Posted on 08/31/2007 11:21:11 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Both the latest U.S. nuke boats and the latest diesel electric boats are incredibly quiet, and if one is any louder than the other it's only by a matter of a few decibels. But the problem isn't one quieter than the other, it's that both are as quiet as each other. And detecting the opposition just got that much harder.
Knowing about subs I would suspect that a nuke powered sub is much faster than a diesel/electric sub.
You’re going to have to build a lot of em then to get lucky, why not just outfit a nuke with batteries to quiet them down some??? Once you surface your stealth is gone and four weeks is a small window of opportunity in the larger scope of things. D=VT, 5 knots x 4 weeks is a small distance compared to the size of the seas. 3.1 mi/hr x 672hr = just under 2100 mi. Not much!!
We don't have a coastal defense navy. Our subs spend most of their time thousands of miles offshore taking the fight to our opponents. A nuke can get to the conflict quicker and with more stealth, and remain on station longer once there, than a diesel can. They're faster, longer ranged, carry more weapons, and offer more flexibility. If all we were worried about was keeping enemy subs out of the Caribbean then I'd agree with you. But our theater of operations is much larger than that.
Darned Friday math D=VT, 5.75mi/hr x 672hr = 3864 mi and is still not much.
Factor in support craft and you just ruin any chance of surprize at all.
It should be. Better to fight the enemy in their backyard than in your own.
The article makes no mention USCAVs (undersea combat autonomous vessels), the UCAV’s of the sea.
If you think that manned *flight* is being challenged by remote control, you should “sea” what’s going on underwater...
We’re barely building boats at attrition levels now, with no indication that we will build them at a greater rate anytime in the future. What we already have is stretched to the limits. You start throwing in dozens, or even hundreds of potential new submerged threats, and we simply won’t be able to confront them appropriately. It’s just the numbers game at this point.
So, let me see here. The med sea, which is don’t know how many cubits wide and how many deep, but a bunch of them, can easily hide a deisel sub because of the size, but larger nuclear sub is easy to locate?? I seriously question the relative ease with which nuclear subs are located in the med sea, and not the deisel counterpart.
“Never discount diesel boats”
Full list price but interest only until 2009!
The Current Quiet Diesel Submarine Threat
As we enter the 21st century, the global submarine threat is becoming
increasingly more diverse, regional, and challenging. The Russian Federation
and the People’s Republic of China have demonstrated that the submarine is a
centerpiece of their respective navies. Published naval strategies and current
operations of potential adversaries, including Iran and North Korea, have
demonstrated the same strategic doctrine. Diesel submarines are deemed a cost-
effective platform for the delivery of several types of weapons, including
torpedoes, anti-ship cruise missiles, anti-ship mines and nuclear weapons. In
addition to the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, 41
other countries, including potential adversary nations such as China, North
Korea, and Iran, have modern quiet submarines and many are investing heavily in
submarine technology. Of the 380 submarines owned by these 41 countries, more
than 300 are quiet diesel submarines.
Submarine quieting technology continues to proliferate, making submarines,
operating in their quietest mode, difficult to detect even with the most capable
passive sonar. The inability to detect a hostile submarine at long-range - in
other words, at a sufficient “stand-off” distance before it can launch a missile
or a torpedo - is a critical vulnerability that puts ships and our Sailors at
risk. The threat of a quiet diesel submarine, in certain circumstances, could
deny access to vital operational areas to U.S. or coalition naval forces. These
threats to our Navy are a reality that the U.S. Pacific Fleet must consider as
it carries out its responsibility to be able to conduct theater warfare in the
Pacific Fleet.
Yes, it can run in both modes.
We should be doing that. My nightmare is that swarms of cheap quiet diesels subs can take out super expensive US Navy ships. Functioning like an RPG, meaning creating lots of expensive damage at a low cost. RPGs and anti-tank rockets have neutralized Israel's armor, neutralized that costly advantage. Small diesel subs can wreck our "armor" of the high seas, our aircraft carriers
Israeli armor now has a much harder time projecting and so will our heavily armored and heavily protected Navy ships
“A CVBG would be nearly helpless to counter even a modern two boat threat provided with some initial targetting”
Guess we better keep all our CVBGs away from China, then. Which means, heck, we probably better keep the entire navy away. Which means, heck, we probably better just give up now.
I can’t imagine how we’re even going to compete in another 10 or 20 years with China at this rate.
“With so many hostile nations building boats, this is likely not to be the case much longer.”
So, other nations are building submarines, and that means our theatre of operations will dramatically shrink?
“Of course all the technology in the world is useless without a highly trained professional crew, and on that level, the US has no equal.”
Maybe for the time being, but judging from the acceleration of stories in the media - at the rate we’re losing our superiority militarily (along with economically and every other way) I give it about ten more years before we’re bested in that category, too.
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.