Russia Facing A Sub Crunch

From Strategy Page:

December 23, 2013: In late 2013 the Russian navy announced that plans to refurbish its nine Akula class SSNs (nuclear attack subs) would take longer than expected. In fact, the first Akula will be out of service for three years for the upgrade. The other eight subs will get done more quickly, but the entire job will take at least a decade and probably closer to fifteen years. The refurb involves replacing most if the wiring and electrical systems as well as the missile handling equipment. Many mechanical systems will be replaced of upgraded. The end result will be a much quieter sub and that’s very important in undersea warfare.

In early 2013 the Russian Navy announced more optimistic plans for upgrading its nine Akulas. The first of these entered service in 1984, and fifteen were built. Several were cancelled after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and some have been retired already. The latest Akula entered service two years ago and was then leased to India.
These 8,100 ton boats were to be replaced by the new Graney (Yasen) class subs. That has not worked out so far because of problems with the Graneys. Moreover, the Russian Navy is not getting enough money to replace their rapidly aging nuclear subs, so it was decided to invest a year or two and over $100 million each for the existing Akulas to be upgraded and refurbished so they can remain in service for another decade or two.

The refurb on the first Akula will take at a lot longer (at least three years) because since the end of the Cold War in 1991 a lot of technical documents on the Akula have been lost and many of the skilled engineers and technicians for this sort of work have retired or gone to work in more lucrative non-defense jobs. This was not fully appreciated when the initial upgrade plans were announced earlier in 2013. So recruiting sufficient skilled staff and sorting out how to take apart an Akula and put it back together again will mean more time will be required to upgrade all nine of the Akulas.

Meanwhile, the Graney SSGNs (nuclear powered cruise missile sub) were delayed twice in 2012. Sea trials revealed that the nuclear reactor did not produce the required power and that the ability of the boat to remain quiet while under water was not what it should be. An underpowered and noisy sub is not acceptable, and the navy is demanding that the builder make it all better before 2014. That was not possible because of the shortages of qualified people to do this sort of work. This problem has produced a growing list of embarrassing failures.

Earlier, undisclosed problems with the first Graney have postponed it from entering service for at least a year. That will mean, if the latest delay is the last one, the first Graney will enter service twenty years after construction began. These problems are not restricted to the Graney, as other new subs are also encountering numerous construction and design problems.

In early 2011, the fifty man crew of the first Graney took their boat to sea, or at least around the harbor, for the first time. Sea trials were to begin three months later but first the sub took baby steps to ensure that everything worked. These harbor trials were seen as a major progress. Things went downhill again after that, with a growing number of delays as more and more problems were encountered.

Read the rest here.

     The short and sweet of the story is that Russia is have a problem with getting enough money to replace the Akula-class boats. Thus, the Russians are going to upgrade the existing Akulas to be useable for another ~20 years. However, the Russians are having trouble finding the technological know-how to make the upgrades. Not only that, but supposedly a lot of documentation of the Akulas was lost in the collapse of the USSR.
     This is indicative of how things are going to look for a lot of countries through the next few decades. All the ships that were built in the 1980s and 1990s to fight the Cold War are going to reach the end of their lifespan, leaving a gap in fleets. Some ships might have the potential to be modernized to get a few ore years out of them (like the Akulas), but the industry memory from their construction is gone. And, the money to build replacement will be unavailable as it gets put into other areas of government. Expect what the Russians are going through to be repeated here in the U.S.  in the near future as the defense budget is cut, and the deficit grows.
 

Russian Navy To Receive 24 Submarines By 2020

     From RIA Novosti:

ST. PETERSBURG, July 7 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Navy will receive 36 warships in 2013, an unprecedented number in Russia’s history, Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov said on Sunday.

“During this year, 36 combat ships, fast attack crafts and support vessels will join the Russian Navy. This has never happened before,” Fedotenkov said at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg.

Russian Navy warships are now performing missions in all areas of the World Ocean, with over 60 combat ships currently at sea, he said.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in March the Russian Navy would receive 24 submarines and 54 warships of various classes by 2020.

“As a result of the implementation of the state rearmament program to 2020, the navy should receive eight nuclear-powered strategic submarines, 16 multirole submarines and 54 warships of various classes,” Shoigu said.

The eight strategic missile boats include three Borey and five Borey-A class vessels (SSBN) armed with Bulava ballistic missiles.

The 16 multi-purpose submarines include eight Graney class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSN) and improved Kilo and Lada class diesel-electric (SSK) boats.

In addition to submarines, the navy will receive Admiral Gorshkov class frigates and Steregushchy class corvettes, Buyan class corvettes and Ivan Gren Class large landing ships.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last year that the procurement of new warships and submarines for the Navy would be a priority over the next decade. The Russian government has allocated five trillion rubles ($166 bln) or a quarter of the entire armament procurement budget until 2020 for this purpose.

