US B-2 Bombers Transit - Refuel Over Australia - MAP

See map below. @AircraftSpots recorded 3 x US B-2 stealth bombers being refueled over northern Australia on August 11, 2020. 

These B-2As were travelling from their main Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, USA then over the Pacific, over northern Australia, Indian Ocean to Diego Garcia Air Base.

Many more photos of the 3 x B-2s at Diego Garcia, with more details, providing mission context, are at The Drive's August 19, 2020 article. 

Map courtesy @AircraftSpots Aug 11, 2020. Each circle is one refueling tanker refueling one B-2. 

---

Overflight of Australia, a close US ally, avoids overflights of Southeast Asian countries. If overflying Australia at night this adds to the B-2's stealthy security.  

Australia's Tindal Air Base, Northern Territory, may be available for any unscheduled or emergency B-2 landings. 

Australia’s KC-30A, variants of the Airbus A330 MRTT refueling aircraft, are capable of refueling US bombers as KC-30As have the necessary Aerial Refuelling Boom System. 

See Submarine Matters' US B-2, B-52 and B-1 Bombers Exercising in Australia, January 11, 2019.

Pete

Yoshihide Suga May Replace Shinzo Abe

See August 29, 2020's https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/in-race-to-replace-japans-shinzo-abe-loyalist-yoshihide-suga-emerges-as-strong-contender/articleshow/77819546.cms

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihide_Suga#2020_LDP_leadership_contest

Russian Status-6 Giant Drone/Torpedo Not Actually New

It is useful to read old "books" to put present fears in perspective.

Wiki advises:

[Soviet Nuclear Tipped Torpedoes]

“The Soviet Union's development of nuclear weapons began in the late 1940s. The Navy had put itself forward as the most suitable branch of the Soviet armed forces to deliver a nuclear strike, believing its submarine technology and tactics to be superior to the rest of the world. In theory, long-range submarines that can surface just prior to launching a nuclear weapon offer a large tactical advantage in comparison to deploying weapons by long range bomber planes that can be shot down.

In the early 1950s, the Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building secretly initiated plans for incorporating nuclear warheads into submarine warfare. One concept, the T-15 [giant nuclear tipped torpedo] project, aimed to provide a nuclear warhead compatible with the traditional 1550 millimeter (a bit over 61 inches, or 5 feet) caliber torpedo already used in Soviet diesel-powered submarines. The T-15 project began in strict secrecy in 1951.

Research and testing was contemporaneous with the other concept, the much smaller and lighter 533 millimeter torpedo referred to as the T-5. Stalin and the armed forces saw benefits to both calibers of torpedo: the T-5 was a superior tactical option, but the T-15 had a larger blast. Meetings at the Kremlin were so highly classified that the Navy was not informed.

The plans for the T-15 torpedo and for an appropriately redesigned submarine, named project 627, were authorized on September 12, 1952 but were not officially approved until 1953, surprising the Navy, which had been unaware of the central government activity.^{[4]:239–240} The T-15 project developed a torpedo that could travel 16 miles with a thermonuclear warhead. The 1550 millimeter T-15 design was 5 feet in diameter and weighed 40 tons. The large size of the weapon limited the capacity of a modified submarine to a single torpedo that could only travel at a speed of 30 knots. The torpedo speed was hindered by the usage of an electric propelled motor to launch the warhead.^[3]

Discontinuation [of Soviet T-15 Giant Nuclear Tipped Torpedo Project]

The T-15 was intended to destroy naval bases and coastal towns by an underwater explosion that resulted in massive tsunami waves. The front compartment of the T-15 submarines held the massive torpedo, which occupied 22% of the length of the submarine. A submarine could only hold one T-15 at a time, but it was also equipped with two 533-millimeter torpedo tubes intended for self-defense. 

In 1953, the T-15 project presented its conclusions to the Central Council of the Communist Party, where it was determined that the project would be managed by the Navy. In 1954, a committee of naval experts disagreed with continuing the T-15 nuclear torpedoes. Their criticisms centered on a lack of need when considered along with existing weapons in the submarine fleet, as well as skepticism that submarines would be able to approach launch points close enough to the coastline to hit targets within 40 km.^[5]  Project 627 was modified to provide reactors for a new vessel that would be capable of deploying 533mm caliber torpedoes in the T-5 project.

