talks. Mr Dutton’s office declined to comment the speculation.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Australia to acquire nuclear submarine fleet as part of historic deal with US and UK to counter China's influence

Australia is embarking on its most significant change of defence and strategic direction in decades, aiming to make the Navy's next submarine fleet nuclear-powered.

While the new defense technology-sharing pact is yet another step by Western allies to counter China’s strength, it will also upend Australia’s largest-ever defense contract, a AUS$90 billion deal to build submarines designed by the French company Naval Group, the Australia-based ABC News was first to report.

It’s the first time the U.S. has shared its nuclear propulsion technology with an ally since the U.S.-U.K. Mutual Defence Agreement of 1958, after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. U.S. officials said the sensitive nuclear propulsion technology was unlikely to be shared again soon.

“This is a fundamental decision that decisively binds Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations,” said a Biden administration official previewing the announcement to reporters. “This is the biggest strategic step Australia’s taken in generations.”

Though U.S. officials never mentioned China, the official cast the alliance ― called “AUUKUS” ― as “part of a large effort to sustain the fabric of deterrence across the Indo-Pacific.” Australia’s new subs would be stealthier, speedier, more survivable and able to be deployed for longer.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Very Very Interesting.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Makes you wonder what the amreekis are getting in return
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

They have a security treaty with the US. With move to go for SSNs, the USN will now more easily be able to have its SSN's operate out of Australia. Perhaps even have them deployed there using infrastructure built to support the Australian SSNs. The deal for the conventional subs was a rather strange one given the capability that the Australians were getting for what it was expected to cost them (upward of $65 Billion as per the latest estimates). After repeated frustration with the Naval group (which has been widely reported) they basically appeared to have had a look at what it was projected to cost them, schedule and just decided that they may as well go full SSN given the PLAN build up and the costs. At least a SSN gets a platform that can operate alongside USN's attack subs and keep up.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

It will be quite interesting to look at South Korea and Japan's sub building plans 18 to 24 months from now. They have they both have industrial capacity to build submarine at late Los Angeles or early Virginia levels of capacity .

Will they bite the bullet.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

US probably has a security treaty with every country on earth, let alone Aussies and not to forget, the French. And operating out of Aussie bases seems like a marginal benefit at best for "sharing nuclear propulsion tech" as the article puts it. And, like you say, the Aussies were saddled with the $65 billion pricetag for the conventional subs so US likely did them a favor and gave an easy way out of the mess. Who else was going to give them the nuke propulsion tech?

Anyway, all this depends on what exactly "sharing" means. If it's anything like the ToT we get, then basing out of Australia sounds like a massive W.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

No there will be no technology transfer in the meaning that you are implying. There wasn't for the French sub deal either (despite all that's been written). The technology will be given to the Australian industrial partner organizations, who will use it and build whatever version of US or UK sub or a new sub that they design in partnership with USA and UK. This isn't about creating a completely independent nuclear propulsion industrial base in Australia. It will be more about giving them a capability to produce and sustain their own SSN's for the next 50 years. That's a big plus for Australia (that was about to blow nearly $70 billion on conventional subs) and a pretty good deal for the US and UK. The US and Australian security relationship is quite strong and unlike most other security cooperation agreements that may have been in place. Australia is a five-eyes partner, and being in the Pacific a very vital security partner for the US Navy. Not to mention security ties going back to WW2 if not earlier.

Being able to base, and sustain US SSN's out of Australia gives a huge leap in capability to the US against China, especially if there can be enough commonality that much of the infrastructure created for the Australians can also serve the current and future US attack submarine force. The same is true for the Australians who can use US facilities to service or sustain their SSN fleet during wartime. It's definitely something that China would have to consider which it wouldn't had Australia basically just operated one off (for the region) Barracudas.

Finally it gives the USN a partner SSN operator in the region where neither Japan, nor South Korea are likely to operate this capability. China is much behind the US when it comes to quality submarines, but they are investing in this heavily. Having another SSN operating partner with 8 subs dedicated to just the Pacific will be a fairly significant leap in capability in the 2035 and beyond timeframe as the USN will at the time likely ramp down Virginia production and will be ramping up next gen attack sub production so may not be producing 2 SSN's a year for a brief period of time.

Also, the agreement announced isn't just exclusive to the submarine partnership. It extends to other security related technology research and development. On a bilateral basis, Australia and US are already cooperating on Electronic Warfare, Hypersonics, and AI research. This adds the UK to a few of those initiatives.
Last edited by brar_w on 16 Sep 2021 18:21, edited 6 times in total.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

Australian analysts are saying that a minimum of 8 subs and as many as 12 will be built as part of this program. That is a sizable number.

