Iran To Build Nuclear-Powered Submarine

Two of Iran's domestically-built Ghadir submarines (file photo)


Courtesy Of "Press TV"

Iran's deputy Navy commander says the Islamic Republic has taken the initial steps for manufacturing the country’s first nuclear-powered submarine.

In a Tuesday interview with Fars news agency, Rear Admiral Abbas Zamini pointed to the Iranian Navy’s plan to build super-heavy nuclear-fueled submarines, saying, “Since we possess peaceful nuclear technology, therefore we can also put on our agenda the construction of propulsion systems for nuclear submarines.”

Zamini expressed optimism that Iran's Navy will use the nuclear-powered generation of submarines in the near future, adding, “Definitely, every country has the right to use peaceful nuclear technology in the propulsion system of its vessels.”

Iran has repeatedly emphasized that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is entitled to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian commander noted that the construction of a 18,750-ton nuclear submarine takes 12 million man/hours and one million pieces of equipment.

Zamini reaffirmed the Iranian Navy’s determination to boost its presence in international waters and pointed out that the nuclear-propulsion systems will further assist Iran to achieve that aim.

In the recent years, Iran has made great achievements in the defense sector and gained self-sufficiency in producing essential military hardware and defense systems.

Iran has repeatedly assured other nations, especially its neighbors, that its military might poses no threat to other countries, insisting that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.

Meanwhile, Iran's Navy has been multiplying its naval presence in the international waters since last year, deploying vessels to the Indian Ocean and dispatching two ships via the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean for the first time in February 2011. 

'Helping Israel Defend Itself Is Germany's Duty'

An Israeli Dolphin-class submarine on maneuvers (2008 photo).


Opposition parties in Germany are demanding answers about the sale of nuclear-capable submarines to Israel, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that the vessels are "very important" for his country's security. Media commentators argue that Germany has a historical duty to support the Jewish state.

June 5, 2012
Courtesy Of "Der Spiegel Online"

SPIEGEL's cover story about the sale of German-built submarines to Israel, which were then equipped with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, has provoked a storm of debate in Germany and internationally.

According to extensive research carried out by SPIEGEL, Israel is equipping submarines built in the northern German city of Kiel and partly paid for by the German government with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Three Dolphin-class submarines have already been delivered to Israel, and three more will be delivered by 2017. The contract for the sixth submarine was signed only recently.

On Monday, opposition parties called for an explanation from the German government and more transparency on weapons deals. "The German governments needs to reveal the facts and make a report to the relevant parliamentary committee," Cem Özdemir, co-leader of the Green Party, told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

The opposition center-left Social Democrats (SPD) have been muted in their reaction, however. In 2005, former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder personally approved the delivery of submarines to Israel.

The German government has neither confirmed nor denied the SPIEGEL report, which was published Monday. Government spokesman Steffen Seibert said that the government did not get involved "in speculation about a possible later armament" of the submarines, adding that the vessels were delivered "without weapons."

Philipp Missfelder, parliamentary foreign policy spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union, told the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung that the Israeli government was solely responsible for the decision about how the submarines were equipped. "We have to respect that," he said.

'Give Us the Tools and We Will Do The Job'


In an interview published in the Tuesday edition of the mass-circulation daily Bild, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the German-built submarines were "very important" for defending Israel's security. The recent sale of another German submarine was "an important adjunct to our national security," he said.

Netanyahu stressed that Israel had never asked other countries to come to its defense. "One of the great transformations in the reconstitution of the Jewish state is the regaining by the Jewish people of the ability to defend ourselves by ourselves against any threat," he told Bild. "While I appreciate Germany's concern for Israel's security, the most important assistance that can be given to Israel is -- to paraphrase Churchill -- to give us the tools and we will do the job of defending ourselves."
Merkel's stated position is that the security of Israel is part of Germany's raison d'état, or national interest.

In the past, the German government has always stuck to the position that it is unaware of nuclear weapons being deployed on the vessels. Former high-ranking officials from the German Defense Ministry, including former State Secretary Lothar Rühl and former chief of the planning staff Hans Rühle, told SPIEGEL, however, that they had always assumed that Israel would deploy nuclear weapons on the submarines.

Experts had long suspected that the submarines were intended to carry nuclear weapons. Few insiders believed the official explanation that the vessels' unusually wide torpedo tubes were designed to allow combat swimmers to exit the submarines. The SPIEGEL story provided previously unknown details of the deal and reconstructed the historical context of the German-Israeli negotiations.
On Tuesday, German commentators took a look at the ramifications of the news.

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"It's been known for a long time that Israel ordered German submarines with unusually large torpedo tubes -- and that the diameter of the tubes has nothing to do with the girth of its combat swimmers."

