International Naval News & Discussion

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Jan 2011 08:10

Did anyone know if this ?
This is news to me .... The news makes the CAPs looks rather aggressive.

Hmmm....

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/07/04/st ... 221200.htm

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 08 Jan 2011 07:26

The latest Astute class submarine emerged from BAE Systems’ shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, today.

It comes after the state-of-the-art submarine’s naming ceremony before Christmas, when thousands of guests witnessed its sponsor, Lady Anne Soar, the wife of the Royal Navy’s Commander-in-Chief Fleet Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, officially name the boat.

BAE Systems is the lead contractor of the seven-boat Astute programme, and the launch of Ambush follows the formal commissioning into the Royal Navy of the first of class HMS Astute last year.

The Astute class are the largest and most powerful attack submarines ever ordered by the Royal Navy, each one weighing 7,400 tonnes and packed with unrivalled capabilities. The sonar suite has the processing power of 2,000 laptops and the boats are armed with Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles and Spearfish torpedoes. The boats can manufacture their own oxygen from sea water and are fuelled for life by a nuclear reactor so powerful it can power a city the size of Southampton.

Notes to Editors:

In November 2010 HM Government confirmed its intention to proceed with seven Astute Class submarines all of which will be built in Barrow-in-Furness.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jan 2011 07:43

I wonder if funding can be found to build and operate all seven? seems like a program ripe for a good cut like 7 -> 4.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Jan 2011 23:38

Chinese businessman bids £5m for UK's HMS Invincible

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 10 Jan 2011 03:50

from pragati magazine.
piracy is encroaching into arabian sea nearer to Indian mainland.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 10 Jan 2011 10:48

^^^^ Its amusing to see the name of a country, in this case Ethiopia, misspelt on a political map

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2011 12:14

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141628

Israel's new Dolphin subs.

Navy Readies for its New Submarines
by Gil Ronen

The Israel Navy is making advanced preparations to absorb two new German-made Dolphin-class submarines, IDF journal Bamachaneh reported in its latest issue. The number of soldiers selected for submarine warfare has grown by 30% in the latest IDF recruitment batches, in order to man the additional submarines.

The Navy currently has three submarines, also of the Dolphin class, so the addition of two subs means that the force is growing 66% bigger. "We are in mid-process and are slowly adding more crews to be trained for service in the submarines," explained Naval Instruction Base Commander Col. Ronen Nimni. "We are also taking care to add crew commanders who closely mentor the soldiers."

More officers are being trained for submarine posts as well. The number of cadets who will be trained for submarine command positions is rising by 35%.

According to an article in World Politics Review, Israel's three submarines "reportedly carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles of an unidentified type."

"The missiles, part of Israel's estimated 100-strong nuclear arsenal, reportedly have a range of up to 800 miles. The subs probably cannot hit Iran without passing through the Suez into the Red Sea and ultimately the Indian Ocean. The Red Sea is also the best route to the Gulf of Oman, where Israeli ships and submarines might enforce a blockade of Iran, during wartime."

Northrop designs unmanned sub hunter

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/b ... unter.html

Today many nations possess modern, quiet submarines with enhanced capabilities. Many are powered by diesel and batteries, which make their tracking even more difficult.

Submarines made up about 29 percent of the construction worldwide last year, based on research by AMI International, a global naval market analyst. That was more than all other vessels, including destroyers and frigates.

Robert McHenry, a DARPA program manager, said the intent of this initiative is to deploy a vessel with special sensors that can trail the almost imperceptible foreign submarines.

"It will be a clean sheet unmanned ship design with no person stepping aboard at any point in its operating cycle," he said in a prepared statement.

Unknown to many civilians, the Navy is submerged in a sort of underwater arms race across the Western Pacific - and not just with China and North Korea - where shipping activities and marine life can often mask subs.

Bob Nugent, vice president of advisory services for AMI International, said unmanned vessels are in vogue now because they're a solution to demands for a leaner military force and they put fewer sailors in harm's way.

"If you go back to the way we hunted submarines in the past ... and what this kind of capability does in times of shrinking navies, they're able to do the same sorts of massive events," he said. "Where the industry is is a little like where it was 10 years ago with unmanned air systems."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2011 12:19

Invisibility cloak for sonar! Check excellent pic in link.

http://www.technewsdaily.com/invisibili ... onar-1945/

Invisibility Cloak Hides Objects From Sonar By Michelle Bryner, TechNewsDaily Contributor
07 January 2011 10:00 AM ET SHARE
Researchers have created an acoustic cloaking material that guides sound waves around the hidden object. Credit: L. Brian Stauffer.

