India's nuclear capabilities may have taken a major step forward.

On Monday, India began sea trials of its first nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), according to USNI news. 

The Arihant, a 112 meter 6,000 ton SSBN, left the Indian coast and traveled into the Bay of Bengal for tests after decades of development. The program to develop the submarine has been in place since the 1970s in an effort to create an indigenous submarine that could function as a nuclear deterrent. 

"Arihant is based on the Russian Navy’s Akula-class design and can field 12 Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with nuclear warheads," Sam LaGrone writes for USNI News. "The missiles are capable of a range of about 435 miles." 

India's launch of the Arihant coincides with a host of other military developments throughout South Asia. In October, India successfully tested a nuclear-capable cruise missile. Pakistan countered by carrying out a successful test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile. 

The two nations are fierce rivals and have gone to war three times since British rule ended after World War II. A fragile ceasefire between the nations that has held since 2003 almost ended in October as both sides shelled the other over the disputed border in Kashmir. 

This mutual war footing between India and Pakistan, coupled with both nations' pursuits of nuclear weapons, has made a nuclear exchange on the subcontinent ever more likely, although still a vague possibility overall.

The eventual deployment of the Arihant may even help to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan through deterrence. SSBNs are capable of submerging at sea for months at a time, effectively allowing them to stay hidden and providing a "second-strike" capability that Pakistan currently lacks.

India's ability to launch a retaliatory strike against any Pakistani nuclear aggression would ideally convince both countries not to use their nuclear capabilities in the first place. 

SEE ALSO: Here are 6 possible nightmare scenarios for 2015 in Asia

Join the conversation about this story »

Evernote CEO Phil Libin has said that he wants his company to be a "100 year startup"— an innovative company that people love that lasts for a century. 

You can see it in the way Libin relentlessly experiments with management, like with a program called Evernote Officer Training. 

As he told the New York Times, the idea came from a friend who served on a nuclear submarine. 

"In order to be an officer on one of these subs, you have to know how to do everyone else's job," he explained. "Those skills are repeatedly trained and taught. And I remember thinking, 'That's really cool.'"

So he brought the idea topside.

At Evernote, employees can volunteer to enter Officer Training. If they do, then they're randomly assigned to meetings outside their department — and expected to contribute. 

"They're there to absorb what we're talking about," Libin said. "They're not just spectators. They ask questions; they talk."

No employee gets more than two extra meetings a week.

While it seems minor, the effects could be potentially profound. Network science research indicates that the quality and quantity of relationships you have in an organization — up and down hierarchies, across departments — is one of the best predictors of innovation. 

So with Officer Training, Evernote has created a structure for cultivating those relationships, making the company more susceptible to great ideas in the future. 

SEE ALSO: 11 Tricks Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, And Other Famous Execs Use To Run Meetings

Join the conversation about this story »

Two Polish teams will search this year for the Polish submarine ORP Orzel, which disappeared in the North Sea in May 1940 during a mission with the Allies in World War II.

The two searches will be conducted by the Culture Ministry and the Maritime Museum in the Baltic port of Gdansk.

Built in the Netherlands, ORP Orzel started service in 1939, and fought German ships after Hitler's army invaded Poland Sept. 1, 1939. The vessel was held that month in Tallinn by then-neutral Estonia, but escaped.

Working with the Allies, the submarine then took part in patrol and escort missions for the British navy. On May 23, 1940, it left Rosyth, Scotland, and never returned.

Searches undertaken since 2008 have been unsuccessful.

SEE ALSO: Switzerland is finally getting around to dismantling its Cold War-era defense system

Join the conversation about this story »

Congress has created a special fund to help the Navy build its next generation nuclear submarine fleet while rebuilding back to a 300-ship fleet, but Navy and Pentagon officials are now trying to find the dollars to supply that special funding line, said Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley.

Called the National Sea-Based Deterrence fund, the new account is designed to protect funding to build 12 new Ohio Replace Program submarines from the Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget because Navy leaders and lawmakers have said the Navy can’t afford to build the new submarines and also reach the service’s goal of achieving a 306-ship Navy.

In total, the Ohio Replacement program will consist of 12 submarines to begin deployments by 2031.

“We have to procure those on a one for one basis to replace the existing Ohio submarines. That poses a significant impact to our shipbuilding budget – a $7 billion per year increase in the 2020s,” Stackley said Wednesday at the Atlantic Council, a Washington D.C.-based think tank.

Production for the lead ship in a planned fleet of 12 Navy ORPs is expected to cost $12.4 billion — $4.8 billion in non-recurring development costs and $7.6 billion in ship construction, Navy officials have said.  Detailed design for the first ORP is slated for 2017 and some development and early construction is already underway.  Formal construction is slated for 2021. The Ohio Replacement Program is slated to serve through the 2080s.

Overall, the Navy hopes to meet its goal of producing Ohio Replacement submarines for $4.9 billion each in 2010 dollars, service officials said.

“It is a national mission and the nation determined we need to get this submarine built and out to sea. We’ve got to put the tools in place to deal with that challenge by putting in the Sea Based Strategic Deterrence fund,” Stackley said.

While having the account is a great start, Stackley emphasized that the sources of the money are still in question.

Working with ORP-builder Electric Boat, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, the Navy has finished the ship specifications for the boat and made progress with a few cost-cutting initiatives.

The Navy is only building 12 Ohio Replacement submarines to replace 14 existing ones because the new submarines are being built with a strong nuclear core reactor which will better sustain the submarines, Navy officials have said.

As a result, the Ohio Replacement submarines will be able to perform a greater number of deployments than the ships they are replacing and not need a mid-life refueling in order to complete 42 years of service.

The rationale for the fund includes the effort to find a way to build the Ohio Replacement submarine while preserving the shipbuilding budget.

The Navy’s 2015 30-year shipbuilding plan, released this past summer, acknowledges that there does not appear to be enough money to reach the plan’s goals and achieve a fleet larger than 300-ships, citing the pace of planned retirements for ships built between 1980 and 1990.

“Congress and DoD are working together and recognize the challenge. We’re going to fund the Ohio Replacement. The question is how we maintain the balance of our shipbuilding program as we build the Ohio Replacement,” Stackley said.

Nevertheless, Stackley emphasized that the Navy will be able to reach its 306-ship fleet goal.

“The Secretary of the Navy has been almost singularly focused on getting us back to a 300-ship Navy. Today we are at 289. We have 44-ships under construction and a dozen under contract. Another eight are planned for 2015. We are on a path to 300-ships. We’re going to get there,” he said.

SEE ALSO: Here's how Russia and Putin are responding to the terrorist attack in Paris

Join the conversation about this story »

The Ministry of Defence has again been forced to call for US military assistance to help track a suspected Russian submarine spotted off the Scottish coast.

Two US Navy aircraft were drafted in to conduct anti-submarine patrols along with a Royal Navy Frigate near the home of the UK’s Trident fleet at Faslane, Argyll.

Critics claimed the US deployment raised questions about the UK's ability to protect its nuclear submarines following the scrapping of the RAF's £4bn fleet of Nimrod surveillance aircraft in 2010.

Peter Roberts, a senior fellow of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, told The Independent : “It has left a gaping chasm in the UK's capabilities and left us highly dependent on cooperation from our allies.”

It is thought the Russian presence could be linked to the reported departure of one of the Royal Navy's Vanguard-class nuclear submarines from Faslane naval base at Gare Loch on the River Clyde. The Vanguards carry Trident ballistic missiles.

