Emblem of Russian Military Intelligence (GRU). Having not covered itself in glory after underestimating Ukrainian resistance, the GRU would dearly love French Barracuda SSN secrets, via any sources. (Image courtesy Espfutbol98 via Wikipedia).
---
In response to Anonymous’ comment of April 19, 2022.
You make some very valid points on Russia being over-ambitious in its economic ability to fund an ongoing military superpower position.
Russia helps supply India with a whole range of weapon systems. I consider the most important weapons help Russia provides as being:
1. Data from past Soviet two stage thermonuclear tests. See the basic design of a two stage weapon, top right corner here. India uses them for computer simulations. That way India has not needed to risk further international censure, which would have occurred if India had needed to conduct thermonuclear tests itself. This is after criticism of India's and Pakistan's May 1998 nuclear tests. Meanwhile Pakistan uses Chinese test results in simulations.
2. Missile designs. Probably involving the Agni nuclear missile series and definitely the Oniks derived BrahMos program, and
3. Nuclear submarines, including the reactors. Hence former Prime Minister Singh, when Arihant was launched, went out of his way to thank Russia.
Such is the ongoing level of Russian nuclear sub help, a third lease of an SSN (to be another Akula dubbed "Chakra III") will occur in a few years time. Russia is probably also assisting India build the full sized S5 SSBNs perhaps based on Russian Deltas and maybe early Boreys.
It would be foolhardy for France to pass India sensitive Barracuda SSN design details or even actual Barracudas. Russian military intelligence (GRU) agents and plain friendships between the Russian nuclear sub industry and Indian sub designers/Indian Navy should put France on guard.
Russia's Ukraine invasion and Putin announcing the increase in Russia's nuclear threat level would have demonstrated to France that Russia verges on being a semi-Hot "Cold" War enemy of France.
The risk of French nuke sub secrets finding their way to Russia via India are too great. Russia would dearly love a full range of Barracuda acoustic and other emissions to give Russian Yasen SSNs technical advantages over French Navy Barracudas. Also a comprehensive Russian knowledge of French Barracuda quieting technologies, including pumpjets, would be handy.
Now Australia will need to be mindful that its UK and US designed nuclear subs (more advanced than the French) are always a prime target of hostile espionage.
Pete
ReplyDeleteThanks for the discussion and you raise fair points about the risk of loss of IP from France to Russia via India. If that risk is substantial I agree that the French SSN technology should not be on the table.
Export of other "second line" NATO technologies to India to displace Russian technology would still be beneficial. For example, the war in Ukraine is implying that even "second line" western aircraft such as older F16s or Mirages would still be superior to Russian Mig 29s.
I think my general economic points still stand. Without significant increases in foreign trade, including arms, it is hard to see how Russsia can afford to sustain its current size military, let alone a full scale war.
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYes Mirages and F16s have been used by many airforces for decades. So comprehensive Russian knowledge of thse aircraft is almost certain. Therefore no real risk in 20 year old versions of these aircraft going to India.
Barracudas are, of course, a different matter - using the latest French technology - with the first Barracuda "Suffren" perhaps not in full operational service yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Suffren .
Regards Pete
I see this well worn IP leak theme is again in favour currently (LoL).
ReplyDeleteFrench SSN tech is off the table in any case and so is Dassault single crystal engine technology and so is other advanced stuff such as EW suites knowhow etc...why is this news? India knows it better than anyone else. it is a pointless discussion theme.
Food for thought- Not being rude, simply looking at stuff from another perspective,
1. Scorpene hull related technology would have been equally helpful to Russia, why did France jointly make the subs in India then? Plus I have told you long ago, with the superb Chinese MSS run military espionage complex, why will Russia need India?
2. India has no interest in French LEU reactors as we are committed to HEU reactors now. So, if the so called 'critical hull making knowhow' was already shared through Scorpene SSK, what is the fuss? Again, western analysts in many places fall into this 'selective bias' and 'stereotype trap' w.r.t India.
3. It is not by any stretch verifiable that Russia/France/Israel shared thermonuclear tests data with India. Not impossible but Unlikely, in my opinion. India's verified capacity remains a boosted fission device with 100 kT max yield. As for 'sanctimonious' 'international censure', the west is always welcome to take a one way hike up the Andes on their high horse. Those days of finger wagging and lecturing from a 'imagined superior moral height' are long gone.
