International Naval News & Discussion

[Manish_P]

English Queen married a greek prince. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ph ... rom_Greece

How German are the british royals
https://www.dw.com/en/how-german-are-th ... a-63128994

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 92433?s=20 ---> AUKUS: The billlion-Dollar Trap?

Next week I’ll publish a deep-dive article showing how the Australians (and others) got themselves into one of the biggest defense money pits in modern history with the AUKUS SSN program: total cost estimated between US$177 billion and US$244 billion over 30–35 years, with the first nuclear-powered submarines arriving only in the early 2030s and the full fleet completed sometime in the 2050s–2060s, by which time the core technology can possibly already be obsolete.

And Australia isn’t alone. India is pouring tens of billions into its own nuclear attack submarine program and risks ending up in exactly the same boat. Just a few days ago, when I wrote about the Japanese Taigei-class and lithium-ion batteries, I pointed out the real trend: within the next 5–8 years, solid-state batteries (already scaling up in China, South Korea and Japan) will allow conventional submarines of 4,500–5,500 tons to:

- stay submerged for 40–60 days
- recharge in just a few hours or use.
- cost under US$ 800 million each
- become almost impossible to detect because they never need to snorkel

But that’s only the part about the conventional subs.

China has already launched the first prototype of a hybrid submarine (Type 041 Zhou-class) that uses a micro nuclear reactor (10–15 MW thermal), weighing roughly 20-25% of a conventional SSN reactor, fully modular, easily replaceable, and with dramatically lower maintenance costs, whose sole job is to continuously charge a large battery bank. Result: solid State batteries, unlimited submerged endurance, 20–22 knots continuous, 30+ knot sprint, and unit cost in series production estimated at US$1–1.5 billion.

At least four other countries (Russia, South Korea, Japan, and Brazil) are now openly working on very similar small nuclear-conventional designs, but only the Chinese is a real hybrid model. This is no longer a one-off prototype; it’s the announced future of submarines powered by solid batteries recharged by micro reactors. The harsh reality: by the time the last Australian AUKUS submarine is delivered (around 2060), the most advanced navies will be mass-operating cheap hybrid subs, AI-guided autonomous torpedoes, underwater drone swarms, and large nuclear-powered UUVs.

Much of today’s naval doctrine, centered on a handful of ultra-expensive crewed SSNs, can look as outdated as battleships did in 1945, in just few decades. Any multi-hundred-billion-dollar defense investment today must be judged against the 2035–2045 timeline, not the 1960s playbook. Otherwise taxpayers foot the bill and the navy ends up with very expensive floating museums.

[Rakesh]

French Rafale fighter carried out a strike against a sea target with a 1,000 kg AASM bomb
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/ar ... -aasm-bomb
08 Dec 2025

A French Navy Rafale Marine operating from the carrier Charles de Gaulle has carried out a live strike on a sea target in the eastern Mediterranean with a 1,000 kg AASM Hammer guided bomb, after a long-range mission via Italy and Greece. The shot, part of a ten-day workup, showcases France’s ability to project heavy precision fire from a single carrier air wing at very short notice and at ranges beyond 1,000 nautical miles.

[Rakesh]

Royal Navy set to debut autonomous ships and fighter drones
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-n ... er-drones/
08 Dec 2025

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 53104?s=20

AUKUS, Mistakes and Opportunities

In 2016, Japan offered Australia state-of-the-art, diesel-electric, ultra-quiet submarines with the option of local production at the Henderson shipyard.

The Australian government rejected the proposal, claiming its goal was always nuclear-powered submarines.

Instead, Australia decided to spend roughly A$4-5 billion extending the life of its ageing Collins-class fleet until the 2040s . enough money to have bought seven-eight Japanese Taigei-class submarines outright.

If that’s really what the government wanted, the Americans and British certainly sent them the bill for AUKUS.
Australia is footing almost the entire cost: A$368 billion over three decades.

