U.S. Nuclear Subs Vulnerable to attack

U.S. Nuclear Subs Vulnerable to attack. I was reading my Sea Classics magazine and stumbled over an interesting article. I believe it was s Swiss or Swedish Diesel attack sub the U.S. Navy borrowed for two years. I have a friend who worked at the Puget Sound Navy Ship Yards in Bremerton Washington who told me an interesting thing about Diesel Subs, which proved true in this article. Diesel is much quieter then nuclear power. For two years the Navy did its best to track that little Swiss sub and it constantly evaded us. The Navy said, after two years, they learned as much as they could. This means any country who can afford a decent diesel powered Hunter/Killer sub, like North Korea, maybe even Iran, could successfully go after our Nuclear Ballistic Subs, arguably the most technologically advanced machine ever made, even more advanced then the Shuttle. Navy Sea classics does not publish its articles online, I will try to find another article about it.

This is an article online I found about the subject.

With the paradigm shift from strategic to tactical warfare operations, the United States Navy has found itself with an aging fleet of virtually obsolete nuclear submarines designed to fight a war that never happened

The Virginia is the result of several years of round-the-clock efforts by thousands of people from 3,500 companies located in 46 states. It is an extraordinarily stealthy, futuristically high-tech, astonishingly expensive underwater marvel. To the tune of $2 billion.

Hybrid diesel-electric units propel Swedish Gotland Class subs, supplemented with Kockum Stirling engines running on liquid oxygen and diesel oil to turn a generator to produce electricity for propulsion and to charge the vessel's batteries. Typical cost for a Gotland class sub is $100 million.

One could argue, therefore, that a potential enemy who is willing to spend $2 billion on submarine technology could deploy eight subs against a Virginia Class that are significantly quieter than a Virginia Class, significantly more maneuverable than a Virginia Class, and with every bit as capable in their weaponry as a Virginia Class.

Get the picture?

You can read the enitre article at this link.

The Wrong Sub for New Warfare Era

Each has their pro's and con's.

Nuclear subs have a much greater endurance, range, speed and are better in deep water.

DE subs are quieter, but have shorter range, are much slower and are best in the littorals.

Depends on your overall military strategy on which is best for your needs. Ideally, I suppose a mix of the two types would be best.

[edit on 12/11/07 by stumason]

AIP boats

battery boats allways have been quieter than nuke boats - but they lack endurance (diesel oil) and when charging batteries on diesel engine are rather noisy

when using AIP (air independant propulsion) the travel speed is `dead slow` typically only a few knots - although it is rumoured the russians have a mini nuclear reactor (10 tons or so weight) they are testing as an AIP


but yes these type of `litoral` (overused term IMO) are really darned dangerous but any sub in the hands of a good commander and crew is a dangerous thing

The sub I was referring to is the Gotland class submarines of the Swedish Navy. This is a link to a brief Wiki article about the sub with a very nice picture, if you want to see what it looks like. It is small and I can see the point about its limited long range capabilities. I have been lucky enough to have a couple tours on submarines. I was on a WW2 sub in Fall River MA, at a naval museum; it was very small. My grandfather took me to another sub in New Hampshire that set speed records in the 1960s, being one of the fastest diesel powered subs in its area; even at the time of the tour its top speed was still classified. That sub was maybe a little bigger then the WW2 boat I was on. I could not have imagined living more then a couple days on either of those subs. Our two football field log ballistic subs are roomy and can stay underwater indefinitely, food supply being the only draw back. They probably don’t need to be closer then 1000 miles from there target? Almost like finding a needle in a football field.

Gotland class submarine

And how exactly is the United States supposed to project power to Iraq with diesel subs? How is a diesel sub meant to kill a Russian ICBM sub?

reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter


It’s not about projecting power. Our $2 Billion dollar subs could be attacked successfully by a $100 million dollar diesel sub. The scenario is highly unlikely but if we were in a naval war with Iran (like the tanker war twenty years ago) and we had a ballistic missile sub in the Persian Gulf, Iran could sink it. They could sink it if they had a modern diesel sub because it’s quieter and more maneuverable then is a ballistic missile sub, and can carry similar torpedoes and counter measures.

A diesel sub could never fill the role of a nuclear power boat as a ballistic missile platform, nor would a nuclear boat make the best hunter killer. As far as a show of power, a nuclear submarine is not a very good show of power because you can’t see it. A aircraft carrier, even though it’s not as destructive as a ballistic missile sub, is the best way to show military power because its big and you can park it in plain view in someone’s backyard.