     Russia is expanding their navy, but I find it hard to believe that they can build 8 SSNs and 8 SSBNs in seven years. It took four years to build the Severodvinsk, and the Kazan is slated to be launched in 2014, a build time of ~3 years. To build 16 nuclear submarines is possible for the Russians, but a building program like this hasn't been around since the end of the Cold War. 

     

SSBN-X: What It Will Not Look Like

     Yesterday at Navy Live RDML Richard Breckenridge posted some facts about the SSBN-X that have solidified by this time. RDML Breckenridge specifically discussed the ideas for a stretched Virginia with a module for Trident SLBMs, A stretched Virgina with a new missile, and restarting the Ohio production line. Read:

Virginia-based SSBN design with a Trident II D5 missile. An SSBN design based on a Virginia-class attack submarine with a large-diameter missile compartment was rejected due to a wide range of shortfalls. It would:

• Not meet survivability (stealth) requirements due to poor hull streamlining and lack of a drive train able to quietly propel a much larger ship
• Not meet at-sea availability requirements due to longer refit times (since equipment is packed more tightly within the hull, it requires more time to replace, repair and retest)
• Not meet availability requirements due to a longer mid-life overhaul (refueling needed)
• Require a larger number of submarines to meet the same operational requirement
• Reduce the deterrent value needed to protect the country (fewer missiles, warheads at-sea)
• Be more expensive than other alternatives due to extensive redesign of Virginia systems to work with the large missile compartment (for example, a taller sail, larger control surfaces and more robust support systems)

We would be spending more money (on more ships) to deliver less deterrence (reduced at-sea warhead presence) with less survivability (platforms that are less stealthy).

Virginia-based SSBN design with a smaller missile. Some have encouraged the development of a new, smaller missile to go with a Virginia-based SSBN. This would carry forward many of the shortfalls of a Virginia-based SSBN we just discussed, and add to it a long list of new issues. Developing a new nuclear missile from scratch with an industrial base that last produced a new design more than 20 years ago would be challenging, costly and require extensive testing. We deliberately decided to extend the life of the current missile to decouple and de-risk the complex (and costly) missile development program from the new replacement submarine program. Additionally, a smaller missile means a shorter employment range requiring longer SSBN patrol transits. This would compromise survivability, require more submarines at sea and ultimately weaken our deterrence effectiveness. With significant cost, technical and schedule risks, there is little about this option that is attractive.

Ohio-based SSBN design. Some have argued that we should re-open the Ohio production line and resume building the Ohio design SSBNs. This simply cannot be done because there is no Ohio production line. It has long since been re-tooled and modernized to build state-of-the-art Virginia-class SSNs using computerized designs and modular, automated construction techniques. Is it desirable to redesign the Ohio so that a ship with its legacy performance could be built using the new production facilities? No, since an Ohio-based SSBN would:

• Not provide the required quieting due to Ohio design constraints and use of a propeller instead of a propulsor (which is the standard for virtually all new submarines)
• Require 14 instead of 12 SSBNs by reverting to Ohio class operational availability standards (incidentally creating other issues with the New START treaty limits)
• Suffer from reduced reliability and costs associated with the obsolescence of legacy Ohio system components

Once again, the end result would necessitate procuring more submarines (14) to provide the required at-sea presence and each of them would be less stealthy and less survivable against foreseeable 21^stcentury threats. 

     Emphasis is mine. The objections to using the Virgina-class are new, but the problems brought to light are accurate. Same for new build Ohios. However, with the SSBN-X the boomer fleet will be reduced to 12 from 14, and the SSBN-X will carry 16 missile tubes instead of the Ohios 24 tubes. This is a reduction of 140 missiles, almost 50% of the Navy's capability. I'm curious is this because of budgets, NEW START, or something else? 

Russia Sells China 4 Lada-class SSKs

From Want China Times:

After selling 48 advanced Su-35 fighters to China, Russia will sell four Lada class submarines to the PLA under the direct order of President Vladimir Putin, according to Moscow-based newspaper Kommersant on Dec. 20.

The Lada class is an improved version of the Kilo class diesel-electric submarine, equipped with an advanced combat system and running much more quietly than its predecessor. Suggesting that the total price of the four submarines will be US$2 billion, Kommersant said that the contract will be signed by 2015. This means that the PLA Navy would operate the submarines earlier than India and Venezuela. A spokesperson for Rosoboronexport, Russia's major weapon exporter, confirmed the report on Dec. 23.

