Why do US and UK submarines have so large crews?
- Thread starter Jon K
- Start date
FluffyThoughts
Member
Maybe because they are a lot bigger then the French equivalents...? And - maybe - they use the vessels as training-grounds for fire-fighters (unlike, apparently, our Russian equivalents)! [My bad!
]In all honesty I don't know. but I suspect that the RN/HMCN[USN] use more sophisticated systems (apart from Windows-for-Warships). Only our antipodean hosts can reveal the truth...!
:[HMCN := Her Majesties Colonial Navy
]
That and the fact that the USN and RN like to keep large crews for damage control.
@nevidimka
Are you baiting our resident submarine expert?
So cheeky... I'm not going to do my usual reply to this post, as I'm hopelessly out of my depth on the topic of nuclear submarines.
Maskirovka
Banned Member
I remember reading somewhere that the navies of US and UK are pretty conservative (specially when it comes to subs) and like to keep as many traditions as possible. So this can actually be true..
Automation has nothing o do with it, the defining factor is SIZE, just look at the comparative examples below of the newer generation of European SSN Subs:
UK SSN ASTUTE CLASS
Crew
110
Displacement
7,800t (dived)
Weapons
36 torpedoes and missiles
Vs
FRENCH SSN BARRACUDA CLASS
Crew
60
Displacement
4, 100t approx
Weapons
18 torpedoes and missiles
ASTUTE Vs BARRACUDA - UK Sub, almost twice the size, twice the weapon load, twice the crew ( call me a dumb ass, but it makes sense to me!)
UK SSN ASTUTE CLASS
Crew
110
Displacement
7,800t (dived)
Weapons
36 torpedoes and missiles
Vs
FRENCH SSN BARRACUDA CLASS
Crew
60
Displacement
4, 100t approx
Weapons
18 torpedoes and missiles
ASTUTE Vs BARRACUDA - UK Sub, almost twice the size, twice the weapon load, twice the crew ( call me a dumb ass, but it makes sense to me!
)Maskirovka
Banned Member
Size, capability, number of weaponsystems off course matter to some degree, but not that much I believe.Automation has nothing o do with it, the defining factor is SIZE, just look at the comparative examples below of the newer generation of European SSN Subs:
UK SSN ASTUTE CLASS
Crew
110
Displacement
7,800t (dived)
Weapons
36 torpedoes and missiles
Vs
FRENCH SSN BARRACUDA CLASS
Crew
60
Displacement
4, 100t approx
Weapons
18 torpedoes and missiles
ASTUTE Vs BARRACUDA - UK Sub, almost twice the size, twice the weapon load, twice the crew ( call me a dumb ass, but it makes sense to me!
Just compare the ex UK Upholder-class submarines with a crew of over 40 while Swedish subs can do with around 20. Yes, the Upholder is a bit bigger and carries the same amount of weapons but I don´t think that should account for a twice as big crew...
Now if youre a nuclear-sub or a big naval war-ship the size of the crew really does´nt matter. It´s not like your gonna run out of food just cause you have a big crew. I think it´s a combination between what has been mentioned. Naval traditions and being more liberal (meaning some jobs that can be automatized have been so) and off course the size of the ships.
subs are NOT crewed based on tradition, they are based on role and function.
eg some combat systems require substantially more crew as they use different principles. some subs are FBW and use less crew to pilot etc...
btw, nukes on patrol stack food for up to 60 days. they don't shorten their missions on what food is left.
the size of the crew does matter, just because the boat is big does not mean that they have the luxury of wasting space on no performing bodies.
subs are just not crewed not like you imply - period.
dragonfire
New Member
hi, wouldnt a the size of a sub be also decided on the basis of wh armament its carrying, esp wrt SLBM carrying subs - i read somewhere tht the new borei class russian sub from its second unit onwards might be slightly longer beacuse of the size differential of the Bulava class missile
- my 2 rupees worth
- my 2 rupees worth
Maskirovka
Banned Member
So what are the reasons the UK subs uses twice the crew compared to the German and Swedish subs? Or just compare the US subs compared to the Russian/ex USSR, same here, twice as much crew. (Like Seawolf/Los Angeles compared to Akula/Sierra)
Different principles as in less automation?
I'm not navy guy but even I know that different navies have different undersea warfare and intelligence gathering capabilities.
The concerns of a big blue water naval power like the USN is very different from a green water navy. Correspondingly, the needs and specifications of different navies are different (say between the RN's submarines vs Swedish submarines). Anyway, the nuclear submarine operators cannot really be compared to the diesel submarine operators (whether AIP capable or not). Hence, the big difference in submarine capability and crewing across navies.
IIRC, AIP diesel submarines have an extended ability to stay submerged compared to other diesel submarines. But the fact the a diesel submarine is AIP equipped does not change it's other capabilities - which is a function of a navy's specifications. Many diesel submarines are limited in their power output (in contrast to a nuclear powered submarine) when operating in a submerged tactical environment, hence, they are generally seen as less capable compared to nuclear submarines. I'm sure gf0012-aust will correct me if I am wrong.
BTW, my country operates 4 Swedish made submarines (and we have 2 more on order) but I'm sure gf0012-aust knows more about them than I do. Try not to argue with gf0012-aust (not just because he is a mod), rather learn from him (as he knows more than us).
Last edited:
Maskirovka
Banned Member
I was comparing pretty similar subs from different countries, both in size, number of weapons (and systems) and age. The ex UK Upholder SSK towards German and Swedish SSKs and US nuclear attacksubmarines against Russian ditto.I'm not navy guy but even I know that different navies have different undersea warfare and intelligence gathering capabilities.
The concerns of a big blue water naval power like the USN is very different from a green water navy. Correspondingly, the needs and specifications of different navies are different (say between the RN's submarines vs Swedish submarines). Anyway, the nuclear submarine operators cannot really be compared to the diesel submarine operators (whether AIP capable or not). Hence, the big difference in submarine capability and crewing across navies.
IIRC, AIP diesel submarines have an extended ability to stay submerged compared to other diesel submarines. But the fact the a diesel submarine is AIP equipped does not change it's other capabilities - which is a function of a navy's specifications. Many diesel submarines are limited in their power output (in contrast to a nuclear powered submarine) when operating in a submerged tactical environment, hence, they are generally seen as less capable compared to nuclear submarines. I'm sure gf0012-aust will correct me if I am wrong.
BTW, my country operates 4 Swedish made submarines (and we have 2 more on order) but I'm sure gf0012-aust knows more about them than I do. Try not to argue with gf0012-aust (not just because he is a mod), rather learn from him (as he knows more than us).
Speaking of the ex Swedish subs of Sjöormen which is now in service in Singapore (called the Challenger?). They were first "modern" subs in Sweden with new shape of the hull and even so important computers and such resulting in a high automation resulting in a crew of only 23. It´s predecessor (Draken II launched only 7 years before) had a crew of 37. At the same time the British launched their Oberon subs with a crew of almost 70.
Maskirovka, there are lots of little things that when added up count for "a lot". For a few reasons I'm not going to go into exact detail, but as an example, UK, US, Aust, Canada, Sweden have differing philosophies on crewing numbers to deal with issues like battle damage.
The US for example, does not totally agree with RAN on how we establish numbers for damage and fire control, we differ on how many people are needed in the combat room (even though we both abide by a common combat room concept) etc.....
nukes and conventionals have very different crewing requirements even outside of the tactical...
The US for example, does not totally agree with RAN on how we establish numbers for damage and fire control, we differ on how many people are needed in the combat room (even though we both abide by a common combat room concept) etc.....
nukes and conventionals have very different crewing requirements even outside of the tactical...
Completely different crewing requirements (remember we went from Oberons to Collins)
I'd add that although not common knowledge, a significant number of signature mod technologies developed by some australian companies after the boats were completed was provided to singapore, along with other sensing tech (this was not Kockums or Swedish tech either, but australian versions of French and US capabilities).
I know the above because I spent some time on the project contracted to the technology "owners". Some of the tech solutions provided by the USN to fix up the original Kockums design anomalies were also made available to the Singaporeans as they were "friendly"
the original swedish design is not exactly what singapore now runs - it is subtley but significantly different (it would be like comparing an Iranian Kilo, Indian Kilo and a PLAN Kilo to each other, superficially they look the same, technologically they are very very different beasts)
Maskirovka
Banned Member
Yes. This is excitably what Im talking about. Differences in "navy traditions". Your call it "philosophies ". Its just a matter- do we trust the machines? Or should there be a second sailor there...just in case...
Thats what Im talking about. Different thinking of things if the sea, different tradition. In everywhere else they trust the machine,. in UK and USA they put in an sailor for a backup. Do you know understand what I meant when I said US and UK are conservative and the rest of the world is liberal?
Maskirovka
Banned Member
I think you´re slightly off topic here, what has your answer her has to do with the topic?
Your just trying to boost australia and flame Sweden arnet you?
Cause that reply had nothing really to add to this conversation it was pure flame (dressed in facts)
No its not. Singapore might have a baseline swedish sub - but thats as far as it goes. It's like all Kilos are not equal.
Singapore has a swedish base vessel which has israeli, australian and french technology over and above the original design - that impacts upon issues such as crewing roles and requirements.
replace sweden with "donut" and the reference is still valid. (btw, I happily work with swedish military companies every day, so I'm at a loss to understand your angst)
you need to get over national inadequacy issues. any further comment can go PM or it will be deleted, I'm not going to end up in another circle of nationalist hand wringing.
Last edited:
It's not a tradition per se. The US has worked out through various wars, through an extensive sub building history, that they require "nn" people to cover off various roles. Acoustic Warfare Officers through various navies may have different titles and broadly similar roles, but be quite different. Some navies specialise the task, some multi-task the officer to another role. It's a doctrine development issue.
tradition implies that "we did it like this before, we will do it like this now" and ignore changes in capability, form, fit, function etc along the development curve.
machines cannot substitute for sailors in damage control - at a certain percentile of damage, what could be recovered by having a larger battle damage party will not be possible with automated systems. this also applies in combat areas. the structure of how US sailors do their jobs also impacts upon how the ship responds as a unit under stress/combat.
it's not a matter of trusting machines per se - but how each country elects to view redundancy and its delivery. The USN and RN as two navies that have a long history of fighting modern wars, and a long history in using submarines at war - have established baselines for crewing. That is based on actual relevant experience pertinent to their respective navies.