India, China Resume Frozen Military Relations

NEW DELHI - India and China resumed military exchanges that were halted in July 2010 after Beijing refused to provide a visa to a top Indian commander intending to visit China.
Even as an eight-member military team begins six-day military exchanges in Beijing, analysts here say, the resumption of military ties has not altered the threat perception about China among military planners.

"The resumption of military ties between the two countries is merely confined to routine exchange of military personnel, or a military exercise. Defense planners here are, in fact, very anxious about the buildup of Chinese weaponry and equipment," said Mahindra Singh, retired Indian Army major general and defense analyst.
India is redrawing its requirements of weapons and equipment so that it can meet the challenges from the eastern front, Indian Defence Ministry sources said.
India and China, which fought a brief battle in 1962 over a territorial dispute, have yet to reach any settlement despite more than a dozen rounds of border talks.
Meanwhile, the Indian Navy has drawn a plan to spend over $2 billion to upgrade the Karwar naval base, which will be home port for the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshokov - to be renamed INS Vikramaditya - which is being procured from Russia, and also the six French-built Scorpene submarines.
The improvements at Karwar are seen as a response to Chinese warships using Pakistan's Gwadar port.

Saudi Arabia Mulling BMD-Capable Destroyers

Saudi Arabia, which has long considered the purchase of American littoral combat ships (LCS) with a lightweight Aegis combat system, is contemplating the acquisition of new DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers that could be fitted with ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability.

The U.S. Navy briefed Saudi officials in late May on the capabilities of DDG-51 destroyers, such as the USS Sterett, above. (U.S. Navy)

The U.S. Navy briefed Saudi officials in late May on the capabilities of the destroyers, which would be far more powerful than any ship currently in the kingdom's service.

The U.S. Navy would not confirm whether the brief included BMD options, but sources did not deny that it was part of the presentation.
Saudi Arabia has been looking at Aegis-equipped LCS designs from both Lockheed Martin and Austal USA since mid-2008. Those designs, which range in size from 3,000 to about 4,000 tons, would be equipped with SPY-1F lightweight Aegis radars similar to those fitted on Norwegian frigates. But the SPY-1F lacks the fidelity and software to perform the BMD mission, and the ships probably wouldn't have the electrical capacity to power a BMD radar.
The U.S. Navy's 9,100-ton DDG 51s are the heart of the fleet's BMD force. About 20 U.S. cruisers and destroyers have had their SPY-1D Aegis systems upgraded to perform the BMD mission, and more are being backfitted. Future DDG 51s will be built with the BMD capability.
A land-based Aegis BMD system also is under development by the U.S. for deployment in Europe as part of that continent's missile defense shield.
Capt. Cate Mueller, spokesperson for the U.S. Navy's acquisition office, confirmed that the "non-binding price and availability (P&A) rough order of magnitude estimate was delivered in May" to the Saudis.
The brief, she said, included information on the capabilities and prices of "medium surface combat ships with integrated air and missile defense capability, helicopters, patrol craft and shore infrastructure."
Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a major weapon upgrade for its armed services. The Saudi Naval Expansion Program II is said to be considering the purchase of up to a dozen new warships worth, according to various media accounts, between $20 billion and $23 billion.
The recent U.S. brief provided options that included buying a mix of destroyers and LCS vessels, sources said. One source said the Saudis were considering the purchase of two destroyers plus an unknown number of LCS vessels.
No decisions have been made by the Saudis. Back-and-forth talks are continuing between the countries, a Pentagon source said, with no deal imminent.
The Navy and Lockheed Martin are awaiting feedback from the Saudis, Paul Lemmo, Lockheed's head of Mission Systems and Sensors, said June 10 through a spokesman. He confirmed that Lockheed supported the U.S. Navy's presentation.
Acquisition of Aegis BMD would provide the Saudis with a considerable anti-missile capability, possibly in excess of any other gulf-region country, including Israel.
"The DDG 51 is the most capable destroyer on the planet," said one naval expert. "If the Saudis get anything like that, it would be quite significant."
A seagoing BMD capability would minimize terrorist threats to the system, said one senior retired naval officer.
"It's much more difficult to defeat it - a truck bomb doesn't matter," the retired naval officer said. Moreover, "you can move a ship to a particular threat axis. It's much harder for the other guy to plan against."
But Iran, the primary threat in the region, already operates three Russian-built Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines and is acquiring more small subs, all able to threaten ships at sea. But identification of the target may prove difficult, particularly if an Iranian sub was trying to target Saudi but not U. S. ships.
The addition of BMD-capable ships in the gulf would help the United States, which already maintains at least one such ship in the region.
"If the Saudis always have one in the gulf, it makes it easier for the U.S. Navy to meet its commitments in the region," the retired senior naval officer said.
Several other countries already operate the Aegis system or are building it into new warships, and Japan's four Aegis destroyers are BMD-certified. But the transfer of such high-level technology comes with risks - which could become a concern in Congress, particularly after this year's "Arab Spring" featured anti-government uprisings in several countries.
"If you think the kingdom isn't long for this world, a fundamentalist takeover could put a system in the hands of the enemy," the retired senior naval officer observed.
He harkened back to the late 1970s when prerevolutionary Iran, led by the shah, was a U.S. ally. Several highly capable destroyers were under construction for Iran when the shah fell.
Those ultimately were not delivered, but earlier, the U.S. had certified Iran as the only ally to receive F-14 Tomcat fighters equipped with the Phoenix air-to-air missile, then a state-of-the-art capability. Those aircraft and missiles all fell into the hands of the anti-U.S. Iranian government.

Iran deploys submarines in Red Sea

An Iranian Navy submarine

Iran's Navy submarines have reportedly been deployed in the Red Sea to conduct maritime surveillance operations and also identify warships of other countries.

The military submarines entered the Red Sea waters on Tuesday and are sailing alongside the warships of Iran's Navy 14th fleet, Fars News Agency reported.

The report added that the fleet entered the Gulf of Aden region in May and has now entered the Red Sea in the continuation of its mission.

The deployment of Iranian military submarines in the Red Sea is the first such operation by Iran's Navy in distant waters.

Iran has deployed warships further afield, as far as the Red Sea, to combat Somali pirates.

Rampant piracy off the Indian Ocean coast of Somalia has made the waters among the most dangerous in terms of pirate activities.

The Gulf of Aden, which links the Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, is the quickest route for more than 20,000 vessels traveling annually between Asia, Europe and the Americas.

However, attacks by heavily armed Somali pirates on speedboats have prompted some of the world's largest shipping firms to switch routes from the Suez Canal and reroute cargo vessels around southern Africa, leading to climbing shipping costs.

