How good are Japanese submarines?

[Crusader2000]

The mixed dub fleet concept was so that one could place the SSK;s in a defensive position (GIUK gap) with SSN behind them to react to attacks/break-throws, also, the SSN force had more an offensive ability with escort and counter-sub operations. The upholder class was originally going to be a class of 12 boats, for such patrolling/defensive operations, and the SSN force was for battle group escort and attack.

When the cold war went away, there was no foreseen need for a patrol force, indeed, NATO/EU operations are mainly offensive or peace-keeping in nature. Hence the RN kept SSN's only.

RN's had a way to save a load of money on platforms, operations and personnel, but without losing real strike power.

I hope this helps

Do you know how deep the waters are around Taiwan? Also, in any conflict with Taiwan. Wouldn't US Carriers be positioned hundreds of miles East? Surely, China wouldn't want to send SSK's out in deep waters against American SSN's?

 

[Dr Phobus]

Do you know how deep the waters are around Taiwan? Also, in any conflict with Taiwan. Wouldn't US Carriers be positioned hundreds of miles East? Surely, China wouldn't want to send SSK's out in deep waters against American SSN's?

I really do not know, its will not be too deep due to its proxmity with the mainland. Remeber, historcally SSK's have fought in the open ocean, look at submarine campaigns of both world wars. So, I argue the answer to your question is yes, the PLA-Navy will operate SSK's agianst carrier groups. THe RAN's collins class boats rountenly penertrate the escort screens of the US carrier groups.

I hope this helps

 

[Crusader2000]

I really do not know, its will not be too deep due to its proxmity with the mainland. Remeber, historcally SSK's have fought in the open ocean, look at submarine campaigns of both world wars. So, I argue the answer to your question is yes, the PLA-Navy will operate SSK's agianst carrier groups. THe RAN's collins class boats rountenly penertrate the escort screens of the US carrier groups.

I hope this helps

I don't know about routinely? I have heard that it has happen on a couple of exercises. That said, I don't know if USN SSN's where close by or not.....Surely, the USN would equip its Carrier Battle Groups with much better ASW screens if it was that easy...........Much like Air Exercises. (India for example) It depends alot on the Forces employed and the Rules of Engagment? Its like I always say "Its not what they tell you? Its what they don't!":unknown

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't know about routinely?

They've breached and killed in every RIMPAC they've entered - they have done it "routinely".

I have heard that it has happen on a couple of exercises.

See above. This does not include the ex's run from the sub warfare training grid. in other words, there are more incidents of successful prosecution in other exercises.

That said, I don't know if USN SSN's where close by or not.....

In RIMPAC 2004 the Rankin slotted the SSN as well as the CVN. SSN's are there to run as the CVN's terrier. They are tasked in RIMPAC to kill the "red" sub before it can get to the carrier or designated target.

Surely, the USN would equip its Carrier Battle Groups with much better ASW screens if it was that easy...........Much like Air Exercises. (India for example) It depends alot on the Forces employed and the Rules of Engagment? Its like I always say "Its not what they tell you? Its what they don't!":unknown

RIMPAC 2004 included the following blue assets against Rankin.

DF-31 - which is the ASW Squadron - it also trains other fleet ASW assets. It was comprised of 4 x Arleigh Burkes
3 other DDG and FFG's
2 ASW air elements. Both Air ASW groups are highly proficient and also act as trainers for other ASW air assets.

Couple of additional points.

The USN helo pack "cheated" by tracking and locking Rankin before she entered the training box. They should have had the advantage - especially as there were 3 of them who'd "locked and boxed"

Rankin came in and attacked from the coast side of the training box - a difficult thing to do as it makes a sub vulnerable for escape and evasion routines

The USN went to active pings in the closing stages - Rankin managed to avoid all the pinging assets

She avoided DF-31, 4 other skimmers, an SSN, 2 x dedicated asw air groups and air assets from the CVN. She also avoided detection by P3 Orions from Hawai'i.