Source within the Russian military said Moscow will not only sell the four submarines to China but also transfer their technology. Equipped with air-independent propulsion, the Lada class is able to operate beneath the surface for a longer period of time than other similar subs. Since it is quieter, it may also prove a perfect option for the PLA Navy to counter US carrier strike groups.... (Emphasis is mine)

A couple interesting things jump out at me. 

1. China got the Su-35? There have been more rumors about a purchase lately, but nothing truly confirmed, but disturbing if true. 

2. Putin ordered this? I know Russia is hard-up for hard cash, but why would the Russkies sell 4 top notch SSKs to a potential enemy?

3. Transfer of technology. Biggest part of the story, assuming the story is accurate. China is still behind the U.S. in terms of quieting tech for subs, and those could be a big jump in quieting their current SSKs, and maybe future SSNs. To date PRC SSNs have been infamous for the amount of noise they generate (they are comparable to '50s Soviet SSNs), making them easy for U.S. sub hunters to track. 

Overall, an extremely worrying development, as China is building up her SSK fleet at a dizzying rate, and could easily raise hell with her massive numbers of subs. Not mention U.S. sub hunting skills have been on the decline since the collapse of the USSR, and sequestration isn't helping things either. Time to get on the ball, buy more P-8s and develop a new class of DDs for sub hunting (think Spraunce-class). 

Photo: Vietnam's First Kilo

Hat tip to Asian Defense for spotting this.

Yet Another Example Of Media Hype Over Nothing

     Fox news reports:

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii –  The commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet said Monday the Navy will be sending its most advanced vessels and aircraft to the Asia-Pacific region as it builds up its presence by assigning most of its fleet there.

Adm. Cecil Haney said a policy recently outlined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to deploy 60 percent of the Navy's ships fleet to the Pacific by 2020 is about capabilities as well as quantity.

"It's not just numbers -- it's also what those platforms, what those units, bring to the table," Haney told The Associated Press in an interview at his headquarters in Pearl Harbor.

Haney cited as an example the Littoral Combat Ship which can operate in shallower waters than other vessels. The U.S. plans to begin deploying one of the ships to Singapore next year.

The EA-18G plane -- which can jam enemy air defenses and fly faster than the speed of sound -- is another. Haney said squadrons of these aircraft would be coming through the region.

There's also the Navy's most advanced submarine -- the Virginia-class. Several of these subs are based at Pearl Harbor.

"Yes, it's about having numbers in that 60-40 split, but also about having the right capability," he said.

The policy offers further details to the Obama administration's announcement earlier this year of a new defense strategy that places greater emphasis on a U.S. military presence in the region in response to Asia's growing economic importance and China's rise as a military power.

The Navy now has about 285 ships about evenly divided among the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The total number of ships will decline in coming years as some vessels are retired and not replaced.

It has 11 aircraft carriers. A majority -- six -- are already assigned to the Pacific.

The policy is an extension of a 2006 Bush Administration-era policy that had the Navy base 60 percent of its submarines in the Pacific.

The service had for years split its submarines evenly between the Atlantic and Pacific. During the Cold War, the Navy kept 60 percent of its subs in the Atlantic as a deterrent to the Soviet Union.

     This article is making a big deal over the fact that Navy is moving most of it's ships to the Pacific, when that has been underway for the last 6-7 years. The other areas this article blows things up are when the writer mentions the LCS, and the E/A-18G. 

Haney cited as an example the Littoral Combat Ship which can operate in shallower waters than other vessels. The U.S. plans to begin deploying one of the ships to Singapore next year.

The ability to operate in shallow water does not make a ship advanced. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can operate in waters as shallow as 9.5m, and the Perry-class frigates can operate in water up to 7m deep. Just because the LCS can operate in a swimming pool does not make it advanced (both classes have a draft of about 4.5m). The LCS may have an advanced electronics suite, but it's only weapon is it's wake and sheer speed. Until the LCS can carry a real anti-ship missile, it is under-armed and is little more than a large patrol boat.

The EA-18G plane -- which can jam enemy air defenses and fly faster than the speed of sound -- is another. Haney said squadrons of these aircraft would be coming through the region.

     Yes, the E/A-18G Growler is an advanced aircraft, and arguably the best ECM aircraft in the world. However, if the best selling point the Navy can come up with is the fact that it's supersonic, they might want to spend a little more time thinking about what they want to say, before talking to the press.

     Basically, much ado about nothing. 

Photo Credit: US Navy

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 7: The Navy

     The Navy. This service among all 5 is probably the most important not only from a war fighting point of view, but in terms of foreign policy. However, the Navy has made a number of grave errors in recent history which must be fixed.