PS: Why won't Singh thank Putin in 2006? After all despite limiting nuclear help to 'show how', Russian fantastic operational help with the K-4 SLBM, the planned supply of the SSN Bratsk as Chakra III etc.. are gratitude worthy and I see no reason why there should be raised eyebrows about an Indian PM thanking the Russian head of state. Again why should an India that has its hands full with China bother about such a far away war? especially considering the call for 'human rights' and 'rule of international law' comes from the US, which is a partial xtian sharia state and a risible parody of a democracy refusing to acknowledge the ICC.
If anything, Europe should be answering why they procure 40-45% of gas needs from Russia today, compared to <1% by India and then ask the US why the americans aren't pushing up supplies by mending bridges with Iran and Venezuela besides asking the GCC Arabs to pump more oil.
As always, America continues to take the cake, the baker and bakery in the 'gormless chutzpah' department.
Hi Ghalib
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the righteousness of what some call "Monotheists" or even the "partial xtian sharia state"...
"Uncle" has done it again.
APDR records https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/globaldata-amid-f-18-e-f-indian-trials-strong-prospects-for-boeing-to-seal-indian-navys-mrcbf-deal/
"GLOBALDATA: Amid F-18 E/F Indian trials, strong prospects for Boeing to seal Indian Navy’s MRCBF deal"
[However article goes on to record]
"Abhijit Apsingikar, Defence Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “While the technical parameters of the deal are increasingly in favour of Boeing, Indian concerns with respect to dependability of the US suppliers in case of a crisis still exists, though this is changing slowly with the induction of platforms like the P-8I Poseidon and MH-60R Romeo helicopters.
Nonetheless, India has so far resisted the urge to field a US made frontline combat aircraft. The threat of impending sanctions under [the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act] CAATSA with respect to the acquisition of S-400 Triumf air defence systems alongside India’s stand on the present Russia-Ukraine conflict also complicates the deal.
With India going ahead with additional purchases of cheap Russian crude oil, the US has cautioned India against any additional purchases. Hence the closure of this deal is anticipated to be contingent on Boeing satisfying the requirements of the Indian Armed Forces, but also the US administration’s ability to assuage India’s concerns with respect to CAATSA.”"
+++++++++++++++++++
"Mixing religion with good clean geo-strategic rivalries and profit motivations is clearly old fashioned" said Marx, or was it Shakespeare?
Noting Ghalib’s points, I would add one general principle.
ReplyDeleteMany western countries, including Germany, have changed their position on Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. They are not being sanctioned for previous gas deals. Some of those deals will take years to unwind.
The same principle should apply to India. It would be a double standard to sanction India now over the S400 deal when it was started prior to the Ukrainian invasion. As long as India sticks to Us IP rules from now on, the F18 deal should proceed.
Looking pragmatically via QUAD, it would be in both Australia and USA’s long term interests for the Indian Navy to be able to operate F18s in the Indian Ocean.
Thanks Pete and Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIndia has, after great reluctance, signed an end user monitoring agreement regarding US military equipment. It has also signed all the foundational agreements such as COMCASA, BECA etc., Yet, India's P-8 planes are notably inferior.
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=115057&x=
- Remove Precision Targeting capability
- Remove UHR ISAR capability
- Remove 1 and 3 foot SAR capability
- Limit performance to meet 30 meter SAR geo-location accuracy
At one stroke, India's P-8s lose their ability for littoral overland strike, precision location targeting and ability to guide missiles OTH or Over the Horizon to target ships. Even after COMCASA and BECA being signed, there are no signs P-8A level capabilities are on offer.
Hence, at its heart, the Indian foreign policy-military establishment remains untrusting of the US. This manifests in extreme reluctance to get things like frontline fighter aircraft as just like the Pakistanis suffered, for some other whim, the US might make India suffer whimsically. And of-course, there is the cost angle also.
The propaganda is so strong that, we don't get to see tangible reality in many cases. The above US government link being exhibit A in that regard.
Thanks Ghalib [at Apr 22, 2022, 1:06:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteEarly next week I'll do an article on:
- the poor deal India has received re the P-8Is (thanks for that info)
- likely poor deal India would receive on US F-18 E/Fs, and
- the none delivery by the US of many weapon systems Taiwan has paid for. Looks like if Taiwan wants a reliable supplier it will need to be France (France having exercised independence from the moralistic US arms hobbling habit).
