Frankly I didn't appreciate every thread being spammed either.  Moreover, I'm personally always amazed when someone responds to a comment by saying it has no merit.  If a comment merits a response in my view it's not spam, trolling, etc.  From the perspective of a free speech absolutist people have every right to be annoying, ill informed, and even stupid.  That does not mean one need respond to them.

 

It's also worth noting that sometimes the responses to "trolls" can be quite illuminating.  There has been more than occasion that I have personally learned something that was written in response to BW or a similar person.  So I will not sign nor support your petition and in fact am against the very notion of kicking people off discussion boards because many or most do not like them.  Let those who administer this board remove those who violate the stated code of conduct and everyone else just say what they like within the bonds of civility.

 

I was wondering why there isn't a navy in the world that doesn't solely use submarines for its navy.

From their inception, subs have been used in a jeune ecole type approach, i.e. When a navy is not powerful enough to field enough ships of the line. We can take the example of Germany in the World Wars, the Hunley in the US Civil War as notable examples. However, with the many notable advances in submarine technology, is it not obvious that the sub is now versatile to take on the roles of surface craft without suffering the same vulnerabilities?

As the Japanese demonstrated, a submarine aircraft carrier is possible, a troop ship is possible due to the size of modern subs. Why do navies continue to build surface ships that are exposed to missiles, aircraft, are easily trackable etc etc? How long will it be before the navies of the world go 100% submersible?

The biggest problem a Navy would have with a submarine dominate navy is that nobody would know it. Much or most of what a Navy does is simply "be there". By running your frigates up and down the coast you advertise your ability and willingness to defend your fishing grounds, natural resources, ports, and other national assets. A submarine is extremely vulnerable in that role. It would be a target for anybody with a missile or depth charge. As Germany demonstrated in two world wars, a submersible or submarine can be an incredible force multiplier but nothing replaces the sight of your man-o-war cutting across the seas in response to a pirate's challenge.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Actually, submarine tankers have been proposed, principally for under ice access to oil in the arctic.  Most oil, both crude and refined, is less dense than water so it is not all that difficult if the tankage is designed to operate at ambient pressure.  Bathyscapes, for example, use gasoline for buoyancy.  All you need to supply is enough buoyancy to surface the ship while the oil tankage is flooded with water.

At the rate the arctic icecap is melting, you won't need subs.. conventional tankers will do just fine.

I do know that GD studied a sub to carry liquid gas under the ice in the 1970s and the conclusions were it could not economically compete with surface tankers or pipelines.  Right after the cold war ended a Russian firm also proposed a 30,000 ton sub oil tanker.  I have read different naval architects state that a submarine tanker is simply not economically viable.  There are myriad things one could design and build but that does not mean it's economically a good idea.

 

Actually, submarine tankers have been proposed, principally for under ice access to oil in the arctic.  Most oil, both crude and refined, is less dense than water so it is not all that difficult if the tankage is designed to operate at ambient pressure.  Bathyscapes, for example, use gasoline for buoyancy.  All you need to supply is enough buoyancy to surface the ship while the oil tankage is flooded with water.

Submarine tankers are, almost by definition, only economically viable in areas where you cannot get enough safe access with conventional tankers and conditions make a pipeline impractical.  There actually are some places that are described by those requirements, but there is little interest because there is no way to get the product out ...  it's a chicken and egg problem.

 

We will eventually after the resources and build the subs when we run out of alternatives, but it might not be in our lifetimes.

It's a theory he put forth at the end of "The Price of Admiralty".  In my view it's one of the weaker of his works and his analysis on submarines in WWII lacked almost any analysis.  He's not exactly a modern naval historian.  His notion about submarines is entirely flawed on myriad levels.  I'll note two examples.

 

If every warship becomes a submarine exactly which warships fights aircraft?  Even if you only have the radar projecting out of the water and launch the SAMs from underwater or via encapsulation exactly what is the point given the radar telling everyone in creation, including enemy subs, exactly where the super expensive anti aircraft submarine is.

 

Design a group of submarines to land and support ashore a marine brigade.  Do they operate underwater when launching amphibious craft and helicopters?  Now compare the cost of these gator subs to surface ships and ask if anyone can either afford or gain enough utility to justify the cost?

 

The problem with Keegan is that his works notes 4 battles of which 3 are dominated by capitol ships.  The submarine can be seen as the new capitol ship but this does not mean it can replace all warships.  One could make a submarine mine hunter but given the cost of a 1,000 ton surface mine hunter one would be hard pressed finding value there.  Before anyone comments that subs today can use mine hunting ROV's that does not mean you build a purpose build sub for mine hunting.  A Sandown costs around $50 million.

 

I think John Keegan has published a work describing just this scenario of future navies dominated by submarines.  Does anyone happen to know what the title was?