Malaysia's two Scorpenes - delivered 2009

Malaysia's first submarine, KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, docks in Port Klang outside Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Thursday, September 3, 2009.

-

PETE'S COMMENT

Malaysia has a modest submarine force consisting of two Scorpenes: KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, commissioned in January 2009 and KD Tun Abdul Razak, commissioned in December 2009. Malaysia occasionally has low level naval confrontations with the Indonesia Navy over territorial boundaries and seabed oil rights (see my post about latest Ambalat flare up). Malaysia would also be sensitive about Singapore's growing submarine fleet (including Singapore's order in late 2013 of 2 HDW 218SGs). Malaysia is also in competition with countries in the northwest Pacific for resources in the South China Sea. To meet competition from Indonesia Malaysia's two Scorpenes are based at Sepanggar, Sabah. 

Scorpenes, like Australia's Collins, are attack submarines, with no capability to search for or recover crashed aircraft. Unlike most countries in the region Singapore has a highly specialised Submarines Support and Rescue Vessel (SSRV) the MV Swift Rescue. SSRVs are very expensive and rarely used - which explains why so few small to medium size navies have them. 

ARTICLE

Agency France Press (AFP) reported http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzOLpsNfZQGbmInY3d2ZrMrvpDFg
September 3, 2009:

"PORT KLANG, Malaysia — Malaysia's first ever submarine was delivered Thursday to colourful fanfare and a royal visitor, in an acquisition that the government said "completes" the country's navy.

The European-made Scorpene submarine [with 32 crew] is the first of two commissioned from French contractor DCNS and Spain's Navantia for a combined total of 3.4 billion ringgit (961 million US dollars). The second submarine is scheduled for delivery in late 2009.

"With the arrival of the first submarine, our navy is now complete as it has an air component, a sea component and now a submarine component," Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told reporters.

The KD Tunku Abdul Rahman, named after the nation's first prime minister, sailed into a grand reception at the navy's deepwater Pulau Indah base in Port Klang, an hour's drive from the capital Kuala Lumpur...

Malaysian King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin was given a tour of the submarine, which set sail 54 days ago from the French port of Toulon, where the vessel was built. [journey included 32 days submerged, 12 days surfaced and 10 days of docking at ports].

Naval officials said the submarine would be based in Sabah state, on Borneo island, where it will undergo fine-tuning before it is deployed in search and rescue and military exercises.

The two submarines have long attracted controversy since the deal was signed in 2002.

Malaysia's opposition claims that a 540-million-ringgit commission was paid to a close associate of now-Premier Najib Razak in brokering the deal..."
-
Pete

India's Chronic Submarine Upgrade Problems

An Indian Navy Kilo class diesel electric submarine under repair at Mazagon Docks, Mumbai.
-

Most countries bordering the Indian Ocean remain fairly silent about their submarine services, but, as indicated by the following India has openly described ongoing deficiencies:

"Kobus" at Naval Open Source Intelligence located the following article. January 13, 2009 IBN Live reported:

"New Delhi: Over-emphasis on indigenous work is hurting India's readiness for war.
As India's vital submarine arm struggles with dangerously low numbers, a top-end submarine has been taken out of the fleet for a repair programme.

The shocking part is that the repair schedule will last 10 years. Such upgrades have previously been done overseas in two years. One could compare this to a submarine being laid comatose, at least in the case of the INS Sindhukirti, a frontline Kilo class attack submarine of the Indian Navy.

It's been in dry dock at Vizag for a refit programme for close to five years now. It seems that Hindustan Shipyards, the government-owned contractor with little experience in submarine upgrades, will take at least another five years before the submarine can be put to water again.
Unavailable to the submarine-starved Navy for 10 of the 30 years of its useful life, the Sindhukirti is as good as a write off.

"How viable is a surgery which requires a healthy patient to be in a hospital bed for one-third of his life? That is the approximate analogy for the mid-life upgrade for this submarine INS Sindhukirti, the Dry Dock Queen. Four submarines are stuck in such protracted upgrades. Not surprisingly, just nobody is accountable," said our defence correspondent.

