Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: It's Quiet Out There, Too Quiet
SYSOP    12/19/2012 5:53:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Skylark    nukes aren't noisy   12/23/2012 4:40:04 PM
A Nuclear Russian Akula class submarine recently operated undetected for several weeks in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico... Nukes are not "VERY" easy to find, even in shallow water or even with the aid of the most sophisticated anti-submarine detection network in the world.  Just because a conventional sub is quieter, does not necessarily mean that a nuclear sub is too noisy to escape detection. 
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ       12/24/2012 2:04:30 PM
Nothing wrong with a high-low mix of SSK/SSNs, with SSK forward-deployed into hotzones and "first-to-fight" in the Persian Gulf, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, plus an SSN reaction-force that can blitz from the second island chain, Hawaii or whatnot or sortie with the fast carriers.
 
The other question is what kind of SSK's do we want? Large SSKs that will try to compete with nuclear subs and fail to match their speed (but be quieter), or something smaller for medium-range ops, or something even smaller for coastal ops?
 
Looking at the Andrasta minisubs, wonder if they're just right or too small? 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       12/24/2012 5:22:59 PM
Nothing wrong with a high-low mix of SSK/SSNs, with SSK forward-deployed into hotzones and "first-to-fight" in the Persian Gulf, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, plus an SSN reaction-force that can blitz from the second island chain, Hawaii or whatnot or sortie with the fast carriers.
 
The other question is what kind of SSK's do we want? Large SSKs that will try to compete with nuclear subs and fail to match their speed (but be quieter), or something smaller for medium-range ops, or something even smaller for coastal ops?
 
Looking at the Andrasta minisubs, wonder if they're just right or too small? 
The problem with forward deployed SSKs is that you need either forward bases or motherships for them to operate from.
 
Large SSKs probably offer no advantages in detectability vs. SSNs, and less ability to break contact when discovered. But smaller SSKs will for shallow inshore work would. The question should be do you create generalized designs like the SSNs, or specialized design that could sacrifice the majority of their capabilities to be far cheaper?
 
The Andrasta may be a step in that direction at 855 tons with a total of 6 (torpedoes or missiles) mounted outside the pressure hull to eliminate the torpedo room and 5 days submerged endurance, it is probably unsuitable for the anti-surface mission, but sufficient for self protection in a special forces role.
 
Quote    Reply

hannes    Conventional Subs are not for the US   1/4/2013 12:40:46 PM
The big advantage (silence!) of a conventional sub is only valid as long as it runs on the batteries, which used to last a few days max. While AIP systems turn this into a whole different story (up to a month without snorkeling), the subs still have very limited (sustained) speed while running on the AIP system (300kw max!). Their stealth is only useable "locally", they cannot hunt an enemy down, but have to lurk an wait for him to come.  All this makes conventional AIP subs a terrific tool for defending homeland coastlines or for relatively short-range and short-time missions, e.g. a sneak attack at an enemy harbor, block a narrow strait. 
 
The mission reqirements of the US Navy are typically quite different to what a conventional sub offers. The prime goal for the US navy must be to better detect and defend against those subs, not so much to own them - owning a diesel sub doesn't make it any easier to find one thats hiding somewhere. 
 
As long as they are cannot be detected reliably, any ship will be under immense danger when it happens to come close to a hiding diesel sub. I am thinking of an aircraft carrier in the persian gulf: for an iranian diesel sub there is lots of shallow water, rugged coastline, tankers and container ships to hide between. This scenario must give the carrier commander some serious nightmares. Even conventional diesel boats managed to take close-up pictures of carriers a number of times. 
 
If at all, it might make more sense for the US Navy to develop small manned mini-subs or "underwater drones" that can be dropped off from motherships at the location.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics