Fellow Submarines by Jan Joel Andersson

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Fellow Submarines by Jan Joel Andersson 32 2016 AL E X A ND E RZ E ML IA N ic H E NKO/AP/SIPA Fellow submarines by Jan Joel Andersson Ever since the occupation of Crimea in 2014, commercial, and military transport. Moreover, Russian military activity has increased in and the growing importance of secure maritime bor- around Europe. Russian air and land exercises have ders and the protection of vital undersea global also become more assertive and frequent compared communication cables make it both prudent and to previous years. Fighter jets of the Swedish and necessary for Europe to collectively manage, de- Finnish air forces, as well as NATO fighters pro- ter, and counter any undersea provocations. tecting the air space of the three Baltic republics of Countering enemy submarines is, however, very Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are scrambled on a difficult, time consuming and costly as the best regular basis to intercept approaching Russian air- underwater defences are submarines themselves. craft. Similarly, the Russian navy has stepped up its operations and engages in naval exercises and Complex and competitive deployments of increasing scope and scale. Containing more parts than jet airliners and be- Perhaps most worryingly to Western observers is ing more complicated than surface vessels, sub- the increase in underwater activity in the Baltic marines can be compared to space ships in their Sea and North Atlantic: senior NATO naval com- complexity. There are only a handful of companies manders have confirmed that “Russian submarine in the world capable of designing advanced sub- activity is reaching levels unseen since the end of marines and the majority of them are European. the Cold War”. In October 2014, Sweden engaged Currently, companies in France, Germany, Spain, in a seven-day submarine hunt in the Stockholm Sweden and the UK are all capable of designing archipelago in what was the biggest mobilisation submarines. With diminishing European defence of the country’s armed forces since the Cold War, budgets since the end of the Cold War, these firms and in April 2015 the Finnish Navy dropped depth have had to largely rely on exports, primarily to charges to warn-off an intruding submarine in the the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. Most waters off Helsinki. Several submarine hunts have recently, Australia awarded French shipbuilder also been conducted by the British Royal Navy DCNS a major order for 12 new submarines af- in the waters off Scotland and in the so-called ter having considered earlier offers from German, Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap Japanese and Swedish producers. through which Russian submarines must pass be- fore heading into the North Atlantic. However, increasing Russian undersea activities in the Baltic Sea and North Atlantic, as well as the re- Europe is heavily dependent upon free and safe cent reintroduction of submarines in the Russian sea lines of communications to support civilian, Black Sea Fleet patrolling in the Mediterranean European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) July 2016 1 have drawn new attention to submarines in Swedish submarine producer SAAB-Kockums Europe. Italy and Turkey are in the process of in- has teamed up with the Dutch group Damen troducing new submarines to their fleets while Schelde Naval Shipbuilding to bid on the subma- France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK are rine replacement programme for the Dutch navy. all currently building new submarines for their If they won, long-term cooperation between the respective navies. Currently, Norway, Poland and Netherlands and Sweden in the underwater do- the Netherlands are all looking to procure new main would follow. submarines. Today, Norway has six submarines, Poland five and the Netherlands four but none of …and in the air them has the money to replace their ageing boats one for one. In fact, Norway is planning a future The return of significant Russian undersea activ- fleet of probably four, Poland is said to plan an ity in northern Europe has also revived the is- order of three and the Netherlands will perhaps sue of how to counter threats by other means only order two, at least to begin with. Given the than submarines. Unfortunately, the current cost of building submarines and the complexity state of European ASW assets is dismal, but this of anti-submarine warfare (ASW), there should does, however, provide ample opportunities for be plenty of opportunities for European collabo- European cooperation. Years of neglect after the ration in these areas. end of the Cold War have left many European navies without assets and knowledge of how to Cooperation under the surface… reliably detect, track and counter enemy subma- rines. Potentially, large savings could be made if two or more partner countries could commit to the same While many European countries still operate submarine design and even more could be saved submarines, there are few that have maintained if joint training, logistics and maintenance could the long-range maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) be agreed upon. The three countries in question necessary for extended submarine hunts over the have all also expressed an interest in finding a oceans. The Netherlands sold its P3 Orion MPA partner. In fact, the Netherlands, Norway and aircraft to Germany in 2005 and the UK retired Poland are already cooperating in the procure- all of its Nimrod MPAs in 2011. Indeed, when a ment of multirole tanker-transport (MRTT) air- suspected Russian submarine was detected in the craft to be jointly owned and operated by the waters close to the main UK submarine base in three partner countries. Scotland in November 2014 and again in January 2015, the Royal Navy had to rely on NATO allies However, a major challenge in all international sending their MPAs to join the hunt. procurement cooperation is to agree on common specifications. While both Norway and Poland Many countries in Europe are in great need of operate rather small submarines for coastal op- rebuilding their capabilities related to maritime erations and have reportedly similar types of re- domain awareness. These capabilities can then quirements, there is no imminent talk of joint be used for ASW in the North Atlantic and also procurement between the two despite a pressing for monitoring the seas in the Baltic and the timeline to get new boats before the current ones Mediterranean or to safeguard sea lanes of com- need to be replaced. Meanwhile, the Netherlands munications off the coasts of Africa and beyond. is said to require much larger boats than the oth- Airborne systems like MPAs are particularly well ers (the Dutch want submarines capable of cross- suited for all these purposes but high costs pre- ing oceans), making it unclear if there is possibil- vent many countries from individually acquiring ity for cooperation among the three after all. or maintaining this capability. There is therefore a good opportunity for a cooperative European Another form of cooperation is to partner with solution to emerge. There are different models existing producers of submarines. For example, that could be used of which the NATO Airborne the German and Polish navies announced on 29 Warning and Control System (AWAC) consor- June 2016 that they have set up a joint ‘Submarine tium and the multinational C-17 Strategic Airlift Operating Authority’ that will bring the subma- Cooperation are just two good existing examples rines of the two navies under joint control (al- of pooling and sharing that works. though command over the submarines will be retained by the respective countries). If Poland Jan Joel Andersson is a Senior Analyst at the were to order its next submarines from Germany, EUISS. cooperation could clearly also be extended to training, logistics and more. Meanwhile, the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) July 2016 2 © EU Institute for Security Studies, 2016. | QN-AL-16-032-2A-N | ISBN 978-92-9198-406-0| ISSN 2315-1129 | doi:10.2815/382364.
Recommended publications
  • 2019 Draft DSCTC Report
    DEFENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE (DSC) Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation (DSCTC) EVOLVING SECURITY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC Draft Report by Nicholas SOAMES (United Kingdom) Rapporteur 077 DSCTC 19 E | Original: English | 23 April 2019 Until this document has been adopted by the Defence and Security Committee, it only represents the views of the Rapporteur. 077 DSCTC 19 E TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 II. IMPORTANCE OF THE ATLANTIC ....................................................................................... 2 III. THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE GIUK-N GAP AND NEW RUSSIAN PRESENCE AND CAPABILITIES .............................................................................................................. 3 A. INCREASED RUSSIAN CAPABILITIES AND PRESENCE........................................... 3 B. RUSSIA IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND ARCTIC ..................................................... 4 C. THE NORTHERN FLEET AND RUSSIAN DEFENCE ARCHITECTURE IN THE ATLANTIC .................................................................................................................... 5 IV. NATO’S NORTH ATLANTIC PRESENCE AND NEW INITIATIVES ....................................... 5 A. NATO MARITIME COMMAND ...................................................................................... 6 B. ICELAND AND RENEWED NATO ANTI-SUBMARINE EFFORTS ............................... 7 V. INTERIM
    [Show full text]
  • Fixed Sonar Systems the History and Future of The
    THE SUBMARINE REVIEW FIXED SONAR SYSTEMS THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THE UNDEWATER SILENT SENTINEL by LT John Howard, United States Navy Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California Undersea Warfare Department Executive Summary One of the most challenging aspects of Anti-Submarine War- fare (ASW) has been the detection and tracking of submerged contacts. One of the most successful means of achieving this goal was the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) developed by the United States Navy in the early 1950's. It was designed using breakthrough discoveries of the propagation paths of sound through water and intended to monitor the growing submarine threat of the Soviet Union. SOSUS provided cueing of transiting Soviet submarines to allow for optimal positioning of U.S. ASW forces for tracking and prosecution of these underwater threats. SOSUS took on an even greater national security role with the advent of submarine launched ballistic missiles, ensuring that U.S. forces were aware of these strategic liabilities in case hostilities were ever to erupt between the two superpowers. With the end of the Cold War, SOSUS has undergone a number of changes in its utilization, but is finding itself no less relevant as an asset against the growing number of modern quiet submarines proliferating around the world. Introduction For millennia, humans seeking to better defend themselves have set up observation posts along the ingress routes to their key strongholds. This could consist of something as simple as a person hidden in a tree, to extensive networks of towers communicating 1 APRIL 2011 THE SUBMARINE REVIEW with signal fires.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Requirements for Effective Deterrence of Interstate Aggression
    What Deters and Why Exploring Requirements for Effective Deterrence of Interstate Aggression Michael J. Mazarr, Arthur Chan, Alyssa Demus, Bryan Frederick, Alireza Nader, Stephanie Pezard, Julia A. Thompson, Elina Treyger C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2451 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0064-2 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Three ROK soldiers watching the border at Panmunjeom in the DMZ between North and South Korea/Henrik Ishihara via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project enti- tled What Deters and Why: Lessons of Deterrence Theory and Practice for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FORGOTTEN WATERS Minding the GIUK Gap a Tabletop Exercise
    MAY 2017 FORGOTTEN WATERS Minding the GIUK Gap A Tabletop Exercise Julianne Smith and Jerry Hendrix Foreword by Robert D. Kaplan CNAS Celebrating 10 Years About the Authors JULIANNE SMITH is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and Director of its Transatlantic Security Program. She previously served as the Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States and as the Principal Director for European and NATO Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon. JERRY HENDRIX is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Director of its Defense Strategies and Assessments Program. As a Captain in the United States Navy (now retired), his staff assignments include tours with the Chief of Naval Operation’s Executive Panel (N00K), the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and the Office of Net Assessment. Most recently, he served as the Director of Naval History. Acknowledgements This report is the final product of a project entitled, “Forgotten Waters: Minding the GIUK Gap,” co-sponsored by the CNAS Transatlantic Security Program and the CNAS Defense Strategies and Assessments Program. This project was made possible by the generous support of the Ministries of Defense of Norway, the United Kingdom, and France. Although many people played crucial roles in the development and execution of this project, we would like to single out a few of our colleagues. We wish to thank our partners at the British, French, and Norwegian embassies in Washington, DC, including Steve McCarthy, Simond de Galbert, Keith Eikenes, and Harald Støren.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fleeting Or Permanent Military Presence? the Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland
    The US in Iceland A Fleeting or Permanent Military Presence? The Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland Valur Ingimundarson Increased Russian naval activities in the North Atlantic have refocused Western military attention on Iceland’s geostrategic importance. But even if the US has resumed irregular Cold War-style maritime and anti-submarine patrols from Iceland, there are no plans to reopen the American military base on the island. ince the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, irregular rotational Cold War-style represented the Soviet Northern Fleet’s there have been increased calls maritime and anti-submarine (ASW) outlet to the Atlantic Ocean as a strategic for NATO’s return to the North patrols with long-range aircraft from choke point. One scenario featured Atlantic to ‘revitalise’ collective Iceland. This development has led in the exercise was a disinformation Sdefence against Russian assertiveness. some Western security analysts to take campaign in Iceland – supposedly The establishment of the new Atlantic a step further, arguing that the time is stemming from Russia – that had altered Command is consistent with such ripe to reopen the US Naval Air Station the outcome of national elections. This arguments, even if it is not comparable in Keflavik, which the Americans had put into power a leader intent on with its Cold War predecessor, which was closed down in 2006. From a long-term reducing US military activities and disbanded in 2002. The same applies to perspective, the US might contemplate ending NATO air policing and future the recent UK–Norwegian decision to such a move in the context of increased military deployments to Iceland.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL WAR GAME NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island
    GLOBAL WAR GAME NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island CENTER FOR NAVAL WARFARE STUDIES Newport Paper #4 June 1993 “The Newport Papers” series is a vehicle for distribution of substantial work by members of the Naval War College’s teaching and research faculty and stu- dents. Papers are drawn generally from manuscripts not scheduled for publica- tion either as articles in the Naval War College Review or as books from the Naval War College Press but that nonetheless merit extensive distribution. Candidates are considered by an editorial board under the auspices of the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. The views expressed in The Newport Papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy. Correspondence concerning The Newport Papers should be addressed to the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. Requests for additional copies or for perma- nent distribution should be directed to the President, Code 32A, Naval War College, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, Rhode Island 02841-1207. Telephone (401) 841-2236 or DSN 948-2236, and Fax (401) 841-3579. Second printing July 1993. GLOBAL WAR GAME The First Five Years Bud Hay and Bob Gile Contents Note to the Reader ............................. vii Executive Summary............................. viii Series Development ............................. 1 Game Scenarios ............................... 4 1979 ................................. 4 1980 ................................. 5 1981 ................................. 8 1982 ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Deterrence and Defence on NATO's Northern Flank
    Enhancing deterrence and defence on NATO’s northern flank Allied perspectives on strategic options for Norway James Black, Stephen Flanagan, Gene Germanovich, Ruth Harris, David Ochmanek, Marina Favaro, Katerina Galai, Emily Ryen Gloinson For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4381 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation Cover images © Norwegian Armed Forces R® is a registered trademark. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.randeurope.org III Preface This study examines strategic options and NATO in the High North. Finally, it outlines a for enhancing deterrence and defence on number of proposed Strategic Options (SOs) for the northern flank of the North Atlantic consideration as the Norwegian MOD continues Treaty Organisation (NATO).
    [Show full text]
  • CANADA and NATO: an ALLIANCE FORGED in STRENGTH and RELIABILITY Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence
    CANADA AND NATO: AN ALLIANCE FORGED IN STRENGTH AND RELIABILITY Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence Stephen Fuhr, Chair JUNE 2018 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION The proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees are hereby made available to provide greater public access. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees is nonetheless reserved. All copyrights therein are also reserved. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of Commons and its Committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Security in the North Atlantic
    DEFENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE (DSC) Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation (DSCTC) EVOLVING SECURITY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC Report Sir Nicholas SOAMES (United Kingdom) Rapporteur 138 DSCTC 19 E fin | Original: English | 13 October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 II. IMPORTANCE OF THE ATLANTIC ....................................................................................... 2 III. THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE GIUK-N GAP AND NEW RUSSIAN PRESENCE AND CAPABILITIES .............................................................................................................. 3 A. INCREASED RUSSIAN CAPABILITIES AND PRESENCE........................................... 3 B. RUSSIA IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND ARCTIC ..................................................... 4 C. THE NORTHERN FLEET AND RUSSIAN DEFENCE ARCHITECTURE IN THE ATLANTIC .................................................................................................................... 5 IV. NATO’S NORTH ATLANTIC PRESENCE AND NEW INITIATIVES ....................................... 6 A. NATO MARITIME COMMAND ...................................................................................... 6 B. ICELAND AND RENEWED NATO ANTI-SUBMARINE EFFORTS ............................... 7 V. INTERIM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATO PARLIAMENTARIANS 9 ANNEX A: UNDERSEA CABLES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: an Intersectional Analysis
    Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 4 December 2015 Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An Intersectional Analysis Tara Davenport Yale Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jlt Part of the Admiralty Commons, Communications Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, International Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Tara Davenport, Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An Intersectional Analysis, 24 Cath. U. J. L. & Tech (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jlt/vol24/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUBMARINE CABLES, CYBERSECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: AN INTERSECTIONAL ANALYSIS Tara Davenport* The international community’s ever-increasing reliance on the Internet and web-based information and communications technologies (“ICT”) has meant that cybersecurity is becoming one of the most pressing concerns in the 21st century. The International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”)1 has defined cybersecurity to mean “the collection of tools, policies, security concepts,
    [Show full text]
  • A Cold War Conundrum: the 1983 Soviet War Scare
    CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY An Intelligence Monograph " IT IS TIME THEY STOPPED A Cold War Conundrum: INVENTING NEW PLANS ON HOW TO UNLEASH A The 1983 Soviet War Scare NUCLEAR \VAR. by Ben B. Fischer YURI ANDROPOV HEY ARE TIIE FOCUS "T OF EVIL IN THE MODERN vv'ORLD. RONALD REAGAN CSI 97-10002 September 1997 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF INTELLIGENCE This publication is prepared for the use of US Government officials, and the format, coverage, and content are designed to meet their specific requirements Requesters outside the US Government may obtain subscriptions to publications similar to this one by addressing inquiries to Documents Expediting Project (DOCEX) Exchange and Gift Division Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20540 or National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Requesters outside the US Government not interested in subscription service may purchase specific publications either in paper copy or microform from Photoduplication Service Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 Or National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 To expedite service, call the NTIS Order Desk (703-487-4650) Comments and queries on this publication may be directed to the DOCEX Project at the above address or by phone (202-707-9527) or fax (202-707-0380), or to the NTIS Office of Customer Services at the above address or by phone (703487-4660) This study will be available on the Internet after mid-September 1997 at www ode goy/cm . An Intelligence Monograph A Cold War Conundrum: The 1983 Soviet War Scare by Ben B.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Views of the US Navy and NATO on the Northern Flank, 1917-1991
    Strategic Views of the US Navy and NATO on the Northern Flank, 1917-1991 Dean C. Allard American recognition of the strategic significance of Europe's Northern Flank, stretching from the Danish Straits to Norway's North Cape, is not entirely a phenomenon of the Cold War. More than eighty years ago, in November 1917, Admiral William S. Benson, the US Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), visited Europe to confer with British leaders on future naval strategy for World War I. At this time, President Woodrow Wilson was on record as opposing what he viewed as the overly defensive stance of the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet. Based far from the European war zone at Scapa Flow, that force obviously deterred the German High Seas Fleet from seizing control of the North Sea. But Wilson and Benson preferred an aggressive, close-in assault on the enemy, a strategic objective shared by many British leaders who invoked memories of the Royal Navy's Nelsonian tradition. The targets proposed by both British and US critics were two-fold: the ships and facilities located at the enemy's bases, which represented the source of German naval strength; and the maritime transit routes connecting these bases to the high seas.' These criticisms influenced British naval strategy in the latter part of the war. In 1917 the Royal Navy stepped up its mining campaign in the Heligoland Bight of the North Sea, as well as in the Danish Straits that provided an alternate German access route to the high seas. In addition, during Benson's visit Royal Naval (RN) officers revealed plans to intensify the mine and ship barrage of the Dover Straits.
    [Show full text]