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.
manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 27 Oct 2015 14:31

i think the opposite is true... there is a hindi proverb..kabza saccha dawa jhoonta... means possesion is truth ,claim is false..as china build islands, airstrips, plants radars etc..its claim will become stronger each passing year... US can do a diddly squat abt it

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Oct 2015 15:01

correct. only way US can change this creeping game is to squat on a few islands or create some islands itself under some treaty with philipines and put down radars and LCS ships therein. let philipines lease out a few reefs and dump rocks and sand to build them up.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Oct 2015 15:23

It is Ok for US to send some patrol ships near Chinese claimed territory , China can also respond in kind and send its ship near US island or some place convenient both countries are within Intl law to do that but both countries will freak out if it happens

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10913
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Oct 2015 15:58

I think thee Chinese should tests their capabilities by sinking a US warship or 2.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby member_22539 » 27 Oct 2015 16:01

^Why not send a ship to Hawaii, that should test the US resolve :D

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 27 Oct 2015 16:05

@Austin ji... i dont think china will try any monkey tricks with the yankees...both sides know who carries the bigger danda. To the best of my knowledge there is no US territory claimed by other countries or which is of disputed nature. USN is not going to send a ship close to shanghai which is internationally a settled chinese territory. The issue is about disputed claims in south china sea.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Oct 2015 16:28

^^ These are just posturing and nothing else , Its about you can reach in our area of interest and I can yours. So China can just send ships near US island or territories need not be disputed.

There are enough hot head neocons in US who will not like this and will raise political storm there.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 27 Oct 2015 16:52

do u think anyone doubts ability of USN to reach anywhere across the sea which maintains a huge Pacific fleet !! ? ofc its posturing else they would be firing guns? but posturing is also important to show and contest some ones claim short of trading fire. Had it been a vietnamese ship or fillipino ship do u think chinese would be only complaining??


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Oct 2015 17:00

The posturing is in the sense to show we are here , no different than US spy flight over the chinese disputed airspace , The chinese have already complained for any ship they think are in their disputed area be it vietnam or any one.

China is well within its right to have similar patrol over US area of interest , Nothing much then posturing from Chinese. Neither side are going to be at war for these things

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3145
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby kit » 27 Oct 2015 17:08

deleted
Last edited by kit on 27 Oct 2015 17:13, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7591
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Oct 2015 17:09

Of course they are and it should be welcomed by the US. If you read closely, those that follow strategic interests, and particularly freedom of navigation and naval history all welcome Chinese ships in international waters around the US because it basically legitimizes the US doing the same in international waters off of the Chinese coast. For years the Chinese have been calling for an end to the US patrolling and flag waiving in its areas of concern, and particularly the flights over its ADIZ (recently). By doing the same the Chinese are in a much weaker position vis-à-vis that and that should come as a relief to those that think its particularly ok. The neocons and blanket hawks in the US are only there to make noise, the strategy influence they have in the long term on naval matters and posturing is not significant and is in fact political party agnostic to a certain degree. The Pivot to the Pacific for example was an idea first introduced by the Naval War College, encouraged by John McCain, advanced in the Obama Cabinet by Hillary Clinton, and sanctioned by Obama and Panetta with full support of the Republican strategists. Despite of Russian posturing of late the US interests both economically and strategically lie in the Pacific and they are doing the same routine that was done in the Atlantic during the cold war i.e. Economic -- Political and -- Military pivot.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Oct 2015 17:39, edited 3 times in total.

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 27 Oct 2015 17:15

Austin..u r right..but short of war is there any other thing that can be done except posturing. i am saying only a superior power can do posturing ( which is important). USN can do posturing though i am not sure if Han navy can do the same. as i said if it was a vietnamese or fillipino ship would the chinese reaction be same? Posturing shows we dont care a sBit about you and ur claim and we have a bigger danda. I am sure for a people like chinese for whom saving face/honour is important, posturing must be hurting.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Oct 2015 17:20

manjgu , The Chinese does not need to worry about bigger or smaller power/danda thing because US and Chinese are matched by Nuclear Deterrent , I think the US mentioned that Chinese and Russian are existential threat for US and thats clearly a nuclear angle so a war is out of question for either side.