When she scored the CVN kill, she played the aussie band "Men At Work's" signature song, "We Come from a Land Down Under" on the hydrophones.

I should also point out that the Kiwis "cheated" for the Fincastle ASW exercise one year by also tagging before the start of the Ex. Waller evaded and escaped as well.

finally, IMO the Japanese subs are the best deep diving conventionals in the world - and they are the only other large conventional sub capable of taking the larger combat suites available to the Collins. - In short, the Oyashio Class are very very good assets. IMV they're in the top 3 DE subs in use.

The ROE's are basically weapons free on sims - the blue force have absolute free reign to kill the enemy. the sub tasked as "red" has to hit specific targets within specific time frames and in a nominated exercise area. they are boxed to fight in controlled space.

in a few exercises (not RIMPAC 2002-2004), the subs have had to make noise so as to provide assistance to the hunters

 

[gf0012-aust]

Really, I would be shocked. If, the USN and JMSDF didn't train regularly on Anti-Submarine Missions with there combined SSK/SSN fleets.

The US and Japan train regularly together, either with the assets rotated out of Yoka, or with the 7th Fleet rottating assets.

Japan also participates in mixed country events like RIMPAC. They operate on a discrete channel so as to not compromsie their constitution . ie there are two comms channels in play, the Japanese relay any activity via the US so as to not be in direct contact with other nations.

 

[Crusader2000]

They've breached and killed in every RIMPAC they've entered - they have done it "routinely".



See above. This does not include the ex's run from the sub warfare training grid. in other words, there are more incidents of successful prosecution in other exercises.



In RIMPAC 2004 the Rankin slotted the SSN as well as the CVN. SSN's are there to run as the CVN's terrier. They are tasked in RIMPAC to kill the "red" sub before it can get to the carrier or designated target.



RIMPAC 2004 included the following blue assets against Rankin.

DF-31 - which is the ASW Squadron - it also trains other fleet ASW assets. It was comprised of 4 x Arleigh Burkes
3 other DDG and FFG's
2 ASW air elements. Both Air ASW groups are highly proficient and also act as trainers for other ASW air assets.

Couple of additional points.

The USN helo pack "cheated" by tracking and locking Rankin before she entered the training box. They should have had the advantage - especially as there were 3 of them who'd "locked and boxed"

Rankin came in and attacked from the coast side of the training box - a difficult thing to do as it makes a sub vulnerable for escape and evasion routines

The USN went to active pings in the closing stages - Rankin managed to avoid all the pinging assets

She avoided DF-31, 4 other skimmers, an SSN, 2 x dedicated asw air groups and air assets from the CVN. She also avoided detection by P3 Orions from Hawai'i.

When she scored the CVN kill, she played the aussie band "Men At Work's" signature song, "We Come from a Land Down Under" on the hydrophones.

I should also point out that the Kiwis "cheated" for the Fincastle ASW exercise one year by also tagging before the start of the Ex. Waller evaded and escaped as well.

finally, IMO the Japanese subs are the best deep diving conventionals in the world - and they are the only other large conventional sub capable of taking the larger combat suites available to the Collins. - In short, the Oyashio Class are very very good assets. IMV they're in the top 3 DE subs in use.

The ROE's are basically weapons free on sims - the blue force have absolute free reign to kill the enemy. the sub tasked as "red" has to hit specific targets within specific time frames and in a nominated exercise area. they are boxed to fight in controlled space.

in a few exercises (not RIMPAC 2002-2004), the subs have had to make noise so as to provide assistance to the hunters

Well, according to you USN Carrier Battle Groups are easy targets for SSK's. Funny, that you have such classified material? Further, if true its hard to believe that the USN and the US Goverment wouldn't be so alarmed. As to purchase more ASW equippment including your invincible SSK's! Sorry, but I don't think its that simple!nfloorl: While, its not that I believe a CBG couldn't be successfully attacked. Just that is surely is far from routine. Last I heard the USN was ranked number 1 in ASW in the World! So, according to you that is very far from the truth?

