No....

However, it seems more cost effective to train against Australian and
Japanese AIPs than to build and maintain our own, especially since the Japanese
and Australians have much better AIP subs than our potential adversaries.

CardEE

we don't have AIP in the Collins.  Our own assessment showed minimal advantage for its installation.  The Sterling AIP's bought for Collins are still sitting on pallets in the corner of an ASC warehouse.  we instead use the AIP space for "special" kit.

Thanks!  For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that Collins was AIP. 

The US Navy still trains against the Gotland which is AIP and much more capable than any Chinese submarine that I'm aware of.  This seems to be the most cost effective way of training against AIP without having to manufacture a class of our own.

CardEE

The USN plays against numerous platform types and in a variety of waters - by association all that dissimilar warfare training against multiple navies (eg the euros, sth americans, east and sth east asians, pacrim etc... gives her considerable depth of scale in training.

China can only dream about that degree of hi-level dissimilar training.  Couple that training and co-operation regime with absolute platform competency and professionalism within her own ranks - the PLAN would not have a hope.

 

The PLAN would be cost and attrition negative when going up against the Japanese or Sth Koreans - they've got no hope against a USN sub driver.

Thanks!  For some reason, I had it stuck in my head that Collins was AIP. 

The US Navy still trains against the Gotland which is AIP and much more capable than any Chinese submarine that I'm aware of. 

The Gotland is a mini version of Collins but without the sophistication of the combat suite - and without the acoustic management mods.

Since I'm obviously out of my league here, do you concur that the US Navy has no need for AIP equipped conventional submarines?

My main argument is that the US needs the quick transit abilities of nuclear power much more than the ultra-quiet, but slow speed of AIP.  I don't see this changing in the future, as future nuke boats could even deploy very quiet USVs to act as distributed sensors or "mobile mines" in an areal denial scenario.  A nuke boat acting as a mothership for several USVs seems to offer the best of both worlds, very quick transit speeds, long endurance, but nearly silent operation.

CardEE

    There could be several advantages for the US to actually go through with the developement of ssk's, AIP or no. The first would be export. Something in the vein of what the Russia did with the Kilo, we could equip our allies who have meager budgets with a viable strategic tool. The US would be in a much better position to do this, shouldering all the developement costs for applications for the USN, and leaving any purchasing neighbor with a relitive bargin. (read Tiawan, etc,) Another plus would be this, that a conventional could be foward deployed to protect Allied interests in littoral areas (say in the middle east F.I.) permanantly stationed in a friendly country. By this mechanism they wouldn't have to travel thousands of miles to collect data and run patrols. A modern hydrodynamic hull, engine tech borowed upon from ssk producing countries, 'off the shelf' components, and a very modular electronics/weapons suite would produce a deadly force to be reconed with. Peace s2s

That was sort of what I had in mind. There are about 300 plus pests out there that deserve a torpedo, not to mention the occasional port that needs to be MEZed. With I guess about a projected forty US attack nuke boats roaming around loose; some of them guarding Ohios, some of them on "specials", some of them guarding carriers, the numbers look a little thin. I wonder if a dozen or so forward deployed AIP boats working off a subtender might be an option in a dense threat area. You can operate USVs from a nuke boat to increase one boat's coverage area, but the area coverage of the entire coastline of a certain unnamed group of pests might be too much for a mere forty boats if you  have say only two or three boats for "pest control".

 

Even if you had allied help.

 

Herald

  

the usn will never operate a substantial number of non-nukes in the next 50 years period.  in the future they might be sold on a few aip subs to operate in specific areas (coastal defence, carribean, gulf of mexico, or forward deployed to the med) but america's navy is interested in domination of all oceans at the same time, and indefinite endurance, very high speed nuke subs are the best way to go for that cause.  i doubt any aip subs will ever be as multimission capable as a 688i or seawolf or virginia or ohio ssgn.

Yimmy, GFs opinion "I think that USN is far better off considering the networking of UUV/USV/ROVs to their nuke fleet.  The steps made in the last 18 months alone are enormous." fits the bill for what you are suggesting.   The difference is just that the nuclear powered sub tenders are actually SSNs/SSGNs and the AIP/diesel subs are the UUVs.  It's all relative.  The old terms don't fit anymore.

 

Perhaps you could give AIP diesil submarines the deployability and sustainability of nuclear submarines by intoridcing nuclear powered sub-tenders into the fleet, much the same as you have nuclear powered carriers to deal with aircraft.

It could be argued that a small fleet of SSKs could be useful for two reasons:

 

- Forward deployed to likely areas of conflict, and to help protect forward bases like Guam and Diego Garcia.

 

- Perhaps almost as importantly, it would enable construction costs on the SSNs to be spread more - i.e. build two SSNs per year, and two to four SSKs, along the lines of the Collins, using a version of the SSN's combat suite. Given the advances in propulsion for conventional subs (not just AIP, but fuel cells and anything else you can think of), SSKs may be able to be used for escorting slower battle groups, such as amphib groups, where an SSN isn't available. 

 

I could see a future fleet made up of 2/3 SSNs and 1/3 SSKs, possibly even half and half, allowing SSNs to be used for what they do best, with SSKs taking over some of the less demanding tasks.