Tokyo Naval Treaty?

I toss out a couple of thoughts on modern naval arms limitation in my latest WPR column:

China, India and Japan do not appear to be on the verge of breaking the bank in an effort to match each other's construction. Still, from a vantage point of 10 or 20 years out, it might make sense for the Asian powers to think in terms of regulating their naval competition. India, China and Japan can all accomplish their national goals with a limited number of carriers. At some point, additional construction would simply spur the competitors to overbuild. A well-designed treaty on naval arms limitations would recognize economic and power imbalances between the three, take into account strategic realities and try to hold competition to within certain parameters. The motivating logic behind such a limitation runs as follows: India, China and Japan would each be as secure with four carriers as they would with eight, so long as they are assured that the others will not build eight themselves.

Piracy Costs Soon To Increase By Billions

A very interesting article on the financial impacts of piracy on the shipping industry.

India is lobbying Lloyd’s of London to reverse its expansion of the area judged prone to pirate attacks to cover almost all of the nation’s west coast after insurance costs surged as much as 300-fold this year.

“There is no longer any threat along the Indian coast,” Shipping Secretary K. Mohandas said in a May 23 interview, adding there had been no attacks within 800 kilometers (500 miles) of the coast due to stepped-up naval patrols. The Joint War Committee, which assesses insurance risks, extended the zone in December about 900 miles east as the hijacking range grew.

A reversal by Lloyd’s would reduce insurance costs after some premiums skyrocketed to as much as $150,000 per voyage from $500, the Indian National Shipowners’ Association said, hurting shippers’ earnings. Essar Shipping Ltd. and Varun Shipping Co. are among companies that say the move is eroding margins as they struggle with overcapacity and rising costs.

“Typically ships bought insurance for the three days they were moving through the Gulf of Aden -- now they have to pay for the additional 10 days” through the Indian Ocean, said Sean Woollerson, an insurance broker at London-based Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Plc (JLT), which specializes in shipping. The larger zone means about 28,000 more journeys a year are liable to higher premiums than the 22,000 made in the old zone, he said.

The article is worth reading, and goes on to note that 52% of all maritime trade to India takes place in western ports that could be impacted by the new zone.

The piracy insurance costs for the old zone that impacted the 22,000 ships was around $3.3 billion in earnings for insurance companies. The new zone will add an additional $4.2 billion annually in insurance costs to shippers in the region. The 300% increase in insurance costs due to piracy has to date, hurt the region more than it has hurt the global market. That might change though as the piracy zone continues to expand, and in all cases those costs eventually get passed down to the consumer.

What I find interesting is the insurance costs would soon be around $7.5 billion annually in Somali piracy alone. Following the money from Somali piracy, insurance companies are easily the largest source of costs, and I do wonder how much tax revenue Great Britain is earning from those insurance company earnings.

India has made significant strides in fighting piracy along their west coast over the last 5 months, but they are inaccurately taking credit for the recent decline in piracy near Indian waters. It would be more accurate to highlight that the weather has been the primary factor keeping pirates off the west coast of India the last several weeks, and for the foreseeable future those weather conditions are unlikely to change, meaning piracy is simply moving elsewhere - currently towards the Red Sea, among other places.

MV Full City: The Rest of the Story

Last week I discussed the international cooperation involved in the MV Full City piracy incident. Navy News has the rest of the story.

Guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG 52) boarded a suspected pirate vessel in cooperation with international forces while responding to a distress call May 5.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Organization received a distress call from the Panamanian-flagged merchant vessel Full City and passed the information to U.S. 5th Fleet.

An Indian maritime patrol aircraft was able to locate the vessel, and
broadcast that warships were on the way. The crew had locked themselves in
a secure space from which they could control the ship, known as a 'citadel.'

Bunker Hill and aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) were the closest naval vessels to the Full City and set course to intercept. The Turkish ship Giresun, part of NATO's counter piracy operation Ocean Shield, also responded.

While Giresun boarded Full City, Bunker Hill approached a dhow in the area believed to be the 'mothership' for the pirate attack. An SH 60 Sea Hawk helicopter from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 49, deployed with Bunker Hill, fired warning shots to stop the dhow and instructed the suspected pirates to move to the bow of the vessel. In the early evening, a visit board, search and seizure team from Bunker Hill boarded the suspected pirate dhow.

The team found and destroyed paraphernalia on the dhow, including weapons, excessive fuel and other equipment commonly used in the commission of acts of piracy. They also sank a small skiff towed by the dhow; these skiffs are often used for actual attacks and boardings by pirates.

It wasn't said so we must assume... the pirates were released. I wonder where the real owners of the dhow are, because odds are good they are dead, and the US Navy just let the pirates go in a stolen dhow.

US policy towards piracy needs to concentrate on making two things happen:

• All equipment, including vessels, must be confiscated.
• Pirates must encounter some form of punishment.

