Minister Andrews' overseas visit to submarine competitors.

Australian Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews

---

I originally wrote  on April 15(using a report of April 10 in the Kieler Nachrichten) concerning Minister Andrews meeting the German and French Defence Ministers and visiting Kiel and Cherbourg. Now there is ministerial confirmation (April 21).

Minister Andrews' itinerary:

April 23, 2015 - Meeting German Defence Minister Dr Ursula von der Leyen, then Visiting TKMS-HDW submarine yard at Kiel, Germany. 
Confirmed in Kiel's newspaper, 
-  Kieler Nachrichten, article of April 10 (Windows 7 or 8 or right-clicking mouse can translate into English). and
-  Kieler Nachrichten April 23 indicated Ministers Andrews, when at TKMS-Kiel, was given a presentation on the HDW 216. He was also given information on submarines TKMS has been constructing for Israel (which are Dolphin 1s and 2s) and Egypt (which are Type 209s]

April 24, 2015 – Meeting French Defence Minister Jean-YvesLe Drian and DCNS senior executives. .  
-  French website of April 21 reporting Minister Andrews visit to Chsubmarine . 
-  Kieler Nachrichten April 23 reported Minister Andrews was to be given a presentation by DCNS, Cherbourg shipyard on the "Scorpene." This may suggest DCNS is not calling its offer to Australia the "SMX Ocean" of "conventional Barracuda" but Scorpene-4000 (probably 4,000 ton (submerged?).

Ministerial Confirmation:

Ministerial Media Release on all this came on April 21.
Ministerial Media Release of April 23 of April 23 visit to German Defence Minister then TKMS-HDW at Kiel
Ministerial Media Release on April 24 of April 24 visit to  French Defence Minister and to DCNS at Cherbourg.

The Ministerial Media releases were all informative and signify that Minister Andrews is serious about finding out what Germany-TKMS and France-DCNS have to offer in Australia's future submarine competition. This systematic openness is a welcome change compared to the  practice of Ministers prior to 2015.  

Minister Andrews spent ANZAC Day (April 25) at commemoration services in France and Belgium.

Still unknown if/when Minister Andrews is visiting Japan, including Tokyo to meet Defence Minister Nakatani then KHI and MHI submarine yards at Kobe, Japan

Accompanying Minister Andrews may be the Australian Navy, Head Future Submarine Program, a senior executive of Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and perhaps a senior executive of ASC.

Pete

Thailand may eventually purchase two submarines

What appears to be a commissioning ceremony for two of Thailand's Matchanu class submarine in 1938. They were 370 tons surfaced.

---

Model of a Matchanu class submarine (courtesy thaigunship). Submarines, up to 1945, carried many objects on the hull and often had upturned bows - all leading to slow submerged speeds.

For the latest on Thailand's on-again, off-again interest in submarines see Submarine Matters Does Thailand Need Submarines At All? August 12, 2015.

---

On March 25, 2015 the Bangkok Post reported a rise in Thai interest in submarines: "A plan to buy submarines for the Royal Thai Navy is on again with strong backing from Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon who wants Thailand’s fleet to be on par with neighbouring countries. [The Thai Navy may want] two diesel-powered submarines with displacement of 2,400-3,000 tonnes. The source said the Chinese-made Yuan class is favoured by the committee due to its specifications. The "U-class" [do they mean U-209 class?] from South Korea and Germany also pinged the sonar screen." 

Comment - the possible budget reported elsewhere equal to US$1.1 Billion would indicate a total  upfront price for two modern medium sized submarines. 

BACKGROUND

Japan sold four Matchanu class submarines to Thailand in 1938. Thailand decommissioned these submarines in 1951. The early decommissioning was due to the Thai Government's reaction to a failed coup in 1951. The Government dismantled Navy influence - in part by stripping the Navy of its submarines.

In recent years Thailand has been evaluating several small-medium submarine types with a view to restarting a submarine service that actually operates submarines. An interesting entry in http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/thailand/ssk.htm states:

"It has been standard practice with the Thai submarine program ever since it was originally floated in 1959, proposals are floated and subsequently suspended and revived several times until cancelled. It was revived (and canceled again) in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2003, and 2009."

