The “41 for Freedom” were 41 ballistic missile submarines commissioned by the US Navy during the Cold War. They included submarines from the George Washington (5), Ethan Allen (5), Lafayette (9), James Madison (10) and Benjamin Franklin (12) classes. The first to enter commission was the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) on 30 December 1959 and the last to inactivate from US Navy service was the USS Kamehameha (SSBN-642) on 2 April 2002.
[click to enlarge]
On face value it would be tempting to dismiss this article as a hatchet job by a Texan blogger. I’m sure that many American readers of Foreign Policy are going to reblog it with glee. (Because, you know, ‘Murica showed up in two world wars and saved Yurop’s ass, right?) But I genuinely don’t think that was Beckhusen’s intent. He’s merely cataloging facts that any observer of British naval policy already knows. He’s cataloging those facts for an audience (Americans) that might not be paying that much attention. They’ve got their own budget battles, procurement snafus, ship decommissionings and operational overreach to worry about. So if, charitably, 1% of the article’s American readership actually pays attention to what Beckhusen is trying to point out, then that’s a bloody good thing. The other 99% can repeat the hackneyed trope of “savin’ Yurop’s ass” and we needn’t worry about them. So… here’s the article:
Here Are All The Things the British Military Can’t Do Anymore
In late September, the Royal Navy unveiled its latest nuclear-powered Astute-class submarine, HMS Artful, and also “christened” the hefty but sleek Daring-class destroyer HMS Duncan — the sixth and last of its class. Aside from the United Kingdom’s aircraft carrier program, these represent the two most significant naval shipbuilding programs happening in Britain at the moment. And two of the most controversial.
The vessels are impressive on the surface, but each ship originates from troubled development programs which — although coming with creature comforts and advanced technology — turned out to be less than impressive when put to the test.
New submarines running aground, older subs breaking down and destroyers put into service without adequate defenses against enemy submarines. It’s not completely surprising. The Ministry of Defence’s budget is half that of 30 years ago.
Perhaps more troubling for the Royal Navy: the vessels tasked with carrying Britain’s military into the 21st century have sacrificed key systems needed to defend against attacks, while suffering limitations in their ability to strike back at enemy planes and missiles.
Meanwhile, Royal Air Force ocean patrol planes that once buzzed the ocean scooping every signal they could detect have been cut altogether, meaning the surface ships are sailing blind — and Britain’s nuclear-missile force is sailing without escorts.
Here’s what Britain’s military can’t do. Or if it does do it, it doesn’t do it well.
Absent frigates and troubled destroyers
This is the Daring-class destroyer. It is one of the most embarrassing military programs in the British armed forces.
It wasn’t meant to be this way. Intended to replace the Type 42 destroyer which first entered service in the 1970s, the Daring class was envisioned as an 8,000-ton, 152-meter-long vessel with anti-air and anti-submarine capabilities par excellence. The centerpiece: an anti-aircraft system called Sea Viper with a Sampson dual-band radar capable of tracking 1,000 objects the size of a tennis ball as far away as 400 kilometers.
The system also has two different types of anti-aircraft missiles: the Aster 15 medium-range missile and its long-range cousin, the Aster 30, which can travel up to an impressive 75 miles. There’s also a 4.5-inch main gun for surface targets.
The Royal Navy is acutely aware of its need for robust destroyers with advanced anti-aircraft systems, principally owing to the Falklands War. Two Type 42 destroyers, the HMS Sheffield and Coventry, were sunk during the war by low-flying Argentinian aircraft. The Sea Viper system is also a big improvement over the Type 42’s radar.
But the Royal Navy built a ship with major weaknesses where it should be strong. For one, Sea Viper’s planned inter-ship communication system was to be added later, meaning one destroyer can’t share information via a satellite network with other ships. The complexity of all the new electronic systems and shoddy oversight also led to repeated delays and ballooning costs.
And there’s a problem with the missiles. The Aster 15s are fine for a lone incoming anti-ship missile — the Aster 15 is highly maneuverable and functions as a both short- and medium-range defense weapon. But the missiles take up a lot of space and can’t be “quad-packed” into a missile tube.
This reduces the number of available Aster 15s to a mere 20 missiles compared to the 96 missiles carried by the U.S. Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The number is even fewer than the advanced (but much smaller) Sachsen-class frigates of the German navy, which carry 32 missiles — and that was already on the low-end. In the event of an enemy saturation attack — like a blitz but with anti-ship missiles instead of linebackers — the air-defense-focused Daring class could be in serious trouble.
Radar-guided Phalanx guns, which throw up a wall of 20-millimeter rounds as a last resort against incoming missiles, were not installed on the lead ship of the class until this year. Oh, and unlike the Type 42, the destroyer has no torpedo tubes to defend against attacking submarines. This job is left for the destroyer’s helicopters and — either a single Merlin or a pair of Lynx choppers — and a torpedo decoy system. The ship has no missiles for attacking land targets.
The Royal Navy has also built fewer Darings than it ever did for the now-retired Type 42. Cost-cutting measures forced a trim to the number of planned destroyers from 12 to eight ships, and then to a final number of only six ships. (The Royal Navy built 14 Type 42s.) So the Daring class is an anti-aircraft ship that’s fewer in number than its predecessor, with several major anti-air weaknesses and the ship has a major weakness against submarines.
The total price for the ships is now $10.35 billion?-?$2.4 billion more than anticipated — and was enough for one U.S. Naval War College report to describe the Daring class as “a symbol in the United Kingdom for mismanagement of procurement.”
That’s not all. The Royal Navy has retired the anti-submarine Type 22 frigate and doesn’t have the money to replace it. Also first dating to the 1970s, none of the 14 Type 22s are still in service — the last four of the line were sold for scrap in 2011. Thirteen Type 23 frigates are still in service, though.
But the Type 22 was Britain’s primary anti-submarine warfare ship. The Type 22 also doubled as the Royal Navy’s ship-based signals intelligence force. The ships contained the “only combination of systems enabling wide ranging monitoring of the frequencies and wavelengths of the Electromagnetic Spectrum of the sea,” Parliament’s Defense Committee noted in 2012. Now that’s gone.
Maritime reconnaissance planes turned to scrap
Let this sink in for a second. The United Kingdom has no dedicated maritime patrol planes.
That’s a pretty big deal. Patrol planes are more or less a requirement for a navy worth its sea-faring salt, and many coastal countries without sizable navies have at least some planes for ocean patrol missions. Even Denmark and Peru have maritime patrol planes.
They’re the eyes and ears of a fleet, and use a combination of radar, sonar buoys and other sensors to detect enemy ships or conduct search and rescue missions. The U.K. has also long used maritime surveillance aircraft to track Russian submarines navigating north of Scotland, peeking on naval maneuvers in the Arctic Sea and escorting the Royal Navy’s own ballistic missile subs.
For much of the Cold War, the Royal Air Force tasked this mission to the Nimrod MR1 and MR2 planes, which first entered service in 1969. An advanced aircraft for its time, the older Nimrods were eventually retired in 2011 to be replaced by the modern Nimrod MRA4.
The new Nimrod was supposed to be a major upgrade, and entailed rebuilding the plane from the inside out. There was going to be new engines and larger wings. New sensor systems would let the MRA4 see from longer distances, and the design enabled it to travel up to 2,500 miles further than its predecessor.
Upgrading the Nimrods proved to be an impossible task for an absurd reason. The planes are based on the de Havilland Comet, a 1950s-era commercial airliner which had been transformed over several generations during military service. But the Comet was never built to a standard — they were custom made. This means each plane is slightly different than the others, and thus exorbitant to upgrade when installing millions of dollars worth of advanced electronics.
Only one MRA4 was ever built. “The single MRA4 aircraft that had been delivered to the RAF was so riddled with flaws it could not pass its flight tests, it was simply unsafe to fly,” Liam Fox, the former British Secretary of Defence, wrote in the The Telegraph in 2011.
Fox was attempting to justify the complete scrapping of the program?-?it wasn’t easy. Twelve under-construction MRA4s were disassembled, and more than $6.3 billion went down the drain. The U.K. is now considering buying P-3 Orion patrol planes from the United States to fill the gap.
Rusty and broken submarines
In theory, the Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarine is the most advanced British submarine ever built. In reality it’s underpowered, prone to numerous technical problems and is far behind schedule.
A replacement for Britain’s Trafalgar-class submarines, the 7,000-ton Astute class uses a Thales sonar — touted by the Royal Navy as the world’s best (which it might be) — while packing a combination of 38 Spearfish torpedoes and/or Tomahawk missiles. The sub also does not have a conventional periscope but a photonics mast, like a digital camera capable of seeing in infrared. There have been two Astute-class subs commissioned, the HMS Astute and Ambush. Four more are under construction, and a seventh is planned.
But neither Astute nor Ambush have become operational, owing to a number of problems and delays leaving the Royal Navy with only five aging Trafalgar-class subs in service. These older subs will be gradually decommissioned over the decade, and there’s rarely a time when a single Trafalgar-class sub is operational at any given time due to maintenance issues. HMS Tireless was put out of action earlier this year after a reactor coolant leak.
But what’s the problem with the Astute class? The main problem — and most serious — is that it’s achingly slow.
Designed to travel faster than 30 knots, the sub tops out below that (though how far below hasn’t been revealed). This means it can’t keep up with the ships like the under-construction Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers it’s meant to protect. In battle, that’s a potentially fatal flaw for the submarine and the carrier.
The reason for the trouble is believed to be incompatibility between the sub’s steam turbines which were built for the Trafalgar-class, and its nuclear reactor which was built for the giant Vanguard-class ballistic missile subs, according to The Guardian. Among other problems include corrosion, faulty monitoring instruments for the submarine’s reactor and even flooding during a dive. Astute also quite literally ran aground in Scotland in 2010 and had to be rescued.
Left out of this, of course, is the Harrier force. The Royal Navy’s carrier-launched jump jets were retired in late 2010, meaning the U.K. no longer has fixed-wing jets capable of operating from Britain’s one remaining ski-jump carrier, the Illustrious. However, the Royal Navy has pledged to buy F-35s for the Queen Elizabeth class. It may want to reconsider before more problems arise.
Robert Beckhusen is a collection editor at War is Boring, the site that explores how and why we fight above, on and below an angry world.
Naval History and Heritage Command, Photographic Section, UM-23.
Naval Station Rota (NAVSTA Rota) is a Spanish naval base opened in 1955, commanded by a Spanish Admiral, called Base Naval de Rota in Spanish, and yet fully-funded by the United States of America. Often described by the US Navy as the “Gateway to the Mediterranean,” Rota is headquarters for Commander US Naval Activities Spain (COMNAVACTSPAIN). Under the mutual defense agreement signed by the US and Spain during the Franco regime (Convenio de Defensa y Ayuda Económica Mutua), the US is responsible for maintaining the station’s infrastructure, including a 670-acre (2.7 km2) airfield, three active piers, 426 facilities and 806 family housing units.
Rota is home to the Spanish Navy’s Grupo de Acción Naval 2, comprising the aircraft carrier Príncipe de Asturias (R-11), the LPDs Galicia (L-51) and Castilla (L-52), and the LST Pizarro (L-42). On its transfer to a state of “restrictive standby” (or what the rest of the world calls “decommissioning”), the Príncipe de Asturias will be replaced by the LHD Juan Carlos I (L61).
Rota is also home to the 41ª Escuadrilla de Escoltas, comprising the Santa Maria-class frigates Santa Maria (F-81), Victoria (F-82), Numancia (F-83), Reina Sofía (F-84), Navarra (F-85) and Canarias (F-86). The Spanish vessels are based on the US Navy’s Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.
US tenant units based at Rota include Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team Company Europe (FAST Co. Europe), US Naval Hospital Rota, Naval Special Warfare Unit 10 and 725th Air Mobility Squadron.
The strategic location of the base allows it to provide excellent support to US Sixth Fleet units in the Mediterranean and to US Air Force Air Mobility Command units. It is the only base in the Mediterranean which supports amphibious readiness group (ARG) post-deployment wash-downs. The naval station also offers pier-side maintenance and backload facilities. The base complements the ARG unit transfers, and accommodates the sailors and marines of visiting ships.
