The Global Times article did not reveal neither the submarine’s name nor its type. However, the description that read that it was a “strategic” asset suggested that it could refer to a nuclear ballistic missile-carrying submarine (SSBN). Analysts considered it unlikely that this was the first of the next-generation Type 096 SSBNs submarine.

The article was written to reflect recent achievements of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) in celebration of the 71st anniversary of the establishment of the naval service, the report refers to “new weapons” entering service including the Type 055 destroyer, the first domestically built aircraft carrier, and new anti-submarine patrol aircraft (the KQ-200), as well as the new submarine.

Type 096 SSBN

The period between launch and commissioning of the first Type 096 submarine is estimated to be up to four years and a new design has not yet become visible in satellite imagery.

The 2017 Annual Report to the US Congress on China’s military power by the US Defense Department (DoD) maintains that Bejing’s next-generation nuclear submarine, Type 096, will likely begin construction in the early 2020s, and will reportedly be armed with the JL-3, a submarine-based ballistic missile.

The submarine is a key weapon to the country’s nuclear warfare capability. Only the US and Russia have the real ‘nuclear triad’ (consisting of ballistic missiles, strategic nuclear submarines and strategic bombers), but sooner or later, China will have it as well.

The DoD report also forecast that by 2030, Being could develop a new variant of the Shang-class (NATO code) Type 093B, which would not only improve the PLA’s anti-surface warfare capability but also provide it with a more clandestine land-attack option.

Sea-based Nuclear Deterrent

Consistent with Chinese nuclear doctrine and defense white papers, Chinese strategic nuclear forces are meant to comprise a “lean and effective deterrent force” for the “flexible use of different means of deterrence” for “safeguarding national sovereignty and security.”

If China adheres to its declared “no first use” policy and “self-defensive nuclear strategy,” its nuclear arsenal must be able to survive a first strike. China’s ballistic missile submarine force is likely meant to augment its solid-fuel, road-mobile, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which can be readily hidden in the vastness of China’s territory.  Given the survivability of its land-based ICBM forces, some argue that SSBNs might be an expensive insurance policy. Beijing is working to field a credible SSBN force. To do so China must make strides in terms of command, control, communications, and quieting technologies.

The challenges of fielding a credible sea-based nuclear deterrent for China are threefold.

•             Chinese SSBNs must have operational stealth, meaning they must be difficult to find in order to evade detection and tracking by adversaries.

•             China must have a reliable long-range submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) capable of striking a target at intercontinental ranges with a nuclear payload.

•             There must be a reliable and survivable communications, command, and control system in place to ensure that China’s national command authority can communicate with its SSBNs after the country has suffered a first strike.

Previous Attempts

China’s first attempt at an indigenous SSBN resulted in a single Xia-class submarine that suffered from limited missile range and high sound emissions. The vessel allegedly never left port with nuclear weapons on board. The successor Jin-class (Type 094), which carries the JL-2 SLBM, represented a significant improvement. The Jin-class/JL-2 platform “represents China’s first credible, sea-based nuclear deterrent,” according to the US Department of Defense’s 2016 Annual Report to Congress on China’s military.

There are four Jin-class SSBNs currently operational and another two being outfitted at Huludao Shipyard.

Nuclear Triad

China has a nascent nuclear triad, but one that remains limited primarily by range, arsenal size, and operational experience. China’s estimated 50 H-6K bombers, with a range of about 2,000 miles, are only able to deliver a payload to targets in nuclear weapons states as Russia, U.S. territory Guam, and the Indian subcontinent. Aerial refueling would only marginally extend bomber range because China does not have tanker aircraft deployed outside of the Chinese mainland; however, tankers staged from newly constructed Spratly Island airfields in the South China Sea could change this equation.

China currently fields approximately 50 to 60 ICBMs, including an estimated 24 solid-fueled, road-mobile CSS-10 Mod 2s (DF-31A). The CSS-10 Mod 2 has a range exceeding 11,200 km and can reach most locations within the continental United States. These rely upon hardened silos, road mobility, and according to some reports underground railways to ensure their survivability. In addition to its fleet of 14 Ohio class SSBNs, the U.S. nuclear triad boasts 20 B-2A and 70 B-52H long-range bombers, and at least 450 ICBMs. Russian nuclear forces include 13 SSBNs of various classes and 78 Tu-160 and Tu-95 long-range bombers, and at least 332 ICBMs.

PLAAN Submarine Force

The People’s Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force (PLANSF) is the submarine service of the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Currently, PLANSF operates a fleet of 68 submarines which include nuclear as well as conventional submarines.

Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines

The PLAN currently operates two classes of ballistic missile submarines:

•             Type 094 submarine (NATO designation Jin-class).

•             Type 092 submarine (NATO designation Xia-class).

The Type 092 submarine (Xia-class), was commissioned by 1983. Its primary weapon is the JL-1 SLBM, with 12 launch tubes, as well as six 533 mm tubes for self-defence. The Xia is now carrying an improved missile, the JL-1A that is alleged to have longer range.

The Type 094 submarine (Jin-class) features 12 launch tubes for the longer ranged JL-2 missile, which has an 8,000 km range that can carry 3 to 4 MIRVs. The 094 would be permitted to patrol nearer Chinese waters, with the ability to launch its missiles against continental US targets.

Nuclear-powered fleet submarines

The PLAN currently has two types of nuclear-powered attack submarines in service:

•             Type 093 submarine (NATO designation Shang-class).

•             Type 091 submarine (NATO designation Han-class).

The Type 091 submarine (Han-class) has mostly operated in local waters, but since the 1990s, they have been used more aggressively.

Little information has emerged about the Type 093 submarine (Shang-class), but it maybe comparable to the Russian Victor III-class, signifying a significant step forward for Chinese nuclear attack submarines.

China is constructing a major underground nuclear submarine base near Sanya, Hainan. The Daily Telegraph on 1 May 2008 reported that tunnels were being built into hillsides which could be capable of hiding up to 20 nuclear submarines from spy satellites.

Conventionally-powered attack submarines

The PLAN currently operates four different classes of conventional submarines:

•             Type 039A submarine (NATO designation Yuan-class).

•             Type 039 submarine (NATO designation Song-class).

•             Kilo-class submarine (NATO designation Kilo-class).

•             Type 035 submarine (NATO designation Ming-class).

The Type 035 submarine (Ming-class), first commissioned in 1974, is based on the Type 033. It could be considered as China’s first indigenously designed submarine, despite its similarities to the Russian Romeo-class. At least 17 hulls are still in service, with later hulls using modern sonar systems, including the French DUUX-5. The later hulls of the Ming-class may have been employed for testing air-independent propulsion (AIP), which would significantly reduce the noise level of the submarine.

Despite the purchase of 12 Kilo-class, the PLAN has continued to develop indigenous designs. The Type 039 submarine (Song-class) was first launched in 1994 with sea trials in 1995. By 2006 about 13 hulls have been confirmed to be built so far. The Song-class submarines are armed with torpedoes and a sub-launched variant of the YJ-8 anti-ship missile. An AIP system may be installed in the future.

The Type 039A submarine (Yuan-class) is the latest of China’s indigenous submarine. The hull seems to resemble Russian influences (as it is similar to the Kilo). The Yuan-class is likely fitted with an AIP system to achieve maximum silent operational capabilities and can be armed with advanced Russian and Chinese torpedoes and cruise missiles. This class of submarine is expected to have capabilities which surpass the Kilo and Song-classes considerably. Series production began late in 2007, with at least 17 boats identified so far and up to 3 more under construction.

Conventionally-powered ballistic missile submarine

Type 032 submarine (NATO designation Qing-class) – In service as technology testbed.

China has constructed the world’s largest conventional submarine – the Type 032, initially called the Type 043. Some reports claimed that the Type 032 submarine may be a cause for concern as a general purpose submarine, not only responsible for testing JL-2 ICBMs, but the design could also be fitted as an “aircraft carrier killer”, carrying anti-ship ballistic missiles. Thus far only one has been built, supporting the test platform interpretation – if more than one appeared, the “aircraft carrier killer” interpretation would begin to gain currency.

A photo was taken in July 2017. China’s Type 032 will be able to launch various weapons including the JL-2A submarine-launched ballistic missile [from tubes in the sail] and CJ-20A cruise missiles and the YJ-18 anti-ship missile from tubes in the hull forward of the sail.