However, the termination of the T-15 program in 1954 was not the last time a large torpedo would be considered as means of deployment. In 1961, Andrei Sakharov revisited the idea after the successful testing of his new 52Mt bomb, which was too large for aircraft. When he introduced the concept to the navy they did not welcome the idea, being turned off by the wide area effect which would kill so many innocent people. Technological advances led to the weapon selection process favoring more tactical approaches that were amenable to quicker execution.^[6] After years of decline and reduction of stockpiles the Russian Federation in recent years seems to tend to lean toward an increase of its stockpile in terms of quantity and yield of nuclear weapons .^[7]

Soviet T-5 [533mm nuclear tipped torpedo]

From the early 1950s, when the Soviets successfully engineered their own form of a nuclear bomb, an effective means of delivery was sought.^[8] The T-5 torpedo was tipped by a RDS-9 nuclear warhead which had a 5 kiloton payload. The first T-5 test in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, on 10 October 1954 was unsuccessful.^[9] A year later, after further development, a test at Novaya Zemlya on the 21st of September 1955 succeeded.^[3] On 10 October 1957, in another test at Novaya Zemlya, S-144, a Whiskey class submarine, launched a T-5. The test weapon, code named Korall, detonated with a force of 4.8 kilotonnes twenty meters under the surface of the bay sending a huge plume of highly radioactive water high into the air.^[10] Three decommissioned submarines were used as targets at a distance of 6.5 miles.^[3] Both S-20 and S-34 sank completely, and S-19 was critically damaged.

In 1958, the T-5 became fully operational as the Type 53-58 torpedo.^[3]:28 The weapon, which could be deployed on most Soviet submarines,^[3] had an interchangeable warhead for either nuclear or high explosive. This permitted quick tactical decisions on deployment. The T-5, like the US Mark 45 torpedo [which carried a W34 nuclear warhead], was not designed to make direct hits but to maximize a blast kill zone in the water. The detonation would create shock waves powerful enough to crack the hull of a submerged submarine. However, like the U.S. Mark 45 torpedo, the T-5 was not optimized for deep diving and had limited guidance capability. As its thermal operational range was between +5C to +25C, this decreased its effectiveness in the waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic.^[5]

In October 1962, shortly before the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet submarine B-59 was pursued in the Atlantic Ocean by the U.S. Navy. When the Soviet vessel failed to surface, American destroyers began dropping training depth charges. The B-59 was armed with a T-5. The Soviet captain, believing that World War III was underway might have wanted to launch the nuclear weapon. However, his flotilla commander, Vasili Arkhipov, who by happenstance was using the boat as his command vessel, refused to endorse the command. [Thus Arkhipov possibly saved the world.] After an argument, it was agreed that the submarine would surface and await orders from Moscow. It was not until after the fall of the Soviet Union that it was made known that the submarine was armed with a T-5.^[11] A fictional Soviet nuclear torpedo was deployed in the 1965 Cold War film The Bedford Incident.^[12][13]

Soviet ASB-30 [nuclear warhead for 533mm torpedo]

The ASB-30 was a nuclear warhead, deployed by the Soviet Navy in 1962, which could replace high-explosive warheads on 21-inch torpedoes while the submarine was at sea.^[3]:28

Russian VA-111 Shkval [can have nuclear warhead]

Supercavitating torpedo VA-111 Shkval is able to carry nuclear warheads.^[14]

Russian Status-6 [giant nuclear tipped torpedo]

In 2015, informations emerged that Russia may be developing a new up to 100 MT^[15] thermonuclear torpedo, the Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System,^[16][17][18] codenamed "Kanyon" by Pentagon officials.^[19][20] This weapon [of estimated 1.6 to 2 metres in diameter, and 24 metres long] is designed to create a tsunami wave up to 500 m tall that will radioactively contaminate a wide area on an enemy coasts with cobalt-60, and to be immune to anti-missile defense systems such as anti-ballistic missiles, laser weapons and railguns that might disable an ICBM or a SLBM.^{[17][18][20][21][22]} 