Thailand has several reasons for its current evaluation of submarines. The reasons include the growth and modernisation of navies surrounding Thailand. Nearby countries have developed submarine services, including India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam and China. 

Bangladesh recently ordering two submarines from China and possible Burmese interest in Chinese submarines provide additional reasons for Thailand to buy submarines. Submarines provide a potent asymmetric defensive weapon for countries with small navies. Submarines also contribute to a country's and its Navy's prestige. The Royal Thai Navy has apparently established a submarine squadron at Sattahip naval base which has  a German-made Rheinmetall submarine simulator, staffed by RTN officers who have received submarine training in Germany, as well as South Korea, over the past two years.

Most submarine building countries have offered to sell two or three submarines to Thailand, including:

- France-DCNS (Scorpene?)

- South Korea-DSME (Chang Bogo class, Type 209 derivative) or alternatively the unbuilt "HDS-500RTN" based on the unbuilt "KSS-500A" (510 tons, crew of 10) which is in-turn a descendant of Germany's HDW Type 207 (Kobben) small defensive submarines.

- China - the "S-26T" which may be a version of China's Yuan class or used Romeo-Ming class?

- Germany-TKMS-HDW Type 209/1400mod and also the Type 210mod 
  
- Russia's improved Kilo class (Project 636)

- Sweden? (mysteriously silent). Perhaps two (further) refitted Sodermanland class? (currently Sweden's HMS Södermanland and HMS Östergötland?).

COMMENT

Thailand has been hesitant in acquiring submarines possibly seeking leases, used subs or good credit terms. This is in a business environment where the Thai economy is growing more slowly than anticipated. 

Thailand appears to be seeking smaller than standard submarines. If used submarines are considered the remaining German built Type 207s (Kobben class) and Chinese Romeo-Ming class are likely to be obsolete and rusty as they have passed or are nearing their 30 year use-buy dates. Design and construction of modern 500 ton submarines are likely to be expensive as they are smaller than standard - requiring higher than usual design costs for low production numbers. As Thailand has had no submarines for more than 60 years there is no easy answer to what Thailand needs - no simple replacement program. The German simulator may increase the chances that Germany or South Korea (using German designs) might eventually win any Thai order. 

I'm wondering about the silence on Sweden. With Sweden's recently announced pre-order of two A26s this may free-up Sweden's two Sodermanland class (currently Sweden's HMS Södermanland and HMS Östergötland) for further refitting and sale to Thailand. This is noting there is a historical precedent where Sweden effectively created Singapore's submarine service using 4 Challenger class (refitted Swedish) submarines. 

The question "what does Thailand want?" remains. Thailand may need small submarines for shallow, littoral waters in the Gulf of Thailand and Andaman Sea yet Thailand may also need medium sized submarines for longer range/endurance. Subs with AIP may be on Thailand's list of needs.

SOURCES 

My earlier article Bangladesh, Philippine, Burma and Thailand Submarine Issues, January 2, 2015.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/thailand/ssk.htm 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/thailand-eyes-submarine-fleet/

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150115000149&cid=1101

http://rpdefense.over-blog.com/2015/03/hyundai-offers-submarine-hds-500rtn-to-thailand.html

http://www.janes.com/article/48467/tkms-offers-type-209-and-type-210-submarines-to-royal-thai-navy

Pete

Sweden's Submarine Export Behaviour

The Gotland Class sub leased to US.

An instructor for Collins Class cryptologic systems explains his job.

---

For the latest on this issue see June 11, 2014’s Australia's Future Submarine - Swedish vs German Claims http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/australias-future-submarine-swedish-vs.html . It is unclear whether Germany or Sweden hold the strongest intellectual property rights to the Stirling AIP.

With all the controversy of Saab, TKMS (and related HDW) in the news its timely to recall Sweden's submarine export activity since the 1980s. The article below of July 23, 2013 is from the Nuclear Threat Intiative (NTI) http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/sweden-submarine-import-and-export-behavior/ :

Sweden Submarine...Export Behavior

July 23, 2013

Imports  Sweden is an exporter of submarines and does not import them.

Exports

Kockums

Producing submarines for the Swedish Navy since 1914, the Swedish shipyard Kockums did not begin exporting its vessels until the 1980s, in large part due to Sweden's policy of neutrality in international conflicts. This neutrality position, in turn, has led some countries to view Sweden as an unreliable supplier. [1] Sweden's change in export behavior in the 1980s has been attributed to increasing development costs, which were amplified by its strategy of frequently introducing new classes, but only producing a few boats in each class. To retain the ability to develop new boats continuously without facing increasingly prohibitive costs, Sweden decided to export its vessels to achieve economies of scale. [2]

In 1999, Kockums was incorporated into Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), [Pete's Comment - With the end of the Cold War Sweden could no longer support Kockums through Swedish defence purchases. Kockums' export activity (including the Collins) was inadequate. Hence the Swedish government permitted Kockums to be taken over by HDW in 1999. TKMS then took over HDW-Kockums in 2005.] and as of 5 January 2005 is part of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). Kockums offers three submarine classes for export:

• Gotland-class: hybrid diesel-electric/AIP patrol submarines, with an AIP system based on the Stirling engine;
• Västergötland-class: diesel-electric patrol submarines;
• Collins-class: diesel-electric, ocean-going, long-range patrol submarines, designed for the Australian Navy.

Submarine Table for Sweden

Sweden's Submarine Exports

In 1987 Kockums was granted a contract to supply the Australian Navy with six Collins-class vessels, and formed the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) to construct the submarines locally. Kockums held 49% of ASC's shares, while the Australian government controlled the remainder. When Kockums became part of HDW in 1999, the German company was interested in acquiring ASC as well, and nearly reached an agreement to do so with Australian authorities. [3] However, the Australian government instead decided to acquire Kockums' shares of ASC with the intent of subsequently selling the shares as a complete package in order to maintain access to the U.S. technology used in the Collins-class submarines. [4] Subsequently, Kockums and the Australian government became embroiled in a legal battle over payment for welding repairs made to one of Australia's submarines, and intellectual property rights for future upgrades. [5] The dispute was finally settled in 2004, but the Australian government has had difficulties privatizing ASC and has yet to sell the company. [6]

Kockums attempted to market an export version of the Gotland-class to Thailand, but the deal fell through as a result of financial difficulties experienced by the Southeast Asian country. [7] The company was also a finalist for a sale to India, a deal HDW later secured. [8] More success was achieved with Singapore, which acquired a total of four modernized former Royal Swedish Navy Sjöormen-class boats (Challenger-class in Singapore) in the 1990s, and ordered two Västergötland-class vessels (Archer-class in Singapore) in November 2005. [9] The two Västergötland-class boats, which first entered service with the Royal Swedish Navy in 1986 and 1987, underwent modernization with AIP systems and conversion for tropical water operation before being delivered to Singapore. [10] The contract also includes a logistics package and training for the crews by the Swedish Navy in Karlskrona. [11] In December 2011 the first submarine, the RSS Archer (ex-HMS Hälsingland), was commissioned into Singapore's Navy. [12] The RSS Swordsman was commissioned in April 2013. [13]

Kockums also refits deployed submarines with its Stirling AIP system via a plug-in. [14] For example, it refitted a former Swedish Navy Näcken-class submarine with AIP and leased it to the Danish Navy from 2001 to 2004. [15] In July 2005, Kockums announced that it would produce Stirling engines for the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF), which decided to include AIP on all new boats. [16] While Kockums is supplying the engines, Kawasaki Heavy Industries is assembling the AIP systems. [17] The first submarine of the JMSDF equipped with Stirling engines, the Soryu (SS-501) was laid down in March 2005, launched in December 2007, and commissioned in March 2009. Four more Soryu-class boats have since been commissioned at a rate of roughly one per year. [18]

In the early 2000s, Kockums developed the Viking concept, a hybrid diesel-electric/AIP (Stirling) patrol submarine initially intended to replace aging units in the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian navies. [19] Kockums initially cooperated on the vessels with Denmark's Odense Steel Shipyard using Danish, Norwegian and Swedish funding. However, Norway opted out of the project in 2003, while Denmark decided in June 2003 to cease funding the project in its 2005 to 2009 Defense Plan, throwing Viking's financing into question. [20] In June 2004, moreover, the Danish parliament decided to stop operating submarines altogether. [21]

Although the failure of the Viking project ended the prospect of cooperation with other Nordic countries, Kockums received a contract to design a new submarine, called the A26, for the Swedish Navy. [22] The A26 features the Stirling AIP system and will be designed with advanced stealth technologies for performing intelligence missions. [23] Kockums has yet to begin construction, but if it follows through on the order for Sweden the company could market the A26 for export as well.