Vietnam Confirms Kilo Sub Buy at Shangri-La

SINGAPORE - Vietnam will procure six Russian-built Kilo-class attack submarines "to defend" the country. Vietnam's Defense Minister, Gen. Phung Quang Thanh, made the comment June 5 at the 10th Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore 5. Analysts put the price tag for the deal at just over $3 billion.

Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. General Phung Quang Thanh speaks June 5 during the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. (Roslan Rahman / Agence France-Presse)

The announcement comes in the wake of official protests lodged by Hanoi over a May 26 incident when three Chinese vessels operated by the State Oceanic Administration harassed the Binh Minh 02, a Vietnamese oil exploration seismic survey vessel belonging to the Vietnam Oil and Gas Group (PetroVietnam). One of the Chinese vessels cut the ship's survey cable. The incident occurred within Vietnam's Exclusive Economic Zone.

The incident causes "considerable concern on the maintenance of peace and stability in the East Sea [South China Sea]," he said. Further, Vietnam has "exercised patience in managing the incident with peaceful means in accordance with the international laws and the principle of determinedly protecting our national sovereignty."
The incident caused outrage in Vietnam, resulting in public protests at the Chinese embassy and hacker attacks on Chinese government websites.
Thanh met with Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie at a bilateral meeting during the Shangri-La to discuss issues, including the incident. The Dialogue is organized by the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) and held annually each June in Singapore.
Lt. Gen. Nguyen Chi Vinh, Deputy Minister of Defense, also confirmed the Kilo submarine deal and added that Vietnam was also buying "Su-30 fighters and surface-to-air missiles." However, the procurements were not tied to the May 26 incident and were "part of our weapons appreciation program for enhancing our capabilities." He said Vietnam has a "legitimate need to upgrade our military capability."
Vinh emphasized that the recent incident with China was a "civilian clash" and not a military issue. Vietnamese law enforcement and maritime agencies are responsible for these types of problems, he said. "What happened, happened" and it must he handled within the guidelines of international law by peaceful means. However, Vinh stressed that Vietnam would use "all means to protect our national sovereignty."
China's military has been expanding its capabilities and influence in the South China Sea with a new submarine base on Hainan Island, and preparations are underway to begin sea trials of its first aircraft carrier.
China and Vietnam have been bumping into one another in the South China Sea since the 1970s. In 1974 China took the Paracel Islands by military force from then-South Vietnam, and Hanoi has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands. Periodic arrests of Vietnamese fishermen in the area have also caused frustration in Hanoi.
In 1988 China and Vietnam fought over the Johnson South Reef in the South China Sea. China sank two Vietnamese naval vessels and opened fired on Vietnamese troops occupying the reef. A video documentary widely aired in Vietnam, dubbed the "Spratly Islands Massacre," available on YouTube, allegedly shows a Chinese frigate gunning down around 30 Vietnamese soldiers on the reef.
The latest incident has raised concerns China is becoming aggressive in the South China Sea and risks sparking a conflict. However, a member of the Chinese delegation attending the Shangri-La Dialogue said the Chinese vessels involved in the May 26 incident might be acting unilaterally without the consent or encouragement of Beijing. The State Oceanic Administration and other non-military maritime patrol and law enforcement organizations have in the past acted carelessly, he said. These organizations are often fighting over budgets and attempting to justify their existence, thus they sometimes "act muscularly."

Russian Sub To Join NATO Exercise for 1st Time

BRUSSELS - A Russian submarine will take part in the world's biggest submarine rescue exercise with its former Cold War foe, NATO, next week, the military alliance said May 27.
The Russian submarine, the first to participate in any NATO exercise, will drop to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea along with Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish submarines and will await listless for a rescue mission off the coast of Cartagena, Spain.

About 2,000 military and non-military personnel as well as ships and aircraft from more than 20 nations will take part in the exercise, dubbed Bold Monarch 11, that will run from May 30 to June 10.
Held every three years, it "is the world's largest submarine rescue exercise," said a statement from NATO's SHAPE allied military headquarters based in Mons, Belgium.
"The exercise is designed to maximize international cooperation in submarine rescue operations - something that has always been very important to NATO and all the submarine-operating nations," it said.
The inclusion of a Russian submarine in the exercise comes amid a warming of ties between Moscow and the 28-nation alliance, nearly three years after Russia's war with Georgia had sparked tensions between the two sides.
The U.S., Russia, Italy and Sweden are contributing submarine rescue vehicles and sophisticated gear to clear debris. France, Norway and Britain will use a jointly owned rescue system.
Aircraft will deploy from Italy, Britain and the U.S. to help locate the submarines and drop parachutists to provide emergency assistance.
The vast exercise will culminate with a 48-hour coordinated rescue and evacuation of 150 survivors, including casualties, from a submarine acting in distress.

Indian Navy Leaders Review Needs, Readiness

NEW DELHI - The Indian Navy's top commanders have begun their biannual review of the maritime force's requirements and related issues at their annual conference here May 24-27.
The Naval Commanders' Conference provides an opportunity for the chief of the Naval Staff to examine the service's operational readiness, assess the progress made in key projects, and initiate functional, organizational and administrative steps to further prepare for current and emerging challenges.

"Over the next four days, commanders of the Indian Navy will discuss issues of operational relevance and future plans of the Indian Navy," the Indian Defence Ministry said in its official statement.
"With the security situation being fluid, we need to maintain the organizational ability to deploy ships, submarines and aircraft at 'immediate' notice," Adm. Nirmal Verma, chief of the Navy, said at the conference.
The Navy's strength is declining, and it is feared that the service's 140-warship fleet could dwindle to only 120 by 2017. The Navy is retiring ships more quickly than acquiring them.
The Navy has already embarked upon a modernization program under which it will buy landing platform docks (LPDs) worth $3.5 billion and build stealthy destroyers for $6.5 billion. This year, the service will begin shopping worldwide for six conventional submarines, for which it is prepared to spend more than $10 billion.
Last year, the Navy bought four additional Boeing-built P-8I long-range maritime aircraft from the U.S. at a cost of more than $1 billion.
The LPD project will be executed under the "buy and make" category, under which a foreign shipyard will help build the four LPDs in India using transferred technology, as was done in the case of the French-designed Scorpene submarines being built by India's Mazagon Docks.

Taiwan Still Pushing for Subs, F-16s From U.S.

TAIPEI - Taiwan on May 22 said it was still pursuing its bid to buy eight submarines and dozens of F-16 fighters from the United States despite warming relations with China.
The Taipei-based China Times reported that Taiwan had decided to accept a U.S. proposal of just four conventional submarines to help expedite the arms deal, which has been in limbo since 2001.

