Naval Pictures VII: Underway, Shift Colors!

[hoosierhick]

Isn't refueling a nuc boat also insanely expensive, after the 12-15 year life cycle?

Aren't the reactors on the newer nuc boats supposed to last the life of the boat without refueling?  I think the Astutes have been/are being built that way, and the Columbia is being designed that way.  I'm not sure about the Virginias.

[Daryk]

Yes, newer boats have reactors built for the life of the ship.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Still probably a giant PITA to decommission though...but at least all the magic stays in its box until you take it all apart.

[DoctorMonkey]

There was a well reasoned blog about this (nuclear versus conventional submarines) I found recently talking about how the RN could be made more capable in a vaguely realistic way.


https://uklandpower.com/2019/09/27/how-can-royal-navy-ship-numbers-be-realistically-increased/ point number 6 but that isn't possible to link to directly so you may need to scroll



One issue with nuclear power they mentioned is the long lead time to build the reactor and how specialised the construction yard would need to be to do this - the RN could not just whistle up more Astute class boats as the pipeline is already committed to the four Dreadnought class SSBNs once the last of the Astutes is built


We also have problems in the UK with decommissioning, there is a scarily large number of retired nuclear powered submarines now sitting waiting for decommissioning to take place with the only thing scarier the projected cost of doing this! (I think there are more waiting for decommissioning than in active service)


In terms of carrying more ammunition - 20 torpedoes or 40 - this is now more about carrying a war-load that means that once at sea the boat can take on any possible role with a combination of anti-ship/anti-submarine torpedoes, anti-ship missiles like Harpoon and cruise missiles as there has been a shift (according to my Haynes Manual of the Astute boats) towards having less (or is it fewer? that point of grammar always escapes me) holes in the pressure hull and so launching all of the ordnance carried through as few holes as possible


My own "make believe" expansion of the RN would see the introduction of two classes of conventional submarine for the RN to serve alongside the Astutes - the Australian Attack class looks good for a long range "cruiser" and possibly ideal for supporting carrier battle groups with their replenishment at sea while leaving the Astutes to disappear into the dark, and the smaller Type 212 from Germany/Italy which have smaller crew requirements (about 40 compared with 100 or so) and could provide more local defence such as helping to provide a realistic capability to close the GIUK gap and protect the SSBNs when they go out on patrol to disappear

[Kidd]

I think the RN wants their SSNs though. Their advantages are important I think if the RN wants to operate further afield for extended periods (such as around British territories...), in the Arctic, and against other submarines including other SSNs.

[Wrangler]

I think big problem is the RN's budget, i don't think they will get enough funds to fully stage force cover Arctic and other territories they have.

Submarines are more the offensive weapons of Navies now i think, verses more vulnerable surface vessel.  Won't a AIP power plant on a  submarine be just as expensive in the long run for fuel and with short legs than a Nuclear Attack Sub?


Upholder Class was the last diesel subs of the RN, but they had a lot problems the Canadians soon found out.

[HobbesHurlbut]

https://www.sotasampo.fi/en/units/page/actor_2264



Guess that DEVICE ON HER REAR!
Man and to think the Finns could not be any more of crazy and glorious bastards they are....on the ground and in the sky, but also at sea too!

[Daryk]

Those look like either depth charges or speakers to me...  ???

[HobbesHurlbut]

Those look like either depth charges or speakers to me...  ???

Yep! Depth Charges and their rack!

[ANS Kamas P81]

Upholder Class was the last diesel subs of the RN, but they had a lot problems the Canadians soon found out.

Flow noise over those missing tiles must be nuts.  That boat is DEFINITELY coming in, not going out, in that condition.

One other thing in the nuc vs battery debate, even with the new Soryuus trying out lithium-ion batteries...they just don't have the raw power for speed.  12kt+ advantage means the nuc's going to simply outrun the SSK in Hot Sub On Sub Action.  And for that matter, I don't think there's an SSK built that's capable of outrunning a hunting ASW surface ship for the same reasons. 

It's like props and jets, I guess, but much much higher differences in price

[CrossfirePilot]

I thought I saw something on Discovery channel or something like that about a fuel cell powered sub that the Germans now have that is supposed to be uber quiet and have excellent range?  Was that all hype?

[I am Belch II]

I remember someone saying the diesel subs are quieter than the nuke subs.

[Daryk]

Nuclear submarines are faster than SSKs, but not torpedoes...

[ANS Kamas P81]

I remember someone saying the diesel subs are quieter than the nuke subs.

