NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Submarines Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Virginia's Kid Brother

March 10, 2009: The U.S. Navy continues to entertain an internal debate over the issue of just how effective non-nuclear submarines would be in wartime, and whether the U.S. should buy some of these non-nuclear boats itself. This radical proposal is based on two compelling factors. First, the U.S. Navy may not get enough money to maintain a force of 40-50 SSNs (attack subs.) Second, the quietness of modern diesel-electric boats puts nuclear subs at a serious disadvantage, especially in coastal waters.

In an attempt to settle the matter, from 2005 to 2007, the United States leased a Swedish sub (Sweden only has five subs in service), and its crew, to help train American anti-submarine forces. This Swedish boat was a "worst case" scenario, an approach that is preferred for training. The Gotland class Swedish subs involved are small (1,500 tons, 200 feet long) and have a small crew of 25. The Gotland was based in San Diego, along with three dozen civilian technicians to help with maintenance.

For many years before the Gotland arrived, the U.S. Navy had trained against Australian diesel-electric subs, and often came out second. The Gotland has one advantage over the Australian boats, because of its AIP system (which allows it to stay under water, silently, for several weeks at a time). Thus the Gotland is something of a worst case in terms of what American surface ships and submarines might have to face in a future naval war. None of America's most likely naval opponents (China, North Korea or Iran), have AIP boats yet, but they do have plenty of diesel-electric subs which, in the hands of skilled crews, can be pretty deadly.

One solution to the problem would be a new French design, the Andrasta class coastal boats. The Andrastas are 855 ton, 153 foot long subs, with a crew of 19 (plus 8 passengers, usually commandos). The boat can stay underwater for up to five days. Surfaced, it can travel up to 5,400 kilometers, at slow (170 kilometers a day) speed. There are sufficient supplies on board to keep the boat out up to 30 days. Thus the Andrastas can be deployed, slowly, anywhere in the world. Most missions would be more like two weeks, before the boat returned to port, or a sub tender (a support ship carrying fuel, supplies, maintenance capabilities, and even relief crews). The Andrasta has six forward firing torpedo tubes, which can also carry mines or anti-ship missiles. There are no reloads, all the weapons are stored in the torpedo tubes. There is a special chamber for letting divers exit the boat while underwater. These boats cost $200 million, a tenth of the cost of a Virginia class SSN (a 7,700 ton, 377 foot long boat with a crew of 134 and over 30 torpedoes and missiles on board).

Based on the experience with Australian and Swedish subs, the U.S. Navy has been developing new anti-submarine tactics and equipment. In secret, obviously. But apparently the modern, quiet diesel electric boats continue to be a major threat to U.S. surface warships and subs. Meanwhile, potential enemies build more of their cheaper, and higher quality, diesel-electric boats, and train their crews by having them stalk actual warships (including U.S. ones.) The subs are getting more numerous, while U.S. defenses are limping along because of the sheer technical problems of finding quiet diesel-electric boats in coastal waters.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article MURPHY'S LAW: Colossal Cock-up Continues


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       3/10/2009 7:13:26 AM
there are a few assumptions in this that are wrong.
- gotland is a smaller profile version of gotland.  
- gotland does not have signature management - collins does.  we;ve sold it to other navies with swedish subs - we have NOT sold it to sweden
- RAN evaluated AIP and determined that it was of minimal operational benefit on cost performance - the Stirling modile is sitting on a pallet in a shed.  unwanted and unloved because it did not show any benefit to a conventional sub designed to fight 60 days deep bluewater.  Gotland was not designed for 60 days deep blue.  Collins was designed to undertake the mission set of the oberons more efficiently, longer range, longer days at sea, larger warload, battlecruiser, aircraft carrier killing warshots. Gotlands mission set was and is different at an absolute sense. Bear in mind that recently missions were declassified under the australian 30 year rule which showed that the RAN Oberons had gone inside russian and chinese harbours in the cold war - Collins was designed to outperform that capability.  Oberons then were deemed acoustically the quietest of all conventionals - and were the yardstick when the sig management issues were considered.  The benchmark was not german and/or swedish subs - it was the Oberon which was the benchmark as it had gone into hostile contested waters more than any other conventional during the cold war.

Gotlands evaluation is  a bit more complicated than the above - AIP is not the sole reason for the assessment, a smaller sub without signature management compared to a larger iteration with signature management designed for wartime deep blue protracted 60+ day mission cycles  barely begins to cover off all the other reasons.

 
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    bugger!   3/10/2009 7:24:13 AM
typo error

gotland is a smaller profile version of collins - in first stage hull shape only.

USN and NAVSEA support to fix up the swedish design coque ups on Collins ("Dev 1") resulted in sail and stern changes after we were provided with access to some of the nuke tank test results.   It also included significant changes to the prop design and material science issues.

Comparison of Gotland against Collins pre 2004 would be closer.  Against Collins post 2005 its virtually a different sub.  add the signature mapping developed in australia and its almost a different class of vessel.  Its certainly no longer a Kockums Type 471. 


Gotlands use and benefit for the USN should be looked at via the prism of where and how the swedes operate compared to a USN most likely UDT threat.  Thats the significance.
 
Quote    Reply

Dave_in_Pa    Some clarification, please?   3/10/2009 9:53:45 AM
Could someone please explain what "signature management" is?
 
Also, what in general are the max underwater times of AIP-equipped subs versus non-AIP-equipped subs?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Tincanman       3/10/2009 9:58:36 AM
Better the USN learns how to solve the non nuke sub detection problem in shallow coastal waters off their shores vs ours....
Transit time is a critical issue here......AIP equipped boats might cross the Atlantic or Pacific to get up close and personal with the USA, our choice is to learn when they leave their home ports and setup a US Navy ASW a/c or SSN to say "Hi" during the long transit time it takes a non-nuke to make the trip......The recent visits by several European navies  new diesel powered AIP equipped subs to the USA gave us a good opportunity to operate with these subs and learn their operational capabilities. Moreover, the annual Malabar USN/Indian navy exercises allow the USN to train vs the Project 877EKM Kilo class subs that Russia sold to India. China also operates both Project 636 and 877 Kilo class subs.
Tincanman
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       3/10/2009 10:41:51 AM

Could someone please explain what "signature management" is?

 

Also, what in general are the max underwater times of AIP-equipped subs versus non-AIP-equipped subs?


 

 

Signature management in sub terms usually means keeping quiet.  The trick to being quiet is to know how much noise you are making and what inside the boat is making that noise.  So it has evolved into a "managment" term - in not being totally silent but how/what/where to become quiet.  This can take the form of sophisticated computer programs and sensors to check noise output and machinery vibration.  It can - however - be something really simple.  For example, it took the Russian Navy decades to finally figure out that equipping the crew with heavy boots and thick soled shoes made tracking their subs pretty easy - just listen for the footsteps.
 
AIP vs. non AIP times vary depending on the sub and system - usually non AIP can remain underwater for up to about 5 days max while an AIP can do weeks - much like a nuke sub.  The bad old days of U-boats staying under for 24 hours are gone even for regular D/E boats.
 
Quote    Reply

Rick9719    SSLs?   3/10/2009 11:43:58 AM
We have light cruisers, light carriers, why not light subs?  The big questions for me is what is the operating cost of the diesels and can we really keep the cost down to a tenth the cost of a Virginia by the time they get through our procurement process.  Is so I would gladly give up 5 Virginias if it got us 35 Neo-Gatos.  Someone should think seriously about putting either a deck gun or a much cheaper torpedo sytstem into these things too.  Not everything the USN needs to sink is a Russian Boomer.  Gato class subs did a lot of very useful work sinking Japanese coal barges in WWII.  Must we sink them with computer guided homing torpedos?   
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    We can build better than the French   3/10/2009 11:59:15 AM

We have light cruisers, light carriers, why not light subs?  The big questions for me is what is the operating cost of the diesels and can we really keep the cost down to a tenth the cost of a Virginia by the time they get through our procurement process.  Is so I would gladly give up 5 Virginias if it got us 35 Neo-Gatos.  Someone should think seriously about putting either a deck gun or a much cheaper torpedo sytstem into these things too.  Not everything the USN needs to sink is a Russian Boomer.  Gato class subs did a lot of very useful work sinking Japanese coal barges in WWII.  Must we sink them with computer guided homing torpedos?   

I would like to see a pebblebed experimental boat. Something about the size of a Barbel class.
 
What is pebble-bed?
 
 
It is a thing at which we should look for Tango Bravo. Small simple and nimble it is a candidate for a littoral sub. its advantage is that it could, if it works, be a silent nuclear boat. Don't use deck guns inn the age of HARPOON either. Reason is obvious 
 
Herald
.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       3/10/2009 12:02:41 PM
As was pointed out before - time to transit is critical.  A D/E sub takes days while a nuke can do it in hours.  Plus, have you ever thought whether a D/E can operate under the ice for any length of time?
 
Look at what happened to the Bellgrano - the UK nuclear attack sub was able to keep up with the Agentine battle group no matter how fast they were traveling - and did so out of detection range.  A D/E sub could not keep pace but has to wait in a lure or trap mode - otherwise it will give itself away.  This is the reason why the US Navy has D/E sub phobia - because our carriers are out tearing around the oceans and do run across areas where a D/E sub could lie in wait - silently.
 
Nuke subs don't always have to use high-tech weapons - the Bellgrano was sunk using a standard WWII design torpedo.
 
There are places for all kinds of weapons but you have to know what kind of fight you are heading into or defending against.  In our case, defense is not the primary role - thus the reason why SSNs are called "attack' subs.  They are an offensive tool - intended to go into harms way and get out quickly.  Many of our allies have great D/E subs - the Australian Collins and the Japanese subs are great.  However, they are also designed to fit their strategic and operational needs.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Uh Rick...   3/10/2009 12:04:28 PM
35 SSK's are going to have a crew greater than 5 Virginia SSN's...and people, not things are the biggest cost driver, so you don't get 35 SSK's, you get about 25 of them....at the most.
 
And the reason we use Mk 48 torpedoes is they have a range of thousands of metres...tens of thousands of metres...far out-ranging deck guns...far more lethal and far more accurate...plus deck guns add noise to a submarine....
 
Modern SSK's and SSN's look like they do, for reasons, not just whims of submariners.
 
Quote    Reply

Boilerman       3/10/2009 2:12:42 PM
I can't imagine the USN using an SSK to stalk a deep water strike group. That's what the SSNs are for.
 
Small SSKs like the Gotlands or the Andrastas would be a nice complement to the SSNs for much the same reason that the Littoral Combat Ships, despite the disaster they are, will be to the surface fleet.
 
Quote    Reply

ndonovan       3/10/2009 2:36:15 PM
Doesn't "quiet" mean not emitting noise?  Whats wrong with active sonar?  Why can't we find quiet subs using powerful active sonar mounted on some system that does not give away the location of our vessels?
 
Quote    Reply

Chris       3/10/2009 3:15:07 PM

Doesn't "quiet" mean not emitting noise?  Whats wrong with active sonar?  Why can't we find quiet subs using powerful active sonar mounted on some system that does not give away the location of our vessels?



Use of active sonar gives away the position of whoever is using the sonar, similar to that of a policeman that uses a flashlight in the dark to find a criminal.  The criminal can see the policeman with the light well before the policeman see him. And unless the light is pointed directly at the criminal (close enough for officer to identify the criminal) he won't be able to see what he is looking for.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    Boilerman   3/10/2009 7:41:13 PM
It wouldn't be a complete swap. SSKs would be used to augment the existing USN sub fleet, keeping most of the nuclear boats and decomissioning or mothballing some, then buying or building a small (~20?) force of SSKs for littoral operations.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/10/2009 9:04:23 PM

Could someone please explain what "signature management" is?

 
 apart from the prev input, signature management can be passive/benign or active.  it's also something that won't get much detail provided in an open forum.

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Pentagon Bob    Ft Stewart Bob   3/11/2009 1:03:43 AM
This is slightly off topic, but as a former infantry paratrooper, submarines and anti-submarine warfare are slightly exotic to me.  My expertise is limited to Tom Clancy novels and what I learned working for the J-3 at CINCPAC in the mid-80's.  Here's my question:  In a Littoral environment, in an effort to detect D/E or AIP submarines, would it be practical or effective to use active sonars, delivered - by air - to specific locations and pre-determined distances, in conjunction with SSNs?  The idea being that at a predetermined time and given the known locations of the two emitters, to the SSN, go active allowing the SSN to collect the data while operating in a passive mode.  Imagine a triangel with the SSN at the apex of an isocoles triange and the emitters at the two base corners.  The SSN wouldn't have to be close, say at 50 miles plus from both emitters.  It strikes me that if it could be made to work by illuminating anything within the triangle or even anything along a line that bisected the triange.  Then any submarine lying in "ambush" for our capital class assets would be discovered and destroyed, long before they could be a threat.  A further question:  If it would work, could the return signal off of the SSN be used to locate it by the D/E - AIP operated submarine?
Thanks for your patience, in advance.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy