Astute vs Virginia
 

Which is the better sub and why?

Discuss. :)

What are the known specs for the virginia and astute classes ?
No vote without clear facts. ;)

Although I voted astute I would have to say at the moment Virginia class.

Why? Well 2 or 3 of them exists. Astute hasn't even been finished yet.

No not an another comaprison, base on what?
A computer will answer : 'ERROR : Not enough data to proceed, BIP, BIP.'

Aww.. thats lazy :):p

Oh well, here's *one* source of info (even though there are no real "facts" in sub specs.)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-774-specs.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ope/astute.htm

In a nutshell....
The cost of the two subs is about equal. Both subs were designed to be low-cost but each had significant cost overruns.
The VA is estimated at 7800 tons crew of 113, the Astute at 6800 tons crew of 100-108.
VA is built by Electric Boat company, Newport News, Lockheed, and Raytheon. Astute is built by BAE, but halfway through the design phase, BAE needed to bring in Electric Boat Company to solve some of its problems. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2930237.stm
Both subs probably have comparable sensors, and diving depths.
The VA has 4 horizontal tubes and 12 VLS tubes; total weapons capacity 38. The Astute carries 6 horizontal tubes with no VLS system; total weapons capcity 36 weapons
The Astute speed is estimated at 32 knots. The VA speed is unknown. Its thought to be somewhere between the LA and the SW.

That's about all I can find atm. I voted for the VA. They cost the same, but Electric Boat Company seems to know what its doing more than BAE. I have some theories about they're quieting levels as well.

Based off what we do know of course.:roll: And any other reasoning that the chooser expresses in their post for an interesting and enlightening discussion :)

Nothing interesting out there :ping:, the same boats, same weapons, same hull design, same everything *yawn*.
I want something new in submarine design/ weapons.
Why is it that american and english subs only carry "torpedos". ? :rotfl:
What about more "exotic"weapons : skvals, anti-ship missiles, subroc etc....

Enough rant, I vote for the Astute class, only because its a european sub everything else being equal. :)

You have to explain why you would choose Astute :) That the fun of the discussion. :)

Despite not wanting to upset the British community on here ,anything that BAE is involved in and is already late and over budget is going to be inferior.In the modern world the RN should be buying a fleet of aip SSKs

As far as I understand its not only the americans that are "fixed" on nuclear submarines.
English and French have decided for an all out nuclear submarine force.
How dumb is that ?
Especially for the 2 european countries ?
Did Rickover have relatives in France and England btw. ? :rotfl::rotfl:

Rickover came from an eastern european jewish family.I think that despite being a very good engineer his dogmatic approach that every ssn officer should be an engineer first and also personally selected by him took some of the fghting spirit away from the US submarine force in the early nuclear years

But really, what can anyone do with a SSK, besides park it off your own coast and let it sit? How useful is that? *shrug*

What's the UK going to do. Send an SSK into the Mediterranean, across the Suez, around Saudi Arabia, and into the Persian Gulf at a whopping 8 knots SOA? At that speed it should get there by .... oh lets say Christmas (j/k)

Most countries don't need to project their forces all over the world.
Well if history is a thing to reckon then having open sea lanes is fundamental.
What happens when a country such as china/iran/india etc... uses its fleet of SSK for interdiction of trade routes ?
What good are 688I, or the entire american surface fleet in the strait of ormuz ?
Some ssk in that zone could prove deadly adversaries against the us navy.
The US has virtually 0 experience in ssk design and how to counter them (and things have changed a LOT since the 1950's).
The end of the cold war, has shifted the center of naval warfare from blue water operations to coastal/littoral operations.
As an aside Russia is developping a wireguided supercavitating torpedo as well as Germany.
This could change radically the nature of underwater combat.
The US are still focused on normal torpedo technology.
Nuclear hunter killer submarines (except boomers) , are like the F-14.
They were born in a era where cost was irrelevant with respect to the mission they had to accomplish.
Same thing with the F-14, it was the best of the best bar none.
End of cold war, desmise of the F-14.
The US navy should not desmise its nuclear submarine force, but on the other hand should develop ssk submarines for the new type of post cold war warfare.

And when you ask what good is an ssk ?
Look at the damage SSKs did to the English fleet during the Falkland's war. :arrgh!:

I believe that the USN has absolutely recognized the threat posed by the new breed of SSK's and are taking steps to counter that threat. It's also recognized that the focus is shifting toward brown water operations and the VA class has many new features that enhance it's abilities in these areas. And please don't kid yourselves folks when it comes to Nukes vs. SSKs. The simple fact is that the US, USSR, UK and France take the nuke route because they can. The modern SSK is a result of governments that can't afford nukes but wanted a modern submarine force that can hold it's own in coastal opns.

Astutes have 6 torpedo tubes i believe the VA's have only for so the british subs have 20% more firing capibility than the americans right away, both are similar, but its not who is better or who has the best sub, its who has the best trained crew, and at this moment on even the united states navy flatly bows down to the british on that score period end of.