The US Navy can do more, but how much more is determined by political leaders who are currently doing as little as possible to give naval forces the ability to better address the problem. When the next major tragedy occurs resulting in the loss of human life or catastrophic environmental damage, it is only valid to lay all the blame at the feet of politicians who ignore the problem and offer no policy guidance towards working solutions.

The Rescue of MV Full City

Yesterday there were a lot of unofficial reports and rumors surrounding the hijacking of the MV Full City, a Panama flagged, Chinese owned ship with a crew of 24 Chinese nationals. Reports were sketchy though, suggesting several ships including 2 Chinese warships were bearing down on the ship.

The only detail known was that the crew had successfully barricaded themselves inside the citadel - setting up a potential confrontation between naval forces and pirates. The race was on, and India got there first.

New Delhi/Mumbai, May 6 Prompt action by the Indian Navy staved off a pirate attack on a Chinese cargo vessel far out in the Arabian Sea, forcing the brigands to flee and earning kudos from the authorities in Beijing, a senior naval official said Friday.

An Indian Navy TU-142 maritime reconnaissance aircraft made several low sorties over the MV Full City, 450 nautical miles (850 km) off Karwar in Karnataka, warning the pirates to immediately leave the vessel or face the wrath of Indian Navy and Coast Guard ships that were fast closing in.

The warnings worked and the pirates scampered into the skiff from which they had boarded the vessel and sailed toward a nearby mothership, which immediately set off toward Somalia at full speed, the official said, requesting anonymity due to service rules.

The aircraft stayed on station for four hours till the Indian combat vessels arrived on the scene in an operation that was closely coordinated with a NATO Task Force, a Chinese Task Force and the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre at Beijing, highlighting the international cooperation in the anti-piracy efforts in the Indian Ocean, the official said.

But the Chinese skip that part of the story, and tell only the rest of the story.

The 24 Chinese sailors on board a Panama-flagged bulk cargo ship, hijacked by pirates yesterday at the Arabian Sea, have been rescued, as Turkey and U.S. navy ships in the nearby rushed to them and chased away the pirates, Xinhua News Agency reported.

About seven suspected Somali pirates have left the ship, "Full City", and the 24 Chinese workers are found safe, locking themselves in the safety vessel of the ship, the report said. Guarded by U.S. Navy ships, a group of Turkey Navy commandos boarded the pirated ship.

The pirates attacked "Full City" at midday on Thursday local time, and seized it about 450 nautical miles off the coast of Mumbai in India.

The China Sea Rescue Center earlier reported two Chinese navy ships patrolling in the Gulf of Aden were alerted of the hijacking and rushed to its rescue yesterday. The center also sent liaisons to nearby patrolling ships for help.

Obviously China is intentionally not giving India any credit, at least on the domestic consumption side, but has no problem giving Turkey and the US credit. The Indian aircraft was probably the only way the pirates new that naval forces were bearing down on their location, and almost certainly was the single largest contributor to the pirates fleeing the ship before naval forces arrived.

Despite the absence of a public acknowledgment regarding Indian efforts, India learned of the hijacking somehow, so there is a lot of evidence of excellent communication and coordination at the government level on pirate activities. There was coordination between China, India, Turkey, and the United States against a pirated vessel 450 nautical miles off the coast of Mumbai in India. These small victories are adding up.

It doesn't matter how the various national media outlets tell the story, the job by the crew to protect themselves in the citadel and the cooperation by so many different nations in response to the hijacking of a ship is the story I see.

The pirates got away though, as is not uncommon, meaning another attack is almost certain to take place in the very near future unless someone stops them. Based on recent anti-piracy activities in the area and ongoing disputes between India and Somalia, I have a feeling India is not done yet with this group of pirates.

Somalia Pirates Targets India

Somali pirates have raised the ante for operating ships operating with crews that have nationalized citizens of India.

India has been cleaning up territorial waters and piracy operating in their EEZ with a great deal of success lately, and after several successful actions going back to February, India has apparently pissed off some of the pirates a great deal.

This is the latest incident:

Somalia pirates said on Saturday they would keep any Indian nationals from freed ships as hostages until fellow pirates held by India are set free.

Somali pirates, who make millions of dollars ransoming ships hijacked as far south as the Seychelles and eastwards towards India, on Friday released MT Asphalt Venture, but held some of its Indian crew.

"We are holding eight of Asphalt Venture crew. It was a joint understanding among us not to release any Indian citizens," a pirate who gave his name as Abdi told Reuters from pirate stronghold Harardhere.

"India hasn't only declared war against us, but also it has risked the lives of many hostages," he said.

Basically a multimillion dollar ransom was paid for the release of MT Asphalt Venture, and the ship was released, but the pirates kept 8 Indian nationals and are claiming they will keep all Indian nationals hostage until pirates that the Indian Navy and Coast Guard have captured are released. Pirates are no longer operating under normal rules, the spokesman in Harardhere is specifically using the word WAR, meaning they now feel they are in a state of war with India.

In the language of war, the pirates appear to be offering some sort of prisoner exchange.

Harardhere is the pirate stronghold in the south that many news sources have claimed direct financial agreements exist between pirates and Al Shabaab.

India has over 35,000 nationals who are employed globally as seaman on commercial ships flagged from a number of countries, and there are some very powerful maritime unions that work to protect the rights of those workers. We might also see some issues raised with insurance payments, because if a ransom payment is not valid for an Indian seaman, that could create a pretty big problem for piracy insurance premiums for ships with Indian nationals as crew members.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next few days.

Professional Standards

Some things are not acceptable by the standards of any professional Navy... including in India.

The government has finally approved the sacking of Commodore Sukhjinder Singh, a senior naval officer involved in the $2.33 billion acquisition of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from Russia, a year after his sexually explicit photographs with a Russian woman surfaced.

Defence minister A K Antony "cleared" the file before he left for poll-bound Kerala on Wednesday, and the Navy "is now processing" the actual order for Singh's dismissal from service, said MoD sources.

Though he may have escaped a much-harsher court-martial, Singh will not only be discharged due to his sexual misdemeanours and "conduct unbecoming of an officer" but also lose his pension and other benefits under the relevant provisions of Section 216 of the Navy Act and Regulations, said sources.

India should have purchased the Kitty Hawk instead.

Asia Sending Ships to Libya

From China Signpost, Gabe Collins and Andrew Erickson offer some analysis regarding the latest news from the PLA Navy.

The PLA Navy has just dispatched Xuzhou, a Type 054 Jiangkai-II class missile frigate, from the ongoing seventh PLAN anti-piracy task force deployment off Somalia to steam to Libyan coast to provide support and protection for the ongoing evacuation mission there. The escort mission has been approved by the Central Military Commission, according to Xinhua, and at least 6,300 of the roughly 30,000 PRC citizens in Libya have been evacuated. The news agency adds that the Chinese evacuation is also utilizing chartered aircraft, overland routes to Egypt and Tunisia, ships from China’s major state shipping firms, and Greek merchant vessels in the region, which are said to be closely coordinating their operations with the Chinese government and plan to evacuate up to 15,000 Chinese from Libya.

They also have some insights into what this represents.

Xuzhou’s mission marks an important milestone because to the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever dispatch of a PLA military platform specifically assigned to help protect a non-combatant evacuation operation (NEO) to help PRC citizens trapped in an active conflict zone. Chinese policymakers now have a precedent for future military operations in areas where the lives and property of expatriate PRC citizens come under threat. We expect that the Chinese people’s popular support for the mission will be high.

Their entire analysis is worth reading.

Also noteworthy, the South Koreans are dispatching the 4,500-ton Choi Young KDX-II destroyer and the Indians are sending a three ship task force consisting of 2 destroyers and INS Jalashawa, the former USS Trenton. Both the Chinese and South Korean ships are being redirected from anti-piracy duties to Libya.

The World Still Loves Amphibious Ships

The global trend of rising powers adding new, modern amphibious ships continues, with the latest news coming from India.

In order to add more teeth to its amphibious warfare capabilities, the navy is planning to induct four Landing Platform Docks (LPD) to join the fleet alongside INS Jalashwa.

"We are looking to add four more LPDs in our fleet to operate alongside INS Jalashwa, the only LPD currently in service," navy officials told PTI.

The procurement procedure has already begun with the release of the Request for Information (RFI) by the defence ministry, they said.

The four warships would be procured under the 'buy and make (Indian)' category of the defence procurement procedure under which the Indian shipyards, both private and public, would be required to form a partnership with foreign shipyards for the contract.

The navy wants the ships to be produced within the country itself and has sought response only from Indian shipyards, having their own infrastructure and capability of building LPD class of ships, they said.

The article goes on to say the design should be 200 meters long and capable of transporting all varieties of vehicles including tanks. An amphibious ship of 200 meters would end up roughly the size of the South Korean Dokdo class, for comparison purposes. My only advice to India is this, if you are not designing the ship to be heavy in aviation capabilities, then invest in insuring the ship has really good cranes.

Changing the Rules For Piracy

Interesting that discussing these topics is what the Air Force calls "dereliction of duty" - hopefully the Navy doesn't follow such an incredible model of blatant stupidity. Clearly the Air Force believes strongly in the letter of the law, and not the intent. If it is possible for the DoD to be less responsible with public information on the internet, including pornography, I'd be shocked.

Basically the story goes like this. There is a WL cable out there that nobody in uniform without proper clearance can read, but bloggers like me and the rest of the American public can read. The cable originating from the London embassy and basically gives an account of experiences of the Captain of the HMCS Ville de Québec (FFH 332) operating off the Somali coast in 2008.

Since I won't be linking to the actual cable, I'll just link to this Foreign Policy article that is also probably blocked by most military establishments.

