France Has Little to offer Australia Militarily: China

The wishful thinking that France might sell nuclear subs to Australia just won’t die off despite the evidence.

When, in 2016, Australia was seeking a "regionally superior submarine" which would have needed many characteristics of an SSN, Naval Group's Chief Executive Herve Guillou ambiguously told AAP on March 24, 2016:

"“If, in 2050, Australia wants a nuclear submarine, they can design a nuclear submarine,” see https://indaily.com.au/news/2016/03/24/france-pitches-nuke-sub-option-for-australia/

Hence Guillou was only floating a possible French SSN offer from 2050, that is  AFTER France completed the Attack class SSK contract to Australia. Why didn't French government owned Naval Group simply offer an SSN to Australia in 2016?

Later, in 2022, in the face of the US and UK's AUKUS submarine offer France’s President Macron said French Barracuda SSNs were not for sale to Australia. 

Macron said the sale of any nuclear submarines to Australia “risks increasing tensions with China and make Australia dependent on other countries.” See https://see.news/macron-warns-australias-nuclear-subs-deal-will-not-deliver of 18 November 2022.

France appears unwilling to risk alienating its higher priority trade partner China. 

On the broad political level the France-China relationship was raised to the level of “global strategic partnership” in 2004 which was reaffirmed in 2019.

During Macron's April 2023 visit to China he emphasised strategic autonomy, suggesting that Europe could become a "third superpower” less dependent on the US. As Australia is dependent on its major ally the US, Macron's de Gaulle like non alignment is of little help to Australia. 

Despite France describing itself as an Indo-Pacific military power I think it likely Macron sees France's military power in the region as slight. France simply cannot compete with China's rising regional naval power. France's entire permanent Indo-Pacific fleet centres on several aging light frigates of the Floreal-class (to be replaced by corvettes in 10 years time). This small surface force doesn't compare with the hundreds of more modern, larger ships of China's Navy. 

So France is aware of the limits of its power. It did not want to offer a complete SSN to Canada or to Brazil as this would anger the US and France does not want to offer an SSN to Australia as this would anger China.

France's New K22 reactor for Carrier & 3G SSBN

In response to Anonymous’s December 26, 2023 comment:

Yes I see France's larger 2030s onward single New Generation Aircraft Carrier (Porte-avions de nouvelle génération (PA-NG)) will use 2 x 220 MWt [ = 73 MWe?] K22 nuclear reactors. 

Also each of France's larger 2030s onwards 4 x Third Generation SSBN (Sous-Marin Nucléaire Lanceur d'Engins de Troisieme Génération (SNLE 3Gs)) will be powered by a K22 (see right sidebar).

Might France pass some K15 or K22 technology to South Korea for SK's KSS-3 Batch 3 SSBN program? SK's payment could help fund the high cost of the K22's development. 

South Korea's SS-084 may? be SSBN Prototype

Anonymous on December 21, 2023 commented :

"South Korea seems intent on getting SSNs as well. Not sure if Australia would be interested in getting involved in that program though:

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/south-korean-admiral-claims-that-nuclear-powered-submarines-are-necessary/  "

Pete Comment

The future proliferation of submarine nuclear propulsion to Australia (under AUKUS SSN Pillar 1 or Tier 1) certainly removes the submarine nuclear propulsion taboo that held South Korea and Japan back.

I suspect South Korean (SK) talk of an "SSN, K-SSN, KSS-N, KSSX-N, and KXXN" are euphemisms for SK SSBNs. See Submarine Matters articles that use some of these terms since 2012.

My logic is SK SSNs might only impede North Korean, Chinese and Russian naval and civilian shipping movements and port access. SK SSNs would not constitute "deterrents" to those countries' populations, land and air operations or, most importantly, to those 3 countries' nuclear weapon establishments. Although any future SK SSNs could be threats to nuclear tipped SLBM launching North Korean  SSBs and Chinese and Russian SSBNs.

My logic also looks at SK's program of ever more capable conventionally propelled ballistic missile submarines (SSBs). They are the KSS-3s Batch 1s (SS-083, 085 and 086), Batch 2s (with SS-087 so far). SK tends to build 9 submarines of each class for its navy. Hence it built 9 Type 209s and then 9 Type 214s. So after it completes 6 diesel-electric KSS-3s (3 Batch 1s and 3 Batch 2s) there is likely to be 3 Batch 3s. They might be nuclear propelled.

