Showing posts with label AIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIP. Show all posts

Tuesday 19 February 2019

Invincible : Singapore's Type 218SG Submarine

 
 
Launching of the RSN's first Type 218SG submarine in Kiel, Germany. Photo : TKMS
 
  

Singapore's Type 218SG submarines have now been named. The first-of-class has been christened RSS Invincible at the launching ceremony in Kiel, Germany on 18th Feb 2019. The names of the sister submarines has also been revealed as RSS Impeccable, RSS Illustrious and RSS Inimitable. Invincible and Illustrious are rather common names for warships especially those of the Royal Navy. In the past three centuries or so at least 12 ships share these two names alone. Impeccable though is a name I like better. There has only been one other warship named Impeccable in history - a WWII minesweeper of the US Navy. The last name Inimitable really stumbled me. I had absolutely no idea what it meant until I did a quick search. It meant not capable of being imitated or matchless - a perfect name for the most advanced submarine of the Republic of Singapore Navy. So far I do not believe there is another warship with a similar name.

 


The Invincible-class Submarine



The TKMS / HDW Type 218SG is a new class of diesel-electric attack submarine custom designed for the RSN. Its design combines the best features from TKMS's Type 212A and the much larger Type 216 with special emphasis on operations in tropical climates and littoral environments typical of the seas around Singapore.

The Type 218SG has a surface displacement of 2000 tonnes and a submerged displacement of 2200 tonnes. It measures 70 meters in length and has a beam of 6.3 meters. It is equipped with TKMS's proprietary fuel cell air-independent propulsion system which means it has a much longer underwater endurance compared with non-AIP capable boats. Its combat system is jointly designed by Atlas Electronik and ST Electronics. The latest MINDEF news release indicated that it will have 8 torpedo tubes. It will have a compliment of 28 officers and ratings. Beyond this, there is little else revealed in the public domain regarding the other features of the Type 218SG.

The cost of the first two boats ordered in 2013 was said to be €1.6 billion, inclusive of logistics and training. A follow-on order of 2 additional submarines was announced in 2017. These 4 new submarines will eventually replace the existing four ageing submarines operated by the RSN one for one. More on the Type 218SG could be read in my previous blogs here and here.


 
The Type 218SG Submarine screen-grabbed from the RSN
promotional video.




Cut-away diagram of the Type 218SG SSK. Source MINDEF Singapore



RSN's Shopping Spree



In a departure from its usual ultra-cautious, perhaps conservative and value-seeking approach to weapons and platform acquisition, the RSN has seemingly disinhibited itself this time and had ordered a total of four brand new submarines in a matter of four years!

Bearing in mind that all of its previous submarine purchases were much older boats already decommissioned by the Swedish Navy, the initial buy involved just one Challenger-class ( Ex-Sjoormen ) submarine in 1995 followed by three more of the same class in 1997. In 2005, a rare opportunity for the RSN to expand its submarine fleet presented itself when the Swedish Navy decided to retire two of its Vastergotland-class submarines. They were eventually acquired by the RSN and were retro-fitted with AIP engines to become the Archer-class.

The act of buying brand new submarines from Germany in 2013 therefore represented a paradigm shift as the RSN's submarine force matured over the years. It is no longer learning and exploring about submarine operations in old boats but instead would be entering a new phase of capability enhancement with the latest and the best technology that the market could offer. Not only that, it will also have the submarines customized to its exact operational requirements, with special emphasis on safety and a high degree of automation.


 Is this latest submarine procurement by the RSN surprising? Well, yes and no ...



Invincible-class is highly customized for the RSN. Source : MINDEF


 

Untested New Platform



What was surprising to me was the speed of procurement, especially the placement of the second order before the first one was completed. This is potentially a concern when dealing with a new design that has yet to prove its worth. Nobody would dispute that TKMS has a wealth of experience when building conventional diesel-electric submarines. In fact, it could be considered the leader and is probably the top exporter of submarines with its Type 209 / 212 /214 series of SSKs.

However, the Type-218SG although based on reference designs of the Type-212A and the Type-216, is at the end of the day, still a new and unproven custom design. Many things could look good on paper but still go terribly wrong after being constructed. Remember the Royal Australian Navy's ill-fated Collins-class fleet submarines? Kockums AB was an experienced designer and builder too ... . I know, I know, Singapore did not insist on building them locally which is a smart decision that significantly lowered the risks of failure. Lowered but not removed.

I would have thought that the RSN would take delivery of the first two Type-218SG boats and would have made a thorough validation operationally before deciding on a follow-on order for more. It now seems that the top brass is in a hurry to get things done, perhaps for reasons that are yet unknown to us.




Singapore's Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen in front of the
Type-218SG Model at IMDEX 2017. Source : MINDEF




Model of the Type-218SG at IMDEX 2017. Source : MINDEF

Arms Race In The Western Pacific



On the other hand, this rapid renewal of the RSN's submarine force is not at all surprising given the geopolitical situation in the Western Pacific. Partly triggered by China with its aggressive island grabbing and area denial antics in the South China Sea and East China Sea, the countries around the Western Pacific Rim are all ramping up their military capabilities. After all, it had been estimated that about 800 vessels would be added to the fleets of the regional navies between now and the year 2030. China alone would account for the lion's share of these new warships. The PLAN seemed to have an endless supply of advanced frigates, destroyers, submarines, amphibious landing ships and now even aircraft carriers are being commissioned into service. Although Singapore is not a claimant in any of the disputed South China Sea territories, its survival as a maritime trading nation is entirely dependent on open and assessable sea lines of communication such that the constant flow of goods and materiel is not interrupted. Maintaining a strong submarine fleet is probably the most cost effective way to deter any foreign power from unilaterally imposing sea denial antics against legitimate international marine traffic.


 Transformation To An All-AIP Force


The Royal Swedish Navy was the first to have an all-AIP submarine fleet when they upgraded two of  their ageing A-17 Vastergotland-class submarines to be AIP-capable, re-commissioning them as the Sodermanland-subclass between 2003 and 2004. Together with three newer A-19 Gotland-class SSKs which were designed with organic AIP-capabilities, the RSwN had achieved a world's first.

The German Navy later achieved the same distinction by 2011 as it retired its older Type-205 and Type-206A boats retaining only its fleet of six AIP-capable Type-212A submarines.

Similarly, the RSN will be on track to operating an all-AIP submarine force in the near future with the delivery of the first two Type-218SG submarines and the foreseeable decommissioning of the last two non-AIP Challenger-class boats that are currently still in active service.


 
RSS Swordsman ( Archer-class ) at Changi Naval Base during IMDEX 2017.
The ship in the background is JMSDF's helicopter destroyer DDH-183 JS Izumo
which was there for the International Maritime Review. Photo : RSN 




 Pre-Commissioning Unit Invincible



I know this is USN lingo for a ship under construction prior to official commissioning but it is a convenient term to use. Now that the RSS or should we say PCU Invincible has been launched, what next?

The launching of a ship or boat is a great milestone in its construction but there will still be lots of work to be done. There will be sensor suites and weapon suites integration by the various vendors and then there will be sea trials and acceptance trials before delivery and final commissioning into active service.

If all goes according to plan, RSS Invincible would be delivered sometime in 2021 while the second submarine would be delivered in 2022 and the rest from 2024 onwards. In the mean time, the four existing submarines of the RSN, RSS Archer, RSS Swordsman, RSS Conqueror and RSS Chieftain will have to soldier on for a few more years, silently safeguarding the sea lines from beneath.

You can watch the official MINDEF video on the launching ceremony of the RSS Invincible below.





 

Here's a link to an interesting blog about the possible capabilities and missions of the Invincible-class SSK.



Minister for Defense Dr Ng Eng Hen at the launching ceremony
of RSS Invincible. Source : TKMS




The champagne for christening the boat. Source : TKMS 
 
 
 
 
Minister for Defense Dr Ng Eng Hen and wife Prof Ivy Ng. TKMS 
 
 
 
Minister for Defense Dr Ng Eng Hen with wife Prof Ivy Ng
and Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Lew Chuen Hong. TKMS
 



Minister for defense Dr Ng Eng Hen. TKMS
 
 

Vice Admiral Andreas Kruse ( Chief of Navy ) of the
Federal German Navy at the launching ceremony. TKMS
 
 

MOU on collaboration in new technologies like additive manufacturing
and data analytics for naval application between DSTA and TKMS. Source TKMS
 
 
 
 
DSTA and TKMS MOU signing. Source TKMS
 
 

MOU Signing Kiel 18 Feb 2019 Dr Luis Alejandro Orellano and
Dr Rolf Wirtz ( CEO TKMS ) and Tan Peng Yam ( CEO DSTA ). TKMS
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 












Monday 6 July 2015

Royal Thai Navy To Buy Chinese Submarines : Another Thaitanic Mistake? Updated

Introduction





The Navy Jack of Thailand. Source : Wikipedia


In July 1992, the Thai government commissioned the Spanish shipbuilder Empresa Nacional Bazan ( now Navantia ) to construct the helicopter carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet. Its design was based on the Spanish Navy's light aircraft carrier the Principe de Asturias which came with a 12 degree ski-jump and it was supposed to operate a fleet of ex-Spanish 8 AV-8S Matador V/STOL and S-70 Seahawk helicopters.

Its originally envisaged roles as the flagship of the Royal Thai Navy (RTN) included patrols and force projection around the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zones of Thailand, supporting amphibious operations, disaster relief and humanitarian missions etc. The cost of its construction was reported as USD 336 million then, and would be equivalent to approximately $580 million in today's currency.

Unfortunately for the RTN, the Asian Economic Crisis of 1997 struck just as the Chakri Naruebet was commissioned. The Thais were left without any funds to operate the helicopter carrier or maintain its air wing of Matadors. For most of the time the ship never left its home port of Sattahip Naval Base. Occasionally it was used as a ferry to transport the Royal Family.


Royal Thai Navy's aircraft carrier Chakri Naruebet in a picture dated back to 2001. A AV-8S Matador can be seen on the flight deck. Source : Wikipedia


By 1999, there was only one Matador still operational, and they were eventually written off all together by 2006, leaving the helicopter carrier without any operational fixed-wing assets. The prestige of being the first Southeast Asian country to own an aircraft carrier brought with it a heavy financial burden that the Thais could ill afford then and now. There was no real need to have an aircraft carrier in the first place when a Land Ship Dock (LSD) type of vessel could serve a similar purpose of supporting amphibious ops and Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HADR) ops. In fact the RTN subsequently bought exactly such a vessel from ST Marine of Singapore, the Endurance-class LSD. The story of the Chakri Naruebet is cautionary tale of what not to do in the procurement of military hardware and to this day it has been a white elephant and has been nicknamed the Thaitanic, presumably because of its physical size and its huge price tag.



The Type-039A Yuan-class SSK of the People's Liberation Army Navy. At US$335 million each, a deal too good to miss?


Fast forward to 2015, in the past few days the internet has been abuzz with news that Thailand has more or less committed itself to buying three Chinese conventional diesel-electric submarines for USD 1.1 billion. Is this really such a good deal that Thailand cannot refuse or is it another mega-mistake in the making?

Do The Thais Need Submarines?


The naval brass would certainly like to convince anyone that they do need submarines. They NEEDED them and they needed them bad. So bad in fact, that in July 2014 they had setup their submarine squadron complete with submarine training school at Sattahip Naval Base without yet having acquired any submersible assets. The squadron is staffed by naval personnel who have previously been sent to Germany and South Korea for submarine training and has a Rheinmetall submarine command team trainer simulator. IHS Jane's reported that the facilities cost USD 23 million to set up.

To be fair to the Thais ( and to anyone else as well ), modern naval warfare is multi-dimensional and the undersea component forms an increasing important aspect which cannot be neglected or ignored. That alone is good enough reason for the RTN to aspire to own submarines.

Also, of the five original core members of ASEAN ( Association of Southeast Asian Nations ), Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, yes, even tiny Singapore, have already been operating submarines for decades. Only Thailand and the Philippines have yet to catch up.

On top of that Thailand also has an extremely long coastline to govern, from the western side facing the Andaman Sea to the eastern side around the Gulf of Thailand next to the resource rich but volatile South China Sea.

Of course we also know that the best platform to hunt a submarine is another submarine. So if I were a Thai naval brass I would definitely want to have subs. The short answer is YES. Whether the budget allows for it is another matter.

Can the Thais Afford Submarines?


This could be a much harder question to answer. They probably could if they budgeted their defense spending wisely. The military-run government had proposed a 2016 defence budget of USD 6.1 billion, equivalent to about 1.5% of GDP and constituting about 8% of all government spending. This represented an increase of 7% over the 2015 defence spending.

After much deliberation, the Thais had decided on the Chinese offer of three diesel-electric attack submarines for a grand total of USD 1.1 billion. This would constitute about a sixth of their annual defence spending, a significant portion by anyone's standards. They would have to seriously tighten their belts in other areas to afford this. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese had also offered to finance the deal like what they usually do when trying to sell their high speed rail systems overseas. It would definitely be more palatable if the payment is spread in installments over a period of 7 to 10 years.

In retrospect, had the Thais not embarked on their disastrous Rice Subsidy Scheme from 2011 to 2014 which cost the Thai government an estimated USD 15.3 billion buying rice from farmers at above market rates, the RTN could have bought about 45 Chinese subs ( at $335 million each ) with that money.

Well maybe they don't ever required that many submarines, but how about 6 subs and a squadron of 12 Lockheed Martin F-35B V/STOL stealth fighters ( $200 million each ) for the Thaitanic, and best of all still have about $10 billion to spare ( minus a few dollars to thermal proof the deck, if necessary )? Mind boggling figures, I would say!

Are Three Submarines Sufficient?


Thailand has about 3200km of coast line split between the eastern seaboard of the Gulf of Thailand and the western seaboard facing the Andaman Sea. The two coasts are not directly connected as the Malayan Peninsula sits right at the southern end of the narrow Kra Isthmus and blocks direct maritime access between Thailand's two coastal regions. Unless a canal is dug linking the Andaman Sea to the Gulf of Thailand, to sail from Thailand's east coast to the west coast would require going around the Malayan Peninsula and Singapore, a round trip of some 1200 nautical miles that could take 3 or 4 days at an average transit speed of 12 knots.



Sattahip ( Gulf of Thiland ) to Phuket ( Andaman Sea ) Distance and Time


If Thailand acquires three submarines, they will likely all be based at Sattahip Naval Base, the RTN's headquarters as well as the submarine squadron's HQ. Assuming the usual availability rates of one boat on station, one in preparedness and one on maintenance, the RTN will at anytime only have one submarine on patrol and it has to be either in the Gulf of Thailand or in the Andaman Sea. This submarine cannot be at two different places at the same time. Should a crisis situation develop at the other Area of Operations it would be at least three to four days of sailing away. Clearly not desirable.

So ideally from the operational point of view the RTN should have six boats, three for the Gulf and three for Andaman. It is much cheaper this way compared to digging the fabled Kra Canal, with an estimated cost of USD 28 billion, the pipe dream of one too many Thai politician.

Choices, Choices


In June 2010, due to budgetary constrains, the German Navy unexpectedly decommissioned the last six of its Cold War era Type 206A diesel-electric submarines originally slated for retirement between 2011 and 2015. The following year, two of the submarines were then offered to the Thai Navy at a bargain price of USD 220 million. The Thais agreed in principle to buy the submarines but the subsequent political turmoil resulting from change of government meant that they ultimately let the offer lapse. The Type 206As were rather small, displacing about 500 tonnes submerged, but modernised machines with littoral and special forces capabilities, two key features which made them ideal for the shallow waters around Thailand.



Revell Type-206A Box Art. A total of 18 Type-206 SSK were built in the early seventies for the West German Navy. 12 were subsequently modernized in the nineties and re-designated the Type-206A. All have since been retired from service by the Bundesmarine. Cost : $14.76 for the Revell plastic model kit and $220 million for a pair of the real deal.


