SSKs

[Truculent]

I think that calling a Collins an SSG is technically correct but most submarines could be modified to fire an encapsulated weapon.A true SSG to me is something like an Oscar or a TLAM/TASM firing submarine.Anything else is just an SS(K) that has an ability to fire a paricular class of weapon.I always follow the rule that to sink a warship you need a torpedo,missiles just burn them.The attack on HMS Sheffield 20+ years ago shows this clearly.SSK are barrier weapons.As soon as they have fired they are vulnerable due to their slow speed of escape.I would liken them to a mugger,hiding in a dark corner,undetected, waiting for the right solitary victim to come along then making a silent escape.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Question 1

Forgive me if you consider these a trivial questions.

No such thing as a trivial question - they're all relevant for the person who asks

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.

Doesn't matter to me - or to a milplanner as what they're concerned about is solution based support. eg Collins is in real terms an SS, SSK, SSG, SSM. The mission defines the emphasis. Using the nomenclature is a method of definition of groupings/tasking profiles. Nothing more, nothing less. After all, if they weren't labeled, then the auditors would panic about where to put them on the register. Based on the quality of your typical mass media non-specialist defence tasked journo, they would then scream "one of our subs is missing" just because SS"n" didn't appear on the expected part of a register.

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.

Its a valid analogy

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?

Gets back to platform mission and force doctrine. Sometimes you advertise presence for a reason. Subs are one of the few mulitpliers that can dislocate an enemy force structure and disposition by mere "mention". eg argies in the falklands, RN in the falklands, Collins during East Timor. Sometimes you don't need to achieve a planning objective by getting warload on target.

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

Any sub that decides to telegraph its presence in such a busy area either has a dud driver or they're doing it for a reason. either way is going to result in some busy follow up. In the above scenario, therein lies the inherent advantage of a nuke, shoot, run away and run away faster and longer than anything else travelling on water. Escorts won't go too far away from their charge as its irresponsible and not good business.

At a non USN fleet level, the sub probably has a speed advantage that varies from 20-40% greater than the enemies typical force elements. Speed is her friend even though it will be making AWO's go deaf.

I should add that some of my above comments are deliberately generalised so as to give an overall colour to the questions.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Gets back to platform mission and force doctrine. Sometimes you advertise presence for a reason. Subs are one of the few mulitpliers that can dislocate an enemy force structure and disposition by mere "mention". eg argies in the falklands, RN in the falklands, Collins during East Timor. Sometimes you don't need to achieve a planning objective by getting warload on target.

Or possibly an unscheduled ASW exersice in and around the Taiwan Strait, Phillipine Sea and South China Sea prior to a possible action against the ROC by the PRC to buy time for a particular phase of an operation. Its got to be a fairly intimidating task to know there could be subs lurking about and I can see how it would at least slow down an opponent assuming they had enough competency to deal with such threats.

I'm still curious though about the Pk/Ph of a lone SSK/SSG attempting to ambush a SAG with a missile attack. Say for example an O-Boat vs that PLAN SAG that made the news a while ago.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm still curious though about the Pk/Ph of a lone SSK/SSG attempting to ambush a SAG with a missile attack. Say for example an O-Boat vs that PLAN SAG that made the news a while ago.

As Truculent said, subs are by nature muggers or lurkers. If the "military biorythmns are all lined up" (jk) and if the boss or MC say "go" - then take the shot.

 

[DarthAmerica]

As Truculent said, subs are by nature muggers or lurkers. If the "military biorythmns are all lined up" (jk) and if the boss or MC say "go" - then take the shot.

Well then I guess in that respect its not unlike the CAV. Sometimes "the shot chooses you". Its up to the skill of the crew to take advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Gf

I'm still curious though about the Pk/Ph of a lone SSK/SSG attempting to ambush a SAG with a missile attack. Say for example an O-Boat vs that PLAN SAG that made the news a while ago.

I've done a cursory look into this hypothetical confrontation based on the SAG the PLAN sent in Sept 05 which consisted of a Sovremenny-class destroyer, two Jianghu I-class missile frigates, a replenishment ship, and a missile observation support ship.

Besides the Sovermenny the Jianghu's arent really any better off than the Poms were in the Falklands vs a sea skimming AShM. Actually worse with no AEW&C. If the Oyashio could salvo several to arrive at the same time it could be a very short fight assuming the Oyashio could get into position to fire Harpoons. Of course this still requires proper tactics to succeed.

