Are Diesel-Powered Submarines Better Than America’s Leading Nuclear Fleet?

[Onkel Neal]

Are Diesel-Powered Submarines Better Than America’s Leading Nuclear Fleet? (https://observer.com/2019/10/diesel-powered-submarines-vs-american-nuclear-fleet/)

https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/submarine-140781_1920.jpg?quality=80&w=635

Before its 2017 decommissioning, the USS Corpus Christi, a Los Angeles-class fast-attack boat, participated in “Malabar,” an annual naval exercise contested by the United States, Japan and India, all powers that have various reasons to fear a rising and aggressive China.

In the 2015 edition, the Corpus Christi and the Indian Navy’s INS Sindhudhvaj were both tasked with finding each other in a simulated “search-and-destroy” mission—and according to the Indian Navy, it was the Sindhudhvaj, a Russian-built Kilo-class boat, that “found” the American nuclear boat first using sophisticated sonar. (The game “ended” when both boats were informed that India had reported finding the Americans first, and had fired a simulated torpedo that would have hit the target, were it real.)

[ikalugin]

SSKs are dangerous, but SSNs have their own advantages in terms of endurance, speed, etc.

[Schnee]

My biggest dream is if a Type XXXI went up against a modern diesel electric.


Problem with that of course an electro boat wouldn't have the same sound-proofing modern boats with modern sensors would have.

[moose1am]

It's my feeling that the USA could use some Fuel Cell type submarines to patrol the coasts of the USA while the other nuclear boats patrol the blue ocean depths in peacetime.

Now when or if a war were to start that would be a different story.

These new diesel-electric boats that use fuel cells to recharge the batteries are potentially very dangerous U boasts.

Remember the destruction that the German U-boats did to the allies until we invented and used radar to find them on the ocean surface? Well those U boats had to come to the surface often to recharge their batteries But these modern U boats with fuel Cells can stay underwater much longer making them much harder to find.

We need to fight fire with fire and so I think we need to develop an industry that can make these new types of Fuel Cell U-boats.

[Otto K]

an Australian Collins class submarine sunk a US Carrier in a naval war game, the Carrier group had Ohio class subs with it and they didn't detect the Collins. Imagine their surprise when a diesel electric sub surfaced next to the carrier

[Mr Quatro]

SSKs are dangerous, but SSNs have their own advantages in terms of endurance, speed, etc.

Plus the CO has options if the unit coming is passive or pinging called decoy's :hmmm:

Plus all ahead full left full rudder worked in Red October :yep:

[Cybermat47]

an Australian Collins class submarine sunk a US Carrier in a naval war game, the Carrier group had Ohio class subs with it and they didn't detect the Collins. Imagine their surprise when a diesel electric sub surfaced next to the carrier

Yeah, that incident has me leaning towards diesel-electrics, personally.

[ETR3(SS)]

an Australian Collins class submarine sunk a US Carrier in a naval war game, the Carrier group had Ohio class subs with it and they didn't detect the Collins. Imagine their surprise when a diesel electric sub surfaced next to the carrierOhios are SSBN or SSGN. I highly doubt they were part of a carrier battle group.

[ETR3(SS)]

Several nations diesel boats have "sunk" a US carrier and this always makes waves in the community. But how many times were said carriers sunk by nuclear submarines as well? This isn't WWII anymore, the ocean battlefield favors the submarine, be it diesel or nuclear.

[StrangeSignal]

Short answer, no. Not for global powers, at least.

Long answer: depends on what you need the submarine for. A nuclear powered submarine has a far greater operational range and speed than a regular diesel-electric submarine. If you need to make contact with an enemy task force the other side of the ocean as quickly as possible, a nuclear submarine will always be the definite choice. That's why you may see and hear reports of nuclear submarines of the US or the UK being detected as far away as the Indian Ocean, the South Atlantic, or the South China Sea.

The US still holds its naval presence throughout the oceans, and nuclear submarines are an intrinsic part of its operational needs and geopolitical influence. A diesel-electric submarine with a certain capacity could theoretically do this, but not maintain presence for a comparative period of time.

As for patrols and shorter operational ranges, the stealth of a diesel electric makes it a much better choice, since it's also cheaper to maintain - and generally smaller than the gargantuan US or russian subs; it's why they are the better choice for countries like Sweden, Germany, or Australia, that do not have a need to hold naval power overseas.

On a 1v1 scenario, however, a diesel electric sub with proper noise reduction protocols will almost always have the upper hand. But a nuclear submarine is a lot faster, and it stands a much better chance of getting away from an attack.

These incidents of foreign subs sinking carriers in exercises only highlights the need for 'merica to look for better detection measures.

[ikalugin]

SSKs and SSNs compliment each other. And while US could rely on forward based allies (ie Japan) to provide said SSK capability we cant.

[Aktungbby]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-sweden-yes-sweden-submarine-superpower-85016 (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-sweden-yes-sweden-submarine-superpower-85016)

[Kapitan]

The whole issue around should the USN deploy SSK type vessels has been discussed quite a bit, I am in the firm belief that there is no current requirement for SSK type vessels AIP or not to be deployed under the current doctrine of the USN.

Lets take a look at what the doctrine is roughly about:

First off the USN is about operations away from home waters, therefore power projection is vital and this is based around 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, the USN also deploys heavy assets such as CG and DDG type vessels which have long legs for extended deployments, the USN also maintains a large oiler fleet for under way replenishment and thus is termed a blue water navy.

The current SSNs / SSGNs the Ohio conversion, 688 and Virginia allow the rapid deployment of subsurface forces to be on station within a short period of time, they also allow huge weapon loads to be carried, this in turn with the capability of maintaining pace with a carrier strike group.

Now with that the conventional submarines / AIP Submarines could never keep pace with a carrier strike group and generally do not carry as much fire power as the SSN or SSGN, the reality is these submarines while yes they are capable of deploying into open ocean arenas they cannot do so on a fast basis.

If we look how long it took Onyx to get back from the Falklands you can understand that these boats are limited for distant operations, also her sister submarine HMS Ocelot left the UK in 1991 en route to operations in the Persian gulf Desert storm, now she left before the war broke out, she didn’t make it to theatre before war was over and was brought home.

Now while I have highlighted 1960’s era submarines the big reality is the technology for straight conventional boats has not changed much, speed and endurance curves remain relatively the same.
AIP boats have the capability to remain submerged for extended periods around 3 to 4 weeks however they could not do so at high speed.
This is a key limiting factor in their inclusion into the USN or indeed re inclusion in the RN, next would be weapons load out and sensor capability.

While we can state that the AIP and conventional are quieter this is often true they still have some serious issues, the USN found this out twice in the early days of the cold war, they still must surface and if caught its unlikely they could out run an opposing ASW force. (re USS Gudgeon)

Right now in North America there are no hostile threat countries around (not even Cuba) so the only real theatre of operations would be right now around the Persian Gulf, with the transit times of conventional submarines measured in weeks not days the transit alone would require re supply in the Gulf states or by Under way replenishment which the current Military Sealift Command is not geared up to do at sea. (they can and have done it the capability is there but they usually do it in port stationary).
The other option would be to transit the submarine using heavy lift ship, which is exactly what they did back in 2006 with HMSwS Uppland from Sweden because the transit would have been too long for her.

This would mean you would have to do something like what the RN does with its MHCM vessels which is station overseas, currently the RN operates 4 or 5 MHCMs from Bahrain on a permanently stationed basis, this isn’t such a bad idea however you draw back is where do you maintain the vessels ? and also would the proposed country allow submarines to be permanently stationed there?

The USN and RN moved away from SSK operations due to the nature of their operations so I am in agreement with their thinking because I cannot see any real need for an SSK in the USN or RN doctrines, yes they are good for training and coastal defence, but with the USA part of NATO if the need arises and the suitable platform for said mission is a SSK it is likely to ask one of the NATO countries that currently operate this type of vessel to under take the mission on its behalf. (Does and has happened)

So in conclusion I can only say that yes maybe build a few conventional submarines for training and OPFOR training but in reality they provide the USN and RN with little to no useful extension in their operational capabilities.

[ikalugin]

I can see the need for it in RN - 6 SSNs cannot cover the areas of interest for the RN, RN can use some forward deployed (North, ME, Falklands) off the shelf SSKs/SSPs.