"The report is not true. The country's position to seek [eight] diesel-powered submarines and F-16C/Ds has never changed," Taiwan's defense ministry said in a statement.
"The deal is still in the U.S. government's screening process. The ministry will keep pushing for the deal so as to meet Taiwan's self-defense demands."
In April 2001, President George W. Bush approved the sale of eight conventional submarines to Taiwan as part of Washington's most comprehensive arms package to the island since 1992.
Since then, there has been little progress as the United States has not built conventional submarines for more than 40 years, and Germany and Spain had reportedly declined to offer their designs for fear of offending China.
Taiwan also applied to the U.S. government to buy 66 F-16 fighters in early 2007, but observers say Washington has held up the deal for fear of angering Beijing.
The Taiwanese defense ministry's statement came after a week-long visit to the United States by the People's Liberation Army Chief of General Staff Gen. Chen Bingde.
Chen said the main source of friction was over Taiwan and renewed his objection to any U.S. arms sales to the island, which China still regards as part of its territory awaiting reunification by force if necessary even though Taiwan has governed itself since 1949.
The United States in January 2010 approved a $6.4 billion arms package to Taiwan, prompting a furious Beijing to halt military exchanges and security talks with Washington.
Washington switched its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, but has remained a leading arms supplier to Taiwan.

N. Korea Again Denies Sinking S. Korea Warship

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea on May 15 accused South Korea of inventing allegations against it to raise tension and repeated denials of involvement in a deadly ship sinking and a damaging cyber-attack on a bank.
"We strongly urge the group of traitors to own responsibility for faking up the conspiratorial farces doing harm to the fellow countrymen and make an official apology before the nation," the North's top leadership body the National Defense Commission (NDC) said, referring to the South's leaders.

The North has repeatedly denied involvement in the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, which killed 46, near the disputed sea border in March 2010.
Last week the North's defense ministry also denied carrying out a cyber-attack on one of South Korea's largest banks in April, calling the allegations "absurd" and a "farce."
South Korean prosecutors say the North brought down the computer system of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation by hacking into an official's laptop and operating it remotely as a "zombie computer."
The NDC statement via the North's official news agency repeated those denials.
The South, citing a multinational investigation, said a North Korean torpedo sank Cheonan and put what it said was a salvaged portion of the torpedo on display.
The North said its neighbor cooked up the story as part of what it calls a policy of confrontation designed to ensure a continuing U.S. military presence.
The NDC, which is chaired by leader Kim Jong-Il, said the cyber-attack claim followed recriminations between Seoul's presidential palace and the ruling party over a by-election setback.
It said further allegations may be "orchestrated as long as the group of traitors is working hard to stoke confrontation between the North and the South."

S. Korea Fortifies Shelters On Islands Near North

SEOUL - South Korea is spending millions of dollars to fortify shelters on five front-line islands near its tense sea border with North Korea in case of any future attacks, an official said Monday.

The move follows an artillery and rocket barrage by the North last November against Yeongpyeong island, which killed two marines and two civilians. The South has sent more troops and weaponry to the islands since the attack.
"We are strengthening military shelters in the northwestern border islands to guard against coastal artillery attacks from the North," a defense ministry spokesman told AFP without elaborating.
Yonhap news agency said the military had started rebuilding about 100 shelters on the five islands.
The new corrugated steel structures would produce fewer fragments when hit than existing concrete shelters, it quoted a defense ministry official as saying.
"Construction will cost about 5 to 10 billion won ($9.2 million) and will be completed by the end of June," said the official, adding that the ministry planned to rebuild other military installations with the same material.
The disputed Yellow Sea border has been a flashpoint for over a decade and was the scene of deadly naval clashes in 1999, 2002 and November 2009.
Seoul also accused Pyongyang of torpedoing a warship near the border in March 2010 and killing 46 sailors, a charge denied by the North.

Guilty Plea From Submarine Inspector

Robert Ruks, a former inspector for Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court May 6 to two counts of lying about welds he should have inspected on U.S. Navy ships and submarines under construction at the Newport News, Va., shipyard.
A defective pipe joint weld on a submarine that Ruks had certified as properly done could have caused the loss of the submarine, as it was a certified SUBSAFE weld - critical to the ship's safety.

As a result of Ruks' false weld certifications, Northrop Grumman was forced to expend 18,906 man-hours to complete the reinspections, at a cost of $654,000, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The issue came to light in May 2009 after co-workers suspected Ruks, a non-destructive testing weld inspector, was not being truthful about his inspection reports. Questioned on May 14 of that year by his supervisors, Ruks admitted he had falsely certified inspecting three lift pad welds on a submarine although, according to a statement of facts filed with his plea agreement, the inspections were not performed.
Ruks lied again on May 22, 2009, when he was questioned by agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. According to the statement of facts, while Ruks admitted falsifying the lift pad weld certifications, he lied to the agents about the number of other ship and submarine hulls he had failed to inspect.
Discovery of the false inspections stung Northrop Grumman, which had experienced a series of unrelated problems with poor weld work done at the Newport News shipyard.
The shipbuilder, now spun off from Northrop as Huntington-Ingalls Shipbuilding, declined to comment on Ruks' court case, saying it would not comment on personnel issues. Ruks was terminated by the shipyard shortly after his lying came to light.
"Lying on weld inspection reports is a dangerous crime that threatens the safety of our Navy personnel," U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in the news release.
Between June 2005, when he was certified as an inspector, and May 2009, Ruks inspected and signed off on more than 10,000 welding structural joints on at least nine different ships.
Ruks performed most of his work on the submarines New Mexico (2,133 welds inspected), Missouri (3,169), California (2,002) and Mississippi (2,177). The smallest number of structural welds on any particular submarine was 23 on the New Hampshire and two on the North Carolina.
Just over 10 percent of the submarine welds were hull integrity or SUBSAFE joints involving critical parts. The inspector also performed 229 piping joint inspections on submarines.
Ruks is to appear for sentencing in the Newport News court on Aug. 12. He faces a maximum term of five years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and full restitution for each offense.

U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps List $1B in Unfunded Needs

While the U.S. Army has funded all of its requirements in its fiscal 2012 budget request, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps have each submitted a list of unfunded requirements to Congress.

The U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have a combined total of more than $1 billion in unfunded needs in their fiscal 2012 budget requests. The Navy lists $367 million for maintenance of ships and submarines, such as the nuclear sub West Virginia (MC1 Kimberly Clifford / Navy)

The Navy's list totals $684 million for ship depot maintenance and aviation spares, while the Air Force lists $124 million in unfunded requirements, including money to replace munitions expended during operations in Libya. The Marine Corps' list totals $227 million for emerging requirements, including a need to upgrade equipment for its Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force.

In an April 15 letter to the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the new chief of staff of the Army, says the service has no requirements that remain unfunded for 2012.
It is the only time the Army has not had unfunded requirements since 1995, when lawmakers first asked service chiefs to prepare lists of things they want but didn't get money for in the Pentagon's annual funding request.
The services' lists for 2012 mark a dramatic change from just a few years ago, and reflect the growing constraints being placed on the defense budget as the U.S. government tries to rein in federal spending.
In February 2008, the Air Force's wish list for the 2009 budget request totaled $18.7 billion, dwarfing the Navy's $4.6 billion list, the Army's $3.9 billion in unfunded needs, and the Marine Corps' $1.3 billion list.
"At a time of constrained resources, my primary request is that the Committee supports the President's Budget," writes Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of staff of the Air Force, in an April 29 letter to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. Smith serves as the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee.
However, if additional funds become available, Schwartz outlines how the Air Force would spend the money.
It requests $42.5 million for the A-10 Maintenance Tester, $33.7 million for the EC-130H Avionics upgrade, and $47.5 million to replace munitions used during operations in Libya.
"Both the A-10 Maintenance Tester and the EC-130H Avionics Upgrade improve our readiness posture and operational capabilities by resolving issues that could require grounding aircraft," Schwartz writes.
For the munitions used in Operation Odyssey Dawn, the Air Force is requesting $26 million for Joint Direct Attack Munitions, $11 million for Anti-Missile Countermeasure Decoy Systems, $6 million for Air to Ground Missiles and $5 million for laser-guided weapons. The funding would replenish munitions used through April 8, according to Schwartz's letter.
In addition to these items, the Air Force is working on a cost estimate for the recent storm damage done to its aircraft and installations in the southeastern United States. Schwartz says the current estimate is $60 million and that the Air Force will work with Congress to include these costs in the course of drafting the fiscal 2011 omnibus spending bill.
The Navy lists $367 million for maintenance of ships and submarines in an April 22 letter signed by Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations.
This funding would restore 44 deferred ship non-docking availabilities.
The remaining $317 million is for aircraft spares and repair parts for V-22s tilt-rotor aircraft, EA-18G and F/A-18E/F planes, and MH-60R/S helicopters.
These requirements are not of higher priority than what is already funded in the Navy's 2012 budget request, but these accounts are "stressed by increased operational tempo," Roughead tells Congress.
"Please keep in mind, the half-year Continuing Resolution for 2011 has the potential to impact requirements in [fiscal year] 2012," Roughead says.
The bulk of the Marine Corps' funding - $155 million - is for construction activities related to the Marine Corps University located in Quantico, Va., with academic facilities at other Marine Corps bases worldwide.
Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, identifies a handful of other unfunded requirements "that will provide substantial benefit to the Marine Corps today and in the future," in an April 26 letter to Smith.
His list includes $45 million for the Enterprise Land Mobile Radio and $17 million for fire suppression equipment for the Marine Corps' vehicles used in Afghanistan.
Based on lessons from recent operations in Japan, Amos also lists funding for equipment like protective suits, replacement respirators and unified command suites to improve the Corps' Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force.
"In light of the financial constraints facing our nation, we are especially grateful for the commitment by Congress to ensuring our men and women in harm's way receive the equipment and resources they need," Amos writes.

S. Korea Develops Vertical Launch Tubes for Subs

SEOUL - A top shipbuilder in South Korea has developed a vertical launching system (VLS) to be installed on heavy attack submarines that will be deployed after 2018, according to procurement and industry officials here.
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, the world's second-largest shipbuilder, developed the VLS in cooperation with the state-run Agency for Defense Development (ADD), officials from Daewoo and ADD said.

Daewoo, which built the 1,300-ton, Type-209 submarine with technical cooperation from HDW of Germany, is a subcontractor for the 3,000-ton KSS-III submarine to be jointly designed and built with its rival Hyundai Heavy Industries, the world's biggest shipyard.
The submarine VLS comes on the heels of the development of the ship-launched Cheonryong missile, which has a range of 500 kilometers. Cheonryong is a modified variant of the surface-to-surface Hyunmoo III-A ballistic missile co-developed by the ADD and LIG Nex1, a precision electronic weapon maker.
The Cheonryong is said to have also been modified to be installed on the 1,800-ton Type-214 submarine built by Hyundai with technical assistance from HDW.
Currently, South Korea's Navy operates nine Type-209s and three Type-214 subs, all of which are diesel- and electric-powered.
Beginning in 2018, Seoul plans to build 3,000-ton KSS-III subs fitted with domestically built submarine combat systems jointly developed by the ADD and Samsung Thales.

Second Sub in 2011 Ordered By U.S. Navy

Using money from the newly-passed 2011 defense budget, the U.S. Navy on April 28 was finally able to do something it hasn't done for 20 years - order the construction of more than one submarine in a single year.

The Virginia-class attack submarine Hawaii enters Apra Harbor, Guam, for a scheduled port visit. The U.S. Navy has ordered two submarines to be built this year, a first in 20 years. (MC2 Corwin Colbert / Navy)

About $1.2 billion was awarded to General Dynamics Electric Boat to build the yet-to-be-named SSN 787, the 14th unit of the SSN 774 Virginia class of nuclear-powered attack submarines. The money comes after earlier contracts for long-lead items for the boat, such as the nuclear reactor.

Rel

Ordering the second sub was the Navy's top priority among items threatened by the continuing resolutions that kept the government running at 2010 levels for the first six months of fiscal 2011. A defense budget that included the second submarine was finally approved by Congress in early April and signed into law April 15.
The Navy and its submarine shipbuilding team of Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries have been working for years to bring down costs on the submarines to be able to afford two subs in a single year. The two-per-year threshold of $2 billion per sub - figured in 2005 dollars - was reached beginning with the 2012 submarine, but Congress last year added a second sub to the 2011 budget.
The $2 billion figure is somewhat mythical; factored for inflation, that amount in 2005 dollars equals about $2.6 billion in current monies.
Nevertheless, prime contractor Electric Boat claims the per-unit cost of a new Virginia-class submarine has come down about 20 percent since the first boat was ordered in 1998.
"Reducing the cost of Virginia Class ships to the point where the Navy can afford to acquire two ships per year has demanded an intense process of continuous improvement," John Holmander, Electric Boat's Virginia program manager, said in a press release. "Our task now is to ensure that we demonstrate additional improvement on each ship so taxpayers get the best possible return on the nation's investment in submarines."
Construction of Virginia-class submarines is shared equally between Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls. EB builds its hull sections at Quonset Point, R.I., and assembles the submarines at Groton, Conn. HI's submarines are built and assembled at Newport News, Va. The shipbuilders alternate on completing each boat.
Newport News will complete the SSN 787, with delivery expected around 2016.

