International Naval News & Discussion

[Austin]

Well they can look hard but they dont really have the money to spend on Defence more than what they are spending infact they would be cutting spending as their economy is not growing in more than few point digits and their debt burden is growing.

So all the talks of lets look at Ukraine and increase spending is mere Political Rhetoric and a means to keep their Population assured .they know very well they dont have that money any more to put on defence and same goes for US which stands at verge of bankruptcy.

[NRao]

If the French cancel the deal, with Russia. Can they still be relied upon by the Indian government, for the supply of sanction proof weapons

Why such fear?

Every country acts in her own interest.

Even here, only the uninitiated will talk about "US pressure". France, and for that matter all other nations, will act in their own interest.

[Austin]

Just google and check for US pressure to cancel Mistral deal even before the crisis.

Sure French can act they would just loose credibility as reliable defence customer and not to mention pay hefty fine as per contracts .......Hope the recession hit french economy is ready for it

[brar_w]

Given that the french, the americans and the other western countries impending bankruptcy, should be re-consider our defense deals with them so as to avoid having to go through the turmoil of lack of support that is bound to follow from their collapse? Cancel further P-8's, rafale and scorpenes

[Austin]

When that happens they will need more of our money for survival of workforce as India will be one of the two countries that will be growing at 6 % and above

[brar_w]

Lets prepare a bid for Dassault and Boeing when that happens

[NRao]

Take aways:

* A few ships + sale of a few more 100s of planes will cure French economic problems. And, I thought such sales paid for the vacations that the French take
* "Pressure":

Just read an article (very nice article) - in the past day or two - about how Denmark/Sweden broke the isolation of Modi. It was slowly followed by other EU nations, culminating with the US visit too.

However, what caught my attention was the German amby. Berlin was against its own amby to visit Modi, yet he did.

This article shows - at a much lower level granted - how nations and actually even individuals act in their own interest. What the US thought did not matter. And, in the case of the German amby, even what his own gov thought did not matter.

IF France decides not to supply these ships to Russia the French will take into account all things and then device something that will be in the best interest of France. IF they at any time feel that their reliability will be lost and reliability matters to them, then they will either not act on what the US wants them to do or they will device ways to reduce or eliminate this problem.

And, that is how all entities (outside of CPI I guess - who run to China) normally behave.

US pressure will be a part, but how large in the decision making is something we will not know - unless someone states so.

[Philip]

Japan and Oz to discuss a poss. sub deal to deal with China's huge superiority in numbers and growing quality of its conventional and N-subs.From the report it will take some time before the design is finalised,if BAe,etc. are going to join the bandwagon. If you ask me,Oz have been too optimistic about their sub ambitions. They screwed up the Collins class,requiring US help to mitigate the disaster,making the subs the costliest conventional subs in history.Of the Collins,Oz can barely keep one or two operational. I was recently speaking to a naval expert familiar with the wizards of Oz ,who said that the basic problem was that the Ozzies were too bl**dy lazy! They just do not have the skilled human resources to operate and maintain their subs.A sub cook supposedly gets paid more than an admiral.

How the wizards of Oz are going to assimilate a multitude of firang technology in just one sub with their track record beats me.Just imagine German hulls,Japanese drivetrains,British sonars and some Yanqui DNA thrown in for good measure.The only nation that knows how to make a good "masala" is India! Oz should keep their sub ambitions simple,like Vietnam,buying a proven upgraded Kilo design,cheap,acquired in record time,with India to train their submariners.But then Oz is firmly a military ally of the US/West and can't escape ,o doesn't want to escape from the grip of the Anglo-Saxon imperialists.After spending billions on Swedish sub tech,they now want to dump it all and go in for a kichidi design.More's the pity.

Another Collins disaster in the making what?

Japan & Australia consider submarine deal that could rattle China
Reuters
By By Tim Kelly and Matt Siegel 16 hours ago

By Tim Kelly and Matt Siegel

TOKYO/SYDNEY (Reuters) - Japan will get the chance to pursue an unprecedented military export deal when its defense and foreign ministers meet their Australian counterparts in Tokyo next month.

Japan is considering selling submarine technology to Australia – perhaps even a fleet of fully engineered, stealthy vessels, according to Japanese officials. Sources on both sides say the discussions so far have encouraged a willingness to speed up talks.

Any agreement would take months to negotiate and remains far from certain, but even a deal for Japan to supply technology would likely run to billions of dollars and represent a major portion of Australia's overall $37 billion submarine program.

It would also be bound to turn heads in China.

Experts say a Japan-Australia deal would send a signal to Asia's emerging superpower of Japan's willingness, under nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, to export arms to a region wary of China's growing naval strength, especially its pursuit of territorial claims in the East and South China seas.

A deal would also help connect Japanese arms-makers like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries to the world market for big, sophisticated weaponry, a goal Abe sees as consistent with Japanese security.

Abe has eased decades-old restrictions on Japan's military exports and is looking to give its military a freer hand in conflicts by changing the interpretation of a pacifist constitution that dates back to Japan's defeat in World War Two.

"There’s a clear danger that aligning ourselves closely with Japan on a technology as sensitive as submarine technology would be read in China as a significant tightening in what they fear is a drift towards a Japan-Australia alliance," said Hugh White, a professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. "It would be a gamble by Australia on where Japan is going to be 30 years from now."

Australia’s proposed fleet of submarines is at the core of its long-term defense strategy. Although Canberra will not begin replacing its Collins-class vessels until the 2030s, the design work could take a decade or more and each submarine could take about five years to build, according to industry analysts.

A final decision on the type and number of submarines Australia will build is expected to be made after a review due in March 2015.

Australian officials have expressed an interest in the silent-running diesel-electric propulsion systems used in Japan’s Soryu diesel submarines, built by Mitsubishi Heavy and Kawasaki Heavy. Those vessels would give Australia a naval force that could reach deep into the Indian Ocean.

More recently, Japanese military officials and lawmakers with an interest in defense policy have signaled a willingness to consider supplying a full version of the highly regarded Soryu to Australia if certain conditions can be met. These would include concluding a framework agreement on security policy with Canberra that would lock future Australian governments into an alliance with Japan, the officials said.

Mitsubishi Heavy had no comment. Kawasaki Heavy said it had not been approached about any proposal regarding the Soryu and could not comment.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said he favors boosting strategic cooperation with Japan. For their part, Australia’s military planners are similarly enthusiastic about cooperation as a means of hedging against an over-reliance on the United States, people with knowledge of their thinking said.

ULTRA-QUIET

The Soryu’s ultra-quiet drivetrain could avoid a problem that makes Australia’s six current submarines prone to detection, said sources with knowledge of the discussions in Australia.

The Australian government has committed to building the A$40 billion ($37 billion) replacement for its Collins-class submarines at home. However, a government-commissioned report from U.S.-based think-tank Rand Corp found that Australia lacked enough engineers to design and build a vessel it said would be as complex as a space shuttle. (!!!)

"The likely practical approach is that Australia would partner with a foreign partner company and government," the report published last year said.

Australian Defence Minister David Johnston met his Japanese counterpart, Itsunori Onodera, in Perth recently and the pair meet again in June in Tokyo along with foreign ministers. Abe will follow up with a trip to Australia in July, one of the sources in Tokyo said.

Johnston said this month he believed the Soryu was the best conventional submarine in the world. He has also said he expects Japan and Australia will work together on research in marine hydrodynamics as an initial area of cooperation while working toward a "framework agreement" on military technology.

It is possible that Australia could purchase submarine hulls from Germany or Sweden and then opt to buy Japanese drivetrains for the vessels, although that would add a layer of complexity and additional cost, officials said.

Participants in a joint-development deal could also include Britain's BAE Systems and state-owned Australian Submarine Corp, which maintains the nation's current fleet.

Australian Submarine Corp's head of strategy and communications, Sean Costello, said the ship-builder had hosted Japanese government officials at its shipyards in March 2013 but no technical discussions had yet taken place.

BAE spokesman Mark Ritson said the British firm was keen to play a major role in Australia's submarine program and was in regular contact with the Australian government.

In Japan, any submarine supply deal could face roadblocks.

Some senior officials in Japan's maritime self-defense forces are wary of any joint development that could risk a leak of sensitive information about the identifying "signature" of Japanese submarines, one official in Tokyo said.

However, exports would enable Japanese arms-makers to spread their costs over a bigger production base, making them more efficient. At the same time, Abe has pressed for a loosening of legal limits on Japan's military, including an end to a ban on helping allies under attack - though opinion polls show the Japanese public is divided on Abe's security policies.

The Soryu submarines have a range of more than 11,000 km (6,800 miles) and come armed with Harpoon missiles designed to hit enemy ships operating over the horizon. The export or transfer of such lethal technology would be a first in Japan and could face political opposition.

"It’s impossible for us to move quickly on this. It has to be a gradual cooperation," one Japanese official with knowledge of the discussions said.

(US$1 = 1.0815 Australian dollars)

(Additional reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo in TOKYO, editing by Kevin Krolicki and Mark Bendeich)

PS:Subs to enter service post 2025 armed with only Harpoon?! By then our subs would've had BMos-M and poss. Hyper-BMos in service too!

[brar_w]

The simplest option for them would be to buy Soryu class from japan directly without any additions or multi-vendor customization. It would be cost effective. They could perhaps work out an offset agreement with the japanese and have japanese money infused into their own aerospace and shipbuilding industry. If they want to spend more money then leasing Virginia class subs may be an option in the mid 2020's as the current contract and 2 per annum delivery has room in the program most 2023. There's no way they will buy Kilos. They are a close ally of the US and UK and the allies in the pacific and as such would stick to an integrated force. Remember reading somewhere when the RAF pilots got to qualify and fly the B-2 and the F-22 raptor that the only other air force that could be considered for such a program would be the RAAF due to the relation between the 2 nations. Indeed aussie pilots have flown the raptor and it wasnt carlo kopp Australia buying Kilos would be the same as if Canada decided to buy kilos from russia. It makes little sense to them strategically.

For the amount of money they have spent on the collins the virginia in 2023 should sound affordable although quite unlikely.

[abhik]

France's Libya adventure etc are done from America's shoulders. Its stupid to think that France is 'American pressure' proof. The only sanction proof weapons are the one made locally.

[TSJones]

PS:Subs to enter service post 2025 armed with only Harpoon?! By then our subs would've had BMos-M and poss. Hyper-BMos in service too!

Be advised that India is equiping four of their submarines with Harpoons as well as the P-8i plane. The Harpoons are quite good at target acquisition and discerning there of. South Korea is also ordering them. With the Harpoons target acquistion systems, 500 pound war head, and 120+ km range, it's a mean motor scooter especially when equipped in subs.

Addendum: According to one source the block II has inertial nav system, a GPS system, and computer digital picture of the target ship to decern from other ships that may be sailing in tight formation. It also good in bays and harbors. It will also take out bunkers and other installations on land targets. It's just a super intelligent little puppy that wants to please its owner and do God's work.

[brar_w]

The Harpoon will not last forever, lockheed has already begun exploring the LRASM as a sub launched Anti ship weapon, in addition to the ship and air launched varients. Others (raytheon mainly) wont sit quitely, and would have something to offer as well.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... asm-pc.pdf

The next step beyond aircraft- and surface ship-launched LRASMs is a submarine-launched version. There’s definite interest — “If you go look in the navy documentation you’ll see a road map to the sub-launched version,” St. John said — but so far all funding for such a variant has come from Lockheed itself.One DARPA official told reporters recently that, once the basic challenges of launching from a VLS cell are solved, launching from a VLS that happens to be underwater will a relatively easy step.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/plug ... rasm-test/

[TSJones]

The Harpoon will not last forever, lockheed has already begun exploring the LRASM as a sub launched Anti ship weapon, in addition to the ship and air launched varients. Others (raytheon mainly) wont sit quitely, and would have something to offer as well.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... asm-pc.pdf

The next step beyond aircraft- and surface ship-launched LRASMs is a submarine-launched version. There’s definite interest — “If you go look in the navy documentation you’ll see a road map to the sub-launched version,” St. John said — but so far all funding for such a variant has come from Lockheed itself.One DARPA official told reporters recently that, once the basic challenges of launching from a VLS cell are solved, launching from a VLS that happens to be underwater will a relatively easy step.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/plug ... rasm-test/

Yes, indeed. However, look to Boeing to provide upgrades for latest and greatest variant of the Harpoon. Although Boeing hasn't been too successful with that, say for instance the F-15 jet fighter upgrade. Oh well, such is the fate of miltary-industrial capitalism.

[brar_w]

The problem with the Harpoon going forward is that it does not take full advantage of the ISR network and capability the USN has built up and plans to build up in the Pacific. Things from satellites, Unmanned BAMS, manned P8's, Unmanned carrier borne ISR (Uclass), F-35 with its multiple sensors all linked up in one big network at various levels. The missile requires that all the sensors combine to enable long range targeting (500-650km) that not only use these sources intelligently and while in flight but also be able to operate in the absence of all these forces ( a much higher degree of technical difficulty). The concept is basically a small UAV on a suicide mission to find a ship, look it up in a GPS, RF denied environment from long distances and have the capability to discriminate the ship from a mix of civilian ships that could be in the region. Interestingly the Australian navy will also operate many of these aircraft. From the Global Hawk Triton BAMS to the P-8 and the F-35, EA-18, F-18E/F. Others in the are will also operate some of these elements (Japan is looking for Global Hawks and has P-3's) so the LRASM replacing the Harpoon for the pacific allies makes a lot of sense given that all these aircraft from all these countries can talk to each other if required.

[Austin]

Be advised that India is equiping four of their submarines with Harpoons as well as the P-8i plane.

TSJ which four indian subs are being equipped with Harpoon ?

[Austin]

US lawmakers urge France to sell Mistral warships to NATO, not Russia

Amid growing Western pressure being put on Russia, US congressmen are calling on France to reconsider the sale of its two Mistral helicopter carrier ships to Russia and instead allow NATO to buy or lease them.

"The purchase would send a strong signal to [Russian] President (Vladimir) Putin that the NATO allies will not tolerate or in any way enable his reckless moves," Reuters quoted a letter sent to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying.

France has been facing increasing pressure from its US and European colleagues to cancel the sale in light of the Ukrainian crisis.

The letter also argued that if NATO acquired the two warships, it would enhance the bloc’s capabilities at the time of budget cuts and give reassurances to its partners in Central and Eastern Europe.

Various top lawmakers signed the letter - including US Representative Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee; Representative Michael Turner of Ohio, chairman of the US delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; and Massachusetts Representative William Keating, the top Democrat on the House Europe subcommittee.

Despite the clear stance of its allies, France has refused to cancel the 1.2 billion euro (US$1.6 billion) deal, claiming it is too big to go back on.

Earlier, US officials suggested that France could sell the ships to another buyer or sell them without the advanced technology, although it is not at all clear at this late stage who the other buyer could be.

The French deal was Moscow’s first foreign arms purchase since the end of the Cold War and was hailed by then President Nicholas Sarkozy as an important step forward in French-Russian relations. The contract has created some 1,000 jobs in French shipyards.

The first of the two ships, the Vladivostok, is due to be delivered by November this year and the second, called Sevastopol, will arrive in St. Petersburg for a further fitting with Russian weapons systems in November 2015 and will join the Pacific fleet in the second half of 2016.

The Mistral ships can carry up to 16 attack helicopters such as Russia’s Kamov Ka-50/52, more than 40 tanks or 70 motor vehicles, and up to 700 troops. The ships for Russia have been modified from the version used by the French navy to operate in northern altitudes and ice covered seas.

The Russian navy will fit the ships with air defense systems and rapid fire artillery guns to allow them to go on combat missions with fewer escort vessels.

[KrishnaK]

Who cares about Defence Spending Western economies are already broke with their banks insolvent it is just a question of when the cookies crumble with Debt outmatching growth.
......
Well they can look hard but they dont really have the money to spend on Defence more than what they are spending infact they would be cutting spending as their economy is not growing in more than few point digits and their debt burden is growing.

So all the talks of lets look at Ukraine and increase spending is mere Political Rhetoric and a means to keep their Population assured .they know very well they dont have that money any more to put on defence and same goes for US which stands at verge of bankruptcy.

Another phillip in the making

[Pratyush]

Be advised that India is equiping four of their submarines with Harpoons as well as the P-8i plane.

TSJ which four indian subs are being equipped with Harpoon ?

Type 209 is the most logical choice for Sub Harpoon. If the news is correct.

[TSJones]

Be advised that India is equiping four of their submarines with Harpoons as well as the P-8i plane.

TSJ which four indian subs are being equipped with Harpoon ?

according to all knowing wiki the Shishumar class.

[alexis]

There were news in 2012 of upgrading U-209s with harpoons. No idea if it actually materialised.

[Austin]

No Type-209 got upgraded with Harpoon , The Upgrade for T-209 is quite modest with new Decoys and Sonars and done at MDL..likely it will be phased out once Scorpenes join the fleet.

[Austin]

France to go through with Mistral deal with Russia despite US indignation

PARIS, May 30. /ITAR-TASS/. France will go ahead with the sale of two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia's navy despite US pressure to halt the deal, the French Defence Ministry told ITAR-TASS on Friday.

Contract liabilities will be honoured and finalised in October-November, the ministry's press service said, confirming comment by President Francois Hollande visiting Berlin earlier this month.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has also announced that the deal with go through, noting on a visit to Washington that Russia “had already paid more than half” of the contract cost and that “according to law, there is no possibility to say 'no' to the deal."

He added, however, that France would take “a final decision” on this issue in October. “Let’s wait and see what the situation and legal regime will be like,” Fabius noted, referring to European Union sanctions on Russia over events in Ukraine.

[Philip]

Ha!Ha! Watch the mighty western European crumble in fear of an eco whiplash! The EU nations are precariously perched upon the edge of a financial abyss and the recent political "earthquake",where far right parties have swept the elections in France,the UK,etc.,have stunned the babus of Brussels who by repeated scinching,usurped the powers of the member states further fattening the appetite of the power-hungry Brussels' mafia. They have little money for major defence projects. In fact,the second of the QE carriers was touted as possibly being "shared" with France.Sacre bleu! Emperor Napoleon must be turning over in his magnificent casket in his gilded domed memorial at the Invalides in Paris.

M.'ollande even before the tectonic tremors,was in sh*t street ,a despised randy old "cyclist",with more marital arts on his mind than managing France's economy! France is desperate for new defence deals in order to preserve its listing defence industry and will pull out all stops to see that the Rafale deal is signed on as well. EU nations are virtually united in their assessment that the US is looking after its own interests in the Ukraine crisis and not that of Europe's.When Germany says that Russian gas is vital to it,why should France cut its own nose to spite its face over the Mistral amphibs and play the role of Uncle Tom's patsy?

Meanwhile,the Israelis are allegedly about to deploy nuke tipped missiles aboard its German Dolphin subs which will be on permanent patrol in the IOR ostensibly to take care of Iran,if it goes nuclear.

http://www.worthynews.com/14419-israel- ... iran-coast
Israel to deploy nuclear-armed submarines off Iran coast
nuclear-submarine-underwater
Monday, June 2, 2014

[TSJones]

jus wanted to give a shout out that the Virginia class sub of which 2 a year are being produced comes equiped with Harpoon missile cells. I didn't know that. I missed it in all the brouhaha. The US sub maifia are the bad boyz of rock and roll.

[kmkraoind]

Crew of British nuclear submarine nearly died in 140F temperatures after air-conditioning got clogged with crabs and barnacles in Indian Ocean

[Philip]

Ye Gods! But look on the bright side KK,they had baked crab for dinner!