"Every German government which provided Israel with these submarines must have known that they were not for protecting the coast. The German military aid for Israel has, however, had new implications ever since the Israelis started thinking about a conventional or nuclear preemptive strike against Iran. The German submarines with their fuel cells could have been designed specially for use in the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. From there, cruise missiles fired (from a submarine) could easily reach almost any destination in Iran. But the German government does not, of course, want to get involved in such speculation. That would run counter to the country's raison d'état."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"In the German political debate, 'Israel' is an emotive word that triggers kneejerk reactions from the public -- especially when combined with terms such as 'arms exports' or even 'nuclear bombs.' (…) The context and the complexity of individual decisions regarding Israel, arms sales, the settlements or controversial border barriers are quickly forgotten in the process."

"None of the major German political parties have fundamentally criticized supplying weapons to Israel. (…) After all, no serious politician would claim that Israel's security and existence is not in Germany's interests -- for historical reasons, naturally, but also for geopolitical ones. (…) And if the state of Israel considers submarines to be necessary for its protection, then Berlin has little reason to contradict it."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"Israel is so small that it could be destroyed with a few nuclear bombs. The submarines, however, give the country an effective deterrent, because they allow it to retaliate. Second-strike capability, as it is called in military jargon, is Israel's most important insurance policy if a hostile country like Iran actually gets the bomb one day."

"By supplying Israel with submarines, Germany has not provided it with new offensive weapons -- of which the country already has enough. The submarines are instead the means for a final, desperate act of defense. Helping Israel in that respect is Germany's historical duty."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"Germany is a strange country. When SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel recently traveled to Hebron and said that the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians reminded him of apartheid in South Africa, a storm of outrage broke out. But the fact that Israel's government is pushing ahead with settlements, thereby destroying the basis for a two-state solution, is accepted by most German politicians and journalists with a shrug of the shoulders."

"Similarly, the (news) that Germany is supplying Israel with submarines which can be equipped with nuclear weapons has prompted little indignation. But when a writer such as Günter Grass, in an unfortunately worded poem, gives expression to his concern that this could lead to an escalation in the conflict with Iran, half of Germany takes offense. It is to SPIEGEL's credit that it has tried to steer the debate back along rational lines."

"It's a serious matter when Germany, as the world's third-largest arms exporter, apparently pays little consideration to the consequences of its policy (of exporting submarines to Israel). After all, military equipment is not supposed to be exported to crisis regions (under German government guidelines). This applies to the export of German tanks to Saudi Arabia as well as to the supply of nuclear-capable submarines to Israel, whose government is currently openly threatening to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. When he criticized that fact, Grass had a point."

-- David Gordon Smith

Israel Deploys Nuclear Weapons On German-Built Submarines

The Dolphin class submarines are built for Israel in a shipyard in Kiel (March 2012 photo).


Secret Cooperation

06/03/2012
Courtesy Of "Der Spiegel Online"

A German shipyard has already built three submarines for Israel, and three more are planned. Now SPIEGEL has learned that Israel is arming the submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The German government has known about Israel's nuclear weapons program for decades, despite its official denials.


Germany is helping Israel to develop its military nuclear capabilities, SPIEGEL has learned. According to extensive research carried out by the magazine, Israel is equipping submarines that were built in the northern German city of Kiel and largely paid for by the German government with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The missiles can be launched using a previously secret hydraulic ejection system. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak told SPIEGEL that Germans should be "proud" that they have secured the existence of the state of Israel "for many years."

In the past, the German government has always stuck to the position that it is unaware of nuclear weapons being deployed on the vessels. Now, however, former high-ranking officials from the German Defense Ministry, including former State Secretary Lothar Rühl and former chief of the planning staff Hans Rühle, have told SPIEGEL that they had always assumed that Israel would deploy nuclear weapons on the submarines. Rühl had even discussed the issue with the military in Tel Aviv.

Israel has a policy of not commenting officially on its nuclear weapons program. Documents from the archives of the German Foreign Ministry make it clear, however, that the German government has known about the program since 1961. The last discussion for which there is evidence took place in 1977, when then-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt spoke to then-Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan about the issue.

The submarines are built by the German shipyard HDW in Kiel. Three submarines have already been delivered to Israel, and three more will be delivered by 2017. In addition, Israel is considering ordering its seventh, eighth and ninth submarines from Germany.

The German government recently signed the contract for the delivery of the sixth vessel. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, Chancellor Angela Merkel made substantial concessions to the Israelis. Not only is Berlin financing one-third of the cost of the submarine, around €135 million ($168 million), but it is also allowing Israel to defer its payment until 2015.

Merkel had tied the delivery of the sixth submarine to a number of conditions, including a demand that Israel stop its expansionist settlement policy and allow the completion of a sewage treatment plant in the Gaza Strip, which is partially financed with German money. So far, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has met none of the terms.

The U.S. Navy's New Stealth Sub

New Stealth Sub Is Fully Networked, But Cut Off From The Outside World

By Spencer Ackerman
May 31, 2012 | 6:30 am
Courtesy Of "Wired"



UNDERWAY ON THE U.S.S. MISSISSIPPI — Practically every system aboard the Navy’s newest fast attack submarine is state of the art. Unlike earlier subs, the U.S.S. Mississippi’s control room, a hive of classified software and hardware, places sonar technicians and weapons specialists barely five feet apart. The periscope is mostly virtual: fiber optics allow the control room to see the surface world, rather than a physical tube running down from the bridge. But for all the advancements aboard the Mississippi, there’s one persistent challenge — staying connected to the outside world.

Bandwidth on subs is practically a throwback to the era of Magic cards, Discmans, and the best Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episodes. To send and receive messages, the U.S. submarine fleet needs to rise to a depth shallow enough to raise periscopes and antennas; aboard the Mississippi, periscope depth is 60 feet. While there are exceptions to that rule, it sets up a basic tradeoff. To remain undetected and ready to complete their missions, submarine commanders have to be prepared for long periods of silence.

“There are some missions or taskings where you don’t go to periscope depth frequently and put antennas out of the water,” says Cmdr. Aaron Thieme, the deputy commander of Submarine Squadron 4, which includes the Mississippi. “There are some missions or taskings where you spend all your time at periscope depth with your antennas out of the water. There are some that require us not to transmit at all.”

The subs receive their internet access from bandwidth provided by satellites, same as the Navy’s surface ships. But unlike aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates, submarines can’t augment their connectivity with 4G networks. And once the subs go below periscope depth, they’re effectively cut off from the outside world.

All this makes bandwidth on the subs an even scarcer resource than it is aboard the surface fleet. On the Mississippi, red Ethernet cables dangle from the ceilings of the officer’s wardroom. Only when the sub rises to periscope depth do officers plug the cables into their laptops, allowing them to access the Navy’s classified networks. That doesn’t happen often. The Mississippi has the capability to stay submerged — and silent — for up to 90 days.

For all the Navy’s formidable technological advancements, many of which are visible aboard theMississippi, connectivity lags behind. The Navy has yet to overcome some basic physical limitations. The deeper the sub dives, the harder it is for it to access a satellite. Thieme confirms that there is a depth beyond which the submarine fleet is totally disconnected, but understandably declines to disclose what that depth is. And like surface ships, the further the fleet disperses on or under the open water, the harder it is to keep the subs in contact.

And there’s an additional communications challenge for subs. Allowing sailors to e-mail their families risks compromising the stealth that’s central to the subs’ missions.

“Any time you transmit energy, whether it be electromagnetic or acoustic, fundamentally, it could be detected,” Thieme explains. “At some point, there could be a technology developed that can identify that energy source. Just as we go to great efforts to minimize the acoustic energy we put into the water, we go to efforts to minimize the counter-detectability of the electromagnetic energy that we transmit when we communicate.”

But don’t let that conjure up visions of rogue sub commanders, à la The Hunt for Red October. The chain of command informs the submarine how frequently and even when it needs to reach periscope depth to check in or receive orders. And the command has technical mechanisms — which the crew of the Mississippi will not discuss — for augmenting the bandwidth available to submarines in an emergency. More regularly, a text-only e-mail program called SailorMail allows sub crews to send and receive e-mails over an unclassified network — provided those e-mails are free of attachments, and sailors don’t mind waiting for transmissions at speeds slower than dial-up. For morale, the sub can stream news programs and sports when it’s at periscope depth.

Still, the Navy’s lack of consistent bandwidth for submarines could complicate some its broader plans. Itsnew super-concept for working seamlessly with the Air Force might founder if fighter jets can’t talk to Navy subs.

But underway on the Mississippi, officers are convinced bandwidth deserts are a manageable problem — and one that feeds into the culture of submarine warfare.

“It’s in our DNA to be able to go out and do a mission by ourselves without somebody looking over our shoulder,” says Thieme. “If the capability gets developed so that, regardless of whatever speed or depth we are we can maintain a communications tether or connectivity path, I [still] don’t see submariners becoming less autonomous.”

Exclusive Pictures: Inside The Navy’s Newest Spy Sub

View as gallery

UNDERWAY ON THE U.S.S. MISSISSIPPI — The Navy’s newest fast-attack submarine is speeding down the Florida coast, on its way to its commissioning ceremony in its namesake state, at 15 knots. And it’s getting outraced by dolphins.

Hours before the U.S.S. Mississippi dives several hundred feet beneath the Atlantic, its sail juts proudly into the warm, whipping southern air. Submariners allow me to see the highest point on the sub for myself — provided I can keep my balance up three steep levels’ worth of ladder and hoist myself out onto a platform the size of a fancy refrigerator. A harness hooked to an iron bolt on the sail keeps me from falling to my death. There’s no land in sight, just blue water turned white around the sub’s wake, a tall BPS-16 military radar spinning in front of us, and a family of dolphins jumping out of the surf in front of the 377-foot boat.

Apparently it’s typical. Where subs travel in the southern Atlantic, dolphins tend to tag along, eager to say hi to their large, silent playmate. “Dolphins like to sing,” notes Petty Officer Joshua Bardelon, a 32-year old from Pascagoula, the site of the Mississippi’s destination, who supervises the boat’s sonar systems.

