Diesel-Eletric subs for USN/RN?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
FreeloaderUK	Diesel-Eletric subs for USN/RN?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 93 (10-Apr-2008 13:45:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	the Red Navy uses diesel-electric subs- most modern navies do. but the USN & RN do not. apparently US carrier task forces are particularly vulnerable to diesel electric subs- in one wargame a swedish diesel-electric sub managed to 'sink' the USS Ronald Reagan & I remember a couple of years back a North Korean diesel-electric sub managed to get close to a US carrier. apparently although nuclear subs are gettng quieter all the time- diesel electrics although dont have the same performance are quieter again. so do you think the USN or RN would go for diesel-electrics? possibly for short range stealth operations?
BenRoethig		#1	[-]
Posts: 1748 (10-Apr-2008 14:02:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Probably not, but 20-30 for homeland defense might not be a bad idea. Also, do note that wargames are not always realistic combat scenarios. Its training.
FreeloaderUK		#2	[-]
Posts: 94 (10-Apr-2008 16:13:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	the RN did have a few diesel-electrics but were de-commissioned in 1994- defence cuts. the subs themselves were sold to Canada & they werent that old. obviously diesel-electrics are not ideal for long range operations- but for closer to home action- they are far more cost effective than nuclear.
drunknsubmrnr		#3	[-]
Posts: 1294 (10-Apr-2008 16:19:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Having actually hunted USN carrier task forces in SSK's, I can assure you that they are not terribly vulnerable to diesel-electric boats, or even AIP boats. I can also assure you that SSK's are not cost-effective if you're already paying for the infrastructure required to support SSN's or SSBN's. Kevin
splott		#4	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 75 (10-Apr-2008 17:54:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I guess SSK:s are better at waiting for the target to come to them rather than going after the target. In other word there are places where SSK:s have an advantage but it's not in blue water ops. But at the same time HMS Gotland did seem to have some success over in San Diego.
drunknsubmrnr		#5	[-]
Posts: 1295 (10-Apr-2008 18:32:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	SSK's do have advantages in some situations. Those situations rarely come up for the RN and USN. Kevin
emc		#6	[-]
Posts: 3652 (10-Apr-2008 19:12:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	splott wrote: I guess SSK:s are better at waiting for the target to come to them rather than going after the target. In other word there are places where SSK:s have an advantage but it's not in blue water ops. But at the same time HMS Gotland did seem to have some success over in San Diego. A friend -- who was an ASW officer in USN frigates -- described diesel-electric submarines as "mobile mine-fields." I don't know if this characterization was original, or he had gotten it from somebody else. In the natural world, some predators are "ambush predators," which wait for their prey to get close, and then pounce on them, for example trap-door spiders. These are analogous to diesel boats. Other predators can stalk their prey, possibly for hours, getting as close as needed for a successful attack, like many cats. These are analogous to nuclear boats.
Dave Bender	USN or RN would go for diesel-electrics	#7	[-]
Posts: 6401 (10-Apr-2008 21:12:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The USN can afford nuclear powered submarines so that is what they will continue to use for operational missions. Purchase of 1 or 2 diesel boats for training purposes only is possible. If the RN faced a naval threat in European waters then I would expect them to purchase some SSKs for coast defense. Right now they are unnecessary.
kell553		#8	[-]
Posts: 775 (10-Apr-2008 22:42:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	But at the same time HMS Gotland did seem to have some success over in San Diego. While Gotland did rack up a considerable record while playing here for 2 years, that must be tempered by the fact she was typically used on the ASW range; which geographically constrained all of the players to a small section of ocean just off the Channel Islands. Kind of hard for a sub NOT to get a kill when the Surface ship can't leave a 10x10 mile box.
Michael Hoddy		#9	[-]
Posts: 177 (11-Apr-2008 04:45:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The USN is a power-projection navy fighting far from its own shores, and SSN's are ideally suited for long-range power projection missions, whereas diesel-electrics or AIP's are not. As long as there is no direct naval threat to the North American coastline, you will not see non-nuke subs in the USN. Even then, the American coasts do not have any of the pass-through chokepoints for sea traffic or enclosed seas that make diesels an effective weapon in the Baltic, GIUK gap, Persian Gulf, and Taiwan Strait and Kuriles. As far as the British- it would require a revival of the barrier/chokepoint SSK mission of the Cold War (and a comparable threat), or the need to project power in the immediate region in greater numbers than the UK SSN fleet. Last Edited By: Michael Hoddy 11-Apr-2008 04:53:27. Edited 1 times.
Theodore		#10	[-]
Posts: 8451 (11-Apr-2008 07:43:25) Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	BenRoethig wrote: Probably not, but 20-30 for homeland defense might not be a bad idea. Homeland defense? Against who? The drug-running minisubs from Colombia?
asavery		#11	[-]
