Herman

AAR: Force Z By Harold Hutchison HMAS Stuart found herself amidst three unidentified vessels. She immediately launched her SeaSprite helicopter to classify them. Unfortunately, one of her charges, Iowa Farmer, happened to be between her and one of the unidentified vessels. The merchant's master was particularly ornery today and refused all requests to turn his vessel to starboard and allow the Stuart to screen him. His reply was, "You're the [expletive deleted] Navy. It's not my job to get my [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] shot off. You do your [expletive deleted] job and I'll do my [expletive deleted] job." With little choice, the Captain ordered flank speed to interpose themselves between the Farmer and the 'skunk'. In short order, the helo pilot reported that it was an Indonesian Siada-class vessel. He overflew it a number of times, but it did not exhibit any hostile action so the pilot was ordered to train his Maverick missiles on the vessel and proceed to identify the other two skunks in the area. Stuart's Tactical Action Officer [TAO] ordered all weapons trained on the Siada. If she was up to no good, he was determined to make her antics very short-lived and fiery, indeed. As the Stuart manoeuvred herself between the intruder and her lamb, repeated messages were sent questioning the intentions of the Indonesian ship. No reply was received. All of a sudden, at a range of 1nm, the Siada opened fire. Upon seeing the muzzle flashes, the TAO lost his composure and said, "Fight's on!". He then calmed down when the Captain ordered a turn to starboard and the age-old command, "Fire as you bear." The little vessel was raked from stem to stern with .50 calibre machine gun fire and 5' naval gunfire. She blew up in a shower of sparks. Well, the Captain thought, looks like Indonesia is serious about this exclusion zone. He immediately order his SeaSprite to launch her Maverick against the other confirmed Indonesian vessel. The Todak was struck amidships and left dead in the water. No sooner had this action ended when the CIC announced, "Air Action Port!" A pair of F-5E Tiger had been detected. Both were engaged with SeaSparrow and killed with one SAM apiece. The Stuart returned to Emissions Control [EmCon] status and relied upon her helo for early warning. The flock of merchant vessels was scattered over a large area. The Stuart and the Canberra elected to position themselves between the flock and the enemy airbase at Kupang. Hopefully, they would be able to intercept any aircraft before the rest of merchants could be detected. They maintained radar silence in hopes of ambushing any attackers. A helo from the Canberra engaged and killed the Sibara with a Penguin before continuing on to destroy another gunboat. Soon enough, six bogeys were detected 50nm from the Stuart bearing 027T. Her Captain fervently hoped that they would be able to pull off an ambush against these aircraft. All the aircraft were making a beeline for the frigate. At a range of 13nm, the radar was energized, the TAO declared, "Weapons Free" and one SeaSparrow SAM was fired at each plane. Two were killed in the first volley, but three more SAMs were needed to finish the job. There were two more hostiles out there. Again, they were allowed into the No-Escape envelope before a single SeaSparrow was able to kill each of them. No sooner had this action ended than CIC reported, "Three bogies, multiple vectors, bearing constant, range decreasing." This was going to be a difficult day for the men of the Stuart. The first one was a lone Skyhawk and she was killed with a single SAM. The second plane was a Persuader Maritime Patrol Aircraft [MPA]. The TAO did not believe her to be armed so she was allowed to close into gunfire distance in order to preserve the limited number of SeaSparrow as there were eight more bogeys heading straight for the Stuart. The ploy worked and the plane was hit by AAA and exploded. However, bad news seemed to multiply. Now there were TEN(!) aircraft aimed like the proverbial dagger at the Stuart along with a small flotilla of menacing surface contacts. This was like fighting a Hydra! A SeaHawk and a SeaSprite were launched to attack the ships. The Stuart was able to kill all ten aircraft, but the SeaSprite was shot down by a marauding Skyhawk after it launched its ASMs. The SeaHawk hugged the waves and fled for her life, but she, too, was caught by a Tiger. Damn and double Damn. There went my long-ranged attack assets. Without any radar system airborne, detection times were almost at point-blank range. HMAS Stuart was again attacked by eight more Hawks/Skyhawks. She managed to kill them all, but also used up her remaining SAM inventory and had to kill the last two with AAA fire. She was no longer able to offer area protection to the merchants and would likely need protection herself so she set a course to bring herself under the Canberra's SAM umbrella. Meanwhile in the Eastern part of the Area of Operations [AO], HMAS Newcastle and Voyager were experiencing their own trials and tribulations. Their helos had detected a small flotilla consisting of four missile-armed frigates; two with Harpoon and two with Exocet. They tried to engage at long range with Harpoons, but these were easily destroyed. The enemy concentrated their fire on the cargo vessel, Fosters Market, and sank her with SSMs before they stopped moving. With no other vessel in the area to protect and with their long-range armament expended, both frigates decided that discretion would be the better part of valour and retired to try and shield the incoming merchants in the west. Two groups of vessels were detected approaching the civilians' Path of Intended Movement [PIM]. These turned out be gunboats and there were aimed directly at the cargo ships. Immediately, the surviving helos were ordered to attack and thus hoped to keep them at arm's length. A combination of Maverick and Penguin ASMs killed most of them well over the horizon. One gunboat was killed by Stuart's 5' gun which far out-ranged the gunboat's little machine guns. As proven yet again, gunboats cannot stand up to a full-sized frigate. The frigate force that had killed the Fosters Market made a re-appearance. All the long-ranged SSMs in my force had already been expended. The enemy definitely held the upper hand in this coming confrontation as he still had a significant supply of Harpoon and Exocet SSMs. However, there was never a question of their duty. The four frigates turned towards the four Indonesian frigates in hopes of engaging with gunfire. The helos made repeated ASM attacks, but the missiles were easily brushed aside by the super-effective CADS-1 point defence system on the frigates. The RAN huddled together to try and cover each other with their SAM umbrellas. However, HMAS Newcastle bore the brunt of the SSMs. Luckily, she had a full inventory of SeaSparrow and was able to shoot down all the missiles sent in her direction. An air attack also materialized right after the SSMs were brought down. The massed SAM defences easily defeated them. The two groups were on a collision course. As the ships closed on one another, one Captain remarked that, "Apparently, not much has changed since the age of Nelson. Here we are in the 21st century and we are still attempting naval manoeuvres like 'Crossing the T'." HMAS Stuart and Canberra engaged with their 5' mounts from maximum range and changed course to maintain the distance to their targets while Voyager and Newcastle lunged towards the enemy in order to deliver their torpedoes. The classic naval engagement saw the first surface torpedo engagement since World War II. Just like their Japanese cousins, the Long Lance, the Aussie torpedoes performed admirably and sank all four ships. With no other potential threats in the area, the RAN proceeded to the rendezvous point at Date1. Thanks for a very stimulating scenario. Your most challenging one, yet! This scenario can be found in the SZO file archives.

US Navy Sizes Up Future Does the Navy have the right strategy and resources to meet future threats? by Ted McKenna Aug. 19, 2005 eDefense The US Navy still wants to fight the Battle of Midway, some critics say. Does it have the money to field a fleet that can, though, as well as fight the "global war on terror"? A growing percentage of the world's population lives in littoral areas, near the water, often in poverty and amid ethnic strife. The Navy must prepare to fight conflicts in such areas and wants to be fast and flexible in deploying forces, vehicles, and other assets on shore. As senior officers in the service point out, the Navy must prepare itself for a whole range of contingencies, from major combat to regional conflicts, interception of weapons of mass destruction on the high seas and in ports, and other, unforeseen developments. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed caught many off guard, and there could be some other surprise in the future that changes the world's outlook on security. In preparing a rationale for its future structure – how many ships, aircraft, sailors, and other resources are needed, and what kind – the Navy has issued a strategic vision that it calls Sea Power 21. But like most strategies, this only paints the Navy's future in broad strokes and lacks specifics numbers, including the size of the Navy's future fleet. Given the Navy's broadening mission – and its limited budget – this is proving a problem. Right now, at least a couple of different plans for Navy fleet size by the year 2035 or so are floating about, including one consisting of 260 ships and another of 325. During the Cold War, the Navy had some 600 ships, but with the cut in personnel the Navy underwent in the 1990s and the accompanying "procurement holiday," in which relatively little investment was made in building new ships, the Navy has had to adjust to its diminished size, with an estimated 282 ships at present, though the new Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Michael Mullen says that the US Navy today is the most capable that it's ever been. Gradually, senior planners in the Navy in recent years have been lowering their estimates for the size of the future fleet. From 375 previously mentioned by officers to members of Congress and now with talk of as few as 260, the exact number is still not decided. In fact, Admiral Mullen, having only recently replaced ADM Vern Clark – who over the past five years has worked to reform the Navy's acquisition processes and business practices – is reportedly working on a new plan to be completed over the next couple of months that lays out exact numbers of ships to be built and maintained by the Navy over the next few decades. The basis for deciding exact numbers of ships and what types lies in the Sea Power 21 doctrine, which has a number of elements but essentially involves shaping the Navy so that it can better participate in all manner of joint operations using new "network-centric" capabilities (see "Computing a New Plan of Attack"); protecting the US and theaters of military operations from missiles (see "Early Deployment of Missile Defense"); and more quickly and efficiently participating in operations through "sea-basing," in which supplies are kept at sea and closer to the area of operations instead of onshore, far away from the action, whatever that might be. The various ships the Navy now plans to begin or continue building, or at least maintaining, include the CVN-68 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, the SSN-688 Los Angeles-class submarines, the LHD-1 Wasp-class amphibious ships, the DDG-51 Aegis destroyers, the SSN-774 Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines, the LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships, the planned DD(X) multimission destroyer, and the planned high-speed Littoral Combat Ship. Overly Optimistic Aside from the question of whether these ships are the best ones for meeting the Navy's various duties, and despite the metamorphoses occurring in the various programs (see "Course Correction on US Navy's DD(X) Program" and "LCS Program Taps International Expertise"), some experts say the Navy is simply too optimistic about what it can build. For example, Dr. Eric J. Labs, principal analyst for national security at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), said that, assuming the Navy's annual budget holds steady at its current approximate level of around $10.4 billion, and allowing for inflation, the future fleet will actually number around 200. The widespread emergence of "asymmetric" tactics, including the use of improvised explosives, means that minesweeping and other means of detecting hidden bombs have emerged as a new priority for all of the US military services. Describing the factors contributing to the Navy's excessively sunny estimates about its shipbuilding capabilities, Labs said in a presentation on "Capitalizing the Future Fleet" at the Sea Enterprise 2005 conference, held Aug. 9-11 in Washington, DC, that the Navy simply hasn't learned from cost overruns for other ship programs in the past. It continues to underestimate the cost of individual programs, and it assumes more money will be coming from Congress than it should, given, for example, the heavy resources the US Army and Marine Corps are drawing on for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unrealistic, inconsistent plans from the Navy hurt its influence with lawmakers, who control the funding, Labs said, and will make getting what the Navy wants more difficult. "Absence of a coherent plan and explanation puts the Navy in a weak position in DC's money competition," Labs said. "The changes to programs that seem to be without rhyme or reason hurt." But Vice Admiral Lou Crenshaw, deputy chief of naval operations for resources, requirements, and assessments, disagreed that the Navy is doomed to have a significantly smaller fleet. Asked whether the US Navy historically has underestimated the cost of building ships and whether it continues to underestimate their cost, VADM Crenshaw said: "I don't buy the idea that we will be a prisoner of history here. I don't agree that the path we will be on will be 200 ships." Provided the Navy can learn to resist the temptation to add newly developed technology to ships as they are being built and that it can do adequate research and development ahead of time so that the shipbuilding process proceeds smoothly, costs can be kept down. "I'm pretty hopeful," he said. The type of ships being built and what they are equipped with obviously can affect how many can ultimately be built. Terry Pudas, acting director of the Defense Department's Office of Force Transformation, said that Sea Power 21 may not be the right strategy for the Navy. "It ought to be looked at," he said when questioned about Sea Power 21 at the Sea Enterprise 2005 conference. Discussing the two main types of threats the Navy wants to prepare for – littoral warfare and major combat operations – Pudas said there are "enormous challenges" in trying to plan the future fleet. "Do we have to build two fleets?" he asked. "Or are there either/or choices forced on us?" From irregular warfare to "traditional" large-scale warfare to catastrophic events, such as the detonation of a nuclear weapons, to some unforeseen "disruptive" capability that is not yet anticipated, the Navy will probably need to be able to move quickly from one type of crisis to another and have weapons, communications, ships, aircraft, and other resources that can be used in many different ways. The Navy's problem is this: it has more potential responsibilities than it did in the past, but it can't expect its budget to increase. Technology provides the means to make weapons more accurate and deadly and allow one aircraft or one ship to accomplish much more than one aircraft of ship of the past, but it also adds greatly to costs. Thus, Pudas argued that the Navy should consider building smaller ships and more of them, given the increased firepower and other capabilities that each one can carry compared with the past. Instead of the current fleet of 282 or so ships the Navy has, Pudas said, it could have as many as 1,560 eventually, according to a plan that the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) has developed and that was first introduced last year. Getting Ship-Shape Other Navy planners argue that new efficiencies in business practices, from payroll and other human resources functions to more cost-conscious practices in general by managers throughout the organization, along with reforms in program development, should leave more money for the Navy to spend on ships and material. VADM Crenshaw noted that, like other military services, the Navy spends a lot of money on integration, and it also suffers from the temptation of adding new technology to platforms as it becomes available, which, of course, means higher costs per ship. But the Navy is looking to change the old mentality that permeates many bureaucracies, where managers seek to hold onto their budget allocations year to year, whether or not their spending is efficient. Admiral Robert Willard, vice chief of naval operations, said that ADM Clark, when he first took over as chief of naval operations, considered the Navy to be in a crisis. Funding was dropping, and personnel were being cut, yet new business practices to make the Navy more efficient had not been adopted, nor was there an intelligent strategy for planning development of the Navy's future resources. "We were a culture of 'spend what you got.' I remember that we would fly aircraft just to burn up remaining gas," ADM Willard said. The fear that any money left over at the end of the year for a particular program or line item would be taken away the following year meant officers and program managers would spend all of their budget whether they really needed to or not. The missions of the US Navy and the US Coast Guard are converging, as both are being called upon to keep US maritime areas secure from attack. Experienced in conducting ship-boardings and patrolling ports, the Coast Guard also assists the Navy in overseas operations, including in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in the Middle East for Operation Iraqi Freedom. So ADM Clark sought to reform the Navy in its various business practices, ADM Willard said, and achieving a modern, cost-efficient organize continues to be a struggle. As for the size of the fleet, ADM Willard said that "when we do come out with a force-structure plan, it will be for the future," but he did not provide specifics. Will more efficient business practices really permit the Navy to buy more ships? "I'm not convinced you will get savings that will allow you to buy 20 more ships over 10 years," said the CBO's Labs. "Also, it may be that, if you save money, the Navy won't get to keep it. It may go to other services like the Army, given the geopolitical situation and all the resources it needs to maintain operations." Senior Navy leaders argue, though, that reforming business and product-acquisition practices not only save the service money but allow it to be a lot more responsive to crises than it might have been in the past. For instance, cheap, fairly non-technical threats like improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are proving a significant threat to high-tech US forces, as seen with the bombing of the USS Cole and all the bombing attacks occurring in Iraq today, and solutions to counter these threats, if they are based on technology, are ironically increasingly high-tech (see "Shutting the Bomb Factory"). Defeating such threats may ultimately be done not by instituting some new development program but by through some creative, as-yet-unknown approach to the problem. Expect the Unexpected Thus, given the unpredictable nature of threats to US interests around the world, creativity is important to planning in general, noted Vice Admiral John G. Morgan Jr., the deputy chief of naval operations for information, plans, and strategy, since obviously no one can be certain what will happen in the future. "I don't know what the Navy will look like 30 years from now," VADM Morgan said in a speech during the Navy-Industry R&D Partnership Conference 2005, held July 26-29 in Washington, DC. As a kind of analogy for illustrating the difficulties in planning for the future, whether to restructure the Naval force or simply anticipate an enemy attack, whatever it might be, VADM Morgan showed a black-and-white video from the Internet of people running in a circle passing two basketballs back and forth to one another. Focus only the guys in the white shirts and their basketball, not the other set of people, he said. After the video ended, he asked how many times had the ball been passed among the guys in white shirts. Seven or eight, most people counted. Then he asked, "How many of you saw the lady holding the umbrella?" Out of more than 200 people in the audience, just a few people raised their hands. With the video running again, a lady holding an umbrella could clearly be seen walking through the circle as basketballs passed back and forth around her. Why had so few people seen the lady? ADM Morgan asked. "Because I primed you ahead of time to look for something specific," he said. The events of September 11, 2001, and subsequent the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not foreseen by the Navy or many others, and there may be other events developing that, like the "war on terror," could be as obvious as the lady with the umbrella. By better anticipating future threats, better planning of the Navy's future force should result, if only people learned to look for other than what they expect to see. Coast Guard Charts Course With Navy US Coast Guard (USCG) Admiral Thomas H. Collins is steering clear of specifics about funding changes to the Coast Guard's Deepwater acquisition program (see "US Coast Guard Ventures Into Deepwater"), the plans for which are being affected by budget limits. But along with shipbuilding and aircraft purchases, long-term planning for the USCG also involves changes to its relationships with other US military services and government agencies. Following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, on Sept. 11, 2001, the US Coast Guard began devoting some 50% of its budget to US homeland security. With all of its expanding duties, the USCG is having to rethink its ship-acquisition plans. Speaking at the conservative Heritage Foundation research group in Washington, DC, on July 18 on the topic of "The Future of the Coast Guard: A View From the Top," ADM Collins said that in the midst of its effort to acquire a range of new ships, boats, aircraft, helicopters, and surveillance technology, among other items, the Coast Guard has had to reallocate about 50% of its assets to national-security purposes, such as port security, as a result of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. This has meant adjustments in its plans to update its resources. The Deepwater plan currently calls for about $24 billion to be spent over the next 25 years on a variety of aircraft and ships, including 350-foot Offshore Patrol Cutters, 418-foot National Security Cutters, 140-foot Fast Response Cutters, 35-foot Long Range Interceptors, and 123-foot Maritime Patrol Boats. The exact number for these ships and boats, along with planned aircraft and other resources the Coast Guard wants to acquire, are in the process of being adjusted, just as the Navy is having to fiddle with numbers to support its Sea Power 21 strategy. Like the US Navy, the USCG has a multitude of missions to cover, so it needs to build a fleet that can be used for many types of operations. Though the Coast Guard may be best known for its work assisting ships in distress, monitoring boater safety, and the like, law-enforcement and military operations are nothing new for the Coast Guard, which was established by the US Congress in 1790 to enforce tariff and trade laws, prevent smuggling, and protect the collection of federal revenue. Today, the USCG's duties cover everything from interception of weapons of mass destruction on the high seas to protecting US ports and assisting the US Navy in ship-boardings (see "Armed and Ready"). But why should the Navy and Coast Guard have totally separate shipbuilding and aircraft programs when a lot of their missions are the same? Some policy analysts advocate basically combing the two services and consolidating their shipbuilding plans to a large degree, given that some of the ships each plan to build are relatively similar. Bruce Stubbs, the technical director of the Anteon (Arlington, VA) Center for Security Strategies and Operations, said in a paper prepared for the Heritage Foundation that "full integration between the Navy and the Coast Guard with respect to maritime-security capabilities, planning, and operations is warranted, especially in light of current and foreseeable budget realities." Officials from the Coast Guard and Navy note that integration of the services is part of their discussions in connection with the latest Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), due for release next February (see "Guessing Game: Quadrennial Defense Review 2005"). ADM Collins, for instance, said that in his talks regarding the QDR, which is a Congressionally mandated report from the US Defense Department on its planned future spending and overall development strategy, one area of focus has been the creation of better "maritime domain awareness," which means closer integration of intelligence collected from various sources, including different services like the USCG and Navy. That doesn't mean the USCG and USN will merge, though. US Navy Admiral Robert Willard, vice chief of Naval Operations, noted at the Sea Enterprise 2005 conference, held Aug. 9-11 in Washington, DC, that integration is a word, like "transformation" or "networking," that is often bandied about but can mean different things to different people. Certainly, the QDR will tout closer integration of the various US military services in the sense of being able to more quickly share information and coordinate missions. Aircraft from the US Air Force should be able to fly smoothly with aircraft from the Navy, including exchanging information quickly, but that doesn't mean there are any plans to combine services. "That is totally off the table. I can tell you that," ADM Willard said. "There is no talk about merging the services."

