RiiSo apparently Algeria has the highest military budget in Africa these days. What’s up with that?
Rii^ Good info, thanks.
As the OP suggested, Brazil and Indonesia or would seem to be the best candidates, and ofc. there’s already cooperation between Brazil and South Africa on e.g. A-Darter.
RiiForeign Policy magazine — The Unaffordable Arsenal
The Navy wants 12 new ballistic missile submarines that would cost about $100 billion to build. The Air Force is seeking up to 100 new, nuclear-capable strategic bombers for at least $80 billion, as well as land-based ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles. Both services know that planned spending will not cover these costs, so they are seeking additional funds — outside of their own budgets.
Responding to this game of nuclear pass-the-buck, Undersecretary of Defense Frank Kendall said on Sept. 17, “at the end of the day we have to find money to pay for these things one way or another, right? So changing the accounting system doesn’t really change that fundamental requirement. We still need the money and it has to come from somewhere.”
Rather than hoping for a handout or creative accounting, a more pragmatic approach would be for the Obama administration to accept that the nuclear weapons enterprise is just too big and should be scaled back. Can it really be that the nation needs to rebuild essentially every missile, bomber, submarine, and warhead it’s built over the last 50 years?
Personally I think the most sensible path forward — i.e. the most sensible means of generating significant savings — would be to eliminate the land-based leg of the triad, which (going by the RAND report referenced in the article) would save $90Bn over 40 years compared to the next-cheapest option of life-extending the existing Minuteman IIIs. That said, the idea of the US military seeking nuclear funding outside the defense budget isn’t as unusual as the author seems to think — the US already spends $50bn/yr maintaining its nuclear arsenal and this expenditure is charged to the Dept. of Energy.
RiiI actually came across the Bruce Rule post a couple weeks back while trying to find out why Borei has a propulsor while Yasen does not:
The BOREY pump-jet propulsor, like the AKULA conventional screw, is driven by a left (port)-turning shaft. An advantage of a pump-jet propulsor is that the stator directs thrust developed by the rotor along the axis of the submarine which reduces the tangential thrust which, in turn, reduces torque on the hull which allows the stern area control surfaces to be smaller than would be the case with a conventional screw. This permitted the BOREY to use the stern section of the much smaller Project 971 AKULA Class SSN. Consistent with this commonality assessment, within measurement error, the span (maximum width) of both the BOREY and AKULA stern planes is 45 feet; however, that value represents only eight percent of the overall length of the BOREY but 12 percent of the length of the AKULA.
This may be the primary reason why the BOREY has a pump-jet propulsor and the new YASEN (NATO: GRANEY) Class Project 885 Russian SSGN has a conventional (open) skewed seven-bladed screw. (3) (It may something for others to verify and think about that the span of the YASEN stern planes is about 57 feet or almost 15 percent of its length.)
Something not from the article: the idea that the first Borei boats re-use some machinery from Akula/Sierra/Oscar class boats, in addition to hull sections, would also help to make sense of why the much larger Borei boats are apparently cheaper than the new Yasen SSNs.
RiiNobody is saying otherwise. The steam turbine part is what i’m wondering where he pulled from.
This post by Bruce Rule is the best summary and analysis of Borei and Yasen propulsion characteristics that I have personally come across:
The BOREY and Project 971 AKULA Class SSN both use the GTZA OK-9VM main turbine gear assembly. That TR system is now known to include a “planetary double-reduction” gear. (1) The same source also states the BOREY has an “electric propulsion” (TE) capability which, as previously discussed, is provided by a 5,500 hp dc motor, probably the PG-141, also used as the main propulsion motor by all variants of the KILO Class Soviet/Russian diesel submarine (SS).
It is probable all third-generation Soviet/Russian nuclear submarines with main propulsion power train horsepower ratings of about 50,000 per shaft use the GTZA OK-9VM system with the same two-stage planetary reduction gear. This assessment includes the AKULA and SIERRA SSNs, the OSCAR SSGN and – yes – even the TYPHOON SSBN; however, none of these classes have a TE capability. Such standardization was – and remains – a typical Soviet/Russian design practice for nuclear submarine main propulsion power trains.
RiiGood to hear they’re still aiming for first flight this year.
RiiChina is reported to have invested in up to five Jin-class SSBNs. I question the wisdom of this given — by all accounts — both the type’s limited survivability, and sub-optimal lethality, primarily with respect to the JL-2 SLBM having a range of ‘only’ 7000km, i.e. unable to target the west coast of the United States from operating regions close to shore (and therefore within range of intensive air- and sea-based support) but also with respect to MIRVs, decoys, etc.
Given China’s emphasis on rapid iteration, and in the context of other visible programs e.g. frigates, SSKs, investing in 5 Jin-types suggests an eventual SSBN force of 10-15 boats. I think even the upper range of 15 boats is a sensible long-term target given growing missile defence capabilities, but investing in so substantial, yet inadequate, a force so early risks constraining funds available for much-needed future development. USN will struggle mightily to afford its SSBN(X) program over the coming decades, and it would be unfortunate for China to find itself in a similar position by consequence of repeating America’s mistakes, and in contrast to its own admirable practices over the past generation.
RiiFingers crossed!