Two potential carrier submarines, the Project 09852 Oscar-class submarine Belgorod, and the Project 09851 Yasen-class submarine Khabarovsk, are new boats laid down in 2012 and 2014 respectively.^{[19][20][23][24]} Status 6 appears to be a deterrent weapon of last resort.^[22][23][24] It appears to be a torpedo-shaped robotic mini-submarine, that can travel at speeds of 100 knots (185 km/h).^[22][23][7] More recent information suggests a [standard torpedo] top speed of 56 knots (100 km/h), with a range of 6,200 miles (10,000 km) and a depth maximum of 3,280 feet (1000 m).^[25] This underwater drone is cloaked by stealth technology to elude acoustic tracking devices.^[17][23]

However many commentators doubt that this is a real project, and see it as more likely to be a staged leak to intimidate the US. Amongst other comments on it, Edward Moore Geist wrote a paper in which he says that "Russian decision makers would have little confidence that these areas would be in the intended locations" ^[26] and Russian military experts are cited as saying that "Robotic torpedo shown could have other purposes, such as delivering deep-sea equipment or installing surveillance devices".^[27]

In January 2018 The Pentagon confirmed the existence of Status-6.^[28][29] "

Possible Joint China-Russia SSK Project

H I Sutton has written a very interesting article for Forbes "China And Russia In Mysterious New 

[Conventional] Submarine Project" on August 27, 2020

at https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/08/27/china-and-russia-in-mysterious-new-submarine-project/#7138fa451629 

Germany Rejects Pakistan's Bid for Sensitive Submarine Tech: AIP China

It appears China has tried to gain access to Germany's/Siemen's highly sensitive fuel cell air independent propulsion (FC-AIP) technology, for submarines, via a bold Pakistani approach to Germany.

Shishir Gupta for India's Hindustan Times, August 25, 2020 reports :

"Angela Merkel dashes [Pakistani Prime Minister] Imran Khan hopes to make Pak subs more lethal, says won’t help"

"Pakistan had requested Germany for access to the air independent propulsion (AIP) system that can recharge submarine batteries without having to surface for longer periods.

A top German security panel headed by Chancellor Angela Merkel has turned down Pakistan’s request for supply of air independent propulsion (AIP) systems for its submarines that would allow them to stay underwater for weeks, people familiar with the matter said.

The decision taken by the German Federal Security Council headed by Chancellor Merkel was conveyed to the Pakistan embassy on August 6, people cited above said on conditions of anonymity.

Pakistan had made the request for access to the air independent propulsion system that can recharge submarine batteries without having to surface for longer periods. [the following bolded by Pete]  Pakistan had proposed the upgrade for submarines in its inventory and the Yuan class submarines being manufactured under joint China-Pakistan project in China.

...Pakistan watchers in Delhi said the primary reason for Germany to take a hard stance on Pakistan’s request was being attributed to its role in promoting terror, particularly Pakistan’s failure to cooperate in identifying the perpetrators of the truck bomb attack on the Germany Embassy in Kabul in May 2017..."

SEE FULL HINDUSTAN TIMES REPORT (WHICH ALSO HAS GOOD LINKS)

PETE COMMENT

Yuans are China's most advanced conventional submarines, but they use older, less advanced, AIP technology.

Pakistan's terrorism connections is one valid reason for the German rejection. 

But I would say the risk of Germany's FC-AIP technology going to China would be the main concern. Pakistan would require extensive and sensitive German/Siemens help to integrate the
FC-AIP technology into the Yuans. 

All through that process  Chinese technicians working on Pakistan's Yuans (in China and Pakistan) would have access to the FC-AIP technology and especially how to integrate it into Chinese designed submarines (eg. Pakistan's Yuans). Then China would reverse engineer the FC-AIP technology and learn how to integrate it into submarines. 

German, Western and Indian navies would find Chinese and Pakistani subs would be more of a threat with world class FC-AIP. Also China would market Yuans (with FC-AIP) in competition to Germany's TKMS submarine builder. China would have the competitive business advantage of cheaper labour and a government willing to heavily subsidize submarine export prices to get a market and/or strategic foothold. 

Chinese DF-21D & DF-26B Missiles Land in South China Sea

Reported in South China Morning Post, August 26, 2020
 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3098972/chinese-military-launches-two-missiles-south-china-sea-warning

Allegedly a response to Pre-US-Election heightened USN activity in "China's" near seas.

Australian Humanitarian/Hospital Ship on Cards

See August 25, 2020's https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-25/scott-morrison-announces-$1b-defence-stimulus-package/12595200 

"including the earlier than expected construction of a large hull vessel for the Pacific."

