Brothers - Submariners for Life

Das Boot

Submarines of the World

Navy ship HMAS Bundaberg goes up in flames in Brisbane's east

 

A large navy ship fire east of Brisbane has been brought under control after three hours.

 

Firefighters in breathing apparatus remain at a commercial boat shed on Barku Court in Hemmant, about 11 kilometres east of the CBD. Earlier, about 50 firefighers and 16 fire trucks were called to the scene.

 

Authorities have confirmed the ship on fire is the HMAS Bundaberg, a navy vessel that was in Brisbane for routine maintenance.

 

Fire crews were called to the shipyards on the Brisbane River at 11.52am after an automated alarm went off.

Initial reports were that a 70-foot boat was ablaze, however the HMAS Bundaberg is much larger.

The Armidale-class patrol boat is about 56 metres long and was commissioned in 2007.

According to the Navy website, the HMAS Bundaberg (II) and 13 sister vessels are used for fisheries protection, immigration, customs and drug law enforcement operations

"Defence understands that at least two civilian contractors suffered smoke inhalation and were treated at the scene," A Defence spokesman said in a statement.

"No members of the Navy crew were injured in the incident. 

 

"The cause of the fire is not known at this time

"An assessment of damage and an investigation into the cause of the fire will be undertaken once it is safe to do so."

Then-Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on board the HMAS Bundaberg in 2012

 

 

Submarines - It's Quiet Out There, Too Quiet

The U.S. Navy continues to debate the issue of just how effective non-nuclear submarines would be in wartime, and whether the U.S. should buy some of these non-nuclear boats itself. This radical proposal is based on two compelling factors. First, the U.S. Navy may not get enough money to maintain a force of 40-50 SSNs (attack subs.) Second, the quietness of modern diesel-electric boats puts nuclear subs at a serious disadvantage, especially in coastal waters. With modern passive sensors, a submerged diesel-electric sub is often the best weapon for finding and destroying other diesel-electric boats.  While the nuclear sub is the most effective high seas vessel, especially if you have worldwide responsibilities and these nukes would have to quickly move long distances to get to the troubled waters, the diesel electric boat, operating on batteries in coastal waters, is quieter and harder to find.

There are 39 nations operating a total of 400 diesel electric subs. Only three of these nations (China, Iran, North Korea) are likely to use their subs against the U.S. or its allies. China has fifty of these boats, Iran has three (plus 25 much smaller mini-subs) and North Korea has 20 (plus 50 much smaller mini-subs). So the U.S. has to worry about 73 diesel electric subs and 75 mini-subs. But about half the full size subs are elderly, obsolete and noisy. The same can be said for at least half the mini-subs. That leaves about 36 full size subs and 40 mini-subs that are a clear threat (and the older stuff can be a threat if you get sloppy.) That’s a lot of subs, and they make the East Asian coast and the Persian Gulf dangerous places for American warships. 

For much of the past decade the U.S. Navy has been trying to get an idea of just how bad the threat it. Thus from 2005 to 2007 the United States leased a Swedish sub (Sweden only has five subs in service), and its crew, to help American anti-submarine forces get a better idea of what they were up against. This Swedish boat was a "worst case" scenario, an approach that is preferred for training. The Gotland class Swedish subs involved are small (1,500 tons, 64.5 meters/200 feet long) and have a crew of only 25. The Gotland was based in San Diego, along with three dozen civilian technicians to help with maintenance.

For many years before the Gotland arrived, the U.S. Navy had trained against Australian diesel-electric subs, and often came out second. The Gotland has one advantage over the Australian boats, because of its AIP system (which allows it to stay under water, silently, for several weeks at a time). Thus the Gotland is something of a worst case in terms of what American surface ships and submarines might have to face in a future naval war. None of America's most likely naval opponents (China, North Korea or Iran), have AIP boats yet, but they do have plenty of diesel-electric subs which, in the hands of skilled crews, can be pretty deadly.

Based on the experience with Australian and Swedish subs, the U.S. Navy has been developing new anti-submarine tactics and equipment. All this is done in secret, obviously. But apparently the modern, quiet diesel electric boats continue to be a major threat to U.S. surface warships and subs. Meanwhile, potential enemies build more of their cheaper and higher quality, diesel-electric boats, and train their crews by having them stalk actual warships (including U.S. ones.) The subs are getting more numerous, while U.S. defenses are limping along because of the sheer technical problems of finding quiet diesel-electric boats in coastal waters.

One reason China wants to keep American naval forces out of their economic zone (which does not bar foreign warships) is so that Chinese diesel electric subs can train without being stalked by American subs, surface ships and aircraft looking for realistic practice tracking Chinese boats. At the same time the U.S. Navy has lost the full use of its most effective underwater anti-submarine training area (a well mapped and instrumented area off southern California) because environmentalist activists have convinced judges that the use of active sonar in this training area is harmful to some species of aquatic animals.