Curiously there is no "SS-084" among the Batch 1s. To confirm no SS-084 see seaforces and militaryfactory and EuropeanSecurity&Defence. South Korean people please confirm this omission. If this is not a misprint I suspect SS-084 (which, at present, might be a hull only) may develop into an SSBN prototype or be the first
KSS-3 Batch 3.

Also note a potential Hanwha Ocean New Technology is its large "Nuclear Propulsion Ship" concept. A reactor to power a ship would have the beginnings of dual-use potential. While a large ship's reactor (with gradual acceleration and deceleration) would be large a marine reactor for an SSBN could also be large and configured for gradual acceleration and deceleration. In contrast a reactor for an SSN would need to be further miniaturised and would also need to cater for an SSN's rapid stop-start tactical motion needs and have other specialised features. 

For countries without the budget of superpowers it is easier to place a "largish" marine reactor into a large SSBN before you miniaturise it for a small SSN. French experience with the K15 marine reactor is a case in point. It was "largish" when  commissioned into the Triomphant SSBN in 1997 (or just before), 2 x K15s were probably even larger when they ran critical in the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier by 1999. But if the K15's size was the main impediment it took all of 20 years to miniaturise it into France's "small" Suffren Barracuda SSN when the K15 ran critical in 2019 or 2020. 

The KSS-3 ballistic missile of choice appears to be the Hyunmoo 4-4. If its potential targets are nuclear armed North Korea, China or Russia, then a Hyunmoo 4-4's only explosive option will eventually be a nuclear warhead deterrent. Forget warheads with only several tonnes of high explosive or chemical weapons - they are not in the typical nuclear 100+ kiloton league when it comes to destroying deep dug, air-conditioned against chemicals, bunker targets.

++++++++++++

I'll address Anonymous's Japanese SSN (or SSBN) issue later.

Australia's SSK or SSN Future Issues

On December 18, 2023 “Grandpa Jim” commented :

"For the life of me I still don't see Australia's need to build SSNs

 .. they can barely man the six SSKs they have now

.. and all of this for what

.. three SSN subs ?

Its been ten years already and nothing has been accomplished. 

I honestly believe Australia's defenses would be far better off if they chose to buy/build eight or nine Nagapasa [Type 209-1400] subs from South Korea, half dozen or so land based [Naval Strike Missile] NSM batteries, and add perhaps another 24 or so [F/A-18F] planes -- all of which would cost perhaps a fourth of what the SSNs would cost. Utter sillyness."

Pete Comment

1. If Australia goes the conventional submarine (SSK) route. Life Of Type Extending (LOTEing) the 6 Collins could keep the RAN and "20,000 well paid union jobs" going until 8 new SSKs (or SSBs) are built in Adelaide. The new ones need to be large (AIP, Lithium-ion Battery, VLS) submarines for our long range patrol requirements. These should be existing designs, ie:

- South Korean KSS-3s or

- German Dakar-class

Either of the above could launch ballistic/hypersonic missiles with warheads taking their proliferation lead from whatever South Korea and Japan are using by the late 2030s (ie. may well be nuclear warheads).

Additional conventional weapons for Australia include:

- land/sea launched Tomahawk missiles

- Ghost Bat UCAVs, and 

- Anduril Ghost Shark or Cellula SeaWolf or a Melbourne company's (name eludes me?) XLUUVs/AUVs

++++++++++++

2. Going the SSN route may "unintentionally" pan out to 6 Virginia submarines. Hence the 3 to 5 already intended plus one more. The 6 Virginia route has the advantages of:

- total crewing is still high but not the unviable number required for 3 Virginias and 5 to 8 SSN-AUKUS

- just one type of SSN rather than an unviable situation of 2 types (Virginias and SSN-AUKUS)

- all built in the US. So Osborne cannot habitually double the cost and build time of SSN-AUKUS.  

- The ALP National Conference's "20,000 well paid union jobs" can still be honoured by all the construction and repairs in Fleet Base West (with its new nuclear waste facility), construction and repairs in Adelaide and university education of 1,000s of nuclear submariners/shipbuilder-maintainers/technicians/scientists/administrators.

- I don't know if an East Coast SSN Base would be strategically necessary (given the speed "Perth base" SSNs can get to the East Coast) or even financially or politically viable.

- will draw Australia closer to the ally (the US) that Australia efficiently works with, in our Indian and Pacific oceans, the ally providing Australia with the nuclear umbrella. This is rather than an idealistic bonding with a past ally, the UK RN, that spends 90% of its time in the distant Atlantic Ocean and in Europe.

Time will tell.

Australians could Leak AUKUS Secrets?