 

[JAF]

Crusader 2000, do you think the USN or the US government would publicly state their forces are vulnerable to modern SSK's?

I am not denying your argument that the USN is #1 in ASW, nor am I supporting gf0012-aust post.

What I am saying is any navy that intends to operate in areas patrolled by hostile, modern, ultra quiet SSK, is in harms way big time. Including the USN.

 

[Crusader2000]

Crusader 2000, do you think the USN or the US government would publicly state their forces are vulnerable to modern SSK's?

I am not denying your argument that the USN is #1 in ASW, nor am I supporting gf0012-aust post.

What I am saying is any navy that intends to operate in areas patrolled by hostile, modern, ultra quiet SSK, is in harms way big time. Including the USN.

Would the US Goverment publicly state their forces are vulnerable to modern SSK's? Well, no I don't think so. Do you think that the leaders of the USN would ididily stand by if that was indeed the case!!!nfloorl:

 

[JAF]

Would the US Goverment publicly state their forces are vulnerable to modern SSK's? Well, no I don't think so. Do you think that the leaders of the USN would ididily stand by if that was indeed the case!!!nfloorl:

No of course they would not stand by. That does not mean the USN or any other navy is invulnerable to them. SSK's operating on batteries or AIP are very quiet, to put it mildly. Your posts, and correct me if I am reading tone where i should not, seem to indicate a complete lack of respect for SSK's and additionally that the USN could deal with them without much worry. I am simply trying to point out that they need to be respected and worried about.

 

[Crusader2000]

No of course they would not stand by. That does not mean the USN or any other navy is invulnerable to them. SSK's operating on batteries or AIP are very quiet, to put it mildly. Your posts, and correct me if I am reading tone where i should not, seem to indicate a complete lack of respect for SSK's and additionally that the USN could deal with them without much worry. I am simply trying to point out that they need to be respected and worried about.

Go back and read my posting! Its not that I don't respect SSK's. I believe they are a threat to all surface ships. That said, I don't think they could routinely and sucessfully attack and sink USN CBG's either. Also, the USN is starting to field Seawolf and Virgina SSN's...............

 

[Wooki]

Have a care

Well, according to you USN Carrier Battle Groups are easy targets for SSK's. Funny, that you have such classified material? Further, if true its hard to believe that the USN and the US Goverment wouldn't be so alarmed. As to purchase more ASW equippment including your invincible SSK's! Sorry, but I don't think its that simple!nfloorl: While, its not that I believe a CBG couldn't be successfully attacked. Just that is surely is far from routine. Last I heard the USN was ranked number 1 in ASW in the World! So, according to you that is very far from the truth?

1) Australia is an ally, and one that we invite to "the party" and we always learn a lot when they come.

2) Just because you haven't heard of something crusader2000, doesn't make it classified. I have heard the same from different sources. In this exercise DF 31 got whipped good and got whipped playing downhill.

3) Last; I would be careful making disparaging comments about GF0012's integrity. As posters go, he/she is the most reliable I have seen and invariably can be backed up from multiple sources.

e.g.

...Last I heard the USN was ranked number 1 in ASW in the World! So, according to you that is very far from the truth?

That is just plain embarrassing, especially as making statements like that is based upon the quality of the men and women involved. People are people the world over and training is at best cyclic.

Which brings me to my final point; the term "May the best man win".

They had their day and hopefully we will get to have ours back. i.e. The Collins was the best on that day and we can hope that our boys and girls will be the best when they meet again.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, according to you USN Carrier Battle Groups are easy targets for SSK's. Funny, that you have such classified material? Further, if true its hard to believe that the USN and the US Goverment wouldn't be so alarmed. As to purchase more ASW equippment including your invincible SSK's! Sorry, but I don't think its that simple!nfloorl: While, its not that I believe a CBG couldn't be successfully attacked. Just that is surely is far from routine. Last I heard the USN was ranked number 1 in ASW in the World! So, according to you that is very far from the truth?