Anyway,here are a few snippets of an apparently successful USN N-sub,Virginia class,which made an emergency deployment to European waters during the Crimean crisis,perhaps in the Black Sea itself. The latest news by the chief of the RuN,that the Black Sea fleet would get more subs and warships is due to the increased naval activity nu western/NATO forces,especially trying to rope in Romania into its military fold and used as a base for deployign naval assets against Russia.Under the Montreux Convention,Turkey is in control over the Dardanelles and Bosphorous Straits.Foreign warships also can enter the Black Sea under the foll. conditions:

Non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons. No more than nine non-Black Sea state warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of no more than 30,000 tons, may pass at any one time, and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days.

The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits is a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles and regulates the transit of naval warships. The Convention gives Turkey full control over the Straits and guarantees the free passage of civilian vessels in peacetime. It restricts the passage of naval ships not belonging to Black Sea states. The terms of the convention have been the source of controversy over the years, most notably concerning the Soviet Union's military access to the Mediterranean Sea.

Therefore,the USN N-sub would've stayed in the area for just 3 weeks,but enough time for its intel purposes,monitoring Russian naval activity.Russia on the other hand can export anything from the Black Sea as a littoral nation and has rights to egress and ingress into the Meditt, Sea unhindered.

By contrast, Black Sea powers such as the USSR were able to transit aircraft carrying cruisers through the straits under other terms of the convention. As with non-Black Seas powers, the Montreux convention does not explicitly forbid a Black Sea power from transiting aircraft carriers through the straits, and the tonnage limits in Article 14 also apply to Black Sea powers as well as non-Black Sea powers. However, under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits. Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft.[12]

The result of this is that by designing its aircraft carrying ships such as the Kiev and the Admiral Kuznetsov to have roles other than aircraft operation and by designating those ships as "aircraft carrying cruisers" rather than "aircraft carriers" the Soviet Union was able to transit its aircraft carrying ships through the straits in compliance with the convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which are not covered by the exemption in Article 11.

http://www.westport-news.com/news/artic ... 541639.php

Navy sub returns from rare 'surge' deployment
By MICHAEL MELIA, Associated Press
Tuesday, June 10, 2014

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A Navy submarine has returned to its Connecticut base from a rare spur-of-the-moment deployment, completing a secret 11-week mission that sent it to European waters.

The USS Missouri, which came back to Groton over the weekend, was on the first "surge deployment" involving an attack submarine to be announced by the Navy in eight years.

While the military has declined to provide details, it said the submarine left on March 24 to conduct "security missions in the U.S. European Command region." At the time, Russia was completing its takeover of Crimea, and the U.S. Navy has sent three surface ships to the Black Sea since the escalation of tensions.

Attack submarines typically deploy overseas for about six months, then return home for a yearlong period that allows for training at sea and onshore, evaluation of the submarine and leave time for the sailors.

The 140-man crew of USS Missouri had returned to shore only three months earlier from its first overseas deployment when they had to assemble on short notice.

"It was just a lot of scrambling, a lot of getting things together and helping the guys to get themselves together and prepare," said Cheryl Gaydos, the wife of a Missouri crew member and a representative for sailors' families in her role as the submarine's ombudsman. She said the deployment strained the families but "the boat ladies" stuck together.

"It was definitely a rough time. It was something unexpected. I mean it's the nature of the beast as a submariner and a submariner's wife," she said.

The commander of the Navy's submarine force, Vice Adm. Michael Connor, said in a congratulatory message that he was "grateful and humbled" by the sacrifices made by the crew and their families.

The Virginia-class submarine, which was commissioned in Groton in 2010, is equipped to conduct covert surveillance, attack targets with Tomahawk cruise missiles, launch special forces and hunt other ships and submarines. It is the fifth Navy ship named in honor of the state of Missouri.

On the latest deployment, the Missouri stopped at a port in Faslane, Scotland, but Navy officials said they could not confirm whether it conducted missions in the Black Sea, because submarine operations are classified.

It was the first attack submarine surge deployment to be announced by the Navy since 2006, when USS Louisville was sent on short notice to the western Pacific and USS Memphis was sent to the Middle East to support operations in Iraq, according to Lt. Timothy Hawkins, a Navy spokesman in Groton.

Sweden trying to get back into the sub sales rat race .
With Saab Contract, Sweden Sets Sights on Recapturing Sub-building Expertise
Jun. 9, 2014

HELSINKI — The Swedish government’s stated aim of re-building an indigenous submarine design and production capacity has come one step closer following the awarding of initial $70 million in construction and production plan orders to Saab covering the next generation A26 submarines and mid-life updates to the Royal Swedish Navy’s Gotland-class submarines.

The funds cover the completion of systems design on the A26, including detail construction, in 2014-2015. This work will be handled by Saab’s Security and Defense Solutions business area.

“This is a big step forward. We have, for some time now, been working to provide the Swedish market with total solutions for underwater systems. This is a very important step in that direction for us,” said Gunilla Fransson, a senior vice president and head of Saab’s Business Area Security and Defense Solutions.

Awarded by FMV, Sweden’s defense materials procurement organization, the orders represent the clearest evidence of the Swedish government’s plan to retain core technologies.