Mark Gellis has published the 36th scenario of the year. Looks like another episode in the Global War on Terror. Thanks for sharing it with the community. Roman Thunder – ALBAT10A - EC2003 MEDC A few years in the future... Tensions between Algeria and the E.U. have increased. Algeria is now controlled by a religious dictatorship that is hostile to the West. The E.U. believes Algeria is responsible for several recent terrorist attacks in Europe. Current thinking in Europe is that the most likely solution to the problem is regime change. Intelligence officers have been in communication with a coalition of rebel groups in Algeria--it would probably be too much to call them pro-Western, but they would certainly be an improvement over the current lot. They will view an E.U. attack as a signal to initiate their own attacks against the Algerian government. If the rebels can overthrow the current regime, it may mark the start of a period of improved relations with Algeria. This scenario requires Harpoon Classic version 16b8 or later and also the HCDB_050812 or later in order to function properly. Author: Mark Gellis Check it out on the file archives at: FilesOfScenShare

Taiwan to get warships from US by year-end Taipei: Taiwan will begin taking delivery of four US Kidd-class destroyers before year's end to boost its defences against China, a military official said Tuesday. NewKerala "Two of the four vessels are undergoing testing and training in the US," Rear Admiral Lee Hao said at a news conference. "Both have passed the tests by the US Atlantic Fleet. Test-firing of Standard II anti-air missiles on the vessels will be held in October." "The two warships will depart from the Charleston port in South Carolina for Taiwan via the Panama Canal in November and are expected to arrive in Taiwan before the end of the year," Lee added. The Kidd-class destroyers are part of a $18.2 billion arms-sale package approved by US President George W. Bush in 2001. The sale also includes six sets of PAC-3 anti-missile systems, eight diesel submarines and 12 P-3C anti-submarine aircraft. The Taiwan parliament, however, has been blocking the budget for PAC-3, P-3C and subs, arguing that their prices are too high and delivery too late. The four destroyers meant for Taiwan joined the US Navy between 1981 and 1982 and were decommissioned in 1998 and 1999 after having served half their service life. Since then they have been in storage. The 9,000-tonne destroyers' radar has a search range of 400 km, and its Standard II missiles can hit at a distance of 150 km.

Nuclear subs on lease from Russia to India ST. PETERSBURG—The construction of a training centre for the Indian military in Sosnovy Bor, 70 kilometers west of St. Petersburg, confirms Russia’s intentions to lease nuclear submarines to India, said Green World Chairman Oleg Bodrov. Vera Ponomaryova, 2005-08-16 15:56 Bellona The international centre will open in September in the town that also hosts the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant, and will train some 300 Indian naval officers. Sosnovy Bor is home to the Russian Training Centre for Officers of the Russian Navy which houses working nuclear reactors of the type found on nuclear submarines. These reactors are used to test nuclear fuel and other technologies applicable to nuclear submarine reactors. A building recently went up along side the training centre, where Indian specialists will apparently be schooled. According to Green World, the building went up in record time following the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India last December. What is the new building? A spokesman for the Sosnovy Bor administration confirmed to Bellona Web that the international training centre had been built, but had no specific information about the programme of study or the number of officers who will study there. Prior to 1991, crews of Soviet submarines were trained in three locations: Paldisky (Estonia); Sevastopol (Ukraine) and Sosnovy Bor. According to the spokesman, the new building will not house any special equipment or installations—such as nuclear reactors—but is only a wing for classrooms and has no relation to the nuclear industry. Bodrov, who earlier worked at the Alexandrov Scientific and Technical Research institute (NITI in its Russian abbreviation) where tests of new submarines prototypes are carried out, clarified how such a center would be built. “As far as I can judge from my own experience at [NITI] the centre would hold simulators—computers that imitate submarines.” Nuclear Submarines for rent? Bodrov said that the training of Indian submariners in Sosnovy Bor was a testament to the notion that Russia has not given up on its plans of leasing nuclear submarines. Representatives of the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs and the Ministry of Defense said they were not ready to comment on the potential nuclear submarine leasing. Nonetheless, India’s defense minister, Pranab Mukharjee, said that negotiations about obtaining a Russian nuclear submarine were underway. At the same time, Mukharjee said that, as yet, the sides were not bound by “any obligations relative to the acquisition by the Indian side of an Akula class submarine.” Mukharjee said the conclusion of any deals hinged on “various international obligations and agreements.” Representatives of various Russian ministries have also spoken many times of similar intentions. Russian Navy Chief Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov announced in early 2002 his readiness to lease two nuclear submarines to India. It was planned that the first sub would to India in 2004. But the Indian side did not follow up with any official commentary to Kuroyedov’s words. Discussion of this contract was again taken up in the press toward the beginning of last year, but is was denies by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Now, according to Green World, “Leasing India two third generation multi-purpose submarines with the option to buy them, as many media reports indicated in late 2004, is apparently becoming a reality.” Bodrov commented further, asking “otherwise, why train some 300 Indian submariners in Russia? That constitutes 4 Akula crews.” Russian has experience in leasing nuclear subs to India. In January 1988, India leased three Soviet-era Skat class—known as Charlie class in NATO designation—multi-purpose submarines, equipped with eight nuclear missile installations. After the term of the lease ran out, the subs were returned to Russia and decommissioned. “If India is sending its submariners to us to learn how to operate their submarines, then that likely means a number of nuclear sub leasing agreements exist,” said Alexander Nikitin, who heads Bellona’s St. Petersburg office, the Environmental Right’s Centre. “Moreover, such a scheme was already worked out in 1988—then the theoretical preparation of the crews took place in Vladivostok, and the practical training in the submarines themselves with Russian sailors aboard.” Bodrov thinks that this time, the matter concerns the building of two Akula class submarines, which is taking place at the Amur Shipbuilding yard. Current published figures indicate that the two Akulas—one 70 to 85 percent complete and the other 40 to 60 percent complete—will cost India some $400m. The leasing costs would amount to some $25m a year. The construction of both submarines, on shore infrastructure for them and training of the crews could run Russia, according to experts, some $2 billion. It is worth bearing in mind that the Akula class sub is a Project 971 nuclear strike submarine—one of the fastest-moving submarines in the Russian fleet. Their crews consist of 73 sailor. The subs carry OK-650 type reactors. The subs are outfitted with four 650 millimeter torpedo tubes and as many 533 millimeter tubes. Akulas are armed with winged Granit torpedoes carrying nuclear warheads, under water missiles and missile torpedoes of the “Shkval,” “Vodopad,” and “Veter” types. Russia-Indian military co-operation It is noteworthy that Russia already has experience selling diesel submarines and other weapons to India. Between 1968 and 1971, India purchased eight submarines of project number I-641 and I-641K, eight Project 159AE battle cruisers, eight Project Project 205E missile cruisers and several other assistance vessels. During 1983 to 1991, India completed its navy with the purchase from the then-USSR of three Project 61ME destroyers, three projects 1234E corvettes, six Project 1258E mine-sweepers, and eight Project 877EKM (NATO Kilo class) submarines. Then, on January 20th, 2004, India purchased from Russia in one of the biggest contracts to date the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, built in 1978. The Russian firm Rosoboroneksport took upon itself the modernisation of the ship and equipping it with state of the at weapons systems and deck-borne aviation, such as MiG 29Ks, and Ka-27 and Ka-31 anti-submarine helicopters. At present the foundation of the Indian Navy is nine diesel Kilo submarines from Russia’s Rubin graving yard in St. Petersburg and several ships analogous to the West German JKL 209/1500 type. Proliferation Risks In the opinion of ecologists, the coming submarine lease deal poses a serious threat to international security, stimulating, as it does, the Indian-Pakistani nuclear arms race. “Arming of third world countries is a very dangerous business that can lead to military escalation in the east,” said Vladimir Chuprov, coordinator of energy programmes at Greenpeace Russia. Chuprov said that selling weapons to India was a “regurgitation of the Cold War.” ”Kremlin bureaucrats still live on the fundamentals of the last century, considering the basic task of the state to be wide-scale preparation for war, arming India, North Korea and other countries.” Chuprov continued saying that a submarine can contain up to 10 kilograms of plutonium in its spent nuclear fuel. “And even though nuclear scientists are usually specify that this is not weapons quality plutonium, energy plutonium still explodes,” he said. India is one of four influential countries that are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. A new installation—a new target for terrorists According to Green World’s Bodrov, the current deal not only sharpens the situation in Southeast Asia, but implies another danger: Placing the training centre in Sosnovy Bor puts the city on the radar of terrorists. At the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant alone there are four reactors of the Chernobyl-type RMBK 1000, several naval reactors at NITI, temporary storage for highly radioactive waste from the nuclear power plant, and enough highly toxic waste to constitute dozens of Chernobyls. The Northwest Russian regional facility of RADON for the outdoor storage of medium and high level nuclear waste also operates in Sosnovy Bor as does the Ekomet-S firm, a smelting plant for radioactive metals. “The appearance in Sosnovy Bor of an international Russian-Indian centre for nuclear cooperation in the military sphere could create a nuclear and radiological dangerous installation on the Russia Baltic into a target for international terrorism,” said Bodrov.