See http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/sweden-submarine-import-and-export-behavior/ for endnote references.

Pete

Corporate Battle Between SAAB and TKMS Over Kockums

The reality of corporate battles (Cartoon courtesy of CartoonStock.com).
---------

For the latest on this issue see June 11, 2014’s Australia's Future Submarine - Swedish vs German Claims http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/australias-future-submarine-swedish-vs.html . It is unclear whether Germany or Sweden hold the strongest intellectual property rights to the Stirling AIP.

The current corporate confrontation between SAAB and TKMS underlines the need for Australia future submarine project (SEA 1000) to be (reasonably) technically self reliant and flexible enough to tolerate changes in the threat-strategic environment, corporate and broader international economic environment. Australia needs as much autonomy as possible in intellectual property, spare parts and test facilities. 

Connect the current escalation in corporate conflict between SAAB and TKMS over Kockums with:

- Kockums loss of its traditional Singapore customer to HDW – see Singapore Buying Two HDW 218SG Submarines – Sweden’s Loss of December 3, 2013http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/singapore-buying-two-hdw-218sg.html , and

- German’s Sinking Kockum’s Swedish Sub-Maker of November 13, 2013 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/germans-sinking-kockums-swedish-sub.html .

ARTICLE

Birgitta Forsberg of affars Valdern (translated from Swedish) of March 12, 2014 reports http://www.affarsvarlden.se/hem/nyheter/article3811470.ece :

"Thyssen Krupp ask FMV stop Saab"

"Kockums German owners ThyssenKrupp ask FMV stopping Saab from recruiting top people from Kockums.

n a letter to Lena Erixon, Director General for Defence Materiel Administration, [known as]  FMV, asking the head of the German Thyssen Krupp Marine Division, Dr. Hans Atzpodien FMV stopping Saab from recruiting key personnel from Kockums.

Thyssen Krupp wholly owns Kockums but has for years thwarted Kockums from exporting submarines because the Germans also owns the German shipyard HDW where they would rather control the business. Recently, FMV enough of the Germans' delaying tactics when it came to ordering a Swedish Kockums and instead asked Saab to do a feasibility study on Sweden's future submarines.As a result of the Saab has recently recruited top people from Kockums and also went yesterday, Tuesday, issued a press release that the company seeking employees for its shipping division.

The letter writing Atzpodien addition to the Thyssen-Krupp

§  - will support the export of the planned Swedish submarine A26

§  - is willing to negotiate a contract to sell the A26 to Sweden

§  - is willing to offer Swedish authorities influence at board level in Kockums or at least greater  transparency in company

§  - want to invest in to let Kockums produce a small submarine (up to thousand tons)

§  is willing to develop Kockums

§  - wants Kockums and HDW cooperate closer without infringing on the patents FMV own

His Atzpodien and Lena Erixon has a meeting scheduled for 18 March and it's ahead of the meeting that Atzpodien written the letter.

But the offer of influence has come before, and that the Germans want the Swedes to focus on small submarines, while the German shipyard HDW may take the major orders, are also known. According to a source, who sees the whole thing as a way to get Kockums out of the way as a competitor, there is no bigger market for small submarines. In other words, it is doubtful whether FMV soothed by letter. 

The whole thing is complicated by other agreements between Kockums and FMV, including for servicing submarines." ENDS

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

COMMENT

Joakim Wohlfeil on March 14, 2014 sent the following comment to Australia by the Indian Ocean:

"Breaking news update ;-) The Submarine war between Sweden and Germany escalates !!

SAAB has succeeded to recruit the full technical management team at Kockum, including the manager for the submarine division Per Nilsson and are now actively seeking to recruit the remaining ca. 230 engineers. (http://www.affarsvarlden.se/hem/nyheter/article3811470.ece ["Thyssen Krupp ask FMV stop Saab" see above].