On 12/17/2023 3:19 PM one "Joseph" claimed:

[It is] "Straight up treason [for the US] selling sub-tech, propulsion systems, cnc specs, etc, to a foreign country [like Australia], especially one that has done so much damage to the US security and political system. And the traitors in Congress are trying to prevent a future President with actual patriotic bonafides from undoing the damage they're wreaking. 

There's a reason why the Australians were among the primary countries that interfered not only the US election process, but also in the sabotage of the Trump administration by conducting the "Russia-hoax" [Joseph may be referring to the Papadopoulos' indiscrete  comments to Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer]. They never would have gotten this deal under Trump, and Trump actually tried to withdraw forces (not just from Syria, Europe, Afghanistan, etc), including the Marines stationed in Australia right now. 

This deal needs to be scrapped. The Australians, like the Israelis, British, Japanese, etc, are GUARANTEED to reverse-engineer and sell this tech to China - that has been the historic record (and during the Cold War, these "Allies" sold American core technology to the USSR)."

Pete Comment

But have not the US and its ever loyal ally, Australia, fought shoulder to shoulder continuously against tyranny since World War One?

Australia is regularly paying big premiums, through arms purchases, for US nuclear weapons protection against the sharks of this world (China and Russia).

In terms of premiums AUKUS is a major extravaganza for the US. The Trump Organization can take their cut. Australia has agreed to pay US$1 Billion per year to America's highly profitable Virginia industrial base through to the 2030s AND pay a cool US$8 Billion per Virginia in inflated 2032 US dollars.

Sure Pollard sent secrets to Israel and Klaus Fuchs for Great Britain sent US
A-Bomb and H-Bomb secrets to Russia, but those are the type of risks the AUKUS security agency alliance are working to avoid. 

On leaks of of secrets hasn't Trump sent some Russia's way already?! 

See the 2017 report https://www.npr.org/2017/05/15/528511980/report-trump-gave-classified-information-to-russians-during-white-house-visit

"President Trump revealed "highly classified information" to two top Russian officials during a controversial Oval Office meeting last week, according to a report from The Washington Post.

 

The Post, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported Monday evening that the information relayed by the president to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak "jeopardized a critical source of intelligence" on ISIS."

If, as is likely, Trump wins the November 5, 2024 Elections, he should do what he does best, make a transactional deal to shake down America's allies for more cash. Trump will need to weigh up US Navy calls to cancel the Virginia agreement with all that protection money Trump can squeeze out of Australia. 

PRC seeks Defector with Chinook

US$15 million offered for 2 hours work. Need helicopter pilot's licence. Discretion advisable.

Anonymous has kindly provided the following offline:

"A Taiwanese pilot, allegedly planning to defect to the People's Republic of China (PRC), was reportedly offered $15 million USD to deliver a CH-47 Chinook helicopter to the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). As part of the defection scheme, the individual was supposedly set to land the Chinook on a PLAN vessel in the Taiwan Strait. 

Along with the money offered, the pilot was also apparently assured by Chinese officials that his family would be given safe passage [assuming Taiwanese Security permits it!] out of Taiwan should a potential conflict between the country and China erupt." 

Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/taiwanese-pilot-planned-ch-47-defection-to-china-reports 

Pete Comment

The PRC would dearly like to reverse engineer a Chinook, for PLA use and export.

Predictably PRC intelligence (MSS and PLA Intel) are very active in Taiwan.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad#Taiwan 

This effort is assisted by millions of Taiwanese living and working in the PRC since 1949. 

PRC Can Exploit SCS Far Easier Than ASEAN

Pete Comment

Powerful PRC Coast Guard (CG) and Marine Militia (MM) vessels give the PRC an advantage over weaker ASEAN CG forces and too few US CG forces in the region. 

ASEAN (including Philippine) nations are disinclined to confront the PRC's CG with ASEAN naval vessels as this could escalate matters to ASEAN's disadvantage. Also there is no ASEAN banding together in an effective naval alliance. 

It really looks like ASEAN countries, including the Philippines, need to develop some sort of concerted reactions to the PRC's provocations. The issues of confrontation may just be fishing rights today but there may be more exploitable gas and oil under the South China Sea (SCS) than currently assumed. 

The PRC can exploit undersea gas, oil and (in future) mineral resources far more quickly and decisively than ASEAN countries and Taiwan. This is due to comparative lack of PRC regulatory obstacles and higher economic power and potential innovation for future undersea mineral exploitation.