35th Scenario this year! Dave Steinmeyer has posted his second scenario, BALTIC TIDE. Thanks for sharing it with us. World War III has been raging across the globe for three days already. Casualties have been high on both sides. Where the Soviets expected to make rapid gains on land, they have not. And where NATO expected to quickly gain control of the skies above Europe, the Pact has made more than a fight of it. At sea, there are only the quick and the dead. What were supposed to be set piece battles turned into bloodbaths with the winner being whoever fired first. While no American carriers have been sunk, yet, three have been heavily damaged in the GIUK Gap alone. One of the few things going as planned is NATO's campaign against Soviet subs in the Atlantic and North Sea. With the combination of first-class sonar, excellent signals processing, and land and ship based aircraft, NATO has been able to smother almost any sub contact they run across. Reinforcements are being rushed into the meat grinder that is the North Atlantic. Here, at least, NATO has the advantage of unrestricted access to the sea. Any Pact units in transit to the Atlantic must pass through restricted (and often NATO-controlled) seaways. NATO Orders: The Soviets have already sustained very heavy losses to the naval forces they had pre-positioned in the North Sea and Atlantic prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Satellite reconnaissance indicates that a major Surface Action Group will attempt to surge through the Danish Straits. In order to support this breakout, East German airborne units and Polish Marines have landed on several Danish islands. And, while Pact losses in these landing have been high, they are still stubbornly holding their positions. We also have indications of a large number of Soviet cargo aircraft marshaling at Russian airfields as well as cargo ships leaving the port of Leningrad. We believe they are trying to push supplies and equipment forward to support their efforts on the central front. Close the Danish Straits. Do not allow the SAG to complete its transit to the North Sea. Soviet orders: NATO surface fleets in the North Sea and around Denmark have suffered great attrition from our naval air forces. Expect only light forces to oppose your transit. The threat of NATO subs is high, however. NATO air forces and ASW units pose the greatest danger to your mission. Get the SAG through the Danish straits and into the North Sea for follow-on commerce raider operations against the UK and the French coast. Author: Dave Steinmeyer This scenario requires the latest release of the PlayersDB v5.9.7 Get it via: StrategyZoneOnline, HarpGamer, SimHQ, PlayersDB Depot, SubSim, CombatAce, or Frugal's World of Simulation. Check it out at: FilesOfScenShare

GLOBAL INSECURITY Private navies combat Malacca Strait pirates Waterway now so dangerous for shipping, Lloyd's classifies major seaway as warzone © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Ship captains navigating the Malacca Strait no longer have to depend on the slow response of government – or sheer luck – to safely pass through the pirate- and terrorist-infested waters since private navies have begun providing escort services for ships through the strategic seaway. The Strait, passageway to a third of the world's crude oil, has long been treacherous, with gangs armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other modern weapons ready to board, kill crews, steal cargo and even hijack and resell ships. As reported by WorldNetDaily, pirates stalking ships in the Strait have escalated their tactics and capabilities, raising the fear terrorists may infiltrate their ranks and use hijacked ships as platforms for attacks. "We have been alarmed not only by the increase in the number of pirate attacks in the sea lanes of communication in this part of the world, but also in the nature of the piracy attacks," said Tony Tan, Singapore's minister for security. "In previous years when you had a piracy attack, what it meant is that you have a sampan or a boat coming up to a cargo ship, pirates throwing up some ropes, scrambling on board, ransacking the ship for valuables, stealing money and then running away," Tan told an Asian security forum, according to a report in the Khaleej Times. "But the last piracy attack that took place in the Straits of Malacca showed a different pattern," he added. The pirates were well armed, operating sophisticated weapons and commanding high-speed boats. "They conducted the operation almost with military precision." Tan added: "Instead of just ransacking the ship for valuables, they took command of the ship, and steered the ship for about an hour, and then eventually left with the captain in their captivity. To all of us, this is reminiscent of the pattern by which terrorists mount an attack." It is this level of violence that has caused Lloyd's Market Association to designate the Malacca Strait a warzone like Iraq for insurance purposes – a designation that translates into higher costs of doing business. But business problems breed business solutions – in this case, private navies that provide onboard security and naval escort services to cargo ships and tankers. Five security companies from Britain and the U.S. have entered the private navy business in the region in the last year, hoping to tap a market that prices security at a minimum of $50,000 per ship. Companies like Background Asia Risk Solutions, the first naval security firm to open for business in Singapore, hire U.S. and British Commonwealth ex-military and police personnel, many with experience in Iraq or Afghanistan. While forbidden by law from using heavy machine guns, the armed escorts provide onboard security and chartered patrol boats to escort client ships. Some firms even claim to be able to recapture ships or oil rigs from hijackers by rappelling security forces from helicopters. "We are not in the business of eradicating piracy," Alex Duperouzel, managing director of Background Asia, told the Glasgow Sunday Herald. "But we are in the business of suppressing it and protecting our clients." Background Asia typically runs six escort missions monthly at around $100,000 each. The going rate for ransoming kidnapped ship's masters in the region is $120,000. Duperouzel said his forces have not yet had to open fire – his men merely stepping up to the side of the ship with weapons displayed has been sufficient to convince pirates to leave, often to find easier prey. While statistics indicate 4 murders of crew members last year, the number of attacks in Indonesian waters and the Strait dropped from 77 to 56, a sign, perhaps, the private navies are suppressing piracy. The 12-15 gangs in the area, each about 50-strong, operate out of southern Thailand and Indonesia. Some have links to the Triads in Hong Kong, organized crime syndicates with resources and networks to fence stolen cargoes. Others are associated with Islamic terrorist groups like Jemaah Islamiyah. "We are concerned that terrorists may seize control of a tanker with a cargo of lethal materials, LNG (liquefied natural gas) perhaps, chemicals, and use it as a floating bomb against our port," Tan said. "This would cause catastrophic damage, not only to the port but also for people, because our port is located very near to a highly dense residential area. Thousands of people would be killed." "If terrorists were to seize a tanker, a large ship, and sink it into a narrow part of the Straits it will cripple world trade," Tan said. "It would have the iconic large impact which terrorists seek." Malaysia has rejected the use of foreign forces to patrol the area. For now, that leaves the private navies that have proven their mettle against pirates seeking booty but who have yet to be tested against terrorists intent on destruction, whatever the cost.