The post China Commissions New N-Submarine appeared first on IMR.

What makes this test-firing of the K-4 missile more significant is the fact that a recent launch of the missile, conducted from a submerged platform in December 2017, had ended in a failure. The launch was not successful due to “a failure in the missile’s ignition following its ejection from the submerged pontoon.”

SLBMs are test-fired from submerged platforms not only to collect data to analyse its performance, but also to ensure safety. A failed launch from an active ballistic missile submarine would cause massive damage to its hull.

Developmental testing of the missile, which has an estimated maximum range of 3,500 kilometers and can be fitted with a 2,000-kilogram sub-kiloton nuclear or conventional payload, began in 2010.

The K-4 was last successfully test fired in full  operational configuration from India’s first domestically developed and built nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), the INS Arihant, in April 2016. Notably, the K-4 has been tested using depressed trajectories.

The INS Arihant, the first-of-class of a planned fleet of four to five SSBNs based on the Russian Project 971 Akula I-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), has been designed to carry up to four K4s or 12 K-15 (B-05) short-range ballistic missiles (SLBM).

With the K-4, INS Arihant and future SSBNs will be able to target parts of China, including Beijing, and all of Pakistan, from the northern parts of the Bay of Bengal. Not ideal, but better than the K-15.

K-15 Sagarika

Three K-15s were successfully launched from the Arihant in August 2018. The K-15 Sagarika is a solid-fueled two-stage SLBM capable of carrying a single warhead and has a reported maximum range of 700 to 750 kilometers. It has been under development by India’s DRDO since the 1990s. Another test firing  of a K-15 SLBM from the INS Arihant took place in November 2015.

INS Arihant, the first and only operational SSBN, is armed with K-15 Sagarika missiles with a range of 750 km. It has a displacement of 6,000 tonnes and is powered by an 83 MW pressurised light-water reactor with enriched uranium. The K-4 will do away with the need to venture far way from the Indian waters and move closer to the adversary’s coast to launch the missile.

There are very few countries which have managed to achieve this technological breakthrough. The Circular Error Probability (CEP) was much more sophisticated than Chinese missiles. The CEP determines the accuracy of a missile. The lower the CEP, the more accurate the missile is. The missile has been tested several times earlier as part of developmental trials to validate different parameters.

Once inducted, these missiles will be the mainstay of the Arihant class of indigenous ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBN) and will give India the stand-off capability to launch nuclear weapons submerged in Indian waters.

Nuclear Triad

In November 2019, India formally declared its nuclear triad stated in its nuclear doctrine operational after INS Arihant completed its first deterrence patrol, which means Arihant has begun prowling the deep seas carrying ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. It was quietly commissioned into service in August 2016 and its induction was not officially acknowledged.

Given the  Arihant’s primary role as a technology demonstrator, it will likely take the Indian Navy at least until 2021-when the second Arihant-class SSBN the future INS Arighant (originally assumed to be named Aridhaman) is set to enter service – to achieve an operational long-range nuclear strike capability.

Towards Credible Deterrence

For a credible at-sea deterrence, a country’s SSBNs must be capable of, among other things, targeting population and industrial centres of the adversary. In India’s case, this means that the Indian Navy’s SSBNs must be capable of holding at risk cities not only in Pakistan but also in the Chinese mainland.

Cities in the Chinese mainland would remain outside the range of the missile even if the boat was at the north-eastern edge of the Bay of Bengal. Therefore, in the event of a crisis with Beijing, New Delhi would not have the option of threatening a nuclear attack on a target of consequence in China. (Theoretically, the SSBN can reach closer to China to make up for the short-range of the missile, but it will be at an increased risk of detection or worse – an attack).

Therefore, India may have operationalised its triad, but the naval leg or the at-sea deterrent is not credible given the limited range of the missile it uses.

The DRDO, reports say, is already working on 5,000-km range K-5 and 6,000-km range K-6 SLBMs.

The post Navy Modernisation : Navy Moving Towards Extended Range Deterrence appeared first on IMR.

The threat of a major escalation in US-Iran tensions appears to be rising following General Soleimani’s death. Millions have expressed concern about the assassination and whether it could become the trigger for World War 3.

Tensions have been growing between the US and Iran since 2018 when Donald Trump announced the US would be withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal. Additionally, an independent US report warned the stage had been set for a full-scale war, with the US President filling his administration with hardliners.

However, World War 3 is not official and no nations have as yet declared war on another.

Likely Iranian Targets

The US embassy in Baghdad, which has been the target of attacks, is likely to see renewed action, while military patrols and bases could be hit by ground troops and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

There are some 5,000 US troops currently stationed around Iraq, with more on the way, all of whom are now targets for Shia militias which have fought for Iran – and in some cases directly with Soleimani – in the past. Targets in Iran’s crosshairs may include US troops and military bases in Iraq and Syria, Israeli forces in the Golan Heights, tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, and Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.

The Quds Force, which Solemani controlled for almost two decades, will orchestrate the attacks from behind the scenes and may become directly involved in order to avenge their beloved leader’s death. In the past, questions have been raised over whether Quds Forces operate independently of the regime in Tehran, raising the prospect of attacks even if not directly ordered by Tehran.

Escalatory Ladder

If Tehran decides to strike Israel, Golan Heights region could be trageted with Hezbollah providing support, though Tel Aviv has warned that Iranian missiles can range much further across its borders.

China has ships in the Gulf of Oman. China, Russia and Iran recently carried out joint naval drills.

Any escalation by Tehran through Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen against Saudi Arabia would be met with a response from Riyadh.

Strikes on these targets could lead to a tit-for-tat series of events. Russian forces stationed in Syria defending a key Iranian ally in Bashar al-Assad, and Turkish forces fighting in the country’s north, could get involved. Turkish troops are deployed in northern Syria and. Being a member of NATO, Turkey’s actions would be unpredictable if a conflict escalates across the region. Turkey’s president Recep Erdogan is close to Russia and Iran as well.

Nuclear Weapons

US, China, Russia and Israel all have nuclear weapons – with at least three of those possessing next-generation hypersonic missiles capable of breaching all defence systems.

Israel is also armed with nuclear weapons and is an obvious target for any Iranian attacks, but Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF will not hesitate to defend themselves and have recently struck Iran-backed Hezbollah forces in Syria. 

In the case of conflict Iran could ramp up its nuclear programme. It has breached Uranium stockpile limits and has been enriching to above energy-grade levels since Trump cancelled the nuclear deal. It could begin enriching to weapons-grade levels in response to the latest threat. In that case, US warships, bombers and cruise missiles could be used to take out the facilities.

Strait of Hormuz

One of the most extreme option available to Iran would be closing the Strait of Hormuz completely, cutting off a fifth of the world’s daily oil supply. While Tehran has often threatened to close the waterway, such a move would almost certainly prompt a response from US carrier groups in the region as well as dragging in other world powers who rely on the oil.

Iran could choose to harass, disable or destroy oil tankers sailing in the Persian Gulf which separates it from the Arabia Peninsula, potentially disrupting a key source of income for the Saudis.

Iranian Forces

Iran has the world’s 13th most powerful military. In addition, there are a host of proxy militia forces spread across the Middle East, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and allies like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

Iran can draw reserves from a population of some 82 million. It has an arsenal of ballistic missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, fast jets and gunboats.

Iran’s biggest asset is geography – surrounded on three sides by mountains, a fourth by ocean, and with a vast desert at its center, it poses a formidable obstacle – even for the US Army.

Cyber War

Cyber attacks have also become an increasingly popular method of warfare and could be used by both Iran, America and their allies to attempt to win an early upper hand.

Targets would likely include Iranian nuclear facilities – which were successfully targeted with the Stuxnet virus in the past – communications equipment, radar, power networks and other key infrastructure.

Stand-off Warfare

To nullify the threat of American drones, Iran could use anti-aircraft missiles to shoot them down, as it did in June 2019. Iranian missiles could also be trained on US warships around the Arabian Peninsula, including the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, but this would be an extreme option and likely only taken after a ground invasion. 

Syria

Bashar al-Assad is a close ally of Iran, and owes the continued existence of his regime in large part to the personal intervention of Soleimani, who helped him turn the tide of Syria’s years-long civil war along with Russia.