According to local press in Malmö the engineers being feed up with ThyssenKrupp are joining SAAB en masse. As the Swedish government are the formal owners of the construction patent and drawings of all Swedish submarines SAAB could actually perform a hostile take-over without paying anything to ThyssenKrupp. (and this seems to happened with the blessing of the Swedish government).

2 days ago, ThyssenKrupp formally protested to the Swedish government ([the Defence Materiel Administration known as] FMV) and demanded they should stop SAAB´s hostile recruitment campaign.

In return Thyssen Krupp has offered.

- ThyssenKrupp will not block the procurement process of A26 and approve that it will be built in Sweden

- Thyssen Krupp will allow Kockums to market A26 for export (however it´s not said if the condition that HDW can see and approve Kockums export offerings will be lifted)

- Repeating the offer Sweden besides of A26 will be the new centre for small submarines (an offer that has earlier been rejected by Kockums employees and the Swedish government).

However, if Sweden suddenly seems to sit on the upside, ThyssenKrupp can answer with obstructing the upgrades and service of Swedish naval crafts that is contracted to the still ThyssenKrupp owned Kockums industriers (TKMD)"

Pete

Australia's Future Submarine Selection - Navantia in trouble.

From UK Daily Mail article "Too heavy: The [S-80 Isaac Peral Class], a new, Spanish-designed submarine is more than 70 tons too heavy, and officials fear if it goes out to sea, it will not be able to surface. Officials are pictured next to the engine of the vessel last November [2012]" also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navantia#Controversies

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

AUSTRALIA'S FUTURE SUBMARINE SELECTION - SEA 1000

It is not taken as given that Australia's new government, which came into being in September 2013, will totally agree with submarine decisions and defence white papers released by the previous government (2008-2013). Previous attitudes and statements regarding HDW, DCNS and Navantia might not be the same. Its probably true to say the following documents illustrate the thinking of the previous government - unless reconfirmed as policy by the new government:

- Defence Capability Plan 2009: Sea Project SEA 1000  http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html/sea/Sea1000.html [now looking a bit out of date]

- Prime Minister, Minister for Defence, Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – Next stage of future submarine project announced 3 May 2012 
 http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/05/03/prime-minister-minister-for-defence-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-next-stage-of-future-submarine-project-announced/ ["...approved the release of Requests for Information to three overseas submarine designers (DCNS, HDW and Navantia),..."]

- Prime Minister, Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – 2013 Defence White Paper: The Future Submarine Program 3 May 2013 http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2013/05/03/prime-minister-minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-2013-defence-white-paper-the-future-submarine-program-2/ ["The Government has now taken the important decision to suspend further investigation of the two Future Submarine options based on military-off-the-shelf designs in favour of focusing resources on progressing an ‘evolved Collins’ and new design options that are likely to best meet Australia’s future strategic and capability requirements. The Government has also taken the important decision to use the United States AN/BYG-1 combat system [see http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/index.cfm which indicates integration with US weapons] as the reference system for future design work. "]

Australia's subject to change 2013 Defence White Paper indicates a mixture of companies is more likely than with the pre 2013 options of HDW, DCNS and Navantia off-the-shelf. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Electric Boat and Thales are all likely to become/are involved. Outside of the US and Europe - the builders of Korea's projected KSS-III (using much HDW technology) and Japan's current Soryu Class propulsion system (with the Kockums Stirling AIP) might also be outside contenders. 

SEA 1000's official parameters suggest that the following are prime considerations: Australian Federal Government money for South Australia for manufacturing industry development; business; union; jobs; and electoral interests . SEA 1000's expected  in-service deadline is now apparently around 2035.