India Eyes German Help on Sub Upgrade

NEW DELHI - Construction delays to four French-designed submarines have led India to reverse an 11-year-old decision and seek German help to upgrade four older subs.
Estimated to cost about $500 million, the upgrade of the four HDW T-1500-class subs will replace their weapon control systems, data links, torpedoes and missiles. The Indian defense ministry wants the German submarines to be upgraded at Indian facilities with technical assistance from HDW Germany.

The Indian Navy has seen its fleet of usable submarines shrink from 21 in the 1980s to 14 today, while the Chinese sub fleet, including nuclear boats, grows, said a Navy official.
In 2000, when the Navy decided to buy the new Scorpene submarines, it shelved plans to upgrade the T-1500s, which have now been in disrepair for several years.
The French-designed boats, now planned or under licensed production by Mumbai-based Mazagon Docks Limited (MDL), are more than three years behind schedule, a senior defense ministry official said.
Under the $3.9 billion contract signed in 2005 with France, construction of the first three Scorpenes began in December 2006, December 2007 and August 2008. The MDL contract said the six subs were to be delivered annually beginning in December 2012. Instead, the first one is now scheduled for delivery in 2015.
Besides the Scorpene troubles, the Navy is also seeing delays in its $10 billion purchase of air-independent-propulsion submarines, the official said. The world's sub builders are expected to be invited to bid on the job, called Project 75I, in the next three months, the Navy official said.
The T-1500s were built under an $89 million deal signed in 1983. HDW's shipyard in Germany built two of the T-1500s in 56 months apiece; the other two were built under license by MDL, taking 98 months and 116 months respectively.
Later in the decade, New Delhi blacklisted HDW because of alleged bribery in the sub deal. The ban was lifted after an inquest by India's Central Bureau of Investigation ended without resolution.

Ship, Sub Building Efforts Back on Track: U. S. Navy Undersecretary

The U.S. Navy's major shipbuilding and aviation programs are largely setting into stability, but questions are rising about the strategic outlook for the Navy and Marine Corps and the forces they will need in the future, all in the context of a declining defense budget.

Undesecretary of the U.S. Navy Robert Work recently sat down with Defense News for a wide-ranging interview. (U.S. Navy)

Navy Undersecretary Robert Work is in the center of the effort to define the Navy Department's direction and map out its future roles.

Q. How are you going to cut the budget for 2013?

A. First of all, we have not received fiscal guidance yet for POM 13 [Program Objective Memorandum]. We expect it momentarily. The way that this will work is the Navy and the Marines have been working on an expected top line which was based on last year's submission, the POM 12 submission, and that is due into the Department of the Navy on the 2nd of May. Then we will have three months to prepare the budget and turn it over to the Department of Defense, and then we'll go through the budget review throughout the rest of the year like we normally do. So we're expecting to get top level guidance here within the next week.
The Navy and the Marine Corps will refine their plans based on the guidance and will continually refine them until the 30th of July or so when it is due to the secretary of defense. So I'm expecting the numbers will change slightly, over time depending on how the budget negotiations go on the Hill, and we'll just adjust accordingly.

Q. Arguably, you haven't taken a major swipe at cutting your budget yet.

A. No, we're still operating under the fiscal guidance that's in right now. Of course if we get a year-long continuing resolution or if we get a bill for 2011, then we'll have to see what the impacts will be on '12 and make adjustments there. It's extremely fluid and flexible. I can't recall a time where we've been so deep in the fiscal year without a budget. And Congress hasn't even turned its attention to the 2012 budget, which under normal rules would be passed around the October time frame. We're in such an uncertain environment right now that talking about the budget really is not fruitful.

Q. Japan is still dealing with fallout from the earthquake and tsunami, and concerns about radiation from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear reactors recently caused the U.S. to send the Yokosuka-based aircraft carrier George Washington to sea, right in the middle of an overhaul. Has a decision been made about where the ship's going to go? Will the disasters affect the future of the Navy's Forward-Deployed Naval Forces in Japan?

A. We believe the FDNF will remain and that we will have a strong presence in Japan after this terrible disaster. We are getting more and more of our experts into Japan to help on the remediation. As far as I know, there has been no indication at all, and no discussion at all on the future of FDNF. It's to be assumed it will remain. [The question of where the George Washington will go hasn't] been resolved yet. A lot is going to depend on the mediation of the nuclear plants. Everyone's taking a look at this problem and trying to determine the best way to resolve it.

Q. The Marines are thinking ahead to where they're going to be post-Afghanistan. How do you see the shape of the Corps ten years from now?

A. The Corps structure review group that was set up by Commandant Gen. James Amos has finished. It was a bottom-up review to look at all the different things they were told to in the most recent quadrennial defense review and defense planning guidance. They come up with the 186,800 person Marine Corps. Now, they're a force of readiness. That's their key role. And the Secretary of Defense endorsed that role.
The plan is, depending on resources of course, to be manned very close to 100 percent as possible. They would have an entirely modernized and upgraded ground mobility portfolio based on two new systems - the Marine Corps personnel carrier and the new amphibious vehicle. Our hope is that we can get have eight battalions of the new amphibious vehicle and four battalions of the Marine personnel carrier.
The Marines have already dropped the total number of vehicles in their Marine Air-Ground Task Force, forcewide, from 42,000 to about 32,500, and they did that by essentially matching butts to seats. And they said how do we keep mobility in the ground force? They are looking at their joint light tactical fleet, what's the best way forward, should it be the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle or should there be some other option? They've looked at their medium truck fleet. I think they're in real good shape.
Aviation looks very bright. The secretary, the commandant and I are very confident that the engineering problems on the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter are going to be resolved. The Marines have made a decision to put five F-35C [carrier variant] squadrons aboard carriers, so they have lined up about 21 active squadrons, five of them C's, the remainder of them B's.
[Development of] the CH-53K [heavy-lift helicopter] is moving right along, and we're extremely happy with the AH-1Z [attack helicopters] and the UH-1Y [utility helicopter].
So when we take a look at a force in readiness, able to come from the sea, the plan is in place for a thoroughly modernized Marine Corps and thoroughly ready Marine Corps, going back to its naval roots and its amphibious heritage.

