Nicky commented
on November 5, 2019 in response to my South Korean DSME 2000 Concept Submarine, Specifications,
Potential Customers article of November 4, 2019. My reply to Nicky just grew and grew. So I am making it into
the following comment with links.
I think an assumption that the "Philippines can[not]
afford submarines coming from South Korea or Europe" is dated. The
Philippines is no longer a poor country reliant on very old second-hand vessels. For example, the Philippines has bought 2 NEW frigates
from South Korea.
This is also noting South Korea's DSME Chang Bogos (Type 209 variants) would be far cheaper than future, larger and new battery technology, DSME 2000s.
This is also noting South Korea's DSME Chang Bogos (Type 209 variants) would be far cheaper than future, larger and new battery technology, DSME 2000s.
If you look at this IMF Countries
by Nominal GDP in 2019 List you'll see the Philippines (at US$347 Billion)
is richer than:
- Egypt (at US$302 Billion) - that has just bought new
German Type 209 submarines
- Chile (at US$294 Billion) that has 2 old German subs but 2 recent French
Scorpene subs
- Pakistan (at US$284 Billion) that has 5 French subs and
buying 8 subs from China, and
- much richer than Portugal (at US$236 Billion) and Greece (at
US$214 Billion) that both have
European subs.
European subs.
I'd add that South Korea is a more efficient, lower cost
submarine builder than Russia. “In 2011, South
Korea beat Russia, France, and Germany in competition for a $1.1 billion
tender to supply Indonesia with three [Chang Bogo] Type 209-class submarines.”
Russia's Kilo submarine, approaching 4,000 tons full load, is large for a conventional sub, making it ill suited to the shallows and narrows of the Philippine archipelago. A Kilo is almost 3 times the size of a South Korean DSME Chang Bogo (1,400 tons) and about twice the size of a future DSME 2000 (2,180 tonnes).
Russia's Kilo submarine, approaching 4,000 tons full load, is large for a conventional sub, making it ill suited to the shallows and narrows of the Philippine archipelago. A Kilo is almost 3 times the size of a South Korean DSME Chang Bogo (1,400 tons) and about twice the size of a future DSME 2000 (2,180 tonnes).
Russia
generally lacks the money to equal South Korea's soft loan enticements. Also Russia has a
notoriously high cost, shoddy work submarine overhaul and weapons upgrade
reputation. Just ask
the Indians about how unreliable the Russian upgrade for India's Kilos subs
was. This upgrade was to fit Klub anti-ship missiles to India's Kilos - with the missiles proving
particularly unreliable.
Yes, as I indicated in the November 4, 2019 article, Chile and Argentina are
possible buyers for DSME 2000s. Argentina has such old subs that they are unsafe,
like the ARA San Juan, that sadly sank.
I don't know whether Columbia needs medium-large subs for their
main role - which is anti-drug smuggler surveillance. See my
2015 article where Columbia, in 2015, acquired 2 small 500 ton Type 206s from
Germany.
For more on the Philippines see my articles:
- “Any US Block on Philippines BuyingSubmarines a Big Mistake” of 12 November 2019, and
- "Submarine Choices for the Philippines" of November 14, 2019.
For more on the Philippines see my articles:
- “Any US Block on Philippines BuyingSubmarines a Big Mistake” of 12 November 2019, and
- "Submarine Choices for the Philippines" of November 14, 2019.
Pete
17 comments:
of course one needs to remember pakistan has GDP + 'alms from Saudi, China'....
there is no way they can maintain a fleet of 10 advanced DE subs and 10-15 major surface combatants by 2025 (they suckle at the IMF's udder constantly whining about being starved for funds, while having one of biggest naval expansion pipelines in the region. read quwa.org)
'arms from alms' has been a living motto since 1947,
ever since Jinnah, the cause of India's partition in 1947, decided to rent out (p**p out is more appropriate, but I will let it be) the nation to the US, eventually leading to Gary Powers fateful U-2 flight from Peshawar in 1960 etc...
India had lots of trouble integrating the 3E-54 Klub on its Kilos... hence the real subs with missile capability are the Harpoon bearing 209s and Exocet bearing Scorpenes
When you review the AFP's Horizon modernization Program, you will note that there is a need for 2 to 6 submarines. It is just a matter of how creative you can go about it getting what you want. Need financing? Low-interest loans? How about leasing your prime HQ land or those very large military reservations? What about G2G transactions?
On thing is certain though, the right buy for the right mission at the right time. Just as long as your president is not corrupt and allows you enough leeway to do your job.
Hi GhalibKabir
It's sad, Pakistan will have 3 Agosta 90Bs (MESMA AIP) and 8 new Chinese subs (maybe with Stirling AIP) when Australia will only have the 6 old Collins.
I hope the RAN's hope that Attack-Shortfin is a down-payment on nuclear Barracuda is worth the deadlines missed and costs blown out.
Thanks for corroborating that Russia's export Klubs fall short of other missile upgrades. I wonder whether Russia's own use Kalibr ASMs are any better?
Regards
Pete
Hi jaimecenturion101
Thanks for indicating that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP's) Horizon Modernization Program, indicates the need for 2 to 6 submarines.
Malaysia's current 2, Indonesia's move to 8 subs in the 2020s, China's (10+ SSKs and growing in its South Seas Fleet) and undersea oil/gas might be prompting the Philippines to begin to compete in submarines.
Soft/Low-interest loans and "commissions" might be part of the submarine deals.
Hoping that the Phils does not cede large base areas again (like in the US days)
Also the Phils needs subs because the US can no longer be trusted to provide for the Philippines' defence against outside powers (was Soviet Russia now China).
Counter-intuitively I wonder if China will be invited to the Philippine submarine competition (given Thailand is buying 3 subs from China).
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete,
A bit off the topic, it seems that the 212CD has problems to fullfill the requirements.
The 212CD submarines are delayed - uncertain how long.
"The plan was to evaluate the offer jointly and then enter into a contract during 2019. This is not the case:
- A thorough evaluation of the offer showed that it did not meet Norwegian and German requirements, the defense budget states.
There it is stated that TKMS sent a new updated offer at the end of July 2019. But this also did not satisfy the Norwegian and German procurement organizations.
- The preliminary evaluation has identified it as appropriate for the parties to spend somewhat more time than originally planned to reach an agreement, which can meet Norway's needs within the overall framework set for the submarine project. Delivery of the first submarine was scheduled for the end of 2026. This schedule is likely to be affected by the current situation, and a new schedule will be set through the forthcoming contract negotiations, states Prop. 1 S."
/Kjell
HI Pete,
Here's the problem with the Philippines. If you look at their GDP and how corrupt the Philippine Government is with Kickbacks to every Military sale. Just look at online at the UH-1D deal that went south with Canada over human rights issue and how the US blocked the Philippines from getting US made Rifles because of their piss poor human rights record. I doubt the Philippines can afford SSK submarines from South Korea because of the cost and I suspect some of the subsystems on the South Korean subs are US made and US have VETO Power on any sale of US made parts, components and weapons. On top of that the Philippines have been window shopping at the French Scorpene and the asking price is $450 Million per boat. Look at the Brazil and India deal on them and that should tell you how much the Philippines would have to shell out if they want the Scorpene.
I have said the Philippines should look at the Improved Kilo class SSK in the 636 version because it's cheaper to buy, cheaper to own and it doesn't come with any political or social strings and conditions that comes with European or South Korean SSK's. On top of that, It would bypass countries that have strict Human rights conditions that normally comes attached with any Military sale. It's why with the Philippines, I doubt they can buy SSK Submarines with their Human rights record, unless a country is will to overlook it ot help them reform as part of a Military trade deal.
Hi /Kjell
Thanks for https://www.tu.no/artikler/tilbudet-til-den-kommende-norsk-tyske-ubaten-holdt-ikke-mal-na-ma-ula-klassen-holde-ut-lengre-enn-planlagt/475822 with the translation.
Yes, looks like the TKMS Type 212CD development will experience the usual delays, renegotiations and requirements resetting, that all new models and export sales experience.
I don't know why Norway has not ever selected Swedish subs. Is there a reason?
Regards
Pete
Hi Nicky [your November 7, 2019 at 3:45 AM]
The Philippines may not carry a corruption inefficiency burden greater than Egypt's (bought 4 new German TKMS subs) or Pakistan (bought 5 French subs).
In any case there would be Philippines corruption expectations if they bought oversized, old technology, Kilos from the Russians.
Yes some expect Naval Group will win a Philippine submarine competition.
But others see more competition https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/july/7326-philippines-navy-showed-interest-to-purchase-sofrene-class-submarines-from-france.html July 29, 2019:
"The Philippines Ministry of Defense is also looking into the proposals made by Russia, South Korea, Germany and France for the submarine acquisition program."
Certainly the former Malaysian Prime Minister scored a big "commission" when he chose 2 Scorpenes for Malaysia. see https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2174173/malaysia-reopens-investigation-french-submarine-deal
South Korea sold submarines (with some US components) to Indonesia.
I'm sure the US would prefer South Korean submarines (with some US components) being exported to the Philippines rather than Russian subs being exported to the Philippines :)
Cheers
Pete
[November 6, 2019 at 3:27 PM] your comment
As I told, pakistan has a benefactor nursing a grudge against a common enemy. Australia does not and has to pay full all the time to an increasingly whimsical US or a not so reliable, struggling France (my respect and sympathy goes to France, but delays are an issue)
Kalibr problems were ironed out fully in Syria. The Russians launched dozens of them and used the data to improve the guidance system reliablity etc.. as of 2018, the Kalibr is a well performing Tomahawk type missile for the Russian Navy
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20191026.aspx
Hi GhalibKabir
Australia's Government have been quoting overall Attack class whole of life costs up to A$90 Billion. This is under the philosophy that if every cost component (taking into account inflation, spares, training, bases, maybe pay for crews etc) is included the public and politicians won't get a nasty shock over the immensity of costs.
Poor France hasn't yet explained to Australia that Naval Group's manpower resources must focus on France's next generation SSBN during most of the 2020s BEFORE full focus can go on the Attack class.
Thanks for the Kalibr info. Thats the a "benefit" of war. War allows weapons to be perfected quickly.
Even at 90 billion, I fear the lifecycle cost could be a significant underestimate considering the almost 100% further delay in delivery. If any op. issues (highly likely,just like the Collins at the time of their commissioning) crop up, then the horizon goes out even further. I have read A$ 150 billion+ being bandied around for a fleet 12 DE barracudas
I think depending on the regional evolution and how the Suffren SSN shapes up...it may be possible ultimately that the last 4 subs or may be 5 for the RAN are nuclear. Considering the lifetime cost that would well exceed A$ 150 billion by 2080 (2018 prices), it might be worth the investment to get N boats to complement the DE ones... hopefully Australia can enrich Uranium to MEU (10-15%) to increase lifetime of the boat and stop this obtuse thinking about N propulsion. With an aggressive PLAN, moping about is not a luxury, imho.
They could get some lead time by sending many ASC staff to get trained in Cherbourg and start making parts in Australia to complement DCNS manpower limitations...
PS: very good reads, it is possible cost overruns could be underestimated yet again
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0102/02RP03
https://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/Coles_Report_Final_22Nov12-9-7738.pdf
HI Pete,
The problem with the Philippines is that piss poor Human rights issue and that's gona hound them when it comes to Military sales. It's why Look at the recent problem with the UH-1D deal with Canada for example
Duterte says he wants to scrap Canada helicopter deal after Trudeau orders rights review
https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2132792/duterte-says-he-wants-scrap-canada-helicopter-deal-after
Federal trade minister orders review of controversial $300M helicopter deal with Philippines
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/feds-order-review-of-controversial-helicopter-deal-with-the-philippines
Philippine president cancels $234M deal for Canadian-made helicopters: ’There is always a condition attached’
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/philippine-president-cancels-234m-deal-for-canadian-made-helicopters-there-is-always-a-condition-attached
So it's why with the Philippines piss poor human rights record in the war on drugs and with their counter insurgency issue. Many western Countries are including Canada are reluctant to sell Military gear to a country with poor human rights record. Which is why I believe South Korean is either overlooking the poor human rights record to bag a sale or they are clueless.
It's why I think Europe is out because the European union has a beef with the Philippines over human rights. Sweden won't sell Military gear to a country with poor Human rights. Which leaves Russia or China as their sole option and I believe Russia would be their best option for the improved Kilo class SSK in the same version that Vietnam got. They would get a good deal and it would bypass the Human rights issue that seems to be dogging them.
Russian Subs in Vietnam
https://news.usni.org/2012/08/20/russian-subs-vietnam
Vietnam's new Submarine powre
https://e.vnexpress.net/interactive/2017/vietnams-new-found-submarine-power-and-where-it-came-from
Vietnam Navy Kilo Submarine
https://medium.com/indo-pacific-geomill/vietnamese-navy-kilo-submarines-77ce5dc97b0b
The South Korean Submarines are pretty good, I wouldn't mind if the Philippine Navy (PN) gets some of those.
But I disagree with some of your comments about the Kilo class Submarines, especially since they could be considered by the PN also as part of the President Duterte's initiative of having closer relations with Russia.
I agree that the Kilos are relatively large Submarines, but I think that if you look at the Depth Charts of the waters around the country, there will be a lot of waterways that a sub like the Kilo can still go thru.
As for the Kilos reputation, the Kilo is one of the most successful ships in the world in terms of the number of navies that adopted them and the number of subs that were produced. That wouldn't have happened if they were such bad Submarines.
In terms of loans, President Duterte already said that Russia is willing to provide loans for military equipment. On the other hand, none of the stuff that the Philippines bought from South Korea went thru loans, although they did give us a very nice ship and some Rocket Launchers.
Hi GhalibKabir [at November 8, 2019 at 5:49 PM]
Yes Attack class/Shortfin costs are so extreme that a down payment on Batch 2 of 4 Barracuda SSNs (or maybe Batch 3) is the only rational explanation.
Australia using any residual details of the Australian developed Laser Uranium Enrichment Technology (SILEX) see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/03/hitachi-asset-in-japans-comprehensive.html could form the necessary enrichment requirements of refueling Barracudas in Australia.
RN and ASC staff becoming familiar with K-15's safely LEU nuclear cycle and procedures in Cherbourg and other nuclear complexes in France would by yet another essential step.
We cannot rely on changeable, impulsive US policies to source SSNs from the US or even the UK (US technolgies are in UK SSNs and especially in UK SSN reactors) where a US veto could block any UK-Australian deal. In any case US and UK submarine reactors use around 95% weapons grade HEU - an instant proliferation red flag block on any deal.
Here are some much shorter more recent reads:
1. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-defence-the-tangle-of-kit-costs-and-complexity/ of Nov 11, 2019
eg: "The kit is fiendishly expensive and complicated because government and bureaucracy grapple with Clausewitz’s truth (doing simple things in battle is hard) while confronting Augustine’s laws. The laws are the aphoristic observations of Norman R. Augustine, an American aerospace engineer who did several stints in the Pentagon. Among my Augustine favourites:
- The last 10% of performance generates one-third of the cost and two-thirds of the problems.
- The process of competitively selecting contractors to perform work is based on a system of rewards and penalties, all distributed randomly.
- The weaker the data available upon which to base one’s conclusion, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity.
- Simple systems are not feasible because they require infinite testing.
- Hardware works best when it matters the least." and
2. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-very-hungry-future-submarine/
of Nov 5, 2019
Cheers
Pete
Hi Nicky and rhk111
I'll do an another article on subs for the Philippines tomorrow.
Regards
Pette
SILEX can be easily used to make what is called as HALEU or High Assay LEU that usually refers to LEU enriched to > 7% but <20%.
A good reactor design that is ideally a pluggable module into the SSN can greatly ensure,
1. structural integrity by minimizing cut and rip ops to refuel
2. increase timelines between refueling to upto 10 years allowing for more time at sea
But, for that to have a chance, ASC should be already sending people to Cherbourg and planning parts manufacture etc. and move swiftly on the SSN propulsion bit.
But if the decisions made in Canberra in the past are any guide... we will see obese flying
'oink oinks' before such a thing happens.
5-6 SSNs backed by good MH-60R bearing ASW frigates and P-8s etc.. with sea floor sensors might give PLAN some pause rather than the jolly abandon with which they have taken to sailing in the western pacific (of late that is)
Hi GhalibKabir
Of course Australia would not develop its own SSN reactor design with a different LEU level than used in France's K-15.
Not even the UK (used a US reactor design in Dreadnought first UK nuke sub) or India (used a Russian reactor design in Arihant) developed their own initial submarine reactors.
A reactor being the most expensive, time consuming and technologically difficult item to develop in a nuclear sub.
Yes a plan may be 2030s build 6 Attack/Shortfins then from 2040 a second batch of 6 Australian Barracuda SSGNs with nuclear SLBM (a nuclear deterrent being vastly more effective than a conventional warhead deterrent).
All backed up by Australia's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-60_Seahawk#Operators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#Australia
and Western and possible Australian seafloor sensors http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2016/06/undersea-passive-acoustic-australian.html
Cheers
Pete
Post a Comment