Such "visits" from Russian subs have reportedly been "happening quite often" off the north and west coasts of Scotland.

The operation follows a deployment in November of two US Navy Orions, a Royal Canadian Air Force Aurora and a French Dassault Atlantique.

It was suggested at the time that a suspected Russian submarine may have been trying to track one of Britain's four Vanguard-class boats after a fishing trawler spotted an "unknown submarine periscope" close to Faslane.

The search came a month after another suspected Russian submarine was spotted off Sweden’s Stockholm archipelago and as relations with the Kremlin are at their worst since the Cold War.

This week, US crews coordinated with the anti-submarine frigate HMS Somerset, which has been operating off Scotland for a month.

A source at RAF Lossiemouth is reported to have disclosed that the US aircraft, known as Skinny Dragons and usually based in Hawaii, have been flying up to two missions a day since New Year's Eve.

Mr Roberts, added: "HMS Somerset is a capable platform and I have no doubt that her deployment alongside these US Navy aircraft is related to the reported departure of a Royal Navy Vanguard ballistic missile submarine from Faslane, and the countering of any Russian deployment from over the horizon."

Angus Robertson MP, SNP defence spokesman, whose constituency contains RAF Lossiemouth, said the deployment showed that Britain had resorted to going to its allies with a "begging bowl".

An MoD spokesman said: "We can confirm that the UK recently requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period. The aircraft have been conducting maritime patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations."

The search for the unidentified foreign vessel was likened to the script from Sean Connery’s 1990 film The Hunt for Red October, in which the actor played a Soviet commander who defects to the US in a submarine equipped with ballistic missiles. 

Join the conversation about this story »

Top Gear Russia magazine accidentally published an image of a secret Russian submarine.

The Russian edition of the automobile magazine published a photo of the classified "AC-12 Project," a nuclear deep-water submarine, nicknamed "Losharik" after a children's movie.

This was first reported by the unofficial blog of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies and picked up by Slon Media, which reached out to an expert for commentary.

Weapons expert Vasiliy Sichev told Slon that it's extremely likely that this is the secret submarine. He told the site:

"It's impossible to unequivocally say that the picture was really the AC-12, of course, because the project is classified and how the 'Losharik' looks is technically unknown. However, photos which were allegedly of 'Losharik' surfaced in 2007, 2010, and 2011, and they had a lot of similarities with the one in Top Gear."

Russia is in the midst of a serious military buildup. Among other things, the Russian military is upgrading its navy and by 2020 is hoping to add at least 16 new nuclear submarines to its Northern and Pacific fleets.

Here's the whole page from the magazine:

NOW WATCH: 11 Facts That Show How Different Russia Is From The Rest Of The World

SEE ALSO: 15 Unbelievable Facts About Russia

SEE ALSO: 2015 Could Be The Year We Witness The 'Weaponization Of Finance'

SEE ALSO: 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Saudi Arabia

Join the conversation about this story »

Evidence has appeared in recent commercial imagery that a new North Korean submarine has up to two vertical launch missile submarines.

A website run by the US-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies called 38 North posted the imagery with tags showing how the conning tower of a new North Korean submarine can house 1–2 ballistic or cruise missile tubes.

The submarine was seen at the Sinpo South Shipyard in North Korea, which has seen significant infrastructural improvement recently.

Officials at the US Korea Institute at SAIS speculated that a “shorter naval version of the Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile, a Nodong medium-range ballistic missile, or naval versions of the solid-fuelled KN-02 short-range ballistic missile” could be the missile used aboard the submarine.

Obviously, a ballistic missile submarine would pose a new risk to South Korea. However, the analysts at Johns Hopkins pointed out that the imagery doesn’t mean the North Koreans are necessarily close to completing the project.

Much like North Koreas ICBM program, the technology is still lacking north of the 38th parallel.

SEE ALSO: North Korea's strange juggling act is becoming even more perilous

Join the conversation about this story »

Sweden's military spokesman confirmed on Jan. 11 that the country had carried out a second search for a suspected Russian submarine just shortly after a high-profile sub hunt concluded in late October. 

Military spokesman Jesper Tengroth confirmed that Sweden carried out a second search for a Russian submarine on Oct. 31, 2014. This second search occurred just a week after Sweden called off a failed search for a suspected Russian submarine that had infiltrated Swedish waters off the Stockholm Archipelago. 

The first search was Sweden's largest military operation since the Cold War ended. The search ultimately did not manage to capture the suspected vessel. Sweden never named the vessel as Russian — although Swedish defense experts said it almost certainly did belong to Moscow. 

The second search also failed at capturing the presumed Russian submarine. In this search, Sweden secretly deployed its submarine-hunting corvette, the CMS Malmo. 

The news of a second submarine hunt in Sweden coincides with a joint UK-US anti-submarine operation taking place off of the Scottish coast.

The British Ministry of Defense called the US for assistance after spotting a suspected Russian submarine last week. The submarine may have been trying to track one of Britain's Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. 

News of these two additional submarine infiltrations follows a general Russian trend of pushing the boundaries of its neighbors' territorial sovereignty following the crisis in Ukraine. 

Between March and November 2014, Moscow and its opponents had 40 close military encounters due to Russian aerial incursions into Western airspace. Of those 40 encounters, 11 were classified as "serious incidents with escalation risk" by the European Leadership Network. 

SEE ALSO: Here are 2 ways Russia's provocative stunts could lead to war

Join the conversation about this story »

A US Navy nuclear submarine is one of the most mysterious places a member of the military could serve.

Armed with advanced technology and enough firepower to destroy civilizations, it’s no wonder that every sailor aboard these vessels must have a secret clearance, or better.

WATM scoured the Navy's official website and asked the sailors of the Submarine Bubblehead Brotherhood for personal pictures to come up with these 27 incredible photos of life under the sea.

Deployment starts with departing from home port …

Submarine life is cramped …

Hatches are smaller than on surface vessels …

Bubbleheads — Navyspeak— for submariners – go without sunlight for days at a time.

Sailors as young as 18 drive the ship …

Seriously, even midshipmen get a turn …

There are no windows on a submarine; sonar technology is the eyes and ears of the crew.

Submarines have some of the same amenities as surface ships …

… but everything in a submarine is modified to limit noise. These are rubber shock absorbers under the treadmill …

It pays to keep the cook happy …

Submarine chow is some of the best in the Navy …

Swim calls on a submarine are awesome, sailors use the sail planes as a diving board ...

After months in the ocean depths, a little vitamin D could be just what the doctor ordered ...

This is what a steel beach picnic looks like on a submarine ...

Submarines sometimes break through the ice to surface on the North Pole.

Santa wasn’t around for this visit, but these polar bears gave a big welcome ...

But nothing beats a homecoming ...

SEE ALSO: he Pentagon Doesn't Know How It's Going To Fund Its Next Generation Of Submarines

Join the conversation about this story »

Since I wrote my previous post for Oxford Analytica several months ago, additional information has come out about what is contained in Russia’s shipbuilding program — which reportedly includes a naval development plan going out to 2050.

Today, Konstantin Bogdanov at Lenta.ru has published a major update on these plans. The following is based on his article and on conversations with other Russian naval experts.

Strategic nuclear deterrence will remain the number one mission of the Russian Navy. As the three remaining Delta IIIs will be retired in the next five years and the six Delta IVs in the 2020s, Russia expects to replace them with a total of 12 Borei SSBNs.

Eight are already contracted to be built in the next few years, with another four expected to be ordered in the next decade. The new subs are likely to be an updated version of the current Borei II subclass, with improved electronics and other updated components. The navy plans to locate six in the Northern Fleet and six in the Pacific Fleet.

There has been a great deal of controversy over the Yasen SSGN class, which was initially expected to replace both Oscar class SSGNs and various classes of smaller multi-purpose SSNs. Eight have been ordered so far and there is some debate on whether an additional four Yasen subs will be ordered for construction after 2020.

This will depend on whether the cost of serial production can be brought down and on the success of the just started modernization of Oscar class SSGNs (which is expected to extend these subs’ lifespan by 15-20 years). The goal is to have a total of 12 SSGNs, again with six each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

However, there is now a plan to develop a new multi-purpose nuclear submarine class, with the goal of building something cheaper and smaller than the Yasen class. This would be an attack submarine with decreased missile armament, comparable to the American Virginia class.

The navy hopes to begin construction of these subs as early as 2016, with the goal of building a total of 16-18 of them, with at least 15 completed by 2035. These submarines would be armed with 16 (4×4) VLS, 4-6 torpedo tubes, updated Kalibr missiles and Tsirkon missiles (which will replace Oniks).

As far as diesel submarines, no more Improved Kilo class submarines will be built after the current contract of six for the Black Sea Fleet is completed. Instead the navy is planning to order a new class of diesel-electric submarines that will in essence be a modernized version of the Lada class, with air-independent propulsion.

The goal is to build 14-18 of these subs over a 15 year period, though mainly in the 2020s. These subs will have armaments analogous to the Lada class, though some may be optimized for special operations, with airlocks for swimmers. They will be build primarily at Admiralty Shipyards, though Krasnoe Sormovo may also be involved in the project. The second and third Lada hulls will also be completed, most likely in 2017.

Surface ships

The community of Russian naval experts has in recent months yet again been consumed by the question of whether the navy should build aircraft carriers and, if so, what kind? Bogdanov writes that construction of a carrier could begin no earlier than 2020 and would carry substantial financial and technical risks.

The prospective carrier would be a descendant of the never finished Ulianovsk class aircraft carrier, with a deadweight of 65,000-80,000 tons and could carry 55-60 aircraft. The planes would probably be a naval version of the T-50 fifth generation fighter plane, as well as some long-range AWACS aircraft that would be more effective than existing Ka-31 helicopters. The prospective carrier would have air defense and ASW capabilities, but no strike armaments of its own.

Russian experts have noted that Russian shipyards could build a 60,000-70,000 ton carrier in 4-5 years, but could have difficulties if the military decides to build a larger supercarrier. One problem is the lack of a suitably large drydock, as Soviet carriers were built at Nikolayev, Ukraine. A small carrier (less than 60,000 tons) could be built at Baltiiskii Zavod, but the military does not want such a design.

If the navy wants to avoid the delays that would come from having to build new construction facilities,  one option that has been floated for building a large carrier is to build two halves at Baltiiskii Zavod and the Vyborg shipyard, and then connect them afloat at Sevmash.

The navy is likely to build eight more Admiral Gorshkov class frigates, in addition to the eight already under contract, as well as a total of 20 corvettes of various versions. Three Admiral Grigorovich class frigates may also be built, in addition to the six currently under construction for the Black Sea Fleet. All of these ships are being armed with Oniks anti-ship missiles and Kalibr multi-purpose missiles, which can both be fired through universal vertical launch systems.

The main question here is the extent to which the program for construction of these ships will be delayed due to the shift in turbine production that has resulted from the end of military industrial cooperation between Russia and Ukraine. Most Russian experts believe that two years will be sufficient to set up production of turbines in Russia, though the actual extent of the delay is likely to be clear by the middle of this year. In any case, Russia is believed to have already received turbines for the first four ships of each of these classes.

The navy is planning to begin production of large destroyers (15,000 tons) that some consider to be essentially missile cruisers in all but name. It has not been decided whether these ships will have nuclear or gas turbine propulsion systems.

They will have a wide range of both offensive and defense armaments, including Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missiles and a naval version of the S-500 long-range air defense system, both of which are expected to be ready by the mid-2020s. The hope is to have the first ship of this class ready by 2023-25 and to eventually build a total of at least 12 (though other analysts believe that construction of these destroyers won’t begin before 2023).

A number of modernization projects are also in the works. Cruiser modernization is now under way, with the Admiral Nakhimov Kirov class cruiser scheduled to be ready for active duty in 2018 after the replacement of all of its armaments and electronic components. The Peter the Great cruiser may be modernized in a similar fashion once the Nakhimov’s refit is complete.

Two or three Slava class cruisers will also be modernized in the next few years. Five to seven Udaloy class destroyers may also be modernized, with new armaments and universal vertical launch systems, while the largely useless Sovremennyi class destroyers will finally be retired as replacing their defective propulsion systems is considered unrealistic.

Regardless of the final resolution of the saga with the procurement of Mistral class amphibious ships from France, the navy is also planning to replace all existing amphibious ships with new classes. Specifically, it plans to build a new LPD type amphibious ship, similar to the Dutch Rotterdam class with a displacement of 14-16,000 tons and able to carry 500-600 naval infantry, six helicopters, and various amphibious vehicles. The goal is to have 2-3 such ships each in the Northern and Pacific Fleets, with construction to start late in this decade.

In addition, progress is being made in the long-running construction saga of the Ivan Gren amphibious ship, with the lead ship expected to be commissioned in 2015 after more than ten years of construction. Previous delays were caused by irregular financing and frequent changes in design specifications.

With the latter now pretty much set, subsequent ships can be expected to be built much faster as long as the financing is available. The goal is to have eight such ships, four each in the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets.

A brief assessment

As always with Russian military construction plans, this program sounds quite grandiose. And if it is fully implemented, the Russian navy will be back as a full-fledged oceangoing force by the end of the next decade.

However, it seems to me that given their current capacities Russian shipyards will not be able to carry out the entire plan in the expected timelines. Furthermore, there is a big question over the ability of the Russian state to finance such a program given the economic difficulties that it is likely to face in the next several years.

Over the last several years, we have seen repeated delays with the construction of new ship types even when the economic situation was much more positive and the ships being built much smaller and simpler than destroyers and aircraft carriers.

The recently-completed long-running saga with the modernization of the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy shows the problems that Russia may face as it starts to build larger and more complex ships.

Nevertheless, it is clear that while the Russian Navy has resigned itself to focus on strategic deterrence and coastal defense missions in the short and medium terms, it still has ambitions of restoring its blue water navy in the long term.

Join the conversation about this story »

After a Chinese People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLA-N) submarine docked twice in Colombo, Sri Lanka last year, there is anxiety among Indian analysts of a renewed thrust by China for a permanent military presence in the Indian Ocean.

New Delhi’s policy and strategic circles are abuzz with rumors of a likely Chinese naval base in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

Following reports of increased Chinese naval activity off India’s Southern maritime frontiers, New Delhi has even revived the proposal for an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace, in the hope that it would discourage Beijing from adopting a proactive maritime policy in the Indian Ocean.

Chinese maritime forays in the IOR aren’t a new phenomenon. For some time Beijing has been trying to expand its strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean.