Moreover, the North Korean and Iranian fleets (and governments) are in decline while China is pouring more cash into their armed forces. If there’s any diesel-electric boats the U.S. Navy has to be extremely concerned about, it’s the Chinese. While China continues to try and develop world class nuclear subs, they are also moving head in creating world class diesel electric boats.

US - 3 female submariners make history

The US Navy’s first female submariners have earned their “dolphins

In ceremonies on both coasts Wednesday, three female officers were pinned with their submarine warfare insignia, the gold chest device that confers their status as fully qualified submarine officers. After a rigorous process that consumed a year of training followed by a year at sea, their achievement signals that the silent service’s glass ceiling has been shattered.

 “Qualifying is a huge accomplishment for any submariner, and it feels no different for me,” recipient Lt. j.g. Marquette Leveque said Wednesday, according to a Navy newsstand story. “I am thrilled to finally be a member of this elite community.”

The women are members of the cadre of 17 officers who began the sub force’s integration late last year.

Master Chief Rusty Staub, assigned to Submarine Group 9 Command, congratulates Lt. j.g. Amber Cowan, assigned to the Blue crew of the ballistic missile submarine USS Maine, for earning her submarine warfare officer device Dec. 5 in Bangor, Wash. Cowan and Lt. j.g. Jennifer Noonan, center, are two of three sailors to become the first female unrestricted line officers to qualify in submarines.

Each of the three recipients has completed a strategic deterrent patrol in their year aboard ship, the Navy said.

Leveque, who’s assigned to the ballistic-missile sub Wyoming (gold crew), had her dolphins pinned at a ceremony in Kings Bay, Ga., by her husband, Lt. j.g. Luke Leveque, himself a dolphin-wearer assigned to the ballistic sub Maryland.

The other recipients, Lt. j.g. Jennifer Noonan and Lt. j.g. Amber Cowan, are crew members with the ballistic-missile sub Maine’s blue crew and received their insignia at a ceremony in Bangor, Wash., the Maine’s home port.

Dolphins, the oldest of the Navy’s warfare pins, are only conferred after a submarine officer has qualified as an officer of the deck and an engineering officer of the watch, passed a tough board and demonstrated leadership ability.

Just earning the pin is a life-changing boost, one recipient said.

“It is a monumental mark of the confidence my command and crew has in me,” said Cowan, whose dolphins were pinned on by her husband, Lt. Adam Cowan, a naval flight officer. “And earning that respect and acceptance is a feeling that I will hold with me for my entire life.”

UK - Barrow memorial tribute for submarine crews planned

A Memorial is set to be created to remember submariners from Barrow and further afield.

A tribute is set to be sited in Ramsden Square, to mark the coincidental 100th and 50th anniversaries of the Australian Submarine Service and the Barrow Branch of the Submariner’s Association.

Next year will see both organisations celebrate milestone anniversaries and a small tribute is set to be installed to mark those who have served the associations.

Barrow has strong links with Australia with the country’s first two submarines, AE1 and AE2, built at the shipyard before being lost in the Second World War.

An Australian based organisation, AE1 Incorporated, is looking to commemorate the loss of these boats and is attempting to organise memorials in Australia and Barrow.

Barrow Borough Council was approached by the local submariner’s association about sorting the tribute and agreed on Wednesday that the tribute should be sited in Ramsden Square.

Executive director of the council Phil Huck said the memorial’s position would allow a passing salute to be given during the annual Remembrance Day parade.

He said: “There has been some discussions with officers about where the tribute would go. The site that seems to satisfy both officers and the association is in Ramsden Square.”

Councillor Barry Doughty asked if the council had considered placing the memorial in the Coronation Gardens in Abbey Road, near Furness Magistrates’ Court.

He said: “Speaking as an offcomer, I just find that Ramsden Square perhaps doesn’t offer the sensitivity that the memorial should have. I wondered about the Coronation Gardens. Is there any reason why it cannot be put there?”

Mr Huck said both parties wanted the memorial sited in an area where people would visit and that not as many people would see the memorial if it was in the gardens.

Councillor Des Barlow said the memorial would act as a good link between the town and Australia.

The committee agreed to putting the memorial in land at Ramsden Square subject to the design and size of the memorial being agreed

Russia, Italy revisit S1000 non-nuclear sub project

Russia and Italy have revisited the project of S1000 non-nuclear submarine. The project was frozen four years ago. This small submarine has been designed specifically for exports to the third world countries - Egypt, Morocco and others. According to latest reports, there will be only 20, not 50 percent of Russian components in the new submarine. However, Russia will be responsible for the promotion of the submarine on the market.

In particular, not that long ago, the sides discussed an opportunity to restart the joint project. They named several specific measures to promote the submarine in the world market, and agreed to cut the cost of the ship. The last detail is the most interesting one. How is it possible to make a submarine cheaper and more affordable for international customers?