Russia took just two years each to upgrade six similar Kilo class submarines for the Indian Navy.
The government insists that it is now building national capability with inhouse upgrades.

"That kind of expertise did not exist in India before and this is for the first time that we are trying it out here. Instead of sending them to Russia all the way, this one is being offloaded to Hindustan Shipyards. There are some problems in their procurement procedures. It takes a little longer than is expected," said Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Suresh Mehta.

What this trade-off on time does to India's military readiness is anybody's guess. It took a recent [ Comptroller and Auditor General of India] CAG report to blow the lid of the Indian Navy's worst kept secret: that the vital submarine arm faces a crisis of numbers.

The shocking revelations of the report were:

- Only seven of India's 16 submarines are available for combat at any time.

- 10 of these 16 ageing submarines will be due for phase-out by 2012.

- To maintain current numbers, one submarine needs to be inducted every two years but there's been no addition since 2001.

- India's only submarine-making facility in Mumbai was kept idle for 12 years.

- The gaping hole in India's naval capability is showing."

Comment

PointSingularity86 reported earlier on this issue in his blog here .

-

Similar delays in upgrades have haunted Australia's Collins Class Submarine program and perhaps for the same reasons. While indigenous construction and upgrades promote self sufficiency and national security they inevitably involve a lengthy learning curve denotes inefficiency, high extra costs and extended "down time" for individual subs.

-

Pete

Temporary Rundown in India's Submarine Numbers

Scorpene underway

-

From The Times of India, August 29, 2009, comes this brief report of the weakening condition of India submarine strength vis a vis China and Pakistan:

"Scorpene project will cost Rs 2,000cr more NEW DELHI: India will have to soon shell out well over Rs [ about o.02 US$ X 2,000 crore X 10 million = US$400 millio?] more to French armament companies if it does not want its ongoing mammoth Rs 18,798 crore project to construct six Scorpene submarines at Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) in Mumbai to come to a grinding halt.

The Scorpene project, under which the first submarine was to roll out by December 2012, with the others following one per year thereafter, is already running two years behind schedule, as was first reported by TOI.

"Our submarine force-levels need to increase...there is no doubt. We have lost a lot of time (in the Scorpene project),'' says Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta.

Admiral Mehta, who retires after 42 years of service on August 31, has reason to be worried. India's underwater combat arm will left with only nine out of its present fleet of 16 diesel-electric submarines -- 10 Russian Kilo-class, four German HDW and two virtually obsolete Foxtrot -- by 2012.

The number will further dip to just five in 2014. This when Pakistan is now looking to induct three advanced Type-214 German submarines, equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) to enhance their operational capabilities, after inducting three French Agosta-90B submarines, with the last one PNS Hamza even having AIP.

China, on its part, has a staggering 62 submarines, with around 10 of them being nuclear-propelled, and at least one Xia-class and two Jin-class being SSBNs (nuclear submarines with long-range ballistic missiles).
MORE
-
Comments
-
As reported earlier in this blog India has one indigenous submarine launched and two more under construction. However these will only become operational in around 2012 to 2016. The Akula II Chakra/Nerpa (and another envisaged) will be training only till at least 2011 even if India effectively acquires it from Russia.
-
India wishes to maintain clear dominance over Pakistan but the temporary decline in quantity and quality of India's submarines means that dominance might only be slight until around 2014.
-
China is different with a strong lead. It will take perhaps 10 years for India to reduce that lead. With the three smaller and two larger submarines of the Arihant Class India is aiming to build a substantial strategic nuclear deterrent aginst China. At the same time the Arihants are likely to be multitasked as attack submarines [torpedo tubes fitted?] to destroy other Pakistani and Chinese submarines and surface shipping.
-
Pete

Brazil's Nuclear Submarine Program

Brazil to build four conventional and one nuclear Scorpene (click to enlarge)

Professor Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written the following article Brazil's Nuclear Submarine Program in his blog the (ex) washington realist:

Brazil is going to try and develop an indigenous capability to build and deploy nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Ambassador Paul Taylor (of the US Naval War College) asks in the current issue of [US Naval Institute] Proceedings, "Why does Brazil need nuclear submarines?" A related question is how does this help or hinder U.S. interests?