ARTICLE

Anonymous kindly sent me the following offline:

"On [Dec 8, 2023] China Coast Guard cutters and Maritime Militia vessels disrupted the resupply of Filipino fishermen off Scarborough Shoal by civilian vessels under the Philippines’ Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR). According to a press release from the National Task Force for the West Philippine Sea, the BFAR multi-mission offshore vessels BRP Datu Sanday (MMOV-3002), BRP Datu Bankaw (MMOV-3004) and BRP Datu Tamblot (MMOV-3005) were harassed by water cannons and long range acoustic devices from Chinese forces.""

See: https://news.usni.org/2023/12/10/chinese-ships-ram-philippine-vessels-hits-crews-with-water-cannons-in-series-of-south-china-sea-incidents 

US Congress Passes AUKUS Submarine Legislation

Prompted by an Anonymous reader (offline) here is today's big submarine news internationally (particularly in Australia and US) which relates to an event on December 14, 2023 US time. The news is carried by numerous outlets - but I choose Australia's Government owned ABC News to quote extensively: 

"AUKUS deal approved by US Congress as backers say future presidents can be trusted" of December 15, 2023, at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-15/aukus-legislation-passes-us-congress-house-senate/103232048

By North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan in Washington DC.

Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines has hit another major milestone, as supporters of the deal seek to ease concerns that it could be torn up by a future US president.

After months of negotiations, a broad defence policy package including legislation to enable the AUKUS agreement sailed through the US House of Representatives, hours after clearing the Senate.

It authorises the sale of at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia, relaxes export controls, and allows Australian defence contractors to train in the United States.

It also enables the Australian government to make a payment of $US3 billion ([AU]$4.5 billion) to speed up submarine production at American shipyards.

"This is a historic achievement," Defence Minister Richard Marles told the ABC after the legislation passed the House.

"It's the first time in American history that there has been the authorisation of a sale of a nuclear-powered submarine to another country."

The Virginia-class boats are scheduled to be transferred from the early 2030s to avoid a capability gap while Australia builds its own nuclear-powered submarines.

Reversal risks 'tremendous blowback' [subheading bolded by ABC]

The US legislation states that 270 days before the transfer happens [in 2032], the president [of the day] will need to certify that the transfer is consistent with [US] foreign policy interests, and would not "degrade" [US] undersea capabilities.

Democratic congressman Joe Courtney, a co-chair of the AUKUS working group, rejected suggestions that could lead to a future administration backing out of the agreement.

"We've got now statutory blessing to AUKUS, which I think expresses a clear bipartisan intent in both chambers that we support this security agreement in terms of all the technology sharing," he said.

"And so for a future president to sort of try and gum up the works or move backwards, I mean honestly, whoever that is would have to come back and try and undo some of the authorities that we've created."

Mr Courtney said there was also strong backing for the agreement within the US military.

"Given what I think was really powerful support from what is ultimately the key department in the executive branch, the Department of the Navy, for this provision, I just feel that whatever president that might be would face tremendous blowback in terms of trying to undo what we've accomplished here today," he said.

Australian billions to boost base [bolded by ABC]

The AUKUS project is estimated to cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades.

It's not yet known when the $US3 billion payment will be made. The Australian government said those details were now being worked out.

"We can hardly expect the US to provide Virginia-class submarines to us unless they uplift their industrial base," Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy told the ABC during a visit to Washington.

The US is failing to meet its own submarine production targets, and concerns had been raised in congress that it could not afford to sell boats to Australia until there was a marked improvement.

President Joe Biden has since requested congress approve a further $US3.4 billion in funding to help accelerate maintenance and build times.

Mr Conroy would not be drawn on what would happen to the Australian contribution if the deal fell through or was significantly altered.

"I'm very confident that the AUKUS partnership as agreed and negotiated and legislated only today will be followed through. Why? Because it's in the national interest of all three countries," he said.

"So I know people are interested in those hypotheticals, but this is an investment in the future security of Australia, and the United States and our alliance. And I'm confident all parties will follow through with that."

See several Videos and photos (again) at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-15/aukus-legislation-passes-us-congress-house-senate/103232048

++++++++++++++++++++

Also see the inevitable Media Release of Australia's Defence Ministers (who are Richard Marles (part-time) and Pat Conroy) "Passage of priority AUKUS submarine and export control exemption legislation by the United States Congress" 
of December 15, 2023
at https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2023-12-15/passage-priority-aukus-submarine-and-export-control-exemption-legislation-united-states-congress

++++++++++++++++

Pete Comment

The speed with which the AUKUS Submarine Legislation was passed by Congress (especially by the Republican majority House) was probably not expected by most analysts. It helped that this legislation was rolled into the much larger 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which contained several more politically essential Provisions.