[Kapitan]

At present the UK operates 6 SSN's this allows 2 on station at all times and 4 SSBN's which allows one on station at any one time, however once all the Astutes are built the total will be 7 SSN's.

Right now the UK budget does not support or could not support rather the addition of SSK's to the fleet, this is due in part to lack of budget as the current aircraft carriers will drain a lot of funds, as will the up coming type 26 and 31 FFG's.

With that in mind we also have a lack of crew for more submarines, something Australia is about to find out in the coming years the hard way.

The current UK doctrine does not have the requirement for SSK's either AIP or Conventional, this is due in part because of their operations, which like the USN is over seas.
We do not need SSK's in out fleet even for a coastal role or forwardly deployed there's just no call for them anymore.

With Perisher we work very closely with the Dutch navy and we train prospective captains using the dutch boats as well as our own.

Because we are so interlinked with European navies and NATO we do not require to have our own.

[ikalugin]

I (and some RN officers that I happen to know) strongly disagree.


2 SSNs on station do not cover all the RN's global responsibilities.


And while the budget and crew problems exist, they are not insurmountable, especially considering small SSK/SSP crews and low prices, with around 3-4 SSKs/SSPs available per SSN in terms of both funding and crew.

[Kapitan]

I (and some RN officers that I happen to know) strongly disagree.


2 SSNs on station do not cover all the RN's global responsibilities.


And while the budget and crew problems exist, they are not insurmountable, especially considering small SSK/SSP crews and low prices, with around 3-4 SSKs/SSPs available per SSN in terms of both funding and crew.

For one not to put a block on their opinion, but I have dealt with the navy for many years (was my job i dealt with Logistics for most of NATO as a contractor), their bosses do not see the need for SSK's even some high Admirals don't want them in the fleet as they see no real use for them.

Having spoke myself to people like Admiral Chris Parry they don't see what a SSK will bring to the table right now except as a force multiplier, forwardly deploying into for example the Gulf for 5 years would be a huge logistical task because the facilities would need to be modified (i've been to the Bahrain facilities they are somewhat lacking in some ways).

This is much the same argument we are having with the rest of the fleet, the should we have built 12 type 45's and why are we building just 8 type 26's and were going to build 5 type 31's, its a dam mess.

The governments since SDSR 2010 with their creative accounting have undermined the Navy and the RFA capability, they have destroyed a lot of our capabilities in the process of re-structuring.

However with that in mind and the current build programs re the Dreadnought, type 26 and 31 plus the remaining Astutes and F35B acquisitions, we currently do not have the budget to simply go and buy off the shelf conventional submarines, let alone crew the things.

For Example right now an AIP equipped type 214 is sitting on the 800 million (once we Finnish with it) Euro mark, if we were to buy 4 of those we could have simply just have purchased 1 or 2 more astute's which are far more capable and flexible than the 212.
You also have to think about training, SSK operations differ to Nuclear operations it is why we run 2 types of Perisher the course has diversified over the years.
on top of that where do you propose these submarines carry out their operations?

Since the 90's the RN has done without conventional's we retired our Upholder class early and sold them to Canada because they no longer fitted any doctrine we had, on top of that we only built them because we could, the real issue is what we perceive the threat is and what we do to counter it.

Our navy made a choice and we chose nuclear, right now i just cant see how it would fit into any doctrine we have, our operational deployment areas are:

Carribbean - Anti drug smuggling and humanitarian
Falklands - Routine patrol areas British Territory
Gulf of Aden - Anti Piracy (something we sometimes drop out of due to lack of surface fleet)
Persian Gulf - Escort duties mainly right now

None of which could really use a SSK, unless you want to send it to eavesdrop on Russia but with the limitations we know about it wouldn't take long for us to be embarrassed.

I'm all for fleet increasement but i certainly don't think SSK's are the way to go as i cant see what value they would bring to the RN right now.

As for 2 on station SSN's thats the minimum number but it is adequate for what the UK does in reality we could put 4 to sea so its not a major issue.

[ikalugin]

He is a submariner, so he was thinking from pure mil perspective I guess and he really wanted surface and subsurface assets forward deployed.

I guess yes, UK is a bit constrained with resources seeing how the new programs are going. For the basing argument I think that it could be packaged nicely into the overall program, like we did with Kilos for the Black Sea.