Apart from the $70 million in orders, Saab also signed a letter of intent with FMV to deepen its level of collaboration on the A26 and Gotland-class subs’ programs, as well as engage in related underwater capability projects with the Navy.

The A26 program, coupled with the Gotland-class subs’ upgrade, carries a budget of $1.7 billion to $2 billion.

Saab is hoping to finalize the purchase of core units and Sweden-based facilities in ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS/ formerly Kockums) from its German owners ThyssenKrupp by the end of August, although a concrete deal could take longer if the German vendor haggles on price and conditions of sale.

“The orders are important by themselves, but it is the letter of intent which is the main significance here. While the larger contract isn’t guaranteed, the letter of intent is a huge step in that direction. All the indications are that the negotiations between Saab and ThyssenKrupp are progressing well. These orders give Saab a stronger bargaining position,” said Björn Enarson, a company analyst with Danske Bank.

The Swedish government reiterated its desire to see an early conclusion to the TKMS-based asset acquisition talks between Saab and ThyssenKrupp when Swedish Defense Minister Karin Enström held talks with her German counterpart Ursula von der Leyen in Stockholm on May 26.

Of paramount importance for Saab is the acquisition of TKMS’s main submarine shipyard at Karlskrona, near the Baltic Sea in southeastern Sweden.

The FMV’s $70 million contract to Saab is regarded as doubly significant given that the order had been earmarked for TKMS as recently as March.

However, a deterioration in relations between Sweden’s Defense Ministry and ThyssenKrupp since January resulted in the MoD terminating that relationship with TKMS. The MoD’s concerns grew when the German company failed to deliver commitments on fixed price or the retention of core submarine technologies in Sweden.

As a direct result, the MoD turned to Saab, asking the company to conduct a self-appraisal to determine if it was feasible to expand its underwater capability to design and produce the A26 subs and modernize the Navy’s existing Gotland-class vessels.

Cevian Capital, a privately-held Swedish venture capital group, holds a 15 percent shareholding in Thyssen-Krupp. ■

[Austin]

Russian Nuclear Submarine Rescues Sailors in Distress – PHOTOS

[brar_w]

Interesting picture of P-8:

close up

[Austin]

17.06.2014 Submarine Severodvinsk (Project 885 Yasen-class) officially commisioned in the Russian Navy.

Image: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4706/257 ... b410e_orig

Image: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9090/257 ... 04c17_orig

Image: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9256/257 ... 8b85d_orig

Image: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9799/257 ... a7eb1_orig

Image: http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9090/257 ... c4cab_orig

[Philip]

http://rt.com/news/166480-yasen-class-s ... ]Published time: June 17, 2014 11:39

The Russian Navy has officially accepted K-560 Severodvinsk, the most advanced nuclear-powered multipurpose submarine Russia has ever produced.

Severodvinsk is the lead of the Yasen-class submarines, which are to become the backbone of the Russian Navy’s conventional submarine force. It was laid down back in 1993, but budgetary restrictions stemming from the post-Soviet transition caused a long delay in its construction. K-560 was launched in 2010 and had been undergoing sea trials since September 2011.

The flag raising ceremony of the Russian Navy on K-560 took place on Tuesday in Severodvinsk, the city after which the submarine was named. It is to move to its new base in the Northern Fleet by year’s end and will remain in service for at least 30 years, Navy Commander Admiral Victor Chirkov told the crew of the submarine.

Yasen-class submarines are the successors to older Russian attack submarines like the Akula-class, on which it is based, and a counterpart to US nuclear-powered Seawulf and Virginia class submarines.

One of the most interesting features of the design is a large spherical sonar system, which occupies its entire bow. This required that torpedo tubes were slanted and placed behind the main control compartment.

Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, the export variant of Oniks. (Image from wiki.org)

Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, the export variant of Oniks. (Image from wiki.org)

In addition to 533mm torpedoes, Yasen-class submarines can fire cruise missiles from its eight vertical launching systems. They can carry Onyx and Kalibr supersonic anti-ship missiles or land attack cruise missiles.

Severodvinsk is 120 meter long, has a submerged displacement of 13,800 tons and can travel up to 30 knots (56 kmh) while submerged. It is manned by a crew of about 90, including 32 officers, demonstrating the highly-automated level of its functions.

Russia is currently building two additional Yasen-class submarines, with a third one scheduled to be laid down next month and three more contracted for 2015. The Navy says additional acquisitions are planned.

“We will build as many as we need to defend our motherland,” Admiral Chirkov said.

All future Yasen-class submarines will boast an advanced variation of the design, with a slightly modified hull profile and modernized equipment.

Design works for the future successor to Yasen class are underway, the Navy commander stressed at the ceremony.

“The harsh laws and rules of shipbuilding do not allow any pauses in designing new generations of submarines,” he said, adding that future Russian submarines are expected to have advanced drones among its armaments. [/quote]

[Manish_Sharma]

^ Is it this one?