A new material that bends and twists sound waves could allow stealth submarines to evade underwater sonar.

Underwater CommunicationsHIgh-Bandwidth 10/100/1,000 Mbps Fully TCP/IP Ethernet Compatible

The material essentially tricks the sonar — a system used to identify underwater objects by analyzing the differences between the emitted sound waves and the returning waves, which have bounced off of the submarine, for example.

About the shape and size of a compact disc, the material is made up of concentric rings that guide sound waves around its surface. When an object is placed in the center hole of the two-dimensional disc, sound waves move around it as if it weren’t there and re-form on the other side of the object without being distorted. The material is in effect invisible to sound.

"No matter what shape or material you place within that hole it appears as if, when the sound passes through the disc, there's nothing there," said Nicholas Fang, a professor of mechanical science and engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who led the development of the material.

Acoustic invisibility cloaks have been theorized in the past, but this is the first time one has been constructed in the lab. While this is an exciting step, there's still a long way to go before it could be used to add high-tech stealth to military submarines, Fang said.

Other applications for this technology include shielding medical devices and sensors from sound interference and soundproofing products.

To make their acoustic cloak, the researchers designed an aluminum disc with 16 concentric rings consisting of small cavities connected by channels. Each ring has a different index of refraction for sound, which means sound waves interact with each differently.

"Basically, what we want to do is to create an index of refraction for sound instead of light by using the metamaterial structure," Fang said. "[The sound] has to bounce within the guided structures but in such a gradual way that you won’t see any direct reflection."

The result: Sound waves at one end of the object appear untouched on the other side of the object, making the object invisible to sonar devices.

The researchers tested their cloaking device with several objects of varying shapes, including a cylinder.

Fang and his team are now working on 3-D structures as well as scaling up the device. When will it be ready for prime time?

"If we are just talking about a small device, for example this could be used in a medical application pretty soon, maybe five years from now," Fang said. "But if we are trying to create something for Harry Potter, it's too early to predict."

Fang and his colleagues detail their findings in a paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters.

wig · Post by **wig** » 11 Jan 2011 11:16

Royal Navy's Falklands ship turned away by Brazil

The Royal Navy's Falkland Islands protection ship has been turned away from docking in Rio de Janeiro in an indication that Brazil's new government could back Argentine claims to the islands.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... razil.html

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 22 Jan 2011 14:16

International navies and pirates

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 22 Jan 2011 16:56

'China near restoring Soviet-era aircraft carrier'

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 26 Jan 2011 06:53

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_ ... a_warships

France, Russia sign deal on assault warships

The ships will be able to carry helicopters and armored vehicles, allowing Russia to land hundreds of troops quickly on foreign soil. Sarkozy said two ships will be built in France and two others in Russia.

When the deal was initially announced in December, officials said Russia had agreed to buy at least two Mistral-class ships, which cost about euro400 million to euro500 million ($525 million to $655 million) each. French companies DCNS and STX and Russia's OSK are to build the ships.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Jan 2011 09:19

Nice video on Akula-2 with english subtitles

jai · Post by **jai** » 27 Jan 2011 12:09

Gerard wrote:Chinese businessman bids £5m for UK's HMS Invincible

Yeah, right ! School and Marina display indeed !!

The Varayag was picked up to be converted to a museum and is on its way to being operationalized again ! The Chipandas are picking up scrap of equipment that they currently do not have a lot of tech on and using it to reverse engineer - downed 117's included.

Time we learnt to be this opportunistic and picked up older equipment where we lack capacity ourselves to dismantle and learn.....I think we lost a great opportunity when the USSR broke up, could have cherry picked some great equipment and better still - some great talent - after all US, UK, USSR etc all did it after the defeat of Germany in WW2 to move their own defense industry to the next levels...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Jan 2011 16:30

Uproar by UK top brass over new Nimrods being literally "axed"!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... urity.html

Scrapping the RAF's £4bn Nimrod fleet 'risks UK security'
Exclusive: The scrapping of the RAF’s £4 billion fleet of Nimrod surveillance aircraft will create a “massive security gap”, the country’s leading military figures have warned.