More see earlier November 9, 2018's https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/australia-to-build-new-ship-aid-smes-in-new-pacific-focus

"The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has committed the government to building a new, large naval ship dedicated to humanitarian work and disaster response among a suite of policies aimed at our Pacific Island neighbours."

COMMENT

As well as responses to warfare hospital ships are established methods of soft power projection. This is particularly to aid small islands and larger poor nations in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Also bushfires up and down the coast of southeastern Australia in 2019-2020 established a need for short-notice humanitarian seaborne assistance (eg. to evacuate Australians from coastal towns under threat from bushfires).

There are regular events like cyclones, earthquakes and Tsunamis. Help to islands suffering
COVID-19 may be an irregular crisis.

Here is a list of Current Hospital Ships with the US and China now in competition to an extent. Not to be outdone Australia wants to acquire a specialised vessel.

For Australia a semi-flat-top ship of over 20,000 tons with helicopter and maybe landing craft is possible. It may be converted/modified from a civilian hull or new build.

The Australian government may be wary of raising the hopes of Australian shipbuilding and maritime unions that a high wage entitlement to again produce and crew civilian ships may begin. Things can get highly political.

Japan's Advanced G-RX7 / Type 18 Heavyweight Torpedo

Hi Annono. Regarding your comment of August 23, 2020:

Thanks for info that the torpedo counter counter measures (TCCM) function of the newest Japanese torpedo designs isn't from American designs because Japan's heavyweight torpedos (HWTs) are much newer and more advanced than the US (and by extension Australian) Mk. 48 HWTs.

Further you advise that Japan basically reverse engineered legally transferred US Mk. 46 lightweight (LWT) torpedo TCCM technology for use in the [up to 2020 current] Type 89 Japanese HWT.

So Japan's G-RX7 (aka Type 18) HWT is replacing the Type 89 HWT.  You advise the G-RX7 represents an upgrade in every way (ie. more advanced TCCM ("based loosely on the Mk. 46"), quieter, and longer range, can hit deep and shallow targets (subs and ships respectively).

So the G-RX7/Type 18 torpedo is "the most advanced large torpedo in the world currently" [Pete Comment: This side of what is known or unknown about Chinese and Russian HWTs and LWTs?]

Japan has quite a history of torpedo advancement [eg. the 24 inch Long Lance/Type 93 torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo ] with tech transfer to Germany in WWII.

Pete Comment

Since Japan is advertizing how good the G-RX7/Type 18 HWT is I'm assuming Japan has transferred this HWT tech to the US?

Gunboat Gifting to East Timor Excessive?

East Timor (ET) is an avid collector of old patrol boats or boats have been thrust on it from countries seeking influence. So far patrol boats have been gifted by Portugal (2001), China (2010) and South Korea (2011).

The ET government also ordered or tried to order (by soft loan purchase) two patrol boats from Indonesian shipbuilder PT Pal in 2011 for $US40 million.^[79]

In 2017 ET accepted a gift of two new Guardian-class patrol boats and associated training and logistics assistance from the Australia. The vessels are scheduled to be delivered in 2023.

With between 80 and 250 sailors the still new ET navy's ability to absorb and use 4 or 5 very different types of patrol boats will be interesting.

Was it Churchill who said "Never in the course of history have so Many countries thrown so Many boats at such a small Navy crewed by so Few."

With all this throwing of boats and money around ET might do well to reject some offers OR might there be a temptation to use some unused patrol boats for quiet carriage of high value commodities? 

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timor_Leste_Defence_Force#Naval_Component

China's new intimacy with Russia a Blind Spot For Democracies

An excellent essay by Associate Professor Alexey D. Muraviev

at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-22/china-russia-relationship-australia-strategic-blind-spot/12582356 dated August 22, 2020.

Singapore's Surface Navy - Part Two

Following Singapore's Surface Navy - Part One, August 19, 2020, the following are further points from Benjamin, based on his August 18, 2020 comments:

Singapore’s Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF)(see Fact Sheet) was formed in 2009, believed to be in security coordinational response to threats from Islamic terrorists travelling by sea. The main fear was that Singapore was vulnerable to an event like the seaborne Islamic terrorist Mumbai, India in 2008 (which led to the deaths of 165 Indians).