Those systems are part of why Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is eager to take possession of his newest Virginia-class submarine when it formally joins the fleet on June 2. As much time as it spends listening to dolphin symphonies, the Mississippi is everything from a weapon to destroy other ships to an electronic-attack system to a stealthy transport for Navy commandos.

The multiple sonar arrays allow the submarine to detect other ships before it’s detected itself. Underway, the boat is dead silent except for the hum of the air conditioning, an indication of the classified tools that mask the Mississippi’s acoustic and electronic signatures to maintain its exceptional stealth. Then comes the boat’s electronic warfare capabilities — which its crew will discuss only vaguely.

“If I’m at periscope depth and I stick my periscope out of the water, people who are looking for me will be using a radar system to find me,” says the sub’s commander, Capt. John McGrath, a 20-year submarine veteran. “But I will know that that radar is in the area and I will use that to my advantage.”

Some of its other weapons are more traditional. The torpedo room, down in the deepest level of the boat, hosts 16 intimidating metal tubes, each wider than bicycle wheels, the bays for its 28-foot torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles. The room looks like a machinist’s workshop, except for the exercise bikes and the racks where the torpedomen sleep beside their weapons — the primary means for the Mississippi to complete its future missions: hunting and destroying enemy ships and subs.

“There are two types of ships in the Navy,” explains Chief Nathan Holmes. “We have submarines, and we have targets.”

Even though the Mississippi isn’t on a combat mission — which is why the Navy allows me to tag along on a boat overflowing with classified systems — McGrath is eager to demonstrate that his boat is a predator, not prey. After I climb down from the sail, he orders the boat’s pilot to dive to 155 feet, a way-station depth that’s far enough underwater to avoid sea traffic but shallow enough so he can get surface rapidly should something go wrong. When nothing does, McGrath orders the pilots to continue on to a depth of 400 feet. The faster the captain wants to go, the deeper he dives.

The dive is surprisingly imperceptible. Even though we’ve just dropped 400 feet in a minute, I barely lean forward. If I had been drinking anything, it wouldn’t have spilled.

That’s the case during my entire four-day stint on the boat. With the exception of a 20-minute exercise in dipping the Mississippi up and down — a queasy affair nicknamed “Angles and Dangles” — I’ve had rockier trips aboard surface ships. The fast-attack submarine is downright placid, even at 20 knots.

The steadiness will be an asset for one of the Mississippi’s other missions: aiding Navy SEALs. There’s a special bay, called a lockout trunk, that allows a tinier sub to dock and deposit a small number of SEALs onboard. Once they’re aboard, the Mississippi will become a Navy special warfare platform — as are many subs that don’t carry nuclear missiles — performing reconnaissance missions and getting SEALs stealthily in and out of where they need to go. The Virginia class’ smaller size allows the sub to “be more maneuverable in a littoral,” says Master Chief Bill Stoiber, the chief of the boat, or senior enlisted man aboard, making it particularly useful for SEAL insertion missions. After the summer, the Mississippi will head for southern Florida to test its special-warfare skills.

As much as the Mississippi is the newest in new for Navy subs, not everything aboard is super-advanced. Satellite connectivity is limited. Submariners like to stay autonomous when they’re below the waves, but that means that information aboard the sub largely stays on the sub, and outside information doesn’t always reach the boat quickly. The Mississippi rises to periscope depth — that is, shallower than 60 feet below, so its periscope can stick its neck out of the water — in order to fire off e-mails or receive communications through classified and unclassified-but-secured networks. Even so, submariners roll their eyes at how slow their connection speeds are. (Think dial-up. In the late ’90s.)

When the sub needs it, it can request extra satellite bandwidth from the Navy — often to send off a video or larger data file. But that “spot beam” is only for special occasions, and it’s a one-off event. Persistent, available undersea bandwidth is a challenge the Navy hasn’t yet figured out how to solve.

Then there are the traditional joys of life aboard a submarine. The Mississippi is home to 138 men, who have to get very comfortable with each other, since there’s nowhere to go for privacy. The halls are barely wide enough for two people hugging the walls to traverse. Submariners are billeted up to 47 per room, stacked up in threes on narrow racks. A typical deployment entails six months of living in these cramped conditions, and the Mississippi is capable of staying underwater for 90 days at a stretch.

Still, the ship makes a virtue out of solitude. The food is unexpectedly excellent. It’s difficult to store bread underneath the sea without it molding or going stale — and there’s no place to buy more — so the kitchen bakes it fresh every day. It’s tempting to forego a lunchtime hot dog just to eat a delicious empty roll an hour old.

The most striking demonstration of the crew’s tightness comes in the control room. Unlike older subs, the Virginia class doesn’t hive away its sonar stations. The dark room, illuminated by dozens of screens displaying torrents of highly classified data, joins up the pilots, navigators, weapons experts and sonar technicians. Five sonar techs stare at screens filled with green representations of the sounds of the ocean while they listen through headphones. Should they hear an enemy ship they’re hunting, they can holler at the fire control station on the other side of the control room that it’s time to attack.

For now, one of those techs passes me his cans. When I put them on, all I hear is a high-pitched squeak that sounds a little like a squeal of glee. Dolphins.

Photos: Mark Riffee/Wired.com

How The US Navy Is Making Its Subs Even More Deadly

By Andrew Tarantola
On October 23, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Courtesy Of "Gizmodo"

The US Navy’s fleet of heavily-armed SSGN subs will run through their nuclear fuel supplies by 2026. At that point, they must be replaced at a cost of $US8 billion apiece. Problem is, $US8 billion is roughly half of the Navy’s annual ship production budget. So what’s the Navy to do?

It plans to stretch — literally — its Virginia-class attack submarines by an extra 28.7m to store 26 extra missiles (for a total of 40) and outfit them with an advanced sensory suite — at a quarter the cost of a new SSGN, just $US2 billion apiece. Sure the SSGN carries 154 Tomahawks, but there are only four SSGNs in the US fleet — compared to the 10 Virginia-class available. This modification will help spread the fleet’s firepower out more evenly.

Once the Virginia-class subs reenter service, they’ll be accompanied by torpedo-shaped “large-diameter Unmanned Underwater Vehicles” packed with long-range sensory equipment to act as a remote and highly-manoeuvrable extra set of eyes and ears. They’ll also carry a UAV that can be launched from the expanded Tomahawk tubes.

Israel To Get 6th Dolphin Sub

Infolive.tv - Israel News - Germany will sell Israel a sixth Dolphin class submarine capable of launching nuclear missiles, German Defense Minister Tomas de Maiziere said.

De Maiziere discussed the deal at a meeting last week in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The German defense minister said his country would subsidize the deal giving a total of $189.2 million.

The submarine is capable of launching nuclear armed ballistic missiles

Israel already has received three Dolphin class submarines from Germany and will get two more in 2012 and 2013.

The first two were given as a token of appreciation for Israel's restraint in the First Gulf War and also as a step to boost Israel's defense capabilities. The other three were funded by Germany at a third of their cost.

The new submarine, called the U212 , will be fitted with new German technology that combines the conventional diesel system with an air-independent propulsion system used for slow, silent cruising with a fuel cell equipped with oxygen and hydrogen storage.

Israel To Buy 6th German Submarine

05 May 2011 19:59
Source: Reuters // Reuters
Courtesy Of "Alert Net"

(Recasts for German government spokesman)

JERUSALEM, May 5 (Reuters) - Israel has decided to buy a sixth naval submarine from Germany, an Israeli official said on Thursday, though Berlin played down prospects of such a deal being close.

The proposed expansion of the diesel-powered Dolphin submarine fleet, considered Israel's vanguard against foes like Iran, had been held up by wrangling with Berlin over the $500 million to $700 million price tag.

"It's finalised. We will be getting another submarine from Germany," an official in Israel's Finance Ministry said.

The official said Israel planned to pay for the new Dolphin over several years, but did not provide details on the price.

Israel currently operates three Dolphins and has two more on order from Germany with delivery expected in the next two years.

Dedicated to the security of the Jewish state founded in the wake of the Holocaust, Germany sold those submarines at deep discounts. But Berlin, beset by budgetary constraints, balked in talks last year at similarly underwriting the sixth Dolphin and on Thursday a government spokesman indicated no new sale was in the works.

"The German government has no information whatsoever about the possible closing of a contract between Israel and a German shipyard," the spokesman said.

The Dolphins are manufactured by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), which is owned by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems .

Political turbulence in the Middle East and Iran's nuclear programme have led Israel to float higher defence spending, which may have allowed it to absorb more of the Dolphin's price.

An official in Israel's Defence Ministry said it was examining ways of defraying some of the cost by fitting the submarine with more U.S.-made systems that would be paid for out of its $3 billion in annual military grants from Washington.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month, has been sympathetic to his regional concerns and championed international diplomatic campaigns to rein in Tehran. But Berlin has in the past heard misgivings from German opposition parties about exporting weapons to crisis areas. Israel is reputed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, including submarine-fired nuclear missiles. (Writing by Dan Williams and Brian Rohan; Editing by Jon Hemming)

Israeli Subs

On Dolphins and German crimes

By Roy Tov
Online Journal Guest Writer
Oct 7, 2010, 00:08
Courtesy Of "The Online Journal"

Following the crimes committed by Israel during the Gaza’s Freedom Flotilla events (now it’s official, the UN committee investigating the event found Israel committed war crimes on international waters), Turkey cut its extensive military relations with Israel. The IDF cannot use Turkey’s air and maritime territories anymore. Considering the fact that Turkey and Iran are experiencing a warm spring in their relations, this last move may not be a surprise. Yet, it turned out not being an isolated event. Last week, Israel was restricted again, this time at an unexpected flank.

