SSKs

zoolander

New Member
This thread is about ssk or diesel submarines.

I want to know a little more about them. Could someone give a little back groud info on them.

provide these

1. background info

2. advantage over nuclear

3. how they are used

4. sub comparison a. yuan b.scorpeon c.kio, amur, etc.

5. Which sub is most silent?

6. sub techs
 

Sea Toby

New Member
If you want detailed information, I suggest you google for it. But I shall attempt a short response to each question.
1. Submarines are boats that submerge, the original stealth warship. Submarines are mostly propelled by diesel electric. Since their engines run on electric batteries for a short period, most diesel electric submarines snorkle when running on their diesels. When snorkeling a submarine is noisy, when on batteries they are quiet. Some of the newest diesel electric submarines have air independent propulsion, an add-on fuel cell or Stirling engine. The AIP allows a submarine to travel further underwater than using the batteries with much more silence than snorkeling. Submarines are mostly armed with torpedoes, some have long range missiles to sink suface vessels, a few have tomahawk missiles for longer range strikes against land targets.

2. There is no advantage over nuclear propulsion, even the AIP equipped submarines have limited range, although much more range than running on batteries. Nuclear propulsion allows the submarine to stay deep for the entire cruise, only going to periscope depth to either use the periscope or to receive radio signals.

3. Attack submarines are used to sink enemy shipping, whether commercial or military. Submarines are also useful for covert operations landing elite forces to scout behind enemy lines. Some submarines have ballistic missiles which attempt to hide near their ballistic missile launch
position for most of the cruise.

4. AIP equipped diesel electric submarines are the rage currently. Some submarines are smaller and don't have the range or the weapons load of the larger submarines.

5. Every shipbuilder claims theirs is the quietest. Go figure.

6. You should be able to find details of specs at www.naval-technology.com for most of the submarines in the world today. Too many to list in a short response.

Canada's Navy has a very good ASW capability. They patrol the Strait of San Juan de Fuco between the Olympic penninsula of Washington state and Vancouver Island. Canada plays the game of attempting to find American submarines departing and arriving our submarine base near Brementon, Washington, and likewise American submarines attempt to run the strait without being discovered.

You can take this to the bank. If Canadian frigates were very successful in discovering American nuclear propelled ballistic missile and attack submarines, new QUIETER American design submarines would be in the cards.

The average cost of a diesel electric submarine is around $300 million American, similar to the price of a well armed frigate. The average cost of a nuclear propelled submarine is closing in at $2 billion American. This should explain why America, United Kingdom, France, China, India, and Russia have nuclear propelled submarines.
 
Last edited:

Cootamundra

New Member
Sea Toby said:
2. There is no advantage over nuclear propulsion, even the AIP equipped submarines have limited range, although much more range than running on batteries. Nuclear propulsion allows the submarine to stay deep for the entire cruise, only going to periscope depth to either use the periscope or to receive radio signals.
There are certain advantages, noise being one of them. One of the key reasons SSNs were designed by the US was so that carrier strike groups would always have a submarine escort. Fast SSNs that can stay submerged were an absolute requirement during the cold war. Just as the larger SSBNs were required to hide away (stay submerged). SSKs were never really meant to meet either of these requirements. Bottomline is that the best conventional subs are quieter than MOST SSNs (Virginia class excluded I think - although we'd need an expert to comment on this). For what they are intended for, anti-shipping, covert intel gathering, sea-lane denial, litterol warfare etc SSKs are excellent. What they are NO good at is escorting nuc powered carriers.

Sea Toby said:
The average cost of a diesel electric submarine is around $300 million American, similar to the price of a well armed frigate. The average cost of a nuclear propelled submarine is closing in at $2 billion American. This should explain why America, United Kingdom, France, China, India, and Russia have nuclear propelled submarines.
The Australian Collins class (one of the best SSKs around) cost around US $ 1 billion. Australia could own and operate SSNs if it wanted to, however the domestic environment regarding nuclear power is currently not supportive of such a capability.

When researching SSKs don't forget the Japanese, their boats are close to being the best (depending on if you are Aussie or not:D). The South Koreans are also accomplished SSK operators.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Costs is relative to whether its the actual construction costs or with its long term support package included which can increase the costs significantly. Its the same with other weapons systems, cost is becoming more difficult to figure. For example, the Autralian Collins class of six submarines, the last barely out of the shipyards, are undergoing a new combat data weapons system at a cost of $1 billion Australian.

And yes, when a diesel electric submarine is operating on its batteries or AIP mode, they are very quiet. On the other hand when the same submarine is operating in its snorkle mode, in transit or recharging their batteries usually at night, they are noisy.
 
Last edited:

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
That's one great + of the new AIP vessels.
If you are able to run up to 3 weeks on AIP you should be able to find some safe place to snorkle, especially in brown and green water.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Waylander said:
That's one great + of the new AIP vessels.
If you are able to run up to 3 weeks on AIP you should be able to find some safe place to snorkle, especially in brown and green water.
Yes ! I just read on Naval Forces that a German U-212 just broke the world record on the longest submerged operation for a non-nuclear sub. AIP is really promising as a low-cost alternative to nuclear propulsion.
Besides, an AIP SSK will still be much more silent than a SSN...

cheers
 

rickusn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
LOL

AIP is good for one thing staying put in one place for along period of time.

Yuo gain no mobility.

SSN's are the only way to go if you want to operate offensively on a world-wide scale.

AIP offers nothing similar.

Its great for defense in Home waters unless of course you are found(This is far from impossible) or out-waited.

Then you are dead. As once agin mobility is the key. And AIP doesnt do that.

But being a submariner. What do I know.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
rickusn said:
LOL

AIP is good for one thing staying put in one place for along period of time.

Yuo gain no mobility.

SSN's are the only way to go if you want to operate offensively on a world-wide scale.

AIP offers nothing similar.

Its great for defense in Home waters unless of course you are found(This is far from impossible) or out-waited.

Then you are dead. As once agin mobility is the key. And AIP doesnt do that.

But being a submariner. What do I know.
I thought AIP allowed for a 6-8 knot constant speed? Not fast I know but enough to transit into a patrol zone.

Happy to be corrected.
 

zoolander

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
The United States Navy is the world's greatest navy. How come it does not operate any diesel subs?
 

aaaditya

New Member
zoolander said:
The United States Navy is the world's greatest navy. How come it does not operate any diesel subs?
well i guess the usa wants their submarines to have unlimited reach and endurance at speads much greater than what any conventional submarine can barely manage,while carrying 2 to 3 times the weapon load of any conventional submarine,it is just a matter of doctrine.
 

Cootamundra

New Member
aaaditya said:
well i guess the usa wants their submarines to have unlimited reach and endurance at speads much greater than what any conventional submarine can barely manage,while carrying 2 to 3 times the weapon load of any conventional submarine,it is just a matter of doctrine.
Exactly, its always a matter of doctrine. riskusn is correct regarding world-wide operations. Simply put a SSN gives you the capability to hit go anywhere and to stay submerged for the entire trip. BUT, there are some SSKs that are designed to operate in conjunction with large fleets, so their remit is not only green and brown water environs. Snorkelling is not always a problem, batteries these days last long enough for most engagements and the fact that an SSK is so quite means that it can get into position to do plenty of damage. Of course SSK vs SSN comparisons become pretty worthless because afterall we are talking about different doctrines!
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Cootamundra just gets it. :)
SSKs are able to proceede offensive operations but their real home is the defence of the coast. And some modern SSKs running on AIP are a big threat for every enemy approaching and are able to block out enemy forces or at least make it difficult and dangerous for them to get into striking range.
For sure a SSK is dead if it is pinpointed correctly but a SSN is not more invulnerable if it is detected.
And in environments like the baltic sea SSKs are the first choice. They may not be able to carry as much weapons but they are small enough to operate in this not very deep waters and between all the islands.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Waylander said:
Cootamundra just gets it. :)
SSKs are able to proceede offensive operations but their real home is the defence of the coast. And some modern SSKs running on AIP are a big threat for every enemy approaching and are able to block out enemy forces or at least make it difficult and dangerous for them to get into striking range.
For sure a SSK is dead if it is pinpointed correctly but a SSN is not more invulnerable if it is detected.
I would think the SSN's outrageous speed gives it great tactical advantage wrt escaping kill boxes and it indirectly reduces the envelope of enemy torpedoes as it can outrun them. With the latter I mean that you need to have a better fix in order to drop the torpedo spot on, as not to give the SSN the ability to get out of the range of the torpedo... My to € cents.

Waylander said:
And in environments like the baltic sea SSKs are the first choice. They may not be able to carry as much weapons but they are small enough to operate in this not very deep waters and between all the islands.
Amen to that. (Just think of the potential trouble spots and how much the influence the littorals will have on the conduct of warfare there.)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Grand Danois said:
Amen to that. (Just think of the potential trouble spots and how much the influence the littorals will have on the conduct of warfare there.)
ah, but subs don't necessarily need to fight within the littorals in the future. in case anyone hasn't noticed, the growth in USV/AUV/ROV's in the last 18 months has been enormous.

there are now in excess of 460 registered separate platforms under development. In the last 18months alone some 60 discrete types have been trialed. the deployment cycles for USV/AUV/ROV's has doubled in the last 9 months alone - and that doubling is significant in design and capability terms.

The US is probably a generation ahead in this area already. The one thing about the yanks is that they rarely fall asleep at the wheel in systems development.

In the last 18months alone I've personally seen over half a dozen systems under active testing and development to compliment blue water subs fighting in the littorals.

There are also some statements about conventionals that are a bit generalised. They certainly apply to probably 85%+ of currently registered conventionals - but there are probably half a dozen of type that don't "fit" the normal conventions re their behavioural/operational characteristics.

there's a place for both nukes and conventionals - but they seriously need to be judged against both the doctrine and political intent/motive of their host nations.