A Nimrod has its wings chopped off by a firm of private contractors

Image 1 of 2
The Government is determined to plough on with the destruction of the Nimrod, saying it will save £2 billion over the next decade.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 10:00PM GMT 26 Jan 2011 100 Comments
In an open letter to the Daily Telegraph, former defence chiefs from all three services say the decision to destroy nine MRA4 Nimrods to save money is “perverse” and could cause serious long-term damage to the country’s interests.

The protest over the Government’s decision in last year’s Strategic Defence and Spending Review to destroy what is regarded as a vital part of the country’s defences comes as private demolition contractors hired by the Ministry of Defence began breaking up the aircraft.

Former military chiefs believe that without the Nimrod’s surveillance technology, the country will be dangerously exposed.

The planes can detect and sink submarines, drop life rafts to sailors in trouble and play a vital role in drug-smuggling and counter-terrorism operations.

In their letter, Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig, the former Chief of the Defence Staff and Chief of Air Staff; Major General Julian Thompson, the commander of land forces in the Falklands conflict; Air Vice-Marshal Tony Mason, the former Air Secretary for the RAF; Major General Patrick Cordingley, the commander of the Desert Rats in the Gulf war; Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, the director of the UK National Defence Association; and Admiral Sir John ''Sandy’’ Woodward, urge the Government to halt the scrapping programme.

Related Articles

Letter: destruction of nine new Nimrod jets is folly 27 Jan 2011
No need to scrap Nimrod 26 Jan 2011
Scrapping the RAF's Nimrod fleet 'poses risk to British security' 27 Jan 2011
Analysis: Russia will be delighted by Nimrod decision 27 Jan 2011

“Without any explanation the Security and Defence Review announced that the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft would not be brought into service,” they write.

“The decision was fiercely debated within the MoD but the need for immediate savings and priority to current operations prevailed. Destruction of the nine airframes at Woodford has now begun.

''Machine tools have been destroyed; several millions of pounds have been saved but a massive gap in British security has opened.

“Vulnerability of sea lanes, unpredictable overseas crises and traditional surface and submarine opposition will continue to demand versatile responsive aircraft.

“Nimrod would have continued to provide long-range maritime and overland reconnaissance – including over the UK – anti-submarine surveillance, air-sea rescue coordination, and perhaps most importantly, reconnaissance support to the Navy’s Trident submarines.”

The use of helicopters and Hercules aircraft to fulfil some of these roles “falls far short” of what the Nimrod is capable of, they warn. With the MoD contemplating further cuts, they say: “It may seem perverse to suggest that the gap left by broken Nimrods should be readdressed. If not, short-term cost savings could seriously jeopardise longer term British security interests.”

Privately, it is understood that senior RAF officers believe the strategic spending review has caused “untold damage” to Britain’s defences. The Telegraph has also learnt that very senior military chiefs have written privately to defence industry figures to begin looking at replacing the Nimrods in three years’ time. A likely replacement would probably be an inferior American aircraft.

The Government is determined to plough on with the destruction of the aircraft, saying it will save £2 billion over the next decade. Private contractors have already chopped off the wings of the first of the Nimrods in Woodford, Cheshire. It is estimated that scrapping the aircraft, which have never been used, will cost 1,200 jobs. Marshal of the RAF, Lord Craig, said: “This seems the height of stupidity as these aircraft have another 40 or 50 years life left in them.”

Maj-Gen Julian Thompson, the former Falklands land forces ommander, condemned the scrapping of the aircraft as “absolutely bonkers”. “There will be no cover for the Trident submarine and it will be a serious loss to the anti-piracy campaign,” he added. The MoD has also been accused of failing to advise ministers of the full cost and impact of Nimrods’ loss. It will cost £200 million to scrap the aircraft and pay compensation to the manufacturers, BAE Systems. The company estimates it would have cost £200 million to make all nine aircraft airworthy.

The MoD has also not taken into account the extra costs, estimated in millions, required each year for two more Merlin anti-submarine helicopters and a Type 23 frigate that will be needed to escort Trident submarines from Faslane into deep waters.

Experts also argue that deaths at sea will be inevitable as helicopters cannot operate beyond 200 miles from a coast. In the past, Nimrods have saved lives by dropping life rafts to stranded sailors, as in 1998 when 10 fishermen were saved. Adml Lord West, the former First Sea Lord, called for the Government to at least delay the Nimrods’ destruction until a full security assessment has been made.