In the last week of September, Norway announced that Dolphin submarines built by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in Kiel, Germany, for Israel, would not be allowed to be tested in Norwegian waters. HDW leases from the Norwegian government the Marvika Submarine Base on Norway’s southern shore as a tasting base; oddly, this port served the German submarines during WWII. As of now, no new site for deepwater tests has been chosen by the shipbuilder.

This is a new and important implementation of the existing security exports bans of Norway on Israel. Until now, it was directed mainly towards Elbit Systems, an Israeli company specializing in electro-optics and instrumental in the construction of The Wall in the West Bank. How come Norway is giving such an importance to a still German vessel checking out if it has any holes?

Based at Haifa, the Israeli Navy owns three diesel-electric, Dolphin-class submarines; these are known as “Dolphin,” “Leviathan” (whale) and “Tkuma” (revival), they form a unit known as Squadron 7. Two additional Dolphin-class submarines are scheduled to join the fleet next year, that is, if the shipbuilder can test them. During the last year, this fleet reached the news, when one of the submarines crossed the Suez Canal on its way to the Red Sea. It means Israel threatens the Gulf and that Egypt actively supports this policy, since the canal is controlled by the latter.

Dolphin, Leviathan and Tkuma are not timid fish exploring the colorful corals of the Red Sea. They include a “wet and dry” compartment for special operations and four 650mm torpedo tubes, which could be used for Swimmer Delivery Vehicles (that means they are delivery platforms for the marine commando, Shayetet 13, the unit that perpetrated the crimes during Gaza’s Freedom Flotilla’s event). 

They are equipped also with six 533mm torpedo tubes capable of launching Harpoons, five SSM/SLCMs and sixteen torpedoes. In June 2002, former State Department and Pentagon officials confirmed that the U.S. Navy observed Israeli missile tests in the Indian Ocean in 2000, and that the Dolphin-class vessels have been fitted with nuclear-capable, submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM), capable of reaching targets 1,500 kilometers away. (“Gabriel,” Jane’s Strategic Weapon Systems, August 28, 2003)

In fact, Norway is making its best to block a Nuclear Aggressor. What about Germany? Not only the German government approved the production of these deadly weapons, but it is actively financing it. 

The two new submarines cost 1.3 billion Euros and Germany is funding a third of that. The rest is financed with the American military aid to Israel. Germany cannot claim these are inoffensive toys. It knows these are platforms for the launching of Weapons of Mass Destruction and yet it is supplying them. As such, it would share responsibility for the crimes committed by them.

Roy Tov is the author of “The Cross of Bethlehem.” His website is Words from a Christian Israeli Refugee.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Leaks In India's Submarine Strategy

By Peter J Brown
September 29, 2010
Courtesy Of "Asia Times Online"

India's emphasis on undersea warfare is growing, but too slowly for many experts. Today, the Indian navy's submarine fleet - India's "silent service" - is beset with numerous problems and delays.

In China, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) shows no sign of backing off its plans to gradually increase its presence in the Indian Ocean. This influx of Chinese naval vessels does not pose an immediate threat to India's national security, but the situation could change.

Russia, however, may wield considerable influence over the flow of events. While Russia continues to serve as a vital cog in the vast machinery that is driving the PLAN's construction and development of a modern submarine fleet, American submarine historian and expert Norman Polmar sees ample evidence that Russia is selling India better undersea systems than those it is selling China.

"China, unlike India, is a natural enemy of Russia, and despite China's distrust of Russia, the Chinese deal with the Russians because the Russians possess submarine and antisubmarine technologies that the Chinese want," said Polmar. "This is solely an economic relationship involving China as a customer whereas the Russian's longstanding military assistance relationship with India is based on a need to sustain both its economic and geopolitical bonds that Russia deems very important to its overall security."

At the same time, the US decision to sell India sophisticated anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft known as P-8 India (P-8I) is significant as well in terms of countering any Chinese sub activities in the Indian Ocean. Although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates might have a submarine surprise up his sleeve for Indian Defense Minister A K Antony who is currently in Washington for talks, this seems unlikely given the current restrictions on high-tech exports to India.

"Keep in mind that in the P-8I aircraft, India is getting an ASW platform from the US, not comprehensive and advanced ASW systems such as sonar, or magnetic anomaly detectors," said Polmar.

China is well aware that India has another option at its disposal. Polmar agrees that India could quickly adopt and update the naval aviation strategy that the Soviet Union devised in the 1950s. By adding several 21st-century refinements and technological advancements - the P-8I takes India in that direction - India's degree of control over the Indian Ocean could be reinforced considerably, far surpassing what the Soviets achieved in the Western Pacific and elsewhere.

The naval aviation model looms large because India has only 16 submarines today, including 10 Russian-built Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines; four German Shishukumar-class subs; and two Russian Foxtrot subs which are used primarily for training purposes.