Our Navy tried its best for two years to track a Swedish Hunter Killer Diesel sub and we couldn’t. Our own Navy proved its Nuclear Subs are vulnerable to Diesel subs in a hostile encounter. How likely is the encounter going to happen? That's the real question.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

U.S. submarines are designed to project power anywhere in the world. Diesel subs running on batteries are very quiet. They are also extremely slow, can't go very deep, their endurance is not good, their weapons load is minimal.

They are very adept at protecting waterways, and small coastal taskings....say protecting a port where they can loiter for extended periods.

They are very good for what they are designed for. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think U.S. planners were caught unaware and that diesel subs (WWII concept) are the death note for Seawolf class subs (or boomers).

Just my two cents. Nothing more than an opinion.


EDIT: I am not trying to say the Sweedish sub is a WWII relic, not at all! I am saying the concept of subs running very quite on batteries is not a new idea, that's all.


[edit on 13-11-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

HMS Gotland

General characteristics

Displacement: 1526 tons standard, 1647 tons submerged
Length: 60.4 meters (198 feet 2 inches)
Beam: 6.2 meters (20 feet 3 inches)
Draught: 5.6 meters (18 feet 4 inches)
Propulsion: two diesel engines (1,300 brake horsepower each), two Stirling engines (75 kilowatts each), one electric motor (1,800 shaft horsepower), one shaft
Speed: 10 knots surfaced, 20 knots submerged
Endurance: over 14 days submerged without snorkeling
Test depth: 500 feet
Complement: 20 officers, 15 enlisted
Armament: four 533-mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes with 12 torpedoes, two 400-mm (15.75-inch) torpedo tubes with 6 torpedoes, 48 external mines

Let’s say if it averages 15MPH for 14 days it could travel about 5000 miles without surfacing. It’s probably classified but does anyone have an idea how fast a nuclear sub can go?

[edit on 13-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

Originally posted by jojoKnowsBest
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

 

It’s not about projecting power. Our $2 Billion dollar subs could be attacked successfully by a $100 million dollar diesel sub.
[edit on 13-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

I see your point. My understanding of these subs (only source is publicly available material that anyone can access) is they are not designed for the type of battle you describe. That is, open combat in deep water. These subs are not designed to operate for extended periods of time, far into the deep blue. They are designed to be coastal defenders.

Are they quiet? Absolutely. Are they designed to take on boomers and modern attack subs? Absolutely not.

Don't forget the power of combined sea-land combat tactics. Air cover, sub hunters, active sonar sweeps by surface ships, etc. The idea that a modern, diesel sub is going to set sail a couple of hundred miles into the deep ocean, patrol for and sink a boomer is not realistic.

Like someone said earlier - any sub in a capable;e crews hands is a dangerous thing, indeed.

Let’s say if it averages 15MPH for 14 days it could travel about 5000 miles without surfacing. It’s probably classified but does anyone have an idea how fast a nuclear sub can go?

[edit on 13-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

I have *no* idea what the real number is. When I was stationed in Hawaii one of my next door neighbors was a sonar operator on a boomer. I asked about that and his answer was "really fast". I asked if the commonly known guesses were right. He said "faster and deeper".

It is rumored the Seawolf class subs can top 40 knots, submerged. I have no idea if that's true. I know that the limit of modern nuke subs is limited by supplies for the crew - not the boat. I think they typically stay submerged for 70 days or so.

Again, this is just stuff I have seen or heard - all public consumption information. I have no insider information.

One more point: I would really like to know what the actual operating speeds are. Meaning; subs have performance profiles. So fast at such a depth and a particular range for the water temperature and THAT equals "silent" running. Even though we are talking top speeds, don't subs (all of them) operate a a speed significantly slower than the absolute flank speed - because of noise? Wouldn't this have an impact on how far any given sub could get (silently)in a certain time period?

[edit on 13-11-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

different factors effect detection underwater - whats the gradiant of the water - the relative salinity - but `silent running ` so i believe is around 15 knots for a nuke boat

This little Swedish sub carries some heavyweight fire power.

Saab Bofors Underwater Systems has developed a new heavyweight torpedo for the Swedish Navy, the Torpedo 2000 (Swedish Navy designation Torpedo 62).

It is a high-speed anti-submarine / anti-surface torpedo with a range of more than 40km and speed of over 40kt.

The fire control system has the capacity to control several torpedoes in the water simultaneously.

naval-technology.com

An Alpha will ourun that torp then


theres nothing wrong with diesel boats - many countries operate them , but the `big boys` all want nuke booats for `true` blue water capability - they can go down in the deep where its very cold and dark - and spend months there.

[edit on 13/11/07 by Harlequin]

I finally found the article in my November, 2007 Sea Classics magazine. Since Sea Classics has no articles posted online I have taken the liberty to type it out myself for anyone who cares to read it.

Swedish Submarine Departs San Diego after two years of challenging the U.S. Navy’s ASW systems.

The Swedish 1494-ton submerged attack submarine Gotland was seconded to the U.S. Navy and its ASW center in San Diego to challenge all of the methods currently in use and plan for defeating diesel submarines in the littoral. AIP is a system that operated a non-nuclear plant underwater without outside air has been in existence since the waning years of World War II in Germany. Had the Nazi U-boat force been able to produce and deploy a sufficiency of these submarines, they might have turned the tide of war.
However, a massive bombing campaign disrupted their plans as well as improvements in submarine detection. Ultimately, the AIP systems will likely supplant the nuclear power plants simply due to coast and the underwater noise generated by the steam turbine plant in a nuclear boar. The USN has studied the Swedish Gotland which is almost four-decades old, and found it to be superior in many ways to conventional ASW tactic.
The Gotland has two sisters and all carry twelve 533mm torpedoes fired from four tubes forward. It would do the U.S. Navy well to take this threat seriously, because North Korea, China, Iran, and every other third world nation with “petrol” dollars can have this technology and come after the U.S. Navy 100,000-ton super carriers. That is a fallacy in our strategic thought processes-there are other Navy’s that are just as progressive as our own, and we do not rule the waves like we once did. The Gotland surprised the American ASW teams by eluding them at every turn. The AIP system could drive the boat 6-kts per hour for up 14-days with the silence of a small kitchen appliance. After two years, the U.S. Navy felt that it had learned as much as possible.

I was wrong about the Gotlands ability to go after a boomer; I should have named the thread, “Our Super Carriers are vulnerable to attack”.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

The scenario is highly unlikely but if we were in a naval war with Iran (like the tanker war twenty years ago) and we had a ballistic missile sub in the Persian Gulf, Iran could sink it.

Unlikely a boomer is going to be in the Gulf.

Let’s say if it averages 15MPH for 14 days it could travel about 5000 miles without surfacing. It’s probably classified but does anyone have an idea how fast a nuclear sub can go?

Unlikely it's going to be abled to go 15MPH for 14 days. The endurance sais '14 days', which could mean anything.

It is rumored the Seawolf class subs can top 40 knots, submerged. I have no idea if that's true. I know that the limit of modern nuke subs is limited by supplies for the crew - not the boat. I think they typically stay submerged for 70 days or so.

40knots sounds correct, however, I know someone who tells me that they can go 60 knots.

It is a high-speed anti-submarine / anti-surface torpedo with a range of more than 40km and speed of over 40kt.

If you do select full speed on a torpedo that goes 40kt, then most likely the enemy will be aware of it, and range will be deminished. The target sub could just turn and burn.

endurance (without snorkeling) for the 1,500-ton submarine is 14 days at five knots.

That works out to about 1700 miles without surfacing? Not to bad.

The AIP system is interesting, if you want some more history about it, along with a little more info on its success story, The Gotland, check out the link.

There were explosions, fires, and even the loss of some submarines. Russian submariners grimly called the Quebecs "cigarette lighters."

The AIP Alternative

The German Navy has the 212 on the way a 27 man sub with some very impressive stats for a diesel.

HDW estimates that the 212, with its crew of 27, will be able to remain submerged for more than a month and to cruise (at four knots) for over 3,000 miles. Four of the $250-million submarines will be delivered to the German Navy--two built by HDW and two built by TNSW. Two also are being built for the Italian Navy under license at Italy's Fincantieri Shipyard.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

AIP submarines could be a particularly formidable threat when operating in coastal waters, marginal ice zones, or maritime straits and other global "choke points." Add to that the virtual certainty that new underwater weapons will help equalize the performance disparity between AIP boats and nuclear-powered submarines and it may well happen that the U.S. Navy will want to reassess the desirability of developing an AIP submarine of its own, if only to learn how to counter this new and potentially revolutionary undersea challenge.

The AIP Alternative

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jojoKnowsBest]

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It may be that russia are looking at a small reactor as a nuclear AIP system - too small to run the entire boat , but with thermal ttansfer it wouldn`t need the steam turbines etc of a full size nuke boat