I sometimes think interms of the USN which sometimes makes me evaluate out of context in terms of the types of threats forces are designed to confront. In this context I could see where a properly conducted SSG/SSK missile attack could make for an engagement window of only a minute or less assuming the PLAN reacts as soon as the missiles are detectable. Not good odds against a salvo IMO unless the PLAN is absolutely perfect in gunnery skills. AFAIK the PLAN doesnt have the kind of net-centric airdefenses to fend off an attack like this nor does this SAG have anything beyond the most basic ECM/CHAFF(in this case) to compliment its active defenses.

At least this is my opinion based on a cursory analysis conducted while changing a diaper... Ewwwww

 

[gf0012-aust]

At least this is my opinion based on a cursory analysis conducted while changing a diaper... Ewwwww

I'm going to make some broad comments - and they're broad as I have no intention of adding any further clarity to my statements for a variety of reasons.

• Oyashios are faster than any other conventional sub in service, or in production
• Oyashios dive deeper than any other conventional sub in service, or in production - and in probable fact can follow a substantial number of nukes into whale farting territory..
• Oyashios are faster than some nukes - and definitely I'd consider them faster than existing russian derived "in service" exports
• The Japanese submariners, and navy in general are a very very professional outfit
• They train and have trained for decades in dissimilar underwater combat conditions
• They have substantially longer and more persistent sub training/driving/warfare experience
• They have better signal processing
• The SAG would be limited by the speed of their slowest element. The Oyashio is faster than that vessel by some margin. That means that the combat element of the SAG either abandons the calf, or they slow down to protect it. If they slow down to protect it, then they increase the available target options for the Oyashio driver
• The ASW capability of that SAG is "not that flash"

Personally, I'd be putting money on the Oyashio driver - and if that SAG is out of the range of persistent landbased ASW air support, then their "intact after contact" ratio chances drop demonstrably.

my 2c anyway.

 

[Francois]

The only thing I want to add, in the defavor of the Japanese, is that, by constitution, no action can be taken by a military authority.
This means that is the Oyashio is in a good place, ready to fire and sure of its solution, he can't pull the trigger if the PM dosn't say so.

The head of the Japanese military HAS to be a civilian.
JDA aswers directly to PM and has no decision available to itself.

Submariners hope to never have to use their missiles. They call them the finger of evil, pointing directly to the launcher.
Might be useful to shoot a lone cruiser in the back...

 

[gf0012-aust]

The only thing I want to add, in the defavor of the Japanese, is that, by constitution, no action can be taken by a military authority.
This means that is the Oyashio is in a good place, ready to fire and sure of its solution, he can't pull the trigger if the PM dosn't say so.

The head of the Japanese military HAS to be a civilian.
JDA aswers directly to PM and has no decision available to itself.

i was under the impression that the Diet had changed that recently (as a result of the PLAN sub that was tracked)?

 

[rickusn]

"Oyashios are faster than some nukes"

Say what?

"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."

OK

From open sources:

Sterling engines: 6 kts max
Siemens PEM Fuel cell 8 kts max

Endurance:
2 weeks about 1600nm at 5 kts for the fuel celled Type 212A and 214
2 weeks for the Sterling at 5 kts

Captain JH Patton USN (retired) in MAY 2006 Proceedings in a letter implies that for the Gotland 5kts would be a stretch and 2-4 kts more likely.

Much of what he says I have read similar analysis by others before. Sorry but I dont have it at my finger-tips.

The main consideration is the "cubic relationship between speed and power".
ie it takes "eight times" the power to drive a ship at 6kts as opposed to 3kts.

Another consideration is that the main reason for AIP is to provide power for "sensors, lights, air-conditioning,..." etc. and keep the battery full charged.

Another consideration is that both Stirling engines are unlikely to be operated at the same time for "redundancy reasons".

Now maybe this all can be done at 5kts for two weeks. Its what is claimed.
Then with a fully charged battery you can extend for another week max. Or so its claimed by some but certainly not at 5 kts in fact 2 kts is more likely. Just enough so you can at least steer.

Once again we get back to the endurance/ mobility tradeoff.

But in any event you arent going to use AIP to transit to any distant patrol zone at max speed as that would defeat the whole purpose of providing endurance. As you would have used the system up in transit.

Also he noted that "Gotland was delivered to San Diego on a barge".

Remember also that all AIP systems are limited by the amount of LOX they can carry.

A little clarification on the statements in a post above on the collins class:

Now the Austrailians have not gone for AIP because while they can only stay submerged on battery for 120 hours they are capable of rapid recharging of their battery fully in not more than 40 minutes(and probably much less).

Apparently they find this "indiscretion rate" acceptable.

Other nations have lesser capabilities in both battery capacity and recharging times.