Assad could be persuaded to ignore attacks by pro-Iran militias against several hundred US troops and Kurds remaining in Syria after Donald Trump ordered a withdrawal.

Russia has ground forces stationed in Syria defending a key Iranian ally in Bashar al-Assad. Russia’s latest S400 anti-aircraft systems in Syria could be used against American jets and bombers in the event the crisis spirals into a wider war. If fighting escalates then Russian forces stationed across Syria could quickly become embroiled, along with Turkish forces currently deployed in the north.

ISIS will also likely exploit the situation to try and pit the sides against each-other, allowing them to seize back territory they lost in recent years.

Lebanon

The country is controlled by Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy fighting force, which has vowed ‘worldwide resistance’ following Soleimani’s death. The group could launch rocket attacks against targets in Israel, as well as anti-aircraft attacks against Israeli jets and drones operating in the region.

Iran also exerts control over Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, both of which operate in the Gaza Strip and could be used to cause further problems for Israel.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has seen attacks against its oil infrastructure in recent months which were blamed on Tehran. Saudi oil infrastructure is likely to feature in Iran’s plans for strikes in the region, following on from major disruption caused after a drone and missile attack on the country’s largest oil refinery last year, though security was massively ramped up afterwards, making success far from a sure thing.

Yemen

Iran has been fighting a proxy-war in Yemen using Houthi rebels, fighting against Saudi forces which are allied to the ruling regime. Attacks against the Saudis could increase, and Iran could use Houthi drones and guided missiles to launch attacks against pipelines in Saudi Arabia and other infrastructure as it has done in the past.

Afghanistan

The US has just reached a ceasefire agreement with the Taliban in Afghanistan in an attempt to put an end to the longest war it has ever fought. But, as in Iraq and Syria, Iran has links with Shia militias across the region which it could leverage in an attempt to derail the process and plunge the region back into conflict, further extending US engagement there. 

Qatar

The country houses the largest American military base in the Middle East, at Al Udeid, which is home to some 10,000 troops and dozens of fighters and bombers including F-22 fighters and B-52 bombers. If all-out war breaks out with Iran, then Al Udeid air base in Qatar will be at the center of US efforts to establish air superiority in the event of a wider war. There are dozens of aircraft at the base, including F-22 fighters and B-52 bombers.

U.S. Retaliation

The United States has a vast array of military hardware in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Among the military options are F22 Raptor fighters based in Dubai, cruise missile-armed Ohio class submarines and aircraft carriers and US Special Forces who are still based in northern Iraq and Syria. Strategic assets such as B2 Stealth bombers can also strike by flying over from the US mainland, and – in the ultimate event – America can also field nuclear weapons fired from silos on the mainland at virtually anywhere in the world.

Russian Forces

Tens of thousands of Russian troops and aircraft are based in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. They include special forces and the feared S400 anti-aircraft missile – the most advanced missile system in the world. If the conflict escalates, Russia could feel compelled to defend its ally or Iran or retaliate if its troops are killed as collateral damage by the US. It could also use strategic assets based in Russia such long range missiles and long-range bombers, along with ships and submarines based in the Mediterranean at Sevastopol.

Israel’s Response

If Israel is attacked by Iran it is sure to retaliate. It has nuclear weapons and an array of advanced fighter jets capable of launching strikes at Iran and Iranian forces in Syria, as it has done in the past. Its special forces are also among the most feared in the world, and stationed across the region.

Most Likely Scenario

The most likely outcome will be an intensified period of proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, staying just below the conventional threshold, given Iran’s inability to survive an overwhelming US’ “retaliatory” strike if Trump authorized one in response to the unlikely massive missile strike that some speculate Tehran might be preparing. The US might also carry out “surgical strikes” against places in Iran where it might claim other strikes were “organized”, such as an attempt to repeat the drone strike against Saudi Aramco from last September. “Decapitation strikes” might, therefore, become increasingly more frequent and nobody would be safe, since the US just signaled that it has the political will to take out “high-value targets”. As all of this unfolds, Russia and China will do their utmost to stay away from any regional fray and definitely would not intervene to defend Iran. As such, Iran’s expected responses will be purely asymmetrical and not conventional.

The post US-Iran Rivalry : Can Iran Crisis Lead to a Wider War? appeared first on IMR.