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.