AIP is also not necessarily the "be all and end all" of extending mission cycles. The RAN looked at AIP very early on and space was allocated within the Collins design brief to have it fitted. We found that the advantages were minimal - and the Collins is already running "nuke" style mission cycles (originally we were going to run blue/gold crews due to the length of those mission cycles). As it stands, the AIP engines are now sitting on a pallet in the corner of ASC's engineering area. There is no intent to get AIP, as it doesn't provide any significant advantage to Collins - and we don't need long surface cycles to snort.

The Collins is already running mission cycles way ahead of what has been touted as a "breakthrough" by HDW.

The other issue is that size denotes capability. Complex systems are very power intensive - and that will chew into a smaller subs mission cycle - especially if they're in a "warm" area of attention.

The issue of range is also a bit of a furry topic. Again RAN Oberons (and RN Oberons) used to regularly do 6000k mission hops during the cold war. Declassified security documents released this year in Aust show that RAN Oberons used to regularly conduct ISR missions into Russias eastern ports.

To really add some perspective, its therefore imperative to define the tasking.

Bluewater persistence, autonomy, speed, capacity to shift location at short notice etc... are all the "domain speciale" of the nuke. However, not all nukes are equal. eg the current PLAN nukes are nicknamed "Kenwoods" as they sound like blenders full of nails.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
That was a comprehensive reply!

gf0012-aust said:
ah, but subs don't necessarily need to fight within the littorals in the future. in case anyone hasn't noticed, the growth in USV/AUV/ROV's in the last 18 months has been enormous.
I should have thought of the Collins. ;) It reminds me that the now (extremely) lowburning Viking project had a requirement from the Norwegians for long range patrol, whereas the other partners would use that space for a mission package ie cruise missiles.

Wrt the Kenwoods and China. It seems to me that underwater incursion into the littorals is an entirely different mission from excursion. This would be even more obvious in the in domain of offboard vehicles, with the latter mission having less complexity to it and perhaps even offering slashing attacks vs OPFOR offshore assets like DDG's covering LCS'.

Hence the challenge is on for the guests.

If I am rambling I can just as well apologize in advance. ;)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Grand Danois said:
I should have thought of the Collins. ;)
there's also the Oyashios. They're more than a match for some nukes - especially in their immediate area. They dive deeper and are faster than some of the Russian nukes (and hence Chinese designs as well)

back on topic though. ;)

underwater warfighting is going through some very serious changes.
 

renjer

New Member
gf0012-aust said:
Again RAN Oberons (and RN Oberons) used to regularly do 6000k mission hops during the cold war. Declassified security documents released this year in Aust show that RAN Oberons used to regularly conduct ISR missions into Russias eastern ports.
This information is amazing!

gf0012-aust said:
AIP is also not necessarily the "be all and end all" of extending mission cycles. The RAN looked at AIP very early on and space was allocated within the Collins design brief to have it fitted. We found that the advantages were minimal - and the Collins is already running "nuke" style mission cycles (originally we were going to run blue/gold crews due to the length of those mission cycles). As it stands, the AIP engines are now sitting on a pallet in the corner of ASC's engineering area. There is no intent to get AIP, as it doesn't provide any significant advantage to Collins - and we don't need long surface cycles to snort.
How would you rate the RMN Scorpene (which I believe are being delivered without AIP) vis-a-vis the RAN Collins? At one point there was some effort to interest Malaysia to order the Collins. However, it was an option we did not pursue. I wonder if we have made a mistake.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
renjer said:
How you would rate the RMN Scorpene (which I believe are being delivered without AIP) vis-a-vis the RAN Collins?
Probably not a good idea asking me as I'm a little biased. ;) But, the Scorpene would have better acoustics on a clean hull straight from the yard. The Collins however has had acoustics modifications both at a hull reforming and at an array tuned level. We're currently trialling the same solution on a
"friendly" nuke. The same technology has been applied to another Stealth surface warship, and is on a couple of our allies subs. (export versions).

I should show my hand here, I am involved with the acoustics modification side of the equation, so I know who and what has happened as well as where its gone. I also can't tell you who the export clients are for obvious reasons. ;)

renjer said:
At one point there was some effort to interest Malaysia to order the Collins. However, it was an option we did not pursue. I wonder if we have made a mistake.
Early Collins was a complete stuff up due to various reasons, its taken a lot of changes to get it to where it currently is. If Malaysia had bought Collins early then you would have been very unhappy customers in the first few years. ;)
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Thanks

cheers,
GF, I always wondered why the collins weren't AIP fitted, espescially with the US seemed love of the Gotland SSK, It clears up a big question mark over Collins performance. Do you think that the Collins wasn't borrowed or forward deployed up north like Hawaii because A) the upgrades, B) Capability C) Australia use the 6 so much that they can't spare one in the Nth Pacific. I myself wonder how much they are used for different things, but obviously anyone who knew rather than heard probably wouldn't be able to say anything about use I guess
 
Top