tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post6049042900970745217..comments2024-03-29T18:47:52.197+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: South Korean Submarines, 3,000+ ton KSS-III, Nuclear PotentialPete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-17099703057708384892018-03-29T11:13:06.200+11:002018-03-29T11:13:06.200+11:00See "South Korea eyes French design for indig...See "South Korea eyes French design for indigenous nuclear sub, sources say"<br /><br />in DefenseNews, March 28-29, 2018: https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2018/03/28/south-korea-eyes-french-design-for-indigenous-nuclear-sub-sources-say/<br /><br />That DefenseNews article makes the important point that France's Barracuda (Suffren-class) SSN is an attractive design, to South Korea, from a nuclear proliferation viewpoint. In part because the Barracudas' K15+ reactor uses Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) (ie. less than 20% Uranium-235). <br /><br />South Korea makes the assumption the US is less likely to block South Korean naval reactor plans if the reactor only uses LEU.<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-66609763025858139662015-09-06T13:42:22.869+10:002015-09-06T13:42:22.869+10:00Hi Anonymous just above - on East China Sea depths...Hi Anonymous just above - on East China Sea depths you are mainly right but there are major deep places. See http://www.britannica.com/place/East-China-Sea<br /><br />"The East China Sea has an area of about 290,000 square miles (750,000 square km) and is largely shallow; almost three-fourths of the sea is less than 650 feet (200 metres), and its average depth is only 1,145 feet (350 metres). Extending alongside the Ryukyu Islands is the deeper part, the Okinawa Trough, with a large section more than 3,300 feet (1,000 metres) deep and a maximum depth of 8,912 feet (2,716 metres)."<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-4305187772835947062015-09-03T23:44:39.878+10:002015-09-03T23:44:39.878+10:00I think most Japanese know nuclear submarine is us...I think most Japanese know nuclear submarine is useless around east chinese sea.<br />it is not deep in the sea. it is easy to find the nuclear submarine.<br />more stealth is important. that is why south korea is an armature<br />submarine is a Coffin if it is found.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-46124093964728818772015-04-22T23:18:56.395+10:002015-04-22T23:18:56.395+10:00Hi S (April 22 at 10:30 PM comment)
I have to adm...Hi S (April 22 at 10:30 PM comment)<br /><br />I have to admit that my level of knowledge, on AIP and battery capacity, is such that I've never heard of "SS" :)<br /><br />I'll transfer your comments to my new AIP article (about to be published).<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-24479706861115795992015-04-22T22:30:50.362+10:002015-04-22T22:30:50.362+10:00Hi Pete
I estimated underwater performances of 28...Hi Pete<br /><br />I estimated underwater performances of 28SS (diesel+LIBs Soryu) compared with 16SS (current, diesel+AIP Soryu) based on the various assumptions. I can not guarantee the estimation. And I am sorry that I can not reveal information sources. <br /><br />1) Conclusion: 28SS’s submerged speed, duration and range may be 7.5 knot/h, 30days and 5400nm, respectively.<br /><br />2) Data and assumption <br />2a) LIBs performace <br />More than ten years ago, JMSDF (Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force) proved the LIBs showed 2 twice and 1.5 times bigger capacity and power than lead acid batteries, repectively.<br /><br />2b) AIP space and batteries<br />16SS equips 50modules (500batteries), and 28SS can equip additional 200 modules in AIP space (=total 5times), I think.<br /><br />3) Calculation and assumption <br />3a) Submerged speed<br />I assumed that submerged speed for 16SS is 6 knot/h and that submerged speed is proportional to square root of power. <br />Submerged speed for 28SS = 6knot/h x 1.25(square root of 1.5) = 7.5knot/h<br /><br />3b) Submerged duration and range<br />I assumed that submerged duration for 16SS is 3days. <br />Submerge duration for 28SS = 3days x 2 (capacity ratio of 28SS/16SS) x 5 ( batteries ratio of 28SS/16SS) = 30days <br /><br />Submerged range for 28SS = 30days x 7.5knot/h x 24h = 5400nm<br /><br />Wether this calculation or asumption is right or not, 28SS will show excellent underwater performances. Although I oppose Soryu sub selling, I admit that option J-28SS is one of the best choices for Australia.<br /><br />Regards<br />S<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-40458737880411862782015-04-22T22:25:17.253+10:002015-04-22T22:25:17.253+10:00Hi Anonymous (April 21, 5:56 PM) and also "S&...Hi Anonymous (April 21, 5:56 PM) and also "S"<br /><br />Thanks for raising AIP issues.<br /><br />I'm just writing an AIP article so I'll include those issues in it.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-46220849405383472482015-04-22T20:45:24.163+10:002015-04-22T20:45:24.163+10:00Hi Pete
I agree about weak points of hydrogen fue...Hi Pete<br /><br />I agree about weak points of hydrogen fuel cell system for submarine. Submarines of this type are safe under the ordinary or non battle situation, but most important thing is safety under the battle situation with strong vibration or shock. Even if hull is not damaged, if slight hydrogen leakage is caused by tiny damages of piping system including valves, pressure gauges and joints, the submarine becomes perfectly dysfunctional. Because concentration of explosion limit for hydrogen is very low, you must avoid any kinds of stimuli as such heat or electrical ignition which cause explosion. And in the case of accident with hydrogen leakage, perhaps you can not rescue the submariners by hull cutting with ignition.<br /><br />Regards<br />S<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-90219730696971234892015-04-22T13:30:45.275+10:002015-04-22T13:30:45.275+10:00Hi Anonymous (of April 21, 5:56 PM)
On AIP - &quo...Hi Anonymous (of April 21, 5:56 PM)<br /><br />On AIP - "Why would you want the AIP removed from TKMS Type 214 for Australia?"<br /><br />Several reasons:<br />- practical/modern AIP technologies have only been a 2 to 3 week submerged-slow or zero speed solution for around 2 decades. Ultimate, mauch better, AIP is nuclear for those nations that can afford it.<br /><br />- fuel cell AIP is a bundled inclusion for buying 214s that several countries don't need.<br /><br />- AIP is ideal for only a restricted range of mission profiles particularly moving slowly, short-range and sitting on the bottom. This is particularly in the Baltic Sea (or for Singapore - right next to the Malacca Straight) for 2 or 3 weeks.<br /><br />- AIP has such downsides as being:<br /> - very $ expensive<br /> - non-replenisable during a mission<br /> - very unsafe, flammable even<br /> explosive <br /> - weight expensive, displacing fuel- <br /> oil or other features <br /> - can break down (especially if it has <br /> moving parts like the Stirling AIP)<br /> - may be more efficient in cold water<br /> rather than Australia's mainly warm <br /> operating areas <br /><br />For all these were reasons AIP was never placed in the Collins sub - even though the Swedish-Kockums designers specialised in AIP subs.<br /><br />Australia's mission profile is very long distances, warm water, fast transit, then perhaps mainly medium speed patrolling. This places more value on (privileges) efficient conventional diesel-electic operation which would not be at the expense of weighty AIP inclusion.<br /><br />Also technological advances are trending toward the ever-present diesel-electric that uses Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) covering more of any AIP advantages. <br /><br />The newest batch of Soryus are believed not to have included Stirling AIP but instead have LIB to cover slow, 2 week+? submerged operation. It is also possible Japan has developed its own AIP-like technologies specifically for working with LIBs. <br /><br />A small AIP-like unit for emergency (sneak away) operation might be a future possibility for subs.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-18933723294731239292015-04-21T17:56:42.878+10:002015-04-21T17:56:42.878+10:00Hi Peter,
why would you want the AIP removed from ...Hi Peter,<br />why would you want the AIP removed from TKMS Type 214 for Australia?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-78372011544364544432015-04-21T13:42:09.278+10:002015-04-21T13:42:09.278+10:00Hi Anonymous
I agree South Korea (SK) would want ...Hi Anonymous<br /><br />I agree South Korea (SK) would want to sell more weapons (like Sweden) if US IP/export/political controls allowed it. SK certainly is efficient.<br /><br />Another reason is if Japan started selling arms, especially in the region, then SK would like to economically and politically counter it by also selling to the region.<br /><br />If SK needed to build nuclear subs then I think disposing of them in 30 to 40 years time would not be a current concern. In any case with SK's nuclear and shipping sectors it is one of the most equipped countries to dispose of nuclear subs. <br /><br />Complicating factors on nuclear disposal may well include SK public opinion and Japanese public opinion.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-20224151127872026642015-04-21T13:29:15.522+10:002015-04-21T13:29:15.522+10:00Thanks Biswajit Pattanaik
1) RoK's (I will c...Thanks Biswajit Pattanaik <br /><br />1) RoK's (I will call it SK's) KSS-II is a TKMS-HDW 214. It looks like a well balanced submarine with good range. I think it would serve Australia needs if the AIP were removed and Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) used. Australia's Navy, if buying from TKMS, almost definitely wants a larger 216.<br /> <br />2) Australia considers SK an ally - this is mainly in the US regulated alliance structure. All 3 countries see China and Russia as potential strategic opponents.<br /><br />3) If SK built a KSS-N then Japan would almost definitely respond by building a nuclear propelled "Soryu". (Japan and SK are not enemies but they are not friends either.) Australia would probably respond by asking the US to sell (about 6) Virginia SSNs/SSGNs to Australia. <br /><br />4) Australia's current strategy is to support the US in order to persuade the US to keep on defending Australia against nuclear powers. This is called extended nuclear deterrence.<br /><br />If the US didn't help or wouldn't at least sell us SSNs/SSGNs then Australia might need to develop its own nuclear weapons for "armed neutrality".<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-28607113195272509482015-04-21T13:08:17.069+10:002015-04-21T13:08:17.069+10:00Hi MHalblaub