According to reports that appeared in Russian and Western media, the project will become less expensive by abandoning the use of Russia-designed Club missiles underwater launch systems. This, in turn, would cut the costs for their transportation to Italy and customs clearance. According to latest agreements, the ratio of Russian and Italian components in the sub now makes up 20 to 80 respectively (vs. the previous 50 to 50). Thus, Russia will have only one-fifth in the future submarine.

During the conceptual design stage, it was planned to equip the future submarine with Italian-French remote-controlled Black Shark torpedoes and Club complexes that may boast of many years of faultless operation. Why has Club become so expensive all of a sudden?

The fact that the boat has been designed for sales to not very wealthy third world countries - Egypt, Indonesia and Morocco. However, the list of potential buyers includes not a very "poor" country - South Africa.

According to the Kommersant, Russian state company Rosoboronexport (defense export corporation) will be responsible for the international promotion of the submarine. This function originally belonged to the Italian side. The decision may be related to the fact that Russia sells most of its weapons through Rosoboronexport: the corporation has extensive international ties.

The unique project S1000 was launched in 2004. The project is being developed by Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri and the Russian Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering Rubin (based in St. Petersburg). The same design bureau works on strategic nuclear submarines for the Russian Navy. In particular, Rubin designs state-of-the-art nuclear-powered submarines of Borei and Borei-A projects.

The works on S1000 sub were conducted in accordance with the technical inquiry and at the expense of the Italian Navy. The conceptual design was practically completed in 2008. Afterwards, the project was virtually shelved due to the lack of funds. It was assumed that a small non-nuclear sub would operate in warm waters, near islands and in shallow waters.

It was originally believed that the construction of S1000 submarines would be Italy's prerogative. The time for the development of technical documentation and the construction of the lead ship was limited to 48 months from the signing of the first contract.

Noteworthy, neither the Italian nor the Russian navies intend to pass S1000 submarines into service. The submarine will be produced exclusively for exports to third countries.

Indeed, Russia will not be able to use such subs due to the geographical position of the country. Russia is washed by cold seas only, and transporting small submarines to tropical areas does not make any sense, officials with the Russian navy believe.

With the length of 56.2 meters, the diameter of 5.5 meters and the displacement of about 1,100 tons, the submarine can reach the speed of up to 14 knots. The immersion depth of S1000 makes up 250 meters. The crew will consist of 16 men and six troops.

The Submariners - 1967

Submariners - Part 7 to 12 - Royal Australian Navy Submarine Service

Defense Cuts: How Do You Buy 1.8 Submarines?

The Defense Department planned to buy two Virginia-class submarines, like the USS Virginia, per year. A 10 percent across-the-board cut would fund only 1.8 submarines, making the purchase impossible.

Congress created a monster when it decided that the entire government will face across-the-board cuts in January, unless an agreement on deficit reduction is reached.

The deadline for the automatic spending cuts — called sequestration — is now approaching, and the Pentagon, Congress and the defense industry say those cuts would be horrible.

The Pentagon, perhaps the world's premier planning agency, views the threat of a 10 percent budget cut like an invasion from Mars. It's too awful, too scary and, as Pentagon press secretary George Little puts it, too "absurd."

Companies are limiting hiring and halting investments, largely due to the uncertainty of how sequestration cuts would be applied.

- David Hess, CEO Pratty & Whitney

"We typically don't plan against absurdities," Little says.

Sequestration is an absurdity, so terrible it was never supposed to happen. Why is it absurd? Because it requires that all programs be cut equally, and many analysts say that the nature of defense spending does make it very hard to cut that way.

Todd Harrison with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments says some weapons systems are particularly tough to trim.

"Take for example your Virginia-class submarine [that] we were planning to buy two per year," Harrison says, "if we're planning to cut back by 10 percent, well you can't buy 1.8 subs."

California Republican Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also believes the Pentagon cuts are scary but says it's best to confront our fears, and talk about them.

"I worry that the cavernous silence from the president will lead many to exit the industry or to walk away from capital investments that are in the best interest of our troops," McKeon says.

Actually, he wants the White House to explain how it will manage defense cuts, hoping the administration will end up with the blame for job losses that many say will result from a smaller military. McKeon invited defense contractors to testify before Congress this past week to share their anxieties over the coming sequestration cuts.

David Hess, CEO of aerospace manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, testified that if the administration would only talk about how it will manage these cuts, he could at least manage his business.

"Companies are limiting hiring and halting investments, largely due to the uncertainty of how sequestration cuts would be applied," Hess said.

The industry has been staging anti-sequestration rallies and releasing reports that claim 1 million people would lose their defense jobs if the cuts go forward. After a lot of prodding, the Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon have agreed to appear at a sequestration hearing next month.

Both agencies, however, have refused to discuss actual plans so far, and there's no reason to think that will change.