The USN regularly sends thier naval officers to train with us and do our "perisher" as do the indians and even had some germans too.

Exactly. :yep: A sub can't protect a sea lane if it can barely reach it. What *does* happen when Iran/China/India uses its fleet to cut off trade routes? In such a likely scenarios what good is a sub to the US/UK that can only sit off the US/UK coastline?.... a waste of money and manpower. So the US/France/UK have decided that subs with such limitations would really only be good for coastal defense, and in the likely scenarios that the US/UK/France will face, those subs add nothing to their capabilities, with SSNs the more economical investments and more effecient spending.

The VA is absolutely deadly in waters like the Straights of Hormuz and exactly the type of environment that it was designed to operate in. Brown water training and anti-SSK warfare training is in full effect in the USN. Most countries *can't* project forces all over the world... because they can't afford SSNs :yep: :p , or just don't have interest.

And for those that seem so interested in US bugdet costs, they need to realize that buying a 2billion dollar submarine represents only 0.1% (one tenth of a percent) of the total US yearly budget or 1% of the total US defense budget.

Nope. Just more classified regarding the manner. http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb...fier=ADP014188
And on a side note. The USN is now testing designs for its new anti-torpedo torpedos.

Let me just say that the use of diesels for long-term objectives may prove fruitless to those that own them. Ultimately they quickly need support, fuel, and food replenishment. Much, much faster than the nukes. Most of these diesel types within 30-40 days. The answer is to destroy their ability to replenish their diesel sub force at sea or in port. Destroy their ports, support ships (if any), and fuel supplies. That's pretty easy to do with stand off capabilities currently. Watch em' like hawks. Any attempt to rebuild this infrastructure or find alternatives should be eliminated. Also, any diesel trying to return should be eliminated. Basically, any nation with diesel subs can find their fleet obsolete within 30-40 days if the right steps are taken against them. While I think diesels are deadly, I believe their shelf life will be short in any major war against any major player.

P.S. Oh yeah. And I did vote for Virginia SSN simply because from the current data, it has more capabilities. Just like Astute, it has an impressive capability for ASW, and ASuW. Also like Astute, it seems to have impressive weapons and sensors. The Virginia however, has VLS giving it a significant long range Strike role. And it also seems suited for littoral operations. So it seems to give just a bit more.

Regarding France choice to own a nuclear submarines fleet, I don't think the objective is to project our force anywhere - let's be honest which EU country can really do it with their defense budget ? Anyway it's not even our will.

No, France needs nuclear attack submarines to protect our commercial routes and SSBN submarines which carry our nuclear arsenal, because our defense doctrine is still based on nuclear deterrence. If an hostile country wants to invade or strike France, they know France 'will' use nuclear missiles as a counter-attack or a preventive measure.

Also, remember that we had nuclear missiles bases located in France during the Cold War which are no longer existing. So as the threat has moved away, our defence doctrine had to adapt and can only be assumed by a mobile and stealth submarine nuclear force. :lurk:

It's the sword of Damocles over any hostile nation and ofc I really hope we will never use this nuclear force. :dead:

About the Astute/Virginia comparison, I have no opinion as 99% of the facts are kept secret ;) But well I bet on the UK as they 'are' in Europe ;) and I'm a UE supporter :)

That's totally true imo

When i was talking about projecting force i obviously meant primarily aircarft carriers :) .
Don't tell me the CDG with its complement of rafales is for coastal defense :doh: :rotfl:
A 100% nuclear submarine fleet in my opinion is still a sign of national prestige (as it was in the 1960's to have kicked Nato out of France, or have begun a armed nuclear force indpendent from the American and British programs etc...)
And the French (with the British) want to retain a "global" projection force within their resources.
Call it a heritage of their colonial past.

I strongly agree with you

ofc it is also a way of running after a prestige lost with the falls of the colonial empires for EU countries

but speaking for the France nuke sub forces it is still mainly based on a defence doctrine imo

but I can only smile about our capacity of projection... let's face it and be honest, owning a single aircraft carrier like the CDG doesn't give you the power to project yourself as we used to do in a 'glorious' past. We simply can't do it today, we don't have the forces, we don't have the budget, we don't have to political will to do it. Times changed.

Ok I know France has forces in several places in the world to help people sometimes to fight (Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan), but without the help of other countries nothing can be achieved. Imo only the US still have the forces to project a full army, but even them call for support from allies.

For me our forces are more some sort of 'police' forces acting under UN resolutions. As you said, empires are lost in the past and there's no need anymore for us (the EU) to be able to project what we used to project before. And if we really need to project forces, it's always as a joint force with EU countries and in that case it begins to mean something from a 'military power perspective'.

But today with the political issues we can see and above all some ressources shortage do not plead for a reduction of the military forces, on the contrary it gives reasons to rise them :(