In June, India signed a US$80 million contract with Russia's Zvezdochka shipyard for the fifth in a series of overhauls and upgrades of its Kilo subs. This overhaul commenced in August. [1]

Then in July, the Indian government allocated US$11 billion (over 500 billion rupees) for the development of six next-generation diesel submarines under Project-75 India (P-75I). With their air independent propulsion systems, these new subs will offer major operational advantages, and much to Pakistan's chagrin in particular, they are envisioned as stealthy, land attack subs.

"India's submarine force has declined because a good number of older subs will be retiring very soon - the Kilos start retiring in 2013, for example - and an insufficient number of newer subs have been acquired to replace them," said Dr Rajeswari Rajagopalan, senior fellow in security studies at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

"India's submarine fleet remains a coastal fleet because of a lack of nuclear-powered subs, and its reach is limited because the missiles on these subs have limited range. Finally, the focus of the Indian navy's attention also appears to be on large surface ships rather than submarines, which is hindering development of the sub fleet."

In mid-2009, India launched a nuclear sub, the INS Arihant. It is currently designated as an Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), and it is undergoing sea trials. If all goes well, Arihant might be transferred to the Indian navy by the end of 2011. Plans call for two more ATVs with a goal of building five or six new nuclear subs. It is still unclear whether these ATVs are nuclear strategic missile subs (SSBNs) or simply nuclear - powered attack subs (SSNs). (See India's nuclear submarine plan surfaces, Asia Times Online, Feb 20, 2009). 




"Some estimates suggest that if India is to maintain an effective nuclear triad [from air, land and sea], India would need at least a fleet of 24 subs, though this is likely out of India's reach,' said Rajagopalan. "Meanwhile, a Russian nuclear-powered Akula II SSN - the K-152 Nerpa - has departed Russia for India under a 10-year lease." [2]

Absent any replacements or additions to its existing fleet, the most upbeat assessment is that India's sub fleet could be reduced to around nine by 2014 or 2015. In fact, the Indian navy has already notified the government that there is strong possibility that only nine subs might be in service by 2012, and just five in the coming years. No matter which projection proves to be accurate, the result is still a single digit total.

India is in the process of getting six Scorpene subs from the French - with an option of six additional subs - to be built at the Mazagon facility in Mumbai under the supervision of French technicians, but this procurement is experiencing a slowdown. Mazagon Docks in Mumbai will construct three of the six, Hindustan Shipyard Ltd in Visakhapatnam will construct one, and the other two may be procured from foreign sources or built by another private shipyard in India

"The delivery of the first of the French Scorpenes, which was supposed to enter service in December 2012, has been delayed. Antony addressed this situation in parliament only a few weeks back. This will clearly impact upon India's undersea force levels," said Rajagopalan. "India has about 35 private shipyards, of which L&T [Larsen & Toubro Ltd] and Pipavav are believed to be competing to build the two submarines, of the six planned."

Some doubt that these two will be built in India after all.

India must focus on meeting its planned timetable for new submarine deployments to avoid critical challenges in the next decade. Among those who argue for submarines, there have been disagreements over whether to pursue nuclear-powered or conventional submarines. In fact, under the original P-75I program, there was a 30-year Submarine Construction Plan approved in 1999.

"Internal disagreements within the navy, however, have substantially undermined that plan. The fact that last two naval chiefs were naval aviators who did not appear to have great interest in allocating limited available funding for sub programs did not help matters," said Rajagopalan.

According to some reports, once Antony became defense minister in 2006, all the decisions relating to the nuclear triad were put on hold. Antony reportedly was of the opinion that decisions involving India's strategic nuclear program should be taken by the Prime Minister's Office. In the process, there was little or no real progress concerning any additional SSNs and SSBNs.

"Dr VK Saraswat, director general of India's Defense Research and Development Organization [DRDO] is of the view that SSNs can be developed easily once DRDO gets the go-ahead. He had noted that the essential difference is the weaponry and accordingly the size, but the technology for design and integration remains the same," said Rajagopalan. "Meanwhile, the Indian Atomic Energy Commission is continuing with its work on nuclear steam reactors for the ATVs which are powered by light-water reactors using enriched uranium as fuel."

According to Dr Bharath Gopalaswamy, a researcher in the Arms Control and Non-proliferation Program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the principal challenge facing India is India's own bureaucracy and its lack of vision in formulating long term strategic goals.

"The Comptroller and Auditor General's recent report seriously criticized the Indian navy about its aging fleet - 63% of the subs would be past their operational life beyond 2012 - and highlighted that due to this aging fleet and its refit schedules (which has been consistently delayed), the average operational availability of India's subs is as low as 48%," said Gopalaswamy.

To make matters worse, a test check on certain submarines revealed that prescribed standards for operational patrol, tactical exercises and individual work ups were either not in play or loosely followed.

“Piecemeal modernization and upgradation of submarines at an aggregate cost of 1,560 crore rupees [15.6 billion rupees] was undertaken by the navy without taking approval of the competent financial authority,” the report said. And according to its findings, most refits were not well managed and seldom completed within the prescribed time period.

The looming sub gap that India will confront from 2013 to 2016 cannot be sidestepped. Delaying the retirement of existing subs is a very risky strategy at best.