Gen Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said in a statement that “severe financial pressures” led to the “tough decision” on axing Nimrod.

“This project was delayed and overspent; cancelling it will save £2 billion over 10 years. None of these nine aircraft were operational, only one was built and it had not passed flight tests.

“Since March last year, well before the SDSR, the Nimrod MR2 has not flown and we have been mitigating the impact with other military assets and by working with allies and partners where appropriate.”

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 28 Jan 2011 21:54

Boeing Clinches P-8A LRIP Contract

Boeing plans to start assembly of the first of six low-rate initial production (LRIP) P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft by midyear, following the award of a $1.6 billion U.S. Navy contract.

The LRIP-1 contract includes spares, logistics and training devices, and comes as Boeing continues to make rapid progress with the first batch of flight and ground test aircraft under the P-8A System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract awarded in 2004.

Three of the six SDD aircraft are in flight test at NAS Patuxent River, Md., while a fourth is undergoing systems installation at Boeing Field in Seattle. The fifth aircraft arrived at Boeing Field on Jan. 22 from the 737 assembly line at nearby Renton, Wash., while the sixth aircraft, a late addition to the original SDD contract, is now in final assembly.

Boeing also completed the initial ground tests on the static airframe earlier this month and in September will transfer the aircraft to Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, Calif., for live-fire exercises. S2, the fatigue test airframe, will begin testing later this year, Boeing says.

The Navy is expected to take delivery of 117 P-8As by 2025 as replacements for the Lockheed Martin P-3 Orion, with entry into service due in 2013. Boeing also has started assembly work on the first of eight P-8Is for the Indian Navy and is in talks with the Australian Navy about an additional order.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 20Contract

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 30 Jan 2011 14:49

new russian sub

http://paralay.com/885/komponowka.jpg
http://paralay.com/885/885151.jpg
http://paralay.com/885/885123.jpg
http://paralay.com/885/885150.jpg
http://paralay.com/885/885153.jpg

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... 2F885.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jan 2011 15:13

Lovely find Baldev.MOst interesting design andone that we should examine when ATV details are available in the future.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 01 Feb 2011 09:54

USS Abraham Lincoln provides air support to Afghanistan

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 01 Feb 2011 10:38

^^^

At 70 planes on a single carrier, they have enough inventory to provide escorts to their AWACS aircraft, if IN is buying those Hawkeyes, at 25 fighters on a IN Carrier, can it afford to provide dedicated escorts

Those 7 hour sorties do show the endurance of even Naval fighters, wonder if they have carrier based refueller aircraft or basing them out of some land base

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 01 Feb 2011 11:10

USAF land based tankers iirc cannot refuel USN a/c due to probe vs hose-n-drogue isue. british/french tankers can do it however.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 01 Feb 2011 11:22

Thanks Singha

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 01 Feb 2011 12:05

vasu_ray wrote:^^^

At 70 planes on a single carrier, they have enough inventory to provide escorts to their AWACS aircraft, if IN is buying those Hawkeyes, at 25 fighters on a IN Carrier, can it afford to provide dedicated escorts

Those 7 hour sorties do show the endurance of even Naval fighters, wonder if they have carrier based refueller aircraft or basing them out of some land base

Carrier based AWACS don't need to fly with escorts because they always fly at a short distance from the carrier within its protective zone created by long range SAMs of the escort warships and fighters on stand-by.
AFAIK presently the only carrier based refueler they have/use is the f-18SH with buddy refueling.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 01 Feb 2011 12:17

Singha wrote:USAF land based tankers iirc cannot refuel USN a/c due to probe vs hose-n-drogue isue. british/french tankers can do it however.

All KC-10s have wing hoses capable of refueling USN aircraft.

Some KC-135 have been equipped with the Multi-Point Refueling System that adds wing hoses.

All KC-135 can be equipped with a special adapter on the boom that allows it to refuel USN aircraft, but then it can't refuel USAF aircraft until it lands and the adapter is removed.

The various KC-130 variants use hoses and can refuel a SH.

KC-X will include both boom and hoses.

Currently the only carrier based refueling option is the SH buddy tanker.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 03 Feb 2011 07:20

France Adds New Torpedo To Submarine Arsenal

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Feb 2011 13:02

http://www.stripes.com/news/unmanned-su ... e-1.133668

Unmanned subs making waves in undersea warfare

The AUVs, dubbed “gliders,” have much in common with their flying cousins, including wings, according to Michel Rixen, a scientist at the NATO Undersea Research Center in Italy.

