Hunting a SSK

Ozzy Blizzard said:

But what about in peacetime? This would be significant in explaining why that sub got so close (for those who bevlieve this somehow show the vulnerablility of a CBG to chinese SSN's). The grid was not up and running becasue the USN was not going to expend $4500 for a 10 boey patern in peace time.

Click to expand...

There is a vast difference between wartime alert and peacetime alert. To date, the US has no reason to regard China as a 21st century adversary al la the Soviet Union. I'd suggest that attitudes are changing though. Personally I question some of the decisions made by prev CINCPAC and current CINCPAC. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then ipso facto....

It's the same scenario as Russian overflights, anyone with half a brain will realise that a russian overflight signifies no threat - and why respond anyway unless relationships really deterioriate. At that point the entire posture will change. Ditto for a chinese sub surfacing close to a CTF. The PLAN have done the same with Talisman Sabre. Do we go mad and send out frigates madly dropping hoovers everywhere? nope. we listen, they listen. big deal.

Although, I'd suggest that patience and goodwill is running out....

Ozzy Blizzard said:

Do you mean towed arrays? Sorry ASW is not my strong point (my limited knowlage is Cold War vinatage) how have they chanegd?

Click to expand...

Not just towed. Towed arrays are getting far more media attention, but there are other types. Ironically, Aust is selling other locally developed array tech to allies that we don't even use ourselves.

Am I right to assume that most credable submarine forces now use towed arrays in addition to hull mounted devices? Or is this stll confined to just a few players (US, UK and Aus for example)?

riksavage said:

Am I right to assume that most credable submarine forces now use towed arrays in addition to hull mounted devices? Or is this stll confined to just a few players (US, UK and Aus for example)?

Click to expand...

At the risk of generalisation - yes. Even some of the newer sub designs don't always sport towed arrays. You can tell by the hull design or by the stern..... by association, that will impact also on the quality of their ASW.

I understand towed arrays bring to the table increased detection ranges, one assumes this also allows the system to detect quieter SSK's / SSN's?

IIRC one of the main advantages of a towed array is that it's operating without influence by the sub's wake and immanent hydrodynamic noises; you have a very long array as well. So the array ought to be more sensitive from the first, you can watch you aft sector without maneuvering and you can detect lower frequencies (longer wavelengths). I hope I got it right...

Ozzy Blizzard said:

Spread over 100 or so boeys i could imagine the cost.

Do you mean towed arrays? Sorry ASW is not my strong point (my limited knowlage is Cold War vinatage) how have they chanegd?

Thats what i thought (& hoped to an extent)....

Click to expand...

Expendability is a fundamental aspect of sonobuoy use. P-3s would lay a field hundreds of miles from shore in the middle of the ocean. I don't believe it would be cost effective or even practical to recover those sonobuoys. It is the cost of doing business.

I feel hunting a SSK as a real challenge, especially in shallow waters. Since I also feel the SSK will find itself more useful in coastal or shallow waters, perhaps our discussion should center on shallow water ASW operations.

Hunting any Nuclear Boat

kilo said:

How would you go about hunting today's modern & super quiet submarines? Especially for smaller navy's who don't have large numbers of escorts or maritime patrol aircraft. In the world's oceans there is plenty of places for submarines to hide and snorkel to recharge there batteries. Personally I think radar and satellites will play the biggest roles in detecting diesel electric subs but AIP subs will be very tricky to detect. Sending maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters and SSN's will be more important then ever before and eventually UUV.

Click to expand...

No nuclear boat is silent let alone super silent, the quietest boats in the world are the new Type 214 submarines which are fitted with AIP. As they can remain submerged for up to 17 days all they have to do is wait outside the Nuclear boats base and bingo! Before the 214's the quietest boats were the RN "O" boats which I served on before I went onto Nuclear SSks. The 214's are surprisingly spacious and comfortable and have the advantage of being super silent and can also dive much deeper than the present SSK's.

Dreadnoughts101 said:

the quietest boats in the world are the new Type 214 submarines which are fitted with AIP. As they can remain submerged for up to 17 days all they have to do is wait outside the Nuclear boats base and bingo! Before the 214's the quietest boats were the RN "O" boats which I served on before I went onto Nuclear SSks. The 214's are surprisingly spacious and comfortable and have the advantage of being super silent and can also dive much deeper than the present SSK's.