Some say that this irrational fear of sequestration has made it impossible to embrace the only rational treatment in this Beltway psychodrama: looking for manageable cuts to defense. Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network says any cuts would follow years of spending growth.

"This enormous department has grown by 50 percent over the last decade," Hurlburt says.

Sequestration would be a nightmare, Hurlburt agrees, but she says Congress is virtually guaranteeing the worst will happen by refusing to consider even limited cuts.

"There's been a lot of discussion about whether we might have a modest copay as part of military health care," she says, "and Congress has vigorously acted to prevent any kind of discussion of cost-saving reform in military health."

So there are two strategies for dealing with fear of defense sequestration: refuse to talk about it, or talk at length about how awful it will be. More research is needed to say which technique is most effective, but neither will cure the underlying disease of failure to agree on a deficit reduction package. Congress' clinical trial ends in January, when the sequestration nightmare becomes real.

Israeli Navy ensures operational readiness of its vessels

One of the Navy's most advanced submarines underwent maintenance and was "sent out to sea to carry out incredible missions" in an official ceremony

Routine maintenance of one of the Israeli Navy's most advanced vessels, the Tanin (Crocodile) submarine, was completed this week in a special ceremony. Famous worldwide for its capability to adapt to a wide variety of missions, the submarine was returned to the sea and to routine operational activity. The Israeli Navy invests in the maintenance of its vessels so as to ensure operational readiness and continues preparations to receive additional submarines.

Submarines are deployed for military use for 30 years, and undergo reparations and maintenance treatments every 15 years. The treatment is beneficial to the normal operation of the submarines, which are constantly active. During the treatment, which lasts 22 months, the submarine is completely disassembled, enabling for an extremely thorough repair. "We take apart the submarines, work on them, clean them and repaint," explained Lt. Col. A, commander of the submarine maintenance squad.

"An extremely limited number of militaries possess the knowledge and necessary capabilities to carry out such a repair and even fewer navies perform these treatments," explained commander of the submarine flotilla, Col. G. "The goal is to take apart the submarine and after almost two years put it back together, return it to the sea, and sail. You are the ones who completed this difficult task and I thank you for your high-quality work.  Today the Tanin submarine goes out to sea to carry out incredible operations."

The submarine underwent thorough assessments at sea, and after receiving approval from the Israeli Navy Commander, went out to sea.

Maintaining vessels and preparing to receive three additional submarines requires additional manpower, and the Israeli Navy is preparing accordingly. "We must change our perception and fortify our manpower, in order to increase availability of submarines at sea," said dock commander, Col. Eli Shuach at the ceremony. Dozens of soldiers and workers are expected to arrive at the dock, expediting operation.

Submariners World Channel

Submariners World Channel

(Click on link)

60 Years Of Stuff We Can't Talk About

June 25, 2012: This year marks the 60th anniversary of the construction of the first nuclear powered sub, the USS Nautilus. Completed in 1955, the Nautilus served until 1980, at which point it became a museum ship. Since the Nautilus over 400 nuclear subs have been built, most of them (254) Russian. As was their custom, the Russians went for quantity rather than quality. As a result of this, some 80 percent of those Russian boats have since been retired. Not only did Russian subs wear out quickly, but they were not able to get to sea as often as their Western counterparts. When they did get to sea they had more problems with radiation and reactor reliability.

Thus the peak year for Russian nuclear sub patrols was 1984, when they had 230 patrols. That number rapidly declined until, in 2002, there were none. Since the late 1990s, the Russian navy has been hustling to try and reverse this decline. But the navy budget, despite recent increases, is not large enough to build new ships to replace the current Cold War era fleet that is falling apart. The rapid decline of Russia's nuclear submarine fleet needed international help to safely decommission over a hundred obsolete, worn out, defective or broken down nuclear subs. This effort has been going on for nearly a decade, and was driven by the Russian threat to just sink their older nuclear subs in the Arctic Ocean. That might work with conventional ships, but there was an international uproar over what would happen with all those nuclear reactors sitting on the ocean floor forever. Russia generously offered to accept donations to fund a dismantling program that included safe disposal (of the nuclear reactors).

While Western nuclear subs can last for about thirty years, Russian models rarely get past twenty. That means two new SSN or SSGN type subs has to be put into service each year to maintain a Russian force of forty boats. Unless the sub construction budget get billions more dollars a year, that is not going to happen. Right now, the priority is on producing a new class of SSBNs (11 more Boreis are planned or under construction). These Boreis are critical, because they carry SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles) that provide a critical (they are much harder to destroy in a first strike than land based missiles) portion of the nuclear deterrent. The rest of the Russian armed forces, like most of the navy, is in sad shape, and unable to resist a major invasion. Only the ICBMs and SLBMs guarantee the safety of the state. So the way things are going now, in a decade or two, Russia will end up with a force consisting of a dozen SSNs and a dozen SSBNs.

The current Russian fleet of nuclear subs is tiny, and the Russians would rather keep them tied up at dock most of the time. The crews can do a lot of training at dockside, and only go to sea a few times a year, to check on their state of training. Given the number of accidents their subs have had in the past decade, the training the crews are getting now is not sufficient.

Only the U.S. and Britain were able to build nuclear subs that could stay at sea regularly and for long periods. French nukes were nearly as reliable, but the Chinese built nuclear boats have, so far, been of lower quality than three decade old Russian designs. India is also in the midst of getting its first generation nuclear subs operational and it has been rough going.

While nuclear subs are a much feared weapon, they have gone sixty years with only one instance of combat. That was in 1982, when a British SSN sunk an Argentinian cruiser (the former World War II era USS Phoenix). Nuclear subs have been much more active in espionage work. While not as flashy as sinking other ships, it is dangerous, demanding and rewarding work. Most of these efforts during the Cold War are still secret.

Under Water Warfare The Struggle Against the Submarine Menace 1939 -1945 Midget Submarines

Midget Submarines

(a) Britain

The British Midget Submarines were known as "X-Craft,"

In May of 1943 the Royal Navy started to develop their midgets, they were of 30 tons, and 48 feet long overall. Surfaced they had a speed of 6.5 knots, and submerged 5 knots, they carried a crew of 4. Unlike the later Japanese midgets, they did not carry Torpedoes, but in lieu, had two portable mines that were detachable, to later be set up under their target. A clockwork mechanism was designed to trigger the detonator, allowing the crew to escape.

British Midget Submarine XE-5 taken in Subic Bay from the deck of HMAS Shropshire

On the night of the 11th/ 12th of September, 6 X-Craft sailed under tow by 6 conventional submarines. They were named X5, X6, X7, (their target the "Tirpitz") X9, and X1O, (to attack the "Scharnhorst') and the final craft, X8, (it's target, the "Lutzow.")

The first two German ships were believed to be in Altenfjord, and the "Lutzow" in Langefjord, Norway. X9 and crew were lost on tow. It was always a hazardous operation to be under tow and on board an X-Craft. XS was forced to scuttle, having ballast tank failure, but on this occasion her crew were all rescued.

Since the last photographic reconnaissance, "Scharnhorst" had left her anchorage to go to sea to undertake exercises. K.R. Hudspeth, an Australian Reserve Lieutenant, was forced to call off his attack after his compass and periscope were damaged in boom defence equipment. After laying on the bottom during the 22nd. of September, Hudspeth crawled out to sea again, and it was another 6 days before he managed to meet up with a Mother Submarine who took him in tow.

However in a subsequent storm, X1O, sank still 400 miles from the Shetlands and home. Hudspeth however survived this ordeal, and the war. X5, X6, and X7 all navigated the German mine field on the night of the 20th. of September but then, X5 disappeared, never to be heard from again, ( although German sources claimed to have sunk a Submarine on the morning of the 22nd in the vicinity of Kaa Fjord. )

It must be presumed that this action claimed Lieutenant Henty-Creer, and his crew members in X-5.

X6, and X7 reached their target the "Tirpitz", and Lieutenant Cameron, in X6, dropped his charges, scuttled the boat, and he and his crew were taken prisoner. Lieutenant Place in X7, placed their explosives, then became entangled in German Anti-Submarine nets. A huge blast crippled the "Tirpitz", and at the same time freed X7, but she was abandoned. Place and one crew member escaped to the surface, only to be captured. Both Place and Cameron were awarded the Victoria Cross, which after the war had ended, they were able to collect personally.

Although not eliminated, this action for some months eased the worry about the "Tirpitz" being loose on tIre Convoy routes of the Atlantic and to Russia.

British Midgets attack Japanese shipping in Singapore.

On the 31st of July in 1945, two British Midget Submarines which had been towed by Submarine from the Philippines entered Singapore Harbour.

Leading Seaman Mick Magennis from Belfast, spent half an hour under water, to fix six limpet mines to the hull of the Japanese Cruiser "Takao."

A large hole was blown in her hull, but being in shallow water, she only settled on the bottom. Both the Midget's Captain, Lieutenant Ian Fraser, and Leading Seaman Magennis were awarded the Victoria Cross. However to the crew's chagrin, they later discovered that a U.S Submarine, had damaged the 'Takao's" stern whilst she was at sea.

I am beholden to Bob Meade for the above photo and the following text.

    " XE-5 and crew were assigned Operation Foil - cutting the Japanese telecommunications cable in Hong Kong bay.

    XE-5's crew was:

        Lt. H.P. Westmacott, RN

        1st. Lt. Beadon Dening, RNVR

        ERA Clifford Greenwood

        Lt. B.G. Clarke, RNVR

        Sub-Lt. D.V.M. Jarvis, RNVR

    Today I was able to speak to Mr. Max Shean (DSO and Bar, Bronze Star). For a comprehensive summary of his midget submarine actions in WWII go here.

    Mr. Shean kindly consented to answer my questions about the photographs. He said that the midget submarine he commanded, XE-4, was never in Subic Bay, and instead was launched from Brunei Bay for its mission off Saigon.

    He further stated that XE-5 was launched from Subic Bay, and that one of the crew members visible on deck in the photograph was most likely "Pat" Westmacott , commander of XE-5 for its mission in Hong Kong Bay. A New Zealander who joined the Royal Navy.

    So, the midget submarine in the photograph is XE-5, in Subic Bay prior to Operation Foil."

    Mac

(b) Japan

Japanese Midget Submarines were designated Types A, B, C, and D. All types were fitted with 2 by 18 inch Torpedoes. Type A, of 46 tons, could not recharge batteries as this boat did not carry a generator. However 42 vessels were built.

5 were launched in the attack on Pearl Harbour, but all were lost. This Type of Midget had an 80 mile range, at only 2 knots on the surface, or a submerged speed of 19 knots, but the batteries lasted for only 55 minutes.

The Pearl Harbour attack pointed up the limitations of this Type; Type B were fitted with a diesel generator which needed 18 hours to recharge batteries and increased the tonnage to 50 tons. This group were numbered HA 43 to HA 61.

The next group, Type C, also of 50 tons, were classified HA 62 to HA 76, and achieved an extra 50 miles radius at 6 knots on the surface.

The final group, Type D, were 4 feet longer, the first, HA77 being completed in January 1945. They weighed 60 tons, could dive to 328 feet, and by September 1945, 115 were completed, and another 496 hulls were in various stages of construction.

Koryu Suicide Craft

The first prototype was built in 1943, followed by the second in 1944.

These craft weighed 19.5 tons, and were designed to carry 2 by 18 inch Torpedoes, but were adapted to enclose a 600 kilogram charge of explosive in their nose, to be set by a firing pin. A complement of 5 manned this formidible weapon which could range over a 1,000 miles, and produced a top under water speed of 16 knots.

At the Japanese Naval Base at Kure, a mass of these Submarines were huddled together, cheek by jowl, in a huge building area, probably as many as a hundred of them, waiting to be used in the final onslought against the Allied invasion of Japan.

Kairyus

A 2 man Submarine, that could dive to 480 feet, but if 2 Torpedoes were slung below the hull, the diving depth was reduced to 330 feet.

Some 215 were completed with the hull built in workshops in 3 separate sections, and then assembled on a dockside, or on slipways in only 30 days. A further 207 were under construction at the end of the War.

Japanese Midget Submarine Attacks

(a) At Madagascar

In May 1942, Madagascar lay in the hands of the French. It was located in a strategic segment of the Indian Ocean, an ideal base for both German and Japanese Naval forces.

Allied lines of communication could be threatened from the excellent harbour provided by Diego Suarez.

Churchill had stated "Too much stress should not be laid on gaining control of the whole island --- all that matters are the two or three principal centres, but above all Diego Suarez."

He was mindful ofthe "Dakar fiasco," in which De Gaulle with his French troops had joined with British forces on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th, of September 1940, this affair proving to be an absolute disaster.

I had been but a small participant on that occasion, serving as a Midshipman in H M A S "Australia." This action was, in fact, my first time under fire. My Midshipman's Journal recorded that "I am appalled that General De Gaulle could just decide not to support us, indicating that he could not shed the blood of Frenchmen for Frenchmen."

Our Walrus Aircraft was shot down by the French with the loss of all it's crew, and the ship was twice hit by French shells. The British Prime Minister decided not to include any Free French Troops in this proposed operation, and did not disclose any plans to De Gaulle.

British Troops were landed in the South West of Madagscar on the 5th, of May 1942. By the middle of that month, it was all over, and the port of Diago Suarez was in British hands.

Meanwhile, Japanese Submarines I16, I18, I20, all carrying a Midget Submarine on deck left Penang for the invasion area, the Squadron leader I10, carried a scouting seaplane. Both I16, and I20 suffered storm damage, and I18 had water enter her Port engine damaging 4 pistons. She reported that repairs would take two months and were beyond the competence of her crew.

'The Aircraft from I10, on the 29th of May, reported a Battleship (the" Ramilles.") anchored in the North West corner of the harbour, plus other war ships, and a Tanker. This was the 10,400 ton "British Loyalty." A decision to attack these ships was then made by the Japanese Submarine conrrnander. Both I16, and I20 launched their Midget Subs on the 30th. of May. Lieutenant Akieda, and Petty Officer Takemoto in the Midget from I20, and Ensign. Katsusuki. Iwase, and Petty Officer Takazo Taketa in I16's Midget.

The moon was fulI, providing a clear bright night. "Ramilles" was anchored, as was the "British Loyalty," close to Antsirane Light house. At about 2015 (8.15 PM.) "Ramilles" was struck by a Torpedo on her Port side, in the middle of a 4 inch gun magazine. A 30 by 30 feet hole was made, and the ship began to list. In the "British Loyalty," her crew were desperately weighing anchor, just as the anchor broke away from the bottom, and the ship started to go astern. She ran into a second Torpedo aimed at the "Ramilles."

This Torpedo hit the Tanker in the engine room (no one managed to escape from here) and she quickly sank in 67 feet of water.

The Midget crew from I20 managed to get ashore, and were picked up by British troops. The two Japanese sailors refused to surrender, and were then shot.

A third Japanese body, which had to come from I16's Midget, was washed up on the beach. The final member from the Midget crews was never recovered. "Ramilles" limped off to Durban escorted by a Cruiser, 3 Destroyers and a Tug, and then she madean uneventful voyage back to Plymouth where she arrived on the 8 th of September, and was in all, a year out of action. The "British Loyalty" was raised in December 1942 and was moved to the Maldives in October 1943, where she was used to store oil.

(b) At Sydney

Japanese Midget Submarine attack on Sydney Harbour on the 30th. May, 1942

On the 11th of May, 1942, the Japanese 8th Squadron boats, I22, I24, I28, and I29 having been involved in the Coral Sea operation were ordered to Truk to embark Midget Submarines to attack Naval targets at either Suva or Sydney. Two seaplane carrying boats, I21, and I29, were proceeding to reconnoitre both Suva and Sydney.

I28, did not reach Truk. She was sighted on the surface by the U.S. Submarine "Tautog" which was enroute from Pearl Harbour to Fremantle, Australia. I29 was sunk by two Torpedoes from the U.S. Submarine. The other 3 I class with Midgets clamped to their decks sailed from Truk for Sydney about the 20th. of May, whilst the seaplane from I29, carried out a reconnaissance flight over Sydney on the same date, confirming "both Cruisers and a Battleship anchored there."

It would seem likely that the U.S. heavy Cruiser, "Chicago" with her heavy type of upper works was mistaken for a Battleship. By the night of the 29th. of May, 5 I boats were stationed close to 35 miles North East of Australia's largest city, and it's major Naval Base, Sydney.

These Japanese Submarines were:- I 21, (with an aircraft) I 22 (carrying Midget No.21) I 24 (carrying Midget A. It was given this designation, as this craft was not recovered, and her number is thus not known) I 27 ( carrying Midget No.14 ) and finally, I 29 ( probably with a damaged aircraft on board.)

On the next day, about 0420 ( 4.20 A.M.) a single float plane burning navigation lights flew over Man of War anchorage in Sydney, and then circled "Chicago" at No 2 buoy. At this time I was serving as a Watch Keeping Sub Lieutenant in H.M A.S. "Canberra," having only recently been awarded my Watch Keeping Ticket. We were secured at No 1 buoy.

An air raid warning was issued in due course, but searches by Fighter Aircraft found nothing, and this incident did not trigger any special defence measures. Post war, it was learned that this Aircraft came from I 21, and the pilot, Lieutenant. Ito flew up the harbour at 600 feet, sighted "Chicago" and 4 Destroyers in Man of War anchorage, and "Canberra" in Farm Cove. He flew back to his Submarine, but on landing close by in rough water, his Aircraft crashed and sank.

lto and his Observer reported "Battleships and Cruisers in Harbour," it was decided to attack the following night, the 31st. of May.

Boom ProtectIon

The boom at Sydney was designed in January 1942, and construction commenced that month. It was located at the narrowest point of the inner harbour entrance, between George's Head, on Middle Head, and Green Point on Inner South Head. This protective net was not actually completed until July.

The single Iine steel Anti-Torpedo net was supported between piles, the centre portion was complete, but there were large gaps at both East and West ends. At the West end, unnetted piles were in position. 8 Magnetic Indicator Loops were in place across the sea floor of the Inner and Outer harbour entrances. The Loop produced a "Signature" when a vessel crossed over it.

Midget I 4, commanded by Lieutenant. Kenshi Chuman with Petty Officer Takeschi Ohmori, was the first inward crossing recorded by the Indicator Loop at 2000 ( 8 P M. ) With ferry and other traffic passing over the Loops, it's significance was not recognised.

About 15 minutes later, Mr J Cargill, a Maritime Services Board watchman, reported a suspicious object trapped in the net. With his assistant, he investigated this object from a skiff which they had towed over to the scene, and he reported it to Lieutenant Eyers, an R A N V R officer in charge of H M A S "Yarroma," a Patrol boat.