- The United States receives US$3 billion from Australia to expand its industrial base, build more Virginia-class submarines, and then sells 3–5 second-hand boats back to Canberra.

- The United Kingdom receives around £2.4 billion from Australia for design and infrastructure work, shares some development costs, and ends up using the exact same SSN-AUKUS design for its own future fleet at essentially no extra cost.

I’m genuinely intrigued by how they managed to sell the Australians on this deal. I’d love to meet and congratulate the American and British negotiators – true sales geniuses. Nuclear submarines must have been a childhood dream of that Australian government; there’s no other explanation.

But the problems don’t end there.

Just as the Americans have cancelled over 300 programmes and thrown away more than US$200 billion in the last 20 years, the British have serious and very recent issues with their own naval projects. It feels like a structural disease in the Western defence industry.

- The Astute programme is more than a decade late, costs have tripled, only 5 of the planned 7 boats have been delivered, and engineering problems keep cropping up.

- The Dreadnought class (replacement for the Vanguard ballistic-missile submarines) has ballooned by billions and is now delayed well beyond 2030 because of failures integrating propulsion systems and Trident missiles.

- And the crown jewels – the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers – are operational but chronically short of compatible F-35s and cost a staggering £10 billion in overruns.

- The Type 45 destroyers suffered catastrophic electrical failures that left them inoperable for years, and the Type 26 frigate programme has been repeatedly cut back, reflecting completely misplaced priorities.

And a programme that is supposed to deliver eight submarines to Australia sometime around 2050–2060 is extremely unlikely to proceed as planned, not only because of budgets and operational complications, but because underwater drones are evolving fast and China is leading that race.

The Americans and British have a long naval history, but they are also visionaries who understand perfectly well that the future lies in decentralisation: swarms of UUVs, lithium or solid battery submarines, or even small nuclear-powered ones using micro-reactors. These platforms cost 10–20 % of today’s conventional SSNs to maintain, are lighter, and leave far more internal volume for weapons – meaning smaller, cheaper, and more heavily armed submarines.

And what does Australia get left with? Far more than just a submarine partnership with Japan – an entire security ecosystem.

By 2026-2028, Japan plans to have the HVPG hypersonic glide vehicles fully operational with ranges up to 2,000 km.

Their upgraded Type 12 missiles will reach 1,000–1,500 km and can be launched from ships, aircraft, and land batteries.
This is enough to cover and protect the entire Australian coastline for thousands of kilometers.

And finally, a 3,000 km-range hypersonic missile is being integrated into the Taigei-class and its successor.
That arsenal is far beyond anything currently fielded by any Western nation and only Russia and China have comparable systems.

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

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1999 ... 03429?s=20

Those investing in submarines today may be wasting money.

A Virginia-class submarine, powered by an S9G reactor, has a submerged displacement of around 10,000 tons and costs approximately $4–5.8 billion. Its top speed is over 30 knots.

Now imagine a much smaller reactor, with power and weight around 15% of the Virginia's, used solely to continuously recharge a solid-state battery bank. Solid-state batteries weigh about half as much as lithium-ion batteries while offering 2-3x more energy capacity.

In practice, this means that with the same battery weight, such a sub could achieve roughly 3x the energy gain, In terms of speed, solid-state batteries deliver double or higher discharge rates (potentially 10–20C vs. 5–10C for lithium-ion), ideal for sustained sprints above 30 knots lasting many days and a cruising speed around 25 knots.

All this with 15% less overall weight, much quieter operation on batteries alone, and the same endurance as a conventional nuclear sub.

And the cost? A micro-reactor would be 15–25% the price of a conventional one, small, modular, low-temperature/low-pressure.

This means that when a more modern reactor is needed, you simply swap the module.

A micro-reactor paired with solid-state batteries could make a Virginia-class sub $1.2-1.6 billion cheaper, quieter, and leave far more space for weapons, additional batteries, or crew comfort.

That's why this system would put all existing submarines at a disadvantage in terms of cost, space, and stealth.