From my POV on the specific patrol thing the Chinese can do the following ( What China would do is up to them )

1 ) File a Diplomatic Protest and do nothing
2 ) Tail the US Ship and track them gather intelligence on them etc
3 ) Do similar patrol near US island/coast etc and create political noise aka posturing
4 ) Do Nothing and STFU

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Oct 2015 17:23

there has been melee combat with water sprays in the past

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-con ... 155744.jpg

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 27 Oct 2015 17:31

austin...i never claimed that there is going to be shooting match between the two. but a vietnamese or fillipino ship would not have been met with complaints only. A vietnamese or fillipino ship would have been rammed or forced out to show who is the boss here. 1, 2 , 4 and water spraying is possible..i am not sure 3. lets wait and see.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Oct 2015 20:03

manjgu , I agree may be vietnamese or fillipino ship would have met no resistance or would have rammed , AFAIK US is not a party to dispute

In past Soviet used to just ram US ships entering its territorial water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SME4w037FgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4jQhnXrWbg

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 27 Oct 2015 20:54

USA is party to dispute if someone claims a international waterway to be its own? by claiming these islands China is restricting movement of US navy ships?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 27 Oct 2015 20:56

Singha wrote:there has been melee combat with water sprays in the past

Image


Now this is the type of naval battle than everybody would have enjoyed immensely. :D

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Oct 2015 21:09

manjgu wrote:USA is party to dispute if someone claims a international waterway to be its own? by claiming these islands China is restricting movement of US navy ships?


What you are stating is USA position , China has its own view , obviously they dont agree and so do rest of folks, BTW USA has a position on every thing in the world including not respecting our own EEZ and has their own view on Kashmir etc

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 948
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 28 Oct 2015 04:46

Austin wrote:
manjgu wrote:USA is party to dispute if someone claims a international waterway to be its own? by claiming these islands China is restricting movement of US navy ships?


What you are stating is USA position , China has its own view , obviously they dont agree and so do rest of folks, BTW USA has a position on every thing in the world including not respecting our own EEZ and has their own view on Kashmir etc
It happens to be the view of other countries in SE Asia, not to mention India as well. It is very much every country's right to have a position on another country's claims.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7591
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Oct 2015 04:57

Freedom of Navigation in International Waters is something that all nations have a vested interest in and this includes navigation on sea, beneath it and in the air. This especially becomes important when one nation begins to turn disputed rocks into islands and begins to set forth a chain of events in order to conclude the process by claiming that as not-international waters and therefore challenging any sovereign nation that may wish to navigate these waters. China is fairly well isolated in this case with pretty much the entire Asia Pacific / Indo-Pacific region taking a position contrary to it. Same applies to the ADIZ announced by China in the recent past. The US continuous to fly aircraft over those international waters that only China claims as its own.

Similarly, FON also permits Chinese or Russian, aircraft, ships and submarines from being in international waters anywhere including in regions in close proximity to CONUS or other US interests in the Pacific or Atlantic. As I mentioned before, there is nothing wrong with Russia or China doing this from a legal stand point but in the case of the Chinese they do it yet still claim that others should not practice FON in areas that it considers its own, while it readily uses its coast guard under the garb of protecting fishermen to other disputed regions to essentially harass smaller Navies by forcing them to use their naval asset and then (because they do not have as large or as capable a coast guard) accuses them of escalation since they responded to their coast guard's posture by using their navy.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 28 Oct 2015 06:20

http://www.cnet.com/pictures/x-47b-head ... id=5316808

Check the Photus of UCAV

An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator flies over the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. On May 14, 2013, one of the U.S. Navy's two X-47B aircraft did what no unmanned aircraft has ever done before -- made a catapult launch from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.
After taking off from the Bush, the Navy said, the X-47B made several planned low approaches to the carrier (under the control of an operator aboard the ship) off the coast of Virginia and then flew across Chesapeake Bay to land at

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16283
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 Oct 2015 06:31

i think the opposite is true... there is a hindi proverb..kabza saccha dawa jhoonta... means possesion is truth ,claim is false..as china build islands, airstrips, plants radars etc..its claim will become stronger each passing year... US can do a diddly squat abt it


Eh?

So, falsehood is the truth?

Typical of recent BR logic, posters are confusing matters.

This is not a US-China matter. It is a China-rest of us matter. IN ships on their way to Japan do the same and are told they are in Chinese waters. Who cares?

Those Chinese made islands are not Chinese waters. If they are then in 20 years IN will pay a toll to transit through there.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7591
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Oct 2015 06:51

Its a problem if there are expectations that these actions (flying aircraft over an ADIZ, or taking a ship to within 12 miles etc) are considered to be a means to have China reverse its actions which they are clearly not. These are there to delegitimize the claims of international waters as sovereign territory. Essentially A message - "You can claim what you want, but we will not honor that claim".

Jayram
BRFite
Posts: 301
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Jayram » 31 Oct 2015 21:11

Fascinating reading of a Tomcat pilot view of operations.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625
Nothing new perhaps for the veterans here but worth a read if nothing else but how well written it is..

There are so many moving parts to carrier operations at sea. Space is such a premium, the boat becomes the world's worst Rubik's cube: in the hangar bay, on the flight deck, and in the confined operating sea spaces. Gas is as scarce as water is in the Sahara; the only tanker is another Super Hornet and he only has enough gas to give you 1.8 passes at the ship (BTW, .8 passes doesn't help you much). Simple maintenance and parts supply becomes much more restrictive. There's very little room to work on the jet and your parts are whatever the boat has in its stock. Finally, the boat has the requirement to launch aircraft while still being a ship—both from a training perspective and an operational perspective. When your runway has to float, cook everyone a meal 4 times a day, and do a bunch of laundry using nuclear power—it just adds another layer of operational difficulty.


I'm glad I don't have any more night traps. Go stand in one corner of a really dark room with a small pen light at the opposite end. Look through a paper towel tube searching for that light. If you find it, that's what the boat looks like at night from 20 miles.


And this :wink: :wink:
Guys use the term "Bag Strike" when you go out in town in your flight suit. One fall we were asked to do the pregame flyby at a Kansas City Chiefs game at Arrowhead. We arrived in KC earlier in the weekend and hit all the BBQ joints and local bars. On Sunday, after performing the flyby, we were invited up into the owner's box (Mr. Lamar Hunt), got a tour of the stadium, met a few cheerleaders—pretty much the works. Let's just say there was a lot of "bag striking" going on that weekend and even a few confirmed kills.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Nov 2015 18:23

I can't remember who said it now,but was posted aeons ago,when China suddenly "claimed" Ar.Pradesh as its own."China will push,push,continously until it meets hard steel".It has been doing that for decades in the Himalayas. It is using the same tactics in the Indo-China Sea. The US has sent in its warships to contest the Chinese illegal claim to most of the ICS.It isn't going to back down.China has to back off in a manner that limits its loss of face.XI Gins has a major problem.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Nov 2015 10:30

China's Klub clone.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... job-harder
China's Supersonic Ship Killer Is Making U.S. Navy's Job Harder
DavidTweed
October 30, 2015

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Nov 2015 17:02

New book out on Brit CW sub secrets in the shadowy UW cat and mouse game between Soviet and NATO/Brit subs.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... d=11538528
Deep secrets reveal UK navy sub spied on its own side

By Ben Farmer in London
Monday Nov 2, 2015

The mission was so successful that the Prime Minister reversed his opposition to similar operations against Russian vessels and sanctioned spy missions off northern Russia. Photo / Getty Images
The mission was so successful that the Prime Minister reversed his opposition to similar operations against Russian vessels and sanctioned spy missions off northern Russia. Photo / Getty Images

A Royal Navy submarine was sent on a Cold War mission to spy on its own side to prove that crews could safely carry out surveillance of the Russian fleet, a new book discloses.

The mission, known only to a handful of admirals, was designed to reassure Sir Winston Churchill that submarines could spy on Soviet vessels without being detected.

HMS Totem was able to spend 10 days creeping around supposedly alert British warships on an exercise off Gibraltar eavesdropping and taking photographs of their communications equipment without being detected.