These were the early day of Somali piracy, when some of the high-profile hijackings were just beginning to occur. No international task force montitored the waters those days; no one was yet sure just how to handle the threat -- or just how deep the treat really went. The Canadian captain, Chris Dickison, believed that the hijackings were just the tip of the iceberg: "Dickinson also said clear links between the pirates and established terrorist networks exist. In many cases, they are the same people, using the same routes. Most commercial maritime operators in the area are surprised that the international community does not do more to disrupt the linkages." (When pressed for more details, the embassy source apparently dubbed further information for "Canadian Eyes Only.")

The 2008 cable also goes on to provide a bit more insight into what happened to the MV Faina itself -- an international intrigue that in some ways is still unfolding. When the ship was first apprehended, it became clear that it was transporting weapons to Kenya -- on what appeared to be the behalf of the government of Southern Sudan. This was later confirmed in cables released by WikiLeaks earlier this year. But it's never been totally clear where all the weapons ended up after they were released by the pirates (in exchange for ransom.) The 2008 cable offers some insight: "Dickinson added that the weapons on board the MV Faina, still being held hostage when the cable was written, were all offloaded onto Somali shores."

In December of 2008 CENTCOM stood up Task Force 151, and now we can add NATOs Operation Ocean Shield and EU NAVFOR as other examples of anti-piracy activities that have come about since these observations were made by Captain Dickison.

Watching Somalia is always interesting, but for years no one has wanted to discuss links between pirates and terrorists because there is no political will anywhere to do anything about it. First thing is first though - we are going to quit ignoring the problem. See bold from this article:

Vice Adm. Mark Fox, who is commander of the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based Central Command fleet, warned that the pirates' growing use of larger, often commandeered ships, is a "game-changer" that allows them to go farther out to sea where Navy ships are not often present.

The pirates' links to al-Shabab insurgents are also a worry, Fox said.

Fox recommended more effort to hit pirate supply lines and track their money. He stopped short of calling for a greater use of military force, but he said the coalition must go after pirates with the same intensity they use when targeting terrorists.

"We have not used the same level of rigor and discipline in terms of following the money on the counter-piracy piece as we have the counterterror," Fox told reporters during a breakfast meeting. "We should be applying the same techniques."

I'm playing the trump card, if anyone in the world would know for certain whether links exist between al Shabab and pirates - Vice Adm. Mark Fox is the man. He is noting the link, the link exists, we are no longer ignoring the link. It's there. Period. What it means is a discussion. What we do about it is a discussion. Regardless, lets quit pretending that Somalia is 100 separate small cups and admit that Somalia is everything in one big ugly bowl.

We are going to quit pretending the militia force being stood up in Puntland is an anti-piracy force. You reporters who say such nonsense need to get better sources, Puntland is not building an anti-piracy militia of security contractors, they are building a private Army with a little nod and wink from well financed investors, and they are going after Mohamed Said Atom. Weapons runner for al Shabab? Yep. Political opposition of Mr. Abdurrahman Mohamud Faroole? Yep. MSA's a generally bad dude, and nobody cares if another African warlord gets killed. I have no idea to what extent Erik Prince is involved with Saracen in Puntland, but at the end of whatever rainbow he is chasing in Puntland you can bet there is a big pot of gold - and the motive isn't for some higher purpose than money.

We are going to quit pretending Mr. Abdurrahman Mohamud Faroole isn't in deep with pirates - he is. Puntland is a pirate state, and Mr. Abdurrahman Mohamud Faroole is getting kickbacks for ransoms, because he could never hold power otherwise. Faroole isn't a good guy, and just like the vast majority of people in power in Africa - he can be bought, and almost certainly is being bought off by folks with financial interests in the resources in Puntland. Anyone who believes the TFG in Mogadishu has any influence at all in Puntland is dreaming. They don't, and they don't have any influence in Somaliland either.

The reason we have to state clearly the mess in Somalia right now is because governments are changing the rules, and there will be blowback. When South Korea, Malaysia, and now India raided ships occupied by pirates they upped the stakes for everyone. The reports of torture that are making it into the media prompted the following statement today:

BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO and the International Transport Workers' Federation are outraged that Somali pirates have executed, apparently in cold blood, a seafarer on the merchant ship Beluga Nomination which had been attacked and hijacked by armed pirates on 22 January in the Indian Ocean, 390 nautical miles north of the Seychelles. Three seafarers were reportedly taken aside for 'punishment' after an attempt by the Seychelles coastguard to free the hostage crew resulted in the death of a pirate. We express our deepest sympathy to the seafarers involved and to their anxious families.

The international shipping industry is truly disturbed at reports that pirates have been torturing seafarers physically and mentally, often in the most barbaric ways, including hanging them over the ship's side by ropes around their ankles with their heads under water and even subjecting them to the horrendous practice of keelhauling.

We wholeheartedly condemn these violent acts and once again strongly urge governments to empower their naval forces to take fast and robust action against pirates, and the vessels under their control, before passing ships are boarded and hijacked.