Eyers did not close the mysterious object fearing that it may be a Magnetic Mine, so he sent a Stoker in a skiff to investigate, and it was 2230 (10.30 P.M., ) an hour and a half after Cargill first reported his discovery, that Eyers reported the object trapped in the Boom net was, in fact, a Submarine, and he asked permission to open fire. But Lieutenant Chuman, hopelessly entangled in the net, solved this dilemna, by firing demolition charges which destroyed both the Submarine and it's crew of two.

Midget A, with Sub Lieutenant Katsushisa Ban, and Petty Officer Marmoru Ashibe, and Midget 21, with Lieutenant Keiu Matsuo, and Petty. Officer Masao Tsuzuku on board, had been ordered to follow Midget I4 at 20 minute intervals. Ban had registered a Loop crossing at 2145 (9.45 P.M. ) and proceeded up the harbour with the "Chicago," as his target.

At long last some action was forthcoming. The "General Alarm" was ordered at 2227, ( 10 27 PM) by Rear Admiral Muirhead-Gould, the Naval Officer in charge at Sydney.

Meanwhile, Ban was having problems with the depth keeping behaviour of his Midget; it kept coming to the surface, and lookouts in "Chicago" sighted him, but Ban managed to submerge. "Chicago" opened fire with a 5 inch gun, but the Midget was too close to hit. The Corvettes "Geelong," and "Whyalla" alongside the Oil Wharf at Garden Island sighted Ban's conning tower. 20 mm fire from "Geelong" and searchlight searches by both ships proved abortive.

At this time the third Midget was approaching the Anti-Torpedo net area, but Lieutenant Matsuo was having his problems with the trim of his Boat, and he was sighted by the unarmed Patrol vessel "Lauriana", then "Yandra" attacked with a pattern of 6 Depth Charges, after a series of explosions, Midget 21 was not seen again.

Flood lights at the Graving Dock illuminated the scene very well, no one had thought to order them to be extinguished up to now, and they silhouetted the "Chicago." Finally, the lights were extinguished at 0025, (12 25. A M. ) It was now the 1st. of June.

Ban was now ready to sink the "Chicago. He was in position 800 meters from his target, and should not miss. He set his Torpedo to run at a depth of 2.4 meters- ("Chicago" was 170 meters long, with a draught of 7.6 meters ) He fired. Once the Torpedo lelt it's tube, the Midget lost stability, it's bow breaking the surface. It was a further 2/3 minutes before Ban could regain trim.

The Torpedo veered off course, passing well ahead of "Chicago", and under tIre Dutch Submarine K9, then under H M A S "Kuttabul" an old Sydney ferry, used as a Naval accommodation vessel, berthed alongside Garden Island.

The Torpedo struck the retaining wall, and exploded, lifting "KuttabuI" high out of the water, before coming to rest on the bottom. 21 Naval Ratings died. Ban fired his second Torpedo at "Chicago", but it missed by some 4 meters. It ran aground on the east side of Garden Island without exploding.

By now the harbour was in absolute turmoil. I can recall ships and small boats rushing all about, search lights playing around, guns being fired, and nobody really knowing what was going on.

Captain Bode in "Chicago" decided he had had enough of this chaos within the harbour and took his Cruiser to sea, not knowing that there were 5 I class Japanese Submarines in fact lurking off the Heads of Sydney Harbour, hopefully awaiting the return of their Midgets.

Midget 21, had not been sunk by "Yandra", and was discovered inTaylor Bay. She was then battered by attacks from "Steady Hour", "Sea Mist", and "Yarroma". Later, on the 1st. of June, Naval Divers found the Midget on the Harbour floor, both Torpedoes jammed in their tubes, her crew dead, and the propellors still turning. One of the Divers used was Able Seaman Jack Greening, a cousin of mine.

A registered Loop crossing was recorded at 0158, (1.58 AM. ) and in the subsequent analysis it was determined this was an outwards crossing, which could well have been made by Midget A, with Ban making his escape after his abortive attempts to sink the "Chicago". However Ban and his crew member were never found. He did not make the rendevous with his Mother Submarine, and his actual fate is not known.

Earlier this year, in March 1997 there was a report that a metallic object had been located in the sea off Cronulla. There was speculation that it may be the remains of Ban's Midget Submarine. Who knows? We may still find that the final resting place of Midget A is discovered.

The Royal Australian Navy history notes;- "Luck was certaInly on the side of the Defenders, and was undeserved in the early stages when inactivity and indecision were manifested."

On the 9th. of June 1942 at 1130 (11.30 A.M. ) the 4 bodies of crewmen from the two sunken Midget Submarines were cremated with full Naval Honours at Sydney's Fastern Suburbs Crematorium, their ashes were returned to Japan.

A memorial plaque for those who took part in this daring but unsuccesslul raid on our shipping on the 31st. of May and the 1st. of June in 1942 was erected and unveiled at Garden Island, Sub Lieutenant Ban's Mother made the journey from Japan to be present at this ceremony.