“They are very similar vehicles although the dynamics are changed a little,” Rixen said. “What is peculiar to the AUVs are buoyancy controls.”

The battery-powered gliders, which are about 6 feet long and weigh up to 130 pounds, can be launched from shore or from a small rubber boat. They move through the sea at less than 2 mph, using a pump that inflates and deflates an internal bladder to change the vehicle’s buoyancy in the same way a scuba diver might inflate a buoyancy jacket, he said.

“The changes in buoyancy require much less energy than a propeller,” he said, allowing the vehicle to stay underwater longer than a propeller-driven AUV.

In 2009, a glider of the same type being used in this month’s Proud Manta 11 NATO exercise completed a trans-Atlantic crossing that lasted 221 days.

The gliders will be at sea for three weeks during the exercise, traveling up to 300 miles collecting data on water salinity and temperature and relaying it to scientists on shore, Rixen said. The data is important because it allows sonar operators to calculate the speed of sound through the water – something that helps them detect enemy submarines, he said.

In the past, such data was collected by manned submarines or surface ships.

Advertisement“We are demonstrating that military oceanography can be conducted from the office, piloting the gliders remotely instead of sending a big submarine (in the case of covert operations) to do a couple of temperature and salinity profiles in the ocean,” he said.

The cost of sending a research ship to collect such data runs at $25,000 a day or more, said engineer Richard Stoner of the research center.

New Russian naval grwoth plans.
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?opti ... Itemid=132

Russia’s Navy Muscles Up and Looks East
February 03, 2011

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Feb 2011 06:23

Project 885 and 885M "Ash"

Philip wrote:Lovely find Baldev.MOst interesting design andone that we should examine when ATV details are available in the future.

Looking at some of these images, there looks to be some design influences, such as the placement of the vertical launchers (and maybe other details, which as you have pointed out we need to wait to examine). It is kind of interesting that the torpedo tubes are almost at the middle (front half) of the sub, instead of the typical right at front.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 05 Feb 2011 06:51

Philip wrote:Lovely find Baldev.MOst interesting design and one that we should examine when ATV details are available in the future.

to be honest there is lot more in nuke sub than designing small reactor,

you have to design and build propeller and its shaft,quite gearbox,auxiliary systems, periscope,radar,EW,torpedo tubes,weapon control system,its sonar(which not USHUS) and other listening sensors,hull design and put all these together.Out of these things most of them are imported.its like foreign body with indian soul.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Feb 2011 08:40

is this Sverodbinsk drawing?

the torpedo room is moved back to accomodate a giant bow sonar - same as most SSNs these days.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Feb 2011 12:01

Yes,the first spherical bow sonar (occuying the entire bows) for a Russian nuclear sub.

Here is a detailed report on a raging debate in the US on the ize and number of missile silos for its next-gen SSBNs.

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/g ... 4_4436.php

Xcpts:

U.S. Navy Rejected Key Command's Specs for Next Nuclear-Armed Sub
Friday, Feb. 4, 2011

By Elaine M. Grossman

Global Security Newswire

Email This Article

WASHINGTON -- Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. Navy's top officer, last June nixed a key combatant command's recommendation for the missile-carrying capacity of the nation's next-generation, nuclear-armed submarine, according to military sources (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2010).

Whether his determination on the so-called "SSBN(X)" submarine -- which is to begin replacing today's ballistic-missile-carrying vessels in about two decades -- will ultimately carry the day is unclear.

The service in September told the Congressional Research Service that "as part of its effort to reduce" procurement costs, "the Navy is focusing on an SSBN(X) design with 16 [missile] tubes, rather than 20," according to a CRS report published last fall.

What has not surfaced publicly, until now, is that U.S. Strategic Command -- the military organization responsible for determining the nation's nuclear combat requirements -- had advocated that each of the future submarines be armed with the higher loading level of 20 ballistic missiles.

Strategic Command officials briefed their recommendation as recently as late April in secret, behind-closed-doors Defense Department meetings, Global Security Newswire has confirmed with military sources who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing sensitive nuclear matters.

A command spokeswoman would not discuss specifics, acknowledging only that Strategic Command and the Navy are working together to develop detailed design expectations for the future submarine.

