Comments on: Submarine Numbers at Issue

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:32:15 +0000

To the poster Mr. Byron Skinner:
You wrote: “The issue of Nuclear vs. non nuclear is a non starter.“
“Vs.”?! Who versus what? What makes you think that conventional and non-conventional submarines were conceived to fight each other? They complement each other at best, but each has its specific hunting ground and better stay in it.
For example, even a handful of modern, well-maintained diesel submarines would have made a significant difference in this Second Gulf War: If Saddam Hussein had bought six modern vessels “and positioned three of them on either side of the Strait of Hormuz, that would have complicated matters,” according to U.S. vice admiral James Williams. “One diesel sub can make a great difference to how you drive your ships.“
During the Falklands / Malvinas War a single ( CONVENTIONAL ! ) Argentine Type 209 managed to elude l5 British frigates including all the anti-submarine carriers. The San Luis maneuvered into torpedo range of the British fleet and launched three torpedoes, although all three shots were unsuccessful.
Earlier in the conflict a British submarine sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano with two straight-running torpedoes of design dated to World War II design.
And now Iran’s Kilo class subs even have the Russian hyper-speed torpedo “VA-111 Shkval” (370 km/h) …
Do you feel lucky, punk?

By: Peteski

Peteski — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:11:24 +0000

Why is it so many people seem to remember the cliche of “we always plan to fight the last war” yet that wisdom goes out the window on something like the Virginia SSN build rate topic.
The terrorists etc have been getting their @sses handed to them and them may be effectively toast in 5-10yrs, i.e. the WOT may wane. No one has a crystal ball but if we build up SOF etc only and a real war does break out with a major enemy we’re going to want much of the capability we’re talking about scaling back now. And once you slow sub production you can’t just switch it back on as a lot of those skilled workers may have moved on to other careers.
With so many of the 688s due to be retired, unless USA decides to no longer want to be a blue-water force, we must replace (a good portion of) the 688s IMO. They are not B52s that will be around forever.

By: gsak

gsak — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:50:38 +0000

NAVSEA would screw-up any chance for a successful alternative to Nuclear boats. Those guys could spend 5 days figuring-out how to run an RC sub in a swimming pool and still come up with a plan that wouldn’t be as good as you or I could do in 5 minutes.
As a former submariner, I agree with the arguments for more Virginias. But…
Submarine offense and defense using Mk48-based weaponry is a secret weakness in the US Navy. They are horrible weapons; instead of spending money on nuclear-alternatives, we should at least try to field a decent torpedo.
Please raise your hand if you’ve been embarrassed during a TRE by the Mk48’s performance.
MT2(SS)

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:50:17 +0000

Good Evening morpheus,
You got it partly right on the U Boat in WW II. The critical flaws in Hitlers logic in going to the U Boat vs. the surface fleet was that the U.S. could build ships faster then the german could sink them and ASW technology out paced advances in submarines.
One item that you and most others who take about U Boats and their demise, is the still partly classified Mk. 24 air dropped torpedo, still referred to as the Mk. 24 Mine, to cover its identity accounted for at least 89 U Boat sinkings, most likely, more.
Their is no indication that if a major war broke out today and one side relied heavily on submarines that some such weapon would be invented to defend against the submarine.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: morpheus

morpheus — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:20:24 +0000

Just because HItler lost does not mean surface ships trump U-boats. Hitler also introduced cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with the V-1 and V-2. Does that mean we should not use lots of them either?
The tide turned against the U-boats due to radar, sonar, and breaking the German codes like Enigma. We also had a lot more resources too. We all know the Allies overwhelmed the Nazis with quantity both on land and at sea.
So SKinner, your conclusion still might be right, but I do not think your reasoning supports your conclusion.
I know sub carriers have been tried before, but times are different. UAVs and cruise missiles are a whole new ball game. I know carriers are always launching and trapping but most of that is for defense reasons. It is not only the cost of the carriers but the operations budget too that must be taken into account.
I see carrier subs that are more like frigates with a helo pad or two. The carrier sub could have a half dozen UAVs that have VSTOL capabilities. Something like the F35 but smaller and unmanned. Thus I do not see massive carrier subs but something smaller. To get the strike power of a traditional carrier, you would mass a dozen of these sub carriers together.
Carrier subs would not have to dive deep either. How deep under the surface does a sub have to go before it counters most detection and weapons?

By: ex-Em1(SS)

ex-Em1(SS) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:47:44 +0000

AIP is not a replacement for nuclear power, but I feel as a submariner, that they would be a valuable asset for ops closer to home, defense, etc. For a fraction of the cost, you get a sizable portion of the effectiveness combatwise. Lower crew requirements also translates to lower operational costs. I would expect that we’d still have subsafe program related costs (and I do NOT advocate removing those costs!), the SSKs would not have nuclear-lifecycle related costs.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:39:38 +0000

Nuclear subs can easily perform a variety of missions that other platforms simply cannot. The war on terror isn’t the only problem faced by the United States by any stretch of the imagination, especially in light of the surging Chinese Navy and recent events in the Pacific.
If costs are the primary concern (which is understandable), the bolstering our sub fleet with modern AIP boats and forward basing them nearer to the littoral locations they are best suited for is what really makes sense.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:16:12 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
To morpheus on an all submarine Navy. An interesting idea but has already been tried by Germany in 1937 when Hitler decided to build more U Boats and cut back on surface ships. Since England is not a german speaking country today, it would appear that Hitler made a bad decision.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: Valcan

Valcan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:07:07 +0000

Morepheus,
Not a Bad idea just unrealistic. Subs cost a LOT of money and to get the same type of service from them that a carrier does would be even more expensive not to mention a great technical and engineering challenge. Anyways one thing carriers can do is support ground action so there realy isnt any use for being a sub if your on the surface collecting and launching aircraft/drones.
Attack subs are great and well need SSBN’s for the forseable future.
Though the idea is cool though. The russians reaserched making a huge transport sub once.

By: Dave Barnes

Dave Barnes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:26:45 +0000

Interesting.
I read the headline as there being an issue with numbers on the subs.
You know, like no one willing to serve on SSN-666.
Let us enjoy the vagueness of English.