     1. Cancel the Littoral Combat Ship. Between 2004 and 2011, the Navy ran a contest between General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin for a contract to develop the Littoral Combat Ship. Basically, the LCS is meant to get in the shallows and chase down pirates and other hostiles, hunt mines, and hunt subs. In 2011 the Navy asked Congress purchase both designs, this has since been approved. The price for a single LCS is about 450 million dollars. The LCS also uses "modules" for specialized tasks like ASW, whcih can switched out for other modules to handle other tasks. However, as of 2011 not one of the "modules" supposed to be used in the LCS has become operational. At the same time the missile meant to be used by the LCS, the XM501 has been canceled, which takes away a good deal of the LCS's firepower. At the same time Huntington Ingalls has produced a frigate design based of the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter, called  "Patrol Frigate 4921". This design offers several advantages over the LCS, better handling in heavy seas, longer range, slightly heavier armor (armor does matter in the littorals), greater firepower. All that is required is upgrading the radar and electronics to Naval standards, upgunning the 57mm cannon to a 76.2mm or a 127mm gun, adding several 25mm chain guns for close in fighting, and the addition of a towed sonar array.                                       

     2. Cancel the Zumwalts. Another Navy boondoggle is the Zumwalt-class of destroyers. The Zumwalt-class have an emphasis on land attack, while at the same time handling the duties of a regular destroyer. Originally, there were supposed to be 32 Zumwalts, as of 2012 there will only be 3 Zumwalts built. On top of this the Navy has stated that they no longer want the Zumwalts, and they would rather have more Arleigh Burkes. Also, in this instance quantity over quality should be the mantra, because destroyers are exponentially more valuable. Thus, the loss of one not as capable destroyer of which there are many, would not be felt as much as the loss of an extremely capable destroyer of which there are few. The cost of a single Zumwalt is 3 billion dollars, at the same time 5 Arleigh Burkes can be purchased for the same amount. There are also concerns that even though the Zumwalt is equipped for the land attack role, it will be unable to fufill it's duties as it pertains to naval fire support. In this instance the solution would be simply to purchase more Arleigh Burkes rather than the Zumwalt-class.

     4. During the Cold War the U.S. was the best in the world at anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and had the best sub force in the world. However, since the  so-called "Peace Dividend"  sub force hgas dropped from 93 SSNs and 33 SSBNs, to 53 SSNs, and 14 SSBNs in 2011 (this does not include 4 SSBNs converted to SSGNs.). Some of these cuts are understandable, as the collapse of the Soviet Union there was not as great a need for a large sub fleet. However, with the rise of the PRC there is need for more subs, as carriers and surface warships might not be able to get close to Asia because of ASBM and cruise missile threats. Same goes for the Navy's ASW capability, at the end of the Cold War, American ASW crews were the best, however the skills which were honed by hunting Soviet subs in the North Atlantic have deteriorated with a lack of emphasis on the sub threat. 

     This is just a beginning on the road to rebuilding the Navy, there need to changes in the way the Navy selects it flag officers and makes promotions, naval aviation, women on subs and carriers, and the SEALs. But what is stated above, is an excellent start to rebuilding the Navy.

  

The P-8 Poseidon: The New Sub-Hunter

     The P-8 Poseidon is a new ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) aircraft based off the Boeing 737 airframe, and is being produced for the U.S. Navy and the Indian Navy. the P-8 Poseidon is the replacement for the P-3 Orion which has served in the U.S. Navy and several other navies since 1962.

     In 2000 the Navy announced the Multimission Maritime Aircraft competition for a replacement for the aging P-3. Boeing and Lockheed were the original two competitors, but BAE Systems later entered as well, Boeing submitted a design based on the 737 airliner, Lockheed submitted a a modified version of the P-3, and BAE Systems submitted a new build version of the Nimrod MRA4. BAE later pulled out of the competition because it had a very small chance of winning the contract, as BAE is based of the UK and the U.S. military purchases most of it's equipment from U.S-based companies.  

     The P-8 has a range of at least 2222 kilometers (1381 miles), a top speed of 907 kilometers per hour (564 MPH), and a max altitude of 12.5 kilometers (41,000ft). The P-8 has an endurance of 4 hours on station, and a crew of nine. The P-8 can carry a range of weaponry including, Mk 54 anti-submarine torpedoes, AGM-86 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, SLAM-ER land attack missiles, and possibly air-to-air missiles. The P-8 is equipped with a sonobouy launcher, a magnetic anomaly detector, and several other types of ASW sensors. 

     The U.S. Department of Defense is planning to follow a plan similar to that of the F-35, by getting help from potential P-8 users. In 2008 Boeing proposed the P-8I for the Indian Navy to replace the Indian's aging Tu-142s (ASW version of the Tu-95 "Bear"). In 2009 the Indian Navy signed a contract for 8 P-8Is, and later signed a contract for an additional 4 P-8Is. Australia has shown some interest in the P-8 to replace their aging AP-3 Orions, and signed a memorandum of understanding that would allow them to gain access to the program and make suggestions about the program. The U.S. Navy is planning to buy up to 108 P-8s with full scale production starting in 2013.

     It will be interesting to see in the next few years what other countries purchase P-8s, especially the UK since the cancellation of the Nimrod  MRA4 leaves a large gap in the UK's ASW and maritime surveillance capabilities. It also be interesting to see how the P-8 performs against increasingly quiet Chinese submarines.

     

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy 

Did The Chinese Have A Nuclear Accident?

     Recently, there has been a flurry of rumors surrounding reports that the Chinese have had a nuclear reactor accident in the port of Dalian. 

     Most of the information on this comes from a blogger quoting a man who claims to be a former Japanese Air Self Defense Force officer, saying that a Chinese nuclear sub suffered an accident and is leaking radioactive material into the water. The man went on to say that Chinese troops have sealed off the area and "the situation is very dangerous". 

     If this rumor is true, it shows that the Chinese nuclear submarine force is in a state of disrepair to have such an accident. On top of this it shows how much the Chinese have to learn about operating nuclear reactors if they want to operate nuclear powered aircraft carriers. 

Photo Credit: U.S. Military

The Virginia-class: The New Ohio-class

     Aviation Week reported last Thursday that the Navy was considering canceling the proposed SSBN(X) project to meet budget reduction requirements. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright stated at the Defense Writers Group breakfast that the Pentagon was considering lengthening Virginia-class submarines to be capable of carrying Trident C-4 SLBMs (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles).

     The idea of lengthening Virginia-class submarines has been discussed before, the idea being to insert an extra 27.4 meter section into a normal Virginia-class sub, and fill the section with 194  Tomahawk cruise missiles. 

     The proposal to insert SLBMs into a Virginia-class certainly has merit, but with congress in a stalemate over the debt ceiling, the chances of this happening, are slim at best.

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

Taiwan Did NOT Fire A SLCM

     Back on Friday I wrote about a missile launch the Taiwanese conducted, where they had launched a cruise missile from a submarine. The day I posted that, a story came up on Defense News stating that the reports had been false, and had come from a newspaper which has ties to a pro-independence political party. 

     The article quoted a former Taiwanese Navy official who used to work with naval ordnance, who stated that Taiwan's Hai Lung-class submarines have "absolutely no capability" for launching anti-ship missiles out of their torpedo tubes.  

Taiwan Fires Homemade Submarine Launched Cruise Missile

     Taiwan late last month launched an unknown number of Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles (SLCMs) in a drill, as Defense News reports.

     The missiles launched were Hsiung Feng II anti-ship missiles (Brave Wind II), and were launched as part of a 5 year project to enhance the capabilities of Taiwan's 2 Hai Lung-class submarines. The Hsiung Feng II has a range of 80 kilometers, a max speed of Mach 0.65 (482 MPH, possibly as high as Mach 0.85 or 630 MPH), and a warhead weighing 180 kilograms (possibly 225kg).

     If the Taiwanese Navy was able to fit cruise missiles into the Hai Lung-class submarines, it would pose no small threat to the Chinese, because diesel-electric submarines are extremely quiet. If this threat is real then it would pose a threat to any Chinese attempts to invade Taiwan, the threat would be especially high for relatively small ships like frigates and possibly destroyers. 

     However, as the photo above shows, the Hai Lung-class is a bit narrow, with a beam of only 8.4 meters. Thus, I would be curious to see how they managed to fit a cruise missile(s) into a submarine that narrow. 

Photo Credit: Republic of China Navy

Next Generation Of American Fast Attack Submarines

     For those of you who have read my previous post about new Russian submarine classes you might remember that few if any new Russian subs have reached service yet, but that is not the case for the newest American fast attack submarine class. The Virginia-class is the latest fast attack sub class in the U.S. Navy, with improved stealth and armament over the older Los Angeles-class submarines. 

     Virginia-class submarines have a displacement of 7,800 tons submerged but, I could not find the displacement when on the surface. Virginia-class subs have a length of 115 meters and a beam of 10 meters, along with a draught of 9.75 meters. Virginia-class subs have a top speed of 32 knots submerged and a top speed of 25 knots on the surface but, there are reports of Los Angeles-class subs going up to 33 knots. Thus, it would seem likely that Virginia-class subs have a much greater speed than the Navy admits. Virginia-class submarines have an operational depth of around 250m but, the max diving depth is classified.

     Virginia-class submarines are equipped with 12 VLS tubes (Vertical Launching System) capable of firing BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Virginia-class subs also have 4 533mm torpedo tubes that launch both the Mark 48 torpedo along with the new Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM) when it becomes available. While on the subject of the Virginia-class's armament, a couple of months ago Defense Tech reported that Electric Boat pitched the idea of building stretched Virginia-class subs equipped with 194 Tomahawk cruise missile for only $500 million more or a 20 percent higher cost (Virginias already cost around 2.5 billion dollars each) as a temporary replacement for the Ohio-class SSBNs during the 2020s.