The mission was so successful that the Prime Minister reversed his opposition to similar operations against Russian vessels and sanctioned spy missions off northern Russia.

The 1954 operation is disclosed in a new history of the Submarine Service which the authors say is written with unprecedented co-operation from one of the Armed Forces' most secretive branches.

The Silent Deep, by Peter Hennessy and James Jinks, details decades of deep-sea cat-and-mouse games waged between Royal Navy and Russian submarines at the height of the Cold War.

It also reveals that a Royal Navy submarine was able to track a Russian vessel armed with nuclear missiles for 49 days, setting what is believed to be a record for the longest trail of a Soviet submarine.

HMS Sovereign was able silently to follow the submarine in 1978 as it zig-zagged across the Atlantic, gathering vast quantities of intelligence about how the Soviet boat operated.

The book also contains new details of a 1968 collision between HMS Warspite and a Soviet Echo II cruise missile-carrying submarine which was hushed up for years.

The Royal Navy ship slammed into the back of the Russian submarine while it was tracking it and badly damaged its conning tower.

Hennessy, who went on several submarine voyages while writing the book, said he had wanted to tell the stories of people who had been unable to reveal their secret exploits at the time. "They are not called the silent service for nothing."

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2015 09:56

OZ in total confusion over sub requirement.Appoint a Yanqui admiral for the same!

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/submar ... kofz1.html
Submarines: you pays your dough and you takes your choices

Date November 2, 2015
.
The news snippet was so brief you could have almost missed it, but the import is huge. Enormous. Last week, as a subtle signal hinting at the chaos and grief accompanying our continuing downright failure to sort out what sort of new submarines we need, the federal government appointed a retired US admiral to take charge of the project. Retired Rear Admiral Stephen Johnson, the man who once managed the American Seawolf program (which produced the second-most expensive submarine ever built) is taking over. Pardon?

This is the clearest signal yet that our enormous, $50 billion submarine building project is now completely off the rails. An entire decade's work and effort and patch-up compromises (including recruiting teams of other "international experts") now scrapped as a result of political bungling and secrecy and incompetence.

Building submarines can be as expensive and as complex as a space program or as simple as a visit to the supermarket. The key is to look at what's on offer, work out how much you're prepared to pay, and then spend the money to get it. What you won't achieve, though, is a breakfast banquet for the price of a single Weet-Bix. The problem is, until now, no politician has been prepared to level with us and tell the truth. Look at what happened the last time someone dared to tell the truth.

Just a year ago, (then) defence minister David Johnston, suddenly exploded in the Senate and admitted he "wouldn't trust [the Australian Submarine Corporation] to build a canoe". He was abruptly sacked for that outburst. It was un-Australian. He should have known better. It's not possible to denigrate inefficient industry and incompetent bureaucrats even – perhaps especially – when what's being said is true.

Labor's Penny Wong thought she'd triumphed. She moved the Senate motion that successfully censured Johnston, ensuring his demise. But Wong might have learnt much more and uncovered a story of much greater political import had she unpicked what was being said, instead of rigidly enforcing political correctness. What Wong ignored is the story of the prolonged disaster with the potential to rip apart either the budget or the defence of the country. So let's start at the beginning. Kevin Rudd's ridiculous, un-costed and strategically illiterate thought bubble of a rolling program building a dozen submarines in Adelaide.

The idea could make sense. Nevertheless, as when you peruse the menu for breakfast, it requires compromises. You want world-beating technology built here: fine, and now cough up the money. You want cheap: great; there's a good Japanese off-the-shelf model – and now tell me how that works with South Australian voters. No politician has been prepared to admit building submarines requires simple decisions that will determine the eventual outcome.

Imagine a piece of string. That's your submarine. Now join the ends using straight lines, with one side representing the subs range, another stealth, the third the number of vessels in your fleet, the fourth innovative design and the fifth local manufacture. Fold the string wherever you want but each angle represents a compromise somewhere else. Decide to add to the length of the string. Go on, you know you want to and you think it will solve the problem. The only issue is that now you've got to add some other extra dimensions as well: either severely curtail numbers in the surface fleet, raise taxes or cut the number of hospital nurses. It's all up to you. Having fun?

The politicians have been pretending the line just kept expanding like a magic pudding, or bubble-gum, but now the ever-inflating project has suddenly popped and exploded in our faces. Rudd imagined we could have 12 long-range boats without paying for them. Julia Gillard wanted an Adelaide build yet kept putting it off into the never-never because of the cost to capability. Tony Abbott wanted to buy from Japan but wouldn't admit it until his prime ministership was falling apart because of South Australian votes – and a very big thank you, in this respect, to Christopher Pyne, member for Sturt. All just playing let's pretend.

Simple decisions need to be made and explained; the string's not going to get any bigger while we stand around and engage in wishful thinking. Up until now though, nobody's been prepared to explain these choices to the electorate or pay the political price of clearly delineating exactly what the trade-offs are.

The only way to add to the range of choices is to do things differently. That's why it's so utterly brilliant that Lockheed, SAAB and Thales have jointly combined to develop a submarine research laboratory in Adelaide to push the boundaries of what's possible. The future of underwater warfare isn't in welding and riveting; it's in remotely operated mini-submersibles. This is the future.

The point is to have politicians who will treat us like adults and are prepared to put everything on the table. Like National's MP David Gillespie, who's at least put forward the option of broadening the GST tax base. But consider Peter Martin's story in this newspaper on Monday, also, about the massive number of huge homes with expansive gardens occupied by ageing couples. Young families are forced to camp in flats while the tax system actively discourages selling real estate and throws benefits at investors. Meanwhile ,we've driven car-makers out of the country by cutting their subsidies.

It's all part of the same picture. Crossing our fingers and making a wish won't, by itself, pay for a fleet of brilliant new submarines. If we want the best, there will be a cost, not just building the vessels but crewing them over time. Long-range operations require bigger submarines. Smaller boats won't achieve everything we want. You pays your money and you makes your choices. It's simple really.

Surface vessels or hospitals; cash in the hand or pay more tax. You choose.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/submar ... z3qUtIfv1O


manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1975
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby manjgu » 04 Nov 2015 13:09

Nrao... Apparently u r not following the entire conversation. only Austin is claiming that its a China/SE asian countries issue. rest of us are arguing its a china vs rest of the world issue. And only that its the USN which has the means to challenge Han claims. All i meant by the " kabzaa saccha... " is that once someone occupies a land its very hard to dispossess the occupier either by force or by legal means. occupation in a way reinforces ones claim. China has stalled a joint declaration in ASEAN meet on illegal chinese claims in S china sea showing the length to which it will go to stop any mention of its illegal activities. Apparently Cambodia has stalled the introduction of statement on china.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2015 16:04

The size of the planned PLAN SSN fleet is likely to alarm the IN which will now require at least 10 SSN/SSGNs to counter the planned PLAN N-sub threat.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... t-carrier/
Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier
Attack submarine sailed near USS Reagan south of Japan

Fisher said that he expects China’s attack submarine fleet to begin increasing in size.

“The PLA may build up to 14 of their third-generation Type 095 SSN, which might add up to a total SSN fleet of about 20,” he said, using the military designation for attack submarine.

“Inasmuch as the U.S. may only be able to spare about 30 SSNs for its Pacific-based forces, this could greatly stress the U.S. submarine fleet absent new construction,” he added.

A fleet of 30 attack submarines may limit continuous deployment of submarines to around 10, given the need for maintenance and for crew rotations.

Chinese state-run media and military commentators have denounced the deployment of the Reagan, which replaced the carrier group led by the USS George Washington.

“The United States intends to strengthen its military superiority in order to frighten the neighboring countries of the disputed region, such as China, [North Korea], and Russia,” retired Chinese Rear Adm. Yin Zhuo told state television in September.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66591
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Nov 2015 17:41

Aus should just get over their pain and lease 6 refurbished and re-cored 688 class subs. no SSK tech is suitable for sprinting around a continent sized country.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2015 18:13

Very sensible.However,the wizards of Oz are so short on crews and can barely operate one or two Collins subs ,operating an N-sub will be far beyond their capacity. Even building and operating any of the planned conventional subs will take them a decade+ to get to grips with them. The cost of the Oz sub acquisition is est. at over $35B. A large fleet of LRMP aircraft ,P-8s,whatever,could be had for a few B to counter PLAN subs.Instead of these overweight diesel/AIP subs,Oz could buy std. German U-boats which SoKo is building in large number and firm up port /support facilities with friendly allies such as S'Pore,the Phillipines,US Pacific bases,SoKo and Japanese island territories for extending their patrol times.A couple of sub tenders would be a nice addition. In fact,Oz have some superb native supercat designs,fast logistic vessels sold to the US,the best of their type in the world.Would be very useful for the IN too. Smaller cat design ASW corvettes would be a great addition.What the Oz navy requires is a balanced fleet to deal with the PLAN threat and they need to spread their moolah around,not park most of it in the sub pens on subs which they will find difficult to operate!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19933
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Nov 2015 12:51

This will be a real coup for India,L&T/BEL,etc., if it is confirmed. The petyas are however quite ancient,we pensioned off ours a long time ago,but if the hulls have life in them could serve another decade+.

http://www.janes.com/article/55748/bhar ... te-upgradeBharat, Larsen & Toubro make joint bid for Vietnam's frigate upgrade
Ridzwan Rahmat, Singapore - IHS Jane's Navy International
03 November 2015

An Indian consortium is bidding to upgrade Vietnam's five Petya-class frigates
Upgrades aim to improve the ASW capabilities of the Soviet-era warships


An Indian consortium consisting of engineering firm Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and state-owned company Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) has submitted a bid to upgrade the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) Navy's five Petya (Project 159A/AE)-class frigates, an official from India's Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) confirmed with IHS Jane's on 4 November.

A major part of the upgrade work will be aimed at improving the platform's anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities. "This includes a replacement of the vessel's hull-mounted sonar and anti-submarine weapons", said the DRDO representative.[/quote]

Notes on the Viet Petyas ,still in service.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.in/2013 ... gates.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23312
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 06 Nov 2015 15:11

Russian navy will continue building more Kilos

http://lenta.ru/news/2015/11/05/varshavyanka/

Navy decided to order new submarines of the "Warszawianka"

The military can order the construction of a new series of boats Project 636.3 ("Warszawianka"), which are currently being built just for the Black Sea Fleet. This was stated by Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov, according to Tass.

"The High Command of the Navy is considering building submarines of this project and for other fleets. This is logical, since the submarines Project 636.3 have good combat efficiency and performance, "- said Chirkov.


Earlier, in December 2014, it was reported that the construction of the submarines Project 636.3 may be limited to a series of six units designed for the needs of the Black Sea Fleet. In the future, we planned to go to the construction of submarines of Project 677 "Lada", as well as promising NNS with airindependent power plant (in 2015 on the subject of research has been completed, "Kalina-Navy").

Submarine Project 636.3 belong to the third generation and is a development of submarines of Project 636 and 877. They are considered one of the quietest in the world. Submerged speed is 20 knots, maximum diving depth of 300 meters and a submerged displacement of about four thousand tons. Submarine crew consists of 52 people, it can be in autonomous navigation for 45 days.

A feature of the project is to equip the boats 636.3 complex percussive missile "Calibre" and updated avionics.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7591
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Nov 2015 15:29

Singha wrote:Aus should just get over their pain and lease 6 refurbished and re-cored 688 class subs. no SSK tech is suitable for sprinting around a continent sized country.


The entire issue is with maintaining a local industrial base. If it was purely a transactional deal they would have had many options ranging at different price points. It appears there are strong forces either in their navy or the government that wants not just a good sub but also to preserve in someway their industrial base for submarines. When you start going down that road and wanting to preserve perhaps the most expensive shipbuilding industrial base then imho there is no price too high. For what they would end up paying for some of the subs and what they paid for their current ones they could have struck a long term deal for the Virginia and still had some cash left over ;)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16283
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Nov 2015 06:49


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36284
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby SaiK » 20 Nov 2015 03:53

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTUV

somethings IN must start thinking about it seriously.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16283
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 21 Nov 2015 06:22



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mappunni, pravula, Prem Kumar, Saral, sidp, srin and 76 guests