AAR: Emerald Action By Mark Gellis Lieutenant O'Malley was fuming as he walked out of the radio room. He had just received his orders from HQ ashore. "Locate Norwegian fishing vessels in your vicinity and handle with extreme prejudice." Although he didn't necessarily agree with their implied violence, he could obey them. The next part of his orders were what gave him gastronomic upset, "Norwegian frigate Narvik believed to be in your Area of Operations [AO]. Exercise extreme caution." Now how the heck was he supposed to deal with that? Did the REMFs ever bother to compare the range of his 76mm guns to the range of the Narvik's Surface-to-Surface Missiles [sSMs]? He said a quick prayer for himself and his crews and walked the short distance to the bridge to begin the operation. His two small vessels were more attuned to fishery management and not a stand up fight with a naval frigate. More depressing was the fact that his forces were nearly blind as they were only equipped with short-ranged radar. A small consolation was the assignment of three SF260 aircraft from Shannon. However, these aircraft were nearly as blind as the ships as they had no active sensors. It would be the ultimate game of "Marco Polo". To actually find any ships on this sea was going to require blind luck, indeed. To help hide his vessels, O'Malley ordered his ships to engage their radar only sporadically. Hopefully, this would prevent the frigate from establishing a firm contact on him from Electronic Support Measures [ESM] alone. It was the only card he had to play. As the planes flew back and forth over the wide ocean, one stumbled upon the St. Lucia, a trawler registered in Stavanger. The Niamh was immediately ordered to intercept and attempt to board her. Unfortunately, as Niamh closed on her, the Frigate was detected dangerously close to the Niamh. The Niamh was chasing a vessel doing 14kts, she was doing 22kts, and she was being chased by a vessel running 25knots. O'Malley had the image of a small fish being devoured by a bigger fish who was in turn being eaten by a yet larger fish. Well, whatever their fate, O'Malley was determined to catch the St. Lucia before she herself was caught. The other patrol vessel, Ciara, could make 25kts and decided to stay well clear of the frigate's path. Ciara made contact with another trawler, Katerina, who serendipitously appeared in front of her. As both Irish vessels ran for their lives, they also closed on these merchant intruders. When they reached a distance of 1nm, the Norwegian ships were ordered to halt for fishery inspection. When they refused to do so, they were ordered sunk by gunfire. For reasons unknown, once the trawlers were sunk, the frigate disengaged from her pursuit and victory was awarded. The luck of the Irish had held today. Thanks for an interesting little encounter. I think that my success was more due to luck than skillful deployment. Check it out in the StrategyZoneOnline file archives.

HMS CREWLESS Daily Mirror EXCLUSIVE Royal Navy unveils Britain's biggest ever ships ..but there's not enough sailors to man them By Chris Hughes NAVY chiefs are desperately looking for more than 1,000 new recruits to help crew Britain's two biggest ever warships. The two £1.5billion 60,000-ton aircraft carriers - three times heavier than the ones currently in the fleet - are not due to be ready until 2012. But top brass are desperate to start recruiting now. One senior source revealed yesterday: "This is a crisis as we need hundreds more marines and engineers to be ready in time. "We are moving on from the Cold War. That's over, but the need for small, lightning attacks or defensive strategies is vital. "We're adapting to an ever-changing world in which the fight against terrorism needs us to expand our versatility and sea and air capability. "That means we need to get young people training now." The design of the two ships, called Carriers of the Future (CVFs), is constantly changing and has not yet been finalised. But when built they will dwarf 43,000-ton French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle as well as the Royal Navy's three similar ships.

China's new destroyers feature Aegis tech copied from U.S. Special to World Tribune.com EAST-ASIA-INTEL.COM Thursday, July 21, 2005 China's military put its new guided missile destroyers on display last week, disclosing its two new warships that are equipped with Aegis-type battle management systems. Two new Luyang II guided missile destroyers are part of China's naval builduup. The two Luyang II guided missile destroyers are Beijing's first Aegis-type ships. The ships are currently undergoing sea trials. U.S. intelligence officials say China stole the technology for the Aegis battle management system by setting up a front company in the United States that became a subcontractor for the Aegis system manufacturer. The Chinese also showed two other new guided missile destroyers, known as Luyang I. Both types of destroyers are equipped with Russian military equipment and weapons, including missiles, as well as indigenous Chinese anti-ship missiles. The four warships are part of China's military buildup that U.S. officials say is designed for more than just a Taiwan conflict. The Chinese are building a deep-water navy able to project power, especially against the United States.

34th Scenario posted this year! See for yourself if history could have played out differently at the Bay of Pigs. This scenario uses the Colonial Wars database edited by Paul Bridge. Bay of Pigs On April 14th, 1961, six ships departed a Nicaraguan training camp where they had spent months training with CIA instructors. Brigade 2506 was to land at the Bay of Pigs in southern Cuba to overthrow Castro's regime. Sixteen B-26C Invader medium-range bombers were ready in Central America to support their invasion. Cuba's army and militia, while numerically strong, were thought to be poorly motivated and likely to switch sides when the invasion took place. Cuba's air force was poorly equipped, had low servicability, and would be destroyed on the ground by the rebel B-26s and by US strikes on the main airbases. After all, it was the CIA who had organised the invasion. In reality, President Kennedy had inherited the operation from his predecessors and, while unwilling to pull the plug, he severely limited the support that could be given and personally ordered a veto against air strikes on Cuban airbases. This scenario starts on April 15th 1961 and lasts 24 hours. It uses Paul Bridge's Colonial Database (v1.5 July 6th, 2005). Thanks to Paul for many database updates. ORDERS FOR CUBA SITUATION CIA remains committed to the removal of the Communist government of Cuba by any means possible. President Kennedy appears to be no different from his predecessors in advocating invasion and assassination plots against our country. The Soviet Union has reacted enthusiastically to our requests for arms and, so far, 4 MiG-15s and some shipments of Czech submachine guns have been received. Most of our air force personnel are training on MiG-15, MiG-19 fighters, and the new SA-2 SAM rockets in Russia and Czechoslovakia. Only some trainee fighter pilots and the 4 captains piloting the Migs are available to support our B26 bombers in defending Cuba. ORDERS Your orders are to defend Cuba against potential aggression. The timing of such aggression is expected within the next day, but be wary of attempts to draw out our forces to reduce their effectiveness. Intel reports that the CIA has used training camps in Florida, Nicaragua and Guatemala to train a unit known as Brigade 2506. They appear to have access to military aircraft and are thought to be planning a parachute or ship insertion somewhere in Cuba. ORDERS FOR REBELS "Men of Brigade 2506; the liberation of our country has begun! We will invade Cuba! Our training has honed our small arms skills, taught us how to cooperate with our air power, and made us familiar with the Landing Ships from which we will unload our tanks, our infantry companies, and our supplies. Good Luck" <<Eyes Only Commander Brigade 2506>> President Kennedy has personally approved the operation. U-2 reconnaissance missions have been planned. The Amphibious Landing Ship USS San Marco with two escorting destroyers will support our invasion and escort us in. The Essex Carrier group will be flying cover missions over the beachheads enabling our unescorted B-26C bombers to level the enemy. Author: Freek Schepers Check it out at:

Troubled ship San Antonio joins Navy's fleet A report earlier this month said the ship had bad wiring, cable deficiencies as shown above, inadequate ventilation, corrosion, safety deficiencies throughout and “poor construction and craftsmanship standards.” U.S. NAVY By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot © July 21, 2005 NORFOLK – The Navy quietly accepted delivery Wednesday of the amphibious ship San Antonio despite a highly critical report earlier this month from its own inspection board warning not to do so until significant problems were fixed or waived by the chief of naval operations. In a small morning ceremony on the bridge wing of the new helicopter and troop carrier – the first in its class of 12 sister ships – the Navy took possession from Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Pascagoula, Miss., saying remaining work will be completed and the deficiencies corrected. The Navy anticipates moving the crew of 360 aboard next month and is prepared for the ship to be commissioned into service in late October or early November, according to shipyard and Navy officials. The 684-foot, 24,900-ton amphibious transport dock, is to be based in Norfolk. In a statement released by the Navy Sea Systems Command in Washington, the San Antonio, also known by its hull number of LPD-17, received “satisfactory scores” during its sea trials for seven graded demonstrations. Those tested main propulsion, engineering and ship control systems, mission systems, combat systems, damage control, food service and crew support. The average score was .92 of a possible 1.0, the Navy said. “As summarized best by the Board of Inspection and Survey, “San Antonio is a highly capable platform with great potential for future service to the fleet,” said Shirley Copeland, a spokeswoman for the command. On July 8 a Navy inspection board report to Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, said the ship was plagued by bad wiring, inadequate ventilation, corrosion, safety deficiencies throughout and “poor construction and craftsmanship standards.” The ship “will be plagued by electrical and electronic cable plant installation deficiencies throughout its entire service life if currently-planned corrective actions are not complete,” the report continued. Watertight integrity is compromised throughout the ship by numerous cable crossings through decks that may never be corrected, it said. Photographs obtained this week by The Virginian-Pilot show some of the electrical cable problems the inspectors disclosed in their report. “The board recommends the CNO authorize (the sea systems command) to accept delivery provided all starred deficiencies have been corrected, or waived, by CNO prior to acceptance,” it concluded. There were 37 starred items in the report, citing everything from a crash-prone engineering control system to incomplete sprinkler systems in the berthing compartments. A new memorandum of agreement, signed just before the Navy accepted the ship, is designed to ensure the ship’s major problems are fixed. “Both the government and the shipbuilder agreed the corrections that need to be made that were cited by the Inserv Board will be made and the ship is ready to go,” said Brian Cullin, a spokesman for Northrop Grumman in Washington. Acceptance of the ship by the Navy is an administrative commissioning, Cullin said, that will allow its commanding officer to take the ship to sea for various examinations and tests as the crew becomes certified. While the San Antonio’s builders have been criticized for being two years late and more than $400 million over budget, Cullin pointed out that his company was not involved in its early construction. The keel for the ship was laid in December 2000 at Avondale Shipyard in New Orleans, with delivery expected by September 2003. Funding delays, schedule changes and construction issues caused the completion date to slip. Northrop Grumman then acquired Avondale and Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula in 2002 and moved the ship from New Orleans to Pascagola in November 2004, where work continues to complete it. “We were up front about this,” Cullin said. “This ship has had extraordinary challenges. It was at risk of being canceled early on and it has been a constant process trying to work through those.” Since acquiring the new shipyards and the San Antonio, Nortrop Grumman has taken its work force from New Orleans through significant changes in the last three years to improve its skills and correct the ship’s problems, Cullin said. “Northop Grumman is aggressively completing correction of these items,” he said. “The Inserv Board’s function in life is to find out everything that needs to be right before a ship enters the fleet and that’s exactly what the Inserv did.” Despite the inspectors report, the ship came through builders trials and acceptance trials with the lowest number of major deficiencies than some previous first-of-class warships, Cullin said. The final cost of the ship cold reach $1.85 billion the Navy said. Its original cost was to have been about $830 million.

There are at least one boatload of sailors in the Royal Canadian Navy who can fully empathize with their Australian counterparts. Sub 20 seconds from death By Cameron Stewart July 23, 2005 News.com.au AN Australian submarine carrying 55 sailors was seconds from sinking to the bottom of the Indian Ocean following a catastrophic on-board flood off the coast of Perth. The near-tragedy has forced the navy to permanently reduce the diving depth of its fleet of six Collins-class submarines for safety reasons - a move that has weakened their military capability. An investigation by The Weekend Australian has revealed that an accident on board HMAS Dechaineux on February 12, 2003, was more serious than the navy has publicly admitted. "I don't think there was anybody on our boat who wasn't shit-scared that day," said Able Seaman Geordie Bunting, who almost drowned in the flood and who has now spoken about it for the first time. "Another five seconds and we would have been in big trouble ... another 10 and you have got to question whether we could have surfaced." Mike Deeks, the then commander of the navy's submarine force, said: "We were talking seconds, not minutes. It was a very serious, significant flood." The depth at which the accident occurred and the maximum depth to which the submarine fleet is now capable of diving is classified information. All operational details about the vessel are classified because they could aid an enemy. The accident happened about 40 nautical miles off Perth when a sea water hose in the lower engine room failed just as the Dechaineux, the fourth of the navy's six Collins-class submarines, was at its deepest diving depth. "There was a loud bang and something hard flew past my head," Seaman Bunting said. "Then the water flooded in and I got tossed around like in a washing machine. It was coming in so fast I thought it was all over." Two sailors rushed to rescue Seaman Bunting from the flooded engine room as Dechaineux's captain Peter Scott and his crew tried desperately to stem the flow of sea water and make the stricken submarine climb. The crew succeeded in stopping the flood but the submarine had taken so much water it did not respond immediately to the emergency commands. "It was pretty bloody close, mate. There would have been a lot of people frozen in the moment," Seaman Bunting said. Lieutenant Commander Geoff Wadley, who was in the control room when the flood occurred, said: "There was a period before the submarine reacted and there was a lot of tension in the air." Able Seaman Greg Sullivan, who saved Seaman Bunting's life by fishing him out of the flooded room, said: "I was thinking we could be in trouble. You knew it was taking longer than it should (to start to surface)." If the flood had not been stopped in time, Dechaineux and its crew would have sunk and been crushed by water pressure before hitting the seabed. "It would have been like crushing an empty Coke can in your hand," Seaman Bunting said. "We were too deep to hit the bottom alive." Senior naval sources estimate that if the flood had continued for another 15-25 seconds, Dechaineux would have become too heavy to climb back to the surface. Asked by The Weekend Australian to confirm if Dechaineux was about 20 seconds from disaster, the navy said: "All floods in submarines are serious and time is clearly a critical factor." At the time of the accident, the navy admitted Dechaineux had taken on water but hid the true gravity of the situation. It would have been Australia's worst military disaster since the 1964 HMAS Voyager tragedy near Jervis Bay on the New South Wales South Coast, which left 82 sailors dead. The navy responded to the crisis by ordering the submarine fleet back to port and conducting exhaustive tests on the hose that failed. However, it was never able to find a fault with the hoses, which are still used. Instead, the navy has reduced the diving depth of the submarines, and as a result the pressure placed on the seawater hoses. There has not been a major flooding incident since. Despite teething problems, the six Collins submarines have performed above expectation in operations, becoming one of the nation's most valuable military assets. Captain Scott nominated two of his crew for bravery awards. But more than two years later, those medals have still not been presented. "We all had a pretty good idea how completely catastrophic it could have been," said a senior crew member who asked not to be named. "If it had been any worse, we wouldn't have got up, and if our propulsion system had failed we wouldn't have made it. We were probably only 20 seconds away (from sinking)." Seaman Bunting said the accident changed his life. "I'm still nervous about it. It's the closest I'd like to come to death."

US offers warships to India for first time NEW DELHI, JULY 22 (PTI) OutlookIndia For the first time, the United States has offered India military hardware including warships like minesweepers and big landing ships, Chief of Naval staff Admiral Arun Prakash said here today. "The new defence framework being worked out between the two countries provides, for the first time, sale of military hardware," Prakash said as he pointed out that a high-level Naval delegation would visit the US soon to look at American Naval minesweepers and troop and equipment landing ships. According to military experts, the US gesture is significant as so far Washington's defence deals with New Delhi have revolved round sale of weapon locating radars, human detecting sensors and supply of P3C Orions, long-range maritime reconnisance aircraft. On Orions, the Naval chief said the negotiations were at an advanced stage, but at the same time indicated that to serve its purpose, Navy might go in for global tenders for the purchase of such aircraft. In a lengthy interaction with media on the sidelines of the anniversary of a security magazine, Prakash also referred to a "big void" in the country's underwater capability and pointed out that the pending multi-billion Euro deal on acquisition of Scorpene submarines from France would be renegotiated to cover pricing, cost escalation as well as to insert transparency and integrity clauses in the deal. Prakash said the renegotiation would not be on the basic price but on "certain aspects" of it. The Navy was also considering Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology for the Scorpenes, he said.

South American future for HMS Norfolk EDP 20 July 2005 20:04 HMS Norfolk, the county's adopted warship, has been sold to the Chilean Navy as part of a three-ship package deal worth just under £200m. It means the sixth ship to bear the county name has followed its predecessor for a new life south of the equator. The Type 23 frigate, which ended its Royal Navy service at the end of March, will head to the southern hemisphere with sister ships HMS Grafton and HMS Marlborough over the next three years. Training and spare parts are also included in the $350m (£192m) deal. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “That represents extremely good value for the British taxpayer.” The ships ended their career after the introduction of the Type 45 destroyer, which has a much greater capability, and because of a perceived reduction in the enemy submarine threat, an area of operation that HMS Norfolk was specifically designed to counter. MoD sources say the sale of the three frigates to Chile also signals an improving relationship between Britain and the South American state in recent years. The sixth HMS Norfolk ended its illustrious service with the Royal Navy at the end of March, followed by a formal decommissioning ceremony on April 15. It has not been to sea since November, after a farewell visit to Norfolk and the east coast. It was launched in 1987 and has seen service across the globe, including most recently in the northern Arabian Gulf as part of the war on terror, but has spent the last few months at its home naval base of Devonport. The current HMS Norfolk was deemed surplus to requirements last July amid the same round of defence cuts that saw the closure of RAF Coltishall announced. The fifth HMS Norfolk, launched in November 1967, once had Prince Charles as one of its company. When the vessel left service, she was handed over to the Chilean navy on February 17, 1982 and renamed Captain Pratt.