Hamas "Long Range" Rocket: Ayyash-250 [km]

Despite Israel's invasion of Gaza (high civilian casualties and suffering) Hamas has been developing and/or receiving (unguided) rockets of steadily longer range. The name "Ayyash"-250 described below, carries many Arab historical and religious meanings, but coincidentally? also carries the name of an Iranian village.

Even if the Israeli Army occupies all of Gaza (as with the West Bank) long-range Iran supplied/funded Hamas and Hezbollah rockets may be able to hit (or continue to hit) Israel from Lebanon and Syria. 

The Iranian supported Shiite Houthi group in Yemen are also aiming missiles and UAVs with the range to hit Israel.

Above is the Hamas Ayyash-250 rock with a photo of one Yahya Ayyash on the side. "Al-Qassam Brigades" are the military wing of Hamas. Sources see https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/List/ORIGIN_palestine--state-of-d7e0a7 and Twitter/"X" 

Ayyash-250

Date of Introduction

2021

Country Of Origin

Palestine, State of

Proliferation

Hamas, Palestine

Type

Long-Range Rocket

Manufacturer

Hamas

Warhead

INA [for Information Not Available]

Russian Yasen-class SSGN

Comment: It is interesting what is included and excluded from the HUGE US odin.tradoc database.

On the Yasen the nicely summarized style is useful  see https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/List/ORIGIN_russia--rus--f8577e&DOM_sea-35e296&DOM_naval-watercraft-e32814

"K-560 Severodvinsk is a Yasen class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine of the Russian Navy and the lead vessel of the class. The submarine is named after the city of Severodvinsk. The Yasen class, Russian designations Project 885 Yasen and Project 885M Yasen-M (Russian: Ясень, lit. 'ash tree', NATO reporting name: Yasen), also referred to as Graney class, are series of newest nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines designed by Malakhit and being constructed by Sevmash for the Russian Navy. 

Based on the Akula class and Alfa class designs, the Yasen class is projected to replace the Russian Navy's current Soviet-era nuclear attack submarines. The vessel's design is claimed to be state-of-the-art.

The Yasen-class nuclear submarines are presumed to be armed with land-attack cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine missiles including the P-800 Oniks SLCM, Kalibr family SLCM or 3M51 SLCM. Kalibr-PL has several variants including the 3M54K (terminal-supersonic) and 3M54K1 (subsonic) anti-ship, 91R1 anti-submarine, and the 3M14K land-attack variant. In the future, there will be also an option to install the hypersonic 3M22 Zircon cruise missiles on upgraded 855M boats. Each submarine can carry 32 Kalibr or 24 Oniks (other sources claim 40 Kalibr and 32 Oniks) cruise missiles which are stored in eight (ten for 855M) vertical launchers (additional missiles may be carried in the torpedo room at the expense of torpedoes). It will also have [has] ten 533 mm tubes, as well as mines and anti-submarine missiles such as the RPK-7. 

It is the first Russian submarine class to be equipped with a spherical sonar, designated as MGK-600 Irtysh-Amfora. The device (allegedly the Irtysh/Amfora sonar system) was tested on a modified Yankee-class submarine. The sonar system consists of a spherical bow array, flank arrays, and a towed array. Due to the large size of this spherical array, the torpedo tubes are slanted. In other words, the torpedo tube outer doors are not located in the immediate bow as in the previous Akula class but moved aft. 

The hull is constructed from low-magnetic steel. Unlike previous Russian submarines which have a double hull, Yasen-class submarines mostly have a single hull. 

The Yasen class has a crew of 85 on project 885 and 64 on project 885M, suggesting a high degree of automation in the submarine's different systems. The newest U.S. Virginia-class submarines have a crew of 134 in comparison. 

Yasen-class submarines are the first to be equipped with a fourth-generation nuclear reactor. The reactor, built by Afrikantov OKBM, will allegedly have a 25-30 year core life and will not have to be refueled. Steam turbines are supplied by Kaluga Turbine Works. The inclusion of a new generation KTP-6 reactor on the Yasen-M boats is thought to significantly reduce their noise level: the reactor's primary cooling loop facilitates the natural circulation of water and thus doesn't require continuous operation of the main circulation pumps, which are the key noise factor on a nuclear submarine. The only other submarine classes in service with such reactor design are USN' Ohio and Virginia, employing the S8G and S9G reactors respectively. 

A VSK rescue pod is carried in the sail. According to admiral Foggo, the commander of the US Naval Forces Europe, the Yasen class submarines are "very quiet, which is the most important thing in submarine warfare". It's claimed that Severodvinsk is far quieter than previous Russian SSNs, capable of 20 knots while running quiet, which is equal to the Seawolf-class and inferior only to Virginia (25 knots). Other sources claim that Severodvinsk is capable of even 28 knots in silent mode."

K-560 Severodvinsk is a Yasen class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine of the Russian Navy and the lead vessel of the class. The submarine is named after the city of Severodvinsk. The Yasen class, Russian designations Project 885 Yasen and Project 885M Yasen-M (Russian: Ясень, lit. 'ash tree', NATO reporting name: Yasen), also referred to as Graney class, are series of newest nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines designed by Malakhit and being constructed by Sevmash for the Russian Navy. Based on the Akula class and Alfa class designs, the Yasen class is projected to replace the Russian Navy's current Soviet-era nuclear attack submarines. The vessel's design is claimed to be state-of-the-art. The Yasen-class nuclear submarines are presumed to be armed with land-attack cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine missiles including the P-800 Oniks SLCM, Kalibr family SLCM or 3M51 SLCM. Kalibr-PL has several variants including the 3M54K (terminal-supersonic) and 3M54K1 (subsonic) anti-ship, 91R1 anti-submarine, and the 3M14K land-attack variant. In the future, there will be also an option to install the hypersonic 3M22 Zircon cruise missiles on upgraded 855M boats. Each submarine can carry 32 Kalibr or 24 Oniks (other sources claim 40 Kalibr and 32 Oniks) cruise missiles which are stored in eight (ten for 855M) vertical launchers (additional missiles may be carried in the torpedo room at the expense of torpedoes). It will also have ten 533 mm tubes, as well as mines and anti-submarine missiles such as the RPK-7. It is the first Russian submarine class to be equipped with a spherical sonar, designated as MGK-600 Irtysh-Amfora. The device (allegedly the Irtysh/Amfora sonar system) was tested on a modified Yankee-class submarine. The sonar system consists of a spherical bow array, flank arrays, and a towed array. Due to the large size of this spherical array, the torpedo tubes are slanted. In other words, the torpedo tube outer doors are not located in the immediate bow as in the previous Akula class but moved aft. The hull is constructed from low-magnetic steel. Unlike previous Russian submarines which have a double hull, Yasen-class submarines mostly have a single hull. The Yasen class has a crew of 85 on project 885 and 64 on project 885M, suggesting a high degree of automation in the submarine's different systems. The newest U.S. Virginia-class submarines have a crew of 134 in comparison. Yasen-class submarines are the first to be equipped with a fourth-generation nuclear reactor. The reactor, built by Afrikantov OKBM, will allegedly have a 25-30 year core life and will not have to be refueled. Steam turbines are supplied by Kaluga Turbine Works. The inclusion of a new generation KTP-6 reactor on the Yasen-M boats is thought to significantly reduce their noise level: the reactor's primary cooling loop facilitates the natural circulation of water and thus doesn't require continuous operation of the main circulation pumps, which are the key noise factor on a nuclear submarine. The only other submarine classes in service with such reactor design are USN' Ohio and Virginia, employing the S8G and S9G reactors respectively. A VSK rescue pod is carried in the sail. According to admiral Foggo, the commander of the US Naval Forces Europe, the Yasen class submarines are "very quiet, which is the most important thing in submarine warfare". It's claimed that Severodvinsk is far quieter than previous Russian SSNs, capable of 20 knots while running quiet, which is equal to the Seawolf-class and inferior only to Virginia (25 knots). Other sources claim that Severodvinsk is capable of even 28 knots in silent mode

Type 093 (Shang Class) Chinese SSN: odin.tradoc.army.mil

THE FOLLOWING IS "APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE"

NOTES [Introduction]

The Type 093 (or Type 09-III, NATO codename: Shang class) is China’s 2nd-generation nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) introduced in the early 2000s. It represents a significant improvement over the 1st-generation submarines in performance and capability. At least six hulls have already been commissioned into the PLA Navy as of 2015, and the construction programme continues. The improved Type 093B (Shang-III class) SSGN is capable of carrying log-range cruise missiles for anti-ship and land-attack. 