This latest particularly atrocious action appears to represent a fundamental shift in the behaviour of Somali pirates. The cold-blooded murder of an innocent seafarer means that ship owners and their crews will be re-evaluating their current determination to ensure that this vital trade route remains open - over 40% of the world's seaborne oil passes through the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. The shipping industry will be looking at all possible options, including alternative routes, which could have a dramatic effect on transport costs and delivery times - piracy is already estimated to cost the global economy between $7-12 billion per year.

Turns out the pattern is broader than some imagined, following India's assault of a Thai mothership the other day it has been learned that 5 crew members were allowed to starve to death.

Look, India had no choice, the action was described as 100 km off Kavaratti Island, Lakshadweep. Pirates have been operating motherships off the Indian coast for months now (see IMB, NATO, EUNAVFOR, or ONI for more data) and it didn't take much evaluation of the pirate patterns for everyone to realize the pirates were somehow able to get logistics support on land somewhere within Indian territory for the motherships to consistently operate in those areas for that long. India had to send a strong message, and they did. Vice Admiral Mark Fox called out India just last month to take actions against pirates off their own coasts - public criticism by a US Admiral of Indian resolve in the fight against piracy could politically not go ignored by the Indian Navy. The Indian Navy and Coast Guard have made multiple hits with consistent success against pirates, and I suspect the pirates will adapt accordingly.

Both South Korea and Malaysia acted in what they believed were their best interests as well. Governments changed the rules of engagement. South Korea went with zero tolerance, Malaysia used the standard of successful citadel defense, and India protected their home waters. It is difficult to fault any government for any specific action taken.

But that leaves the maritime industry in a tough spot, and now they have to adapt as well. The news that crew members from pirated vessels are being keelhauled combined with the murder of a crew member on the Beluga Nomination, and now new revelations that crew members from the Thai fishing vessels being allowed to starve to death - adds pressure on the maritime industry to take actions of their own. The press release quoted above discusses evaluation of "alternative routes," which to me reads like a game of chicken between the industry and governments. If governments think they will win that game, they are wrong. If the shipping industry decides to start taking alternative routes away from piracy originating from Somalia, the price of everything is going to go up - ALOT - and politicians will be forced to act, or be replaced in their next election for watching the price of everything go up and doing nothing about it. Sorry, but the maritime industry is more powerful due to the amount of money involved than just about every other industry in the world, and if they find a single voice - no country tied to the global economy can stand up to that pressure.

When any one group - whether the pirates, the nations providing naval forces, or the shipping industry - changes the rules, everyone must adjust their rules. We have already seen naval forces change the rules, followed by pirates changing the rules regarding the treatment of hostages. Should the maritime industry decide to change the rules, it is a good bet it will hit all of us in the wallet.

Indian UAV Updates

Including outlying territories, India’s coast line stretches for more than 7,500 km. Asymmetric challengers (such as the Mumbai attackers) have already exploited the gaps in this lengthy maritime border. India has obviously recognized the value unmanned ISR platforms can provide to patrolling their coast along with vast areas of the Indian Ocean and is establishing a new UAV squadron. The next stage of development to watch for will be the weaponization of these platforms. They might be moving in that direction on the shipboard VTOL side with the unmanned version of the Dhruv helicopter.

So now India’s navy has two UAV squadrons. The USAF has at least 15. The USMC has three. Can anyone tell me why the US Navy doesn't even have one? Isn’t it time to institutionalize this important capability rather than scattering it across a variety of different RTD&E efforts?

The opinions and views expressed in this post are those of the author alone and are presented in his personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Department of Defense, the US Navy, or any other agency.

India-US-Japan

My latest at WPR discusses the potential and the pitfalls of a grand Asian anti-China entente:

Moreover, the United States may find its position as the cartilage of a Japan-India-U.S. relationship uncomfortable. Both India and Japan have intrinsic, direct disputes with China, while U.S. concerns -- apart from Taiwan and North Korea -- are largely strategic. During the Cold War, the United States could generally rely on its alliance partners to stay out of direct conflicts with the Soviet Union. Because of the intrinsic conflicts between China, India and Japan, and because the bilateral power imbalance between China and either India or Japan will be smaller than that between the Soviet Union and Washington's Cold War allies, the U.S. risks being drawn into conflicts started by one of its partners.

In short, a developing security relationship between the United States, India, and Japan holds great promise as an effort to balance and contain China. The dynamics of such an alliance will play out much differently than Cold War style containment, however. Whereas the U.S. played a leading role in NATO and the other regional organs of containment in the Cold War, its place in an India-Japan axis will at best be first among equals. Perhaps more importantly, the axis might serve to draw the United States into a conflict with China that it most desperately wants to avoid.

Arabian Sea Terror Alert

The Indian Navy has issued a terror alert warning all commercial and private vessels to give plenty of space to Indian Navy warships. From The Indian Express.