Canada in wait to use its mine-clearing drones Canadian Press CTV HALIFAX — France and the United States will likely be the first countries to take full advantage of advanced minesweeping technology developed in Canada, even though it was first intended for Canadian navy ships, says a senior researcher. While a number of countries have shown interest in purchasing the high-tech gear, the Canadian navy will only get to test drive the Remote Minehunting System because of budget cuts and a cumbersome procurement process. In an deal signed last week, Ottawa said it will pay for operational tests of the system for only 20 days a year. The Canadian tests are expected to be carried out at the navy's base in Esquimalt, B.C., over the next 18 months. Canadian taxpayers invested $20 million in the project. Still, there are no plans for Canada to purchase the homegrown system until 2010. The system, developed in conjunction with the French defence giant DCN, uses drones to hunt for explosives in murky harbour bottoms. International interest is being driven by the fear that terrorists could use a few, relatively cheap underwater mines to disrupt commercial shipping, said Dave Hopkin, head of mine and torpedo studies at Defence Research and Development Canada. "That is one of the new and emerging roles for this type of a system," Hopkin said in an interview. It can detect "anything from a barrel full of explosives to a conventional mine shape." Hopkin said "it's quite likely" the French and the Americans will buy and use the Canadian system before Canada does. Though the federal budget in February promised $12.8 billion in new defence spending over five years, most of that money won't be available until 2009-2011. A senior Defence Department official confirmed the navy was unable to pencil in the high-tech program until 2010. "We were hoping to fit into the plan earlier, rather than later, but other issues were judged to be a higher priority," said Lieut.-Cmdr Jim Hewitt, the staff officer for mine warfare. "The government gives us a set amount of money to spend each year on capital equipment. The company could probably deliver it earlier, but that means we'd have to knock some other piece of equipment out of the way and that might cost money (in contract penalties)." Hewitt, who has devoted much of military career to perfecting the minehunting system, denied that either the French or the Americans would acquire a military edge by using Canadian technology. Even if the units were purchased today and delivered in 18 months, there would still be training required - something the Canadians will be doing, he said. The system uses two submersible vessels that are connected by a steel cable. An eight-metre, diesel-powered mini-submarine - operating just below the surface - tows a smaller craft that skims just above the sea floor, taking video images and sonar readings. The data from the drones are beamed to a navy ship up to eight kilometres away. Canadian defence researchers began working on the system over a decade ago as 12 coastal defence vessels were constructed for the navy. The original intent, Hopkin said, was to equip the new vessels with the minehunters, but "due to budgetary reasons" they were not able to do it. The French defence contractor DCN is now marketing the units under the name Seakeeper. The system was recently demonstrated to the head of the U.S. navy's mine warfare division at Corpus Christi, Texas. A statement from the company said that Rear Admiral D. A. Loewer was impressed with the system's "remarkable performance." But no final decision has been taken by the U.S. Defence Department on whether it will acquire the Seakeeper, which costs up to $29 million per unit. Hopkin said DCN is currently pitching the French navy, which is interested in purchasing a minehunting system for at least one harbour.

Mark Gellis has released the 33rd scenario of the year. From Cold War to Cod War. Emerald Action – BAT10C3 - EC2003 GIUK Recent ecological factors have led to the collapse of fish populations around the world. The European Union has decided to treat certain regions of the Atlantic Ocean as "fallow zones" in the hopes that fish populations will recover and a worldwide food crisis will be avoided. Not all nations recognize these Fallow Zones, though... Norwegian fishing boats have once again entered Fallow Zones to the west of Ireland. Irish forces are directed to locate these fishing boats and seize them; if they attempt to flee, sink them. These boats must not be allowed to return to Norway. Norway is aware that the E.U. is ready to use force against its fishing boats. A Norwegian frigate may be on patrol in these waters. Avoid this warship. She carries anti-surface missiles and your vessels are unlikely to survive an encounter with her. This scenario requires Harpoon Classic version 16b8 or later and also the HCDB_050510 or later in order to function properly. Author: Mark Gellis Check it out on the file archives at: FilesOfScenShare HarpGamer.com - Home of the HCDB.

Looks like quality control problems are not limited to the PRC. See also. RedNova Problems on New Ship a Bad Sign, Analyst Warns Jul. 14--WASHINGTON -- The "poor construction and craftsmanship" Navy inspectors say they found last month aboard a new amphibious ship could be an ominous sign for the service and the U.S. shipbuilding industry as they embark on a host of other ship programs, a veteran naval analyst warned Wednesday. Scott C. Truver, a vice president of Anteon Corp., an information technology company based in Fairfax, said a newly disclosed Navy report on the San Antonio, a $1.2 billion helicopter and troop carrier scheduled to join the fleet this fall, "seems to be particularly expansive in outlining numerous problems and shortcomings." Inspectors said they found such deficiencies as hazardous wiring, uninstalled ventilation and a crash-prone engineering control system. Though the Navy expects to take possession of the ship in August, the inspectors said the San Antonio is not ready for its crew to come aboard. The vessel will be based in Norfolk and is the first in a line of 12 new amphibious ships the Navy has ordered. Truver and other analysts interviewed Wednesday said that because the San Antonio is the first ship in a new class, it's not surprising that inspectors found so much to criticize. The designs of such lead ships typically have bugs that have to be worked out as construction crews translate paper drawings into steel bulkheads and passageways, they said. Truver recalled working on one new ship in which a team of welders inadvertently used a set of upside-down blueprints; inspectors later found stanchions intended to hold television sets in a lounge area were protruding from the floor rather than hanging from the ceiling. First-in-the-line problems are particularly prevalent on surface ships such as the San Antonio, said Joseph F. Yurso of Virginia Beach, a retired Navy engineering duty officer and former commander of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. A nuclear-powered submarine or aircraft carrier receiving its first exam from the Board of Inspection and Survey generally gets fairly high marks, Yurso said. Some in the surface force argue that's because the Navy is more willing to spend freely in designing and building those kinds of ships, he added. "I can't explain why, but the amphibious ships always seem to be at the end of a food chain, whether we're talking about repairs or parts," Yurso said. "I spent 30 years in the Navy, and I never could really comprehend that." Still, Truver said, the tone of an eight-page memo on the San Antonio sent by the Board of Inspection and Survey to top Navy leaders seems tougher, and many of the problems it identifies are more severe than normal. And as the Navy tries to replace today's fleet with a smaller but more capable force, the apparent problems with the San Antonio are particularly troubling, he added. With fewer warships being produced, "engineering and production skills will almost assuredly atrophy. And problems like these might increase rather than decrease," Truver said. He added that it's "interesting" that the inspection "was even attempted, given the numerous references to 'inoperative equipment' and 'incomplete installation.'" Marcus Corbin, an analyst at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information, said Pentagon officials have a long history of tolerating first-in-the-class ship deficiencies. "In developing virtually anything, there can be bugs," he said. But a variety of independent studies have concluded that the military is far more willing than commercial customers to accept such problems. "The Defense Department is completely failing to enforce commercial standard practices," Corbin said. Yurso said the San Antonio's builder, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, probably should have discovered and corrected many of the estimated 15,000 deficiencies found in the inspection before they presented the ship to the Board of Inspection and Survey. "But it's not unusual for a first surface ship to have an awful lot of findings," he added. "Most of them are correctable within a reasonable period of time." Yurso said inspection board members are expected to find and report all of a new ship's flaws. "It is their role: to make sure they are reporting to Congress and everybody what the condition of the ship is when they look at it. "There is a lot of pressure on a shipbuilder to make dates," he said. "As you get closer to the delivery of a ship, it gets to be a minor nightmare to make sure it all comes together. "The shipbuilder gets put into the position that 'I really don't want to send this out right now; on the other hand, if I don't, I complicate all these other events.'" Analysts said the number of problems discovered on a ship isn't as important as their severity. With commissioning set tentatively for Oct. 1, the San Antonio already is more than two years behind schedule and $400 million or more over its original budget. It will carry a crew of about 360, along with 700 Marines. By Dale Eisman and Jack Dorsey

U.S. Close To Testing Massive “Bunker-Busting” Missile By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, PARIS DefenseNews The United States is close to testing a new missile aimed at destroying deep bunkers where suspected weapons of mass destruction are stored, the British weekly New Scientist says. Four prototypes of the new “bunker-buster” will be tested later this year by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control of Dallas, Texas, which are working with U.S. Navy scientists on behalf of the Pentagon’s Threat Reduction Agency, it says. Traditional bunker bombs are streamlined bombs whose sheer weight enables them to force through soil, rock or concrete before they detonate. The new design is different, the report, in the July 16 issue of New Scientist, says. The missile has a blunt nose that, combined with high velocity, creates a bubble of air in front of the weapon. The idea is that the bubble forces earth out to the sides as the missile descends, creating a cavity that the weapon can slide through. The warhead could thus reach much deeper buried structures than conventional bunker-busters, the inventors hope. The principle for the weapon comes from a new generation of high-speed torpedoes, which create a gas bubble around themselves called a supercavity. A Russian torpedo of this kind, called Shkval, can move through the water at 360 kilometers (225 miles) per hour because it is essentially moving through water vapor rather than water, and resistance is thus very low. ”Lockheed Martin hopes the supercavitating missile will reach 10 times the depth of the current air-force record holder, the huge BLU-113 bunker-buster, which can break through seven meters of concrete (22.7 feet) or 30 meters (100 feet) of earth,” New Scientist says. In addition, the new weapon could carry more explosives than its predecessors. The BLU-133 needs a thick casing to resist friction, but supercavitating missiles could have a thin casing, leaving more space for explosives or incendiaries. The Pentagon wants an incendiary payload in order to incinerate chemical or biological weapons, the report says.