The increasing frequency of Chinese anti-piracy deployments and naval exercises, as well as growing investments in maritime infrastructure projects have burnished China’s image as a maritime player in the region. Yet, thus far, it seemed unlikely China had plans for establishing naval bases.

The recent spurt in Chinese naval exercises in the Indian Ocean, however, has led to whispers of a more pre-emptive PLA-N strategy. A string of naval deployments — including one with the 20,000-ton amphibious ship, the Chengbaishan, and another involving a nuclear submarine – has provided evidence that Beijing has its sights set on dominating the Indian Ocean.

As a consequence, Chinese maritime basing in the Indian Ocean is no longer a strategic contingency to be taken lightly.

The first in a set of revealing events is the recent docking of a Chinese submarine at Colombo. While there was much discussion of the geopolitical implications of the visit, key operational details escaped critical analysis.

It is noteworthy, for instance, that the Chinese submarine did not dock at the Sri Lanka Port Authority (SLPA) berths in Colombo — mandated to accommodate military vessels — but at the Colombo South Container Terminal (CSCT), a deep-water facility built, controlled and run by a Chinese company, the China Merchants Holdings (International).

The CSCT may be well-suited for submarine dockings but it is also a “Chinese enclave” within a Sri Lankan-administered harbor. The presence of the Chinese submarine at the CSCT constituted a violation of protocol. But Sri Lankan authorities were reluctant to describe it as such.

The SLPA chairman’s explanation that the submarine needed the extra-depth atthe CSCT seemed implausible considering that the Ming-class diesel-electric’s limited draft rendered it apt for berthing at any of the available SLPA facilities.

Moreover, as commentators pointed out, the submarine visit was preceded by the docking of two other Chinese naval vessels at CSCT that Colombo tried hard to keep out of the media glare. This strengthens Indian suspicions that PLA-N assets are being allowed privileged access to Sri Lankan ports funded by Chinese investments.

Colombo is the not the only Sri Lankan port with an exclusively Chinese facility. China also has a controlling stake at Hambantota port, where according to media reports Sri Lanka has agreed to grant Chinese state-owned companies operating rights to four berths in exchange for an easing of loan conditions.

Apparently, Colombo handed over control of the port to China without issuing a commercial tender, a fact that took many in the shipping industry by surprise.

Similarly, in Maldives, the Ihavandhippolhu Integrated Development Project, or iHavan, reportedly rides on huge concessional loans and aid financing from China. The loans, apparently, have been awarded at such a high rate of interest that Male is almost certain to default unless it is offered some kind of unilateral waiver.

Yet, it is exactly what Beijing is expected to do, as part of a now-established formula of relaxing loan conditions in exchange for control over maritime projects it helps finance.

This raises troubling questions about the motive behind China’s Maritime Silk Route, an umbrella term referring to maritime infrastructure projects in the Indo-Pacific region. Beijing denies that the plan is a rebranding exercise for an existing “string of pearls” strategy aimed at encircling India.

Still, with an impending $40 billion dollar investment plan, it seems highly unlikely China would have assumed responsibility for the onerous projects without the promise of future strategic gains.

Beijing has been in fire-fighting mode ever since a news report appeared in the Namibian in November 2014 alleging the existence of Chinese plan for naval bases in the Indo-Pacific region and the west coast of Africa.

A Chinese government spokesperson claimed the report borrowed liberally from a commentary in a Chinese state-controlled news portal in February 2013 that advised the PLAN to build overseas bases and protect its energy line in the Indian Ocean. There is some truth to this contention.

What is more pertinent, however, is that the original article not only outlined a blueprint for the establishment of 18 Chinese “Overseas Strategic Support Bases” in the IOR, but also recommended three specific categories of such facilities: fueling and material supply bases for peacetime use (Djibouti, Aden, and Salalah); relatively fixed supply bases for warship berthing, fixed-wing reconnaissance aircraft and the naval staff ashore rest (Seychelles); and fully functional centers for replenishment, rest and large warship weapons maintenance (Gwadar in Pakistan).

Describing the precise nature and functions of the future bases, the commentary suggested a methodology for acquiring the facilities. Access to fixed supply bases – as being planned in Seychelles – it said, could be gained by signing short-term or medium-term agreements, while the “fully functional centers” in Pakistan and other IOR states needed medium-and long-term MoUs.

It is the possibility of Chinese dual-use bases in the IOR that deserves the most attention. A commercial facility with low-level logistical support capability, a dual-use base is a risk-free way of establishing maritime presence in a region of interest.

In 2013, Beijing is said to have expressed an interest in such a facility at Gwadar, thus validating claims that China may be looking for a low-level military presence in the IOR. Modern dual-use maritime facilities aren’t completely benign assets.

As a recent US National Defense University report pointed out, a powerful nation like China has the ability to upgrade a commercial port to support military operations in conflict scenarios and even use it as a cover for construction of secret munitions stockpiles and other port infrastructure.

It is possible, therefore, that Beijing might be contemplating agreements that offer it the right to properly militarize dual-use facilities in times of conflict.

A “dual-use” base is also what China appears to be pursuing in Seychelles. In 2011, it was widely reported that Seychelles has offered China maritime basing for its ships deployed to the Gulf of Aden and the West Indian Ocean to combat piracy.

While Beijing was quick to deny the existence of such a plan, it did not exclude the possibility of an overseas supply point, fanning fears that it desired a more permanent military presence in the IOR.

China’s pitch for benign security in the Indian Ocean appears to be an attempt to convince Indian Ocean states of the need for Chinese support and security arrangements.

It is critical for the PLA-N to have a system of assured logistics, refueling, repair and replenish facilities in the Indian Ocean that would enable sustain operations over a prolonged period.

A sustained “maritime presence” in the Indian Ocean Region, however, is all Beijing needs to strategically dominate the region. The ready availability of PLA-N assets for maritime security tasks has the potential to take the regional security initiative away from India.

Not only would a Chinese naval presence in the IOR challenge the Indian Navy’s primacy as a net-security provider, it would also erode India’s strategic influence in the region.

A permanent PLA-N presence in the IOR without conventional “naval bases” could be a strategic master-stroke by Beijing, leaving New Delhi all at sea.

SEE ALSO: Photos show a Chinese military buildup near a disputed island chain

Join the conversation about this story »

Russia's submarine fleet is one of the most capable in the world, perhaps second only to that of the United States.

The submarine fleet is mostly a holdover from the days of the Cold War. Nuclear-armed Soviet and US submarines would pursue each other across the world's oceans and act as second-strike options in the event of all-out nuclear war. 

Although Russia's submarine fleet had aged and shrunk since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russian President Vladimir Putin has grand plans to modernize the fleet through the purchase of additional submarines coupled along the development and acquisition of new models.

Below is an infographic by St. Petersburg, Russia-based designer Anton Egorov depicting the submarines that Russia currently operates, along with their maximum depth: 

Russia's submarine fleet is divided into three broad categories: diesel-electric powered submarines, nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, and nuclear-powered attack submarines. Each variation has its own unique purpose and is further sub-divided into varying models. 

Russia's diesel-electric submarine fleet is the least technologically advanced segment of the fleet and also the cheapest to acquire and maintain. These submarines, which are smaller and slower and have a shorter range than their nuclear counterparts, are limited in their total operational depth and are used for attacking surface ships and merchant vessels. 

Russia plans on adding an additional six Kilo-class submarines to the Black Sea Fleet, along with 14 to 18 diesel-electric submarines similar to Lada-class subs over the next fifteen years. 

Nuclear-powered ballistic subs form the nuclear deterrent backbone of the Russian fleet. These subs are faster than diesel-electric submarines, larger, and can dive to significantly deeper depths. These subs carry ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. 

The final class of submarine in the fleet are nuclear-powered attack subs. These submarines are generally the fastest in the fleet and are usually slightly smaller than ballistic missile subs, although they can usually operate at lower depths. These subs are used to hunt ballistic missile submarines as well as enemy ships. In some cases, the subs can be armed with vertical-launch tubes to target land-based targets. 

Russia plans to replace its Delta III and Delta IV-class subs with Borei II submarines in the coming years. The Oscar II-class sub will be replaced with the entirely new Yasen submarine class after 2020. 

SEE ALSO: This chart shows all of the versions of Russia's fifth-generation fighter jet

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Navy just unveiled a robot that can walk through fire

A new study says emerging submarine detection technologies, computer processing power and platforms such as underwater drones could quickly erode the US military’s global undersea dominance and ability to operate in high-threat areas such as locations near enemy coastlines.

The US military relies upon submarines and undersea technological superiority for critical underwater intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which place assets near the surface fleet or coastline of a potential adversary.

In coming years, the technological margin of difference separating the US from potential rivals is expected to get much smaller, requiring the US the re-think the role of manned submarines and prioritize innovation in the realm of undersea warfare, according to a January report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments titled “The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare.”

“America’s superiority in undersea warfare results from decades of research and development, operations, and training.

It is, however, far from assured. US submarines are the world’s quietest, but new detection techniques are emerging that don’t rely on the noise a submarine makes, and may make traditional manned submarine operations far more risky in the future.

America’s competitors are likely pursuing these technologies even while expanding their own undersea forces,” the report states.

Navy officials told Military​.com the service was doing all that it could to retain its undersea technological advantage.

The US has enjoyed an undersea technological advantage because it has quieter submarines that are more difficult to detect — combined with advanced sonar technology designed to find enemy submarines, the report’s author told Military​.com

“At the end of WWII we did not have an undersea advantage. The Germans had developed submarines with snorkels and the US was searching for how they would deal with them. The new subs could avoid radar detection and were quiet when using their batteries.

Then, nuclear submarines came along. Passive sonar worked really well against them because they make noise continuously.

Passive sonar works well against nuclear submarines and is less effective against diesels,” said Bryan Clark, the study’s author and senior fellow at CSBA.

Submarines are built to be quieter and less detectable through special engineering techniques which reduce the resonance of sound from the propeller and place insulation and sound-absorbing mounts in parts of the boat which radiate sound, Clark explained.

“This requires high-end manufacturing techniques. You engineer every component on the ship to be quiet and engineer them such that the noise does not reach the hull,” he said.

In the report, Clark details some increasingly available technologies expected to change the equation regarding US undersea technological supremacy. They include increased use of lower frequency active sonar and non-acoustic methods of detecting submarine wakes at short ranges.

In particular, Clark cites a technique of bouncing laser light or light-emitting-diodes off of a submarine hull to detect its presence.

“The physics behind most of these alternative techniques has been known for decades, but was not exploited because computer processors were too slow to run the detailed models needed to see small changes in the environment caused by a quiet submarine.

Today, ‘big dat’” processing enables advanced navies to run sophisticated oceanographic models in real time to exploit these detection techniques,” Clark writes.

If US attack submarines, SSNs, or nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, SSBNs, equipped with the latest in quieting technology are unable to elude detection by potential adversaries – then strategists and planners might need to re-examine their roles and missions, the report suggests.

“In the last 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in computer processing power and a miniaturization of computer processing.

It used to be that some of these technologies could not be used in real-time.

The ability to process and use information in real-time was not there. Processing power is now small enough and powerful enough to fit onto a platform,” Clark told Military​.com

As a result, Clark foresees a much greater use of low-frequency active sonar detection, a technology which can successfully detect submarines at greater distances than most current systems.

“Most hull-mounted sonars are medium band transmitting 1,000 to 10,000 hertz (Hz), whereas low frequency active sonar is less than 1,000 Hz. At lower frequencies you get longer ranges. At high frequency you get good resolution.

At really high frequency you can get almost photographic like images,” Clark explained. With longer range frequencies, sonar systems can have greater success searching multiple areas concurrently, he explained.

Underwater Drones

In addition, the report points out that unmanned underwater vehicles, or UUVs, will increasingly be used for “covert coastal surveillance and mining” previously reserved for manned submarines.

“Advances in battery and fuel cell technology are expected to enable non-nuclear submarines, UUVs and other undersea systems to operate for months submerged and power a growing number of sensors and other payloads.

For example, the newest Japanese Soryu–class submarines will use lithium-ion batteries instead of air-independent engines for power when submerged,” Clark writes.

The same improvements that are making submarine detection easier will also likely enable a new generation of sophisticated counter-detection technologies and techniques, the report says.

“Against passive sonar, a submarine or UUV could emit sound to overcome its own radiated noise using a technique similar to that used in noise canceling headphones.

Against active sonars, undersea platforms could — by themselves or in concert with UUVs and stationary or floating systems — conduct acoustic jamming similar to that done by electronic warfare systems against radar,” the report states.

Clark also sees a rapidly increasing ability for UUVs and manned submarines to work in tandem.

For instance, he explains how the Navy’s now-in-development Compact Very Lightweight Torpedo, or CVLWT, could be fired from UUVs as an offensive weapon.

The CVLWT is less than one-third of the size of the smallest torpedo currently operated by the Navy.

“Although the CVLWT has a short range, large UUVs could carry it as an offensive weapon and exploit their small size and signature to maneuver the torpedo close to a target,” Clark added.

“Similarly, small UAVs such as the Navy’s Experimental Fuel Cell UAV have relatively short endurance but can be launched by submarines or UUVs close to adversary coasts. They can take advantage of continued miniaturization in electro-optical, infrared and radar sensors to conduct surveillance or electronic warfare missions.”

Undersea communication technology is rapidly changing as well, potentially allowing submarines to remain somewhat stealthy while communicating with other submarines and surface forces.

“Acoustic communications are increasingly able to operate over operationally relevant distances, while at shorter ranges LEDs and lasers could provide greater bandwidth. And new floating or towed radio transceivers enable submerged platforms to communicate with forces above the surface without risking detection,” Clark writes.

Clark recommends the Navy consider the prospect of thinking about manned submarines as an undersea equivalent to aircraft carriers – meaning they could project power, provide support and send forth smaller UUVs for sensing and attack missions.

SEE ALSO: The US military's helicopter fleet is in desperate need of modernization

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Just Used A Laser Weapon System On A Navy Ship For The First Time

The latest underwater vehicle from the Netherlands-based submersible manufacturer U-Boat Worx, the HP Sport Sub 2, is also its most compact to date, requiring a footprint of just 71 square feet of storage space and weighing only 4,850 pounds—nearly 3,000 pounds less than the company’s next smallest sub.

Because of its compact size, the sub can easily fit in the tender garage of nearly any yacht longer than 100 feet without a requiring a refit.

It is also light enough to be launched and recovered with existing tender cranes.

The cockpit of the HP Sport Sub 2 can accommodate the pilot and one passenger, with its acrylic dome allowing for nearly 360-degree views of the sub’s surroundings.

An array of six thrusters provides vertical and horizontal propulsion, controlled by a user-friendly interface that is intuitive enough for even an untrained passenger to take a turn behind the controls. The thrusters allow the craft to travel at up to 3 knots on the surface and 2 knots underwater, though an upgraded propulsion system is available that allows the sub to reach 5 knots on the surface and 3 knots underwater.

The HP Sport Sub 2 is capable of descending as far as 330 feet, for trips that can last up to six hours. In case of an emergency, the craft is equipped with life-support systems that can operate for up to 96 hours.

The HP Sport Sub 2 is priced from $1.35 million, which includes an operator training course and certification. U-Boat Worx plans to begin deliveries in the fall.

SEE ALSO: Elon Musk: We have a 'secret weapon' to stoke demand

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This drivable car was 3D printed in 44 hours

North Korea conducted the first flight test of a new submarine-launched ballistic missile last month, defense officials said this week.

The flight test of what the Pentagon is calling the KN-11 missile took place Jan. 23 off the coast of North Korea from a sea-based platform — not a submarine — located off the coast of the communist state, said officials familiar with reports of the flight test.

U.S. intelligence ships and aircraft monitored the test and tracked the successful missile firing.

Additional details of the flight test could not be learned. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the test, citing the sensitivity of information about North Korea’s SLBM program.

The flight test followed a land-based ejection test of the KN-11 in November from a static launcher located at the North’s Sinpo South Shipyard in November. Sinpo is a port city on North Korea’s southeastern coast about 100 miles from the Demilitarized Zone separating North Korea from rival South Korea.

The flight test is being viewed by US intelligence analysts as a significant step forward for Pyongyang’s submarine-launched ballistic missile program. The new program was first disclosed by the Washington Free Beacon Aug. 26.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the House Armed Services Committee Feb. 3 that North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs “pose a serious threat to the U.S. and regional allies.”

“Pyongyang maintains that nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities are essential to ensure its sovereignty,” Stewart said in a prepared statement.

“Because of its conventional military deficiencies, the DPRK [North Korea] also has concentrated on improving its deterrence capabilities, especially its nuclear technology and ballistic missile forces.”

Stewart added that DIA is concerned North Korea will conduct a fourth underground nuclear test in the future.

The DIA director’s testimony made no mention of the SLBM program. But he said: “Pyongyang also is making efforts to expand and modernize its deployed missile forces consisting of close-, short-, medium-, and intermediate-range systems.”

“It seeks to develop longer-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the United States and continues efforts to bring its KN-08 road-mobile ICBM to operational capacity.

Other analysts assess the SLBM missile will be developed as a nuclear delivery system for Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. A submarine-launched nuclear missile would add a more-difficult target to U.S. regional deterrence and missile defenses.

Since the SLBM program was disclosed last year, South Korea’s government has confirmed the program.

Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the use of a floating launch platform indicates the KN-11 could be launched from a military or commercial ship as well as from a submarine.

Platform test launches also indicate that the weapon is in an early stage of development and is not ready to be launched from a submerged submarine.

“For Pyongyang, using the KN-11 from ships as well as submarines rapidly increases the number of potential launch platforms, as it also complicates US and allied efforts to monitor a new North Korean missile threat,” Fisher said.

“Firing the KN-11 from a floating platform is still useful, as it would go far to help verify whether the missile’s guidance system is able to compensate very quickly for wave motion in order to achieve the desired trajectory for the greatest accuracy.”

As for why Pyongyang is building the underwater missile, Fisher said: “The advent of the KN-11 offers North Korea the means to launch missile strikes against U.S. forces in Japan or against South Korea and Japanese targets, from multiple directions, from land bases, and from the sea.”

Fisher said in response to the missile that the Pentagon should urgently build up additional missile defenses and revive US sea-based tactical nuclear arms in the region to bolster deterrence.

The Pentagon’s retirement of submarine-launched Tomahawk missile in 2010 was a “major mistake,” he said.

Bruce E. Bechtol, a North Korea specialist, said the major threat from any North Korean ballistic missile is whether the weapon is mobile — thus more difficult to target — and whether it can hit U.S. cities and carry a nuclear warhead.

US intelligence agencies suspect North Korea in 2013 had developed a small nuclear warhead for delivery on long-range missiles after its third nuclear test.

“The North Koreans appear to be moving toward at least two of the three key parts of the threat a missile could pose to the United States,” said Bechtol, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official currently at Angelo State University.

“If and when they are able to launch the SLBM from a submarine, it means a platform that is mobile enough that it would likely be difficult for US missile defenses to track,” he said. “The fact that the submarine could move to within just a few miles of American coastlines such as Alaska, Hawaii, or the west coast of the United States, means they could meet the second part of the missile threat to the US.”

North Korea probably obtained small nuclear warhead know-how from the Pakistani nuclear supplier group headed by A.Q. Khan.

“The fact that the North Koreans have test-launched this missile — even though it was not from a submarine — means that the DPRK is advancing their SLBM program,” Bechtol said. “This is a threat — a direct threat — to the United States that should be taken seriously if it comes to fruition.”

A US think tank, 38 North, last year revealed satellite photos of the Sinpo development site that included a land-based missile test stand and a Soviet-era submarine capable of launching missile from its conning tower.

On Jan. 8, 38 North revealed additional satellite photos showing what it calls the Sinpo-class missile submarine with one or two missile launch tubes.

“In addition, imagery over the past six months indicates that North Korea has been upgrading facilities at the Sinpo South Shipyard in preparation for a significant naval construction program, possibly related to submarine development,” 38 North stated in an article written by North Korea expert Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.

“The presence of vertical launch tubes, if confirmed by additional evidence, would signal a significant advance in North Korean naval construction capabilities and could represent an embryonic step towards expanding Pyongyang’s missile threat to South Korea, Japan and US bases in East Asia,” Bermudez wrote.

“It would also complicate regional missile defense planning, deployment, and operations,” he added. “North Korean missile-carrying submarines could be challenging to locate and track, would be mobile assets with the capability to attack from any direction, and would be able to operate at significant distances from the Korean peninsula.”

North Korea obtained from Russia SS-N-6 submarine-launched ballistic missiles several years ago. The missile was adapted to North Korea’s Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile.

North Korea also has six KN-08 road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles that were developed with launchers supplied by China.

The submarine North Korea plans to deploy the KN-11 on is not known.

North Korea obtained several decommissioned Soviet-era Golf II ballistic-missile submarines in the early 1990s.

Pyongyang may seek to copy or adapt the design of the Golf II for an indigenous missile submarine.

In another development, North Korea’s state-run news media reported Feb. 7 that the country’s military conducted a test firing of a precision-guided anti-ship cruise missile.

In addition, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un recently toured several military units and urged troops to be fully prepared for combat.

“Since November when the North began to stage winter drills, Kim has visited military units 10 times. While leading some aggressive exercises, he has encouraged the military to complete their readiness this year to fight,” South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo told legislators in Seoul, according to the semi-official Yonhap news agency Feb. 7.

Earlier this month South Korea announced the creation of an upgraded submarine command structure for its fleet of submarines. The command will operate South Korea’s 13 submarines that previously were subordinated to a surface fleet.

Some 20 U.S. Marines and 200 South Korean Marines conducted joint maritime infiltration exercises near the South’s border islands with North Korea on Feb. 10.

