Ballistic Missile Submarines In Deep Underwater Collision - Updated/Bumped

It is hard to calculate the odds of a deep underwater collision between two nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines, but on the night of Feb. 3rd or 4th the unthinkable occurred. On Monday, as I noted on Twitter the French SSBN Le Triomphant (S 616) was returning home in the mid-Atlantic from a deployment when she reportedly hit an 'object, which was most likely a container' resulting in severe damage to the sonar dome of the submarine. Today we are learning that object was actually a container for the strategic nuclear deterrent of Great Britain, also known as HMS Vanguard (S28). From the Daily Mail.

French Navy sources confirm that Le Triomphant, one of four strategic nuclear submarines of the ‘Force de Frappe’ (Strike Force), was returning from a 70-day tour of duty when it collided with HMS Vanguard.

During heavy seas in the middle of the night between February 3 and 4, French sailors heard a loud ‘bang’ that all but destroyed the submarine's sonar dome.

This part of the boat should have detected the Vanguard in the first place, but Le Triomphant’s crew of 101 neither saw or heard anything before the collision.

According to reporting of both The Sun and Daily Mirror, both submarines had to be towed to port and both had visible damage from the collision. Both are lead ships of their respective countries ballistic missile submarine class. It is hard to calculate the odds of two submarines running silent at the same depth in the same part of the Atlantic Ocean and neither submarine detecting the other prior to collision. It is also particularly disturbing that the French Le Triomphant (S 616) was hit on the sonar dome and had no warning prior to collision.

Western nations have spent a fortune to upkeep strategic nuclear deterrence underwater for decades, and part of that investment has to make ballistic missile submarines very difficult to detect by passive sonar. Apparently, mission accomplished. HMS Vanguard (S28) displaces over 15,680 tons and Le Triomphant (S 616) displaces around 14,335 tons; these are gigantic submarines making any collision deep underwater very dangerous.

It is a real credit to how much attention to detail goes into the safety and survivability of nuclear submarines that all of the damage reported from both nations appears to be specific to the hull and external systems. There are no reports of damage to the ballistic missiles on either submarines, nor any leak from either nuclear reactor that powers either submarine.

Updated: I expect the details of the first reports to be inaccurate, for example, the French are not confirming anything happened, but are confirming a frigate escorted (not towed) the submarine back to port, while the Royal Navy is also claiming the submarine was not towed.

For the truth regarding the details of the accident, we will have to wait, and may not ever get the whole story. Given how odd the story was Monday regarding the Le Triomphant (S 616) crashing into an underwater container in the middle of the Atlantic, and that we are hearing official word about damage to HMS Vanguard (S28), I do believe the collision did occur. There has to be a story regarding how the Le Triomphant (S 616) hit the other submarine with its sonar and never detected it. That is very odd.

French Carrier Update

The Charles de Gaulle, French CVN R91, has been returned to the French Navy following what has been described as a scheduled overhaul and nuclear refueling. Back in December, DefenseNews told us that this overhaul cost around USD $381 million, which is an awful lot to spend refurbishing a ship that was only handed over to its navy for original acceptance seven years before going into dock for the refit - and fifteen months of refurb after that period is not trivial. While a great deal of the specifics listed do seem to involve new capabilities brought on by changes to the Rafale, the primary aircraft operated, the fact that it required a nuclear refueling seems a bit odd.

Although the poor CdG's trials and tribulations have been well-covered elsewhere, this is just a bit of a mental note that this is the sort of thing that occurs when domestic carrier production is allowed to lapse. The French went 20 years or so without building a carrier, and even with the eleven-year build time caused by budget fights, seven years before nuclear refueling is not a good record. It is possible that the refueling was done opportunistically, as changes to the reactor systems had been mandated by EU safety and environmental regulations in any case (possibly due to changes in those regulations which post-dated the design of the carrier, requiring stricter limits).

The performance of the CdG is important as France decides whether to go in with Britain on a CVF conventional carrier buy, purchasing one to Britain's two to reduce costs for both, or if she will choose to build a second CdG-class with lessons learned.

French Foil Attack on 150,000 DWT Oil Tanker

On Tuesday Somali pirates attempted to hijack the 150,000+ DWT crude oil tanker African Ruby. Unfortunately for the pirates, the French were in the neighborhood.

The French navy on Tuesday foiled an attack on a cargo ship in the pirate-infested waters off Somalia and arrested nine men allegedly trying to board the vessel, the military said here.

The French frigate Le Floreal received a distress call from the African Ruby and dispatched a helicopter which spotted two high-speed skiffs with armed men on board, a military spokesman said.

The chopper fired warning shots and the nine men on the skiffs were later detained, he said, adding that the interception took place in international waters off Puntland, a semi-autonomous region of northeast Somalia.

This marks the seventh action taken by the French against piracy since the French raid that arrested pirates last April. Check out the photo album of the incident at Fred Fry's place.

Eagle1 has more, including a link to a picture of the African Ruby. Now that is a big ship.

France Buys Another Mistral Class

There are two things to note about this. First, this is a result of the French economic stimulus package, yet another country that looks to stimulate the economy by building ships that enhance national capabilities. Second, this is a signal regarding the mindset of a Sarkozy administration, Ares noted the speed of which it was decided and discussed. DO not casually dismiss the possibility we see the same type of thing from an Obama administration.

Defense News has an outline of French military purchases for the upcoming 2009-1014 military budget law, where a new Mistral was mentioned.

As part of the accelerated investment, the government plans to order a third Mistral-class projection and command ship from 2009, advancing an order which had been expected in the military budget law which followed the present 2009-14 exercise.

Robery Farley, call your office, you remain correct in your assessment that the Amphibious Ship is the Dreadnought of the modern era. It isn't just about national prestige though, this is about expanding capability and tells the story of how nations look at what national power from the maritime domain means in the future.

The Mistral class is a cool ship, but it isn't a kick down the door capability, more of an over the horizon helicopter command ship. Cool concept, and is an excellent ship for the Global Fleet Station and medical diplomacy roles, but otherwise isn't really well suited for the way we currently deploy Marines to forward theaters.

For those who think I am down on the ship class you couldn't be more wrong, I just note the US builds bigger ships that fills the same role. Confused? It is noteworthy the most common role for a Mistral class ship is in a power projection/soft power role off the coast of Africa, not much different than what we call Global Fleet Stations.

The Mistral class are big ships, the largest Navy ship not able to support fixed wing aircraft in Europe.

5th Fleet Focus: Live and Learn

On November 5th, 2005 a cruise ship named Seabourn Spirit was attacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia. It was an unusual target at the time, Somalian piracy was almost exclusively cargo ships at that time due to the smaller crews. The crew of the cruise ship repelled the attack using a long-range acoustic device, which generated a focused, painful noise that turned the pirates away.

I was reminded of that this evening when I was reading through this French news article that showed the Seabourn Spirit as part of the recent NATO convoy through that region. The escorting warship is FS Nivôse (F732), and apparently French soldiers were dispersed onto the private commercial traffic to act as security against pirates.

Good pictures in that article, you gCaptain folks would enjoy the imagery alone. It is a reminder for those who get confused, NATO is not off the coast to fight piracy, NATO is escorting convoys of commercial ships and escorting the World Food Programme ship to Somalia for the UN. If you look through the latest Order of Battle, it is decieving to think of all those ships fighting pirates, because the truth is only about a half dozen are, while several stand off and watch ships that have already been taken captive.

Building Russian Aircraft Carriers in... Europe?

Ilya Kramnik, a Russian analyst for RIA Novosti who also contributes opinion and analysis of Russian military subjects with UPI, is one of our favorite foreign naval analysts. If there is an idea truly worthy of being "Crazy Ivan" label worthy, he is usually putting it out there. Back in June he was one of the first in the media promoting the idea of the International strike group including Europe, the US, Russia, and the Middle Eastern nations to fight Somalian piracy. Guess he could read the tea leaves.

This story did not run in English, but did run in French, and in light of the submarine accident is one worth thinking about. Ilya Kramnik has long been in touch with the state of Russian shipbuilding, so he does know enough to know whether this is necessary or not. The headline: Р�?�?�?кий авиано�?ец �? франц�?з�?ким акцентом or Un porte-avions russe à l'accent français, translated as A Russian Aircraft Carrier with a French Accent.

The international exhibition of naval defense and maritime safety EURONAVAL 2008, which was not initially expected to result in much news, has a chance to make history. The commander of the Russian navy, Admiral Vladimir Vyssotski, who is visiting the exhibition, has shown a keen interest in the potential of the French group Thales in the construction of aircraft carriers.

The article goes on to note that the Russian Navy has a history of buying ships built by foreign countries, and that the current state of Russian shipbuilding is at a point where this makes sense. The article notes that disruption and delays for several ships under construction highlight the real difficulty Russia faces building ships today, and that working with Thales offers promise.

The idea being floated is that all indications are Russia would like to build 6 aircraft carriers similar to the 60-70 thousand ton CVF design being developed for the British and French Navies. Ilya Kramnik's idea is to build the lead ship in France with foreign assistance, including some experience for Russian shipbuilders, then do follow on serial construction of the rest of the class in Russia.

It is impossible to believe this would ever happen, mostly because of the technology transfer issues. Thales is building the CVF with the assistance of the United States, and it is hard to believe the US would allow Thales to help the Russians build aircraft carriers without violating some sort of export agreement that protects shared technologies.

But if Russia does look to go overseas to save money building aircraft carriers, there is certainly a possibility out there. There are plenty of indications that China is in development of an aircraft carrier, and China may require technical assistance in order to complete the project. This may be a way that Russia can help reduce costs and still get some industry exposure building aircraft carriers. It is unclear what size aircraft carrier China is interested in building, or if China is actually serious in building aircraft carriers, but if there is a serious effort in China and Russia is indeed interested in building the first aircraft carrier overseas due to lack of modernization for current shipbuilding facilities (a real problem, probably hurt even more by recent economic troubles), then if Thales is prevented from helping Russia, China might be a legitimate alternative.

Who knows, maybe the model of Jiangnan Changxing Shipbuilding Base included a Russian aircraft carrier and not a Chinese aircraft carrier? Just speculating out loud...

French Naval Forces Nab Pirates at Sea

There are various news reports of activity off Somalia today, looks like the French are still active.

The French Navy intercepted the pirates in two small boats about 115 miles (185 kilometers) from the nearest coast, finding anti-tank missiles, other weapons and ship boarding gear on the boats.

The nine were handed over to Somali officials, and French officials received assurances that the prisoners would be treated according to international conventions.

Another news report quotes the state minister of Puntland Abdi Qadir Yusuf as saying “We received nice (criminal) pirates from French navy forces today and we will put them on trial soon.”

This gives us something else to observe, namely: the justice system of the Puntland government and how they deal with piracy. The results could have international impact to how the detention of pirates is handled in the future.

Well done to the French Navy, who continues to fight piracy with the vigilance necessary for long term success.

A European Union Carrier Strike Group

In our search to figure out just what the hell the Royal Navy is doing building the CVF while the rest of the fleet disappears, we believe we finally found a reason that at least makes some sense regarding the Grand Strategy at work here. Best interest of the British citizenship? Only if you believe losing sovereignty to the EU is in your best interest.

France will propose launching a European Union aircraft carrier group and a joint fleet of military transporters as part of efforts later this year to boost the EU military, French defence officials said...

France takes on the presidency of the EU in two weeks and President Nicolas Sarkozy has flagged that he sees bolstering Europe's defence capacity as a precondition for a return to NATO's military structures after a four-decade absence.

Aides close to Defence Minister Herve Morin said negotiations with Britain were well-advanced on creating a European naval group based around either a French or British aircraft carrier permanently on the sea.

Other nations could then contribute frigates, submarines or refuelling vessels as required, the aides said.

We tend to think the Royal Navy has been aware this idea was coming for awhile. If we are being serious, there really is no other way the British will be able to field task forces without outsourcing escort responsibilities of their major naval assets to other European nations, the numbers simply don't add up. Richard Beedall echoes our observations in his recent editorial from late May.

The Royal Navy had 35 escorts in service (aka commissioned frigates and destroyers) in 1998 and SDR promised a long term strength of 32. The Royal Navy currently has an actual strength of 24 and by 2018 it will have at best 19 escorts in service - 6 new Type 45 destroyers and 13 aging Type 23 frigates. By comparison, the RN averaged nearly 70 destroyers and frigates in service during the 1970's - many of these were smaller than their modern counterparts, but three small ships can be in two more places than one large ship.

A sheer lack of numbers now cripples the Royal Navy's. Four years ago (with 31 escorts left) the Royal Navy still made a valiant effort to patrol the worlds oceans with destroyers and frigates assigned to seven geographically widely dispersed "directed tasks". Those days have now gone. Indeed, in recent months it has become clear that Royal Navy is no longer able or even expected (that would justify the RN asking for additional funding) to perform once fundamental activities such as the protection of UK flagged merchant ships from piracy. In the future the top priority when allocating very scare operational escorts will inevitably be escorting the ready carrier and the amphibious task group, other deployments will have to be rationed to requirements deemed in extremis worthy of a short term surge effort.

Lets pretend that by 2020 the Royal Navy ends up with 2 CVFs and 2 LPDs, plus the possibility of Ocean or Ark Royal. That would be 19 surface combatants total for 5 high value targets. Assuming the very high 70% availability, the Royal Navy ends up with 13 total surface combatants to forward deploy with 3-4 of its high value naval assets. Would the Royal Navy forward deploy all 13 available warships in the fleet, or perhaps keep 3-4 near home waters. No matter how you look at it, unless maintenance in the Royal Navy is absolutely perfect all of the time, the Royal Navy will never have more than 10 surface combatants forward deployed with its high value units.

With this in mind, the Royal Navy will almost certainly require additional escorts from other nations. No wonder they have been in "well-advanced" negotiations on the subject, because surely the MoD realizes the fleet is simply too small to realistically operate more than 1 CVF at a time without help from other nations, unless of coarse they are going to send in the carriers to forward theaters without adequate protection.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Good thing British taxpayers are spending all that money on the CVF, the EU needs a carrier strike group for political purposes, and it is politically much easier to have the Brits pay for the carrier. It also makes it easier for the EU to control the CVFs utilization since its operation will be dependent upon escort from other EU nations. That narrative may not be accurate, but it sounds just as plausible as the MoD knowingly building the 2 CVFs at the expense of a naval surface combatant fleet capable of patrolling its sea lines of communication worldwide.

France and China Talk... Somalia

France has essentially taken over on the international diplomatic front in regards to Somalia, and we can add this bit of news to the developing discussion regarding the international approach to dealing with piracy.

The French navy and its Chinese counterpart are discussing ways to strengthen intelligence exchange to combat piracy off the coast of Africa, a senior French naval officer said on Monday.

"We will see if we can do something together, especially in the waters off Somalia, where many Chinese fishing boats travel to," Vice Admiral Gerard Valin, who is also commander of French joint forces in the Indian Ocean, told AFP.

We are not really sure what kind of intelligence assets China brings to the table off the coast of Somalia, but this is an interesting development nonetheless. We still don't believe the Europeans and Americans can bring piracy to a halt regionally without either getting more aggressive, or bringing in new partners to build a larger international coalition.

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is still looking for a naval escort for their food shipments starting June 25th, when the Dutch frigate HNLMS Evertsen (F 805) is set to leave the region. With only 9 days before then, it would be difficult for many nations to get involved in time. With all the rhetoric from Russia it is unclear why they decided not to step up, but perhaps this is a more appropriate role for the PLAN in the region?

Private Security Solution Set for Somalia

It is amazing to me that so many American people want to bash Blackwater, rather than evolve the governing rule sets for private contractors and put them to better use. While we continue the destructive path of demonizing these folks because they are governed by Bush administration rule sets, France is seeing potential and putting them to good use. Of all the stories over the weekend, I can't help but think this is the one not getting enough attention.

A private French military firm has signed a contract with Somali authorities to boost security off the country's coast, plagued by high-profile piracy in recent years, the chief executive said Saturday.

Pierre Marziali, CEO of the firm Secopex, said the deal would "strengthen maritime business" off Somalia....

"Our core business is primarily in the US," Marziali told AFP, before adding that the "Ponant affect played a part" in signing the deal with the Somali authorities.

According to Marziali, the contract amount will depend on an audit of existing facilities in Somalia, and will be to set up a "unified coastguard, creating a comprehensive coastguard information system" and form a special bodyguard for Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed.

"These measures mean we can offer a concrete response to any armed attack," he said, adding that any pirate attack would be met with "a return of fire."

"The economic facet of this contract is also important for Somalia, victim not just of pirates but also the victim of huge pillaging of its natural fish stocks off its coastline," the Secopex boss added.

Secopex is a French private military service company that provides private security, bodyguards, and security advice and auditing to sovereign states. Said another way, Secopex is a Blackwater competitor. The idea of using a private security firm for this type of role isn't new, in fact we have covered recent discussions on the topic.

Claude Berube, a political science professor at the Naval Academy, has written on the topic at least twice, The more readily available version (at least more available to readers here) would be the Contracts of Marque article in the November 2007 issue of Proceedings. He also had an article in Orbis which was better detailed called Blackwaters for the Blue Waters: The Promise of Private Naval Companies. In both articles we think Lt. Berube is on the money, this is a very smart idea.

We have a question though, where is the $75 - $150 million annually coming from? Somalia has often claimed they didn't have the money or resources to develop a Coast Guard, which implies there may be a third party involved here. Is France, or the EU, providing the financial lift here or did Somalia find the money to develop its coast guard itself? If the funding is coming from a third party nation or entity, that doesn't diminish this initiative in any way from our view, rather highlights a smart way to invest and integrate in security through a domestically driven process that can interchange effectively with regional assets while developing indigenous capabilities.

If we weren't too busy making Blackwater out to be the great Satan of security, a similar approach would be in the works for Nigerian river delta and other hotzones in Africa, where developing indigenous security capabilities are important to stability, which facilitates economic development of a nation.

Additional details on specific services to be provided here.

Update: Blackwater Maritime Security Solutions has a new contract also, a bit closer to home.

Europeans Struggling With Navy Force Costs

High oil prices have hit the French Navy in the wallet, and as a result the French are canceling a few exercises. IHT has the story.

The French Navy has canceled three summer missions, including an exercise with the United States, because of soaring fuel prices, a Navy official said Monday.

"All of our missions are important, but we had to cut those that were least crucial," said Navy spokesperson Pascal Subtil.

The most significant of the canceled missions involves a training mission in the United States. French ship De Grasse had been slated to sail alongside American ships in an exercise off the east coast and take part in a drug-trafficking prevention mission.

The De Grasse exercise profile included participation in JTFX08, which will also involve French Naval aviation. The naval aviation aspect of the exercise will continue as planned. However, the part of the article that really got our attention came several paragraphs later.

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said he was unaware of any discussions on the impact of rising fuel costs on missions of the military alliance.

"I don't think there is a general concern in NATO about this," he said.

Say what? There should be general concern in NATO, high energy prices are a serious problem and can have rippling economic effects globally. The world has spent the last decade discussing the possibility of global war due to resource shortages and competition, and NATO isn't much concerned?

This has us wondering what short of global nuclear war would raise NATOs concern in the post cold war environment, because we sure as hell know a massive attack on a member doesn't count for much, 9/11 and Afghanistan tell that unfortunate story all too well.

The Royal Navy is also suffering from cost problems, and to compensate for the problems, the Navy will operate some Type 42s without primary defense systems while they wait for the Type 45s. Only in the 21st century Royal Navy would you see this...

Two Royal Navy warships have been left all at sea - after their missiles were removed to save cash.

The destroyers HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton have been working without their Sea Dart guided-missiles since Christmas.

Hms Exeter has since sailed to the Mediterranean twice and joined a NATO-led operation. The situation has provoked anger from defence sources who claim the Navy is suffering from short-term cost-cutting.

Rear Admiral David Bawtree, former Commander of Portsmouth Naval Base, said: "It seems to be a sign of the times that there is a lack of willingness to spend money."

Local MP Mike Hancock said: "You cannot have ships deploying without important equipment."

Actually it appears you can Mike. This reminds us a bit too much of how the Clinton administration took the one armed bandit off the Perry's. Understandable? Yes. Wise? Not even.

It wasn't smart when the US did it in the 90s, and it is even less so when the Royal Navy does it. At least when the US did it in the 90s, the US had 50 other surface combatants armed to the teeth with the most modern naval kits in the world. In the case of the Royal Navy, these are Type 42 destroyers, the most important air defense warships in the fleet, on deployment, without missiles. This would be like taking the cannons off HMS Victory, unless of coarse you can point to another surface combatant in the Royal Navy operating today bigger than HMS Exeter (D89) and HMS Southampton (D90).

Does anyone else see a future Royal Navy with 2 aircraft carriers that can't put to sea because money isn't allocated to deploy them? Every sign we have seen this year suggests that the CVF will be too expensive to operate without a serious change in the politics of Great Britain.

6th Fleet Focus: Rafale's Fly Off US Carriers

The USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75) is on its way home from a 6 month deployment in the Middle East, but before leaving the Mediterranean Sea, the US Navy is conducting an exercise with France Rafale's.

Images courtesy of Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ricardo J. Reyes. Click pictures for link to Hi-Resolution on the Navy's website.


As we have previously discussed in detail here, the French blog Secret Défense reported last six to eight Rafale's of the flotilla 12 F and two Hawkeyes of the flotilla 4F are expected to embark on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) in July of this year. There were also rumors from TTUOnline last year that French Rafale's would embark on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) later this year as well, but that has not been confirmed anywhere else.

It is unclear if the French will only be participating in the exercises with the Roosevelt or if they intend to deploy with the Carrier when it makes its scheduled 6 month deployment. With the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) currently in extended maintenance, the French pilots can only train landings and launches from either a US aircraft carrier or the Brazilian aircraft carrier Sao Paulo, which is currently in maintenance itself.

Update: Hat Tip reader FL, who has video here of the French flying on the Truman here. Good stuff. He also has details via this link on the French activity in July on the coast of Norfolk.

After Action Report and Video: French Pirate Raid

This video is very good, what we have all been wanting to see regarding the French actions taken against pirates in Somalia. Thoughts after the fold, this is can't miss video though.

Eagle1 has the BBC video at his place and some good pictures and links. This CNN video might be the best one I've seen though, the extra film footage at the end is nice.

Obviously the French were being honest about the incident from the beginning. I read on several French blogs there was some frustration with the way the government handled this episode in the media because some Somalian official came out and claimed the French had killed a bunch of people. Clearly the rule that first reports are usually wrong was forgotten in France. The official line that the car was stopped by a sniper shot appears accurate based on the video, where you can plainly see the people who were supposed to be dead had in fact run and been caught near the vehicle. This was very clearly an outstanding operation.

Now that we see the video, one question is whether this hurt OPSEC. Look at all that nothing around the shot car. How exactly did the helicopters arrive at such a deserted location at the right place at the right time? What the video reveals is what isn't seen. UAVs.

What UAVs does the French Navy use on the ships involved in this incident? Do the French have any UAVs in the region? It is hard to look at this and miss how well scouted they had everything. A brilliant bit of intelligence involved here, but was it all French? I want to offer a greater point for discussion.

Piracy has emerged in the 21st century as an international problem. If the US was involved, we shouldn't proclaim it, but the question is whether it is wise for either the US or France to conceal any international cooperation efforts in this instance. If cooperation is the new rule set, is concealing cooperation really the right thing to do? The Lede has a brilliant piece that describes how piracy damaged local economies in the Malacca Strait due to high insurance premiums. The solution was maritime security cooperation between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. The coordination of the three nations, and eventually Thailand as well, has reduced what was a hot bd of piracy to no attacks to date in 2008. The nations did not conceal their coordination or cooperation in security operations. Did the public acknowledgment of cooperation contribute to the drop in piracy? I think the answer is relevant in this case if the French had help from the US, or others.

Vive La France: France Raids Somalian Pirate Camp

I'm not one to cheer for violence, but I have no sympathy for these pirate thugs. Vive La France!

French commandos seized six pirates in Somalia on Friday during a daring helicopter raid launched shortly after the bandits had released the 30-strong crew of a luxury yacht hijacked last week.

French officials said the owners of the yacht paid a ransom to obtain the freedom of the crew and as soon as it was clear that they were all safe, the commandos went into action aboard helicopters to track down the pirates.

A district commissioner in Somalia told Reuters that five local people had died in the attack, but the French military denied killing anyone in their daylight raid.

Daylight raid. Very nice. The report is a very good read of the attack. It also looks like we were on target, the FS Jeanne D'Arc (R 97) was involved, very nice for an old warhorse. Sometimes having the right tools for the job in the region makes a big difference. Interesting, there are a bunch of cadets from a bunch of other nations on her during this cruise, and they just learned a handy lesson for the future regarding how to deal with thugs.

I've been impressed with Sarkozy from the beginning, and some very smart French friends of mine told me my optimism was misplaced. Just got off the phone with one such friend, and I love hearing the words "you were right" in that sexy French accent.

Not the point though. The point is hostage taking just got more dangerous for the pirates of Somalia. Next time regional pirates come across a French flagged ship, my bet is they bypass it and find a ship flagged to a weaker nation. This action offers the foundation for deterrence in the future, and in the long run makes maritime traffic in the region safer.

God bless those commandos, may they all return home safely. Anyone who snarks France leads from the back of the line is now out of line, they just took point, and have been doing so on a number of the very tough military issues lately.

And for the record, we found this a very interesting aspect of the story:

A French admiral was also parachuted into the sea and picked up by the task force to help lead the operation.

Just curious, but can your Admiral do that?

France Pulls Out the Big Stick

Between nuclear deals with UAE and building a new base in the Persian Gulf, not to mention a bit more attitude behind the rhetoric of their new president, there has been a wind of change coming from France. That is why when we observed a French flagged ship get taken hostage by Somalia pirates, we knew this time might be different. This is another sign things ARE different.

Elite French troops were headed to East Africa to bolster efforts to free captives of a yacht held by pirates off Somalia, a French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said Monday.

A team of the GIGN, a commando force that conducts anti-terrorist and hostage rescue operations, was being sent to Djibouti to "reinforce" negotiation teams in place, spokeswoman Pascale Andreani said in an online briefing.

Even if France does nothing, just the movement of troops has given everyone something to think about, and sent a message clear enough everyone gets the message. Little known fact... they make action figures of the GIGN similar to how they do Navy SEALs, but I know from first hand experience a certain French aid agency used to give out GIGN action figures out to children in Africa. Reputation and all, otherwise called info-war. Imagine the headlines if they gave GI Joe action figures away in Africa today...

A cooperative effort here between France other coalition partners may be developing. The article goes on to emphasize the desire for the peaceful return for hostages, which of coarse is the primary goal. What is noteworthy is this the first time a ransom could be paid, a ship is released, and the pirates get to sleep uneasy after the fact wondering if retribution is coming.

We don't know what is going on, but this looks like the first time we are seeing a nation ready to use military force against the pirates of Somalia as part of the total calculus. That in itself is something to observe.

Regardless the message being sent is clear to Somalia pirates, don't mess with France.

5th Fleet Focus: France Takes Center Stage

AFP has an update on the piracy off Somalia. The hijacking of the French cruise ship has been confirmed, verified by helicopter, and it is a pretty good bet naval vessels have begun shadoing the vessel.

French authorities were working Saturday to free a luxury cruise yacht and its 30-member crew taken hostage by pirates off the coast of Somalia.

"The defence and foreign affairs ministries are working to act as quickly as possible, I hope in the minutes or hours to come, to try to obtain the release of the hostages," French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said late Friday.

"We have relatively large military means in the area," he added.

Yes, you do, but that isn't really the issue is it? This is going to be an interesting case study regarding the posture of the French Navy and French forward deployed forces. In this situation the majority of the hostages are French, the base in Djibouti is French, there are several French warships in the area, and a French flagged ship hijacked by pirates. All of the pieces necessary to take action would appear to be available, the missing element is the political will. Thus we have a test.

I do have a question for my French readers. Would the FS Jeanne d'Arc (R97) be routed from the training cruise to support this type of operation? It is the perfect ship and appears to have the right equipment if France was to take action, but it is unclear if it would deviate from schedule.

France, which has its largest foreign military base in nearby Djibouti, flew a helicopter over the ship on Friday.

French military forces in the area and a Djibouti-based United States-led multinational force, Combined Task Force 150, "were able to confirm the situation and are following its evolution," said Prazuck.

Pirate attacks are frequent off Somalia's 3,700-kilometre (2,300-mile) coastline, prompting the International Maritime Bureau to advise sailors not to come closer than 200 nautical miles to its shore.

Somalia has a long coast line. We recently posted a map from late last year that illustrated just how widespread piracy is in the area, and despite the extra military attention by US and coalition ships, there is very little evidence that the pirates feel the deterrence from the increasing size of the naval presence.

It needs to be noted the pirates are not some simple gang of thugs, they are sophisticated and given they almost always get their random money, they are very well funded and organized.

"You're looking at a powerful maritime mafia," said Olivier Hallaoui, of French security specialists Secopex.

"Most are fishermen-turned-bandits, with links to clans, local militias who realise this is a lucrative business because in almost every case ransoms are paid.

"They are equipped with GPS satellite and modern communications systems as well as heavy arms. Above all, they open fire without warning," he added.

This is textbook irregular challenge at sea. As the pirates continue to have success they will only continue to grow, expand, and get tougher as money improves their capability. The questions are how serious is the threat? In modern naval history, piracy was often looked at as background noise, criminal, and thus not a strategic priority due to a major peer competitor like the Soviet Union. However, right now there is no major peer competitor. Another question that needs to be asked is whether or not the coalition is waiting on a big disaster before it takes action? There is also the argument that taking action could create that big disaster, something we are sure is on everyones mind.

It is a tough call. Clearly presence alone doesn't work. Are pirates worth the exercise of hard power? This scenario will answer that question in regards to the French. It leaves us a question that we are not sure the answer to, if the ship was flagged US, would the US Navy take action? If it was up to the naval commanders I would say yes, but if it was up to political leadership, I'm not so sure.

Observing the Naval Surge To The Middle East

The news of naval activity from the Middle East region is beginning to reach a point of disinformation, so we think it might be time to provide analysis regarding what is going on throughout the Middle East region. In a quiet way, major naval activity is taking place that is not being highlighted in the open source, and outright ignored in the media. What we find interesting is the naval activity represents the largest Naval buildup around the Middle East region since late 2003, particularly east of the Suez Canal, however because it is not the US Navy the media is ignoring this massive buildup of force.

As we observed back in January, we predicted that by late March there would be an enormous naval surge to the Middle East region. Our predictions have proven right, but due to the nature of the naval buildup, there is very little discussion of it. There is no question the build up represents scheduled deployments and alliance naval activity of a routine nature. There is also no question that the tension level for war is growing, and we can now safely say the date being observed in the region where many expect war to break out is April 6th.

What will replace it, nearly everyone in Beirut speculated to me, is the resumption of the Hizballah-Israel war that ravaged Lebanon in the summer of 2006. Some Lebanese even have a precise date for it: April 6 — the day Israel's biggest emergency drill ever starts, when they believe the Israeli Defense Forces juggernaut will roll across the border to finish the job they should have during the 34-day conflict. Although, mind you, there's not a thread of evidence that the Israelis are really going to invade.

Robert Baer is an excellent reporter, and his TIME magazine article captures the essence of the tension currently in Lebanon. Threats of war and rumors of war currently dominate the headlines in Lebanon, and in response the government has rescheduled the presidential election once again, this time until April 22nd. Considering the degree of tension, it is legitimate to ask the question whether there will be a presidential election or whether a war will need to be fought first. The only problem with the question of war is, while it is probable all nations are ready to get it over with, nobody wants to start it. Whether war actually takes place in the region is anyones guess, but there is no question those who expect to be involved are preparing themselves.

The reason the Naval activity is not getting a lot of attention is because the enormous naval buildup around the Middle East is European, not US, in nature. For the first time since before September 11th, 2001, there are more ships from European Navies in 5th Fleet Area of Operation than ships of the US Navy, and we observe at least 4 more major French ships will either enter or return to the theater over the next few weeks. The buildup of Naval power is striking not simply in its quantity, but also in its quality, including everything from additional minesweepers, a Mine Warfare Command Vessel, the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious (R06), and 2 large French Naval aviation ships with expeditionary capabilities.

We observe in the hyper tension environment of the Middle East that many have the expectation that a Naval buildup implies a strike against Iran could come at any time. Readers of this blog know we have no such belief, in fact until we see two MEUs operating in the Persian Gulf we are not ready to believe the US Navy would even entertain the idea of any such attack, as we believe the Navy requires two MEUs to secure the Strait of Hormuz. However, given the nature of the European naval surge not only east of the Suez Canal, but also in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, we do believe both the United States and Europe is building up a massive naval force with the intention of deterrence.

Based on some of the recent strange naval news from the region, we make the following observations based on historical patterns and evolving political events.

The story out of Iran that a submarine and a destroyer recently crossed the Suez canal has all the signs of potentially true, but as usual the Iranians are simply making news where news doesn't exist. Rather than the suggestion the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) crossed Suez, as implied with a stock photo of the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) from 2003 in this story, we believe what has actually happened is the USS Albany (SSN 753) and the USS Bulkeley (DDG 84) attached to the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group that has been in the Mediterranean Sea crossed into the Red Sea. People might ask why Iran would think such naval movements is news, well the answer is actually pretty easy to explain.

Iran can't track modern submarines. Iran simply lacks the technology and the training necessary to track modern western submarines, and that has been the case for years now. While Russia sold Kilo submarines to Iran back in the 90s, one of the little discussed details of that deal is that it was brokered by Vice President at the time Al Gore, and Al Gore let the deal from Russia take place as long as Iran couldn't get sophisticated Russian sonar equipment. Russia wasn't offering sophisticated sonars anyway, and needed the submarine sales badly at the time, so they took the horse trade.

In effect, Iran has some of the worst sonar equipment of any Gulf nation, certainly not to the quality of Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and they simply can't detect a US submarine unless it crosses the Suez Canal. Might sound unbelievable to some, but thus is the nature of export restrictions and careful security of sonar equipment, of which most nations simply don't want to share because it exposes their own capabilities. The Chinese have written extensively about this, including their frustration with Russia who hasn't shared their most sophisticated sonar systems. Most people don't realize that small detail explains why Iran builds small mini submarines rather than large submarines, small submarines don't need sophisticated sonar while large submarines do to be effective, so it simply makes more sense for Iran to focus its domestic submarine production on what is effective.

We think it is both ironic and hilarious the Iranian news agency would put a picture of the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) in its news article, because it is a better than average bet the Iranians have absolutely no clue where the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) is. It is also a better than average bet that if the Captain of the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) raised his periscope, he could see land... in Iran.

Bottom line on the US Navy deployments, the Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group is simply doing what would be expected, and in an indirect way the Iranian news report simply highlights what would be an expected behavior for a submarine crossing the Suez, always with a destroyer escort. For the rest of the US Navy we observe the following.

The USS Nassau (LHA 4), USS Nashville (LPD 13), USS Philippine Sea (CG 58), and USS Ross (DDG 71), all part of the Nassau ESG, have taken up station in the eastern Mediterranean Sea while tensions are high. We do not speculate on the USS Ashland (LSD 48), which may head towards the east coast of Africa to do what LSDs do lately, support anti-piracy operations. The USS San Jacinto (CG 56), part of the Truman Carrier Strike Group, has been operating in the Mediterranean Sea region since it deployed with the Truman CSG last year, and remains conducting security operational training in the area. The Nassau ESG is not carrying Marines, so its mission capabilities are clearly defined as defensive and limited to being a support element for evacuation of Lebanon should hostilities break out. We believe the decision to station these ships there is intentional due to their lack of Marines, noting that the sizable UNIFIL force and enormous number of European Naval assets at sea in the Mediterranean Sea offers the Europeans credible capabilities and contingencies to support their own troops already on the ground in UNIFIL should hostilities actually break out near Israel.

As our most recent Order of Battle noted, the US has the Truman Carrier Strike Group and the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group in the Middle East Gulf region. Many of the Truman CSG assets are currently operating near Somalia as the African nation troops move into position. There are also a considerable number of NATO naval vessels in that region, including ships from Germany, France, Canada, the Netherlands, and Denmark as noted in our Order of Battle. While we have no confirmation whether it is happening, one pattern we have observed is the use of the regional LSD, in this case the USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41), acting as an offshore staging base for monitoring pirate activity. The USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) will soon be replaced by the USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) in the next few weeks.

Finally, we observe the Orion 08 deployment continues in the Indian Ocean, and the force is beefing up as Harriers return to Lusty. We still find it very strange that the British force deployed with Minesweepers, but we chalk it up to a high degree of preparation related to the tensions surrounding Iran. We noted the recent news from across the pond that the British are making contingency plans should a tanker war scenario return to the Persian Gulf, but we simply don't believe Iran is that stupid. While it might sound really scary for Iran to close down the Strait of Hormuz, we don't rule out the possibility that China wouldn't turn around and invade Iran if they tried it. It is one thing to want to piss off the United States, but we believe it would be a mistake of profound miscalculation to get between China and what they see as their oil, particularly right before the Olympic games.

While we don't see how or where war is coming from, we find it noteworthy we are in the midst of the largest European naval surge to the Middle East in the 21st century and nobody is talking about it, and we would bet many of the worlds sharpest military observers barely noticed it.

France Inaugurates Final Le Triomphant Class

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was on hand as the French unveiled their 4th and final le Triomphant class ballistic missile nuclear submarine on Friday.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, during the formal inauguration held at Cherbourg, Western France, of the nuclear submarine, "The Terrible", said that he plans to maintain a powerful nuclear program in response to the continuing nuclear attacks by some countries in Asia and the Middle East.

The French president cited countries in Middle East (Iran) and Asia (China and North Korea) who continue to develop ballistic missile capabilities which could reach Europe in less than a half-hour.

"I am thinking in particular of Iran. Iran is increasing the range of its missiles while grave suspicions hang over its nuclear program. Europe's security is at stake," the President was quoted as saying by National Public Radio.

By far and away the best coverage of the event can be found at The Sub Report. They have every angle covered and some great pictures. Check it out.

Early Observations of the KC-X Winner

By now everyone has heard that the USAF picked the Airbus A330 MRTT over the Boeing 767. This decision is ultimately very important to the Navy, the Navy has pretty much retired and does not have future plans for a carrier based tanker at this time, meaning the Navy will be relying on the KC-X winner for supporting its naval aviation, including carrier aviation.

By every metric, in our opinion the Airbus A330 MRTT is a better aircraft than the Boeing 767 for supporting the Navy. The long range combined with the larger payload will provide better coverage over the vast Pacific for operations, and will allow for greater loiter time over areas where air superiority is established like the Middle East. While we will wait to see what the DoD acquisition office says, it is very difficult to find a technical reason why the Boeing 767 option would have been better.

From an industry perspective, why isn't it smarter to buy the Airbus A330 MRTT? The commercial markets have embraced the aircraft, while at the same time the Boeing 767 is being phased out. It has been noted in a number of places the Air Force would be the only customer of the Boeing 767 by the end of the lifetime of the KC-X. That isn't true of the Airbus A330 MRTT.

In the end, the USAF faced a no win situation. Congress desires the Air Force to be more efficient, as it is an incredibly expensive business to fly military aircraft. Cost problems continue to hurt virtually every program of the USAF, and for the first time, the USAF made considerable cost considerations into this buy. Observe, at the purchase time, the currency exchange between the US and Europe is at its highest point ever. Does anyone expect things to honestly remain that way forever? As the currencies begin to trade more favorably to the US, the cost of the Airbus A330 MRTT will go down. The healthy commercial industry of the Airbus A330 MRTT will also contribute to lower costs over the lifetime of the aircraft. True the aircraft is more expensive per unit, but it is also bigger and more capable by every metric.

We observe there are only two arguments supporting Boeing in their cry of foul. First, they can claim this was a bid for medium aircraft, and follow the route of the CSAR complaints. That might work, but Boeing should have offered a 777 option anyway. Did they? Would it matter?

Second, virtually all the momentum on Capital Hill is based on a single theory, buy American. I'm all for forcing the Air Force to buy American, after all, the Navy is regulated if not over regulared in this regard, but in the end it is both smart defense policy and smart politics.

However, that law doesn't exist for the Air Force, and the only people at fault for that is Congress who makes the law. Congress will have a hearings today on the subject, and if they want to be smart about the whole deal, they get tough with the Pentagon on the strategy of the Air Force as a whole. The tanker deal as we see it is fine, but Congress can certainly step to the plate and change the circumstances, and has options including to help Boeing in a different way' by finding out why the Air Force thinks they don't need any more C-17s. Are the two related in any way? Given some of the comments, they might be.

Final thoughts. We very much enjoy how people were so outraged when Boeing 'fixed' the bid in 2002 with leases, because it highlights how silly it is when Boeing actually loses the bid. Failing to 'fix' the bid, and after losing in a fair competition, Boeing's solution is clearly to lobby for a public bandwagon on the "Buy American" motto to have the people 'fix' the bid for them, and many are ready to do exactly that (including Congress). What is the point of a competitive bid if the outcome will be 'fixed' in the end regardless of outcome?

Boeing's reaction to not winning is a symptom of the larger problem. This is an excellent example that explains why the USAF faints shock whenever they don't get their way, because the childish behavior of the Air Force is basically a reflection of the childish behavior of their industry.

In the end, we honestly don't have a preference in the final outcome, and we believe that if Boeing had pitched the 777 they probably would have won. Check out the first graphic Defense Industry Daily has up, it tells the story of the arguments sure to be discussed in Congress today. In the end, whether it is the Airbus A330 MRTT or if somehow the Boeing 777 enters stage right, the big winner is the Navy, as we believe it should be.

The French Military Sales Market Runs Underwater

Previously covered here, DCNS has worked out all the contract details to support the refit of a pair of Type 209/1300s for the Ecuadorian Navy. DefenseNews reports the refits will take place in Chile.

The contracts, signed Dec. 22, were worth more than 10 million euros ($14.8 million) to DCNS, the French company said.

Under one of the contracts, signed by DCNS' wholly owned subsidiary, UDS International, a German-designed combat system will be replaced with DCNS' Subtics system, which comprises a combat management system supplied by DCNS and Chilean company SISDEF. The new system will link up with a Thales sonar suite and a new-generation torpedo system from WASS of Italy.

Under the second contract, teams from DCNS' Cherbourg shipyard will provide technical assistance to Asmar in cutting the hulls of the Ecuadorian submarines in half to allow overhaul and replacement of the diesel engines and generators. Asmar will do the cutting work at its yard in Chile.

This is good for Chile, who will be able to utilize this experience in maintenance of their new Scorpene submarines. This comes a day after DefenseNews reports on a possible joint nuclear submarine program between Argentina and Brazil. However, that does not appear accurate as first reported, as The Sub Report is highlighting, there is an article out in the International Harold Tribune that claims there is a misquote in the original story.

Brazil is working with Argentina to develop compact nuclear reactors to generate power — not to build a nuclear submarine — the Defense Ministry said Monday in denying a newspaper report.

So did the Defense Minister really discuss nuclear reactors or nuclear submarines? It is unclear, but I don't know many defense ministers that get involved in discussions of joint ventures for civilian nuclear power, perhaps in Brazil things are different.

However, France is certainly involved in the Brazil nuclear program, as we have previously covered here. In our internal discussions, we can't help but notice that France has really stepped up under Sarkozy regarding defense related sales, a trend we expect to see continue. This line of thought has led us back to another recent discussion, in particular, the Indian defense industry.

In thinking about the various angles of Russian-Indian relations, we observe many programs that are interlocked between India and Russia. Joe Katzman at Defense Industry Daily has done a fantastic job covering all angles.

• HAL and Irkut’s Joint Tactical Transport Project
• India, Russia Cooperating re: “Fifth-Generation Fighter”
• India Issues RFI for “Stealth Frigates”
• India’s Fighter Modernization: Add MiG-29s to the List (updated)
• India’s ATV SSN Submarine Project

As we observe the list, there is an alternative to each current project if relations between Russia and India turn south in a hurry over the Gorshkov. Note, for the HAL there is the C-130J, for the "Fifth Generation Fighter" there is the F-35A, for the Stealth Frigates there is the LCS-I, for the Fighter Modernizations there are options all over the 3rd world, but the hard part is building the ATV, as Russia is a major contributor to assisting with the nuclear reactor and the Akula class submarine lease is no small part of that deal.

However, with India already looking at purchasing 6 more Scorpenes in the future, which would add to the existing 10 Russian Kilo-class, four German HDW-class and two Foxrot-class submarines; one wonders if the French would step up to fill a void should Russia decide to play hard ball. France and India have had very good military relations for a long time, in fact as far as exercises go, France and India have been working together for far more years than the US and India.

Given the recent history of French military sales under Sarkozy and its desire to export submarine technology, one wonders how long India would have to wait should relations between Russia and India go sour before France comes knocking at the door. Probably not long, and given the choice between French nuclear power and Russian nuclear power, which would you prefer? I'll take the country where 88% of all civilian power generation is nuclear.

Just one more reason why Russia will find a way to work out the problems between them and India on military deals, although we admit to being impressed with the way the French continue to expand their influence in the submarine market, a market that has been dominated by Russia over the last several years. The next big submarine export opportunity will be in the late summer, when Saudi Arabia makes a bid for submarines. Should be interesting, as it could be France, or Russia.