[Brazilian] President Lula sees the ability to master this complicated military technology as an important national interest, recently noting that "Brazil will be one of the select group of nations that possess this indispensable capability for effective deterrence." The Brazilian Navy sees having nuclear submarines as part of a toolbox of being able to play a greater role in regional and global efforts to patrol the seas and keep lines of communication open.

Taylor quotes Rear Admiral Antonio Ruy de Almeida Silva, who argues that Brazil has to take much more responsibility for protecting its maritime patrimony:

"The Navy has actually strongly defended a larger participation in the effort to protect the maritime area under national jurisdiction, suggestively named Amazania Azul (the Blue Amazon). Keeping control of this maritime area is a big challenge that grows as sea-related activities, connected to the exploitation of living and non-living resources, increase as happens with oil exploration in the Brazilian continental shelf."

And as Brazil increases its cooperation with South Africa and India for patrolling and securing the South Atlantic and South Indian Oceans, having such capabilities increases the clout of this regional organization.

What's the U.S. interest? Do we want more states to have advanced capabilities that previously were largely an American preserve? Would a nuclear submarine capability make Brazil more assertive against U.S. interests? Or can burdens be shared or passed along to other states? In other words, is this a positive step which shows that an emerging great power like Brazil is preparing to shoulder greater responsibilities for the defense of "international public goods" like the sea-lanes?

Comments
-
Discussion of France's Scorpene construction offer, Brazilian and Argentinian nuclear developments, and the future Australian submarine were all contained in a Australia in the Indian Ocean post Will Australia Go the Nuclear Powered Submarine Route? of March 3, 2008.

Development of nuclear propulsion is a huge undertaking - more complex, I think, than producing an enriched uranium bomb. A naval reactor normally needs uranium enriched to bomb grade so the enrichment requirements are similar.

If Brazil builds up the advanced level of nuclear expertise to build naval reactors and stockpiles the necessary bomb grade uranium then nuclear weapons for Brazil are a tempting next step, particularly for warheads on land attack missiles deployed by nuclear propelled submarines.

Argentina, which has a moderately advanced nuclear sector (less so than Brazil) would feel nervous having a nuclear propelled or armed neighbour and would wish to follow Brazil's lead.

Under subheading "The Submarine Project" of his article Ambassador Taylor advises:

"Visiting Brazil in December 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed a "strategic partnership" agreement providing for transfer of technology to Brazil for construction there of four diesel-powered Scorpene attack submarines as well as joint development of the hull for a nuclear submarine. An announcement by the Brazilian Ministry of Defense emphasized that Brazil would develop all of the nuclear part."

The US ordinarily resents foreign powers meddling in Latin American arms industries especially on a large scale and nuclear level. But the US may have made an exception with France (newly cooperative concerning NATO) and a partial counterbalance to Russian influence (mainly Venezuela) in Latin America.

The stipulation that France not help with the Brazilian reactor should taken with a pinch of salt. Development of hull for a nuclear sub involves many technical pointers as to the dimensions and other characteristcs of a reactor. The French technicians and engineers assisting spend most of their careers building nuclear submarines and reactors for France. A huge amount of verbal advice can be given - avoiding some of the need for written technical instructions - that would so embarrass the Americans.

From the American point of view its better that France a friend help proliferate nuclear submarines (as France helped Israel build the Bomb) than have the Russians do it instead.

A Brazilian nuclear submarine (extra smooth, of course ;) also provides a political opening (excuse) for Australia to develop its own - with French or even US help. Perhaps Australia might build 6 nuclear subs after the first six large conventional subs built in 2020-30.

Professor Gvosdev implies that Brazilian nuclear subs may operate in the Indian Ocean in time.

Wouldn't proliferation of nuclear subs to middle ranking powers, like Brazil and Australia, complicate the job of the Indian Navy?
-
Pete