tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post6258119900918343238..comments2024-03-28T21:57:32.099+11:00Comments on Submarine Matters & Australian Nuclear Weapons: South Korean HHI's HDS-400 Small Submarine MysteryPete2http://www.blogger.com/profile/06134037393078707072noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-4000703141633196482015-10-29T12:06:00.564+11:002015-10-29T12:06:00.564+11:00Advances in Lithium-Ion battery technology could g...Advances in Lithium-Ion battery technology could give such submarines a considerable <br />performance boost:<br /><br />Silicon Nanofibers could boost lithium battery energy density by ten times:<br /><br />http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/02/silicon-nanofibers-could-boost-lithium.html<br /><br /><br />Combining the best parts of supercapacitors and Batteries with production like <br />printing DVDs:<br /><br />http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/combining-best-parts-of-supercapacitors.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-6840085261091858522015-10-26T20:49:03.352+11:002015-10-26T20:49:03.352+11:00Hi Anonymous [at October 26, 2015 at 12:39 PM]
Al...Hi Anonymous [at October 26, 2015 at 12:39 PM]<br /><br />All a sad end. Maybe in Pearl Harbour and later in Madagascar, Japanese mini-subs had some success. But subsequent death was near certain. <br /><br />Japan's use of large mother subs sometimes towing suicidal mini-subs was nowhere near as successful (overall) as US, UK and German strategy/tactics of using medium size subs each sinking many enemy cargo ships and sometimes warships.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-10546099803097110102015-10-26T12:39:03.086+11:002015-10-26T12:39:03.086+11:00"Yes the Japanese 2 man mini-subs that unsucc..."Yes the Japanese 2 man mini-subs that unsuccessfully attacked Pearl Harbour also <br />did poorly in Sydney Harbour. Pretty much suicide subs."<br /><br /><br />The Japanese mini-subs may have done more damage in Pearl Harbor than <br />originally thought:<br /><br />Pearl Harbor mini-submarine mystery solved?:<br /><br />"No torpedoes were found on the wreck, and evidence suggests that they <br />were not present when the boat was sunk. A newly declassified <br />photograph taken by a Japanese plane during the attack appeared to <br />show a mini-sub firing a torpedo into Battleship Row. A report to <br />Congress in 1942 by Adm. Chester W. Nimitz describes an unexploded <br />800-pound torpedo recovered after the battle. That's twice the size <br />carried by the torpedo bombers.<br /><br />That torpedo was apparently a dud that missed the West Virginia.<br /><br />But an examination of the remains of the Oklahoma shows that it <br />apparently had underwater damage much larger than that associated with <br />aerial torpedoes. An underwater blast would have caused it to capsize, <br />Stephenson said. "Otherwise it would have settled to the bottom <br />upright," like the other sunken ships.""<br /><br />See:<br /><br />http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/07/science/la-sci-minisub7-2009dec07<br /><br />&<br /><br />http://westernamericana2.blogspot.com/2010/04/did-japanese-midget-submarine-sink-uss.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-22108243150529508772015-10-26T12:04:51.253+11:002015-10-26T12:04:51.253+11:00Hi Anonymous [Oct 26 9:55 AM]
Quite chilling. As ...Hi Anonymous [Oct 26 9:55 AM]<br /><br />Quite chilling. As Australia "progresses" to a new Future SSK with the weight and cost of an SSN Australia may well look forward to a Gudgeon like incident against China.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-61516713870171616282015-10-26T09:55:11.607+11:002015-10-26T09:55:11.607+11:00"I very much doubt that USN would buy some sm..."I very much doubt that USN would buy some small conventional subs for training, their admirals are almost allergic to the idea. I think they prefer to either train against allied subs or as with the case with HSwMS Gotland, lease in a sub for a year or two."<br /><br /><br />The USN lost its taste for conventional Subs after the USS Gudgeon (SS-567) <br />incident off Vladivostok back in 1957:<br /><br />http://articles.dailypress.com/1991-01-06/news/9101070230_1_soviet-submarine-sonar-crew-member/4<br /><br />The prospect of having one of their subs forced to the surface and possibly <br />boarded or even captured is something no navy wants to deal with.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-27589800458420711932015-10-26T00:30:03.847+11:002015-10-26T00:30:03.847+11:00Hi /C
The XE class mini-subs certainly were succe...Hi /C<br /><br />The XE class mini-subs certainly were successful.<br /><br />The undersea cable cutting also encouraged "the Japanese to use radio and render themselves open to message interception" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XE-class_submarine.<br /><br />The risk to the US Navy submarine service of being reduced to smaller, cheaper, less able conventional subs is very real and deeply felt.<br /><br />Better for the USN that it retains SSNs and deploys a whole new generation of large diameter UUVs and diver delivery vehicles for the shallows.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-50097725785712081832015-10-25T19:49:02.056+11:002015-10-25T19:49:02.056+11:00RN had more success with the XE-class in the Far E...RN had more success with the XE-class in the Far East. They cut the telegraph cable between Hong Kong and Saigon and the telegraph cable between Hong Kong and Singapore in two different operations. Two subs also infiltrated the Singapore harbour and sunk the heavu cruiser Takao.<br />Most likely had the technology matured by then and the better sea conditions in the Far East, compared to the North Atlantic also helped.<br /><br />I very much doubt that USN would buy some small conventional subs for training, their admirals are almost allergic to the idea. I think they prefer to either train against allied subs or as with the case with HSwMS Gotland, lease in a sub for a year or two.<br /><br />/CAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-92047403145840402172015-10-25T16:53:31.075+11:002015-10-25T16:53:31.075+11:00Hi Nickky
Given all the North Korean minisubs and...Hi Nickky<br /><br />Given all the North Korean minisubs and North Korea's likely high intensity of submarine defences South Korea could indeed need HDS 400s or 500s.<br /><br />Certainly they would have limited range but good shallow water ability which makes them ideal littoral subs.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Pete Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-171844538532608942015-10-25T16:30:36.684+11:002015-10-25T16:30:36.684+11:00HI Pete,
That's what I am thinking in MHalblau...HI Pete,<br />That's what I am thinking in MHalblaub's comment. I was thinking that the HDS 400/500 could be an evolution of the Kobben/206/Gal class Submarines. That could be because South Korea is trying to fulfill a niche in a 500 ton SSK Submarine on the level of the Kobben/206/Gal class Submarines. I wonder if the HDS 400/500 draw lessons from the Kobben/206/Gal Class Submarines. I think the HDS 400/500 would fulfill a niche for those who are looking for a small 500 ton submarine for the LittoralsNickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318590507921043958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-48666378832531053252015-10-25T16:11:51.835+11:002015-10-25T16:11:51.835+11:00Hi MHalblaub
The Type 200 and 300 might indeed be...Hi MHalblaub<br /><br />The Type 200 and 300 might indeed be a smaller version of the Type 206 with much reduced crew and less propulsion workload than the 206/Kobben/Gal. Special forces and/or sensors could be the main 200/300 functions. <br /><br />Yes I thought of the US as a possible customer for the 200, 300, 400 or 500. The US could also use those platforms as "enemy" to train US and Western ASW forces. <br /><br />With all the demands on Australia's limited naval budget I do thing Australia acquiring 4,000 ton (surfaced) subs is extravagant. 210, 214 or 218s would be much more economical and would be able to function with far lower crews than the projected 60. <br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-51603226388229836072015-10-25T15:58:38.800+11:002015-10-25T15:58:38.800+11:00Hi jbmoore
Yes the Japanese 2 man mini-subs that ...Hi jbmoore<br /><br />Yes the Japanese 2 man mini-subs that unsuccessfully attacked Pearl Harbour also did poorly in Sydney Harbour. Pretty much suicide subs. <br /><br />A Japanese 2 man sub was successful in Madagascar in 1942 damaging UK battleship Ramillies and sinking a tanker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar#Landings_.28Operation_Ironclad.29<br /><br />The British had high losses but some success with 30 ton X-craft minisubs against the German battleship Tirpitz in 1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-class_submarine<br /><br />South Korea could do well marketing HDS-400s and 500s to numerous customers. <br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-19061660757876679342015-10-25T15:43:33.186+11:002015-10-25T15:43:33.186+11:00Hi Nicky
MHalblaub's comment pretty much comp...Hi Nicky<br /><br />MHalblaub's comment pretty much compares the HDS 400/500 with the Kobben/206/Gal. Possibly Germany's TKMS-HDW may have designed the HDS 400 and 500 as as update of the 205/206/Kobben/Gal although South Korea is building it.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-24935490300468101682015-10-25T15:34:51.544+11:002015-10-25T15:34:51.544+11:00Hi Julien Araneta