[Singha]

its the crown jewel of the RuN. its calling card is a pack of 32 missiles within its 8 large tubes. a mix of ss-n-21, yakhont, klubs anything can be carried.
you can see the sub caliber adapter head here.

http://i.imgur.com/W3Cty3T.jpg

apparently the 2nd onward yasen class features new tech and is more expensive. rumours of increasing missile load to 40 with a larger hull.
the 2nd onward Borey is also upping the Bulava from 16 to 20 per post on the page hosting above image.

[brar_w]

EMALS to start sled trials on CVN 78 in late 2015

Dead-load launches from the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) technology equipping the new Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) are set to start in late 2015, the US Navy (USN) has confirmed.

At-sea aircraft launches from EMALS are expected to follow in 2016 after Ford 's delivery from Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding business.

An industry team led by General Atomics has developed EMALS as the successor to the venerable C-13 steam catapult installed on all current USN nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Ford , now in advanced construction at Newport News, is the first carrier to receive the new system. A land-based EMALS prototype at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, has been used to support demonstration, qualification, and reliability growth activities.

Based on linear motor technology, EMALS promises benefits in performance, control, and through-life costs of ownership. For example, it delivers higher launch energy capacity, provides for more accurate end-speed control, brings substantial improvements in system maintenance, and offers increased reliability and efficiency.

According to PMA-251, the Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR's) Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment Program Office, nearly all EMALS' hardware components have now been delivered and installed in Ford .

"CVN 78 is projected to deliver in spring 2016, and at-sea EMALS aircraft launches will begin shortly thereafter," said PMA-251. "Starting in late 2015, the ship is scheduled to launch dead-loads, or weighted sleds, from the system, leading up to manned launches after delivery."

More than 450 manned aircraft launches - involving every fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft type in the USN inventory - have been completed from the EMALS prototype at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst during two Aircraft Compatibility Testing (ACT) campaigns. ACT Phase 1 concluded in late 2011 following 134 launches (aircraft types comprising the F/A-18E Super Hornet, T-45C Goshawk, C-2A Greyhound, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, and F-35C Lightning II).

On completion of ACT 1, the EMALS demonstrator was reconfigured to be more representative of the actual ship configuration on board Ford , which will use four catapults sharing several energy storage and power conversion subsystems.

ACT Phase 2 began on 25 June 2013 and concluded on 6 April 2014 after a further 310 launches (including launches of the EA-18G Growler and F/A-18C Hornet, as well as another round of testing with aircraft types previously launched during Phase 1). In Phase 2 various carrier situations were simulated, including off-centre launches and planned system faults, to demonstrate that aircraft could meet end-speed and validate launch-critical reliability.

[Karan M]

Everything that typifies the current dysfunctional state of the US MIC may be found in this one program.

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/

Navy’s $670 Million Fighting Ship Is ‘Not Expected to Be Survivable,’ Pentagon Says

Pretty much nothing works.

[brar_w]

In other words, the Freedom will head on its first big mission abroad — maritime policing and counter-piracy around Singapore — without passing a crucial exam.

What the article fails to mention is that many articles such as the crappy one posted on wired actually forced the US Navy to take measures to deploy the ship while it was still undergoing testing and/or modification.

Navy’s $670 Million Fighting Ship Is ‘Not Expected to Be Survivable,’ Pentagon Says

This article aside if one really wishes to understand why the LCS is "less survivable" then it can be one just needs to look at what the USN demanded. The USN itself did not want a proper anti ship weapon, proper protection, and a bigger gun. They wanted enough space for the modular mission payloads, UCAV operations, speed and the tactical flexibility all of this provides. They demanded this because for the tougher mission deployments they always expected the LCS to be under the umbrella of the larger ships. Thats what both the design houses are saying. Give us the opportunity to add what we actually can and survivability will be regained.

Lockheed martin already has a better armed ship (same LCS) that it is offering to the international customers. Its called the Multi-Mission Combat Ship and it includes elements of the AEGIS radar, VLS for anti ship weapons and other offensive and defensive suites that are much better aligned to what is found in a modern frigates. The USN is looking at adding these to the LCS as well only after being forced to change course through congressional and babu pressure.



http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... Bifold.pdf

Its not that the LCS program is not way behind on a lot of things or was or is poorly managed. Simply that what the article states is poorly written for a proper understanding of the situation from a defense enthusiasts point of view. But then its a wired article, they are not catering to the informed defense enthusiast anyhow.

Here's some proper perspective

ARLINGTON: In the race to replace the Navy’s controversial Littoral Combat Ship, the leading contender seems to be…. a better Littoral Combat Ship. That’s the clear implication of what we’ve been hearing from Navy leadership, and it’s clear from press briefings today that LCS contractor Lockheed Martin feels pretty confident it can do the job. (Lockheed builds the Freedom-class LCS; the Independence variant is by Austal and General Dynamics).

The incumbent’s advantage here is time. Lockheed VP Joe North told reporters at the companys pre-Farnborough Air Show briefing that he expects “every shipyard across Europe” to take a shot. But existing European designs might take years to revise to the US Navy’s requirements and an all-new design would take at least a decade. Of course, LCS is already in production, and while many in the Pentagon and Congress are deeply dissatisfied with the ship, Lockheed argues that its modular design makes it easy to upgrade.