Also interesting that the last time the US enabled another country with nuclear propulsion was the UK, the year was 1958, the USSR had launched Sputnik in 1957 and the US needed to shore up allies to face that threat. More than 60 years later the US has for the 2nd time only enabled this technology to Australia now, to face up to the Chinese threat. It indicates that the US assessment of the threat that China poses going forward is comparable to that posed by the USSR in 1958.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Bad times for the French. First the scorpene leak and now this. One would think the Anglo cousins, the AUUKUS, are screwing them real good..
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Fair enough. Sucks for the other 5-eyes partner though, have seen figures ranging close to $80 billion for the conventional deal.

Also, if anyone knows, would the Aussie SSNs be based on LA-class or the Virginia class? seems to be the latter, given the British involvement but haven't found anything to confirm.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by hnair »

ldev wrote: It indicates that the US assessment of the threat that China poses going forward is comparable to that posed by the USSR in 1958.
And their Joint Chief chap must have called up the Chinese jernail to personally convey this after apologizing profusely. What is the point of all this for australians when the US will leave the field saying it is dinner time back home and they have been out too long?

This is a white-on-white sale with zero relevance to us. Only the frenchies got hosed and aid but minor comeuppance, for being sloppy with Scorpene.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

hnair wrote:
ldev wrote: It indicates that the US assessment of the threat that China poses going forward is comparable to that posed by the USSR in 1958.
And their Joint Chief chap must have called up the Chinese jernail to personally convey this after apologizing profusely. What is the point of all this for australians when the US will leave the field saying it is dinner time back home and they have been out too long?

This is a white-on-white sale with zero relevance to us. Only the frenchies got hosed and aid but minor comeuppance, for being sloppy with Scorpene.
Nairji
With deal of Angels shafting the Franks! and with possibility of a Marie Le Penn as First Lady French President: would this benefit Hamara Desh anyway
Meaning SSN;s. Mistral-type, and ???Jet engine deal
She is the type who would go with such deal just get back at the Angels!!
Last edited by SRajesh on 16 Sep 2021 12:14, edited 1 time in total.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

It can be used to leverage development of propulsion technology for submarines. Let's see who offered the best options.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

NZ PM Jacinda is on record that the new RAusN's SSNs when they arrive, won't be allowed to enter NZ's territorial waters, their moratorium on nuclear vessels dating from 1985 stands. Hope she'll stick to it when the Cheeni come calling.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ern-allies
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

m_saini wrote:
Also, if anyone knows, would the Aussie SSNs be based on LA-class or the Virginia class? seems to be the latter, given the British involvement but haven't found anything to confirm.
They will spend the next year and a half to develop just that. My guess is that it would closely resemble a Virginia class submarine though may be a hybrid design using some technologies from the Virginia and some from Astute. The Attack class conventional boats that were coming via the French partnreship were delayed and weren't expected to come in till the 2030s so if you assume that it takes them 10 years to build the first in class SSN, and that they begin in 2033 then that timeline isn't radically different.

The Australian Navy will also be getting the Tomahawk Cruise Missile as part of this deal which it appears is headed for their destroyer fleet. Earlier they had also expressed interest in the JASSM-ER, and the LRASM weapon systems so these would be on top of that capability.

Image
Cyrano wrote:NZ PM Jacinda is on record that the new RAusN's SSNs when they arrive, won't be allowed to enter NZ's territorial waters, their moratorium on nuclear vessels dating from 1985 stands. Hope she'll stick to it when the Cheeni come calling.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ern-allies
They do that with everyone else including the US. Australia won't really care about docking in NZ so this is mostly symbolic.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

brar_w wrote:They will spend ....... top of that capability.
Much appreciated as always!
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

hnair wrote:
ldev wrote: It indicates that the US assessment of the threat that China poses going forward is comparable to that posed by the USSR in 1958.
And their Joint Chief chap must have called up the Chinese jernail to personally convey this after apologizing profusely. What is the point of all this for australians when the US will leave the field saying it is dinner time back home and they have been out too long?

This is a white-on-white sale with zero relevance to us. Only the frenchies got hosed and aid but minor comeuppance, for being sloppy with Scorpene.
This is the US building up capacity vs China, independent of the pace and direction of India's involvement in the QUAD on security matters. From the US standpoint if India opts for greater security integration with QUAD, everybody benefits. If India goes slow the US will have Australia with the long range tools needed to contain Chinese naval forces. I view it as a positive that it takes some of the pressure off India. India will still defend it's land borders irrespective of what happens in the Pacific and South China seas. Look at Australia's hypothetical deployments for it's SSK or SSN fleet. It covers all the choke points leading into the Indian Ocean and deployments into the South China Sea and further north along China's coast. These would be the same chokepoints that the Indian Navy would monitor for PLAAN vessels that enter the Indian Ocean.

Image
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1438179433001758720
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by hnair »

Yes, ldev, Australia is going to choke off Sunda and Malacca because India got attacked at Ladakh.