The Western Naval command has issued an alert after received fresh intelligence inputs of a possible attack on Indian Naval ships by explosive-laden fast boats and trawlers.

Fishermen and merchant navy ships plying on the western coast have been asked to remain alert and maintain distance from Indian naval ships.

The confidential note has been issued by the office of Chief Staff Officer, Flag Officer Commanding, Western Naval Command, and sent to fisheries’ unions, craft owners and ferry craft operators operating in the western coast between Gujarat and Maharashtra.

The letter, a copy of which is available with The Indian Express, says: “The Headquarters has received intelligence input regarding possibility of attacks on Indian Naval (IN) ship by explosive-laden fast boats and trawlers. The modus operandi in such attacks is that a boat laden with explosive closes the target ship, rams into it and explodes next to the ship.”

Given the location, this alert would almost certainly apply to US Navy and French Navy ships also, both of whom are also operating in the Arabian Sea.

Submarines, More Submarines

This is a very interesting link on the decision process in India for the next 6 AIP submarines they intend to buy. The Amur submarines at the bottom of the page caught my attention.

In November 2010 it was reported that Russia's Rosoboronexport will offer Amur-1650, its 4th generation diesel powered submarine against the Indian tender.

Amur-1650 Capabilities
Developed by Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering, Amur-1650 has acoustic field rate that is many times lower than that of Project 877/636 diesel subs.

Armed with 6 torpedo tubes, the Amur-1650 can go to a depth of 300 meters. It is manned by a crew of 35 hand has an endurance of 45 days.

I believe the "acoustic field rate" being discussed here is being discused in the noise level of the Amur class submarine. According to Yang Xiushui, who might be the Chinese version of Norman Polmar, Project 877/636 (Kilo class) diesel subs noise is 105 decibels.

For comparison, ocean background noise is 90 decibels, and according to Yang Xiushui in the same article linked above, in his opinion the quietest submarine in the world is the Seawolf class with a reported noise level of 95 decibels.

I am not sure I believe the Amur-1650 is significantly quieter than the Kilo class, indeed perhaps only 2-3 decibels quieter at most. When it comes to submarine sounds, there are a number of ways that submarines can be made quieter, but as part of that discussion size does matter. These folks who talk about sound underwater and focus on propulsion really don't know what they are talking about - there are far more significant factors than type of propulsion plant a submarine has that determines the decibel level of a submarine.

In the case of the Kilo, its larger size allows for more technology and design characteristics that make the class remarkably quiet. The Amur-1650 is smaller than a Kilo, and while I believe it is probably quieter, I don't think the difference would be much - and one would have to factor the smaller payload capacity and shorter range the Amur has compared to the Kilo in this decision.

Personally, I think India should go for the French DCNS Scorpene MESMA submarines, because there are savings in the support costs when operating 12 of one type of submarine vs six versions of 2 different types of submarines. The way the Indian Navy buys small batches of different types of ships makes logistics and maintenance look really ugly for the Indian Navy.

Why China Might Be Right About India

I've been thinking about some commentary I've been reading regarding the way China and India view each other. I wouldn't call this a Chinese Proverb per se, but there is a viewpoint in China that India isn't a very mature nation because they lack maturity in governance. Some might say that is like the pot calling the kettle black - and some might be right.

One of the more interesting arguments I have read for increased PLA Navy presence in the Indian Ocean is the argument India has such a high threshold for action that they won't police their own front lawn (The Indian Ocean).

I might be starting to believe that argument, and I'll give an example. That reported hijacking of MV Hannibal II took place along a major sea lane between Mumbai and the Suez canal, somewhere around 530 nautical miles from Mumbai. There have been attacks in the same area a few other times this year. See image below.

This isn't just any city in the world, we are talking about Mumbai - the fifth largest municipality in the world. In the 2007-2008 shipping year, the Port of Mumbai handled a total of over 57 million tons of cargo, including 32.4 million tons of imports and 24.7 million tons of exports. The Port of Mumbai handled 1.4 million tons of containerized cargo in 117.6 thousand TEUs. The Port of Mumbai is also the gateway for more than half of India's sea-going passengers.

I think about piracy so near India and ask myself, what would any supposed major military power other than India do? Seriously, India has the worlds 4th largest Navy and even when considering the most optimistic Navy plans for every nation, India will operate more aircraft carriers than any nation besides the United States, will operate the third largest submarine force, and operate the fourth largest surface combatant force compared to every other Navy in the world by 2020.

But pirates can operate motherships and hijack vessels in late 2010 only 530 nautical miles off one of India's busiest ports? Apparently - YES.

Think about it like this. How many attacks, nevermind hijackings, would the United States tolerate from pirates 530 nautical miles off New York City in the main transit lane to London?

Can anyone imagine a single pirate attack, much less hijacking, being tolerated beyond a single time on a major sea lane 530nm from any major European, South American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or South Korean port? When the ARCTIC SEA was reportedly hijacked in 2009 near France, it was considered such a major international incident that NATO got involved - and ultimately half the deployed Russian surface Navy at the time was deployed to take care of it.

