Will the U.S. Navy Build Stealthy AIP Submarines?

sdmuleman · 12-28-20, 10:51 PM

Keep in mind also that a non nuc sub still has to meet all the Subsafe wickets for design, construction, maintenance, etc. That means that it's still going to be very clostly and hard to build, especially needing a new design & testing and certification, and likely standing up a new submarine shipyard to build them. Thus, the cost savings is likely far less than folks think. Yes, manning is lower, and you don't need costly nuclear trained Sailors, but that's again less of a savings than you'd think.

Also, shear physical size is required for certain missions - a small diameter hull isn't big enough to put a big VLS tube on, or embark a drydock shelter, or do certain other missions. Yes, you can shoot torpedos or horizontally launched missiles, but there's many more things out there to do, some of which require a larger boat. Likewise, physical size impact the size of sensors that can be carried. Further, electrical power is also significant - nuc boat not only gives you more or less unlimited propulsion, but also electrical power for fire control systems, sonars, etc etc.

Anyone significant thing to consider is manning, specifically officers. Currently, nuclear training is tightly integrated into the submarine officer (1120) community. You must be nuclear trained and proficient in nuc matters to stand many watches, get promoted, etc. Because of this, non nuc duty would either have to be in addition to regular nuc boat tours (i.e. in place of a shore tour) or would be an off ramp job that more or less takes that officer out of the running for future nuc boat jobs. Given that a diesel boat mission is also inherently less likely to be important, interesting, sexy, etc. it seems very likely that the diesel boats would becomes the second class citizens, with all the baggage and negatively associated. Now, of course other navies do make a mixed navy work, and USN has obviously done so in the past, but there significant differences.

Bottom line, cost/benefit calculus doesn't make sense, and any non nuc construction anytime in the immediate future is highly unlikely IMHO.

ET2SN · 12-29-20, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdmuleman

Anyone significant thing to consider is manning, specifically officers.

You've made some very good points, but you also have to consider the enlisted crew. Most of them will have to be specially trained for the class of boat. Its also a much different world when you're under way. Fresh water is much harder to come by if a reactor isn't suppling the power to produce it. That has a huge impact on the crew and their attitude.
"Going caveman" can be fun when you're young, but only for so long. Being a finalist in a "stink off" competition can also result in some skin diseases and even dental issues if water is really being rationed, and its always being rationed.

On the Barbel, the enlisted shower got tagged out (shut off) when we went underway and if you got caught wasting fresh water, that could lead to four or five hours on "still watch" in the engine room (when we ran the stills, the engine room could easily get above 100 degrees/38 degrees C). There was a lot of pride in the crew, but going to a Nuke felt like a luxury and I didn't waste a lot of time crying for the "good old days".

Kapitan · 01-01-21, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET2SN

when you're under way. Fresh water is much harder to come by if a reactor isn't suppling the power to produce it. That has a huge impact on the crew and their attitude.
"Going caveman" can be fun when you're young, but only for so long. Being a finalist in a "stink off" competition can also result in some skin diseases and even dental issues if water is really being rationed, and its always being rationed.

Not wrong I spent time on quite a few boats even the nukes and they all have a similar water saving policy, in the RN your limited to a shower lasting no more than 1 minuet of running water, naturally you find ways to maximize its use.

ET2SN · 01-04-21, 04:00 PM

On a nuke, water conservation is more like a suggestion.

If you screw up and wind up filthy during your watch, it isn't that big of a deal to take a shower once you go off duty. True, its a Navy shower but its still a shower. I would go 3 to 4 days between showers when I was underway on the Bremerton. The only real hassle was if COB went on the warpath and tagged out the water heater (it happened) or if you timed out taking your shower to when the boat went to PD.

We could even waste water if we really wanted to. The only hassle would be pumping out the infamous Gray Water Tank (which stank 4 times worse than the infamous Sanitary Tank).

On a diesel, a large % of the water your stills can produce is destined to end up in the battery well(s). Lead/acid batteries without distilled water don't stay batteries for very long.

12-28-20, 10:51 PM	#1
sdmuleman Nub Join Date: Dec 2020 Posts: 2 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Keep in mind also that a non nuc sub still has to meet all the Subsafe wickets for design, construction, maintenance, etc. That means that it's still going to be very clostly and hard to build, especially needing a new design & testing and certification, and likely standing up a new submarine shipyard to build them. Thus, the cost savings is likely far less than folks think. Yes, manning is lower, and you don't need costly nuclear trained Sailors, but that's again less of a savings than you'd think. Also, shear physical size is required for certain missions - a small diameter hull isn't big enough to put a big VLS tube on, or embark a drydock shelter, or do certain other missions. Yes, you can shoot torpedos or horizontally launched missiles, but there's many more things out there to do, some of which require a larger boat. Likewise, physical size impact the size of sensors that can be carried. Further, electrical power is also significant - nuc boat not only gives you more or less unlimited propulsion, but also electrical power for fire control systems, sonars, etc etc. Anyone significant thing to consider is manning, specifically officers. Currently, nuclear training is tightly integrated into the submarine officer (1120) community. You must be nuclear trained and proficient in nuc matters to stand many watches, get promoted, etc. Because of this, non nuc duty would either have to be in addition to regular nuc boat tours (i.e. in place of a shore tour) or would be an off ramp job that more or less takes that officer out of the running for future nuc boat jobs. Given that a diesel boat mission is also inherently less likely to be important, interesting, sexy, etc. it seems very likely that the diesel boats would becomes the second class citizens, with all the baggage and negatively associated. Now, of course other navies do make a mixed navy work, and USN has obviously done so in the past, but there significant differences. Bottom line, cost/benefit calculus doesn't make sense, and any non nuc construction anytime in the immediate future is highly unlikely IMHO.

01-04-21, 04:00 PM	#4
ET2SN Ocean Warrior Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 2,652 Downloads: 60 Uploads: 0	On a nuke, water conservation is more like a suggestion. If you screw up and wind up filthy during your watch, it isn't that big of a deal to take a shower once you go off duty. True, its a Navy shower but its still a shower. I would go 3 to 4 days between showers when I was underway on the Bremerton. The only real hassle was if COB went on the warpath and tagged out the water heater (it happened) or if you timed out taking your shower to when the boat went to PD. We could even waste water if we really wanted to. The only hassle would be pumping out the infamous Gray Water Tank (which stank 4 times worse than the infamous Sanitary Tank). On a diesel, a large % of the water your stills can produce is destined to end up in the battery well(s). Lead/acid batteries without distilled water don't stay batteries for very long.