As we say around here “Sunda-de Unda!!”

What you are saying is highly enriched US fanboi grade dream of the US and India. If India did not go slow on Quad, it won’t be offered Virginia or Dreadnoughts. And we should all forget that it was only few months back that a US general called up his Chinese counterpart and assured him he will be the first to know of any attacks on china. A few days back, the same guy could not secure an airstrip from which 200 million USD C17s were flying out with un-supervised Afghans hanging off the wheels, until some Gitmo detainees promised him safe passage. All these are not what one expects to see in a militarized Quad, where India/ Japan and not Australia will be the tip of the spear and realize the spear shaft is made of sphagetti.

There is a huge disconnect what one sees from India and what the current administration is doing.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Well said hnair. +108 to you!
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by m_saini »

Continuing what HNairji said

China-Australia relations: Scott Morrison offers Xi Jinping ‘open invitation’ to talks after new pact with US, UK
Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday extended an “open invitation” for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping
, after announcing a series of hi-tech military purchases spurred by Beijing’s growing strength and joining a new alliance with the United States
and Britain.
Unwise to expect anything substantial from quad during a conflict. These guys would dump any treaty the moment it suits their needs or the moment chinis offer them something better. As they should, they don't owe us anything. Our only guarantees are our own MIC and not what SSNs Aussies get.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The Quad doesn't displace bi-lateral deals or relationships or Vice Versa. This deal b/w the three makes total sense for the parties involved (which is all that should be drawn from this, and not some broader benefit to India or anyone else in the region). Australia finally gets an SSN capability that it needs to protect its maritime interests that it couldn't do with the SSK's even though it was paying SSN level price to acquire that capability. The US gets a nuclear sub operating partner (only one in the western Pacific) with US system compatible infrastructure that can be leveraged to rotate its own SSN's through as opposed to creating that capacity somewhere else in the Pacific. Plus it gives them reliable capacity that is exclusively devoted to the region. The UK gets some industrial work which is a plus for them. The RAN announcement is that they will look to build a minimum of 8 SSN's though it could be extended up to 12 which was the original Attack class requirement. Even at 8, this is a larger SSN fleet than the planned Suffren or Astute class inventory for France and the UK respectively so from a capacity stand point this is quite impressive (plus these will be exclusively operating in the Pacific).
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

hnair wrote:Yes, ldev, Australia is going to choke off Sunda and Malacca because India got attacked at Ladakh.

As we say around here “Sunda-de Unda!!”

What you are saying is highly enriched US fanboi grade dream of the US and India. If India did not go slow on Quad, it won’t be offered Virginia or Dreadnoughts. And we should all forget that it was only few months back that a US general called up his Chinese counterpart and assured him he will be the first to know of any attacks on china. A few days back, the same guy could not secure an airstrip from which 200 million C17s were flying out with un-supervised Afghans hanging off the wheels, until some Gitmo detainees promised him safe passage. All these are not what one expects to see in a militarized Quad, where India/ Japan and not Australia will be the tip of the spear and realize the spear shaft is made of sphagetti.

There is a huge disconnect what one sees from India and what the current administration is doing.
No hnair, what I am saying is that:

If India is attacked on Lakadh and Australia does nothing, India is on it's own.

If the PLAAN tries to ram it's way through the Malacca Straits or Sunda Straits or Lombok Straits and India does nothing, Australia with the US and UK will stop them.

And that is because India is not a treaty alliance partner with any of these countries. Precisely because India is not a treaty ally India cannot count on these countries but by the same token these countries cannot count on India. What they are doing is taking care of maritime security in that area with or without India's participation. To the extent that they will stop the PLAAN at these chokepoints it benefit's India. And the PLAAN could try and ram their way through with absolutely no conflict prevalent in Ladakh. China's moves in the South China Sea and into the Indian Ocean may have nothing to with hostilities in Ladakh. They could but the two fronts are not necessarily tied together.

There can be many variables e.g. India has the political will to operate as a quasi treaty ally but let us say that India's SSN program is completely out of schedule. So here India has the political will but not all the tools needed to contain China on the maritime front. Or the other situation is that India is un-comfortable with alliances period, and therefore India may have the requisite tools but does not want to be part of a formal anti China alliance. So to accommodate all of these possibilities the US has decided to have a Plan B.
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4633
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by hnair »

ldev wrote: If India is attacked on Lakadh and Australia does nothing, India is on it's own.

If the PLAAN tries to ram it's way through the Malacca Straits or Sunda Straits or Lombok Straits and India does nothing, Australia with the US and UK will stop them.