ATK and Lockheed Martin to Develop Conventional Ballistic Missile for U.S. Navy Tuesday July 12, 8:30 am ET Global Strike Builds on ATK/Lockheed Martin Strategic Deterrence Partnership Yahoo.com MINNEAPOLIS, July 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK - News) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT - News) have been awarded a $9.2 million contract by the U.S. Navy's Strategic Systems Program (SSP) office to demonstrate and validate solid rocket motor technologies suitable for a Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (SLIRBM). SLIRBM is a conventional missile concept that builds on the heritage the two companies share in U.S. Navy strategic missile development (Lockheed Martin and ATK provide the U.S. Navy with the submarine-launched Trident D5 nuclear ballistic missile). SLIRBM is designed to precisely deliver a conventional payload on target at ranges in excess of 1100 miles within 10-15 minutes of launch. ATK and Lockheed Martin will develop SLIRBM using numerous off-the-shelf components to speed the development of a low-cost solution while minimizing program risk. The SLIRBM design will share common hardware across all stages of the propulsion system to shorten development time while keeping the missile's cost and complexity to a minimum. Under the 16-month contract, ATK and Lockheed Martin will develop the missile and validate its concept with first and second stage static firings conducted at ATK Thiokol's solid rocket motor facilities in Promontory, Utah. ATK Thiokol is the world's leading provider of solid rocket motors and associated technologies.

Eshera - Russia's secret military base? By M. Alkhazashvili TheMessenger Weeks after the signing of the agreement about the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia, sensational information about the existence of a secret Russian submarine base in Abkhazia has surfaced. The submarine base is alleged to be found in Eshera, a town in the breakaway republic of Abkhazia. This information can not be verified by Georgian officials, as Georgian representatives are barred from entering the territory of Abkhazia. Rumors have long circulated about the existence of a Russian military base in Eshera. Current reports about the existence of the base are being circulated by Interpressnews. According to a former high ranking official of the Soviet Defense Ministry, the military submarine base was responsible for control and observation of the Black Sea basin, reports the newspaper Khvalindeli Dghe. Construction of the alleged submarine base in Eshera is thought to have begun at the end of the 1940's. However, the main part of the base was completed only at the end of the 1950s. Construction of the base was so secret that local workers and engineers did not take part in the building process. According to the former Soviet general, the Eshera laboratory was controlled by the upper levels of Soviet bureaucracy, by the main department of the General Headquarters of the Ministry of Defense. The former Soviet general believes that Russia does not want to lose its stake in Abkhazia and to relinquish control of the territory to Georgia, in part because of the importance of this secret military base. Control of the territory of Abkhazia, and particularly the Eshera Laboratory, is an important factor in Russian-Georgian and U.S.-Russian geopolitical relations. In recent months, Russia's interest in Abkhazia has increased because of the possibility that Russia may be forced to abandon its naval base in the Russian-dominated city of Sevastopol, in Ukraine. According to Interpressnews, residents of Eshera confirm the former Soviet General's allegations. Recently several Eshera citizens have claimed to have spotted the upper deck of a submarine. These sightings have become quite normal for residents of Eshera, although no such sightings were reported during the Soviet period, the agency reports.

Navy favours F-35 fighters, not F-18: Naval Chief July 11, 2005 02:45:00 PM .KOLKATA CAL6 Press Trust of India Kolkata, Jul 11 (PTI) Indian Navy is willing to procure F-35 advanced fighters from US, but it is not interested in F-18 fighter planes as they are not "compatible" with the aircraft carriers of the naval force, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash said here today. "Yes. Given an offer, we will be much interested in having the F-35 fighters," Admiral Prakash told reporters when asked if the Navy would be willing to procure the advanced fighters from the US. He was speaking to reporters after the commissioning of warship INS Beas at the Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. Admiral Prakash said that the F-18 aircraft, being offered by the US to Indian armed forces, would not be relevant for the Navy. "F-18 is a carrier-borne aircraft, but needs steam catapult (for take-off). It is not compatible to ski-jump and therefore, not suitable for our type of aircraft carriers," he said. On the other hand the F-35 aircraft were of the ski-jump type and would be suitable for the Navy's aircraft carriers, he explained. PTI

Navy to have one aircraft carrier BBC The UK will have just one aircraft carrier, the MoD confirmed The Royal Navy will have just one aircraft carrier in service when HMS Invincible is de-commissioned six months early, the MoD has confirmed. A ceremony is due to be held on 3 August to mark the end of the 22,000 tonne warship's 28-years of service. Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock claims the decision to axe Invincible has come because of the cost of the Iraq war. HMS Ark Royal is due for a major refit. In the meantime HMS Illustrious is the only operational Navy carrier. 'Nonsense' A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the early decommissioning ceremony was being held so the crew could mark the vessel's career while it was still "a live ship". "There's no requirement to have Invincible running at full speed for the next six months," he said. This is all about the MoD finding funding to meet the costs of the war in Iraq Mike Hancock Portsmouth South MP "It will be the last opportunity to fly a paying-off pennant because there'll be no crew on board when she's towed out of Portsmouth in four or five years' time." Mr Hancock said: "I am appalled by this - I think it is complete and utter nonsense. This is all about the MoD finding funding to meet the costs of the war in Iraq." The MoD said the Invincible would be gradually relieved of its crew and captain soon after the decommissioning ceremony. The crew will be given new postings and the vessel will be handed over to the MoD's Disposal and Reserve Ships Organisation where it will be mothballed until it is sold in 2010. The carrier was launched by the Queen in 1977. The Duke of York was based on board as a Sea King helicopter pilot during the Falklands war. The vessel had a £64m refit in 2001 and acted as the Royal Navy's flagship in last week's International Fleet Review. Invincible is the sixth ship in the Royal Navy's history to bear the name.

Cuts in the number of warships diminishing Navy's global role By Michael Evans, Defence Editor TimesOnline THE Royal Navy has had to cut back on its presence around the world because it is running out of warships. After last year’s announcement that the Navy’s fleet of frigates and destroyers was to be cut from 31 to 25, the Ministry of Defence has been reviewing all maritime commitments. John Reid, the Defence Secretary, announced yesterday that three of the Royal Navy’s main tasks would have to be cut back, although none of the commitments would be dropped, as feared by MPs on the Commons Defence Committee in a recent report on Britain’s defence capabilities. From the end of this year there will be only one frigate or destroyer on patrol in the Gulf and Indian Ocean instead of the two that have been involved in counter-terrorism patrols in the region, as well as protecting shipping in the narrow Gulf waterway. The reduction to only 25 frigates and destroyers means that Navy chiefs have had to take the risk of deploying a sole warship to police this vast area. The commitment to the fight against drugs in the Caribbean is also to be curtailed. Mr Reid said that a destroyer or frigate assigned to Atlantic Patrol Task North, which embraces the Caribbean, would be on station for only three months of the year, from July to October. This is the high-risk period of hurricanes in the region when Royal Navy ships have often been called upon to provide humanitarian support. However, in future a Royal Fleet Auxiliary Wave vessel, which is equipped with a helicopter, would also be sent to the Caribbean for a longer period, from May to October, and contribute to operations against drug trafficking. A single warship will still be on patrol in British waters, as before, and the commitment in the South Atlantic will also remain the same — one frigate or destroyer, as well as HMS Endurance, the Antarctic ice patrol vessel used by the Queen for the International Fleet Review off Portsmouth last week. Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, has given warning that reducing the number of warships would put a strain on commitments. He told the Commons Defence Committee last year: “One warship can’t be in two places at once.” The MoD said that the changes in the Gulf and Indian Ocean had been made possible because other coalition forces were taking a greater share of counter-terrorism duties in the area. The reductions announced yesterday came after it was confirmed that the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible was being withdrawn from regular service six months earlier than planned and would be put into “extended readiness” later this summer. This will leave one carrier, HMS Illustrious, with the role of operating fixed-wing aircraft. HMS Ark Royal, the third carrier, is in refit. HMS Ocean, another flat-platform ship, carries helicopters and will also be available for operations alongside HMS Invincible.

32nd Scenario posted this year! Harold Hutchison has posted his latest creation. Force Z You are in command of four Australian frigates with orders to protect merchant shipping in an Indonesian exclusion zone. Author: Harold Hutchison This scenario uses the HutchDB and can be found in the StrategyZoneOnline File Archives