NAVANTIA

The attitude to Navantia may be different given Navantia's 2013-2014 problems with the S-80 Isaac Peral Class. The following article from the UK Daily Mail, June 6, 2013, is rather extreme in tone but still troubling: Spain's £1.75billion submarine programme is torpedoed after realising near-complete vessel is 70 tonnes too heavy because engineer put decimal point in the wrong place http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336953/Spains-1-75bn-submarine-programme-torpedoed-realising-near-complete-vessel-70-tonnes-heavy.html : "A £1.75billion Spanish submarine project has run aground after officials realised that the vessel is more than 70 tonnes too heavy - because an engineer put a decimal point in the wrong place...A former Spanish official has described the mistake, which has led to fears that the submarine might not resurface if sent to sea, as 'fatal'....The [S-80 lead vessel] Isaac Peral, the first in a new class of diesel electric submarines, was almost complete when the problem was noticed....Spain will now pay US Navy contractor Electric Boat £9million over three years to assess the issue and carry out the work required to correct it, according to the Spanish Defence Ministry."

Navantia's solid performance in being the major contractor for Australia's under construction Hobart Class Destroyers and Canberra Class LHDs may be allowing Navantia strong influence over Australia SEA 1000 selection process. Navantia may be considered a safe vender but its lack of experience in completing a submarine itself of ever exporting a submarine itself may be significant problems. 

Navantia was involved with DCNS in building Agostas and Scorpenes some years ago but Navantia did not build them by itself. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/scorpene/

HDW and DCNS are the firms with the greatest export experience and deepest knowledge base in conventional subs. HDW and DCNS should therefore be the front-runners in Australia S-80 future submarine selection. Inter-operability with the US is important hence its is highly desirable that these firms would be permitted by the US to incorporate the US SSN equivalent combat system and weapons fit.

The Navantia S-80 apparently incorporates the US combat system-weapons fit and is working with US company Electric Boat - which are strengths. Australia also worked or works with Electric Boat in building-maintaining the Collins. However the S-80 falls down in not being completed and not yet exported. As indicated above the S-80 has been significantly delayed due to basic design faults.  The S-80 is reportedly 70 tonnes overweight - hence suffering major balance problems - leading to a delayed in-service of 2017 - and cost overruns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navantia#Controversies.

The 70 tonne-balance error may be an outcome of inexperience or undue haste in developing and building the S-80.

Navantia's involvement with DCNS in submarine building apparently ended in 2010. Hence pre-2010 perceptions in Australia's Defence Department about Navantia for SEA 1000 appear not as valid in 2014.

Navantia apparently has never completed a submarine by itself or exported a sub by itself. As things stand this may make Navantia a higher risk sub maker than Kockums was in the 1980s for the Collins Class sub(?)

Note that in the 1980s Kockums was chosen over the more proven HDW at the last minute - and the rest is history. Now we have never completed a sub by itself Navantia in SEA 1000 contention.

If Navantia develops a demonstrably efficient S-80 and gets some export orders for subs experience before 2025 then it might be less high risk and less expensive a choice.

COMMENTS ON THIS GENTLESEAS ARTICLE

As this post was carried over from an old link it contains no visitor Comments facility.

However by other means MHalblaub commented January 20, 2014:
The Spanish S-80 and the Japanese submarines have something in common. The AIP of both submarine types is a licensed build by DCNS or Kockums. 

I doubt that Kawasaki acquired a license to retail AIPs and France will never sell the AIP to Australia without a submarine. 

There are just two western companies which have a good record for licensed building of submarines: DCNS and HDW. Kockums failed last time.

--------

Pete's reply January 21, 2014:

Hi  MHalblaub 

The S-80's AIP is neither DCNS MESMA nor Kockums Stirling but a bioethanol-processor (provided by Hynergreen from Abengoa) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-80-class_submarine#Propulsion . Meanwhile the Soryu does indeed utilise Kockums Stirling.

I don't know if Kawasaki could export its AIP as its never exported a sub or parts to my knowledge. Agree that France DCNS is unlikely to export its MESMA alone.

I agree that DCNS and HDW have the best record for licensed building.

Navantia might need two decades or more of providing licence building and exporting different sizes of subs to catch up with DCNS and HDW. 

Its unknown whether Navantia joint ventures with Electric Boat would improve Navantia's performance. see references to Electric Boat's assistance here.