     The picture above is a graph showing the decrease in noise produced by Soviet, Russian and American submarines from 1960 to around 2008 or 2009. The graph show how American subs have always been quieter than their Soviet or Russian counterparts but, in recent years the graph shows how the difference in noise produced has gotten smaller and smaller with the Severodvinsk-class (Yasen-class) almost as quiet as the Virgina-class (SSN-774). On top of this there have been incidents where Virginia-class submarine's hull coating falls off the side of the sub. Hull coatings are materials that dampen internal sounds and to some degree absorb active sonar pulses thus, if the hull coatings fall off the sub's sonar signature increases, making it easier to detect.

     While the Virginia-class has some drawbacks such as it's high cost and lousy hull coatings, it is also the best class of submarines in the sea today easily surpassing the British Astute-class and Russian Yasen-class in all aspects, with the possible exception of noise produced. As the U.S. faces an ever strengthening China and Russia these subs will prove that it was money well spent.

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy, Office Of Naval Intelligence

The Next Generation Of Russian Submarines

     When the Cold War ended in 1991 all of the Russian Ministry of Defense's projects were either outright cancelled or delayed for several years because of a lack of funding. Now, 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has begun to replace some of it's Cold War-era military equipment, especially in the area of submarines. As of 2011 Russia has 3 new classes of submarines in the works or somewhat operational, these classes are the Yasen-class attack submarines (SSN), the Borei-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) and the Lada-class diesel-electric submarine (SSK).
     The Yasen-class submarines are nuclear powered with a max speed of 35+ knots submerged and max speed of 20 knots on the surface. The Yasen-class has length of 120 meters and a beam of 15 meters along with a draft of 8.4 to 10 meters and, a displacement of 5,800 to 9,500 tons on the surface and a displacement of 11,800 tons submerged. Yasen-class submarines are believed to be armed with 8 torpedo tubes used for torpedoes and mines along with 8 vertical launch tubes for SS-N-26 SLCMs (Submarine Launched Cruise Missile) and SS-N-27 SLCMs.

    The Borei-class SSBNs are the latest Russian SSBN and will carry 16 RSM-56 Bulava SLBMs on early ships and 20 Bulava SLBMs on the unofficial Borei II-class. The Borei-class has a length of 160 meters and a beam 13.5 meters along with a draft of 10 meters. The Borei-class has a displacement of 14,700 tons on the surface and a displacement of 24,000 tons submerged. The Borei-class is believed to have operational diving depth of 380 meters and a maximum diving depth of 450 meters. Borei-class submarines are reputed to have a submerged speed of around 29 knots and a surfaced speed of 15 knots. An interesting side note about the Borei-class submarines is that they are the first class of submarines in the Russian Navy to use pump-jet propulsion which has the advantage of reducing the sub's sonar signature.

     Last but, by no mean least is the latest in the long line of Russian diesel-electric submarines, the Lada-class SSKs. The Lada-class is improved version of the Improved Kilo-class submarines with improvements such as newer combat systems, lower displacement and possibly air independent propulsion . The Lada-class submarines have a length of 72 meters, a beam of 7 meters and a draft of 6.5 meters. The Lada-class has a displacement 2,700 long tons submerged and displacement of 1,765 tons on the surface (versus 3,500 and 2,300 tons for the Kilo-class). The operational diving depth of the Lada-class is around 250 meters and a max diving depth of 300 meters. The Lada-class is armed with 6 533mm torpedo tubes that can fire both standard torpedoes and P-700 SLCMs (see SS-N-26 above).
     With the ending of the Cold War approaching it's 20th anniversary much of the U.S.'s and Russia's equipment is beginning to age out and needs to be replaced (read Minuteman III ICBMs, Black Hawk and Huey helicopters, etc...). And as older equipment it will interesting to find out more and more details about how these new systems work. Also the top picture is not a photo of a new class of subs, it is a photo of an Akula-class sub.
  
    



Photo Credit: Department Of Defense, Military-Today.com

Chinese General Says That “China never intends to challenge the U.S.”