The difference between the Navy and Strategic Command perspectives on how many long-range, nuclear-armed missiles should be fielded at sea is significant.

Across the 12 ballistic missile submarines anticipated to be deployed in the decades to come, a fleet composed of 16-missile SSBN(X) submarines would carry 48 total fewer missiles than would a fleet comprising 20-missile vessels. It could also cost significantly less at a time of growing fiscal austerity, Navy officials are arguing.

After Roughead initially telegraphed his view throughout the service in early June, Navy leaders are widely believed to have presented their backing for the leaner and cheaper 16-missile version of SSBN(X) at a pivotal Defense Department meeting late last year.

The service on December 9 took the program before the Pentagon's top-level Defense Acquisition Board for a major briefing and review. However, the Defense Department has not released any information about SSBN(X) carrying capacity or any of the other design features that might have been considered during the meeting, which was to usher the program into an early development stage called "Milestone A."

The vessel is to replace the nation's current 14 Ohio-class submarines, which can launch 24 Trident ballistic missiles apiece. With the first submarine expected to become operational in 2029, the SSBN(X) would ultimately represent the sea leg of the nation's strategic nuclear triad through its projected retirement in 2080, alongside bomber aircraft and ICBMs.

The Navy has not released a cost projection for the new craft, but one outside estimate pegged its price tag at roughly $7 billion each. Fitting the submarine with long-range missiles would involve additional investment. Cost concerns are said to dominate Roughead's thinking on the matter.

The chief of naval operations, whose military career has spanned 37 years, determined last year that his service's budget could support only a 16-missile version of the SSBN(X), to prevent this one procurement program from jeopardizing other important spending priorities, according to military sources.

The finding by Roughead -- pronounced RUF-head -- also is said to be based on an assumption that the world's largest nuclear powers will continue the trend toward reducing their arsenals in the years ahead. The new submarine will be operating well after the time period addressed by last year's Nuclear Posture Review, a Pentagon-led assessment of strategy and forces that focused principally on the next five to 10 years.

"Twenty [missiles] makes the submarine larger," said Norman Polmar, a longtime Defense Department consultant on naval issues. "So it's primarily cost, but also how many warheads do we want on submarines?"

The U.S.-Russian New START arms control pact mandates that reductions on each side to 800 strategic delivery vehicles and 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads be completed within the next seven years. The agreement will be in force through early 2021, with the possibility of a five-year extension. Both Washington and Moscow have expressed interest in discussing next steps that might involve further reductions to their nuclear stockpiles.

A gradual transition to carrying fewer missiles on each of its ballistic missile submarines is expected to begin well before SSBN(X) enters the fleet.

To implement the nuclear treaty -- which was recently ratified by both nations and is to enter into force this weekend -- the Navy will fill just 20 of the 24 missile-launch tubes on each of its Ohio-class submarines (see GSN, Sept. 30, 2010).

The Navy will "inactivate" the remaining four tubes per boat, allowing a total fleet capacity of 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles under the treaty, down from today's 288, according to figures compiled by nuclear experts Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris for a forthcoming essay.

If each of the future submarines carry just 16 missiles, there would be no more than 192 missiles overall in the sea-based deterrent. Interviewed this week, Kristensen found the figure curious because it is nearly 50 missiles short of the 240 that the White House has said it could field under New START.

Each of today's Trident D-5 ballistic missiles -- which the Navy intends to field initially on SSBN(X) but is likely to replace later on with a new weapon -- can be armed with as many as eight nuclear warheads. However, just half that number of warheads is typically deployed today on the 4,000-nautical-mile range missiles, according to Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project.

If the current load-out of an average four warheads per missile continues when SSBN(X) is fielded, the nation would have 768 total warheads aboard its anticipated 12 submarines.

Perhaps most significantly, a 16-missile version of the SSBN(X) would at least theoretically allow Washington to "upload" to as many 1,536 warheads aboard its submarines from hedge warheads kept in reserve, given the Trident's extra capacity, Kristensen said.

Such drastic action is difficult to imagine because it would suggest the nation's submarine-based warheads would constitute all but 14 of the 1,550 deployed U.S. strategic warheads allowed under New START.

Still, this type of math exercise figures into the Pentagon's worst-case scenario planning -- for example, if a resurgent or new nuclear threat emerges that prompts Washington to abandon New START, or if a serious technical problem is discovered in another leg of the nuclear triad.