Q. Is naval fire support something in need of a solution or is the current capability acceptable?

A. In '13, we hope to take a look again at the 5-inch guided round, but the 6-inch guided round, the 155mm is going well. It's already met its threshold in range. The plans are to have three DDG 1000 destroyers carrying six of those systems.
We have an awful lot of 5-inch cannons in the fleet and if we can solve the 5-inch round problem, then the combination of the 6-inch rounds, 5-inch rounds and air-delivered ordnance is going to be plenty for any foreseeable contingencies.

Q. Production of LPD 17 San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships is continuing, with half the class is already in service and the sixth ship to be delivered this summer. Every previous ship has had problems to varying degrees. Shipbuilder Huntington-Ingalls Industries (HII) would really like to deliver a good ship, but they haven't done so yet. Do you see anything on this next ship that gives you hope?

A. We've had an awful lot of problems with the class, but the most recent ships are coming in in much better shape. We're still working with HII, we still want to see quality improve. As quality improves we expect scheduling and costs to improve.
But we're very satisfied with the basic design of the ship. Workmanship is getting better. We just awarded LPD 26 to HII, LPD 27 is a 2012 ship, and we'll start to worry about that once the budget is settled.
Sailors and Marines can't say enough about [the ships]. [U.S. Fleet Forces commander] Adm. John Harvey spends an awful lot of time trying to get that ship and the wellness of that class right and I think we've made great strides in doing so.

Q. Huntington Ingalls now has been set up as an independent entity, separated from Northrop Grumman. Are you happy with what you've seen so far with HII? What are you looking for from them in the future?

A. We're very happy that we have two yards that build surface combatant ships and two builders that build submarines. We think that's very healthy for the nation and for the Navy. We want to move for competition whenever possible.
We're extremely happy on the spin out. We spent a lot of time trying to determine if HII was going to be viable and I think, as it's been explained, we have the base case and the stress case. We put HII under an awful lot of stress. We assumed that almost all of the ships from '11, all five of the ships under construction, would have marginal performance at the same time, and that we would take the carrier to maximum speed. We stressed everything. We're working hard with HII on quality control issues, and they are extremely motivated to make this thing work.
We're very happy that we have done due diligence, and we think that HII is in as good a place as possible. [Shipyard chief] Mike Petters is exactly right, they have to focus on performance, specifically quality. If the quality goes up, then the costs go down, and the schedule gets back on. I think Mike is focused on exactly the right thing and we're going to do everything we can to work with HII to make sure they're successful.

Q. The biggest ship they're building right now on the Gulf coast is the assault ship America (lha 6). Will there be another lha without a well deck and an aviation version of that ship or is that going to be a one-off ship?

A. Nope, there will be two ships. LHA 7 will not have a well deck on it, and we'll have two aviation-capable ships.
Our intent is for LHA 8, which right now is a 2016 ship, to have a well deck in it. We're doing an analysis to determine the best and most inexpensive way for us to achieve that. Is it a repeat of the LHA 8 Makin class or is it an LHA with a well deck inserted into it? It's not going to be a completely newly-designed ship. It'll be a mod repeat of some type with a well deck in it.

Q. If it has a well deck, why isn't it called LHD 9?

A. That's a good question. I don't know whether that's been decided yet.

Q. Back to shipyards. As you know, both shipyards that built the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign owners. Do you see any issue with foreign ownership of U.S. shipyards?

A. So far, we're very comfortable with the smaller, mid-tier yards being foreign-owned. Marinette with Fincantieri and Austal USA with Austal. We're encouraged by the quality and we're encouraged by the management improvements that both of the companies are making.
We haven't really had to deal with foreign ownership of a larger yard - a NASSCO, or HII or Electric Boat. Certainly a nuclear yard [would be] a red line. We haven't really addressed a larger tier one yard. We would be concerned with a foreign owner of those yards.

Q. Of course, bae now owns most of the private repair yards in the U.S. doing U.S. Navy repair work.

A. That's true, from what we can see, there is no issue, Congress hasn't seemed to be at all worried about this. We certainly see a lot of advantages in this because of some of the management improvements that they're making as well as capital improvements they're making.

Q. The guided-missile submarine Florida was in action recently in the Mediterranean against the Libyan government. Has the ssgn proven itself?

A. I think the SSGN is a big success story. I think there's a lot more potential on the platform.
The two things that are at least definitely proven are that it is a tremendous covert strike platform, a volume strike platform. On the first day [of the missile strikes on Libya], the majority of U.S. Navy Tomahawks fired on Libya came off that single ship. So, covert volume strike has proven itself in combat. The majority of missiles fired on the first night from U.S. Navy platforms came from submarines and the majority of missiles that came from submarines came from Florida.
And it's a tremendous special operations forces (SOF) support platform. It can carry two dry deck shelters, two swimmer delivery vehicles. Essentially you have to think of this ship as having 24 tractor trailer-sized multi-function payload tubes. If you want to put [cruise missiles] in, you can. You can store SOF ammunition, you can store SOF gear. You could put unmanned underwater vehicles. I think there's a lot more potential for the submarine as a UUV mother ship. It has tremendous payload capacity and a very high availability rates because of the dual crew.

Q. Let's talk about airplanes. The 5th-generation Joint Strike Fighter will be in service in a few years, and some are already thinking about 6th-generation aircraft. How would you characterize that work?

A. Extremely at the beginning of the beginning.
The F/A-18 E and F [Super Hornet] is an extremely capable platform as you know fromWe're going to be operating Es and Fs well into the 2020s.
The JSF, we're hoping we'll have no more slips. The first six F-35C squadrons would be stood up by the end of this decade and they'll start deploying in the early 2020s.
So essentially, we're in very good shape as far as total number of strike fighters. Assuming the B and C do well, we'll be operating a mix of F/A-18 Es and Fs and F-35 Bs and Cs essentially through the 2020s.
The N-UCLASS - an unmanned system, carrier-capable, air-refuelable - we're going for a limited operational capability in 2018. That is going to inform what the next generation, or sixth generation fighter, might be.
So the debate within the department is, could that be a mix? Could it be a mix of manned and unmanned? Could it be an optionally manned platform? Do we believe that in 2030, when we need to start replacing the earliest Es and Fs ,will we be ready to go to an unmanned system at that point?
So we are just at the beginning of this. We've laid in the money in our 30-year aviation plan to be looking at that 6th-generation fighter starting around the 2020 time frame. That's when the majority of the RDT&E [research, development, testing and evaluation] money would start to fill in.
We have the 2013 and the 2017 QDRs, and many, many budget cycles between now and then. I think you could get people on both sides of the equation to tell the Navy what it needs but I don't think we're anywhere near knowing what the right answer is yet.

Q. Is the Navy considering additional assets to handle increased duties in the Arctic as global warming decreases the ice cap?

A. So far it's a Coast Guard area. There hasn't been any discussion between the Coast Guard and the Navy on whether the Navy would buy any icebreakers themselves. Our position is this is a Coast Guard mission best served by the Coast Guard.
The Arctic is central to future planning. We're very anxious to participate in climate change and in projections about how the future of the Arctic might unfold.
Submarines are up there, operating under the ice now. Potentially in the future we would have more surface ships. But as of right now there are no programs for any Navy icebreakers or any special ice-strengthened ships. Once we get a good feeling of what our long-term top line might be, I think further discussions between the Coast Guard and the Navy will occur on how we will be able to help each other in missions of mutual interest.

Q. Requirements are set by the combatant commanders, yet at times there seems to be little debate about the real need of the cocom requirements. Is this a good process or is it in need of some review?

A. They don't really set requirements, they have RRFs, Request for Forces. They submit their requests for forces and say, I need a ballistic missile defense ship, or a submarine for intelligence, surveillance or reconnaissance work, or a Marine task force, or an Army brigade combat team to do combat operations. The request comes into the Joint Staff. And there is a process by which you say, you just cannot get this.
The example with the Navy that I know of for sure is, if you add up all the requirements for submarines, where the combatant commander said I would like to have all sorts of submarines, the number would be above 15. But we say no, this is how many we can supply based on the total number of ships we have. So therefore the RRFs are adjudicated and combatant commanders are given submarines for missions that are deemed higher priority.
So the system does work. But I would say that over time, the system is designed to defer to the COCOM if at all possible. We look for ways to say yes, rather than try to determine whether we should truly say no for the good of the force. And I think this is a big, big debate that we have to have, and I think it's happening here within the department now.
The RRF process is in place. It does work, especially on high demand, low-density items - nobody can get everything they want, so you have to prioritize. And I think now what we'll be looking at is, if you want a ballistic missile defense ship, how would we be able to source that? How many amphibious ready groups might be demanded, or how many carrier battle groups?
As resources go down and operations and maintenance money goes down, the RRF process will be tightened up. Instead of looking always to say yes, we'll take a more holistic view across the force and whether we should be saying yes to this request or should we maintain the force? It's a big debate that happens every day in the Pentagon.

Q. Is the Navy right now paying a price for meeting the cocom request for two carrier strike groups to be on station in Fifth Fleet to support operations in Afghanistan?

A. Since 2006 Navy surface combatants, aircraft carriers and submarines have essentially been operating at major combat operations levels of demand. And the price the Navy pays for that is in missed maintenance, longer deployments, and this is another big issue.
People say, hey, why do you have to get to 313 ships when you're meeting all this demand with 287? What's the issue?
Well, the issue is we want to continue to meet that demand. But with the greater number of ships we don't want to increase presence, we want to have a sustainable operational model where we meet most of these demands but we can maintain our fleet so that each of our platforms can reach the end of their service lives.
When you hear the Navy arguing for more ships, it's not necessarily to say we want more ships out there all the time. We want to be able to meet the demand in a sustainable way where we can do our maintenance, take care of our sailors and Marines, and make sure that over time we're going to have the force ready when needed.

Pakistan Seeks To Counter Indian ABM Defenses

ISLAMABAD - In response to India's pursuit of missile defenses, Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Army Strategic Forces Command, which controls Pakistan's ballistic missiles, has since at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now believe these are in service.
Mansoor Ahmed, lecturer at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at Islamabad's Quaid-e-Azam University, said that in addition to maneuverable warheads, multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) may be developed to stay ahead of India's "multilayered ballistic-missile defense system" and potential future countermeasures.
"This, coupled with submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, would ensure the survivability of its nuclear deterrent and enhance the effectiveness of its missile force that can beat any Indian defenses," he said.
When asked about the threat posed by India's anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program, Harsh Pant, reader of international relations at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, said it depended on the capability India eventually acquired.
"Many in India see an Indian missile defense capability as the only effective way to counter what they consider as Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail,'" he said.
He cited the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the 1999 Kargil conflict and the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks as examples.Strategic Disadvantage These incidents "demonstrated for many the inability of India to come up with an appropriate response to the stability-instability paradox operating on the subcontinent that has put India at a strategic disadvantage vis-à-vis Pakistan."
He further explained, "A missile defense system would help India blunt Pakistan's 'first use' nuclear force posture that had led Pakistan to believe that it had inhibited India from launching a conventional attack against it for fear of its escalation to the nuclear level. With a missile defense system in place, India would be able to restore the status quo ante, thereby making a conventional military option against Pakistan potent again."Such a missile defense system and a second-strike capability "would enhance the uncertainties of India's potential adversaries, regardless of the degree of effectiveness of missile interception, and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear weapons," he said.
Asked whether Pakistan's countermeasures would be effective against such ABM systems, Pant replied, "most definitely."
He said, "According to various reports, Pakistan has been developing MIRV capability for the Shaheen-II ballistic missiles and [the] Shaheen-III missile is under development."
He also explained there was a further danger for India in Pakistan's countermeasure efforts.
"Although the current capability of Pakistani missiles is built around radar seekers, the integration of re-entry vehicles would make these extremely potent and defeat the anti-ballistic missile defense systems. This would be especially true of Indian aircraft carriers that would become extremely vulnerable," he said.
While measures to maintain the credibility of the land-based arm of the deterrent may prove to be adequate, the security of the future sea-based arm of the nuclear triad is not as clear-cut.
Analysts have for years speculated that the Navy will equip its submarines with a variant of the Babur cruise missile armed with a nuclear warhead. However, whether a cruise-missile-based arm of the nuclear triad at sea would be effective and survivable in the face of Indian air defenses is uncertain.
The Soviet Union developed a counter to the BGM-109 Tomahawk nearly 30 years ago in the form of the MiG-31 Foxhound, which had a powerful look down/shoot down radar and a potent missile system. The Indian Air Force claims its Su-30MKI Flanker has similar capabilities.
When this was put to analyst Usman Shabbir of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, he said the interception of cruise missiles is not so simple."I think Babur will form the sea-based arm of the Pakistani nuclear deterrent" he said, "but the problem in targeting subsonic cruise missiles is that they are harder to detect due to their lower radar cross-signature, low-level navigation, and use of waypoints to circumvent more secure and heavily defended areas."
"By the time you detect them, there is not much time left to vector aircraft for interception."
However, Shabbir conceded it would be possible for an airborne interceptor to shoot down a missile like Babur. "An aircraft already on [patrol] might be lucky to pick it up on its own radar well in advance [if looking in the correct direction], or vectored to it by ground-based radar."