Why was the announcement of purpose built ships for the Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) so recent if the future (around 2,500 ton) multi role combat vessel (MRCV) and joint multi-mission (large 10,000 ton? amphibious) ship (JMMS) were announced years earlier?

The obvious reason was the rise in piracy along the Singapore Straits.

(Map above and statistics below courtesy Gard marine insurance headquartered in Oslo, Norway)

---

Gard explains "According to data from the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia Information Sharing Centre (ReCaap ISC), a total of 31 piracy incidents, actual and attempted, were recorded in the Singapore Strait by 30 December 2019 compared to seven in 2018." 

So far the reorganisation of the MSTF is seen in response to the increase in piracy with the concern of terrorism where returning fighters from the Middle East are returning to the region. 

There were speculations why the increase in piracy. From COVID-19 which created economic hardships to the redeployment of naval vessels by the Indonesian Navy to contested waters in the South China Sea (SCS).

Increased pirate activity occurred before COVID hence such conclusion can't be drawn.

I am unsure if Indonesian naval redeployments to Indonesia's joint armed forces base in the Natuna islands resulted in a gap which created an opportunity for the pirates. The area concerned is the Singapore Strait. Origin of redeployed ships is unclear. [See map above. It is 565km from Singapore to the Natuna islands.]

There was a Maritime dispute between Singapore and Malaysia from 2018-2019 (map above) which I believe contributed to this restructuring as well. Here is a Singapore-Malaysia maritime dispute timeline (up to April 8, 2019) mainly over port limits [largely resolved]. The RSN deployed a Littoral mission Vessel (LMV) [in coastguard mode] to the area much to the dismay of Malaysia. Malaysia did not send any naval vessel. They deployed their maritime agency vessels. It was a grey zone conflict with no clashing involved other than a cat mouse chase https://youtu.be/KJiFQbbjdjk and one tanker made contact with their agency vessel - see https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/asia/collision-disputed-singapore-malaysia-waters-reignites-political-tension .

 The matter was resolved with both sides reverting to the original status before the dispute took place after diplomatic talks/pressure. So Malaysia did not get what they came for in the end

What will these new purposed built ships look like? On one end it can be a lighter version of the LMV. On the other end it can be based on the [1,250 ton] Fearless 75.

Smaller than the LMV, these vessels are catered towards localised waters - see https://defpost.com/singapores-maritime-security-task-force-to-acquire-new-purpose-built-platforms/?amp

Also see Benjamin's comments of August 20, 2020 here and here.

(Handy map showing tiny Singapore island's proximity to the vital Strait of Malacca trade narrow. Singapore is geographically sandwiched between Malaysia and Indonesia.)

--- 

Pete Comment

Singapore's naval procurement strategy and process is a complex, ongoing, matter. It would also be interesting to focus, in similar depth, on Malaysian, Indonesian and Philippine surface ship procurement. All of those navies are also under pressure from encroaching Chinese naval, coastguard and naval militia/fishing fleets.

Singapore-Australian Strategic Relations - Impressions

Some impressions about relations with Singapore:

1.  Australia has close bilateral strategic relations with Singapore - see here and here. Part of the relationship goes down to Singapore and Australia being non-Muslim countries in a rather Muslim (eg. Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, southern Philippines) region. See MAP below.

Australia also has vast, relatively nearby, sea, air and land space to train in - while Singapore Island is tiny. 

"The Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative (ASMTI) is an opportunity for Australia to build Defence capability and enhance its bilateral relationship with Singapore, while providing enduring economic benefits to Central and North Queensland [Australia]" see June 2020 Factsheet. 

Singapore's Defence Minister (since 2011) Dr. Ng Eng Hen trained as a medical doctor but clearly has a technical and political grasp of military matters above most ASEAN Defence Ministers. In his 2016 speech https://youtu.be/pFwcX4HfgO4?t=6m47s he mentions the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) in regards to Singapore's armed forces training in Australia's very large exercise areas. 

2.  Singapore has a logical, efficient weapons buying strategy and process. This can be correlated with Singapore's low level of corruption and minute size compared to occasionally threatening larger neighbours. In contrast some other regional countries (extending all the way to India) buy just a few weapons over excessively long (agonizingly slow) periods to maximise "commissions" across the board. While Australia is short on "commissions" promised private industry retirement positions (with substantial salary increases) suffice. 

According to the reliable international Corruption Perceptions Index Singapore sits equal 4th (with Sweden and Switzerland) least corrupt internationally. This is behind NZ (1st), but better than Australia, UK, Canada (all equal 12th), US (23rd). Of some other ASEAN nations - Brunei (35th), Malaysia (51st), Indonesia (85th), Philippines (113th). India and China are joint 80th. 

3.  Australia and Singapore also interrelate due to common close bilateral relationships with the US (relationships even surviving the worldwide The 2016-2020 Trump Crisis - so far). See this prescient-still relevant Australian viewpoint.

4.  Singapore's stable English speaking, pro-Western polity, British Commonwealth country, "close" to Israel, cutting edge (many weapons bought from US) military, sophisticated intelligence setup, shared threat from Islamic terrorism, all give Singapore a "Six Eye" status in relation to the Five Eyes alliance.

MAP. Find tiny Singapore (island) just south of the tip of mainland Malaysia. (Map courtesy and see it much enlarged at geographicguide.com)

---

Singapore's Surface Navy - Part One

This is the first part of a two part series of Singapore Surface Navy articles, all drawing heavily on very interesting comments made by Benjamin. There is also mention of some Singaporean Army and Airforce equipment.

The Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) consists of six formations -  each contributing to naval defence. Those formations are:

-  the Fleet,
-  Maritime Security Task Force (MSTF) / Maritime Security (MARSEC) Command
-  Maritime Training and Doctrine Command (MTDC)
-  Naval Logistics Command (NALCOM)
-  Naval Diving Unit (NDU) [which includes special forces] and
-  Navy Medical Service

Further information on the Navy and ship characteristics are here

Benjamin, on August 16 2020, commented.

I would say it all began with this Youtube interview https://youtu.be/pFwcX4HfgO4 on 2016 which marked Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) day. Singapore’s Defence Minister (since 2011) Dr. Ng Eng Hen holds an interview every year during SAF Day giving updates.. The 2016 interview https://youtu.be/pFwcX4HfgO4 was the greatest interview so far based on the number of major announcements. Announcements included:

-  the unveiling of the Hunter Armoured Fighting Vehicle (4minutes, 12seconds into Youtube) 

-  the Belrex Protected Combat Support Vehicle (PCSV) (4m 29s in)

-  replacements for the medium lift Super Pumas (4:48) and heavy lift CH-47s (4:59)

-  what struck out the most was (6:21 "our LSTs [Endurance class amphibious transport docks] are
   aging and need to be replaced by something larger...by a.(the phrase) "Joint Multi Mission 
   Vessel". It was an unexpected announcement. Perhaps too early for an announcement.

-  also mentioned (6:11) by 2020 all 8 x 1,200 ton corvette sized Independence class Littoral 

   Mission Vessels (LMVs)  would be operational, and indeed with the final 3 of the Independence 

   LMVs (also see at https://youtu.be/kBzG-2tPkkk ) entering service in February 2020.

Then there was a thought about the very light 500 ton (first launched 1988) Victory Class Missile Corvettes. Those Victories were about a decade older than the [first one launched 1998] Endurance class amphibious transport docks/"LSTs" (6:27) why weren't there any announcements with regards to [decommissioning for the all six active Victory class]  corvettes? 

Then came the year 2018 and Defence Minister Dr. Ng Eng Hen’s speech during SAF Day 2018 https://youtu.be/VkkP83vE6XM was the unveiling of the [2,500 ton?] Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) [variant of the Vanguard 130? 130m long = 2,500 tons?]. Other than that were the Next Generation Howitzer [more details?] and use of unmanned-manned teaming concepts for the services.

With that in mind it would seem that the Navy announced replacements were settled since there were no other ships of class that needed replacements apart from the Bedok Class MCMV minesweeper/mine hunter vessels. Which from what Benjamin knows are intended to be replaced by unmanned platforms alongside manned platforms like the 1,200 ton Independence class Littoral Mission Vessels (LMVs) which can conduct mine sweeping/hunting roles as one of its module when needed.

So then came the speculation. What ships to succeed the Endurance class amphibious transport docks/ "LSTs" and Victory Class MCVs (Multi-purpose corvettes?).