Kristensen argued that the excess loading capacity of a 16-missile SSBN(X) would still be sufficient to allow the nation enormous fielding flexibility, even if the submarine is smaller than the 20-missile vessel earlier sought by Strategic Command.

The analysis does not end there, though. By the end of this year, the Navy and Strategic Command are expected to complete an 18-month, detailed assessment of the military requirements for the future nuclear-armed submarine, to include exactly what capabilities are required to meet anticipated global threats 20 to 70 years into the future, defense sources said.

Once finalized, the assessment is intended to embody a consensus view between the two organizations, military sources said. The Pentagon's top review body for military hardware needs -- the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- is slated to consider the results of the Navy-Strategic Command analysis in late 2011 or early 2012, GSN has learned.

Asked to describe the perspective that Roughead brings to the matter, the Navy directed a reporter to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

"The Navy and the combatant command do not make decisions in isolation from the national strategy and the other components of the Department of Defense," Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. April Cunningham said yesterday in an e-mailed response to questions. She added that major weapon platforms such as SSBN(X) undergo "rigorous processes" in which each design feature is carefully vetted.

The development of warfighting capabilities for SSBN(X) and its detailed design "is a multiyear process led by DOD civilian leadership with all stakeholders as active and engaged participants," Cunningham said.

She did not comment directly on the specific differences that emerged last year between the Navy and Strategic Command on how many missiles the future submarine should carry.

A Strategic Command spokeswoman said, though, that dialogue on the submarine's combat requirements continues between her organization and the Navy.

"USSTRATCOM has been, and continues to be, involved in the design and development of the Ohio-class replacement SSBN," said Col. Kathleen Cook, the command's public affairs chief, using military shorthand for her organization's name. "STRATCOM and the Navy are working closely together to ensure this important asset will meet the nation's strategic deterrent requirements in a wide range of future environments."

Last year, the level of 20 missiles per submarine was "the recommendation that moved through the [Strategic Command] staff, and no one challenged it," said one former nuclear force commander tracking the issue.

Yet, because a recommendation for 20 would necessitate buying a larger submarine and more missiles than the Navy believes it could afford, Roughead and other cost-minded Pentagon brass found the Strategic Command position "just totally and completely unrealistic," this source said.

On the other hand, Strategic Command might not be at liberty to support a design for SSBN(X) that has fewer than 20 missiles because the command does not appear to have received new guidance from President Obama that would allow a dip below the 240 sea-based missiles embraced under the Nuclear Posture Review and New START, Kristensen said.

Such guidance could come in the form of a secret presidential directive that would spell out the kinds of potential adversaries the United States could face, and the associated military, industrial or other targets against which U.S. nuclear strikes might be launched. It would then be up to the Defense secretary, Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant organizations including Strategic Command to determine exactly how many and what types of nuclear weapons are needed to carry out wartime scenarios.

"STRATCOM's argument could be [that] unless we have that in the bag, it would be irresponsible to commit ourselves to a force structure that is that much lower," according to Kristensen.

The latest publicly known guidance on nuclear weapons employment dates back to 2002, when then-President George W. Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 14, he said. It extended the possible use of Washington's nuclear weapons to regional adversaries that field weapons of mass destruction, he said.

Washington has some potential in coming years to boost warhead capabilities so that they are more capable of damaging "hardened" underground targets, essentially giving the Navy a bigger bang for the buck with a numerically smaller arsenal of sea-based missiles, the FAS analyst noted.

However, technology upgrades of this kind would be unlikely to fully compensate for the destructive power lost by fielding nearly 50 fewer missiles on the future submarines, Kristensen said.

For his part, Roughead has told colleagues it would be "prudent" to use the 16-missile-per-boat figure as a working assumption as the in-depth analyses continue, according to defense sources.

His reasoning might not just be based on projected acquisition costs and future threats, Kristensen said.

"If you're in the Navy, one of the advantages of having fewer missiles on each submarine is that, under a future force structure, you could operate more submarines than you might otherwise have," he said.

Scattering the missile arsenal more broadly could allow the service to maintain its anticipated 12-vessel SSBN(X) fleet farther out into the future, with enough boats to continue patrols in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, Kristensen explained. Conversely, that many ships with 20 missiles apiece could prove unsustainable well into the future, as pressure mounts to reduce nuclear arsenals and save money.