“Whatever they decide they want for upgrades, they will start [putting on ships] as early as FY ’17 [fiscal year 2017],” North said of the Navy. Lockheed can meet that schedule or even beat it by putting upgrades on 2016 ships if desired, he said confidently. “I can easily work these [changes] in,” North said, and keep LCS production going without a pause: “If you do this right, we don’t need to break production. I think that’s huge.”

So what would the LCS-plus look like? “We gave them lots of options,” North said, “them” being the Small Surface Ship Combatant Task Force appointed by Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to review alternatives to the existing LCS design; the SSCTF will report back to Hagel by August. Lockheed can build its LCS with a bigger main gun (“we’ve always been gun-agonistic,” North said), a more powerful radar, or a less zippy but more fuel-efficient power plant — all diesels instead of the current diesel-turbine combo — if the Navy decides long range is more important than high speed.

Perhaps most important, Lockheed can build an upgunned LCS with Vertical Launch Systems (VLS), the Navy’s plug-and-play launchers for a wide variety of missiles. The ship could accommodate eight VLS cell with a modest redesign to the bow, North told reporters, or up to 32 VLS if you cut the hangar capacity from two helicopters down to one. For comparison, the Navy’s cutting edge DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, a vastly larger ship, carries 80 VLS cells.

What about survivability, though? The most common criticism of LCS — including by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) — is that the hull is simply too fragile to survive in major combat. The Navy’s own rating system puts the LCS at survivability level one, compared to level two for the FFG-7 Perry-class frigates it replaces and level three for the much larger DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers.

But in fact, “we’re more survivable than the FFGs,” North said bluntly. The Navy’s requirements for the various survivability levels have changed since the frigates were assessed, he asserted, and technology’s improved: “We’re using high-strength, low-weight steel that wasn’t even around.”

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/lock ... prove-lcs/

Plus this : http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/read ... es-to-lcs/

So the bottom line is that the ships were designed as required. The size of the guns, whether to put Harpoons or future AsW capability on the ships was a question not unto the MIC or the builders but on the Navy. The same builders are offering the same capability to international navy's around the world. The USN wanted payload flexibility, multi mission modules, speed and adding a lot of the stuff would have meant that the growth margin for adding new stuff would have been significantly less. The only problem with that I see is that the USN made a rather poor case for the ship. They should have presented the case for doing things "differently" compared to the Perry much better. As it turns out they are going to be forced to add VLS and a larger gun perhaps along with other more RIGID upgrades that would limit the multi-mission module capability. The ship would become a more traditional "frigate" as opposed to an open system the USN actually wanted (initially) knowing full well that it would operate under the umbrella of the other ships.

[NRao]

Besides,

Everything that typifies the current dysfunctional state of the US MIC may be found in this one program.

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/

Navy’s $670 Million Fighting Ship Is ‘Not Expected to Be Survivable,’ Pentagon Says

Pretty much nothing works.

that article is from Jan, 2013.

From Jan, 2014:

USS Freedom Deployment a Success

By: Vice Adm. Tom Copeman
Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet

USS Freedom’s (LCS 1) maiden 10-month deployment validated the Navy’s overall concept of operations and provided us with valuable feedback on its operation, manning, and logistics.

There is a list of take-aways.

We had some well-publicized engineering reliability challenges that impacted some of the planned operations for this maiden deployment, but they were not wholly unexpected. The main reason Freedom deployed was to shake out the ship in a realistic operational environment—to operate, to learn, and to apply the insights to future deployments and improve future ships of the class.

We pushed the crews and the ship hard. To paraphrase what has been said of “character,” you learn what a ship and a Sailor are made of when challenged. Expectations were high for Freedom and her crews. The Sailors were professional and exceeded our high expectations. In light of the fact that this was a maiden deployment of an R&D-funded ship, they did exceptionally well.

[TSJones]

And if anybody thinks the Freedom is unsatisfactory then they should see US Coast Guard Cutters. Yet we put them in harm's way all over the world.

[brar_w]

Besides,

Everything that typifies the current dysfunctional state of the US MIC may be found in this one program.

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/littoral-combat-ship/

.

[

The thing with the UNDERARMED, not survivable argument is that the ship itself (both the ships) are designed as required. Flexible frigates that depart from the traditional frigate load to make room for other stuff such as the flexibility that comes with a multi mission modules and UCAV operations. This relaxed survivable requirement is knowing that plenty of big and meaty stuff is available to provide protection. Making them "survivable" again in the traditional frigate sense of the word is much easier to execute then what the USN initially called for. Adding all that rather defensive suite will wither away at the offensive capability of the ship, which the USN wanted to be much ahead of the Perry class it is replacing.

[Austin]

New Kilo 636.3 launched for Black Sea Fleet

http://i.imgur.com/IRcnH5p.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7d2KtQH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Sfn1sos.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Wx683ce.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DJ28MjM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/TySwtKK.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/H98Sj8O.jpg

[UlanBatori]

Accuracy and Training. Or Training and Accuracy and Preparation.