During the Cold War, Rota was home port to Submarine Squadron 16 (SUBRON 16) and the depot ship USS Proteus (AS-19), later USS Holland (AS-32). Submarines assigned to the squadron included the USS Lafayette (SSBN-616) and USS Francis Scott Key (SSBN-657).
At present, 43 nations have over 600 submarines
TNN | Aug 19, 2013, 06.03 AM IST
The INS Sindhurakshak tragedy has brought the focus on the mysterious world of submarines. Here are some interesting submarine facts.
When was submarine first used in war?
By early 18th century, many inventors made several designs of naval vessels that could travel on the surface as well as beneath water. The American Revolution was the first war that witnessed military deployment of such boats. Submarines were also used during the American civil war. Submarines equipped with torpedo became a major factor during the First and the Second World War. According to US navy at present there are 43 countries operating over 600 submarines.
How does a submarine submerge?
One of the most important features of a submarine’s design is the ballast tanks. These tanks could be alternatively filled with water or air depending on the requirement, whether the vessel wants to float on water’s surface or travel underwater. The tanks are filled with air when the submarine is at the surface. To submerge the air is released and the tanks are filled with sea water which makes the vessel heavier.
Submarines maintain a stock compressed air while travelling underwater. This air is used for life support and for filling the ballast tank.
How does a submarine propel?
Most of the today’s diesel submarines work like a hybrid vehicle. A typical diesel submarine has two diesel engines. One engine is used to propel the vehicle when it is on surface while the other is used to charge its batteries. These vehicles can only go underwater after fully charging their batteries. After going underwater they are propelled by battery-powered electric motors. Because of the battery powered propulsion the diesel submarine can stay underwater for a limited period.
A nuclear powered submarine is not based on combustion engine. Unlike diesel subs, a nuclear sub doesn’t need air to burn it fuel and hence it can remain underwater for a much longer period.
How is the underwater navigation done?
Typically, submarines don’t have windows and hence the crew could see outside underwater. When a submarine is near surface then it uses periscope to have the outside vision. Most of the submarine travel much deeper than the periscope depth and the navigation is done with the help of computers. Like any other conventional ship, a submarine navigator is also dependent on regular ocean navigation chart.
The submarine uses Sonar (Sound Navigation and Ranging) to detect target ships.
How is the submarine’s environment controlled to support life?
Modern submarines- nuclear as well as diesel are designed to stay underwater for a significantly longer period. To have a healthy environment for humans a submarine is required to maintain earth like air quality, supply fresh water and maintain suitable temperature. Most of the submarines are equipped with oxygen generator and water purifiers.
These equipments use sea water to generate oxygen as well as produce fresh water. Apart from this the carbon dioxide and moisture is periodically removed to keep the environment healthy.
The French Navy’s politically-driven budget woes seem to be uncannily similar to those faced by the Royal Navy. The early decommissioning of the surface combatants and a reduced number of replacement vessels is the most obvious example. If we look at the future strength of the French Navy (Marine Nationale) as proposed in the 2013 Defence White Paper (livre blanc sur la défense et la sécurité nationale) the leaner forces will be expected to do as much, if not more.
Les forces navales reposeront sur la FOST avec ses 4 SNLE, des capacités de combat de premier plan pour les opérations de haute intensité et de gestion des crises majeures, avec un porte-avions, 6 SNA, 3 Bâtiments de projection et de commandement et 15 frégates de premier rang, comprenant les frégates de défense aérienne, les frégates multi-missions et des unités de combat moins puissantes, notamment les frégates de type Lafayette adaptées avec sonar. Elles seront complétées par des unités plus légères aptes au contrôle des espaces maritimes : 15 patrouilleurs, 6 frégates de surveillance, des bâtiments d’assistance. Elles comprendront également des avions de patrouille maritime ainsi qu’une capacité de guerre des mines apte à la protection de nos approches et à la projection en opérations extérieures.
Let’s translate that into English.
The naval forces will rely on the FOST (strategic oceanic force), with its four nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarines (SSBN), high-level combat capabilities for high-intensity operations and major crisis management missions, with an aircraft carrier, six nuclear-powered attack submarines, three combined support and command vessels (BPC) and 15 frontline frigates, including air defence frigates, multi-mission frigates and less powerful combat units, notably Lafayette-type frigates with sonar capabilities. They will be supplemented by lighter units capable of controlling maritime spaces: 15 patrol boats, six surveillance frigates and support vessels. They will also include naval patrol aircraft and a mine-laying capability to protect our approaches and for deployment in external operations.
