The SkyGuardian (aka Sky Guardian) might turn out to be cheaper than relying on sonobuoys only dropped from manned P-8s. See this DefenseNews report of
January 18, 2021.
Australia
has selected the Sky Guardian UAV. Presumably the US military would also buy it, if its a successful sonobuoy
dropper, fixed sensor and (maybe) weapons carrier.
Reading between the lines it appears Taiwan is behind the beatup (over the last week) that Chinese nuclear submarines are newly, or in the last 12 months, berthed at China's Yulin/Longpo Naval Base Complex. Yulin/Longpo, China's southernmost submarine base, is on China's Hainan Island (see Map below).
To give newly a bit of US credibility Taiwan seems to have ascribed the information to US site, GlobalSecurity. See two such reports at VOA here and "WW3 fears..." here.
This beatup appears specifically timed as a "crisis" for the incoming Biden Administration.
The problem is the widely respected, accurate strategic website, Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reports, on its Type 094 SSBN nuclear submarine page :
"In late 2007 or early 2008, the first TYPE 094 deployed to Yulin Naval Base on Hainan Island in the South China Sea."
Meanwhile the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief July 21, 2017 advised:
"Most recently, geospatial analysis conducted by AllSource Analysis has recently revealed four Jin-class (Type 094) ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) at Longpo [Yulin complex] Naval Base on Hainan Island...". (see image below)
Photo of a Type 094 SSBN (nuclear submarine) at Yulin/Longpo Naval Base complex, Hainan Island from the 2017 report. (Photo courtesy Google Earth with one image going as far back as 2013, via Jamestown Foundation)
---
UPI's Elizabeth Shim has reported on January 13, 2021, in part:
South Korea is
developing a new submarine-launched ballistic missile [SLBM] and has
tested the weapon at the Agency for Defense Development's Anheung test site
[just southeast of
central Seoul], according to a local press report.
Newsis
reported [January 13, 2021] the SLBM was test launched from a ground platform
and next-step underwater tests are scheduled for March [2021]. South Korea's military
also conducted other SLBM tests in 2020 "several times," both on land
and underwater, the report said.
The report
of Seoul's domestic SLBM, described as a modified version of Korea's
short-range, solid-fueled Hyeonmoo-2B
[see Submarine-launched Variat sub-heading 800km range with 500kg
payload] ballistic missile,
...South
Korean military sources did not deny domestic SLBM development on [January 13,
2021], according to Newsis. Sources told the news service Seoul has
"secured hi-tech power" to "support peace on the Korean
Peninsula, by building up strong military power," the report said.
In March [2021] Seoul is expected to carry out an underwater SLBM test by deploying a 3,000-ton Dosan Ahn Changho-class [KSS-III] submarine. The South Korean submarine is equipped with six vertical launch tubes that can eject SLBMs..."
Here is a newly (days ago?) declassified SECRET/"NOFORN" (ie. US Eyes Only) document titled "A Free and Open Indo-Pacific". It is a US national security briefing prepared by White House staff.
The document contains a Cover Letter and US National Security Council further action description that were missing when the "US Strategic Framework..." 000174 Attachment was released by the White House on January 5, 2021. The Cover Letter refers to some documents that may be still classified, such as "U.S. Campaign Plan for Countering China’s Malign Influence in International Organizations." Much in the Attachment is worth discussing.
The White House released the whole document on January 13, 2021 to Australia's ABC "7.30 Report". The US aim may be mainly to show Trump/the White House did have a working Indo-Pacific alliance strategy after all.
Reading the document reveals the alliance objective is mainly to contain China.
Russia is America's greatest nuclear opponent in the Indo-Pacific, with a nuclear capability vastly larger than China's and North Korea's put together. This includes Russia's Pacific Fleet SSBNs, other SSBNs on call, central Russia based ICBMs and nuclear bombers that threaten the US mainland. Yet the only mention of Russia in the document is: “Russia will remain a marginal player in the Indo-Pacific region relative to the United States, China, and India." Trump's personal relations with Putin have possibly downgraded strategic reality.
India, Japan, Australia, North and South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines and Thailand are all mentioned in this document. It is useful to use the search function in it - to identify country mentions.
Here is an Australian ABC News summary of the document.
An excellent account from the Australian perspective by Joshua Mcdonald at The Diplomat (paysite).
A few hours ago:
"Protesters overpowered Capitol Police and stormed the building. "The president invited us here and we're not leaving,” another protester shouted."
Does anyone support Trump now?"
TKMS continues to refine its Type 212CD E design bid in
consultation with the Dutch Navy. There will be ongoing design changes even if
the Dutch Navy makes a bid decision (versus Saab and Naval Group) in the early
2020s.
Following this earlier article on the future 212CD E (for Common Design Expeditionary) being marketed by TKMS. Anonymous has kindly reported (with some editing by Pete for improved English) the following:
Based on the TKMS Type 216, proposed for the Australian Navy's future submarine competition (finally won by Naval Group) [1], diesels for the 212CD E are considered as follows:
[1] To achieve improved efficiency and reduced R&D costs the 212CD E might be based on 216 as well as Type 212A. Concerning the, so far, not built large 216, with
specs at this link, the artwork right at the bottom, (at "1/3", "2/3" and "3/3") is particularly
interesting. Also see 2 cutaways below, of the 216, from this article noting the Vertical Multi Purpose Lock behind
the fin/sail.
[2] The future Netherlands’ submarine requires better safety and redundancy like the existing Walrus class submarine, which has 3 diesels engines. A baseline 212A design would never be accepted by the Netherlands because the 212A has only one diesel.
[3] Reduced magnetism for the hull and for other equipment is an important
feature of the 212CD E. Non-magnetic stainless steel would be used for
pressure hull material. In this context, reduction of magnetic mass of other
equipment (such as diesels) would be an objective. The latest MTU 12V4000 diesel is
suitable for the 212CD E.
[See this MTU document which recommends the MTU 4000 “The standard battery charging unit can easily
be customized with project specific generators and mounting system for
individual shock, acoustic and other Naval requirements – including magnetic
signature reduction.” ].
The HY100 grade pressure hull of the Walrus submarine is
made of non-magnetic steel. But the Walrus’s 3 x SEMT Pielstick 12PA4V200SM diesels seem to be magnetic.
[4] The control room is always set under the bridge for submarines with periscopes. This places design constraints on a submarine. But as the 212CD E will instead use photonic masts there are not the same design constraints. To achieve a short exhaust pipe to reduce exhaust resistance and improve diesel efficiency the best location of diesels is under the bridge. (See 2:51 in this Youtube ) The red rectangles may be a vertical launching system (VLS). If the Green square in front of propulsion motor (green) represents diesels, intake and the exhaust system, this will crowd/complicate the VLS system. Though this arrangement of diesels is suitable for a submarine with a single hull, it might be not suitable for a mixed single/double hull submarine.
[5] Again see 2:51 in this Youtube. Maybe the green square in front of propulsion
motor (green) means AIP fuel cells and not diesels. Heavy diesels are mounted in a double suspension manner (diesel – suspension- floating deck – suspension-
hull) which needs enough space under the diesels and a low center of gravity for the diesel position.
PETE COMMENT
As can be seen above, the interim design of the 212CD E raises many questions. Even if the Netherlands chooses a 212CD E bid or competing Saab or Naval Group bid in the early 2020s there will be further changes to nail down a final design.
By Anonymous (edits by Pete)