Buying a pair of the used Type-206A would actually serve the RTN very well as they are compact and are not too complicated, the ideal training platform for a fledgling submarine squadron to quickly accumulate operational experience. They are also much more budget friendly compared to the other options available to the RTN. After this stint the RTN may eventually consider upgrading to bigger and more modern submarines, perhaps even new-builds. Sadly this option is no longer available.

Then there was the Korean offer of two Type 209-1200 SSKs for about USD 1.3 billion. As we know, South Korea has an advanced, world-leading ship building industry and they have capitalized on that advantage to licence build the Type-209 SSK from HDW ( now ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems ) not just for their own navy but also for export. In fact they were awarded a contract to construct three Type-209-1400 SSKs for the Indonesian Navy in 2011 for USD 1.07 billion. The Korean Type-209s are also known as the Chang Bogo-class. They are modernized versions of the original Type-209-1100 boats and have stretched hulls and indigenously developed torpedo countermeasure systems and may even accommodate an Air Independent Propulsion system in the 1500 tonne version. They are light-years more advanced than the second-hand Type-206As but also cost a lot more, so much more that the Thais decided that they could not afford them.

They also reportedly turned down South Korea's offer of two of their 20 year old Type-209s for 15 billion Baht or about USD 500 million. Old hulls like these need modenisation works ( obviously not for free ) and would probably last for another decade at most after which they would have to be retired and fresh funds would be needed for new boats.


Pacific Ocean (July 6, 2004) Republic of Korea Submarine Chang Bogo (SSK 61) heads out to sea during exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC). U. S. Navy photo


The Thais then knocked on the doors of the Swedes, eyeing the Gotland class SSK, but the Swedish Navy do not have anymore surplus boats to sell, after divesting two of their four Type-A17 Vastergotland-class to Singapore, they were left with 2 upgraded A17s and 3 Type-A19 Gotland-class SSK, barely enough to cover their backyard. Their new A26s were delayed by the tactics of ThyssenKrupp who at that time were at the helm of the national boat yard Kockums AB, further dashing any hopes of a Swede deal.

The Chinese Option


Thailand has been a fan of Chinese weaponry for quite sometime. The Royal Thai Army deploys Chinese armoured personnel carriers, multiple launch rocket systems, combat engineer vehicles, rocket propelled grenades and various types machine guns and assault rifles. The RTN similarly has in its inventory four Chinese Type-053 Jianghu III guided missile frigate ( the Chao Praya-class ), two modified Type-053 ( the Naresuan-class ), various Off-shore Patrol Vessels and an auxillary ship. So they are no stranger to Chinese technology and their idiosyncrasies.

The Chinese had actually offered the Thais their Type-039 Song-class SSK as far back as 2007 but the Thais favoured the German offer of the Type-206As then, only to renege on their decision later.


The original Type-039 Song-class SSK with its distinctive stepped conning tower. This or perhaps its improved version, the Type-039G was offered to the Thais in 2007.


With all the failed attempts to acquire submarines in the past, the Thai Navy has in 2015 redoubled their efforts with a new round of proposals from vendors. And it seems that the Chinese have hyped up their submarine offer, throwing in three of their newest Type-039A Yuan-class diesel-electric SSKs, probably with air-independent propulsion ( AIP ) for $1.1 billion in total. The price is said to be inclusive of a eight year weaponry and parts support package, and training. They even try to seduce the Thais with the promise of significant technology transfer.

Navy chief Adm Kraisorn Chansuvanich said that a 17 man naval committee comprising of unbiased, smart and modern officers tasked to select the submarine evaluated offers from six nations including those from Russia ( Project 636 Kilo-class ), Germany ( ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, Type 209-1400 Mod and Type-210 Mod ) , Sweden ( SAAB, A-26 ), China ( Type-039A ), Korea ( Hyundai, HDS-500RTN ) and France. They voted 14-3 in favour of the Chinese package because it was value for money, getting them three submarines where as the same budget will only get them two units from the other suppliers, without the weapons. It was also mentioned that the Chinese submarines were equipped with superior weaponry and technology, and that they were able to stay underwater longer compared to their rival bids. This I interpret as a hint that the Chinese offer will be fitted with AIP systems.

Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Prawit Wonsuwon has firmly extended his support for the project on the back of real or perceived territorial treats saying that the submarine force is a deterrence and the future of Thailand's security. He would forward the procurement decision to the Cabinet for approval once the opportunity arises. With a junta government in power and a large part of the Cabinet members being made up of generals and admirals, we know that this approval procedure rubbish is just a formality. The submarine purchase is as good as a done deal. Had a democratically elected government been in power, the outcome might be entirely different as there are always some who question the justification for a submarine force in the light of the white elephant Thaitanic. In fact, General Prawit has been quoted to say that if the submarines were not bought by the current government, the navy might not get the chance to acquire them again. He knows, that sly fox!

The entire deal is worth THB 36 billion ( USD 1.1 billion ) and the procurement will proceed through a government to government agreement. It would require an unspecified amount of funding from Thailand's defense budget in the next 7 to 10 years. Once the Cabinet approves the budget, the submarines are expected to be commissioned over the next 6 to 7 years. So it's back to the simulator and Chinese language class till then.


The Type-039A Yuan-class SSK / Type-041 / S-26T


The Type-039A is the successor of original Type-039 Song-class diesel-electric submarine. It evolved from the Type-039 but has little resemblance to it and is frequently referred to as the Type-041 SSK. It is the first Chinese submarine with AIP and is supposed to be quiet and have advanced features like anechoic tiles. It has a teardrop shaped hull and a large sail suggesting of a design stemming from Russia's Kilo-class SSK which China also owns. The original People's Liberation Army Navy ( PLAN ) version has a length of 75m, a beam of 8m and a draft of 8.2m. Its displacement is 2300 tonnes surfaced and 3600 tonnes submerged. Its armaments include 6 x 533mm torpedo tubes which can fire Russian or Chinese torpedoes as well as the YJ-8X series of submarine launched anti-ship missiles. The endurance is said to be 6500 nautical miles at 12 knots. Maximum speed is 12 knots surfaced and 20 knots submerged. Maximum diving depth is in the region of 300 metres.

There is also an export version designated the S-20 first revealed at IDEX 2013 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The S-20 appears to be a scaled down version of the Type-039A displacing 1850 tonnes surfaced and 2300 tonnes submerged. It comes without an AIP system but can be an option should the client choose. And now it seems we have the S-26T version with AIP which was offered to Thailand.


The PLAN Type-039A diesel-electric SSK with AIP. Still in brown waters?


The Type-039As have been in service with the PLAN since the year 2006. 13 boats are currently in active service with a total of 20 planned. As with most Chinese military hardware, very little information about the Type-39A is publicly available even though it has been around for close to a decade. Confusion with nomenclature is the norm, and even the reliability of existing information is sometimes uncertain.


Waterline view of the Type-039A.


Booster stage of the YJ-82 submarine launched anti-ship missile as it pops out of the water immediately after launch.

Apart from Thailand, the Bangladeshi Navy is in negotiations for acquiring two Type-039As and the Pakistani government had in April this year approved the purchase of 8 Type-039A submarines from China, representing a huge export success. China has not been a significant submarine exporter in the past, selling a few units now and then mainly to close communists allies and pariah states that could not have obtained weapons from the international market otherwise, like North Korea.

Submarine ( Non-nuclear ) Construction In China


It had began with the assembly of the Whisky-class conventionally powered submarine with kits provided by the Soviets in the fifties. Starting from the late sixties, China progressed to licence build the next generation Romeo-class SSK, known locally as the Type-033. They then started producing the indigenously designed Type-035 Ming-class SSK in the seventies, though it is somewhat similar to the Romeo-class. Following their purchase of Russia's Kilo-class and improved Kilo-class SSK, the next generation Chinese SSKs, the Type-039 and Type-039A again have uncanny similarities with the Kilo. One cannot help but suspect that out of sight of the international rivals and clients there must be a lot of reverse engineering going on inside the state owned Chinese yards. And that's nothing new. The Chinese have a " indigenously designed " copy of almost everything they had previously owned, and even of things that they didn't own. Would you trust a pirate?



Sukhoi SU-27? Wrong. This is the Shenyang J-11 ( 歼-11 / Jian-11 ), the Chinese clone. Source : Wikipedia



The Real Deal : The Thomson-CSF ( now Thales ) Sea Crotale R440 SAM on the French frigate Tourville circa 1990. Source : Wikipedia


The Unaurhorised Copy : The Hongqi-7 or HQ-7 SAM on the PLAN Type-051B destroyer Shenzhen Source : Wikipedia

Chinese Workmanship


If you have worked or dealt with the Chinese before, you would have quickly noticed that the average Chinese worker cares little about workmanship and product quality. They are more concerned about meeting deadlines and getting their job done in as little time as possible, never mind if they are churning out rubbish in the process. Their idea about quality control is - as long as it works, it's good enough! They don't give a damn if it breaks down three days later. So if the guy making your shoe bag has this kind of attitude, do you think the worker at the state owned shipyards would fare any better??? Well maybe a little better, because a $5 shoe bag is not in the same league as a $335 million submarine, but you trust the communists?

The Thais should have known better as they found out the hard way with their China build Chao Praya-class frigates in the early nineties. These are actually the Chinese Type-053 Jiangkai III FFGs build to the then latest Type-053H2 standard. Although they cost only a quarter of what a frigate would normally cost if purchased from European or American suppliers, they came with multiple defects and deficiencies including exposed wirings that needed to be rewired, limited damage control capabilities with defects in the fire suppression system and problems with the water-tight locks. Considerable efforts was spent to rectify the defects.

Smart Choice Or Another Disaster In The Making?


The Chinese have alienated many of they traditional friends and trading partners in Southeast Asia by their increasingly aggressive pursuit of their territorial claims in the South China Sea, even to the extend of land reclamation and building airstrips at Fiery Cross Reef. They are desperate to improve ties with Thailand, one of the rare countries in Southeast Asia not directly involved in the territorial disputes with China. This they have certainly achieved by clinching the submarine deal.

Keeping in mind the potential problems with quality issues for Chinese products, would the Thais have done better by selecting submarines from other countries? After all, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys! SAAB's A-26 submarines look particularly attractive at the SEK 8.2 billion ( USD 948 million ) price the Swedish government paid for two boats. These are the latest state-of-the-art Swedish submarines with AIP and European quality assurance. Thailand already has a good defense relation with the SAAB Group with their previous purchase of the JAS-39 Gripen fighter and the SAAB 340 AEW aircraft. Why not capitalize on this?

Hind sight is always 20/20 but I can't help but point out that had the Thai Navy bought a squadron of submarines instead of an aircraft carrier in 1992, they would by now have almost 2 decades of experience operating submarines. They really cannot afford to make another mistake like the Chakri Naruebet, because at $1.1 billion, the stakes are much higher this time.


Update


It seemed that on the very day that this article was published ( 15th Jul 2015 ), the Thai Government had already changed their minds about the purchase of the S-26T submarines from China. The postponement was announced following high levels of criticism questioning the rationale behind the acquisition and the quality of the submarines the government intended to procure. Defence Minister Prawit said that when the Thai Cabinet next convene to assess the procurement, he would not yet seek endorsement for the acquisition. A stronger mandate was necessary. " For now the navy must inform itself and educate itself on whether the submarines are worth it and how much they will add to the Thai navy. "

IHS Jane's Defence Weekly ( Vol 52 Issue 29 22 Jul 2015 Pg 7 ) carried this comment to its main headlines article Thailand Halts Purchase of Chinese Subs : " Critics of the plan, however, have questioned the need for the submarines given Thailand's lack of strategic assets in the disputed regions of the South China Sea; doubted the RTN's ability to operate the submarines effectively in the shallower waters of the Gulf of Thailand; and highlighted Thailand's poorly performing economy. Questions have also been raised about the quality of the Chinese submarines, which have yet to conclude any exports.", exactly the issues discussed in this blog.

This about turn barely two weeks after the initial announcement does not reflect well on the professionalism of Thai Defence Ministry and the RTN's top leadership. Shouldn't they have done all the necessary leg work to sound out the public opinion, secure the necessary funding and convince the skeptics that the project is doable before announcing it to the whole world? Nonetheless, loss of face aside, this could be a blessing in disguise as Thailand now has a chance to re-evaluate her requirements for a submarine squadron and re-think about buying from China, before the next round of acquisition talks begins sometime in the future.

Maybe the RTN is still unsure of what it wants, being so easily swayed by public opinion to abandon the submarine project, maybe it is just bad timing, or perhaps the Ghosts of Failed Projects Past have simply come back to haunt them ... like they say, you can't always run from your past.


Note : If you would like to read an adapted version of this article in Thai you can visit kapitaennem0.wordpress.com

 

Update 4th Jul 2016


Now, almost exactly one year after this article was published, the Thai Navy finally got the Cabinet approval they needed for the purchase of the submarines. The total cost for the 3 Yuan-class S26T will be USD 1 billion and payment will be made over a 10 year period. The first submarine will be purchased out of the 2017 budget. The Defense Minister claimed that there are assets in the Andaman Sea to protect too ....



























Wednesday 11 March 2015

Who Doesn't Want A$20Billion?


Background


This is an update to my article " Japan's Soryu Class : Collins Replacement Prime Contender ". A quick recap : Australia has a fleet of 6 Collins Class conventional diesel-electric guided missile submarines that needs to be replaced starting from the year 2025. These boats were designed by the Swedish ship builder Kockums AB and built in Australia by a newly formed joint venture the Australian Submarine Corporation. The entire Collins project was riddled with delays and huge cost overruns. Even to this day the submarines still suffer from multiple defects and have serious availability issues.



Digital Image of what Australia's future submarine might look like, as seen on ship builder ASC Pty Ltd's website.



The Royal Australian Navy is looking to replace them with 10 to 12 new submarines by the year 2030 to 2040, at an initially estimated cost of between A$36 to A$44 billion. The ruling Liberal Party came to power promising domestic construction of these future submarines but until recently looks likely to break that promise by buying direct from Japan. That development had prompted German, Swedish and French boat builders to come up with their own unsolicited offers, initiating a submarine bidding war down under, making the Soryu deal less of a certainty.

What's At Stake for Australia


The future of Australia's shipbuilding industry is at stake, as Australia might lose her capability to construct submarines and warships should the contract go to a foreign shipyard there by forcing ship builder ASC to retrench skilled labour or worse, go into receivership. It would be difficult and time consuming to rebuild a new team of professional workers once the existing ones have found work elsewhere.

Jobs could be at stake, as domestic construction at ASC's Adelaide facility could generate and support 3 to 4 thousand jobs.

At least A$20 billion or more is at stake for the winner. This is by far the single most costly defense related procurement by Australia, ever. Even the follow on order of 58 F-35A Joint Strike Fighter announced in April 2014 would "only" cost A$11.5 billion. The Australian Dollar has depreciated significantly in the past 2 or 3 years but is still worth USD0.77 as of today.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's reputation could be at stake if he reneges on pre-election promises to have the submarines built in Australia, though adept politicians always have ways to wriggle themselves out of such situations.

Gimme Twenty Billion


AUD$20 billion is the magic figure quoted by all the potential submarine makers. Of course everybody wants A$20 billion, who doesn't? SAAB Kockums of Sweden, TKMS of Germany and DCNS of France have all come up with proposals and have indicated their willingness to work with Australia's ASC, giving Japan Inc. a run for their money.

 

SAAB Kockums : The Come Back Kid




Kockums AB of Malmo, Sweden was the original designer of the Collins Class submarines and the Stirling air-independent propulsion engine used in the Soryu Class boats. It was acquired by its German rival Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in 1999. Then HDW was itself bought by the German conglomerate Thyssen Krupp in 2005 and they all became a big dysfunctional family known as ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems ( TKMS ).