That politicians experience no cognitive dissonance is remarkable.
PLA Navy to Begin First Strategic Missile Submarine Patrols Next Year
China’s navy to debut new class of submarine next year
China’s navy is expected to begin the first sea patrols next year of a new class of strategic missile submarines, highlighting a new and growing missile threat to the U.S. homeland, according to U.S. defense officials.
“We are anticipating that combat patrols of submarines carrying the new JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile will begin next year,” said one official familiar with recent intelligence assessments of the Chinese strategic submarine force.
China’s strategic missile submarine force currently includes three new Type 094 missile submarines each built with 12 missile launch tubes.
The submarine patrols will include scores of new JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) on the Type 094s. The submarines are also called Jin-class missile boats by the Pentagon.
The missile submarine patrols, if carried out in 2014, would be the first time China conducts submarine operations involving nuclear-tipped missiles far from Chinese shores despite having a small missile submarine force since the late 1980s.
The Washington Free Beacon first reported in August that China carried out a rare flight test that month of the JL-2, a missile analysts say will likely be equipped with multiple warheads.
That test was carried out in the Bohai Sea near the northeastern coast of China, according to officials familiar with reports of the test.
Defense officials said the JL-2 poses a “potential first strike” nuclear missile threat to the United States and is one of four new types of long-range missiles in China’s growing strategic nuclear arsenal.
The Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center earlier this month published a report on missile threats that identified the JL-2 a weapon that “will, for the first time, allow Chinese SSBNs to target portions of the United States from operating areas located near the Chinese coast.” SSBN is a military acronym for nuclear missile submarine.
The Pentagon’s most recent annual report on China’s military stated that Beijing’s Navy has placed a high priority on building up submarine forces.
In addition to the three Type 094s currently deployed, China will add at least two more of the submarines before deploying a new generation missile submarine dubbed the Type 096, the report stated. It was the first time the Pentagon has revealed the existence of the follow-on strategic missile submarine.
“The JIN-class and the JL-2 will give the PLA Navy its first credible sea-based nuclear deterrent,” the Pentagon report said.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told Congress in May that he was not worried by the Chinese naval buildup, including the new missile submarines, but that it is a development that needs to be watched.
Greenert boasted during a House defense appropriations subcommittee hearing that “we own the undersea domain.”
The Chinese navy is “not there yet” in terms of undersea power despite deploying a current force of 55 submarines, both diesel and nuclear powered, Greenert said.
“I would just say that I’m vigilant,” he said in response to questions about the Chinese submarine buildup. “I would hate to say that I’m worried, yet, because I’m not necessarily worried. Very vigilant and we need to pay attention and understand the intent. And challenge them on that intent.”
David Helvey, deputy assistant defense secretary for East Asia, told reporters in May that the Chinese are investing heavily in undersea warfare programs and submarines.
Still, the Chinese have not yet conducted an underwater test firing of a submarine-launched missile, Helvey said. “We see China investing considerably in capabilities for operations in this area,” he said.
A 2008 report produced for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said there are indications China is planning to deploy an anti-satellite missile on its missile submarines.
That missile includes the last stage of a ground-launched “direct-ascent” ASAT missile on top of a JL-2. The commission report quoted a 2004 article by Liu Huanyu of the Dalian Naval Academy as saying “by deploying just a few anti-satellite [missile] nuclear submarines in the ocean, one can seriously threaten the entire military space system of the enemy.”
Mark Stokes, a Chinese military affairs analyst, said the first Chinese ballistic missile submarine patrols next year would not be surprising.
“The most significant question is which organization controls, stores, and ensures the readiness of the nuclear warheads that ostensibly would be mated with the SLBMs on patrol,” said Stokes, with the Project 2049 Institute.
China maintains tight secrecy over its nuclear forces, such as how many are deployed, how they are controlled and stored, over fears that any public discussion would undermine their deterrent value.