-

Pete

India's Decision To Field A Wide Range of Submarines

The Arihant ATV - testbed for India's future SSBNs and SSNs with the range to approach Chinese targets in greater open-ocean safety.
-
The following are excerpts from an article from Nuclear Threat Initiative. The article provides some details about India's Submarine types, capabilities and objectives.
India Current Capabilities - Updated October 2010

"The Indian Navy currently operates 16 submarines, which are based at Visakhapatnam on the east coast and Mumbai on the west coast. An additional west-coast base is also being constructed at Karwar.
[- Ther backbone of the fleet is formed by ten Kilo-class Type 877EM - or Sindhugosh-class - units that are being progressively retrofitted to accommodate the Klub/3M-54E Alfa cruise missile system.
- India also operates four Shishumar-class Type 209/1500 vessels designed by ...HDW.
- two aging Foxtrot-class boats, which are currently being used for training purposes.
- In addition to the 16 active submarines, however, India is also
- in the process of constructing six Scorpène-class boats that are being indigenously built at the Mazagon Dock in Mumbai, albeit under the supervision of French technicians.
- India expects to float a tender on six more diesel submarines within the next year...requests for information are already believed to have been issued to DCNS, for additional Scorpenes; HDW in Germany, for the Type 214; Russia for the Amur 1650; and Spain's Nevantia for the S-80A.]...WHOLE ARTICLE"
-
PETE'S COMMENTS
-
The wide range of foreign sourced submarines (Russian and western) certainly reflects India's evolutionary non-aligned status.

Reasons for the wide selection probably also reflect political motivations - not just the search for subs with the best performance at the time.

Wide selection probably also reflects India aim to transfer technology to its ATV project. The more foreign designs and testbeds (including Nerpa/Chakra) the better.

However wide selection also brings with it technical and managerial inefficiencies, leading to delays and cost overruns.

A special problem for India is the Straits of Malacca and other narrow waters obstructing Indian submarine access to China. India may well be restricted to the short-medium range K-15 as its SLBM for 20 years. Placing China's northeasterly major cities in SLBM range may require Indian submarine positioning in the South China Sea or Western Pacific. Chinese submarines, including China's more advanced (than India) SSNs, may block the narrow straits to China. China may also have deployed under-water sensing (SOSUS type) arrays in these straits - warning of Indian submarines approaching. [Seabed or thethered sensing is even more opaque a subject than the daily movements and confrontations of submarines in the oceans around us!]  All this may mean Indian submarines may need to get in adequate range of China by moving through relatively open waters via the southern Indian Ocean-south around Australia's Southern Ocean-South Pacific to China. This long voyage (if unrefueled) would require nuclear endurance - one reason for India's interest in SSBNs and SSNs.
-
"Invalid" commented on January 31, 2011 3:47:00 AM

"SOSUS networks in Straits of Malacca is useless or not feasible because of heavy traffic in there to generate enough noise in the straits for a sub to sneak in."

At 16.50 January 31, 2011 concening possible capabilities of Integrated Undersea Surveillance Systems (IUSS) Pete commented

"Hi Invalid

You appear to have fairly determined views. What is your database?

Modern digital equipment permits descrimination between ship, submarine and natural sounds. Such equipment can also filter out much distortion/noise.

However sound/sonic sensing is just a small part of the spectrum of sensors (probably) available to seapowers and their allies. It is significant that the US no longer describes its network as merely "SOSUS" - rather the broader term Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) has been more recently used.

[If one looks at the sophistication of visual spectrum networks, for example closed circuit TV (CCTV) in Beijing or London, one can get an idea of the network centric possibilities of IUSS. CCTV can detect a particular face amongst millions and follow that person across a city.] In addition to sound IUSS may well include visual spectrum, nightvision, magnetic anomoly, active sonar, infrared sesors, robotic undersea vehicles used to follow slower SSKs in particular and pressure/ripple sensors.

Undersea sensors would be just one component of a sensor network against submarines which for India would include "spy" satellites, sigint ground stations, surface ships, SSKs, aircraft and tracking information from allies (possibly the US, Russia and Singapore etc). If a Chinese SSN entered the Indian Ocean all these sensors and alliances would watch and probably handover intensively. [Information sharing may well occur amongst those countries that see China as a potential threat.]

The funneling dictated by the geography of the Strait of Malacca would assist in triggering or "scripting" the many sensor platforms available.

Regards

Pete