RiiUSS Philippine has been busy firing TLAMs too.
That’s the USS Philippine Sea for anyone else who just about had a heart attack.
RiiJ-10 is a half Flanker at best (75% of the MiG-29)
MiG-29 is a two-thirds Flanker at best. (33% better than J-10)If you’re looking for longer range you go the bigger airframe. If you want performance you go the bigger airframe. If you want fewer aircraft to maintain then you go the bigger airframe. If you want bigger weapons you go a bigger airframe.
All of which constitutes a good argument for buying Flankers. But that isn’t the question — Russia and China have Flankers. The question is, which aircraft better serves as the ‘lo’ complement to the Flanker’s ‘hi’ in a hi-lo mix — and the answer is J-10, which is a pretty remarkable failure on Russia’s part* considering they were in the driver’s seat whilst China was very constrained in the options it could explore. The other relevant consideration is which aircraft is more attractive on the export market, and the answer again — given that budget constraints are generally the predominant factor, with maintenance and logistical requirements also a major consideration — is the smaller, single-engine J-10.
* Comparable to America’s failure to exploit F119 as the powerplant for their future ‘lo’ aircraft, an option that not only would’ve saved considerable time and money (and reduced risk), but could well have saved the F-22 program from cancellation as well.
Rii^ I think it’s just the E-2s they’re looking to replace.
NYT — US Ramping Up Major Renewal In Nuclear Arms
In open and classified reports to Congress, Mr. Obama laid out his atomic refurbishment plans, which the Congressional Budget Office now estimates will cost $355 billion dollars over the next decade. But that is just the start. The price tag will soar after 10 years as missiles, bombers and submarines made in the last century reach the end of their useful lives and replacements are built.
The looming crackup between trillion-dollar plans and tight budgets is starting to get Washington’s attention. Modernization delays are multiplying and cost estimates are rising. Panels of experts are bluntly describing the current path as unacceptable.
A new generation of missiles, bombers and submarines “is unaffordable,” a bipartisan, independent panel commissioned by Congress and the Defense Department declared in July. Its 10 experts, including former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, echoed other estimates in putting the cost at up to $1 trillion.
The overall investment, the panel said, “would likely come at the expense of needed improvements in conventional forces.”
RiiYeah I am not seeing what the J-10 has to do with outmaneuvering anyone.
J-10 is a much better ‘light’ complement for the Flanker series than Russia’s own MiG-29. The common engine generates efficiencies in terms of cost, logistics, training, and future development. And as a smaller aircraft, it avoids the ‘why not just buy a Flanker?’ problem that plagues modern MiG-29s. It’s also a fundamentally more advanced design, but that’s neither here nor there in this context.
Equally clear is that J-10 was a smarter move than the larger, twin-engine Rafale and Typhoon platforms that their respective governments are struggling both to afford domestically and to sell abroad. As for the US, I think enough has been said already about the generational, institutional, system-wide failure of the United States to develop and invest in an aircraft it can actually afford.
The Swedes got it right, though — both then and now.
Rii…and this is based on what exactly?
Based on the fact that the Chinese seem to know what they’re doing whilst most western nations — most certainly including Australia — are flopping around like chickens with their heads cut off and while Russia and India suffer from their own particular crippling diseases.
The US Navy alone is a walking disaster area, from A-12 to SSN-21 to LCS to Zumwalt to their current pleading for a bail-out on a program — SSBN(X) they haven’t even had a chance to **** up yet. And of course the notable exceptions to this tale of fail — Super Hornet, Viriginia-class — are those which arose in direct response to those failures and were subsequently constrained in both time and cost. Meanwhile, China is capable of exercising this discipline without such external pressure, and the results have steadily progressed to the point that they will shortly be fielding a 12,000 ton destroyer platform well adapted to the demands of coming decades at the same time that USN is forced back to the cramped Arleigh Burke platform because they have systematically screwed themselves out of any other option. Let’s not even get into LCS vs. the one-two punch of Type 056 and 054/A/B.
But not to lay into the Navy too much: we all know that JSF would be the highest profile failure of them all if it weren’t for carefully engineered congressional support and the fact that the US Air Force all but put a gun to its own head by refusing to invest in anything else for the last 20+ years.
I admit, it’s amusing to watch the American behemoth totter drunkenly around the place, but it becomes less endearing as time goes by. J-10 was probably the first example of China out-maneuvering the west (and Russia), and it was hampered by their continuing shortfalls in engine technology and other fields. Time goes by, more examples crop up with fewer caveats, and with Type 55 there are almost none at all. The way things are shaping up, the Chinese are going to make you lot look all kinds of stupid in the coming decades.
RiiNot really, J-10 is ugly comparatively speaking.
The ugliest of the (operational) delta-canards is still a fine looking aircraft.
But no, really: with J-10, China out-foxed everyone* — something we’ll be seeing a lot more of in future I suspect.
* well, the Russians and Europeans at least. The Americans more or less shot themselves in the foot.
RiiThe jump up to the F414 should give an edge in combat weight and true capability. Would you rather have the C or the E? The only honest answer is E. Knowing that F-16 production is being drawn down I could see the need for Gripen EX built around F1x0.
Something like this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]231904[/ATTACH]
:p
Sign In