“The [Central Military Commission] has traditionally entrusted only the Second Artillery Corps with centralized control over nuclear weapons,” Stokes said. “The CMC granting the PLA Navy the power to develop and maintain its own independent infrastructure for warhead storage and handling would be a significant departure from past. This kind of decentralization would have implications well beyond the navy.”
Richard Fisher, an expert on Chinese military affairs, said the commencement of missile submarine patrols would fulfill the ambitions of Chinese Communist Party leaders since Mao Zedong in the early 1960s.
“With three Type 094 SSBNs now called ‘operational’ by the Pentagon, it is possible that one Type 094 could be maintained on constant patrol,” said Fisher, with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.
“Three Chinese SSBNs versus 14 for the U.S. Navy may not seem to be cause for concern, but if one assumes the JL-2 has a 8,000-kilometer (about 5,000 miles) range akin to its closely related DF-31 ICBM, then the Type 094 could handily cover critical Alaskan air and missile defense bases from protected areas in the Yellow Sea, and from the eastern coast of North Korea, could cover the U.S. Navy’s SSBN base at Kitsap Island in Washington state,” he said.
Fisher warned that Obama administration plans to cut U.S. nuclear forces could increase the risk of a future Chinese first-strike attack.
“Should the Obama administration be successful in its goal of reducing U.S. nuclear warheads down to about 1,000, then it is conceivable that the Kitsap Base could become responsible for a much larger proportion of the U.S. nuclear retaliatory capability,” he said. “Such a move could result in a significant increase in risk for the United States.”
Considering the “uncertainties” about the actual levels of China’s current and future nuclear arsenal, “it would be most unwise to consider further nuclear reductions, and that could threaten a robust U.S. nuclear triad of ICBMs, SSBNs and bombers,” Fisher said.
On China’s next-generation missile submarine, Fisher said the Type 096 could have an longer-range “JL-3” missile capable of hitting targets throughout the United States.
Thomas M. Skypek, a national security analyst, stated in a 2010 paper that China over the next 10 years could build several types of strategic missile forces, ranging from a modest force of four Type 094 submarines, to a force with two Type 094s and up to eight Type 096s, each armed with 24 JL-3 missiles fitted with multiple warheads.
“In its drive to develop a credible at-sea nuclear deterrent, Beijing will look to field stealthier submarines with more MIRVed ballistic missiles, providing far greater capability than the first- and second-generation SSBNs and SLBMs could offer,” Skypek stated.
Skypek said China’s military has encountered problems with the Type 094 JL-2. However, he added the Chinese navy’s “current trajectory suggests that China is on the cusp of a significant leap in capability and will soon deploy a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent.”
“Once fully operational, the [Chinese] SSBN fleet, even with a modest number of boats, will enhance China’s strategic strike capabilities and strengthen Beijing’s overall deterrence posture by providing enhanced range, mobility, stealth, survivability, penetration, and lethality.”
Japan’s government warned in a defense white paper made public earlier this month about the threat posed by the JL-2. “Once the JL-2 reaches a level of practical use, it is believed that China’s strategic nuclear capabilities will improve by a great margin,” the white paper stated.
Chinese Maj. Gen. Yao Yunzhu, a researcher, suggested in May that U.S. efforts to increase missile defenses in Asia will produce a buildup of China’s strategic nuclear arsenal.
“The current development, especially the deployment of missile-defense systems in East Asia would be, in Chinese eyes, would be a very, very disturbing factor having implications for the calculation of China’s nuclear and strategic arsenal,” said Yao Yunzhu, a senior researcher at China’s Academy of Military Science.
Yao also said joint U.S. missile defenses in Asia have “implications for China.” The Pentagon is working closely with Japan on joint missile defenses to counter the threat posed by North Korean missiles.
The Wall Street Journal, quoting “Chinese experts,” reported in May that U.S. military moves in Asia were unlikely to affect China’s nuclear force buildup, including the launch of missile submarines in 2014.
However, the number of nuclear warheads and strategic missiles could be “adjusted” based on U.S. military plans in Asia.
The Obama administration has launched a “pivot” to Asia that includes a buildup of U.S. military forces in the region and an increase in exercises with Asian allies and friends.
Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announced in April that the Navy will deploy a fourth nuclear-powered attack submarine in Guam by 2015.