For the Endurance class amphibious transport docks/ "LST" replacements many were hopping on the Endurance 160 which was revealed by ST Marine back in 2010. Many call it the ideal fit or the pretty obvious choice even though it is now a design revealed 10 years ago. However during IMDEX Asia 2017 an [Pete Comment: a flat top 170m long, maybe 10,000 ton] Endurance 170 landing platform dock (LPD) was unveiled and that reinforced the speculation that the 170 could be the replacement. However the Endurance 170 article has downplayed all claims and I couldn't agree more. The "JMMS" [S for ship - or "Joint Multi Mission Vessel" is still far away and there is no commencement of project. As in my view revealing the idea of JMMS back in 2016 was premature. Perhaps they want us to get used to its term?

For the unveiling of the Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) [variant of the Vanguard 130? 130m long = 2,500 tons?] during IMDEX Asia 2019 was quite clear cut in my opinion. I mean the concept is pretty much a match to what the MRCV is supposed to be. [Here the MRCV looks like it may weigh 700+ tons?].

Friday Part Two

My Concerns About Adelaide Naval Security Vulnerability Vindicated

Looks like my June 9, 2019 article "Security Observations: Osborne Naval Shipyard & Edinburgh RAAF Base, Adelaide", at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/06/osborne-naval-shipyard-adelaide-security.html has gained some traction in Australian Government defence and security intelligence circles.

On June 9, 2019 in part I wrote:

"There is a boom in Osborne's construction and upgrades of Australia's: Hobart class destroyers; Arafura class offshore patrol vessels; future Hunter class frigates; and Collins and future Attack class submarines. Osborne has therefore become a high value intelligence hotspot."

"Hence, in response, predictable growth:

-  in size and number of consulates-general (basically mini "embassies" - perhaps housing
   "diplomats", defence and press attaches who collect military intelligence in Adelaide). China's and
    Russia's consulates-general?" 

-  in numbers of foreign engineering/scientific academics and students capable of collecting intel

   (see US 30/8/2020 experience) and establishing lasting sensitive friendships at Adelaide 
   universities, and

-  of course, harder to detect non-official-cover "illegals" (not only Russians and Australian

   "moles"."

---------------------------------------------------------------

So it is encouraging the Australian Government has now officially recognised that the threat of increased Chinese diplomatic/intelligence presence in Adelaide has made Australian/foreign naval ship/submarine secrets in Adelaide more vulnerable. 

See Australia's government owned ABC News where Defence Correspondent Andrew Greene reports “Defence Department warns that 'highly active' spies pose 'extreme threat' to Australia's shipbuilding plan” August 16, 2020 at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-16/defence-warns-active-foreign-spies-threaten-shipbuilding-plans/12562536 which sates in part:

“Foreign agents are now "highly active" in plots to steal Australian military secrets, with Defence warning the threat to the nation's multi-billion-dollar shipbuilding projects is considered "extreme”.”

...“Beijing privately identified as leading culprit”

“Defence has declined to nominate which foreign actors it believes are responsible for targeting Australia's naval shipbuilding industry but, privately, national security figures believe the Chinese Government is the main culprit.

The growing concerns about Chinese espionage are prompting politicians from across the political divide to call for the closure of the sizeable Chinese consulate in South Australia, or a reduction in the number of diplomats based there.

In 2016, Beijing opened a new Consulate-General office in the Adelaide suburb of Findon for around 10 staff, located on a site that also includes the headquarters for the Overseas Chinese Association.

"It hasn't escaped me that the consulate was stood up in the same year that a significant naval shipbuilding program was announced by the Coalition Government," Senator Patrick said.

His concerns about the large Chinese diplomatic presence in a state which hosts considerable defence industry and space research is shared by members of both the Federal Government and Opposition.

"It's clear that the numbers in the Adelaide consulate are overweight — they should be reduced, preferably by negotiation," South Australian Labor MP Nick Champion said.

Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells says ASIO records show similar tactics were used by Soviet spies during the Cold War to target military research in Australia.

"It comes as no surprise that Beijing has overcompensated the 'diplomatic' requirement to serve in Adelaide," Senator Fierravanti-Wells told the ABC.

"If ASIO and law enforcement agencies deem laws have been broken, then the 'diplomats' should be expelled."...”

SEE WHOLE ABC ARTICLE

Pete