That information re RIMPAC has been stated by both the official reports coming out of RIMPAC 2004 by CINCPAC, has been published by the NSL in their quarterly publication and was provided by the RAN on the post RIMPAC site. parts of it also come from a documentary on the Collins Class. IN 2004 I attended the UDT Conf in Hawai'i (Sub Warfare) and the exercise was discussed in the open as part of a session on the emerging threat of more capable conventionals.

A couple of points:

the very reason why Gotland was leased was as a result of the 2 consec RIMPAC results. Gotland is regarded as a mini version of the Collins sans combat suite but with AIP

In the last 4 years the USN (and predominately via CINCPAC) have made it clear that ASW has been a declining skillset and that the USN needs to refocus. This has been blamed on various issues - but it stems from the decline of the Russians as the primary threat after the collapse of the cold war. Any number of in service and publicly cleared sources support that.

btw, I work in an acoustic warfare environment.

are DE subs invincible? certainly not. can they visit substantial destruction on an enemy if handled well? - definitely.

in actual fact the RN is considered to be the most proficient within ASW circles. That is probably still relevant considering the prev decline in USN capability. The USN acknowledges it's own shortcomings in ASW quite regularly in journals such as Proceedings and NSL - they are also moving to rectify it - which is why there has been a demonstrable increase in ASW training/focussed events over the last 4 years. The change in emphasis is obvious. The USN also rotates some nominated staff through the RAN to undertake Perisher training for qualification. Perisher is universally regarded as the hardest DE sub warfare training process in the world.

finally - this is a forum where people are expected to behave in a mature fashion - mocking or disparagaing someone elses response just because you disagree or are less informed is not tolerated. remember it. I'm also not in the habit of making comment just to waste bandwidth and "feel good" about myself. I also never comment on anything that is classified or not available for release.

Stay civil and we'll all be happy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would the US Goverment publicly state their forces are vulnerable to modern SSK's?

Actually they have. When CINCPAC stands up in a room of 450 people in a public session and indicates that the USN is in a process of re-assessing how and where it will improve its performance, when it publicly states unclassified details in pubvlications such as the NSL journal and in USNI Proceedings - then he is obviously trying to raise the profile of the problem.

Any number of people who are current in the USN will agree that the US has been deficient in ASW and its a problem that is now being worked upon. The motivation has come from the fact that DE subs are far more sophisticated that they ever have been - and that the ASW training has not necessarily kept pace with the speed of improvement.

The USN focus has been diverted since the collapse of the Soviet Union - there was no state threat of note and as such ASW at both the skimmer and aerial level declined.

Thats why P3's have been doing general ISR and why the S3's are non-existent as organic ASW air.

The data points are self evident.

Well, no I don't think so. Do you think that the leaders of the USN would ididily stand by if that was indeed the case!!!nfloorl:

Unfortunately, the speed of improvement in sone DE technologies, the fact that such boats are becoming cheaper means that their presence and ratio has gone up. To paraphrase CINCPAC from 2002 - they've been caught "napping"

One only has to look at the increase in type and tempo of ASW war games run by the USN in the last 4 years to see that their focus has changed. It has been on an order of magnitude.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Go back and read my posting! Its not that I don't respect SSK's. I believe they are a threat to all surface ships. That said, I don't think they could routinely and sucessfully attack and sink USN CBG's either.

Then you'll be surprised to know that the Collins Class are getting the same combat suite as the Virginia and Seawolf (and some of the 688I's).

The USN and Aust have also been working on a new specialised version of the Mk 48 ADCAP called the Block 7. That torpedo is specifically modified to work in the littorals and is based on modified data sets based on how DE subs work in the littorals.

It's not an issue of always sinking the carrier - sub warfare can also be about causing a persistence and projection disconnect. sinking is the preferred option on major capital vessels - but it's not the only offensive role available.

Also, the USN is starting to field Seawolf and Virgina SSN's...............

and they are going to be working on a reduced number of boats - they will have nowhere near the numbers required for persistence that they enjoyed during the closing stages of the cold war - they have nowhere near the footprint of the halcyon days of Reagans administration. There will not be enough Seawolfs or Virginias to deal with the PACRIM sub threat - let alone have sufficient in play to counter a concurrent Iranian Kilo threat, or a concurrent Venezuelan threat etc... That means that there may be a very real need to revisit such concepts as ASW strike forces etc.... Subs alone - even Seawolf and Virginia calibre vessels are insufficient.

The estimates alone for the pacific rim are that US and allied subs will be numerically outnumbered at almost 3:1 within 4-5 years. the glory days of thus having the luxury to top and tail every "enemy" sub are gone. that means a greater reliance on skimmers and air doing the job. It also means that the USN will have to start changing its construction model.

eg, there is not one remaining vessel in the current USN that has the absolute ASW competency of the Spruances - so at a single platform level some assessment needs to be made as to whether future conflicts require the introduction of a similar capability, or whether DD(x)/LCS will have their profiles changed to reflect the sea battlefield concerns.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am simply trying to point out that they need to be respected and worried about.

I'm not sure who has been more disappointed about the sorry saga of the Upholders. The Canadian navy or the USN. I know there are a number of blokes in the USN who are anticipating using the Upholders as a surrogate aggressor team for DUCT. If they hadn't had so many teething problems at transfer, I'm sure that the Gotland lease would not have been so quick.

IMO, the USN lost a major opportunity in leasing the entire Danish sub fleet prior to decommissioning. They could have had excellent DUCT aggressors in place, trained against a very competent and professional bunch of sailors and also worked up against packs of subs (which is what I'm sure they hoped to do with the Upholders once Canada had completed the reworks)

 

[Crusader2000]

Personally, I don't see any of my comments as offensive? At least no more than the ones directed at me! Also, making claims regarding material that surely is "classified" is a bold statement indeed! What some may read in the Naval Proceedings (yes I do read it) and/or other public venue. Does not make it fact. While, I don't claim that a USN CBG couldn't be successfully attacked. To claim it is routine is whole another story! Really, I think we are talking past each other here??? I am not saying SSK's don't pose a threat or shouldn't be taken more seriously. Nor that they couldn't slip past a ASW Screen of a USN CBG. More to the point that it is not easy regardless. From my point of view. I am not making the USN 10 feet tall. Yet, surely a few Chinese and/or Ruissian Kilo's wouldn't either......................IMO

 

[gf0012-aust]

making claims regarding material that surely is "classified" is a bold statement indeed! What some may read in the Naval Proceedings (yes I do read it) and/or other public venue. Does not make it fact.

No, they are not classified comments. If they were I'd get schitt canned from here to Venus for making them. It's also why I have also pointed to CINCPAC comments at UDT and the NSL. One only has to look at the volume and frequency of Underwater Warfare Conference (be it UDT or SMI) items since 2001 to see that there is a pattern. The USN has made it very clear that the largest single threat to CSF's CTF's are DE subs. That has been reinforced by various RIMPACs and the recent failure of the 5th Fleet to find 2 NorK Romeo's trailing the fleet off of Angola. The entire fleet was moved off shore and HSV2 was used as a defacto ASW command ship to hunt them down.

If you've read Proceedings (and NSL) then you'll know that there are other sources which have also made substantial comment about the impact of Collins on fleet ASW exercises and that it reinforces the issue that a good sub, with good training is a substantial threat. Fortunately the Kilos sound like kenwoods underwater and the quality of training is somewhat less than good. The Malays for example are far better at sub handling than the PLAN. The PLAN is not within a golden mile of the Sings.

While, I don't claim that a USN CBG couldn't be successfully attacked. To claim it is routine is whole another story!

Collins strike rate on CVN's at Ex is over 80%. There have been other subs that have scored on CV's, but none have been opposed to the depth of RIMPAC 2004. The bases were loaded well against the sub.

No other sub has scored kills to the same rate - and none have scored on the sub as well as the carrier on the same Ex.

At that UDT Conf, an engineer stood in front of 450 people, from 12 different navies and with very senior and sea timed personnel and said openly that he regarded Collins as the best DE submarine in the world. This was in direct reference to the fact that USN ASW skills were at risk and that the Collins had reinforced that a quality platform, with quality training was a clear and present threat against a CTF/CSF. It was an unconditional unsolicited comment. Soon after that the Aust and US govts issued a joint statement indicating that the Collins was getting the same combat suite as the Virginias and Seawolf. the only other sub with the volumetric opportunity and onboard power to take a nuke submarines combat suite are the Oyashios.

combat effectiveness in a sub is very much determined by processing power. The Virginia and Collins class have flank arrays - and thats a huge clue as to their combat processing capability.

 

[Crusader2000]

No, they are not classified comments. If they were I'd get schitt canned from here to Venus for making them. It's also why I have also pointed to CINCPAC comments at UDT and the NSL. One only has to look at the volume and frequency of Underwater Warfare Conference (be it UDT or SMI) items since 2001 to see that there is a pattern. The USN has made it very clear that the largest single threat to CSF's CTF's are DE subs. That has been reinforced by various RIMPACs and the recent failure of the 5th Fleet to find 2 NorK Romeo's trailing the fleet off of Angola. The entire fleet was moved off shore and HSV2 was used as a defacto ASW command ship to hunt them down.

If you've read Proceedings (and NSL) then you'll know that there are other sources which have also made substantial comment about the impact of Collins on fleet ASW exercises and that it reinforces the issue that a good sub, with good training is a substantial threat. Fortunately the Kilos sound like kenwoods underwater and the quality of training is somewhat less than good. The Malays for example are far better at sub handling than the PLAN. The PLAN is not within a golden mile of the Sings.




Collins strike rate on CVN's at Ex is over 80%. There have been other subs that have scored on CV's, but none have been opposed to the depth of RIMPAC 2004. The bases were loaded well against the sub.

No other sub has scored kills to the same rate - and none have scored on the sub as well as the carrier on the same Ex.

At that UDT Conf, an engineer stood in front of 450 people, from 12 different navies and with very senior and sea timed personnel and said openly that he regarded Collins as the best DE submarine in the world. This was in direct reference to the fact that USN ASW skills were at risk and that the Collins had reinforced that a quality platform, with quality training was a clear and present threat against a CTF/CSF. It was an unconditional unsolicited comment. Soon after that the Aust and US govts issued a joint statement indicating that the Collins was getting the same combat suite as the Virginias and Seawolf. the only other sub with the volumetric opportunity and onboard power to take a nuke submarines combat suite are the Oyashios.

combat effectiveness in a sub is very much determined by processing power. The Virginia and Collins class have flank arrays - and thats a huge clue as to their combat processing capability.

The USN claims that never has a Ohio Class SSBN been tracked successfully! Do you agree with that statement?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The USN claims that never has a Ohio Class SSBN been tracked successfully! Do you agree with that statement?

SSBN's aren't used at RIMPAC events. They're a first/second strike theatre weapon.

LA's and LAI's are used at RIMPAC.

and no comment on SSBN's being tracked.

 

[Crusader2000]

SSBN's aren't used at RIMPAC events. They're a first/second strike theatre weapon.

LA's and LAI's are used at RIMPAC.

and no comment on SSBN's being tracked.

I think you are missing the point? It maybe true that only USN Los Angeles Class SSN's (including improved LA's) are used during RIMPAC Exercises. Yet, both American designs have simliar capabilities and are manufactured by the same company. (i.e.General Dynamics) :unknown