Yes it would make sense for South Ko...Hi MHalblaub<br /><br />Yes it would make sense for South Korea (SK) DSME to continue to draw on TKMS design information (for a "short" Type 216). <br /><br />Yes high SK content in a KSS-III is likely. This would especially be for missile launch and combat system for indigenous cruise or future SLBMs. <br /><br />Given SK's strategic opposition includes Russian and Chinese SSNs this may be one reason for SK to at least have contingency plans for a KSS-N. Also if Japan built nuclear subs. <br /><br />A KSS-N would also be a fitting platform if SK wants a nuclear second strike deterrent particularly agains North Korea.<br /><br />Yes I accept German law would not ban German assistance to SK for a KSS-N. It would mainly be political opposition (from Russia, China, NK, Japan and the US) against such German help. Russia also would oppose Germany developing nuclear propulsion given Russia's traditional fear that the Germany military may become too powerful. <br /><br />Interesting Germany allowed SK to bid and win the contract for 3 Chang Bogos/209s to Indonesia. Was it because Germany had stopped its own 209 assembly line?<br /><br />Yes Australia has close strategic bilateral relations with SK and Japan. These relations also have a multilateral nature, being coordinated by the US as a regional alliance.<br /><br />Regards<br />Pete<br /><br />cc. a short 216 maybe, with LIBs, no AIP :) Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-73715021240515800172015-04-21T03:20:27.867+10:002015-04-21T03:20:27.867+10:00Reality is the South Koreans wants to become a maj...Reality is the South Koreans wants to become a major global weapons seller, see K2 main battle tank, T50 or the THAAD like SAM system ROK is working on. US DOD has run into quite a few IP issues with ROK.<br />I wonder if ROK has thought thru how are they going to dispose of an SSN when its reactor expires? Dump them into the artic sea like the Russians did? Even Uncle Sam had to spend billions to transfer disposal technologies to Russia. The US only has 1 such facility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-58544545236303729932015-04-20T23:05:53.096+10:002015-04-20T23:05:53.096+10:00Hi Pete,
Once again a nice aritcle.Your analysis ...Hi Pete,<br />Once again a nice aritcle.Your analysis is to the point,hats off to u.Indeed RoK have a very efficient shipbulding industry & accompanied ecosystem with them.<br />1)So what do you think of RoK's KSS-II Subs as an overall platform?<br />2)Does Australia (Govt. Agencies+Military) treat RoK as an ally or as a perceived threat?<br />3)IF (& that's a big"IF" ) in the future RoK decides that the KSS-III would indeed be an SSN,then what type of implications can it have on RAN;if any?<br />4)What could be RAN's strategy to counter all the upcoming SSNs,SSGNs,SSBNs & Aircraft Carriers(Nuclear+Conventional) in the Asia-Pacific & plus close to the Australian Waters as well?<br />Thanks In Advance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15778141539525650990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-7766442131620455562015-04-20T21:06:20.146+10:002015-04-20T21:06:20.146+10:00Dear Pete,
the South Korean KSS-III is according ...Dear Pete,<br /><br />the South Korean KSS-III is according to size just a "short" Type 216. I think DSME and TKMS will still work together. <br /><br />A nuclear submarine won't make any sense for South Korea. According to range and endurance even KSS-II / Type 214 is sufficient. South Korea doesn't need to track SSBNs because China is very close. Therefore high enduring speed is unnecessary. <br /><br />According to German law it is legal to develop a nuclear propelled vehicle. There would be no legal obstacle for TKMS to help South Korea to develop a KSS-IVN. Just proliferation of nuclear weapons is banned by international treaties. <br /><br />My guess is a Type 216 with a huge South Korean content. <br /><br />Only ROKS Chang Bogo was built at HDW, Kiel. All following submarines were and are built in South Korea. The South Korean workers and engineers were trained in Kiel on the first submarine and then supported back in South Korea. <br /><br />Quite the same for Turkey. The first three submarines were built in Germany and the following 11 submarines were built in Turkey just like the Type 214 replacing the most ancient Type 209s (1975+). TKMS will just deliver sets for the propulsion system and other systems Turkey wants. The rest will be done by Turkey. <br /><br />Isn't South Korea also a friendly nation to Australia or the US just like Japan?<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaub<br /><br />C.c.: Type 210mod would better suit Australia's needs and capacity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com