And that is because India is not a treat alliance partner with any of these countries. Precisely because India is not a treaty ally India cannot count on these countries but by the same token these countries cannot count on India. What they are doing is taking care of maritime security in that area with or without India's participation. To the extent that they will stop the PLAAN at these chokepoints it benefit's India. And the PLAAN could try and ram their way through with absolutely no conflict in Ladakh. China's moves in the South China Sea and into the Indian Ocean may have nothing to with hostilities in Ladakh. They could but the two fronts are not necessarily tied together.
You are twisting a bit around here. The original premise of yours was somehow the anglo-saxons sharing the Virgin-ia among them is beneficial to India.

But now you are claiming if PLAAN tries to ram its way, AUSUK will stop them as per the second bolded part. Newsflash: the PLAAN is well and solidly in the IOR. Has been for sometime and no one has stopped them or even bothered to ask them politely what they are doing here. In Dijibouti it is a heart warming sight to see the chinese base sitting next US, France etc and expanding nicely. So all this BS about ramming through etc is just fine imagery that dont exist - PLAN is already deployed in SC and IOR. The PLAN has FON rights during peace through the straits and does not need to ram anything due to existing deployments and Djibouti. So that scenario you are painting does not compute even at this moment in history.

Let us say a PLAN task force is sailing to surge their IOR deployments during a war and only India is involved, no political class in either of the three countries will approve a firing authorization to take down a chinese task force sailing through either straits and thereby imperil the wider economic well being of their citizens. So what on earth are you talking about, when you claim PLAN will be stopped by AUSUK if India is already in a hot war or heightened hostilities?

I am talking of this line:
To the extent that they will stop the PLAAN at these chokepoints it benefit's India
From a Indian POV, except for "India is on its own bit", rest of what you write above is hokum - AUSUK is a small club which says Aus will provide US with basing rights in return for a seat at nuclear navy table. Dragging India and claiming it is good for India is rubbish at this point.

Let us see if that drone-tech pact goes the way of the aero-engine pact with US or actually produces capability a la the AUSUK deal.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Naval News & Discussion

Post by ldev »

hnair wrote:

You are twisting a bit around here. The original premise of yours was somehow the anglo-saxons sharing the Virgin-ia among them is beneficial to India.

But now you are claiming if PLAAN tries to ram its way, AUSUK will stop them as per the second bolded part. Newsflash: the PLAAN is well and solidly in the IOR. Has been for sometime and no one has stopped them or even bothered to ask them politely what they are doing here. In Dijibouti it is a heart warming sight to see the chinese base sitting next US, France etc and expanding nicely. So all this BS about ramming through etc is just fine imagery that dont exist - PLAN is already deployed in SC and IOR. The PLAN has FON rights during peace through the straits and does not need to ram anything due to existing deployments and Djibouti. So that scenario you are painting does not compute even at this moment in history.
For the USN, RN and Australian Navy to stop the PLAAN at these chokepoints there has to be conflict. You accept that? And the war could be triggered over something like Taiwan. But once that conflict starts, that is when the chokepoints are utilized to stop the PLAAN. Because a conflict over Taiwan will spread all over the South China Sea and into the Indian Ocean between the opposing sides. It will only be at that stage that PLAAN ships already in the IOR will be targeted.
Let us say a PLAN task force is sailing to surge their IOR deployments during a war and only India is involved, no political class in either of the three countries will approve a firing authorization to take down a chinese task force sailing through either straits and thereby imperil the wider economic well being of their citizens. So what on earth are you talking about, when you claim PLAN will be stopped by AUSUK if India is already in a hot war or heightened hostilities?
Obviously they will not get involved. Just as India has the option to not get involved in any shooting match over Taiwan. But just as the US keeping the jihadis busy in Afghanistan for 20 years kept the temperature low in Kashmir over these 20 years, similarly the USN, RN and Australian Navy bottling up the bulk of the PLAAN east of those chokepoints will keep the pressure off India.

From a Indian POV, except for "India is on its own bit", rest of what you write above is hokum - AUSUK is a small club which says Aus will provide US with basing rights in return for a seat at nuclear navy table. Dragging India and claiming it is good for India is rubbish at this point.

Let us see if that drone-tech pact goes the way of the aero-engine pact with US or actually produces capability a la the AUSUK deal.
I believe India was briefed on this by the Australians before this was announced, both during the recent visit of the Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers for the 2+2 dialogue in Delhi a few days ago and by Australian PM Scott Morrison calling up PM Modi the day before this announcement. So India has been kept in the loop and from all available indications welcomes this move. By the way while India was briefed, the French were not briefed on this, they found out about this via television :) Supposedly PM Morrison tried to schedule a call with President Macron but could not!!

As far as comparing tech transfer from the US to India is concerned with this deal, you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a treaty ally for the last 70 years via the ANZUS treaty, the other is a country that is now taking baby steps for a security relationship. Having said that given the history of the India US relationship, specially on security I personally believe that US tech transfer has to include a "signing on bonus" i.e. an upfront transfer of technology in an area that India needs as a show of US good faith.
Post Reply