Click to expand...

Sorry, thats rubbish. I am involved with UDT and I can assure you that the 214's are not the lowest "signature managed" conventional, nor are they the deepest diving conventional - not by a golden mile.

For someone who states that they'e served on a nuke I'm absolutely gob smacked that you'd even put the 214 on that pedestal.

On another note, we require people who make claims to prior service to actually provide the Web/Mod team with evidence to support their claims. That means either discharge papers (as you indicated that you were ex O crew) or a current military email address.

As you can appreciate, this is a quality control issue as we have unfortunately had people make claims before which were slighly cavalier. If you cannot or do not provide supporting evidence you will need to edit your claims to experience and/or prior service out. Failing that, one of the Mod team will do it on your behalf.

gf0012-aust said:

Sorry, thats rubbish. I am involved with UDT and I can assure you that the 214's are not the lowest "signature managed" conventional, nor are they the deepest diving conventional - not by a golden mile.

For someone who states that they'e served on a nuke I'm absolutely gob smacked that you'd even put the 214 on that pedestal.

On another note, we require people who make claims to prior service to actually provide the Web/Mod team with evidence to support their claims. That means either discharge papers (as you indicated that you were ex O crew) or a current military email address.

As you can appreciate, this is a quality control issue as we have unfortunately had people make claims before which were slighly cavalier. If you cannot or do not provide supporting evidence you will need to edit your claims to experience and/or prior service out. Failing that, one of the Mod team will do it on your behalf.

Click to expand...

I am interested to know where you obtained any info on the sound signature on the 214's ? There is only 1 214 (Admiral Sohn Won-il) currently at sea having just been accepted into service by the Korean Navy after being built at Hyundai's Ulsan shipyard under license from HDW. There are only 2 other 214's in the water, Papanikolis which is at present in Kiel and the Pipinos which is in HSY Skaramanga shipyard Greece where it has just completed HATS. It has not yet commenced SATS. The Greek Government is refusing to accept the Papanikolis for political reasons, but cites the fact that it rolls too much whilst on the surface at high speed! I carry out risk assessment on all four of the 214's building in Greece and am also involved in the trials. I will of course bow to your superior knowledge once you can tell me where you obtained the sound signature figures and the depths reached on the sea trials reached by the Papanikolis or the Admiral Sohn Won-il.

Salty Dog said:

Expendability is a fundamental aspect of sonobuoy use. P-3s would lay a field hundreds of miles from shore in the middle of the ocean. I don't believe it would be cost effective or even practical to recover those sonobuoys. It is the cost of doing business.

I feel hunting a SSK as a real challenge, especially in shallow waters. Since I also feel the SSK will find itself more useful in coastal or shallow waters, perhaps our discussion should center on shallow water ASW operations.

Click to expand...

I think the real challenge for SSKs is not staying undetected but recharging their batteries and detecting/ attacking the enemy. So commanders hunting them should use this to their advantage. For less developed nation this may mean using shore based radar or IIRC many maritime strike fighters have a surface search radar for fire control purposes they could use that for looking for submarine periscopes/snorkels. MSA could also be equipped with reconnaissance pods. Also infrared detection might be an option because a submarine periscopes rising from a colder layer of water would stand out against the warmer surface layer. Would that work(the infrared thing) ?

Another more realistic solution is laying mines. I read an article about mines in a ASW role. It was specifically about china but I think some of it pertains to all countries with the ability to lay mines. For countries without smart ASW mines shallow water ASW mining is much easier because you need less mines to cover less depth.

One of the reasons mine wrafare isnt as widespread as many would like is because their use is a "double edged sword".

They limit not only the mauver of your own forces therefore being able to be used against the layers but also preclude any economic activity in that area.

Suicidal IMHO.

If it the above was not so the Iranians would have been using them with impunity.

Think about it.

SSKs are a threat but while confined waters or choke points may be seen by some as their safe haven it really is not.

It is true it would take a committed oiperation to root them out and/or neutralize them by limiting ability to move whiich is already degraded at the start but in the end their mission likley would result in suicide.

Because those same areas limit the scope of the search plus limit the avenues of manuever and escape.

As an ex-submariner being limited to sitting on the bottom quietly waiting for a target to pass by would be unacceptable.

Now the way the Austrailians use their SSKs would be the framework to imitate.

