Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defense Focus: Diesel sub wonder weapons
United Press International ^ | Aug. 31, 2007 | MARTIN SIEFF

Posted on 08/31/2007 11:21:11 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Defense Focus: Diesel sub wonder weapons

Published: Aug. 31, 2007 at 11:10 AM By MARTIN SIEFF UPI Senior News Analyst

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- The diesel submarine may be the leading "Cinderella weapon" of the 21st century. It gets no respect in the United States or Russia. But China, India, France, Germany and Israel are all betting on it big time.

The diesel submarine is certainly not a sexy new technology like anti-ballistic missiles, global positioning satellites or lasers. It has been around as long as the submarine itself (British Adm. Lord John "Jackie" Fisher's bizarre experiment in giant steam-powered submarines, the notorious "K" boats of World War I, never got very far).

Diesel submarine technology was perfected more than 60 years ago in the great ocean-worthy U.S. Navy fleet of subs in World War II and in the German Type XXII and XXIII U-boats that became operational towards the end of the war.

However, the development of nuclear submarines, first by the U.S. Navy in the 1950s and then by the Soviet Union, appeared to make the diesel sub as obsolete as the bow and arrow became after the mass production of firearms. Adm. Hyman Rickover, the feisty father of America's nuclear navy, hated them like poison. So did his successor admirals.

Thanks to their procurement policies, there is not a single shipyard left in the entire United States that makes them anymore. But in other major nations, the old diesel sub is making a remarkable comeback.

Israel has already deployed three German-built Dolphin diesel submarines to carry nuclear-armed cruise missiles to provide it with a survivable second-strike capability to deter Iran or other nations from the temptation of carrying out a pre-emptive first strike with nuclear weapons, and it has ordered at least two more -- both also from Germany.

France is doing good business building its Scorpion submarines for export too, and India is planning to deploy Scorpions with cruise missiles as a deterrent against Pakistan similar to the Israeli concept.

But the biggest enthusiast for diesel subs is China, which is building its own: In 2006 it built 14 of them to one U.S. -- nuclear-powered -- new submarine.

China is building a mixed, or balanced, submarine fleet. It has also invested in bigger nuclear-powered strategic submarines to carry a survivable second-strike ballistic missile deterrent primarily aimed at the United States. But it is pouring major resources into its conventional submarine fleet as well. Why?

Diesel subs certainly do not have the limitless range and endurance for long-term operational deployment that nuclear subs do. But in conventional war, they have a lot of advantages as well.

They can operate far more easily in littoral or offshore, shallow waters, and being much smaller than nuclear submarines gives them a potentially huge operational advantage in key enclosed potential combat regions like the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Also, China's procurement policies and its overwhelming concentration of force in its southeast coastal region leaves no doubt that Chinese operational planners see their most likely conventional enemy as being the U.S. Navy and Air Force in any eventual conflict over the status of Taiwan.

In this context, having a very large conventional diesel submarine fleet makes a lot of sense. Conventional diesel subs can pose a formidable threat to nuclear aircraft carriers operating within operational range of their home ports, as the Chinese sub fleet in the western Pacific and the Taiwan Strait would be doing in such a conflict.

U.S. anti-submarine warfare, or ASW, capabilities are superb, the best in the world. But they were overwhelmingly developed to locate and destroy bigger Soviet or Russian strategic and attack subs that were nuclear powered. A lot of smaller, cheaper diesel subs operating as underwater wolf packs would stand a much better chance of overwhelming the ASW defenses of U.S. carrier battle groups than throwing just two or three nuclear attack subs against them at a time would.

For Israel and India, the calculus is a different one: Israel simply cannot afford to buy nuclear subs, and they would be too big and therefore easy to detect in the relatively shallow Mediterranean anyway.

Nor does it need big nuclear-powered platforms like the U.S. Ohio class strategic subs or the old Soviet-era Typhoons, or even the somewhat smaller new nuclear powered Russian Borei class to carry its second-strike weapons.

Israel can't afford and does not need long-range submarine-launched ICBMs anyway. Iran, Syria and its other potential enemies would all be within range of much smaller intermediate-range cruise missiles that could be launched from a conventional sub. So the Jewish state has sensibly invested in German U-boats as its main line of defense. One wonders what Grand Adm. Karl Doenitz would have thought about it all.

In 1982 the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror proved the conventional operational potency of the nuclear attack submarine by sinking the Argentine heavy cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands, or Malvinas, War. Future wars, however, may see that dynamic reversed with enormous nuclear surface ships hunted by fleets of a weapon employed in both world wars that was supposed to have been superseded half a century ago: the non-nuclear diesel submarine.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; Israel; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: desub; france; germany; israel; runsilentrundeep; russia; silentservice; ssk; submarine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Cutaway of German Type 212 class

1 posted on 08/31/2007 11:21:13 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Never discount diesel boats


2 posted on 08/31/2007 11:24:28 AM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
"In 1982 the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror proved the conventional operational potency of the nuclear attack submarine by sinking the Argentine heavy cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands, or Malvinas, War."

