November 27, 2019

Pete Moving to Bigger Place - Sexy French & Israeli? Nuclear Tests

I'm moving to a bigger place. So Submarine Matters will be a bit quiet for the next 2 weeks.



Meanwhile be charmed (1 minute, 10 seconds into the video above) by the wickedly sexy English female narrator as she describes France's 18 early nuclear bomb tests. These took place at Reggane and Ekker in the French Sahara. 

According to Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr in a 1999 report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center "Progress in nuclear science and technology in France and Israel remained closely linked throughout the early fifties." Furthermore, according to Farr, "There were several Israeli observers at the French nuclear tests and the Israelis had 'unrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data.'"[6]

The video is set to uplifting, lyrical, theme music, in the Saharan sands.

Australia has vast deserts for our own tests...one day.

Enjoy 

Pete

November 25, 2019

No Australian Slouch Hats in Submarines!


1 minute 38 seconds in - the side of a slouch hat is pinned up for fashion or to facilitate rifle drill.

2 to 5 min - slouch hats used in Europe and the US Civil War. Slouch hats in action are wide brimmed
                      and unpinned to keep the sun and rain off.

8 min 7 secs onwards - Australian slouch hat (ASH) history.

8m 10s - ASH in Boer War and more detail 

10:07 - ASH in the "Great War" ie WWI. A combination of ASH and other hats at Gallipoli, 1915.

11:22 - ASH in WWII

12:02 - ASH today

I used to wear a slouch hat in the Australian Army Reserve, although I was not a very good soldier (I couldn't do things automatically). Dad was a much better soldier - here wearing an Armoured Corps black beret

P.S. There seem to be no biographical details on the Internet for "The History Guy" wonder why?

P.P.S. Submarines lack headroom. So hats are more a submarine movie and/or PR thing? And there is now very little sun - keeping in the shade - worry. 

Pete

November 21, 2019

South Korea's Relations With US and Japan Deteriorate Further

Following Submarine Matters’ article "Some See Serious Stresses in US-South Korean Alliance" of September 18, 2019 Anonymous commented (with some improved English editing by Pete) on November 20, 2019:

 

The South Korean (SK) President Moon Jae-in rejected maintenance of the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) (the deadline is November 23, 2019) in talks with a US delegation (led by US Defense Secretary Mark Esper). The Special Measures Agreement (SMA) negotiation with the US is also not working at all [1, 2]. Withdrawal from the GSOMIA and a breakdown in negotiations on the SMA are likely to happen. According to Japanese academic Takashi Suzuki, the situation on withdrawal of US-SK alliance is deteriorating faster than he expected and will be soon critical [3].

[1] “Moon: Difficult to reconsider GSOMIA termination”, NHK-WORLD, Nov/15/2019
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20191115_45/
SK President Moon Jae-in says it would be difficult to review the country's decision to scrap the GSOMIA intelligence-sharing pact with Japan, as long as Japan keeps its export controls against SK in place.

[2] ”U.S. envoy cuts short troop funding negotiations in South Korea”, Jen Kwon, CBS NEWS, Nov/19/2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-south-korea-funding-sma-american-military-presence-kim-jong-uns-deadline-looms-2019-11-19/
Shortly after James DeHart, a US State Department senior advisor, walked out of the talks on November 17, 2019, top SK negotiator, Jeong Eun Bo, said there was "a significant difference between the overall US proposal and the principles that [SK wants] to engage in."
The Special Measures Agreement (SMA) is the formal document that lays out US-SK cost sharing for the American military deployment in SK.

[3] ”Moon Jae-in declared GSOMIA war against JSA. Shift from “Boiling Frog” tactics to early withdrawal of US-South Korea Alliance.” by Japanese academic Takashi Suzuki, DAILY SHINCHO, Nov/18/2019, https://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2019/11181631/?all=1 [translated from Japanese and Korean] Suzuki refers to the Japan-SK tensions over the likely GSOMIA breakdown and the lack of US influence to stop the breakdown.

Suzuki’s reference to the “Boiling Frog” fable in the Japan-SK-US relations context means “If you drop a frog into hot water, it dies immediately. But, if you drop a frog (= people) into warm water, it is happy because warm water is effective for health. Then if you slowly heat the water, it dies peacefully. This means SK’s Moon Jae-in tricks people by honey words and tried to end slowly the alliance. But, now, he changes time-consuming Boiling Frog tactics. Soon or later, Moon Jae-in administration makes US a bad guy and tries early withdrawal of the US-SK alliance.

Underestimation of the US-SK alliance and cheating of US by SK makes US furious regarding SK’s hard posture in GSOMIA and SMA negotiations. As China and North Korea strongly dislike the GSOMIA pact between Japan and SK, withdrawal of GSOMIA implies shift of SK from the blue team to the red team. Previously, SK’s Moon Jae-in promised US maintenance of GSOMIA, but, Moon Jae-in broke the promise including other lies. The Moon Jae-in administration utilizes hard posture of US in GSOMIA and SMA negotiations to stir up nationalism of SK people and to try an early withdrawal from the US-SK alliance.

Takashi Suzuki wrote the book “U.S.-Korean Alliance Disappearance”, published on 
October 17, 2018.

Anonymous

November 20, 2019

Secret Plans for Non-Chinese Port Outside Darwin For Rotating US Marines

Gradual changes are happening in defense dispositions in Australia, in terms of future possibilities and actual happenings. Perceptions of a withdrawal of US forces and any decline in the US's relative power may depend on the country and the officialness of the country's institutions.

Following Submarine Matters’ article “US told 2 Days After Sale of Port of Darwin to a Chinese Company” November 24, 2015, Australia’s ABC News reported June 23, 2019:

“Secret plans for new port outside Darwin to accommodate visiting US Marines”

"Secret planning has begun for a new port facility just outside Darwin which could eventually help US Marines operate more readily in the Indo-Pacific.

Precise details remain tightly guarded but senior defence and federal government figures concede the proposal may risk angering China even though it's a commercial port, not a new military base.

Projected site of Glyde Point Port (which may accommodate US warships) relative to Darwin Port (leased to a Chinese company for 99 years). (Map above courtesy ABC News June 2019)
---

The folly of leasing Darwin Port for 99 years. Map illustrates Darwin's key position in relation to some strategic concerns (eg. Indonesia, now independent East Timor and Papua New Guinea). Originating map-maker unknown.
---

Multiple officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have confirmed to the ABC the multi-use development would be in the Glyde Point area, roughly 40 kilometres north-east of Darwin's existing port.[see map above]

In the past, the location has been earmarked by the Northern Territory Government as a possible future industrial port site given its relatively deep waters, but funding arrangements for the yet-to-be announced project remain unclear.

Darwin port, which was controversially leased to a Chinese company in 2015, has existing defence facilities such as a multi-user barge ramp, but the new proposed facility would have the additional advantages of being less busy and less visible.

If approved, the new [Glyde Point] port could eventually be able to accommodate large amphibious warships such as Australia's Landing Helicopter Docks, and American vessels such as the USS Wasp, which recently arrived in Sydney. Strategic experts believe a new deep-water port would be ideally suited for the more than 2,000 US Marines and their equipment during regular rotations through [Australia's Northern Territory].

"The Americans are clearly not withdrawing from the Indo-Pacific, whether it's because of their strategic competition with China or more generally," said [Professor Rory Medcalf, Head of the National Security College at the Australian National University.]


Pete

November 18, 2019

Lithium-ion Battery Matters on Type 212 Submarine Variants

Anonymous has provided further details on Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs) matters on TKMS future Type 212 variants following the November 13, 2019 article.

Based on the structure of existing Type 212A and battery by FAAB (aka FAAM – see below) total battery energy of Type 212NFS (Near Future Submarine) was estimated to 4-6MWh [1-3] considerably larger than current Type 214A (2-3MWh) with Lead-acid Batteries (LABs) [1a].

As K. R. Energy (parent company of FAAM (aka FAAB)) thinks LIBs for 212NFS are triggers for defense use of LIBs, FAAB presumably show discount price [4].

The amount of LIBs for AIP submarine such as South Korea and Germany is small, while non-AIP Japanese submarine equips with large amount of LIBs.

Both Type 212NFS and future Type 212CD  (Common Design) have non-magnetic hulls and LIBS. Type 212NFS is different from Type 212CD (which Norway selected presumably to avoid electromagnetic submarine detection by Russia) [5]. Is capacity of 70MWh (70MW is wrong expression?) for Type 212NFS mistake of 7MW [6]?

Notes


Page 17/32

[1a] ibid, page16/32
Capacity and volume of module consisted of 120 cells are 25.2kWh and 135.5L. Volumetric capacity of module is 186Wh/L-module (=25.2kWh/135.5L). Assuming capacity of 75Wh/L for LIB, then total capacity of LIBs in battery section is 1.95MWh [=(75Wh/L)/(186Wh/L)]. In the case of module consisted of 96 cells, total capacity of LABs is 2.29MWh. In these cases, Battery Management System (BMS) is not considered for LIBs. Then, actual total capacity of LABs may be 2-3MWh.

[2] Dimension (D x W x H [m])of battery section in Type 212A is estimated to be 10m x 2- 3m x 1.6m [3]. Based on dimension (diameter 63mm, length 225mm), weight metric capacity (139Wh/kg) and weight (1.510-1.520kg) LIB by FAAB, total capacity of Type 212NFS is estimated as follows. 

Case I
96 cells are arranged in a battery module (6 columns x 4 rows x 4 layers = 478 x 252 x 900mm). Dimension (D x W x H) of battery section is 10 x 2 x 1.6m. In this case, 192 battery modules arranged in a battery section (24 columns x 8 rows) with 18432 cells. Then, total weight of cell is 27.8t and capacity of total cell is 3.87MWh (=139Wh/kg x 27800kg). In this case, ideal minimization of stray magnetic field in x, y and z directions is achieved.

Case II
120 cells are arranged in a battery module (6 columns x 4 rows x 5 layers = 478 x 252 x 1125mm). Dimension (D x W x H) of battery section is 10 x 2 x 1.6m. In this case, 192 battery modules arranged in a battery section (24 columns x 8 rows) with 23040 cells. Then, total weight of cell is 34.8t and capacity of total cell is 4.84MWh (=139Wh/kg x 34800kg).

Case III
96 cells are arranged in a battery module (6 columns x 4 rows x 4 layers=478 x 252 x 900mm). Dimension (D x W x H) of battery section is 10 x 3 x 1.6m. In this case, 288 battery modules arranged in a battery section (24 columns x 12 rows) with 27072 cells. Then, total weight of cell is 40.9t and capacity of total cell is 5.68MWh (=139Wh/kg x 40900kg).

[3] Stray magnetic field caused by batteries has three directions, x (horizontal bow-stern), y (horizontal starboard-port), z (vertical). Minimization of stray magnetic field in x and y directions is conducted by even number arrangement of battery modules which cancels stray magnetic field by battery module pairing. Battery modules near the starboard or port wall of pressure hull locates at higher position than those on the keel due to cylindrical cross section of pressure hull, resulting vertical (z direction) unbalance of stray magnetic field. Usually minimization of stray magnetic field is mainly conducted on x and y directions, not on z direction. In Type 212A, to achieve thorough magnetic transparency, minimization of stray magnetic field in z direction is presumably conducted by adopting long and narrow battery section in addition to non-magnetic hull. Dimension (D x W x H [m]) of battery section in Type 214A is estimated to be 10m x 2- 3m x 1.6m based on its structure.

As Norway Navy also demands magnetic transparency for Type 212CD, shape of its battery section will resemble Type 212A or 212NFS. In Case I arrangement with two battery section for Type 212CD, its battery capacity is 7.74MWh with perfect minimization of stray magnetic field.

In DSME2000 and KSS-III Batch2 submarine by South Korea, battery arrangement in z direction is in normal manner. If it is true, magnetic steel such as HY100 is used for pressure hull.

[4] Concerning K. R. Energy (parent company of FAAM (aka FAAB) see Full Company Report (page 52/56) Lithium and defence are the key drivers of the investment case,

 2) the reaching of a deal on the supply of battery packs for the new Italian Navy U-212 “NFS” submarines represent major triggers for the investment case, possibly materializing in the next 6 months.

[5] Rosoboronexport (the sole state intermediary agency for Russia's exports/imports of defense-related and dual use products, technologies and services) http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/stationary-electronic-systems/komor/

The Komor electromagnetic stationary submarine detection system is designed to control the sea-situation to ASW border”

[6] As capacity of FAAB-cell is 139Wh/kg, the amount of LIBs, which is currently 35-41t has to increase to 500t (=70x10^6[Wh]/139[Wh/kg]) to achieve a total capacity of 70MWh.

Anonymous