I hope not to be seen as belittling diesel/AIP powered submarines or their operators.

Just pointing out that they have some severe limitations that could and would be taken advantage of by their opponents.

Will they have some success? Most certainly.

But the losse will be excruciating and no submarine force in the world including the US is capable of fighting a battle of attrition.

With the possible exception of China.

Still I see attrition warfare using SSKs, like decoys and mines, as a losing proposition.

The US cannot fight a war of attrition with subs but china might be able to? how do you figure?

Dreadnoughts101 said:

I am interested to know where you obtained any info on the sound signature on the 214's ? There is only 1 214 (Admiral Sohn Won-il) currently at sea having just been accepted into service by the Korean Navy after being built at Hyundai's Ulsan shipyard under license from HDW. There are only 2 other 214's in the water, Papanikolis which is at present in Kiel and the Pipinos which is in HSY Skaramanga shipyard Greece where it has just completed HATS. It has not yet commenced SATS. The Greek Government is refusing to accept the Papanikolis for political reasons, but cites the fact that it rolls too much whilst on the surface at high speed! I carry out risk assessment on all four of the 214's building in Greece and am also involved in the trials. I will of course bow to your superior knowledge once you can tell me where you obtained the sound signature figures and the depths reached on the sea trials reached by the Papanikolis or the Admiral Sohn Won-il.

Click to expand...

There are a few people in here who are aware of what I've done in the past - ie in signature management for subs.

IMO you are assuming much:

1) paraphrasing some of the 214 faults which were non existent and misrepresented within the greek govt

2) and you clearly have swallowed the marketing hype about 214's depth. As a submariner you would know that there is at least one other conventional which is able to reach greater operational depths. I say again, the 214 comes nowhere near this platforms absolute operational depth.

3) Aust and a number of navies (NATO and regional) share combat and trials data

You are quite welcome to PM me, but I will not have detailed discussion in an open forum - and I'd want to see some validation of your credentials before even a PM comment is made.

The US cannot fight a war of attrition with subs but china might be able to? how do you figure?"

I say they may be an "exception" based on an unkown number of submarines in reserve and the possibility they may(or even are) build new units at a much faster rate than the US is capable of.

The USN is not and wont be building submarines at the rate the Chinese are likely capable of.

Albeit the Chinese are building mostly diesel submarine but these are relatively quickly and inexpensively built.

OTOH they are not as capable as USN SSNs but in a war of attrition around the Chinese littoral this matters little if greatly outnumbered.

For that matter IMHO if the OOBs are even equal which they nominally are now.

#s will count and the USN doesnt have nor will have the #s to compete.

This doesnt mean the USN wont fight but exactly how is a closely guarded secret as it should be.

But classical attrition warfare wont be an option for the USN.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

gf-Do you know/can you say if navies have started taking steps to reduce the radar signatures of submarine periscopes/snorkels with stealthy designs or RAM?

You dont have to take my word for anything.

Here is the latest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25submarine.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/

But there is lots of other stuff out there you could read if you had a mind to.

Wow talk about a coincidence I had just read those articles right before reading you post.

I think the vast technological superiority of US submarines has to count for something. Does China really have that many more subs than the US?

gf0012-aust said:

2) and you clearly have swallowed the marketing hype about 214's depth. As a submariner you would know that there is at least one other conventional which is able to reach greater operational depths. I say again, the 214 comes nowhere near this platforms absolute operational depth.

Click to expand...

That would have to be the Oyashio right I found depths of between 400-700m's listed even the Harushio has a diving depth of 450m, of course it is all relative as you have said many times there is a big difference between public figures and actual. Which I would love to see one day.

I had to laugh when the best figure I could find in a quick look for the Collin's was +180 metres, not a subtle representation of figures, that might as well as just said +10 metres

robsta83 said:

That would have to be the Oyashio right I found depths of between 400-700m's listed even the Harushio has a diving depth of 450m, of course it is all relative as you have said many times there is a big difference between public figures and actual. Which I would love to see one day.

I had to laugh when the best figure I could find in a quick look for the Collin's was +180 metres, not a subtle representation of figures, that might as well as just said +10 metres

Click to expand...

I've seen some comments on the net the Dutch Walrus Class is also able to dive 600+m, the Italian wiki site about the class mentions 620m max diving depth. But I've also seen some other (higher) figures for the max depth.