SEE ALSO: New Kim Jong Un golf game makes it impossible to get anything but a hole in one

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India's government has cleared a $8 billion plan to build the country's most advanced warships, defense sources said, just months after ordering new submarines to close the gap with the Chinese navy in the Indian Ocean.

Since taking over last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has signaled his resolve to build a strong military after years of neglect that military planners say has left India unable to fight a two-front war against China and Pakistan.

India's navy has been rattled in recent months after Chinese submarines docked in Sri Lanka, just off its southern coast, underlining the growing reach of the Chinese navy after years of staying closer to its shores.

Modi summoned a meeting of the cabinet committee on security on Monday to approve construction of seven frigates equipped with stealth features to avoid easy detection, a defense ministry source said.

The Times of India said the government had also approved six nuclear-powered submarines for a further $8 billion. The defense source said he had no knowledge of the nuclear submarine program, which traditionally has been kept under wraps.

The frigates in a program called Project-17A will be built at government shipyards in Mumbai and Kolkata, in a boost for Modi's Make in India campaign to build a domestic defense industrial base and reduce dependence on expensive imports that have made India the world's biggest arms market.

"Project 17-A was awaiting cabinet clearance since 2012," the source said, adding the Modi government was moving quickly on a project seen as of critical national importance.

The source said the government expects to sign a contract with the shipyards within the month. Another source in the navy confirmed the cabinet clearance but said it would take a decade or even longer for all the ships to be built, even if the shipyards were to start construction immediately.

China's naval forays in the Indian Ocean have exposed the Indian navy's weak undersea defenses, which are down to 13 ageing diesel-electric submarines after a string of accidents including one in 2013 in which 18 sailors were killed.

In October, Modi's administration approved fast-tracking the tender process to build six submarines in collaboration with a foreign builder.

"This government is showing signs of urgency, but there is a lot of ground to be covered," said former vice admiral Arun Kumar Singh. "All our programs are running way behind schedule and with a huge amount of cost over-runs."

(Editing by Tom Heneghan)

SEE ALSO: Here's the Chinese military's real corruption problem

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch 2 armed gangs fight on a busy road in China

BENGALURU, India (Reuters) - India's air force risks a major capability gap opening up with China and Pakistan without new western warplanes or if local defense contractors can't produce what the military needs in a timely manner.

A 2012 agreement to buy 126 Rafale fighters from France's Dassault Aviation has stalled due to a dispute over the assembly of the aircraft in India.

India's first homegrown fighter, the Tejas light combat aircraft, will finally be delivered next month, 30 years after it was conceived. But senior air force officers privately said they were unimpressed, with one former officer, an ex-fighter pilot, saying the plane was "so late it is obsolete".

While the navy is undergoing an accelerated modernization drive, experts said India was vulnerable in the skies because of its reliance on a disparate fleet of aging Russian-made MiG and French Mirage fighters, along with more modern Russian Sukhoi Su-30s. Half of India's fighters are due to retire beginning this year until 2024.

"It could lead to humiliation at the hands of our neighbors," AK Sachdev, a retired air force officer, wrote last year in the Indian Defence Review journal.

A coordinated attack by China and arch-rival Pakistan could stretch the Indian military, he added. It's a scenario defense strategists in New Delhi have been asked to plan for, Indian air force sources say, although experts say such an event is highly unlikely to happen.

India's ties with China are still hamstrung by a dispute over their Himalayan border that led to war in 1962. New Delhi is also wary of China's expanding naval presence in the Indian Ocean and its close relations with Pakistan.

Multiple crashes

India's air force has 34 operational squadrons, down from 39 earlier this decade and below the government approved strength of 42, a parliamentary committee said in December.

More than half of India's MiGs have crashed in recent decades, the then defense minister said in 2012.

At the same time, China is flying locally built fourth-generation J-10 fighters and is testing two fifth-generation stealth fighter jets.

Pakistan is upgrading its Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters as well as using JF-17 warplanes developed with China. It is also in talks to buy J-10s, according to Pakistani and Chinese industry sources.

India would still win a war against Pakistan because of the sheer size of its air force, but the slow modernization means victory would come with heavy casualties, said Richard Aboulafia, Washington D.C.-based vice president of analysis at the Teal Group, an aerospace and defense think tank.

To keep up, India is buying more Su-30s and upgrading other existing fighters.

"We do need to increase our defense preparedness," Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the opening ceremony of the Aero India airshow in the city of Bengaluru on Wednesday.

Criticism of the Tejas was unfounded, said K. Tamilmani, a senior official at the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), a defense ministry agency which designed and developed the plane.

"The Tejas has a safety record that is unbeaten," Tamilmani told Reuters by telephone, adding it would provide a platform to develop more advanced fighters in the years ahead. 

Impasse over rafale jets

The Rafale fighters are expected to replace some of India's MiGs and Mirage jets.

But India is insisting Dassault take full responsibility for production of the aircraft at a state-run facility in Bengaluru, Indian defense ministry officials have said.

France has said it will help Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd stick to delivery schedules, but that it cannot give guarantees for production of the aircraft made at a facility over which it has no administrative or expert control.

India would decide on the fate of the deal only after March, when a defense ministry committee delivers a report on the issue, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said at the airshow.

Cancellation would be "disastrous", said Deba Mohanty, chairman at Indicia Research & Advisory, a New Delhi-based defense consulting firm.

"It's a really tricky situation in which the supplier is unhappy, the bureaucrats are unhappy and the end user is disappointed," said Mohanty.

India has successfully introduced Boeing's C-17 cargo plane and P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft and Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport, all bought directly, over the last few years.

That shows off-the shelf solutions work best, experts said.

However, under the Modi administration's "Make in India" program, there is an emphasis on building a domestic defense industrial base to cut dependence on foreign supplies that have made India the world's biggest arms importer.

The DRDO for example is working on the Tejas Mark II, a slightly larger plane than the original, which will feature more powerful engines, better radars and upgraded avionics.

Local trainer jets, light transport aircraft and helicopter programs are also under way.

"People who fly planes want the best value for money, which means off-the-shelf," said Aboulafia. "People who want jobs and technology development schemes have different priorities. That's why the two groups don't like each other much."

(Editing by Dean Yates)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

As Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott faced a leadership crisis last week, the policy ground shifted underneath Japan’s defense and security policy-makers.

The Feb. 9 announcement by Defense Minister Kevin Andrews that Australia’s procurement of submarines will be subject to a “competitive evaluation process” intensified those political reverberations in Tokyo.

While Australia is feasting on a domestic political spectacle, Japan is contemplating the ruination of a carefully calibrated yet contentious strategy in Japan’s defense and security policymaking circles.

The joint development of Australia’s next generation of submarines has acquired both symbolic and substantive significance for Japan’s precedent-breaking cadre of security policymakers.

The events of the last two weeks could undermine Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s government’s objective to catapult Japanese defense thinking into a new postwar paradigm of limited autonomy and unqualified legitimacy for Japan as a global defense actor.

In both Australia and Japan, close security ties, which have been expanding and consolidating since the 2007 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation, have become the personal crusades of both Prime Ministers Abbott and Abe.

The security cooperation builds on the 2014 Economic Partnership Agreement and represents the future of the bilateral relationship as both leaders see it.

The submarine collaboration that has been mooted by the press, explored by bureaucracies, and flagged by ministers in both countries represents the good faith commitment by both leaders to this shared vision.