LOL. There wasn't much "proof" needed of that concept..... the General Belgrano operating anywhere within the operational area of the HMS Conqueror was on a suicide mission. The only question was whether the Brits would decide to sink her because they were showing a lot of restraint, IIRC. They could have sunk a lot more Argentinian ships if they'd wanted to.
3 posted on 08/31/2007 11:26:18 AM PDT by Enchante (Reid and Pelosi Defeatocrats: Surrender Now - Peace for Our Time!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Cutaway of French Scorpene
4 posted on 08/31/2007 11:28:56 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Interesting. But I think the authors own bias comes through with the repeated assertions that nuc subs can’t operate effectively in ‘shallow waters’.

We’ve been doing that very effectively for half a century in the Med, for just one glaring example of the author’s bias.


5 posted on 08/31/2007 11:29:09 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
I imagine with the new more powerful batteries available they are extending range and time between snorkeling considerably.

It only takes one torpedo to ruin your whole day....

6 posted on 08/31/2007 11:29:36 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
In 1982 the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror proved the conventional operational potency of the nuclear attack submarine by sinking the Argentine heavy cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands, or Malvinas, War.

Yeah - a modern nuclear attack submarine sinks a WWII cruiser that was being held together with chewing gum and bailing wire...

7 posted on 08/31/2007 11:29:42 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Drei tausend Meters
Torpedo LOS!
Surface!
Hans, machine gun all zurvivors
Say, didn't we already see this movie?
8 posted on 08/31/2007 11:30:30 AM PDT by Zerodown (Youse guys don't think Frenchmen are tough? OK. You try Gauloises.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
"It has been around as long as the submarine itself"

No it hasn't. The first submarines were in use prior to the Civil War and were use before the advent of the diesel engine.

9 posted on 08/31/2007 11:31:11 AM PDT by hometoroost (TSA = Thousands Standing Around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Diesel boats. They are a navy’s parallel to one sniper with a good rifle.

You never know where or when.....

10 posted on 08/31/2007 11:32:31 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

The author doesn’t talk much about the new AIP systems being added to subs.The German fuel cell based systems can go stay under for around 4 weeks at a speed of 5 knots.


11 posted on 08/31/2007 11:34:08 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

And with some of the new fuel cell technologies, it is quite possible that diesel boats can be even quieter than Nukes.


12 posted on 08/31/2007 11:35:01 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; sully777; vigl; Cagey; Abathar; A. Patriot; B Knotts; getsoutalive; muleskinner; ...
Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......

If you want on or off the DIESEL ”KnOcK” LIST just FReepmail me........

This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......

13 posted on 08/31/2007 11:36:08 AM PDT by Red Badger (ALL that CARBON in ALL that oil & coal was once in the atmospere. We're just putting it back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Diesel subs are excellent defensive weapons. Nuclear subs are excellent offensive weapons.

I believe it was Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising that started with the CIA knowing something was up with the Soviet Union because all of the sudden there was a shortage of car batteries in Russia. This led the CIA to believe that Russia was replacing the batteries in their diesel subs in preparation for something big.

14 posted on 08/31/2007 11:36:40 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
LOL! Ok, I guess this does qualify as a diesel ping!
15 posted on 08/31/2007 11:37:15 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

>> Israel has already deployed three German-built Dolphin diesel submarines to carry nuclear-armed cruise missiles to provide it with a survivable second-strike capability to deter Iran or other nations from the temptation of carrying out a pre-emptive first strike with nuclear weapons

I was wondering about Israel’s second-strike capability just the other day. I’m glad to see that they have it.


16 posted on 08/31/2007 11:37:18 AM PDT by Nervous Tick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Fact is diesel boat have steadily been improved, modernized and quieted.

New propulsion modes are quiet above and below the waterline. They are every bit, in some regards better, than a nuc powered vessel in terms of maneuver, stealth, and life cycle economy. We should build them, but for political and force priorities/bickering do not.

A CVBG would be nearly helpless to counter even a modern two boat threat provided with some initial targetting. Crusie missiles of several types can overwhelm any US defense—and torps are not yet obsolete.

Time to get in the pig boat business.


17 posted on 08/31/2007 11:37:43 AM PDT by petertare (--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I WANT ONE


18 posted on 08/31/2007 11:38:06 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Yeah - a modern nuclear attack submarine sinks a WWII cruiser that was being held together with chewing gum and bailing wire...

And they used World War II-era torpedoes to sink her!

19 posted on 08/31/2007 11:38:31 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
World War II-era torpedoes .....

Heard tell Belgrano went down after a hit with a wire-guided torpedo.

20 posted on 08/31/2007 11:41:06 AM PDT by Zerodown (Youse guys don't think Frenchmen are tough? OK. You try Gauloises.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson