SSKs

[gf0012-aust]

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.

Gotland is regarded as a "Mini-me" version of Collins, sans acoustic mods but fitted with AIP. In current terms it means that the USN can train against a typical "small" AIP threat. It also means that some of the acoustic profiles and patterns can be compared to Collins in similar threat environments. ie comparative analysis etc....

Do you think that the Collins wasn't borrowed or forward deployed up north like Hawaii because A) the upgrades,

They are and do

B) Capability

They are and do

C) Australia use the 6 so much that they can't spare one in the Nth Pacific.

They are and do/ They're a bluewater fleet sub that were designed during the last stages of the Cold War. Their depth of mission profiles should kind of be considered with that in mind. They're long range hunters. Bear in mind that different nations uses similar platforms for different mission profiles.

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

exactly - if we don't get details about the Oberons missions for the 30 year classified period, then you can bet the same money on getting detail on what Collins does.

submariners don't talk - look at RickUSN for a perfect example of saying not much a lot.

the stuff I'm saying is unclass but not common knowledge - as opposed to restricted and class etc...... otherwise I'd be saying zip.

 

[Francois]

Notice the new evolution of the Oyashio (to be launch next year under the Heisei 16SS, 2,900 ton program).
They adopted the Stirling AIP system and a slightly improved hull with X-type control surfaces, and naturally improved quieting and sensors.

The evolution is a need for the JMSDF's sub service to allow a longer time on-zone, especially in the Yellow Sea area, where the depth is very low (about 46m in average) for long periods.
You have to understand that the chinese SSBN/SSN need to stay surfaced for more then 800km before reaching a deep enough area down South.

Here you can understand the great strategic importance of Taiwan (and Okinawa in that matter) for the PRC mil-planners.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Notice the new evolution of the Oyashio (to be launch next year under the Heisei 16SS, 2,900 ton program).
They adopted the Stirling AIP system and a slightly improved hull with X-type control surfaces, and naturally improved quieting and sensors.

Sounds like the early version of Collins (stirling and X planes) The acoustic numbers on those hulls are something to strive for...

There's been some close "work" with the Japanese and the RAN recently...

 

[Francois]

Sounds like the early version of Collins (stirling and X planes) The acoustic numbers on those hulls are something to strive for...

There's been some close "work" with the Japanese and the RAN recently...

I know. I am also involved somewhere in the new sensor suite.
New boats I would fear, especially knowing the level and professionalism or the sailors, something I rate very high, compared with several other similar navies...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Useage Up North

They are and do

Yeah the only time I hear of the Collins going up north is generally the RIMPAC exercises, there are the other odd publicised one but not to often.
Additionally

If anyone wants some interesting reading just something different theseare bi section on the value of ability of the US navy and Diesel success, using several sources about the Collins success in RIMPAC in particular 2000.

http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is the us. navy overrated.pdf

Around about page 100.

Now before I get stomped on its just suggestion of capability from a exterior source, I KNOW exercises are different that. and that actual conflict brings different outcomes, etc etc. I just found it good alternative reading. And goes to show that the Collins is better than the press it gets those in the know have often said.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I believe the Germans are aiming for a 3000Km submerged patrol on AIP, allowing one to leave harbour, and potter around submerged for 3 to 4 weeks then return to base, having fulling charged batteries for use when high speed is required.

One thing I like about the stirling is that it doesn't introduce another fuel type (H2). Is it possible to make O2 at snorkel dept and recharge the O2 tanks. I don't know how big such a plant would be. Also if the stirlings could be designed to use atmospheric O2 via the snorkel, running for long periods at periscope dept would be quiet, without depleting the onboard O2.

I read somewhere that China is working on Li submarine batteries. Looking at the automotive world, Toshiba (I think it was) has developed a Li battery that can be charged to 80% in 5 minutes, and still hold over 90% of it's charge after a couple of decades. Make for some interesting developments in the future for conventionals.

The US had conventionals up unto 1990. The last Tench class that entered service just after the close of WW2, served into the 1980's, the last Babel class with the Albacore hull that looked like a smaller LA class, served to 1990. The US nuke (the Dallas) that jumped out of the water in "The hunt for Red October" was a Babel class conventional, the Blueback. Watching it exit the water it is hard to beleive it is in fact a 220 foot conventional and not a 360 feet Los Angelos.

 

[Brutus Caesar]

It's not particularly relevant but if I'm not mistaken Collins Class are SSG's not SSK's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just a small correction.

Blueback was a Barbel Class.

The Oyashios are also considered to be based on that classes hull design.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's not particularly relevant but if I'm not mistaken Collins Class are SSG's not SSK's.

Collins are regarded as SSG's due to warload.

 

[RubiconNZ]

SSG's

Collins are regarded as SSG's due to warload.

I take it that this classification is due to the Harpoons? and the amount they carry? or...

 

[Brutus Caesar]

Yeah, the Harpoon if I'm not mistaken.

 

[contedicavour]

Sorry but SSG can be applied only to subs carrying long-range cruise missiles, such as the modified Ohio-class SSGNs, or the Russian Oscars. Harpoon are not long-range cruise missiles. Otherwise most SSKs would be SSGs since several subs now carry Exocet SM-39 anti-ship missiles (French, Spanish) or Harpoons ...

cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry but SSG can be applied only to subs carrying long-range cruise missiles, such as the modified Ohio-class SSGNs, or the Russian Oscars. Harpoon are not long-range cruise missiles. Otherwise most SSKs would be SSGs since several subs now carry Exocet SM-39 anti-ship missiles (French, Spanish) or Harpoons ...

cheers

Actually, you're wrong.

• Janes
• Bakers
• Monch
• RAN
• USN
• NATO

all of the above classify Collins as SSG's. They were reclassified from SSK's about 8 years ago.

edit note: text changed after double checked sources and changed dates to reflect reclassification date to SSG.

 

[contedicavour]

Actually, you're wrong.

• Janes
• Bakers
• Monch
• RAN
• USN
• NATO

all of the above classify Collins as SSG's. They were reclassified from SSK's about 8 years ago.

edit note: text changed after double checked sources and changed dates to reflect reclassification date to SSG.

I'm waiting for the new edition of Jane's. In the older ones I have it still says SSK. If the system has changed, does this mean all countries with subs with missiles are now labelled SSG ?

 

[Truculent]

The big question is,why does the largest navy in the world not operate ssk's?I have just googled and found a Jane's article that calls the Collins an SSK.http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jfs/jfs010202_collins_sub.shtml

 

[contedicavour]

The big question is,why does the largest navy in the world not operate ssk's?

Good question. The USN is making a lot of progress in addressing littoral warfare (with the LCS for example) but still builds 8000-ton Virginia class SSNs instead of building silent AIP-equipped SSKs more suitable for patrolling close to the enemy shores...
Since the European navies are all slashing their submarine numbers, the USN won't be able to rely too much on us either. Worrying indeed

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm waiting for the new edition of Jane's. In the older ones I have it still says SSK. If the system has changed, does this mean all countries with subs with missiles are now labelled SSG ?

Not sure. I'd be tempted to get rickusn's opinion as he's maintains a naval database.

to be blunt, I also don't put as much faith into Janes as I would Bakers or the RAN/USN/NATO classifications. I prefer Bakers as a reference source over Janes anyway - and I'd consider the host navy to know more about their own vessels than Janes would

certainly the above have classified them as SSG's since approx 1998. Bakers and Janes in 1987(prior to their build) had them classed as SSK's. In 1985, Collins were classified as SS.

Janes also tend to mix and match the designators. One year book they refer to them as an SS, then a SSK, the next an SSG. Again, if you look at the RANs official ORBAT - they're listed as SSG's.

On a side note, the last UDT I attended in Hawai'i had some footage of Rankine at a SINKEX and listed her as an SSG as well. That was Raytheon and Boeing footage.

On a listing provided by NSL a few years back, Collins was also listed as an SSG class vessel.

Finally, as you might know, I'm involved with signature management tech used on Collins, on the presentations that we've given to various foreign navies (incl USN, RN, Swedish, Singaporean and Indian) they're discussed as SSG's whereas the Gotland is referred to as an SSK. The Gotland is a "mini-me" version of Collins.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Finally, as you might know, I'm involved with signature management tech used on Collins, on the presentations that we've given to various foreign navies (incl USN, RN, Swedish, Singaporean and Indian) they're discussed as SSG's whereas the Gotland is referred to as an SSK. The Gotland is a "mini-me" version of Collins.

Question 1

Forgive me if you consider these a trivial questions. Does it make any difference whether or not the Collins is classified as a SSK or SSG? If so is this in an operational sense? I ask because most modern SSK's carry missile armament IIRC.

In my area of expertise, both the M113 and M3 are tracked vehicles and have somewhat similar roles. But the M113 is most definately not an IFV or CFV as I prefer to call it. How does this analogy apply to SSK and SSG operationally.

Question 2

Also, I've always wondered the following. A SSK/SSG(any type) is undetected and lurking near or stalking some halfway decent threat SAG. From what little I know of underwater warfare, it seems that it would be near suicidal to fire sub launched AShM's because they would betray the location(bearing) of the firing platform and running away at high speed would probably degrade stealth. Admittedly the SAG will have more immediate concerns. But even then. With so few weapons, how good of a chance would a SSG/SSK have of saturating the defense with a relatively limited missile armament?

I know warships can be suprised but assume in this example the enemy is expecting to be attacked.


Thanks
DA

 

[abramsteve]

Question 1

Forgive me if you consider these a trivial questions. Does it make any difference whether or not the Collins is classified as a SSK or SSG? If so is this in an operational sense? I ask because most modern SSK's carry missile armament IIRC.

In my area of expertise, both the M113 and M3 are tracked vehicles and have somewhat similar roles. But the M113 is most definately not an IFV or CFV as I prefer to call it. How does this analogy apply to SSK and SSG operationally.

Question 2

Also, I've always wondered the following. A SSK/SSG(any type) is undetected and lurking near or stalking some halfway decent threat SAG. From what little I know of underwater warfare, it seems that it would be near suicidal to fire sub launched AShM's because they would betray the location(bearing) of the firing platform and running away at high speed would probably degrade stealth. Admittedly the SAG will have more immediate concerns. But even then. With so few weapons, how good of a chance would a SSG/SSK have of saturating the defense with a relatively limited missile armament?

I know warships can be suprised but assume in this example the enemy is expecting to be attacked.


Thanks
DA

I too know little of underwater warfare, but I think that a sub would launch an ASM from a fairly safe distance from their target? I also think that the Sub would stand a decent chance of escaping because of being so ultra quiet when running on batteries.

I have to admit though that most of my knowledge of submarine warfare comes from Tom Clancy novels, rather than hard facts!

 

[contedicavour]

Question 1

Forgive me if you consider these a trivial questions. Does it make any difference whether or not the Collins is classified as a SSK or SSG? If so is this in an operational sense? I ask because most modern SSK's carry missile armament IIRC.

In my area of expertise, both the M113 and M3 are tracked vehicles and have somewhat similar roles. But the M113 is most definately not an IFV or CFV as I prefer to call it. How does this analogy apply to SSK and SSG operationally.

Question 2

Also, I've always wondered the following. A SSK/SSG(any type) is undetected and lurking near or stalking some halfway decent threat SAG. From what little I know of underwater warfare, it seems that it would be near suicidal to fire sub launched AShM's because they would betray the location(bearing) of the firing platform and running away at high speed would probably degrade stealth. Admittedly the SAG will have more immediate concerns. But even then. With so few weapons, how good of a chance would a SSG/SSK have of saturating the defense with a relatively limited missile armament?

I know warships can be suprised but assume in this example the enemy is expecting to be attacked.


Thanks
DA

Well, IMHO a SSK with missiles has the same capabilities as a SSG. So they would be synonims However it does matter whether a Navy labels its subs as SSKs or as SSGs. If a Navy insists on calling its subs as SSGs it means that the primary mission is not defensive or offensive ASW but also ASUW or even potentially as a base for attacking land targets.
For instance, the German-Italian U-212 subs can launch Harpoon missiles but they are hardly carried aboard as the main mission is defensive/offensive ASW.

On your second question, a SSK/SSG launching a missile while underwater may betray its approximate position to nearby surface units, but chances are the surface unit would be very busy defending itself from missiles appearing out of nowhere on its radar screens, and that the SSK/SSG would have some time available to dive even deeper and escape from its launch position, before the surface unit's helicopters or ASROC-type weaponry can reach the sub's approximate bearing and start stalking it.

cheers