CNO Assesses Russian, Chinese Navies

"The Russian Navy is moving again."

The U.S. Navy seeks ways to work with the Chinese and Russian navies, said Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations. (MCS Tiffini Jones Vanderwyst / Navy)

That was the description given Wednesday by Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. Navy's chief of naval operations (CNO), when asked for his assessment of America's former Cold War opponent.

"The Russian Navy still has great ambition, still has great pride," he said.
The collapse of the Soviet Union significantly reduced the navy, Roughead noted, with most shipbuilding programs coming to a halt or dragging out.
"That has stopped in recent years," he said. An improving Russian economy will mean "you're going to see an increase in their capability and capacity, with new shipbuilding programs taking hold." Roughead noted the recent move by Russia to acquire several French-designed Mistral-class amphibious ships as an indication of rising interest in increased operations.
The navy "will now begin to rebuild itself," he said, "and bring more modern capability to bear and operate more widely."
Roughead did not speak of a growing Russian naval force as a threat.
"I believe we should work closely with the Russian Navy to see where we can work together," he said, and cited operations with Russian ships working to counter pirates off Somalia.
Roughead was asked for his assessment of the Russian and Chinese navies during an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee. It was the last of several hearings before the House and Senate to present the 2012 budget request.
The Chinese Navy is the fastest-growing in the world today, Roughead said.
"We see their submarine fleet expanding, their surface combatants expanding. But it's also how they're using their command and control facilities," he said, "and the nature of expanding beyond the first island chain," the ring of islands that surround the Chinese mainland.
The strategic objectives of China's naval expansion seem to be same "that nations and navies have had throughout history," Roughead said. "As economies rise it follows there will be a strong navy."
"They want to ensure their sea lanes are able to be used," he told Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who specifically asked about China's anti-carrier missile capability.
"There has been a lot of discussion about the Dong Feng 21 missile," Roughead acknowledged. "But the DF 21 is no more an anti-access weapon than a submarine is. I would argue that you can put a ship out of action faster by putting a hole in the bottom than by putting a hole in the top."
Noting the superiority of the U.S. Navy's Virginia-class attack submarines over the several types China is building, Roughead declared that "even though the DF 21 has become a newsworthy weapon, the fact is our aircraft carriers can maneuver, and we we have systems that can counter weapons like that."
"My objective," in regards to the Chinese, Roughead said, "is to not be denied ocean areas were can operate, or not be restricted in our ability to operate."
The Chinese being constantly scrutinized as to their intentions, Roughead told Coats.
"I think it's important to gain insight into what their intent is," he said. "So we watch developments very closely."
China's designs on the Arctic Ocean were also questioned by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who asked how the Navy planned to respond to increased activity in the region due to climate change.
"There is no question in my mind that the Arctic is changing," Roughead said. But along with working closely with the Coast Guard, the CNO again observed that "the most important thing is to become party to the convention of the Law of the Sea" treaty, long hung up in the Senate. "If we are not party to that treaty we will not have a seat at the table as this unfolds."

Scorpene Delivery to India Delayed 3 Years

NEW DELHI - Delivery of the first French Scorpene submarine being license-built in India has been delayed by three years, until the latter part of 2015, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony told the Indian Parliament in a written statement March 14.
According to the $3.9 billion contract signed in 2005 between India and France, construction of the first three submarines would begin in December 2006, December 2007 and August 2008. As per the contract signed with Mazagon Docks Ltd. (MDL), the first submarine is scheduled to be delivered in December 2012, and one each year until December 2017, Antony said.

Antony, however, told Parliament that the first Scorpene delivery will be delivered in 2015.
"As per the contract, the first submarine was scheduled to be delivered in December 2012 and thereafter, one each every year till December 2017. There have been delays due to initial teething problems, absorption of complex technology, augmentation of MDL infrastructure and procurement" of material. The first submarine is now scheduled to be delivered in the second half of 2015, Antony said.
India is already facing a shortfall in submarines. Currently, the Navy has 14 submarines and, by 2012, there will be nine, a senior Navy official said.
The news of the delay in the Scorpene delivery comes at a time when the Chinese Navy is building several nuclear submarines. China has about 30 modern submarines and few dozen older ones. The Scorpenes are being built under Indian Navy's Project 75, which was approved in 1997.
The Scorpene is a conventional submarine with diesel propulsion. It is 219 feet long and has a speed of more than 20 knots with a displacement of 1,700 tons. With 31 men onboard, it can remain at sea for about 50 days and can dive to a depth of more than 1,000 feet.

Father Of Soviet Submarines Dead At 91

SAINT PETERSBURG, Russia - Sergei Kovalyov, the father of the Soviet Union and Russia's nuclear submarine program, has died at the age of
91 in his native Saint Petersburg, his colleagues said Friday.

A towering figure in the secret world of strategic arsenals, Kovalyov is credited with designing 92 types of submarines at a time when Moscow and Washington fought a bitter war for supremacy of the world's seas.
He began his career in 1948, working at first on the design of a revolutionary S-99 model that became the fastest submarine in the Soviet Union's nascent naval forces.
Kovalyov began designing his first nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in 1958, the same year he was appointed in charge of the Soviet Union's entire strategic naval forces program.
In a congratulatory message issued on Kovalyov's 90th birthday, President Dmitry Medvedev called him "a designer who has made an outstanding contribution to the development of the national ship building industry."
Most recently, Kovalyov was involved in designing off-shore oil and natural gas production platforms, an industry vital to Russia's efforts to develop the energy reserves trapped off its Pacific coast.

U.S. Navy: Cost of Ohio Class Subs Down $1 Billion

The Navy has been able to reduce the expected cost of its Ohio Class submarine replacement by more than $1 billion with an overall goal of trimming more than $2 billion per vessel, according to the Pentagon's top weapons buyer.
Pentagon officials have generated the extra cost savings by examining the drivers of cost in the vessel's design, according to Pentagon acquisition executive Ashton Carter.

Originally, cost estimators projected the SSBN(X) price tag at about $7 billion per submarine. The submarine's cost is now down to $6 billion with a goal of getting the cost down to $4.9, Carter said during a Feb. 22 presentation at a Center for New American Security event in Washington.
If the Navy were forced to pay $7 billion per submarine, it would not be able to afford any other ships, Carter said.
This same approach of looking at the drivers of cost in a weapon's design will be used during upcoming acquisitions, including the Air Force's new bomber, a Marine Corps effort to field a new helicopter for presidential transport and the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle, Carter said.