Astute vs Virginia

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Most countries don't need to project their forces all over the world. Well if history is a tihng 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?

Exactly. 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 :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.

Originally Posted by goldorak

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.

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.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Exactly. 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?

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.

[Phullbrick]

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.

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

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

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.

That's totally true imo

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Phullbrick

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.

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 :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.

[Phullbrick]

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

[Sub Sailor]

I am not sure what Admiral Rickover's being Jewish has to do with anything. Yes he was dogmatic, opinionated, and an all around Pain in the A... But he made Nuclear Power what it is today, as far as the US Navy is concerned.
I would suggest that anyone who believes US Sub Commanders are not aggressive should read Blind Man's Bluff, Whitey Mack and the USS Lampon is not the actions of a unaggressive skipper. Nor is the greatest intelligence coup of all time "Ivy Bells". At one time most of the pictures of Russian (Soviet Union) appearing in Jane's were compliments of the US Navy Submarine Force.
I met the Admiral on many occasions and I was interviewed by him for NR-1, thank god I was not accepted. I never liked him, most of us didn't, but we all respected and admired him.
Look at the US Navy's saftey record, and we can thank the Admiral for that. I will match our CO's againist any in the world. Attending the Perisaher course, of course they do, it is one if not the finest course in the world. I am happy the British Navy lets us.
You got a tough dangerous job, the United States Navy Submarine Force will do it.
Rickover was demanding and an all around jerk but he set a bar we all workd to reach, bitching as we went, but we did it and we are better men to day because of it. He worked as hard as we did for perfection, and it paid off.

Pride Runs Deep


Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)
one of Rickover's boys 1962-1981, yes I know he was dead by 81 but is influence was and still is felt and respected.

[Kapitan]

Rickover was not to messed with period.

As for the USN saftey record nuclear saftey its not the best the RN and frnech navies hold that infact in terms of length of nuclear subs in service britian clearly wins, the title for being the safest nuclear navy 0 losses.

Russia is not the worst either ! china is since the 1960's there has been some 20+ submarines go missing from chinas navy, dissapeard without a trace.

You may have a superior boat but a well trained crew and skipper in an inferior boat can cause nightmares.

[Sub Sailor]

When I said safe I meant Reactor plant, the Thresher was a hull in the Aux Machinery Space, and Scorpion was due to a Battery explosion, although there are some who theorizes it could have been a faulty torpedo. I always leaned to ward the Battery myself.

[Orm]

[quote=LoBlo
but Electric Boat Company seems to know what its doing more than BAE.[/quote]

What a strange statement. Then you think that a company that get a national contract of billions of pound does know much of what it is doing. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Before you affirm such a thing, please show the hard facts that BAE is not competent in its job, or admit that it was a pure nationally biased statement, which is, in my point of view, meaningless.

[Sub Sailor]

I meant hull fitting and I am not blaming anyone or accusing anyone. It was a very sad accident and comes with the job. The hull fitting failing is common knowledge, and happens this happed at or near test depth.
Now for facts, I was involved in some of the testing after Thresher, to see what things we could change in our power plant operations to aid in this not ever happening again. It turns out we had overkill on the safe side and was far to restrictive, that was changed, and no I will not and cannot discuss it. Also from the Thresher sinking came sub safe, another area that had not kept up with the new capabilities of our subs. I have no idea what other Navies have in this area.
In regards to the Scorpion-everything from underwater sea mount, some one torpedoed her, lost depth control, to a battery explosion were out there on the rumor mill. The United States Navy made changes to how we handled the battery, I never saw the films of Scorpion and know we changed our operation of the ships battery, so apparently that what the experts determined caused the loss of the ship. In the case of Thresher I was allowed as others on the testing program to hear the tapes made by the vessel that accompanied Threser to sea, normal coming out of the shipyard.
Orm I was on Nuclear Subs from the early day (1962), and I have a lot of knowledge about US Subs. I know first hand our requirements and I know the training our people get, I did not any way question any other country's program.
I believe strongly in our programs, I trusted every crew I ever sailed with, and I will say now and always I never served with a CO who was not tops. I stated Rickover was difficult, he was driven, and his efforts and determination let the US send the first Nuclear Ship to sea. I truly do not believe anyone else could have done what he accomplished. But, he was about to be riffed when he took this program over and became the darling of the Congress of the United States. I also said I did not care for him, and was glad I was not accepted for NR-1, because that was his baby, but I did admire and respect the man.
Meeting Rickover's standard made me a better and smarter person than I thought I could ever be. It changed my life greatly and allowed me to become successful because of the work ethic drilled into me, and I am not alone there are 1000s of us around today.
I told you my qualifications to speak up, do you want to share yours?


Ronald E. Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[Sub Sailor]

Orm;
Your post was not directed to me so I put my foot in my mouth and my head in my Ass.
Please accept my profound apology and forgive me for sounding off as I did. I guess this old man needs to read things more closely, and to be less sensitive.

Truly sorry,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[Orm]

Originally Posted by Sub Sailor

Orm;
Your post was not directed to me so I put my foot in my mouth and my head in my Ass.
Please accept my profound apology and forgive me for sounding off as I did. I guess this old man needs to read things more closely, and to be less sensitive.

Truly sorry,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

No apology need Sir. I got from you an answer of quality, and I respect and recognize your knowledge in this area that way much more than mine. I must admit that my only experience in the Navy is serving for one year the French Navy as a naval infantry.

I am only very careful with statements that show only the national pride of the individual. I think that in a forum with a mix of nationality, we should stay only by the facts and appreciate also that others can do better that ours.

Greetings

[Sub Sailor]

Thank you Orm;
Naval Infantry, is that the same type of force as our Marines? I was unaware the French Navy had that type of unit. Does the French Navy have units such as our SEALS?
I did correspond with a gentleman from France who was in the French Air Force, he really wanted to be in Subs. I lost touch with him.
Again thank you for your graciousness and I certainly learned a lesson, to read more carefully before I open my Battleship mouth thus overloading my rowboat butt. (American Navy humor for talking without the facts)

Thank you,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)
(sometimes known as cannon mouth)

[Orm]

Naval infantry in the French Navy is the step before the naval commando units like Seals. Naval infantry in French is "fusilier-marin". The naval infantry history go way back to the French Royal Navy as they were the onboard assault troops. Nowadays, there main duty are naval bases protection and police duty onboard warships. But, like I said previously, most of the youngs going there, target the commando units, which is not very easy.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Orm

What a strange statement. Then you think that a company that get a national contract of billions of pound does know much of what it is doing. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Before you affirm such a thing, please show the hard facts that BAE is not competent in its job, or admit that it was a pure nationally biased statement, which is, in my point of view, meaningless.

*sigh* Looks like someone can't read.... .

Originally Posted by LoBlo

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

Read the *already* posted BBC article.

I'll summarize for you. Over 3 years behind schedule... over 1 billion dollars over budget... and still could not solve its design problems.... Needed to bring in Electric Boat personel and expertise to help solve its problems.

Reading... its a good skill to have.