When China starts sending 4 surface combatants to protect commerce in the Indian Ocean instead of two, the only people the Indian government can blame is themselves. The Indian government threshold for caring about maritime security in their sphere of influence does not appear to be significantly greater than China's threshold when it comes to piracy - and may actually be lower in the future.

We Americans may think of it as "just piracy" but it also isn't our commerce. The irony here is that India is heavily dependent upon the maritime industry - Indians make up a huge percentage of the total global sea merchant workforce and their are some rather impressive mariner unions in India - but it doesn't seem to matter. It is European and Asian commerce and both the European and Asian Navies operate a rather large number of ships compared to India. With the problem not slowing down any in 2010, and this imagery is the record, I suspect the size of the international force will grow even larger next year.

Complaining China is being too aggressive in India's sphere of influence sounds hollow to me when India refuses to commit the resources necessary to keep the trash off their own lawn. No other major power in the world tolerates maritime insecurity like piracy within their major sea trade lanes. While India may desire to own the naval equipment of a major power, their inability to exercise the use of naval equipment like a major power leaves me thinking China is exactly right to be concerned - and exactly right to be thinking about how they will have to project power into the Indian Ocean in the future.

The Presidents Phantom Fleet

That was one of the dumbest headlines I have seen on Drudge in some time.

The claim that many of the 288-ship US naval fleet would be deployed to waters off Mumbai was "absolutely absurd," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters on Thursday.

He specifically says:

"I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy -- some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier -- in support of the president's trip to Asia," Morrell said.

"That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done," he said.

I guess the only question we could ask is whether there will be 34 Indian Navy warships at the Western Naval Command HQ in Mumbai during the Presidents visit. The Indian Navy is growing very rapidly, but even on that point my guess is the answer remains - not likely.

I am very unimpressed with the way the media is following the President on this important trip to Asia so far. $200 million a day? 34 ship armada escort? It is getting pretty ridiculous that so far - these are the big stories that lead into the trip.

If you want to read some interesting stuff, I recommend following the folks at places like CNAS - who have been focused on India lately.

India and the UK - Trading Places?

This is an interesting article in RUSI regarding the rumor India may be looking at the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. Shashank Joshi does a great job covering all the bases. This paragraph perfectly captures the issue.

Recent reports of Indian intentions to purchase an aircraft carrier from Britain would not substantially add to India's ambitions to be a global power. However, the rumours are symbolic of India's delicate strategic balancing act as it shifts its focus to China.

Exactly right. One thought. The article mentions India's desire to be on the UN Security Council. I believe this is going to happen, but when it does the UNSC would expand to 7 countries, rather than India outright replacing an existing country. The question is, who would be the 7th country?

Turkey?
Germany?
Japan?
Brazil?

Based on military power and domestic military production, one would think Israel would be the obvious choice, but that will never happen. So who would it be? Germany and Japan are legitimate choices based on economy, but there is a bit of history and policy surrounding those nations. Turkey is the biggest global military power nobody talks about, and Brazil has the potential to be a military power. The issue though is centric to how military power is still tied to nuclear weapons, even though that standard doesn't really apply in the 21st century. It is a tricky question, but one worth considering.

Proactive Asian Security

This news article from Monday is a geopolitical shock wave in Asia, perhaps one of the more interesting and long term important developments involving the security arrangements in Asia in some time.

India and Japan "expressed their commitment to contribute to bilateral and regional cooperation," according to the Defence Ministry's official release, issued at the end of the Tokyo meeting between visiting Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony and his Japanese counterpart, Toshimi Kitazawa.

Japan and India will boost their mutual efforts in peacekeeping and disaster relief, the release said, as well as the ASEAN Regional Forum, which fosters constructive regional dialogue.

"The two countries also recognized their mutual interest in the safety of sea lanes of communications and welcomed recent reinforcement of cooperation in the field of maritime security between the two defense authorities, as well as the inauguration of the Japan-India Maritime Security Dialogue, which was held in India last month," the release said.

This is an interesting development as it points to how Asian powers are viewing balance of power. India looks at Pakistan and China, then discovers Japan. Japan sees China, and discovers India. The maritime relationships between Japan and India have been developing over time, and this is a natural next step. As a point, this is an example where maritime relationships expand cooperation.

Obviously we are talking about baby steps, but forward movement is still forward movement. This is very much in line with what Robert Kaplan at CNAS has discussed as it relates to the US Navy as a balancing force between emerging regional powers in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

The activity in China to develop pipelines in Burma and Turkmenistan are directly related to energy security, not economics. With the largest Navy in the Pacific Ocean (Japan) now cooperating with the largest Navy in the Indian Ocean (India), both of which are economic competitors of China, one can see why the investment in land pipelines is very much in the interest of China even as it costs a hell of a lot more than moving energy by sea.

A final point. This is also a sign that the Asian economic powers are taking their security into their own hands. There are no signs of US fingerprints here, even as we would very much like to have a seat at the table. It is not inaccurate to note however that 3 decades of stability and cooperation in Asia that the US has helped maintain is a contributing factor to this development. As nations rise economically, this is a natural side effect.

News of the Day

In case you missed it, the news that seems ready to break out from under the radar is in regards to a letter from nuclear proliferation scientist A. Q. Khan that was sent to his wife. The details of the letter may give us some idea of the questions the US has wanted to ask A. Q. Khan about for some time, although access to the scientist has repeatedly been denied by the Pakistan government.

The story begins with this article in the Sunday Times by Simon Henderson, and is getting more attention in India by The Times of India. I have to be honest, when I first noticed the article, I was very skeptical... but the lack of reaction kind of sums it up - this is almost certainly legit. None of the details are new exactly, most are what has been suspected for some time without specific details.

The bottom line for some will be that A. Q. Khan admits to being the guy who gave the Iranians nuclear technology, but for me the issue is the allegation of Chinese nuclear proliferation. The Sunday Times article notes this was 1982:

“We put up a centrifuge plant at Hanzhong (250km southwest of Xian).” It went on: “The Chinese gave us drawings of the nuclear weapon, gave us 50kg of enriched uranium, gave us 10 tons of UF6 (natural) and 5 tons of UF6 (3%).”

This was before the civilian nuclear agreement between China and Pakistan in 1986 and before the Chinese supplied Pakistan with a civilian reactor in 1989. Makes it somewhat tough to believe what the Chinese say when they are proliferating nuclear weapons in private while playing up the non-proliferation position in public.

No wonder the US doesn't want this guy in public, can you imagine what A. Q. Khan would say on 60 minutes? He speaks English very well you know...

Pakistani Mods

The US is accusing Pakistan of modifying Harpoon anti-ship missiles and P-3 Orions for attacks against land targets:

Pakistan on August 30 rejected U.S. government claims that it illegally modified American-made missiles and said the accusations were part of a campaign to "malign it and its armed forces". Modifications to anti-ship missiles made them capable of hitting land-based targets and thus threatening India, The New York Times said Aug. 29. The New York Times said the missiles were sold to Pakistan by the administration of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan as a defensive weapon during the Cold War in the 1980s.

U.S. military and intelligence officials said they suspect that Pakistan has modified the missiles in a manner that would be a violation of the Arms Control Export Act in the United States, the paper said. According to the report, U.S. intelligence agencies detected on April 23 a suspicious missile test that appeared to indicate that Pakistan had a new offensive weapon.

The United States has also accused Pakistan of modifying U.S.-made P-3C aircraft for land-attack missions, another violation of U.S. law that the administration of President Barack Obama has protested, the report said.

The modified land attack Harpoons must be for the small Pakistani sub fleet; firing short range land attack missiles from a surface vessel under conditions of utter Indian naval dominance would simply be suicidal. Even then, the strategic effect of the weapons would seem to be small, given the limited range and payload of the Harpoon. I have some doubt as to whether putting a nuclear warhead on a Harpoon is within current Pakistani capabilities, although the eventual intention may be to acquire a weak second strike capability of the same character as that of Israel.

As for modifying the P-3 for land attack missions, I'm pretty curious about the utility of a slow, big propeller-driven land attack craft in any conceivable India-Pakistan war scenario. Big, slow planes do fine under conditions of air supremacy, but rather less well when enemy fighters are lurking about. Perhaps the expectation is that the P-3s will be used against Taliban forces, to similar effect as the variety of loitering aircraft that the US currently employs.

India is Down to a Dozen

In 1983 the Indian Navy acquired 30 Sea Harrier jump jets from the Royal Navy to support their aircraft carriers. By 2009 the Indian Navy is down to only a dozen, with the latest crash.

"The Indian naval 'Sea Harrier' aircraft, which was on a routine exercise mission, crashed at about 1157 hours," a naval spokesman told PTI here.

The single-seater aircraft crashed in the Arabian sea 15 miles away from the shore.

"Lieutenant Commander Saurav Saxena, the pilot of the aircraft lost his life in the incident," the spokesman added.

First, our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the pilot.

This is the 18th Sea Harrier to crash or become beyond repair since 1983, leaving the Indian Navy with only a dozen Sea Harriers. Some of the 12 will be used for training purposes, although with only 12 total Sea Harriers that may no longer be an option.

There were rumors last year that India might purchase 8 more Sea Harriers, but I do not believe that purchase ever completed. The loss of every Sea Harrier further reduces the operational capabilities of the Indian Navy. It further only compounds the problems the Admiral Gorshkov fiasco has been for India, because the delay is putting India in a terrible position attempting to maintain their aircraft carrier force.

As the Sea Harrier force continues to shrink, India clearly needs to move forward with new aircraft carriers and naval aircraft sooner, rather than later.