Are Diesel-Powered Submarines Better Than America’s Leading Nuclear Fleet?
 

Are Diesel-Powered Submarines Better Than America’s Leading Nuclear Fleet?

https://nyoobserver.files.wordpress....ality=80&w=635

SSKs are dangerous, but SSNs have their own advantages in terms of endurance, speed, etc.

My biggest dream is if a Type XXXI went up against a modern diesel electric.


Problem with that of course an electro boat wouldn't have the same sound-proofing modern boats with modern sensors would have.

The US needs Fuel Cell Powered Subs too
 

It's my feeling that the USA could use some Fuel Cell type submarines to patrol the coasts of the USA while the other nuclear boats patrol the blue ocean depths in peacetime.

Now when or if a war were to start that would be a different story.

These new diesel-electric boats that use fuel cells to recharge the batteries are potentially very dangerous U boasts.

Remember the destruction that the German U-boats did to the allies until we invented and used radar to find them on the ocean surface? Well those U boats had to come to the surface often to recharge their batteries But these modern U boats with fuel Cells can stay underwater much longer making them much harder to find.

We need to fight fire with fire and so I think we need to develop an industry that can make these new types of Fuel Cell U-boats.

Australian Collins Class
 

an Australian Collins class submarine sunk a US Carrier in a naval war game, the Carrier group had Ohio class subs with it and they didn't detect the Collins. Imagine their surprise when a diesel electric sub surfaced next to the carrier

Plus the CO has options if the unit coming is passive or pinging called decoy's :hmmm:

Plus all ahead full left full rudder worked in Red October :yep:

Yeah, that incident has me leaning towards diesel-electrics, personally.

Ohios are SSBN or SSGN. I highly doubt they were part of a carrier battle group.

Several nations diesel boats have "sunk" a US carrier and this always makes waves in the community. But how many times were said carriers sunk by nuclear submarines as well? This isn't WWII anymore, the ocean battlefield favors the submarine, be it diesel or nuclear.

Short answer, no. Not for global powers, at least.

Long answer: depends on what you need the submarine for. A nuclear powered submarine has a far greater operational range and speed than a regular diesel-electric submarine. If you need to make contact with an enemy task force the other side of the ocean as quickly as possible, a nuclear submarine will always be the definite choice. That's why you may see and hear reports of nuclear submarines of the US or the UK being detected as far away as the Indian Ocean, the South Atlantic, or the South China Sea.

The US still holds its naval presence throughout the oceans, and nuclear submarines are an intrinsic part of its operational needs and geopolitical influence. A diesel-electric submarine with a certain capacity could theoretically do this, but not maintain presence for a comparative period of time.

As for patrols and shorter operational ranges, the stealth of a diesel electric makes it a much better choice, since it's also cheaper to maintain - and generally smaller than the gargantuan US or russian subs; it's why they are the better choice for countries like Sweden, Germany, or Australia, that do not have a need to hold naval power overseas.

On a 1v1 scenario, however, a diesel electric sub with proper noise reduction protocols will almost always have the upper hand. But a nuclear submarine is a lot faster, and it stands a much better chance of getting away from an attack.

These incidents of foreign subs sinking carriers in exercises only highlights the need for 'merica to look for better detection measures.

SSKs and SSNs compliment each other. And while US could rely on forward based allies (ie Japan) to provide said SSK capability we cant.

The whole issue around should the USN deploy SSK type vessels has been discussed quite a bit, I am in the firm belief that there is no current requirement for SSK type vessels AIP or not to be deployed under the current doctrine of the USN.

Lets take a look at what the doctrine is roughly about:

First off the USN is about operations away from home waters, therefore power projection is vital and this is based around 11 aircraft carrier battle groups, the USN also deploys heavy assets such as CG and DDG type vessels which have long legs for extended deployments, the USN also maintains a large oiler fleet for under way replenishment and thus is termed a blue water navy.

The current SSNs / SSGNs the Ohio conversion, 688 and Virginia allow the rapid deployment of subsurface forces to be on station within a short period of time, they also allow huge weapon loads to be carried, this in turn with the capability of maintaining pace with a carrier strike group.

Now with that the conventional submarines / AIP Submarines could never keep pace with a carrier strike group and generally do not carry as much fire power as the SSN or SSGN, the reality is these submarines while yes they are capable of deploying into open ocean arenas they cannot do so on a fast basis.

If we look how long it took Onyx to get back from the Falklands you can understand that these boats are limited for distant operations, also her sister submarine HMS Ocelot left the UK in 1991 en route to operations in the Persian gulf Desert storm, now she left before the war broke out, she didn’t make it to theatre before war was over and was brought home.

Now while I have highlighted 1960’s era submarines the big reality is the technology for straight conventional boats has not changed much, speed and endurance curves remain relatively the same.
AIP boats have the capability to remain submerged for extended periods around 3 to 4 weeks however they could not do so at high speed.
This is a key limiting factor in their inclusion into the USN or indeed re inclusion in the RN, next would be weapons load out and sensor capability.

While we can state that the AIP and conventional are quieter this is often true they still have some serious issues, the USN found this out twice in the early days of the cold war, they still must surface and if caught its unlikely they could out run an opposing ASW force. (re USS Gudgeon)

Right now in North America there are no hostile threat countries around (not even Cuba) so the only real theatre of operations would be right now around the Persian Gulf, with the transit times of conventional submarines measured in weeks not days the transit alone would require re supply in the Gulf states or by Under way replenishment which the current Military Sealift Command is not geared up to do at sea. (they can and have done it the capability is there but they usually do it in port stationary).
The other option would be to transit the submarine using heavy lift ship, which is exactly what they did back in 2006 with HMSwS Uppland from Sweden because the transit would have been too long for her.

This would mean you would have to do something like what the RN does with its MHCM vessels which is station overseas, currently the RN operates 4 or 5 MHCMs from Bahrain on a permanently stationed basis, this isn’t such a bad idea however you draw back is where do you maintain the vessels ? and also would the proposed country allow submarines to be permanently stationed there?

The USN and RN moved away from SSK operations due to the nature of their operations so I am in agreement with their thinking because I cannot see any real need for an SSK in the USN or RN doctrines, yes they are good for training and coastal defence, but with the USA part of NATO if the need arises and the suitable platform for said mission is a SSK it is likely to ask one of the NATO countries that currently operate this type of vessel to under take the mission on its behalf. (Does and has happened)

So in conclusion I can only say that yes maybe build a few conventional submarines for training and OPFOR training but in reality they provide the USN and RN with little to no useful extension in their operational capabilities.

I can see the need for it in RN - 6 SSNs cannot cover the areas of interest for the RN, RN can use some forward deployed (North, ME, Falklands) off the shelf SSKs/SSPs.

At present the UK operates 6 SSN's this allows 2 on station at all times and 4 SSBN's which allows one on station at any one time, however once all the Astutes are built the total will be 7 SSN's.

Right now the UK budget does not support or could not support rather the addition of SSK's to the fleet, this is due in part to lack of budget as the current aircraft carriers will drain a lot of funds, as will the up coming type 26 and 31 FFG's.

With that in mind we also have a lack of crew for more submarines, something Australia is about to find out in the coming years the hard way.

The current UK doctrine does not have the requirement for SSK's either AIP or Conventional, this is due in part because of their operations, which like the USN is over seas.
We do not need SSK's in out fleet even for a coastal role or forwardly deployed there's just no call for them anymore.

With Perisher we work very closely with the Dutch navy and we train prospective captains using the dutch boats as well as our own.

Because we are so interlinked with European navies and NATO we do not require to have our own.