The PLA Navy initiated the development of its next-generation Type 093 nuclear attack submarine in the mid-1980s as a successor to its 1st-generation Type 091 (Han class). However, little progress was made until the mid-1990s, when Russia agreed to transfer its nuclear submarine technology to China in exchange for urgently-needed cash. 

[Pete Comment: For 2022-24 a China-Russia barter  situation may apply as the Ukraine War is running down Russian military and financial resources. China's future Type 095 SSN could be benefitting from some Russian tech (eg. Yasen) data]. 

The St. Petersburg-based Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering, one of Russia’s primary centres for submarine design, offered consultation to the Type 093’s development, including overall hull design, engine and machinery quieting, combat system, weapon system, and countermeasures outfit. The existence of the submarine programme was first reported by the Pentagon in 2003. The U.S. Navy intelligence and Pentagon suggested that 2 hulls in the basic variant Type 093 and 4 hulls in the improved Type 093A variant had been constructed by 2017 ((Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China, 2017, page 24.)). 

While the basic variant Type 093 is only comparable to the 1970s U.S. and Russian designs such as the early variant Los Angeles (688) class and the Victor-III class, the improved Type 093A/B is believed to be approaching the later variant Los Angeles class and the Akula class in quietness and overall capability, though they still cannot match the more advanced Seawolf and Virginia class. 

Type 093 Shang-I class Construction of the Type 093 reportedly began in the late 1990s at the Huludao-based CSIC Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. The first-of-class Boat 407 was launched sometime in 2001 to 2002. After a sea trial that lasted for four years, the submarine was finally commissioned by the PLA Navy in 2006. The second hull Boat 408 was launched in late 2003 and commissioned around 2007. The production then stopped and replaced by the follow-up variants. 

The basic variant Type 093 (Shang I class) was said to have been partially based on the Russian Victor III class in design, though the two submarines bear no resemblance in appearance. The submarine is estimated to have 6.000 to 7,000 t displacement when dived. It features a water-drop shape hull, with a pair of fin-mounted hydroplanes and four diving planes. Six (three on each side) flank-mounted sonar arrays are clearly visible on the hull of the submarine. There are six 533 mm bow torpedo tubes (4 above, 2 below), capable of carrying the various anti-submarine/surface torpedoes of wire-, acoustic- and wake-homing, as well as the YJ-82 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM). 

Type 093A Shang-II class This is an improved variant with a redesigned sail with a tapered front (similar to that of the Seawolf class and Virginia class) and all windows removed. Type 093B Shang-III class 

The improved Type 093B nuclear-power guided missile submarine (SSGN) was launched in 2012 and commissioned in 2015. This variant features some redesign to the sail, with the tapered front retained but all windows removed. There is a mysterious hump located immediately behind the sail, which is believed to accommodate a missile vertical launch system (VLS). The VLS is said to be used for carrying and launching the YJ-18 ASCM, the Yu-8 rocket-propelled torpedo, and the CJ-10 land-attack cruise missile (LACM). The YJ-18, a Chinese copy of the Russian 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27 ‘Sizzler’), is capable of attacking surface and land targets to a maximum range of 650 km. The CJ-10, rumoured to have been developed from the Russian Kh-55 (AS-15 ‘Kent’), employs a combined inertial navigation system (INS), satellite, and terrain contour matching (TERCOM) navigation to a maximum range of 1,500 km. These missiles allow the Type 093B to project power ashore over long distance – a capability not previously possessed by Chinese SSNs...

Submarine Matters Will Continue for Free

I have decided to continue Submarine Matters on the Blogger/Blogspot platform.

I don't need money unlike many submarine/naval/military writers. SubMatts, a free database going back to 2007, is also useful for you readers including democratic governments, in several ways.

The main difference, from now is: 

I will no longer reply in the Comments Section below articles.

I found I was commenting there more than (or instead of) writing articles. 

Also only the words in articles are readily retrieved (from the Search Box (top left of website)) and by broader search engines, like Google. Comment section words are largely lost to the Internet "Ether".

But please discuss/argue between yourselves in Comments. 

I have reopened reader access to the Comments Section.

Regards Pete

Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: KSS-3?

At Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: Update 1. of November 24, 2023 https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/11/canadian-patrol-submarine-project.html I asked what were the three decent contenders for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP). This was with reference to likely requirements also set out at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2023/11/canadian-patrol-submarine-project.html:

It is early days with the CPSP team having few staff. This means firm contenders or a shortlist may not exist well into the 2020s. In the meantime here is my top  contender:

South Korea’s (SK’s) Hanwha Ocean (was DSME) KSS-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSS-III_submarine. Hanwha may already know/hope it is top contender having already signed 4 MoUs with Canadian companies and a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Babcock Canada. 

