Diesel Sub vs Nuclear Subs

[tomahawk6]

Interesting article about the threat posed by modern diesel subs and how the USN so far has not at least bought some of these hi tech diesel subs.I think nuclear subs are over time cost effective,the diesel sub offers other capabilities that would be useful.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html

The threat of super-stealthy diesel submarines being deployed around the world has been present for decades. Still, newer boats are coming armed with advanced anti-ship weapons and are being combined with new air-independent propulsion systems (AIP) making them near impossible to find in the ocean's depths.

In 2005, The HMS Gotland, a modern AIP submarine serving in the Swedish Navy created havok in war games exercise. The Gotland virtually ‘sunk’ many U.S. nuclear fast attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers and even made it into the 'red zone' beyond the last ring of anti-submarine defenses within a carrier strike group. Although it was rumored she got many simulated shots off on various U.S. super-carriers, one large-scale training exercise in particular with the then brand new USS Ronald Reagan ended with the little sub making multiple attack runs on the super-carrier, before slithering away without ever being detected.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Interesting article about the threat posed by modern diesel subs and how the USN so far has not at least bought some of these hi tech diesel subs.I think nuclear subs are over time cost effective,the diesel sub offers other capabilities that would be useful.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/usa-is-not-buying-cheaper-and-deadlier.html

The threat of super-stealthy diesel submarines being deployed around the world has been present for decades. Still, newer boats are coming armed with advanced anti-ship weapons and are being combined with new air-independent propulsion systems (AIP) making them near impossible to find in the ocean's depths.

In 2005, The HMS Gotland, a modern AIP submarine serving in the Swedish Navy created havok in war games exercise. The Gotland virtually ‘sunk’ many U.S. nuclear fast attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers and even made it into the 'red zone' beyond the last ring of anti-submarine defenses within a carrier strike group. Although it was rumored she got many simulated shots off on various U.S. super-carriers, one large-scale training exercise in particular with the then brand new USS Ronald Reagan ended with the little sub making multiple attack runs on the super-carrier, before slithering away without ever being detected.

To be fair Tomahawk6,in the exercises the canadians scored hits,the swedes,the australians,and we did(dutch), and don't know if i mentioned them all who did, all with diesel subs,but that's what exercises are for to learn from each other.

So i mean no disrespect to the swedish subs,but really nothing new here,but what's new is the leasing of the Gotlands(so it means the US takes this thread seriously as they should do.)

gr,walter

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Diesel vs Nuc...IMO, it depends on where and how you are planning to use them.  Sometimes a tank is better than a IFV, sometimes the IFV is better than the tank.  Nucs can be noisier, but a diesel has to snort sooner or later...

 

[tomahawk6]

How often does a diesel sub have to refuel on a patrol ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To answer your question exactly as posed, T6, the answer is: never.

You top up on fuel before leaving on patrol, then you fuel when you come back from it. In current diesel sub ops, you don't break patrol to go fuel.

The more appropriate question would be what is their patrol range/patrol duration.

For modern large diesel subs, patrols of five to seven weeks are not unusual, with the capacity to operate as far away as 2,000 to 3,000 NM away. But the transit speed is very slow as compared to a Nuc.

In effect, for ASW today's diesel subs are at their best in barrier or localized operations, but not so great at open water (mid-ocean) warfare, where the Nuc have them beat on speed and maneuvering. And obviously, only Nuc boats can operate under Arctic ice with a sufficient margin of safety.

 

[tomahawk6]

Thanks for the clarification,my question was poorly phrased.Essentially diesel subs are best used in littoral ops ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Not exactly litoral, in the sense used for surface ops, but more like best for use in areas where the geography limits the options of a nuclear boat.

For example, during the cold war, the British diesel boats were used for barrier work in the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap. These are not litoral waters, but they were funnelled passages that the Soviet nuclear boats had to go through if they wanted to get into the Atlantic. The Diesel boats just waited, loitering, on our side of the gap and, as they picked up where the Soviet intended to go through the gap, moved to intercept, in the knowledge that the Soviet boat could not move to change (much anyway) their course once set as geography limited that. The Canadian boats basically did the same in the Labrador straight for Soviet boats trying to come down from the Arctic (while saying hello to our American friends going up into the Arctic as they went by  ).

 

[Karel Doorman]

Not exactly litoral, in the sense used for surface ops, but more like best for use in areas where the geography limits the options of a nuclear boat.

For example, during the cold war, the British diesel boats were used for barrier work in the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap. These are not litoral waters, but they were funnelled passages that the Soviet nuclear boats had to go through if they wanted to get into the Atlantic. The Diesel boats just waited, loitering, on our side of the gap and, as they picked up where the Soviet intended to go through the gap, moved to intercept, in the knowledge that the Soviet boat could not move to change (much anyway) their course once set as geography limited that. The Canadian boats basically did the same in the Labrador straight for Soviet boats trying to come down from the Arctic (while saying hello to our American friends going up into the Arctic as they went by  ).

"Hello from the otherside",lol ;D

And from what i learned(as said here on this topic)nucs are fast and maneuverable and can dive deeper than most conventionals(there are exceptions ,maneuverability,dive depth)but for the most it's true.
Also the USA needs to cover great distances(as do the British)fast,so you'll need a nuc,simple.(as the US is sort of the policeman of the world,they need to be everywhere of interest to them)

There are countries which need a sub with great range ,but not the will/readiness,or budget to go for nucs,so they built diesels with a good range,examples are,from what i know:

-Victoria's
-Collins
-Soryu's
-Walrus

By my knowledge(don't shoot me if i forgot 1)these are the only ones(diesels) with a great range(now at least)and good or even on par with some nucs diving capabilities.
Diesels are also used for intelligence gathering(sneaky ops,if you will),and deterrent(as do Nucs)
In open waters(as said)Nucs have the advantage,most of the times,for covering great distances fast Nucs are also better,but when the battle goes to the coastline Nucs better watch out(this is what i learned on forums,again myself no expert just interested.

gr,walter