They are; you can shut everything down in a diesel boat and just run on pure battery power while a nuclear-powered submarine still needs to run its powerplant cooling pumps.  You can do a LOT to mitigate that sound except shut them off...

[Kidd]

So apparently this is a common thing

[Colt Ward]

Nuclear submarines are faster than SSKs, but not torpedoes...

Depends on the sub & era . . .

[Daryk]

It wasn't a particularly long era before the Shkval...

[Ursus Maior]

It wasn't a particularly long era before the Shkval...

The Shkval is faster than a SSN, yes, but they weren't meant for hunter-killer jobs, but as a return fire option. The Soviets knew their subs were louder, slower and had less capable sonars. So, being detected was a guarantee. The Shkval made a first strike on Soviet subs a game of Russian roulette (!!!) amd gave the Soviet sub time to evade and counterdetect the NATO sub. In no way shape or form, was the Shkval meant as part of a hunter-killer package.

[marauder648]

I thought the Shkval was basically a suicide weapon. Its not guided and it goes off after X amount of time and would always have a nuclear warhead. If you have a nuke go off 1000 yards behind you, its pretty much going to guarentee that you're dead too. But then again if the Soviets could trade one of their boats for a Western one its something they'd be willing to probably sacrifice.

[Dragon Cat]

Couple of Sinkex targets

[Wrangler]

What did THAT?

[ANS Kamas P81]

What did THAT?

MRE farts.

[Colt Ward]

For the hanger?  sure . . .  the one with the bow part missing had also come up for me when searching Harpoon information.

Daryk, I actually was meaning the Soviet Alfa IF in practice it lived up to the speed claimed which had it able to outrun a Mk 48 under mid to favorable conditions.  AFAIK, NATO subs were never designed around being able to outrun torpedoes but rather get in the first shot and then avoid/evade any return snapshots.  The goal of the NATO sub was to take the shot without the Red ship being able to return accurate/controlled fire.

[glitterboy2098]

eh.. the SSGN Ohio's were always a stopgap. they didn't have the fire control to really use their massive payload, so for the most part they didn't offer much over a Virginia or Los Angeles class beyond ammo endurance. and the SSGN Virginia's will be far better able to defend themselves than the Ohio's could. (the Ohio's being designed to be good SSBN's.. really stealthy in deep ocean to avoid having to defend themselves at all. but that doesn't work as well in closer to shore where you need SSGN's)

the SSGN ohio's were a case of "we gotta retire these ballistic missiles, but we don't want to scrap any ships that still have plenty of operational lifespan left"

[Weirdo]

Less tubes or less/smaller guns are not downgrades if you have increased accuracy or other qualities.

[Wrangler]

From what I've read, the Block V are essentially the stopgag for the Ohio SSGNs.   There been talk about once the Columbia Class serial production is completed, that 4 extras were to be made as SSGNs like the Ohios.   I don't think the Block Vs are good fill-ins for the SSGNs.  The individual ships don't have the tubes to make up loss a SSGN.  Like 5 Block Vs to equal one Ohio SSGN.


USS Ohio SSGN-726 with her swimmer pods attached on outer hull.

[Colt Ward]

Well, it was supposed to be a modular component (going Omni?  Do we have a BT Omni sub?) to let the sub switch around from more Tomahawks to remote submersibles was the direct example.  Sort of sounded like they would be releasing them through the missile tube.

[Fat Guy]

MRE farts.

Not enough damage for an MRE fart.

[kato]

Won't a AIP power plant on a  submarine be just as expensive in the long run for fuel and with short legs than a Nuclear Attack Sub?

Short legs is relative. It all depends on the level of ambition.

German SSKs regularly deploy fully dived from the North Sea to the Mediterranean for a hydrogen refueling around Italy (due to commonality). Every two years or so they run an exercise in which they go down somewhere between Portugal and the Azores, cross the Atlantic and still dived then play evasion, attack and insertion scenarios with the USN off the East Coast.

[marauder648]

I think the big difference between the two is mobility. Deisil subs are very very quiet but they're slower than a nuke boat on a tactical and strategic sense. If you need to get a sub somewhere fast, a nuke can do it without being spotted as with a DE you need to charge batteries and the like and they are generally slower. If a nuke's gotta be somewhere she can do that at 30+ knots day in day out until she's near her area of operations. A deseil can't do that.

In an old ish book I read by Tom Clancy (it was a kind of data book about the US nuclear subs) he said that a DE boat is very dangerous but they are in essence a mobile minefield. This could be part of the time when it was written (late 90's early 00's IIRC) but it still probably rings true.