Posts: 86 (11-Apr-2008 14:31:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	For blue-water ops I see little use for D-E subs, nuclear will always have the advantage in speed, depth, power capabilities, etc. Very shallow littorals and choke-points give D-Es some advantages. With the USN nuclear sub culture you will not push D-E's. I think one interesting option would be for a few small D-E littoral submarines, these would not be self-deployed but rather forward based on deck-ships/tenders, What comes to mind is the Swedish Sea Dagger concept, or a bit larger. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dagger/ This would always be a secondary mission asset of the USN submarine community.
emc		#12	[-]
Posts: 3654 (11-Apr-2008 16:18:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	asavery wrote: This would always be a secondary mission asset of the USN submarine community. The USN's submarine community were reputed to have fought like demons to prevent either EB or Newport News (or any other US builder) from offering diesel-electric boats for export, as they wanted to preclude anybody from even thinking of building them for the USN. Overall, I think the USN has a very little need for diesel boats, and that can be fulfilled by training exercises with various allied and friendly nations which do have them. The US is not faced with any significant military threat from anywhere in this hemisphere; the only potential long-term military threats I can foresee are China (which would probably be perfectly happy to keep importing US manufacturing capabilities until we're in a state of economic dependency on them) and Russia. While the Muslim world may despise the West (and I don't doubt that the ruling family of Saudi Arabia wouldn't cheerfully cut our throats, given a chance), I don't foresee them being a threat in my unborn (and unconceived) grandchildren's lifetimes.
Samardza		#13	[-]
Posts: 94 (12-Apr-2008 03:15:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The big problem, is that the USN doesn't trust Congess to know that a nuke and a DE areNOT interchagable. Justifiably so I think.
emc		#14	[-]
Posts: 3656 (12-Apr-2008 13:57:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Samardza wrote: The big problem, is that the USN doesn't trust Congess to know that a nuke and a DE areNOT interchagable. Justifiably so I think. The members of Congress are not stupid. If the USN can't explain why diesel boats and nukes aren't interchangeable, they don't know themselves.
drunknsubmrnr		#15	[-]
Posts: 1298 (12-Apr-2008 22:03:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I can't see much of a reason to buy SSKs if you already have SSNs. They'll be almost as expensive without the advantages of an SSN. Kevin
emc	Re: Diesel-Electric subs for USN/RN?	#16	[-]
Posts: 3664 (13-Apr-2008 01:32:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	...especially when one is dealing with the "fleet cost," in that for a navy with world-wide commitments, one SSN could probably replace several diesel (or non-nuclear AIP) boats. I would guess that for diesel boats to be cost-competitive with SSN for the USN, they would have to have unit costs and operating costs no more that 20% of an SSN, with roughly comparable performance, a combination of requirements which I don't think can be reconciled. For a navy without world-wide commitments, the arithmetic is obviously different, and were the US to have significant local military threats -- and it doesn't except in the minds of people who should be taking thorazine -- the arithmetic may change.
SubsRUs		#17	[-]
Posts: 12 (13-Apr-2008 05:17:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Most members of Congress are capable of understanding a well-presented argument regarding the relative merits of diesel versus nuclear-powered submarines. They just don't want the Navy to "automatically" dismiss diesels, i.e., without any analysis. Hence, in the early 1990s, diesel-powered submarines were included among the many new attack submarine design alternatives developed (and analyzed for cost and operational effectiveness). After several years of conceptual studies, a nuclear-powered design was selected which, eventually, became the Virginia Class. During this time, a newspaper editorial cartoon showed one devil telling another that the US Navy is considering non-nuclear submarines. There were icicles hanging from their noses and elsewhere and no sign of flames. Regarding the building of diesel boats for export, the Navy is primarily concerned about the transfer of submarine design and shipbuilding technology. EB and Newport News would have a difficult time building submarines that didn't incorporate some US technology. Previous arguments regarding the need for diesel boats in the USN are generally correct. When your operating areas are many thousands of miles from your bases, slow-transiting diesel boats are not effective. Diesel boats are not "almost as expensive" as nuclear powered boats. However, for the USN, an equivalently capable fleet of diesel boats (if such a thing is even remotely possible) would probably cost more because they would need many more boats as well as overseas bases to operate them from (to minimize transit times).
drunknsubmrnr		#18	[-]
Posts: 1299 (14-Apr-2008 15:01:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	'Diesel boats are not "almost as expensive" as nuclear powered boats.' A modern AIP boat with the same capabilities as a nuke would cost almost as much. Most of the cost is in the combat systems, not the reactor. Kevin
FreeloaderUK		#19	[-]
Posts: 108 (14-Apr-2008 15:43:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	one would however have to take in reactor maintainance costs & costs of decommisioning & making safe into account. Russia has a lot of rusty old hulks to deal with & the west is having to assist in the clean-up operation.
drunknsubmrnr		#20	[-]
Posts: 1300 (14-Apr-2008 16:10:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"one would however have to take in reactor maintainance costs & costs of decommisioning & making safe into account. " Sure. But if you already have a significant SSN and SSBN infrastructure, the incremental cost isn't that much. Kevin

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Diesel-Eletric subs for USN/RN?

Diesel-Eletric subs for USN/RN?

Quick Reply