As the KSS-500A (HDS-500) hasn&...Hi Julien Araneta<br /><br />As the KSS-500A (HDS-500) hasn't yet been built the also not built HDS-400 should be even cheaper for the Philippines to buy and operate. Also the HDS-400 would not empasise torpedos, with maybe only 2 lightweights.<br /><br />In terms of doctrine HDS-400 would be particularly useful setting out from Palawan and Luzon to gather intelligence on Chinese island-reef developments in the South China Sea. Maybe with some expert US crew.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />PetePetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624742078679760819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-39887389685572067722015-10-25T07:04:50.748+11:002015-10-25T07:04:50.748+11:00Dear Pete,
the Type 200 might be a smaller versio...Dear Pete,<br /><br />the Type 200 might be a smaller version of the Type 206. The old Type 206 needed a crew of 23 and the Type 200 just 6!?! Just console operators, no cook and no mechanist? The Type 206 was an attack submarine with 8 heavy weight torpedoes. So without that load and just the aim to transport special forces the submarine can shrink. <br /><br />The new eletric motors need no gear box and are therefore shorter and lighter. Also the Type 212 operates with just one diesel electric engine. Maybe AIP only to reduce the workload for the extremly small crew. Such a submarine could also be interesting for the US or others to gather intellegence. <br /><br />I still think Type 210mod would be the best option for Australia.<br /><br />Regards,<br />MHalblaubMHalblaubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14234020711635190127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-12278056949321362062015-10-25T03:15:06.999+11:002015-10-25T03:15:06.999+11:00Pete,
Mini subs are perfect for special force...Pete,<br /><br /> Mini subs are perfect for special forces insertions and extractions. Their combat record is mixed. Only one of the Japanese minisubs may have gotten into Pearl Harbor in 1941 and completed their mission, but it was suicide for the crew. There was also success in Diego Suarez harbor in 1942. It may have been a Yono class minisub that sank the ROKS Cheonan. It is a 130 ton displacement. The technology has gotten better, so a 300-ton submarine could be quite deadly, especially if automated to allow a minimum crew complement which would allow it to stay submerged longer. The NR-1 displaced 400 tons. It was a deep diving nuclear submarine used for classified deep ocean retrievals and searches. Deep sea covert ops would be another useful mission for a smaller sub since their hulls could be build stronger. But, minisubs capable to entry and exit in shallow waters is probably the best use of the vehicles. Russian minisubs may be making a comeback as well.<br /><br />John<br /><br /><br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midget_submarine#Japan<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yono-class_submarine<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_submarine_NR-1<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3153048/New-threat-Russia-Putin-revives-Cold-War-programme-midget-Piranha-submarines-virtually-undetectable.htmljbmoorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09751110750712243573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-6964287274569902972015-10-24T06:56:13.354+11:002015-10-24T06:56:13.354+11:00HI Pete,
How dose the HDS-400 stack up to a well k...HI Pete,<br />How dose the HDS-400 stack up to a well known small submarine such as Type 206, Kobben and Gal class Submarines. What I suspect south Korea is attempting to do is build something that is on the level of the Type 206, Kobben and Gal class Submarines. Which are under the 500 ton range and would be perfect for a country looking for a very small littoral submarine.Nickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318590507921043958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19245896.post-60748516610498732032015-10-24T01:41:18.216+11:002015-10-24T01:41:18.216+11:00Hi, Pete!
Indeed, Philippine Navy should scram a ...Hi, Pete!<br /><br />Indeed, Philippine Navy should scram a feasibility study (which I believe would result a positive) to acquire, train and operate this SoKor KSS-500A sub not for direct naval combat engagement but for passive surveillance deployment only. I believe this submarine, being brand new and with modern sensors (as opposed to none at the moment with PN), will offer a step ahead (versus pre-used ones) in training and operational familiarizations (manual vs digital/electronic). The risk skeptics love to argue is that "training need not be with brand new and updated platform" is at best very shortsighted and limited - lacking the will, initiative and courage (even logic) - that new systems will give years of service and current proficiency, efficiency and competence in submarine warfare.<br /><br />But, Pete, problem is, the Philippine Navy is yet to formulate its submarine warfare doctrine in both strategic and tactical level as it have zero experience regarding that warfare dimension.<br /><br />Cheers!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02634488016996349720noreply@blogger.com