As India starts to build its own nuclear submarines, very complex construction programs and prolonged at-sea trials will strain existing resources including manpower. Building indigenous submarine reactors is one thing, integrating them into modern undersea battle platforms in another even greater challenge. Nevertheless, despite enormous obstacles, confidence is running high and the objectives are deemed achievable in the required timeframe by many Indian naval experts

Others including Nathan Hughes, director of military analysis at Texas-based Stratfor a global intelligence company, raise serious questions about the submarine force which the Indian navy intends to deploy. [3]

"For all its various interests and challenges, India does not have a competitor like the US-USSR rivalry of the Cold War that drove massive investment and the frantic pace of development and competition. There is a certain lack of urgency to India's drawn out effort to design a nuclear submarine of its own,' said Hughes. "Russian assistance including leasing nuclear subs to India has been more direct and overt than Russian-Chinese cooperation, although this is also quite significant. Indeed, with China working to increase its independence from Russia and refine its own designs, Moscow may have extra bandwidth in terms of advising and design assistance and expertise from which India might benefit,"

However, the Indian navy does not now possess a viable submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and this gap cannot be dismissed or overlooked. While the new Arihant-class ATVs may carry Sagarika SLBMs, they may do so only on a very limited basis.

"Some development work has been done with the Sagarika, but this has been from a submerged pontoon. Much more work remains for an SLBM to be integrated into a submarine and made operationally capable, said Hughes. "The only ship of the Arihant class so far will have only a very limited - if any - capacity for vertical launch of any kind. She is a technology demonstrator and more ships of the class will need to be built with modified designs before India fields a meaningful SSBN capability." [4]

And while India is planning a Submarine-Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM) variant of the Brahmos cruise missile with a range of about 300 kilometers or more - Brahmos was jointly created with Russia - several issues must be addressed and resolved before this SLCM is deployed on Indian subs.

"Yes, this will likely be the last variant tested and certified. Ground and surface ship-launched variants have already completed testing, and preparations are being made for testing of an air-launched version. However, the Brahmos is simply too big to be fired from the 21-inch [533mm] torpedo tubes used by India's current sub fleet, but the 25.6-inch [650 mm] tubes of the Nerpa would be sufficient in theory to do so," said Hughes. "Other submarines India might acquire from Russia might also be tailored to carry a vertically-launched Brahmos."

Otherwise, it is unclear if the recently leased Russian Nerpa sub is going to have Indian or Russian cruise missiles aboard.

"The inclusion of the RK-55 Granat [SS-N-21 Sampson], a medium-range land-attack cruise missile, is not likely. The inclusion of the 3M-54 Klub [SS-N-27] short-range anti-ship cruise missile is more likely, but also uncertain,' said Hughes. "It is not clear if Indian armaments might be fitted." [5]

Regardless of weaponry, the Indian navy needs place more emphasis on simply getting its submariners aboard their subs for longer periods of time at sea, according to John Pike, director of Virginia-based GlobalSecurity.org.

"Submarines are more difficult to operate than surface ships, and this requires more time at sea to remain proficient. India has had an easier time mapping out ambitious plans than in actual implementation, and an easier time putting submarines into service than in keeping them in service," said Pike. "Delays and other problems have been the rule not the exception over past decades, so this seems to be business as usual. India's naval programs, like so many other Indian military acquisition efforts, are remarkably leisurely."

From the standpoint of flexibility, while India seems to be relying on French and Russian submarine purchases thus far, these countries do not enjoy a preferred supplier status.

"India might turn to Germany, and possibly eventually to South Korea," said Pike. "If Japan started exporting subs, it might also export aircraft carriers."

Pike sees little chance that Japan will start exporting subs to India or any other country for that matter anytime soon, however. Other experts agree. Japanese submarines are for Japanese use only.

Regardless, India cannot hold its breath and wait to see what does or does not happen in Kobe, where Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd is concentrating its submarine construction activities. As India focuses its attention on China instead, it must realize at the same time that some prefer to depict China as totally unprepared to churn the waters of the Indian Ocean.

"China poses no naval threat to India either on the surface or beneath the surface of the Indian Ocean. China is not seeking a naval confrontation with India there for a variety of reasons despite much talk of China's 'string of pearls' strategy involving its development of port facilities in countries surrounding India," said Polmar. "China does not intend to try and outmatch the Indian navy in India's own backyard. China wants access to vital resources, not a series of unwanted engagements at sea. China is simply not prepared for any heated naval engagements so far from its coast at this time."

In a nutshell, India must forge balanced submarine and anti-submarine programs, and inject them with the same energy and enthusiasm that has propelled its space program. India must also define what it expects from a true 21st-century submarine fleet. Sustained dependence on legacy undersea systems seems out of the question.

Peter J Brown is a freelance writer from Maine USA.

Notes 

1. Russia to modernize fifth Indian submarine 
2. Click here.
3. Further in depth analysis can be seen here.
4. Click here
5. Click here. 

(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.