Political complications abound: in Australia, great political damage threatens if the Adelaide shipbuilding industry is overlooked or excluded (and this threat crosses the political divide); in Japan doubts exist as to the wisdom of sharing the jewels of Japan’s defense technology – the sophisticated silence of the Soryu-class submarines and the alchemy of its steel hull – even with such a firm friend as Australia.

For Japan, the symbolic significance of collaborating on a submarine lies in the fact that Australia is not the United States. Australia is considered to be a benign, reliable, and well-disposed partner that has moved beyond the negative past of WWII atrocities and into a positive future-focused friendship.

It is the template for how Japan wants its postwar foreign relations to be. Importantly, Australia’s status as a democracy and a middle power lend a normative patina to the relationship: Abe wants to emphasize the stark contrast between democratic Japan and undemocratic China. Australia gives credibility to this signaling.

The substantive importance of a submarine deal for Japan lies in the management and strategic shepherding of rapid-fire policy change that is scheduled to unfold in 2015 – 2016.

Driven by Abe’s personal commitment and determination, the acceleration of security policy innovation in Japan was already evident in July 2014, when the Abe Cabinet passed its resolution reinterpreting the constitution to affirm Japan’s right to collective self-defense.

Abe’s expanded security policy community – including the National Security Council, the foreign and defense ministries, the National Institute of Defense Studies, and a network of security policy intellectuals and advisors – has since been working on a suite of legislation that will lend the force of law to underpin this stance.

These mutually reinforcing laws are to be submitted to the Diet in the summer session, which begins in May.

This policy trajectory was jolted into a state of urgency when the second Japanese hostage was murdered by Islamic State militants.

Abe faced a dilemma: should he capitalize on the acute popular responses to this horror to build support for his security policy agenda, or should he quarantine the hostage tragedy to ensure a smooth legislative pathway for these bills?

Reactions to the murder of Kenji Goto have exposed a chasm between opposing attitudes toward new security policy in Japan.

Those who want Japan to shed self-imposed restraints and enable Japanese forces to rescue hostages abroad want a permanent bill passed to that effect, and they want the existing Situations in the Areas Surrounding Japan Bill to be upgraded.

Those who recoil from this argue that if offering even non-military assistance to nations combating Islamic State invites such horror, Japan should abandon “proactive pacifism” altogether.

They argue further that moving closer to the US and shouldering more responsibility in the US alliance is not in the national interest in a world of global terrorism. This will complicate the renegotiation in 2015 of the guidelines governing the US-Japan alliance.

This is a nightmare scenario for Abe, who is planning a statement to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII. He wants decisively to end the postwar shackling of Japan as a normal defense actor, and he wants Japan to do so as an autonomous nation in its own right.

Being trusted by a nation such as Australia with defense procurement is a vital emblem and foundation stone for Abe’s agenda.

So ambitious is this agenda that Abe has moved to harness the current popular focus on security to announce his intention to put constitutional revision to a national referendum after the Upper House elections in mid-2016.

The Abe administration needs the security legislation to be in place, and for the electorate to deliver a two-thirds majority to his party in the Upper House, to put his cherished policy goal before a positively inclined populace.

Without Australia as a substantive partner, and without Abbott in his corner, Abe may find it more difficult to persuade even his coalition partner Komeito to sign up to the legislative agenda, let alone the Japanese voting public.

Already leery of messing with the pacifist clause of the constitution, Komeito will not risk alienating its support base before the April 2015 nation-wide local elections by openly supporting contentious security policy changes. Australia’s presence in the policy landscape would have softened the message for them, too.

For all of these reasons, when Tony Abbott suffers the pangs of leadership instability, his partner Abe Shinzo feels the sharp foreboding that a difficult, complicated, and historic lifetime ambition may be edging closer to the abyss.

Rikki Kersten (R.Kersten@murdoch.edu.au) is dean of the School of Arts at Murdoch University. She was recently a guest of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to discuss security policy with Japanese policymakers. A version of this article originally appeared in The Interpreter, the Lowy Institute blog.

SEE ALSO: Why the US needs to continue military-to-military cooperation with China

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's The Underwater Drone The Navy Will Use To Spy On Enemy Submarines

China is building some "fairly amazing submarines" and now has more diesel- and nuclear-powered vessels than the United States, a top U.S. Navy admiral told U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday, although he said their quality was inferior.

Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for capabilities and resources, told the House Armed Services Committee's seapower subcommittee that China was also expanding the geographic areas of operation for its submarines, and their length of deployment.

For instance, China had carried out three deployments in the Indian Ocean, and had kept vessels out at sea for 95 days, Mulloy said.

"We know they are out experimenting and looking at operating and clearly want to be in this world of advanced submarines," Mulloy told the committee.

U.S. military officials in recent months have grown increasingly vocal about China's military buildup and launched a major push to ensure that U.S. military technology stays ahead of rapid advances by China and Russia.

Mulloy said the quality of China's submarines was lower than those built by the United States, but the size of its undersea fleet had now surpassed that of the U.S. fleet. A spokeswoman said the U.S. Navy had 71 commissioned U.S. submarines.

U.S. submarines are built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. and General Dynamics Corp.

In its last annual report to Congress about China's military and security developments, the Pentagon said Chinahad 77 principal surface combatant ships, more than 60 submarines, 55 large and medium amphibious ships, and about 85 missile-equipped small combatants.

Mulloy did not provide details about the number of surface ships now operated by China.

He said the U.S. military did not believe China carried nuclear missiles on its submarines, but that it had been producing missiles and testing them.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; editing by Gunna Dickson)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do

China and India, the world's two most populous states, share the world's longest contested land border. The two nations also have the dubious distinction of being the largest weapons importers on earth. 

Although China and India have attempted to improve relations, the two countries remain locked in a geopolitical struggle for influence. This competition has become especially apparent in Chinese and Indian designs for the Indian Ocean. 

Both nations are aggressively seeking to expand their projected maritime power in the region, especially through the use of submarines. The following Reuters chart compares their submarine fleets. 

In terms of both quantity and technological advancement, China's submarine fleet drastically outperforms India's. Beijing has nine nuclear submarines alone compared to India's one nuclear Chakra sub. 

The Chakra sub is an Akula-class Russian nuclear attack submarine that India is leasing for ten years, USNI News reports. China's nuclear submarines, on the other hand, are a mixture of attack and ballistic missile vessels that were indigenously built. 

Nuclear submarines are far superior to their diesel counterparts for open ocean force projection. Nuclear submarines can stay submerged for months whereas diesel submarines must surface more frequently. 

In response to a lack of effective subs, New Dehli has reached out to Japan on a possible initiative to build submarines in India, The Diplomat reports. This offer is part of a move by India to update its submarine fleet, and New Dehli is also considering acquiring submarines from France, Germany, Russia, and Spain. 

India's desire to acquire more submarines is closely related to concerns over China. 

Beijing has been steadily investing in port installations in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar. These ports have allowed for Chinese merchant vessels, in addition to submarines and warships, to have safe harbor throughout the entirety of the Indian Ocean.

China recently raised Indian suspicions by docking submarines at the port of Colombo in nearby Sri Lanka, and there is concern that Beijing is trying to construct a "string of pearls" through the Indian Ocean in order to establish naval and commercial superiority on India's strategic turf. 

SEE ALSO: This chart shows how China, India, and Japan are competing to develop their own aircraft carriers

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 14 things you didn't know your iPhone headphones could do