Polmar agreed. To accommodate the severe belt-tightening that all the services are anticipated to perform in the years to come, the Navy should trim back even further on the number of missiles it carries aboard submarines, he said.

"There's no rationale at this stage for more missiles than 144" across the fleet, said Polmar, citing the latitude under New START to increase warhead loading up to eight per missile, if necessary.

Last year's divergence between Navy and Strategic Command views has observers differing over the possibility that one or the other organization has overstepped its authority.

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Feb 2011 04:19

Really great 3D CGI of the two USN's Littoral Combat Ship design. Click on the image:

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Feb 2011 04:36

Great 3D CGI details on the Russian Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Click on image:

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Feb 2011 05:44

Royal Navy's Type-26 Combat Ship Design Concept:

a Force Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Combatant (known as C1) - a multimission combatant, of about 6,000 tons displacement, optimised for war fighting and would operate as an integral part of the maritime strike group or amphibious task group, offering high-end ASW, land attack and coastal suppression. It would also have an organic MCM capability and facilities for an embarked military force.
a Stabilisation Combatant (C2) - for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort
an Ocean-Capable Patrol Vessel (C3) - a vessel of approximately 2,000 tonnes displacement with a range of 7,000 nm for constabulary and minor war vessel tasks

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Feb 2011 05:48

LCS 2 is a cat. And, you know where the cat originated from.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Feb 2011 08:05

Nitpick onlee, LCS 2 is a trimaran not a kattumaram.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Feb 2011 10:51

HMS Astute jinxed?This time the loos aren't working,imagine the stink aboard!

A busted flush: Jinxed Navy submarine that ran aground returns to port with sewage system failure

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1DFXtZqKZ

Chinese test an sub-launched ballistic missile from a Soviet-era Golf class SSG.There were earlier reports on BR about this sub being brought back into service.

Norman Polmar, the respected naval and intelligence author. mentioned this at a presentation Wednesday evening while discussing his new book, Project Azorian. Since then, we’ve been trying to get more details. Polmar says in an email that the missile test submarine is a Soviet-built Project 629/Golf diesel-electric submarine. The only public mention of this so far (in English) comes in a South Korean newspaper, the Chosun Ibo. This is what the South Korean paper says the Chinese daily said: “The Changcheng 200 smoothly accomplished scores of test-launch missions of ballistic missiles over the past 46 years. It received the title ‘vanguard submarine of underwater test launches’ from Hu Jintao, the chairman of the Central Military Commission, last August,” the daily said. (We can’t find any mentions in English.)

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/02/06/chine ... z1DFYYFWuJ

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 08 Feb 2011 19:04

Iran Mass Producing New Anti-Ship Missiles

"Iran is mass producing a smart ballistic missile for sea targets with a speed three times more than the speed of sound," state news agency IRNA quoted Jafari as saying about the new missile.

A competitor to Brahmos, hainji?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Feb 2011 05:28

Russian military justifies purchase of Mistral ships

Russia has decided to buy Mistral ships from France because it would have taken at least 10 years to develop a similar domestic model, Chief of the Russian General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov said Thursday.

"It could take at least 10 years to develop a ship similar to Mistral," Makarov said. "And meanwhile someone will create a better weapon [than Mistral]."

Makarov said Russia should buy the best of modern weaponry abroad to be built under license in Russia.

He also said that the Russian state armaments procurement program until 2020 would be adjusted and would total 23 trillion rubles ($785 billion), or 2 trillion rubles ($68 billion) more than originally planned.

A consortium comprised of French DCNS and Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) won a tender on the construction of four helicopter carriers for the Russian Navy in December 2010.

Moscow and Paris signed an intergovernmental agreement to jointly build the four ships on January 25.

Under the agreement, the first Mistral-class ship, with a price tag of 720 million euros, is expected to be completed in late 2013-early 2014 and the second in late 2014-early 2015.

Russia will construct 20% of the first warship, 40% of the second and 80% of the last two, which are to be built on Russian territory.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Feb 2011 05:36

Dmurphy wrote:Iran Mass Producing New Anti-Ship Missiles
"Iran is mass producing a smart ballistic missile for sea targets with a speed three times more than the speed of sound," state news agency IRNA quoted Jafari as saying about the new missile.
A competitor to Brahmos, hainji?

Closer to the Chicom missile. Iran could be getting assistance form China.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Feb 2011 17:56

russian ssbn
http://pilot.strizhi.info/2011/02/05/9292