Those not adopting micro nuclear reactors can follow what the Germans, Japanese, and French are doing.

The Japanese pioneered lithium-ion batteries with diesel chargers, giving their submarines excellent value for money.

The Germans chose a fuel cell AIP system to recharge lithium-ion batteries, while the French opted for a similar Japanese-style approach with a battery configuration allowing up to 80 days endurance, making the new Scorpène highly competitive.

Starting around 2030, production will shift to solid-state batteries, tripling the capacity of these conventional submarines and enabling silent navigation at around 25 knots for days,making them superior in stealth and speed to many nuclear submarines currently in service.

Submarines powered by solid-state batteries, recharged via micro-reactors, fuel cells, or diesel, will be superior: better armed, cheaper, and stealthier than anything we know today.

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 38081?s=20

The era of monsters like AUKUS is over.

When the AUKUS program – which I will discuss in the coming days – was designed, it was already obsolete. Its most likely future is cancellation as many US programs during the last years.

Just as drones in Ukraine dominated the battlefield in Ukraine, and proved that anything big and slow becomes vulnerable and almost useless, the same fate now reaches submarines.

Hundreds of underwater drones will hunt submarines for hours or days until they find them, and China leads these breakthrough technologies.

Two stand out:

- Magnetic Wake Detection: developed by Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU), it tracks magnetic disturbances left by moving submarines, even stealth Seawolf-class ones. Chinese UUVs already integrate this with existing MAD systems, mapping persistent wakes in real time. In 2025 tests, it merged with acoustic networks and AI to form a vast detection grid.

- CPT Atomic Magnetometer (quantum sensor): the most promising, it eliminates low-latitude blind spots with extreme precision. Initially tested on tethered aerial drones, it is now being adapted for submerged UUVs using rubidium for omnidirectional anomaly detection. CASC researchers are miniaturising and mass-producing it; in simulations, AI-equipped UUVs distinguished real targets from false positives (e.g. whales) with 95% accuracy.

None of this is theoretical – it is already part of China’s Underwater Great Wall, a mobile sensor network fusing magnetic, passive sonar and AI data.

This is exactly why Japan’s new submarine - using lithium batteries- program draws so much attention: excellent cost, real innovation, and units entering service before 2032 will also be modern long-range (1,000-3,000km) missile platforms even for hypersonic missiles.

They are cheap enough that the AUKUS budget could hypothetically buy hundreds of them.

The future lies in smaller, cheaper, more numerous units – never the opposite. Modern warfare is entering the age of decentralisation, and programs like AUKUS are its exact antithesis.

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

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 53104?s=20

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1998 ... 91860?s=20

[drnayar]

https://defensehere.com/en/us-approves- ... o-denmark/

The U.S. State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to the Government of Denmark for P-8A Poseidon multi-mission maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft and associated systems, with an estimated value of $1.8 billion.

Denmark has requested the acquisition of up to three (3) P-8A patrol aircraft, along with a comprehensive suite of mission systems, communications, navigation, and defensive equipment. The request includes:

Major Defense Equipment

Three (3) P-8A Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Four (4) Multifunctional Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio Systems

Four (4) AN/AAQ-24(V)N Guardian Laser Transmitter Assemblies

Four (4) AN/AAQ-24(V)N system processor replacements with Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules (SAASM)

Eight (8) LN-251 Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems with SAASM

Additional Systems and Equipment

Tactical Open Mission Software

MX-20HD electro-optical/infrared sensor systems

NexGEN Missile Warning Sensors for AN/AAQ-24(V)N

AN/AAQ-2(V) acoustic systems

AN/APY-10 maritime surveillance radar

ALQ-213 electronic warfare management systems

AN/UPX-43 interrogators

KIV-78A cryptographic appliqués

AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponders

AN/ARC-210 UHF/VHF radios

AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser System programmers

KY-100M communications security (COMSEC) devices

U.S. Government and contractor engineering, training, logistics, and technical support

Other related logistics and program support elements