The KSS-3 is the largest (highest surface displacement) sub being considered.

The KSS-3 Batch-1 already has 3 operational subs. Batch 1s are 83.5m long, 3,358 tonnes surfaced, 10,000nm range, with 50 crew. It has Lead-acid batteries (LABs) and a SK developed fuel cell AIP. 

The first (even larger) Batch-2 is under construction, scheduled to be commissioned in 2026. It is 89m long, 3,600 tonnes surfaced, with Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) and AIP. If the RCN (like the RAN) is nervous about the short track record and runaway heat buildup = fire concerns about LIBs compared to the 120 year record of LABs, then LIBs might be considered a minus. However if Canada sees LIBs as a plus then the Batch-2's AIP and LIBs might be the winning combination.

Some in Canada might be attracted to the still currently named "DSME"-3000 export concept sub. But it may run the risk of being a Canada only orphan design, also displacing only 3,000 tonnes surfaced and the current draft concept doesn’t have VLS. 

VLS is seen by the SK and maybe Israeli navies and PLA as attractive in SSKs and essential in Los Angeles (Flights II and III), Virginias, Russian Yasens and emerging SSN designs. 

SK, unlike Japan (which might be offering Taigei-class subs to Canada) has a long history of supplying major weapons systems to foreign customers. SK’s Hanwha Ocean (then DSME) built and supplied 2 x Type 209 variant/highly improved Nagapasa-class subs in 2017 and 2018 to Indonesia. Hanwha also supplied the parts of a third Nagapasa-class for assembly by PT PAL, Surabaya Indonesia, commissioned 2021.

Consideration of other submarines for Canada and Poland might occur after I shift my attention to a new blog - on WordPress.

Regards Pete

Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: Update 1.

At the moment South Korea, in the shape of Hanwha Ocean (was DSME) appears to be the most determined contender for the long term (15-20 years) Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).

In late 2023 Hanwha signed MoUs with four Canadian companies (CAE, J-Squared Technologies, Modest Tree and Des Nedhe) https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/hanwha-ocean-signed-mou-with-four-canadian-firms-for-patrol-submarine-project/

Earlier, in June 2023, Hanwha Ocean signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with (project advisory and designer?) Babcock Canada aimed at the CPSP. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/madex-2023/2023/06/babcock-and-hanwha-ocean-sign-a-technical-cooperation-agreement-for-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-project/

Canada, over the next 15-25 years is seeking, likely with reference to the following requirements:

- between 6 and 12 submarines (probably the RCN submarine service would prefer 12). Four subs is far too few for Canada's 3 Ocean (Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic) Navy.

- buying new, not secondhand

- that are foreign built (to contain costs and reduce project risk and reduce cost and to meet deadlines (eg. avoiding the build locally Australian habit).

- of existing design, preferably already at sea or under imminent completion. Some minimal alterations might be acceptable as no sub is chosen off-the-shelf. Existing design minimizes technical risk and avoids all of the spares shortages, upgrade problems and other downsides of operating an orphan submarine chosen at a concept submarine stage. Canada is very mindful of Australian downsides eg. that produced the orphan Collins-class and almost led to the orphan Attack-class.

- large (probably 3,000 tonnes (surfaced) at a minimum).

- for oceanic long range, long endurance, probably with 50+ crew

- also large to desirably be able to rise through 1 to 2m of ice to permit (battery recharging and 2-way communications) operations as far north as possible. See genuine importance of rising through ice at Timothy Choi's and Chris Spedding's long joint papers at https://basicint.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/22_66_BASIC_Canadian-Submarine-Recapitalization-within-the-context-of-Climate-Change-report_03.pdf  and https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Starshell-March-2023-LR.pdf

- diesel-electric (the US clearly did not apply AUKUS Pillar 1 (SSN) reasoning to Canada or Canada didn't want to pay a whole-of-life $Half Trillion for an 8 x SSN Project), 

- proven already at sea AIP (no promised immature new technology AIP). This may exclude France's and Spain's new technology not-yet-at-sea AIP systems.  

- if no AIP then Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) might be considered. But any significant LIBs caused fires on subs in the 2020s may rapidly exclude LIBs from  consideration.   

- SSNs are not an option. The US and UK significantly did not invite Canada to the AUKUS Pillar 1 (SSN) Arrangement and the US has a long history of opposing SSNs for Canada 

I think there may be three decent contenders for the CPSP that I'll write about next week. Can you guess which 3 subs?