While all these mergers and acquisitions was happening, Kockums was working on the next generation submarine for the Swedish Navy with several innovative and advanced features, the A-26 Class with air-independent propulsion. However, the development of the A-26 was derailed by TKMS due to long standing conflict of interests. The Swedes believed that they have a great design on hand and wanted it developed not just for the Royal Swedish Navy but for worldwide export as well. The German masters of Kockums on the other hand are worried about cost escalation on a risky new project and cannot come into agreement with the Swedish Defense Ministry on how such additional costs should be managed between the two parties. Although 2 boats have been approved the Swedish by Parliament in 2010 for completion by 2020, long drawn contract negotiations between the Defense Ministry and TKMS came to nothing before failing completely in Apr 2014. Without any contracts to build Sweden's ( or anybody's ) next generation submarines, Kockums looked likely to have to lay off marine architects, engineers and technicians. And as Kockums go under,  the Swedish Kingdom looked set to lose its sovereign capability of building submarines and warships.


Kockums A-26. Source : SAAB


Added to this mess is the uncertainty as to who actually owns the intellectual property rights to the Collins design, is it Kockums / TKMS or is it the Swedish State ( through the Swedish Defense Materiels Administration or FMV ). This has resulted in Kockums being overlooked by Australia in its initial search for suitable supplier for the Collins replacement project.

The loss of the deal to supply the Republic of Singapore Navy with 2 new submarines in late 2013 and the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula earlier last year was a rude wake-up call to the Swedes who realized that they had do something fast to reclaim their ship building industry and to safeguard the defense of their Kingdom.

Negotiations to buy Kockums back began between the Swedish defense conglomerate SAAB and TKMS. Things did not move until Sweden seemingly deployed strong arm tactics, including the FMV's raiding of the Kockums / TKMS office with armed military personnel to forcefully remove highly sensitive materials pertaining to the A-26 and Stirling air-independent propulsion engine designs, taking back what rightfully belonged to the Swedish State. SAAB also embarked on a widely publicised exercise that poached the entire technical management team at Kockums including the manager for the submarine division and more than 200 of Kockums' existing pool of engineers, effectively removing its core workforce. Facing such hostile acts, it is not surprising that TKMS threw in the towel shortly after and agreed to sell Kockums to SAAB.

SAAB has since completed the acquisition of Kockums on 2nd Jul 2014 and the new entity is called SAAB Kockums. This paved the way for the stalled and severely delayed A-26 project to move forward and for SAAB to offer a 4000 tonne version to Australia as the Collins replacement submarine. In the words of the CEO Håkan Bushke " ... the Swedish Kingdom now controls the intellectual property for Australia's currently-serving Collins class submarines. If there is an open competition, SAAB Kockums will be in it."

SAAB Kockums in its last minute declaration of interest on the Collins replacement project has also offered to take Australia's shipbuilder ASC and Royal Australian Navy engineers and technicians to work on the Swedish Navy's 3000 tonne A-26 of which five were to be built, with the first boat due to be operational by the year 2023. CEO Bushke said that SAAB's solution will be affordable and will be able to match the $20 billion price tag of its Japanese and German rivals.

Kockum's resurrection from a moribund subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to becoming part of the Swedish defense giant SAAB within the span of a few months is nothing short of spectacular. It would be even more incredible if they could win this submarine bidding war and become the supplier of Australia's future submarines. Being a completely new design, the A-26 offer carried with it unknown risks of cost escalation and timeline slippages. Add to that volatile mix the uncertainty of ASC's competency as a ship builder and the RAN could end up in a very dangerous situation, third time in a row.


ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems : The Old Favourite





TKMS Logo. Source : Wikipedia

TKMS was until Jul 2014 the parent company of Kockums. It used to be the front runner for an evolved-Collins submarine that will see TKMS build on the strengths of the existing Collins Class and rectify known short comings and defects, since the Collins boats were designed with the help of Kockums in the first place.

The main stumbling block for the evolved Collins Class was that the ownership of the intellectual property rights for the Collins submarine as well as the Stirling AIP engine that will be installed in the future submarines, was in dispute as the spat between the Swedish government and TKMS escalated. Australia understandably have no wish to be caught in the crossfires of a patent ownership war and have ultimately looked towards Japan which has a fleet of the world's most advanced non-nuclear submarines, incidentally also using Kockums / TKMS's Stirling air-independent propulsion system.



TKMS Operational Headquarters, Essen, Germany. Wikipedia.

Another deep seated issue was that TKMS has been constantly stifling Kockums all these years after the merger, intending for kockums only to produce small submarines while its German subsidiary HDW will get to build the big submarines for export. It probably was never quite keen for an evolved Collins boat, preferring rather to have a German solution for the Australians. In fact TKMS already had a Collins replacement concept in existence for sometime. It is the HDW Type 216 diesel-electric submarine with air-independent propulsion. Its design is based on the smaller Type 212A and Type 214 submarines current in service with the German and Italian navies, using HDW's proprietary fuel cell AIP system.



HDW's Fuel Cell Air-Independent Propulsion System. Source : TKMS

Now that Kockums had been sold to SAAB, TKMS can no longer be involved in any evolved Collins design. Nonetheless TKMS has still indicated that it can help Australia build her fleet of 10 to 12 next generation submarines domestically and within the budget of A$20 billion, presumably with the HDW Type 216 design.



HDW Type-216 SSK. Source TKMS


The Type 216 looks good on paper, but is again a yet to be built design and with so much uncertainties, nobody, not even TKMS can guarantee that the entire project could be on time and on budget, especially in the hands of an inept shipbuilder like ASC.



DCNS : Non-nuclear SSN?!



The latest to join the fray is the French ship builder DCNS with its SMX-Ocean diesel-electric submarine with air-independent propulsion. First revealed at the Euronaval 2014 exhibition in Paris in October, it is essentially a non-nuclear version of the Barracuda class SSN which DCNS is building for the French Navy. Although DCNS did not officially state that the SMX-Ocean concept was specifically created for the SEA1000 Collins replacement project, we all know what its purpose is. Incidentally DCNS opened a new subsidiary in Australia on 19th Nov 2014, DCNS Australia Pty Ltd, which just shows how badly they wanted a slice of the multi-billion dollar pie.



DCNS's SMX Ocean SSK ( Top ) and Barracuda SSN ( Bottom )

The SMX-Ocean is a huge boat at 4750 tonnes and 100m long. It is powered by conventional diesel-electric power-plants and a second generation air-independent propulsion system. It can carry a load of 34 weapons including torpedoes, mines, cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and anti-air missiles. It will incorporate vertical launchers, a UUV Dock, SDV, dry dock shelter and lock-out chamber for up to 8 divers.

Its maximum diving depth is 350m. Its new generation fuel cell will enable a underwater endurance of 21 days. Maximum submerged speed is 20 knots while its usual transit speed will be 14 knots. Endurance at sea is up to 90 days with a maximum range of 18000 nautical miles ( 29000Km ) at 10 knots.

If Australia is going to buy into this mad French scheme, she might as well request the US to convert their Virginia-class SSN into SSKs, just pluck out the General Electric S9G reactor and replace it with the Stirling AIP engine and you can have the frequently craved for 100% compatibility in operations with the USN. No?


Kawasaki / Mitsubishi : Caveat Emptor?



Although the option of a modified Soryu Class built in Japan looks like the safest bet for Australia's Collins replacement project so far, skeptics have plenty of arguments against taking such an option.

First, Japan's war time past has come back to haunt her as pointed out that as recent as 70 years ago Japan and Australia were enemies at war with each other. The Japanese have even bombed Darwin in 1942, ahead of a land invasion which fortunately never materialized. And Australia had lost more than 300 ships to the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. To me that is at best a weak case against the Japanese because, well, times have changed. Australian skiers form the largest foreign groups at the Japanese ski resorts of Niseko in Hokkaido and Hakuba in Nagano every winter. Try convincing these Aussies to ski elsewhere. If one does not buy Japanese, then the Germans should also be excluded in the deal because they were part of the Axis powers with Japan and Italy during WWII!

Skeptics are also concerned if Japan will remain a staunch American ally throughout the projected life of the future submarines, and whether Japan's constitution will again be changed to prohibit arms export in the future.

Australia's opposition Labour Party has pre-emptively said that they would cancel any deal with the Japanese should they come into power after the next election.

In response to the flurry of unsolicited offers from the European boat builders, the Japanese have indicated that they too are willing to co-operate with the Australians to help the Aussies develop the special steel required for submarine construction. Assembly will still be done in Japan.

ASC Pty Ltd : Can't Be Trusted To Build A Canoe!!





ASC screwed up the entire Collins project. They then went on to mismanage the upgrade and maintenance programme of the Collins boats. Now the same story is repeating itself with the Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

Late last year Australia's ex-Defence Minister David Johnston was censured by the Senate after saying he wouldn’t trust would-be contender for Australia’s new submarines, the government-owned ASC, to build a canoe. He later expressed regret that his remarks could have offended anyone, that he had expressed frustration over ASC's past performance in what PM Abbott had described as a rhetoric flourish. He further said that he was directing his remarks at a legacy of issues and not at the workers in ASC, whom he considered world class, eventually putting all blame on the former Labour government for mismanaging the troubled Air Warfare Destroyer programme.

Having barely survived a no-confident vote and in a move to save his own career as the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott had given in to political pressure and had promised that the procurement of the future submarines would be subjected to a "competitive evaluation process" and ASC would be allowed to bid for it. It will not be an open tender, meaning not everybody is welcome to bid, certainly not Dear Leader Kim, or Bloodymir Pootin, or Xi Jinping for that matter. So the Japanese are now not guaranteed to win the Collins replacement deal and they are extremely confused and worried at the moment about Australia's sudden change of heart.

What A$20 Billion Can Buy



Should Australia be spending A$20 billion on a dozen super-sized conventionally powered submarines with air-independent propulsion? Would she be better off buying a larger fleet of smaller submarines while at the same time constructing more submarine bases? Something like the HDW Type-218SG SSK might cost "only" 500 million Euros each. Buying fifteen of these smaller SSKs instead of the Soryu-class or similar to populate five submarine bases will probably save Australia enough money to construct the new submarine bases along the eastern, northern and western coastlines. Tony Abbott can then also sort of keep his electoral promise of local construction. You couldn't pre-fabricate submarine pens in Japan and then ship it over to Australia for assembly, or could you?


Update 26th April 2016


The Race is over. DCNS won the A$50 billion contract with its Shortfin Barracuda, aka SMX Ocean.




Friday 12 September 2014

Japan's Soryu Class Submarine : Collins Replacement Prime Contender


The Collins Class Submarine

 
HMAS Sheean SSG-77 conducting air sea safety assessment with a Seahawk helicopter from HMAS Adelaide off Garden Island, Western Australia. RAN Photo.
 
The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) currently has a fleet of 6 Collins class diesel-electric hunter-killer submarines (SSK) in its arsenal. They were designed in collaboration with Kockums AB of Sweden and largely built in New South Wales, Australia, by the then newly formed Australian Submarine Corporation. They are essentially enlarged versions of the original ( non-AIP )Vastergotland class submarine which then served the Royal Swedish Navy. The RAN classifies them as " Guided Missile Submarine, Diesel-Electric " or SSGs, obviously referring to the Sub Harpoon missile launching capability. The are named after distinguished former members of the Australian Navy. They have pennant numbers from SSG-73 to SSG-78.

At 3100 tonnes surfaced and 3400 tonnes submerged, they were then the world's largest modern non-nuclear submarines. Among the first to be totally designed with computer-aided techniques, they were supposed to be highly automated, have long endurances, quiet, fast and pack a powerful punch. From the RAN webpage "Designed to be as quiet as advanced technology can achieve, Collins Class submarines have been developed from five generations of submarines designed and built by the Swedish Navy."

However, the reality was that the entire Collins project was fraught with problems and delays right from day one and even to this day. The Aussies made the fundamental mistake of taking a completely new submarine design and having it built domestically at a new boat yard with no prior history or experience of submarine construction.

First of class HMAS Collins was laid down in 1990 and commissioned in 1996 while the 6th boat HMAS Rankin was laid down in 1995 and commissioned in 2003. Shortly after that in 2005 the boats were to undergo extensive upgrades to the combat control system just to remain operational, although they also gained additional weapons capabilities like the Mk 48 ADCAP torpedoes.

With availability between 0 to 2 boats at any one time in the past few years, the RAN's submarine force only exist on paper. It is no wonder that the planning for the Collins replacement started as early as 2009, barely 6 years after the last boat HMAS Rankin was commissioned.


SSG-78 HMAS Rankin, the newest of the six Collins class SSK. Royal Australian Navy Photo.
 
 

 
 



 
Ship's Crest of all six Collins boats according to seniority from top to bottom. Source : RAN


Australia's SEA1000 Future Submarine Project



Boldly sailing into the sunset? HMAS Waller SSG-75 off the Fremantle coast in preparation for submarine escape and rescue exercise. RAN Photo
 
The SEA1000 Collins replacement project, otherwise known as the コリンズ級潜水艦更新計画 to the Japanese, aims to have the 6 troubled Collins Class conventionally powered submarines replaced by 10 to 12 boats by the year 2030 - 2040. It is expected to cost the Australian Government an estimated A$36 to A$44 billion. The four broad options they have would include :

- Buying military off the shelf designs. Though safest might not meet RAN requirements.
- Buying military off the shelf designs modified to Australian specifications and built in the country of origin. This mitigates some of the risks relating to both the design and the construction.
- Buying military off the shelf designs modified to Australian specifications and built in Australia. Deja vu.
- Commissioning a completely new design solely for the RAN built anywhere. Synonymous with kamikaze.

With the Collins fiasco still fresh in their minds, the Aussies naturally would want to focus on a proven design this time round. To have made the same mistake twice would be really moronic and unforgivable. So the most likely option to be selected would be the modified off the shelf design built elsewhere.

 Like I have mentioned in my previous article, there are not many options when shopping for a submarine as there are only a handful of exporters worldwide. In the past 20 years since the commissioning of HMAS Collins, the submarine's designer Kockums AB had become part of the German ship building conglomerate ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) through a series of mergers and acquisitions. The submarine's builder the Australian Submarine Corporation which initially started out as a joint venture between Kockums AB, the Australian Industry Development Corporation and 2 other private companies was also nationalised and is currently known as ASC Pte Ltd.

TKMS actually has a design that is supposedly catered for Australia's special needs in its subsidiary Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft's (HDW) Type 216 diesel-electric submarine. Although its design is somewhat based on the existing Type 212A used by the German and the Italian navies, the Type 216 is substantially bigger ( 4000 tonnes versus 1800 tonnes ) and has yet to be built. That alone would make it much lass palatable to the Aussies.


Artist's impression of the TKMS HDW Type 216 SSK Source : TKMS

To sum it up, Australia needs a conventional diesel-electric submarine (SSK) with almost the size of a nuclear powered submarine (SSN), this to enable it to have the range and endurance to patrol her vast coastline. Australia also needs it fast, like yesterday. Ok I exaggerate, by 2025 or thereabouts, when the first Collins boat are due to retire, not a lot of lead time by naval procurement timelines actually. Lastly Australia is looking for a proven design, and that sole candidate came from an until recently unexpected source - Japan with her Soryu class ocean going fleet submarine with air-independent propulsion (AIP), quiet, big, lethal, in operation since 2009.

As an added bonus to the Aussies, the Soryu class SSKs have onboard the Sterling AIP engine made by Kockums AB / TKMS so in that sense there would be some continuity with the Collins class should the Soryu be chosen. Japanese? Hey, these guys were building fleet carriers during our grandfather's time.

The History of Submarine Building In Japan

Japan has a long history in submarine construction which started as far back as 1904 when 5 Holland  Class submarines were bought from the United States of America. They were originally built at the Fore River Ship and Engine Company in Quincy, Massachusetts and shipped to Yokohama in knock-down kit form from Seattle. They were assembled at the Yokosuka Naval Arsenal (横須賀海軍工廠), then Japan's largest naval shipyard, with the assistance of an American naval architect Arthur Leopold Busch.