3-4 submarines provide better coverage than 1-2 submarines, even if the two are more capable, particularly when selecting between the mixes.

Note how you have omitted the Arctic and how many of those areas would benefit from having in theatre submarines in general (recon and spec ops, threat of SLCMs etc) without them needing SSNs specifically.
A small number of them can be offloaded to UUVs though I guess.


p.s. are there tables for the RN technical readiness on the lines of Shishkin's work?
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/navy_korabel/63221775/109069/109069_original.jpg

[Kapitan]

He is a submariner, so he was thinking from pure mil perspective I guess and he really wanted surface and subsurface assets forward deployed.

I guess yes, UK is a bit constrained with resources seeing how the new programs are going. For the basing argument I think that it could be packaged nicely into the overall program, like we did with Kilos for the Black Sea.

3-4 submarines provide better coverage than 1-2 submarines, even if the two are more capable, particularly when selecting between the mixes.

Note how you have omitted the Arctic and how many of those areas would benefit from having in theatre submarines in general (recon and spec ops, threat of SLCMs etc) without them needing SSNs specifically.
A small number of them can be offloaded to UUVs though I guess.


p.s. are there tables for the RN technical readiness on the lines of Shishkin's work?
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/navy_korabel/63221775/109069/109069_original.jpg

To answer your last question first: I do not and cannot comment on the technical or operational readiness be it a comment in the form of the Past, Present or Future of the RN, RFA or any of our NATO Partners fleets.
Any such disclosure remains at the discretion of the UK MOD and NATO.
I therefore never comment or reveal sources that may include this information, however open sources are available using the RN website :03: .

The current UK is tied right now with this Brexit dilemma and as such funding for the MOD is not of major concern, depending on which government gets into or remains in power will depend which way funding will go. (i have my own views)

I agree 3-4 submarines do provide better operational capabilities and allows more on station at one time that we cannot deny.

But we have a serious issue with crewing right now, specifically with submarines and its why we have switched to lean manning.

The Officer your talking too looks at it from the Operational stand point and to a degree he is correct, however i have to look at it from the non operational stand point using budgets, crewing capability, and standing doctrine. (therefore in reality neither side is incorrect in their thinking or view and i for one would like to see more surface ships and submarines)

I deliberately omitted from commenting on the UUV and the arctic.

[ikalugin]

Shishkin is an OSINTer, who compiles such open sources. What I was asking about - if you know about such sources for the RN rather than RuN and if you do, if you could (please) reference such sources. Don't worry, I don't think that we have anyone who would be asking you to disclose anything proprietary.

The crewing I think is not going to be such a big issue - just to use the above example, Type-214 uses just over a quarter of Astute crew.

Why did you omit them?

[Kapitan]

I use a variety of sources for open source including the USNI and both Canadian and UK government websites.

Are you meaning something like this ?

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0426/NCOM_Version_3.pdf

[Kapitan]

Shishkin is an OSINTer, who compiles such open sources. What I was asking about - if you know about such sources for the RN rather than RuN and if you do, if you could (please) reference such sources. Don't worry, I don't think that we have anyone who would be asking you to disclose anything proprietary.

The crewing I think is not going to be such a big issue - just to use the above example, Type-214 uses just over a quarter of Astute crew.

Why did you omit them?

As for Omit i have reasons to not discuss this area il just say too risky for me and dont wish to be embroiled in anything.

[ikalugin]

I use a variety of sources for open source including the USNI and both Canadian and UK government websites.

Are you meaning something like this ?

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0426/NCOM_Version_3.pdf
Not quite. What Shishkin does for the Russian Navy is to take such goverment sources, add in media reports and so on, then compile them to make a table every month or so as to what the state of the ships are (in the above example he colour codes them, yellow = repairs and modernisation, green = available and so on). You can see an example of the table for this month previously in this thread.

I guess the closest equivalent I know of would be the "where are the carriers?" project for the USN, found here: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm (https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/12/HDR-H.jpg)


So I was wondering if such a handy (compilation) source is available for the RN. This would help to see the real state of the readiness so to speak.

[Kapitan]

only thing i have used is this:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/operations

There is a list that is published on one of the sites i think its save the royal navy that give you a ship by ship status but i cant right now remember the link.

The USNI publishes the carriers positions