Regards Pete
Thanks Ghalib for the information about the Indian P8s and F18s.
ReplyDeleteAs per the reasons I outlined in my previous post, I have to share your disappointment.
From Australia's viewpoint, in terms of having capable security partners in the Indian Ocean, which is of great mutual benefit, we want India to be a fully functional partner. Hence the P8s and F18s need to be fully capable.
I don't expect IP holders to simply share their top of the line military goods. it is naive to the point of foolishness to think so.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the ASuW and to an extent ASW abilities of the P-8I are greatly compromised. In addition, I don't think Uncle sam will help India mate it's Nirbhay cruise missile with the P-8Is systems and also will not give India missiles like the AGM-158C effectively ensuring the 124 km range'short legs' of the Harpoon AGM-84L version would be of very limited use to counter Chinese or Pakistani naval fleets.
So much for the MTCR membership, the US will not give the AGM-84 SLAM_ER either and has also effectively crimped the APY-10 radar by removing OTH missile guiding ability. Also crimping ISAR modes impacts periscope detection and hence possibly submarine hunting....
I am sure this is better than the Russian Tu-142 IN was using, but the main purpose of buying the P-8, namely, accurate submarine detection and ability to do precision targeting seem to be defeated. so when american diplomats make tone deaf remarks about how India needs to be 'grateful', it makes me really angry
One more detailed file on the APY-10 radar tests
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=115127
Naturally, the establishment in India doesn't trust uncle sam one wee bit. They are about comfortable as an unclothed derriere on a particularly thorny cactus...
Pete
ReplyDeleteA different topic - the Chinese deal with the Solomon Islands. Obviously this has huge implications if it becomes a future Chinese naval base. The deployment distance for PLAN submarines to the Coral Sea has just shrunk from 6000km to 500km.
So does this not lead to the need for Australia to establish a Fleet Base East sub base sooner rather than later? That also leads to the need for Australia to have two squadrons of submarines (one to deploy to each base) sooner rather than later. So we need more submarines, and quite quickly.
Apart from any debate about interim diesel sub purchases, I am wondering if under AUKUS, the SSN numbers of "at least 8" SSNs are no longer enough? Might they need to be increased to 9 or 10? Will we need more than 8 to adequately operate two sub squadrons?
Thanks Anonymous [at Apr 22, 2022, 8:07:00 PM]
ReplyDeleteSee my scholarly story "Solomons Suck Sino Sausage"
April 23, 2022 at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/04/solomons-islands-suck-sino-sausage.html .
+++++++++++
Re your question: "So does this not lead to the need for Australia to establish a Fleet Base East sub base sooner rather than later?"
The answer is Probably Not, Maybe or Hang On Wait a Sec!
On building a fully functional East Coast nuke submarine base, what with:
- merely a forward base ambit Morrison-Dutton claim of $10 Billion and (I would say a minimum of) 10 years to build
- but as you are talking a Fully Functional East Coast HOME submarine base that would cost more like $15 Billion and 15 years to build
Realities include:
- need for the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce https://www.defence.gov.au/about/taskforces/nuclear-powered-submarine-task-force to report to the Federal Government and the public around mid 2023 on all nuke subs for Australia issues including basing.
- need in mid 2024 to begin budgeting the odd $200 Billion a whole nuke sub program would cost
- design negotiations of the base and the subs out to 2027
- inevitable delays as Nuclear NIMBIES (NNs) take the basing issues, involving their east coast city, to State, Federal and High Courts.
- meanwhile need to FULLY train 1,000+ senior Australian nuclear submariners, nuclear scientists/techos/engineers through to 2035
- and the inevitable 20 years for Slow, Expensive, Inefficient, Adelaide to build the first 2 subs subs
or fully overseas build the first 2 subs in the UK and/or US in 10 years
In summary merely building a Home East Coast sub base for Eventually 4-6 Aus nuke subs will be a bugger of a job and may mean Australia spends 4% of GDP on Defence PERMANENTLY after 2024. This is considering the other AUKUS programs as well.
I cannot wait :)
Cheers Pete