The first Japanese submarine of the Holland Class, aka Type 1 Submarine ( 第一型潜水艦 Daiichi Gata Sensuikan ). Photo : Wikipedia
 
That same year, the Kawasaki Dockyard Company or Kawasaki Zosensho (川崎造船所) as it is known in Japanese, purchased modified plans of the Holland Class submarine from the designer John Philip Holland directly and went on to build 2 boats with the help of 2 American engineers who had been Holland's assistants.

The following year, Japan bought 2 British C class submarines from the shipbuilder Vickers, Sons and Maxim and went on to assemble another 3 from kits at the Kure Naval Arsenal, Kure Kaigun Kosho (呉海軍工廠), as it is known in Japanese. By 1909, Japan had launched her first submarine tender ( support / supply ship ) and had built a sizeable fleet of ocean going submarines before World War I had ended.

As one of the Allied victor countries at the end of World War I, Japan not only took control of the numerous German territories in the Southern Pacific like the Caroline Islands ( modern day Micronesia and Palau ) as mandated by the League of Nations, she was also given several captured German submarines as the spoils of war. This greatly accelerated her submarine design and building efforts and by the outbreak of World War II, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) would have the greatest variety of submarines available for all sorts of mission. From fleet submarines that could cross oceans to transport and supply submarines, mine laying submarines, even aircraft carrying monsters like the 6500 tonne I-400, midget submarines that are designed to infiltrate naval bases and harbours and eventually to suicide submarines like the Kaitens towards the end of the War.


Kaiten Type 1 human torpedo displayed at the Yasukuni War Memorial Museum in Tokyo. Kaiten (回天) literally means return to heaven but the name actually originated from an older man-of-war of the Edo era, a wooden steamer known as the Kaiten Maru (回天丸). Photo : Wikipedia 
  
The I-400 sea plane carrier submarine. Note the aft deck gun and the crane for lifting the Aichi M6A Seiran seaplane (see below). Photo : Wikipedia
  
The Aichi M6A1 Seiran (晴嵐) seaplane. The I-400 can carry 3 of these seaplanes internally. One of the M6A actually carried out a bombing raid on continental US, attempting to start a forest fire in Oregon by dropping incendiary bombs. Photo : Wikipedia
 
Following her defeat in World War II, the naval yards in Sasebo, Kure and Yokosuka were either converted to commercial entities or became facilities to support and maintain the ships of the US Navy and the newly formed Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF), also known as the Kaijojieitai (海上自衛隊) in Japanese. There was a lapse of more than ten years where Japan did not build any submarines. That changed in 1957 when the first generation Oyashio (おやしお) class submarine was constructed by the Kawasaki Heavy Industries in Kobe based on the old IJN I-200 design and some US innovations.

 
SS-511 JDS Oyashio ( first generation ) : The first post war Japanese built submarine. Source : Wikipedia
 
Since then, there had been several successive generations of diesel-electric submarines constructed by Japan, including the Oshio class (1963), the Arashio class (1964), the Uzushio class (1968), the Yushio class (1976), the Harushio class (1987), the new generation Oyashio class (1994) and of course the latest Soryu class (2005) with air-independent propulsion.



The new generation Oyashio Class SSK currently in service with the JMSDF. Photo : JMSDF



The new generation Oyashio Class SSK performing the emergency main ballast blow maneuver. Photo : JMSDF 


The Soryu Class SSK

The Soryu class submarine is the latest generation of conventionally powered hunter killer submarine with air-independent propulsion built for the JMSDF. It has a displacement of 2900 tonnes surfaced and 4200 tonnes submerged, the largest displacement of any submarine used by post war Japan. Although all previous generations of JMSDF submarines have been named after ocean currents ( 潮 shio in Japanese means current ), the Soryu class breaks away from this half a century old tradition by being named after auspicious mythical creatures, some of which might include the dragon, the phoenix, the pheasant and the kirin. In this case, the entire class is named after dragons (竜 ryu).

SS-501 Soryu ( そうりゅう, in kanji 蒼竜 ) Blue Dragon
SS-502 Unryu ( うんりゅう, in kanji 雲竜 ) Cloud Dragon
SS-503 Hakuryu ( はくりゅう, in kanji 白竜) White Dragon
SS-504 Kenryu ( けんりゅう, in kanji 剣竜) Sword Dragon
SS-505 Zuiryu ( ずいりゅう, in kanji 瑞竜) Auspicious Dragon
SS-506 Kokuryu ( こくりゅう, in kanji 黒竜) Black Dragon
SS-507 Jinryu ( じんりゅう, in kanji 仁竜) Humane Dragon
SS-508 Sekiryu ( せきりゅう, in kanji 赤竜 ) Red Dragon  ( named on 2nd Nov 2015 )

SS-509 is under construction and yet to be named. SS-510 and SS-511 are planned. Now I am no naval historian or ship naming expert but if I were to hazard a guess, likely names for these future boats may include Shoryu (翔竜) Flying Dragon, same pronunciation but in different kanji character, Shoryu (祥竜) Blessed Dragon, Hiryu (飛竜) Soaring Dragon, Tenryu (天竜) Heavenly Dragon, Kairyu (海竜) Sea Dragon.

Update 7th Jan 2017 - SS-509 had been launched on 12th Oct 2016 and is named the Seiryu ( せいりゅう, in kanji 清瀧, after 清瀧権現 Seiryugongen, the guardian goddess of a Kyoto temple ). The character 清 means clear but could also mean pure. So Pure Dragon be it. Note that 竜 and 龍 both mean dragon and could be pronounced as ryu. With three additional dots used to denote something to do with water, 瀧 could mean water dragon but is much more commonly used in everyday life to mean a waterfall ( 瀧 or 滝 pronounced taki ). Confused? Nevermind, that's Japanese for you.

Update 8th Nov 2017 - SS-510 had been launched on 6th Nov at KHI's Kobe facilities. It was named Shoryu, blessed dragon. Shoryu is expected to enter service with the JMSDF in 2019.

Note that the name Soryu had previously been used on 2 predecessors, including the World War II Imperial Japanese Navy fleet carrier the IJN Soryu, which took part in the Pearl Harbour Raid in Dec 1941 and was sunk during the Battle of Midway in Jun 1942.


The Soryu Class SSK underway. It has a conning tower with a shape resembling that of the Virginia Class SSN, minus the hydroplanes. JMSDF Photo.


Third of class SS-503 JDS Hakuryu arriving at Joint Base Pearl Harbour - Hickam, Hawaii for RIMPAC exercises.
Photo : USN / Wikipedia
 
Soryu Class Characteristics

Length : 84m
Beam : 9.1m
Draught : 8.5m
Displacement : 2900 Tonnes Surfaced
                         4200 Tonnes Submerged
Propulsion : 2 x Kawasaki 12V 25/25 SB-type diesel engines
                    4 x Kawasaki Kockums V4-275R Stirling engines ( air-independent propulsion )
                    producing 3900hp surfaced and 8000hp submerged

Speed : 13 knots Surfaced
             20 knots Submerged

Range : Unpublished but estimated at 6100 nautical miles at 6.5knots with AIP

Operational Depth : Unpublished but estimated at 500m.

Complement : 65 ( 9 officers 56 enlisted )

Radar : ZPS-6F Navigation / Surface Search Radar

Sensors : Hughs/Oki ZQQ-7B Sonar Suite with
               1x Bow Array
               4x Low Frequency Flank Array       
               1x Towed Array

Countermeasures :

ZLR-3-6 electronic support measures (ESM) system
2x 3 inch Underwater Countermeasure Launcher Tubes for acoustic device countermeasures (ADCs).                      
Torpedo Countermeasure System (TCM) for SS-508 and later

Communications :

X-band High Speed Satellite Communications Device for SS-507 and later

Armament :

6 HU-606 21 inch ( 533mm ) torpedo tubes with 30 reloads for the following
     
Boeing UGM-84C Submarine Launched Harpoon SSM
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Type-89 Heavy Weight Torpedo
Mines

Construction :

Kawasaki Ship Building Industries, Kobe (川崎造船 神戸工場)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Kobe (三菱重工業 神戸造船所)


SS-502 JDS Unryu being launched. JMSDF Photo.
The Soryu Class SSK in ceremonial light-up. JMSDF Photo. 


Soryu Class : A Formidable Naval Deterrence

The Soryu Class submarine is the world's largest submarine equipped with air-independent propulsion, and it has been in serial production since 2005, in other words, a well proven design. This represents a tremendous leap in capability for the JMSDF as they never had such AIP capable boats before. Collaborating with Kockums AB to licence produce the Stirling AIP engine was a smart move that allowed immediate access to a relatively risk-free proven technology. Kockum's proprietary Stirling Engine is a silent and vibration-free external combustion engine that had already been installed on the Gotland Class SSK and was also later retrofitted on the older Swedish Navy Vastergotland Class and Singapore Navy Archer Class SSK. The air independent propulsion system drastically reduces the need for frequent battery charging with the air breathing diesel generator which requires the submarine to be either surfaced or in snorkeling mode. It effectively increases the submerged endurance of the submarine and makes its detection much more difficult.

Its large displacement translates to having an extremely long range of close to 11000km, exactly what the JMSDF needs to patrol the vast open ocean between the Ryukyu Island Chain ( Okinawa ) and mainland Japan. For littoral operations, like patrolling the shallow Seto Inland Sea, the Soryu is fitted with an X rudder to provide high manoeuvrability to the submarine when operating very close to the seabed. This X rudder configuration was initially developed by Kockums for the Swedish A-19 Gotland Class SSK.



The X Rudder of SS-505 JDS Zuiryu seen clearly in this JMSDF photo.


Close-up view of the X rudder. Photo : Wikipedia


The quietness of the air-independent propulsion and the advanced sonar suite would allow the Soryu to stalk Chinese ballistic missile boats and SSKs with relative ease.

They are armed with Japan's Type 89 torpedo which is wire-guided with both active and passive acoustic homing modes and has very similar characteristics as the USN's Mk 48 ADCAP ( Advanced Capability ) heavyweight torpedo. With a diameter of 533mm, a length of 6.25m and a weight of 1760kg, this torpedo has a 267Kg High Explosive warhead. The effective range is said to be 27 nautical miles (nm) at 40 knots (kts) or 21 nm at 55 kts. The maximum speed is in the range of 70 kts and the operational depth is up to 900m.

These very same torpedo tubes can also launch the Boeing UGM-84L Harpoon Block II all weather, over the horizon, submarine launched anti-ship missile which also has a land attack capability. So the Block II Harpoon is essentially a cruise missile in disguise. It has a range of 124km and will post a serious threat to any Chinese or North Korean surface ship or land installations. It is guided by a GPS/INS unit and also has active radar terminal homing. The Block IIs being available to the USN since 1998, I am assuming that Japan has already either bought the newer version or had already upgraded her Block I Harpoons to Block II standard by now. South Korean certainly had!

The only glaring deficiency of the Soryu Class is the lack of Tomahawk tactical cruise missile launching capability. This is most likely a self-imposed limitation as the Post War Constitution forbids Japan from arming herself with offensive weapons.


RGM-84 the surface launched version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile being fired from the decks of the USN Arleigh Burke Class destroyer USS John S.McCain ( DDG-56). USN Photo

The First Post War Major Weapon System Export?

The 1947 Japanese Constitution is most famous for its renunciation for the right to wage war contained in Article 9. Its recent reinterpretation by the Abe government also allowed an easing of the self imposed blanket ban for arms export which had been enforced since 1976. It made possible the July 2014 agreement between Japan and Australia to partner on marine hydrodynamics ahead of a replacement for the Collins-class boats which quickly morphed into what might become an outright buy of 10 to 12 submarines from Japan.  If this export deal is realized, it would the first and most significant post war foreign military sales by Japan and is said to be worth about 20 billion dollars, hard cash which Japan desperately needs for rebuilding after the Tohoku earthquake and reforming to cater to a rapidly ageing population. It would also be a devastating blow to the Australian ship building industry who in my opinion really deserves losing the deal.

Although the Abbott government had previously said that the Collins replacements would be domestically built, consistent poor performance by the state-owned ASC on not only the entire Collins project and its subsequent upgrade works but also on the current Hobart Class air warfare destroyer project which is suffering from delays and huge cost overruns ( A$600 million over budget and 3 years late ), makes it much easier for them to justify an outright purchase from Japan.

Also, to have the Soryu built in Australia would incur a much higher cost, with some estimates at AS80 billion, almost double the original estimate of A$36 to A$44 billion. As Prime Minister Tony Abbott puts it, "The most important thing is to get the best and most capable submarines at a reasonable price to the Australian taxpayer". It would be really tragic if all that money is paid and the RAN gets another 12 Collins II instead. With the quest for precision and quality being almost a national obsession, you can be assured that anything that is made in Japan is nothing short of perfection. The Soryu Class will be no different. The Japanese worker takes tremendous pride in his work. The Aussies shall not regret that decision should Tony Abbott make that announcement by year end.

But all is not lost for the ASC. With the projected savings from buying directly rather than building domestically, there may be plans to fast track the Australian ship building industry by getting ASC to build new "super" frigates using the hull design of the 6500 tonne Hobart Class destroyer. ASC will likely get service and maintenance contract for the upkeep of the new boats.

The extra money saved could also be used to fund further purchase of the F-35 joint strike fighter which the Australian government had already pledged to buy. Another likely development could be the creation of a new submarine base, possibly at HMAS Coonawara in Darwin, New Territories, though I really do not know how *. With 12 boats projected, the current submarine base at HMAS Stirling in Perth, Western Australia will be swarmed. Having a northern base in Darwin will greatly reduce the transit time to the area of operations in South East Asia and the Australian East Coast.


Aerial view of HMAS Coonawara. Darwin City's CBD can bee seen in the background 2km away. RAN Photo.
* HMAS Coonawara is currently a small naval base supporting 8 Armidale Class patrol boats, within walkable distance of Darwin's central business district and close to the famous Doctor's Gully fish feeding attraction. The seabed will have to be dredged, the Larrakeyah Barracks and the marina next door will possibly have to be relocated to make way for the submarine pens.

Possible Modifications of the Soryu for SEA 1000

The operating range of the Collins Class SSK is in the region of 11830 nm (21000km) at a speed of 10.5 kts while that of the Soryu Class is about 6100 nm at 6.5 kts. The Aussies will likely want a bigger boat with longer range. The magnitude of increase may well be determined by whether a new submarine base is going to be built in Darwin.

The Aussies will also want "inter-operability" with their greatest ally the US Navy. So sensors and weaponry will have to be as identical as possible. The Type 89 torpedoes may have to give way to Mk 48 ADCAPs which the Americans use and which the RAN already has a stockpile of.


A Mark 48 ADCAP heavyweight torpedo being offloaded from the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Oklahoma SSN-723. USN Photo.
 
The ability to fire torpedo tube launched (TTL) Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles on the Collins replacement could also be a likely modification. Unlike the Los Angeles Class Flight II boats and the follow-on improved Los Angeles Class boats which all have a 12 tube vertical launch system (VLS) for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, the Soryu Class lacks such a capability. It would be expensive to integrate a VLS into a mature design if not technically difficult. Fortunately the TTL version exist and is currently used on the Royal Navy's Astute Class SSN.


Model of the Tomahawk Block IV tactical cruise missile. USN Photo.



Vertical Launch System (VLS) in the fore section of the Los Angeles Class nuclear attack submarine USS Santa Fe (SSN-763) Photo : USN
 
 
Final Words

The Collins project and the resulting 6 boats are a blemish to the proud reputation of Australian Navy and a disgrace to the entire ship building industry of Australia. It is a sad chapter in the long and illustrious history of the RAN that is best forgotten. The Australians should learn from their numerous mistakes committed in the past 2 decades and simply move on to the next chapter without making the same mistakes again. 12 boats sound like a huge fleet but I assure you it is not. Australia is Big, and the surrounding seas even BIGGER.

To Tony, please buy from the Japs, because if anything were to go wrong this time, it will be their problem, not yours.

To Abe the travelling salesman, you have done the sales pitch, please deliver well when the first order arrives, hopefully by Christmas. And may there be many more new orders for you to fulfill in the future.