Kilo vs Trafalgars, or Strong Resolve

[LoBlo]

Yeah, your probably right to try to get more information before drawing to many inferences. What are the chances of a Polish officer exaggerating results in a Polish vs British contest? Pretty darn good.

The details of the scenarios would have to be known too. Personally I think the scenario, objective, time constraints, etc are the most cruical factor in deciding who wins and looses. Did the T-boats need to pick up speed in order to cover the op area in a certain amount of time? Was the Kilo free to sit, or did it have to reach any coordinates?

What if it was the other way around? With T-boats hiding and the Kilo hunting them? What if it was a scenario where T-boats needed to penetrate a barrier and launch strikes and the Kilo needed to protect the area? Would it still be 4-0, or would it be 0-4? What's the definition of "a kill"?

Its darn hard to find anyone willing to talk about the details... and probably illegal for them to do so... If you find anything let us know

[Linton]

Question has been asked.Whether anybody answers remains to be seen!

[LoBlo]

I've never quite understood the origin of this "our training is superior" attitude that most British forces present. "Better trained" has become almost a catch phrase amongst UK advocates, but what supports that claim?

You can't tell me that the methods used by the British sub forces are much different than seen in any other modern western navy. No doubt that the French are using top notch training methods with the use of top notch simulators, training software, exercises, drills, and qualifications. German submarines are no doubt using top quality tatics and training methods as well, as are the US, Dutch, and Australian forces. Human psychology and learning tatics probably don't vary much either.

So where does this claim that UK training is better than French, German, Australian, or any other navy come from? What supports it? Its more reasonable to believe that the command and crews of any modern navy have more than likely received comparably rigorous, viligent training with equal competance.

[Kapitan]

Well where do they stake thier claim

In the fact we help train them perhapse, its no seacret that USN russian dutch german indian pakistani french all have taken part in the BRITISH perisher course the hardest test you will ever take in your submarine career.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

I've never quite understood the origin of this "our training is superior" attitude that most British forces present. "Better trained" has become almost a catch phrase amongst UK advocates, but what supports that claim?

Actually, while the basic training may be similar, there are countless procedural differences that may affect competence.

For example, a valid case could be made that US officers are at a disadvantage, simply because they have to waste years on joint duty and as I understand it they diversify more even on boat, which reduces the amount of time they have on their real specialty.

There is also sailing time per year which varies - some navies get more than others.

Another factor is political constraints, which affect the realism of the exercises you are allowed to do. It isn't a very good idea, for example, to be in a Navy where you are given one or two exercise torps, then have to ask and get permission to shoot the torpedo (which forces you to raise a scope).

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Actually, while the basic training may be similar, there are countless procedural differences that may affect competence.

For example, a valid case could be made that US officers are at a disadvantage, simply because they have to waste years on joint duty and as I understand it they diversify more even on boat, which reduces the amount of time they have on their real specialty.

There is also sailing time per year which varies - some navies get more than others

Or a valid case could be made that the experience gained in joint duty gives US submariners a better understanding of other platform capabilities, operations, strengths, and weaknesses and how they can be exploited thus making them better submariners.... so that example could be viewed either way.

Regarding sailing times. What are the sailing time differences between the navies?

Those differences sound pretty trivial. Got anything more concrete?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Those differences sound pretty trivial. Got anything more concrete?

Americans mostly practice against each other (i.e. other nukes). That's why we do these international exercises, we have no SSKs to practice against. I think if we had more opportunities to practice against SSKs, we'd improve.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

Or a valid case could be made that the experience gained in joint duty gives US submariners a better understanding of other platform capabilities, operations, strengths, and weaknesses and how they can be exploited thus making them better submariners.... so that example could be viewed either way.

I guess that was the theory behind the joint stuff, but as I understand it, "joint" does not mean an operational tour on say a surface warship to broaden experience. It means a staff assignment, and not even a Navy assignment - its more like a Pentagon assignment. It is highly unlikely you will get any kind of insight about say surface ship weaknesses that you shouldn't have gotten by self-reading or tactical education.

So the gains are dubious and the loss is definite - a loss of 3 whole years (JDA tour length) of experience, a 3 year gap in which your shiphandling goes to corroded rust and your tactical instincts are dulled.

I guess the only thing worse will be to an Air Force officer doing his JDA - he doesn't fly, or fly minimally to keep his flight status, and his proficiency goes to the toilet.

Regarding sailing times. What are the sailing time differences between the navies?

Not sure about the Brits. I heard that the Belgians spend 280 days/year at sea, and the US about 200. I suspect the average Brit rate is somewhat lower than the American due to their lesser commitments, but the Brits probably do go out more than the Poles, thanks to money.

Try going to RAND and search for an article called Finding the Right Balance: Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units. The article's real value is stating some of the differences b/w American, British and French training. Training methods do vary b/w navies, and so do personnel policies. Each may only have a small difference, but added together, combined with the fact there are no 2nd place prizes in sub warfare, makes a huge difference.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Questions for SeaQueen:

I've read that diesels are handicapped sensor wise because of their size and lack of power. Basically, they can't carry the whiz bang sensors the nukes can and run the computers that power them because of these limitations. Have you heard anything like this?

What kind of programs do you guys use at work for simulation? Off the shelf stuff like Harpoon or puprose built? Understand if you can't talk about it.

PD