Also being twice the size of the European offerings they do indeed have an overall endurance similar to that of USN SSN's.

But certainly not submerged endurance w/o snorkeling.

And certainly cannot even come close to matching top-end speed much less even maintaining that vastly inferior speed for any length of time.

They have to come to the surface to recharge their batteries.

Also the USN's endurance has no propulsion endurance limitations but is based on crew endurance and that primarilly based on the amount of foostuffs that can be carried.

To try and equate diesel submarine performance with that of nukes makes no sense in relation to propulsion endurance, range and speed.

Now in a close quarters combat situation modern diesels are very much a dangerous foe.

They are as Patton says an excellent "anti-access/area denial deterrent".

In the "choke point" areas and seas like the Baltic and Mediterranean it may be fair to say they "rule".

Although even this is open to challenge. because they do have inherent propulsion/power/speed/range/endurance limitations that can be exploited.

But what do I know.

 

[gf0012-aust]

"Oyashios are faster than some nukes"

Say what?

i think you missed my caveat re russian derived export nukes.

they're faster than the nukes originally provided to india and china.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But certainly not submerged endurance w/o snorkeling.

And certainly cannot even come close to matching top-end speed much less even maintaining that vastly inferior speed for any length of time.

They have to come to the surface to recharge their batteries.

Also the USN's endurance has no propulsion endurance limitations but is based on crew endurance and that primarilly based on the amount of foostuffs that can be carried.

To try and equate diesel submarine performance with that of nukes makes no sense in relation to propulsion endurance, range and speed.

Not sure whether you're replying to me or others, but I certainly haven't inferred that.

 

[Francois]

i was under the impression that the Diet had changed that recently (as a result of the PLAN sub that was tracked)?

Well, actually (that will please our chinese anti-japanese friends here), the governement was looking for a changing in the constitution to make the Agency a Minister, with all due power.
Unfortunatly, Japanese are still stubborn and rejected the proposition.
It is pending.

The only change is in the anti-missile defence area, where they somewhat reduced the decision line to few hours. That was done after the NK missile launched above Honshu.

 

[DarthAmerica]

i was under the impression that the Diet had changed that recently (as a result of the PLAN sub that was tracked)?

That was the premise on which I based my scenario. Maybe my political/legal compass is slightly out of alignment. But more important than specific nations and platforms to me is whether or not this would be a valid operational employment scheme for an SSK/SSG?

I just picked this example because it seemed a realistic possibility considering Sino-Japanese relations and the recent PLAN excurtions into or near Japanese waters. Also a SSK/SSG in this context could(?) offer the potential for plausible deniability which would seem to be an attractive option for someone wanting to send a message while minimizing or delaying the retaliatory options.

 

[Rich]

The Collins class boats are handsome boats and I like looking at them. When I look at a Collins class I see the evolution of the WW-ll fleet submarine of the USN. The Collins is not an area denial weapon like the rest of these slow, sub-2,000 ton SSKs. They are capitol ships designed for hunting other capitol ships, both above and under water. They are the right boats, with the right systems, in the right place, at the right time.

A regional enemy would have a big problem with these six boats.

 

[Waylander]

What do you think these other small sub 2.000t SSKs are designed for.
Hunting surface units is for example one of the main missions for german and scandinavian boats.
And with 20kn the new U 212A is not so slow despite its weight of 1.830 tons...

 

[XEROX]

A question if I may, do submarines have mechanisms in place, a sort of digital fly-by-wire systems where in which if a sailor makes a mistake, the computer would kick in and correct the error

 

[rickusn]

"Hunting surface units"

They dont hunt. They wait for the prey to come to them.

IF they do 20 kts on their diesels(Not all SSK's canits usually 10-12kts) they become the hunted.

Their range at 20kts on battery is maybe 30 miles.

They are great for places like the Baltic Sea, English channel etc but they are not going around the world on Hunter Killer missions.

 

[KGB]

For a navy with a limited budget, would the SSK be the best buy? It seems that it can tie up a disproportionate amount of potential enemy assets by nececitating ASW (the way the U boats did in ww2) or stop a navy without enough ASW in its tracks (the way pakistan did to india in the 60's).

I mean, not a lot of navies can afford 2bn dollar SSNs anyway.

 

[gf0012-aust]

For a navy with a limited budget, would the SSK be the best buy? It seems that it can tie up a disproportionate amount of potential enemy assets by nececitating ASW (the way the U boats did in ww2) or stop a navy without enough ASW in its tracks (the way pakistan did to india in the 60's).

I mean, not a lot of navies can afford 2bn dollar SSNs anyway.

but a smaller SSK at circa $300-$400mm is affordable....