The Blaze reports that General Chen Bingde who is roughly equivalent to the to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Washington to help increase cooperation between the U.S. and Communist Chinese militaries. While in Washington he gave a 45 -minute speech at the National Defense University to play down fears of Chinese intentions, during the speech Gen. Bingde stated “China never intends to challenge the U.S.".
     Allow me to show you that what Mr. Bingde said is a bald faced lie. As I have discussed previously China is overhauling the former Soviet carrier Varyag and there is a very good possibility that the Varyag will be ready for sea trials by the end of this year. Now, aircraft carriers are not defensive weapons, they are designed to take the fight to the enemy from 350+ miles away. Now why would a nation that borders mostly nations that have lousy armed forces (with the exception of India and Russia) need an aircraft carrier? Surely China doesn't need an aircraft carrier to bully Vietnam, Myanmar, Japan, or the Philippines? No, most of these countries have nil in the way of a blue water navy, the only country in the Pacific that is a threat to the Chinese is the U.S. The U.S. has the largest Air Force, Navy and best Army in the world and is the only military in the Pacific that can defeat the Chinese military.
     The only reason why the Chinese would build a stealth fighter that possibly has the capability to sink aircraft carriers would be to threaten American aircraft carriers. Honestly, I believe the Chinese are scared of American aircraft carriers, why else would they develop a ballistic missile specifically for sinking aircraft carriers?
      The only thing holding China back from domination the Pacific Ocean is the U.S. military and the Chinese know it. China's massive military buildup in the last 10 years is meant for one purpose, to challenge the U.S. on the high seas and in the air and defeat the U.S. in war. 

Next Generation of U.S. Aircraft Carriers

The above photo is a picture of the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) the lead ship of the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. The Nimitz-class carriers have formed the core of the U.S. Navy since mid-1975 and will continue to do so for the next 10-20 years. At the same time the early Nimitz-class ships are beginning to age out and will need replacing in the near future. The Navy began on the Nimitz-class replacements several years ago and, the lead ships of the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers are due to be commissioned in 2014.

     The Gerald R. Ford-class has a number of improvements over previous classes of aircraft carriers, for example the Gerald-R. Ford-class will be equipped with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System  (here is a video of a test) which is basically electric currents generating a magnetic field to propel the catapult forward to launch the aircraft. Another improvement the Gerald R. Ford-class has is the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow  surface-to-air missile system which is the successor to the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow which has equipped U.S. Navy ships since the mid-1970s.
       However, there is not much difference in aircraft capacity and capability between the Nimitz-class and the Gerald R. Ford-class as both are and will able to handle the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, F-35C Lightning II and the C-2 Greyhound. Both the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford-classes both carry around 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters most of the time.
    I have written before on the subject of the Gerald R. Ford-class in "All Our Eggs In One Basket"
where I discussed the fact that while the Gerald R. Ford-class ships are being built the Navy is at the same time going to be trying to build it's SSBN-X-class of submarines. When you are trying to build two VERY expensive classes of ships (9 billion for the carriers and 6-7 billion for the subs) at the same time when you need both there are 3 choices. 1. don't build any of the ships, 2. increase the shipbuilding budget, 3. build one of the subs or carriers at a time and modify the older ships to work until the hard times are over. Personally, I prefer option #2 and just increase the shipbuilding budget but, the U.S. will be in so much debt at that point that it will not be possible. Option #1 is not viable because you will always need a nuclear deterrent and aircraft carriers thus, that leaves only one option left. The only real way to get the Navy through the coming shipbuilding crunch is to somehow overhaul  the Ohio-class SSBNs which will need replacing at the time and, the 2 or 3 newest Nimitz-class class carriers and, pray that a Democratic administration does not get elected between 2025 and 2045.  


Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

What Happend To the 600-Ship Navy?

     During the 1980s at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan pushed a massive military modernization and expansion plan that for the Navy would have resulted in a 600-Ship Navy. My question is what happened to that idea?
     When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, governments around the world began to make massive budget cuts to their military's, one example is the so called Royal Navy and British Army, both of which are skeletons of their former selves. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union most governments have begun rearming (Britain hasn't) and putting their military's back together. Since 1991 the U.S. has expanded it's military but, the 600-Ship Navy idea is nowhere to be seen. The 600-Ship Navy has become a victim of several groups, socialists/communists who want to redistribute wealth and want a larger government, cost cutters who think now the the USSR is gone we can put the money into other programs, peace groups who think there should be no military at all and the list goes on.
      Few poeple outside the military realize how dire the situation really is, since 1987 the Navy has gone from the 1980s high of 594 ships to about 290 ships in service in 2011. Since 1987 our Navy has been more than halved and almost nobody in the media, the government or the people realizes it. Our Navy has been second to none since the end of WWII when we had over 6,000 ships and still are larger that the next seven navies combined but, China is rabidly increasing the size of their Navy and as of 2011 are second in size to only to the U.S. and climbing.
     The Navy is starting to begin building ships a higher rate in the last couple of years but, as I said a couple of articles ago the Navy is crumbling before our very eyes. And if we do not correct this situation, the cosequences could be extremly bad to say the least.



Photo credit: New Wars

All Our Eggs In One Basket

    As reported in my previous article "It's That Time Of Year"  I reported that the Navy was requesting (and got) 1.1 billion dollars for research on the SSBN-X-class of submarines.  The SSBN-X is a class of ballistic missile submarine slated to replece the Ohio-class SSBNs now in service with the U.S. Navy, the Navy is currently looking to replace the Ohio-class sometime during the 2020s. 

    However, during the last years of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. the Navy went through an enormous shipbuilding program intended to culminate in a 600 ship Navy in order to compete with the Soviets on the high seas. The high point of the 600-ship Navy plan was 594 ships in 1987, rising to 594 ships from the post-Vietnam low of of 521 ships.

     Because of this massive shipbuilding effort during the 1980s, a large amount of the Navy will age out during the 2020s and there is little anyone can do to stop it from happening. Furthermore, with a large part of the Navy being decommissioned it will be extremely hard for the Navy to replace the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and the Ohio-class SSBNs at the same time. Since the SSBN-X has an estimated cost of 6-7 billion dollars apiece the SSBN-X alone would eat up a sizable portion of the Navy's shipbuilding budget, not counting the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers slated to begin replacing the Nimitz-class beginning in the 2015 and ending sometime after 2040.

     Most people might ask what is the solution to this problem? Well, for starters we could have all the Socialists/Communists sent off to Nowhere, USA and have them start a big commune and leave the rest of us alone (that's sarcasm). In reality the solution to ALL of America's budget woes is really quite simple, cut the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, Agriculture, cut about 90% of the Department of the Interior and cut the Department of Homeland Security. If all of this is done the benefits are enormous because we could pay off the debt, have money for defense and best of all have less government. However, the pies de resistance is that all of those things would become the state's responsibility as stated in the 10th amendment to the Constitution which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." lav

     Which ever way the government chooses to go, they must choose quickly, because the U.S. Navy is crumbling before our very eyes.    

It's Been 6 Months Since The Missile Launch Off California

     It's been almost six months since the mysterious missile launch off the southern California coast. I have heard ideas that it was something to do with pissed off teachers unions to, that it was a Chinese submarine missile launch showing the U.S., China can reach us. The government says that it was just a jet contrail and nothing out of the ordinary. What started this whole thing was a grainy video taken by a news helicopter showing something flying up. Here is the raw video:

     At 0:11 in the video there is a glowing red dot on the end of whatever was flying up, I have been to several air shows and jet engines from that distance do NOT glow like that. The only flying machine that flies like that is a rocket and, on November 9, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency posted a warning to shipping in the area, that the area the missile originated from that there would be ”intermittent missile firing operations”.
     Hypothetically speaking, if it were a Chinese Type 094  Jin-class SSBN that launched a JL-2 SLBM this would show a stunning collapse of American SOSUS (Sound Surveillance System) systems, early warning systems and most of all, American anti-ballistic missile systems. If it were true that the Chinese launched a missile off the U.S. coast, quite frankly there will and would be hell to pay in the Pentagon and Capital Hill. However, I have doubts that it was the Chinese that did this because the noise that most of their submarines make underwater is somewhat akin to a Mettalica concert on steroids. The only Chinese submarine that could make it to the U.S. coast without being detected is a Kilo-class diesel-electric submarine but, a Kilo submarine's range is only about 400 miles at 3 knots or 6,000 to 7,500 miles with snorkel at 7 knots. Furthermore, if it was a Kilo it would obviously have to use it's snorkel and that is 10 times more noisy than a Chinese SSBN. Also, Kilo's cannot launch any sort of ballistic missile and, I don't think a SA-N-8 Gremlin would make that sort of exhaust (the land version is called the SA-14 Gremlin).
      Now that China for the most part is ruled out, the only other nations that have SSBNs are the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia. The United Kingdom and France both keep their SSBNs in the Atlantic ocean and Russia only has Typhoon-class and Delta III and IV-class submarines both of which are easily detectable by sonar nets (SOSUS) and have no reason to provoke us like this. That leaves the US of A, if it were the U.S. that would explain the missile launch warning from the feds and, the Navy is currently working on the replacement for the Ohio-class SSBNs called the SSBN-X. The SSBN-X is supposed to carry the successor to the Trident D-5 carried by all U.S. SSBNs at the moment, this missile is called the Trident E-6 which is expected to go into service in 2030. It is a bit early but, it might not be a ballistic missile because the U.S. military is known for highly classified projects that only come out 10-20+ years later like the F-117, SR-71 and CONSTANT PEG.
       Whatever the object was the government seems very nervous about releasing any info about what it was except the story that it was a jet. Our dear leader (thats sarcasm) Barack Obama once said  "the only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." 

Photo Credit: CNN