SSKs

[contedicavour]

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

Indeed, that's affordable for several small-to-medium sized navies. However I would not recommand setting up a submarine fleet if a country can only buy 2 or 3 SSKs. Most of the time there would be 1 operational at most, sometimes even none at all.
Yet we see several navies fielding 2 subs : Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Serbia-Montenegro, Portugal. Argentina, South Africa have 3. I'm sure I've forgotten some more.
Anything below 4 is probably wasted investment vs alternative expenditure such as frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, etc.

cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Indeed, that's affordable for several small-to-medium sized navies. However I would not recommand setting up a submarine fleet if a country can only buy 2 or 3 SSKs. Most of the time there would be 1 operational at most, sometimes even none at all.
Yet we see several navies fielding 2 subs : Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Serbia-Montenegro, Portugal. Argentina, South Africa have 3. I'm sure I've forgotten some more.
Anything below 4 is probably wasted investment vs alternative expenditure such as frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, etc.

cheers

I tend to agree. It seems that pre-21st century there was a clear place for the SSK. In the case of some navies there still is. But I'm with you when you say 4 as a minimum. I mean if you have a specific area of interest like a strait or small coastline then it might be worth it as a defensive asset. But if you are only able to buy 2 or 3 vessels, how are you going to rotate them for continuous coverage? If you cant do that then you are setting yourself up with known windows of vulnerability or even worse a preemptive strike on you Subs while they are in port. I think Israel has the right idea for a small technologically advanced Navy since they are considering the use of unmanned subs. In the case of larger nations like the USA, SSK's would not offer us the types of capabilities we need IMO. It would be better for us to develop unmanned subs that could be deployed from surface ships or submarines to do the duties that SSKs would be tasked with.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Indeed, that's affordable for several small-to-medium sized navies. However I would not recommand setting up a submarine fleet if a country can only buy 2 or 3 SSKs. Most of the time there would be 1 operational at most, sometimes even none at all.
Yet we see several navies fielding 2 subs : Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Serbia-Montenegro, Portugal. Argentina, South Africa have 3. I'm sure I've forgotten some more.
Anything below 4 is probably wasted investment vs alternative expenditure such as frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, etc.

cheers

Given modern equipment standards I think 3 would be a viable force, one in dock for maintainence/upgrade, one in transit/training, 1 on patrol. Often it is crew limitations not platform so i would introduce 4 crews for three subs to get the most out of the force.

Many subs have trainee berths (to learn on the job) and simulation systems also alow for training and testing of tactics/doctrine.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Given modern equipment standards I think 3 would be a viable force, one in dock for maintainence/upgrade, one in transit/training, 1 on patrol. Often it is crew limitations not platform so i would introduce 4 crews for three subs to get the most out of the force.

Many subs have trainee berths (to learn on the job) and simulation systems also alow for training and testing of tactics/doctrine.

Really for a conventional? To me that seems highly vulnerable to the kinds of gremlins and murphy that plays little dirty tricks on such advanced and complicated systems. What if one breaks down or has a collission? What if air attack or unconventional forces damage/destroy one in port?I could just barely see this force of 3 SSK working themselves to death covering a chokepoint. But I would really like to have a minimum of a least for to cover myself.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Really for a conventional? To me that seems highly vulnerable to the kinds of gremlins and murphy that plays little dirty tricks on such advanced and complicated systems. What if one breaks down or has a collission? What if air attack or unconventional forces damage/destroy one in port?I could just barely see this force of 3 SSK working themselves to death covering a chokepoint. But I would really like to have a minimum of a least for to cover myself.

I don’t disagree with you for in relation to current designs and a lot will depend on the Sub design. An example of future ship designs shows that the RN's CV(F) and the USN's LCS will have a target 80% availability, which means that for every 5 ships 4 are available, assume two are working up that leaves 2 available for deployment.

I believe that for the SSBN of the cold war it was not unusual to have two crews per ship to allow for higher operational tempo. (This is based on conversation and I am happy for it to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable)

So using future ship designs as a basis for availability 3 subs will allow for a margin of error in availability. Of course the mission may also have a determination as to numbers. Patrolling a choke point closer to home makes a 3 sub force more viable than a patrol point far from port where transition times may call for a larger force. Also budget will be a factor.

A gremlin in one system will usually mean it is in all systems so numbers will become irrelevant. Accidents are a cause for concern but depending on the seriousness it may not effect deployment.

lastly don’t forget that by nature subs are secretive, the very fact that one is at sea will be a deterrent, it does not even have to be in the area to achieve the aim of deterrence!

 

[DarthAmerica]

I don’t disagree with you for in relation to current designs and a lot will depend on the Sub design. An example of future ship designs shows that the RN's CV(F) and the USN's LCS will have a target 80% availability, which means that for every 5 ships 4 are available, assume two are working up that leaves 2 available for deployment.

I believe that for the SSBN of the cold war it was not unusual to have two crews per ship to allow for higher operational tempo. (This is based on conversation and I am happy for it to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable)

So using future ship designs as a basis for availability 3 subs will allow for a margin of error in availability. Of course the mission may also have a determination as to numbers. Patrolling a choke point closer to home makes a 3 sub force more viable than a patrol point far from port where transition times may call for a larger force. Also budget will be a factor.

A gremlin in one system will usually mean it is in all systems so numbers will become irrelevant. Accidents are a cause for concern but depending on the seriousness it may not effect deployment.

lastly don’t forget that by nature subs are secretive, the very fact that one is at sea will be a deterrent, it does not even have to be in the area to achieve the aim of deterrence!

I can see your points and I think overall we are speaking the same language with regard to numbers. I am just mulling the possibility of Manned SSK for USN purposes and I have to say that I honestly dont see them fitting into USN Doctrine for any role other than agressor squadron. For more traditional duties I would say that our best opportunity is with UUV/UUCV deployed from LCS/DDG or SSN/SSGN.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am just mulling the possibility of Manned SSK for USN purposes and I have to say that I honestly dont see them fitting into USN Doctrine for any role other than agressor squadron.

The USN is currently (insert caveat "apparently") in the process of looking at some small 2-3 manned subs in the latter 1/4 of this year. They wouldn't be considered to be suitable for aggressor roles at all - useful for ASW training etc.... but fundamentally benign assets.

 

[Truculent]

The reason that many nations have SSK is what I would call leverage.Look at the Falklands war.The RN declared there was an ssn in the area shortly after the war began and before one was actually there.However this threat was very hard to disprove by a nation with a small navy ,no sosus and no access to satellite pictures to see how many were alongside.As far as they were concerned one could have been waiting offshore.Unmanned vehicles will need some kind of mothership to operate from and unless it is a submarine you may as well invite the opposition to a cocktail party on the quarterdeck!If you do use a submarine then the problem is solved straight away.It took the RN three weeks to get an Oberon in position to do the sneaky stuff whilst Conqueror did the business on the Belgrano.
All you have to do as an ssk operator is declare that you are at sea,declare an exclusion zone and then make sure you are not seen unless you really want to be.In the 1970s sabre rattling an RN SSN was seen in the Falklands area-deliberate,probably!

 

[DarthAmerica]

The USN is currently (insert caveat "apparently") in the process of looking at some small 2-3 manned subs in the latter 1/4 of this year. They wouldn't be considered to be suitable for aggressor roles at all - useful for ASW training etc.... but fundamentally benign assets.

Sorry about that. My ASW/Submarine Warfare knowledge is not as good as I like. When I said "Agressor Squadron" I meant it to be an all encompasing with regard to training against the growing SSK threat. This is just my interpretation of the situation and not representative of anything official.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry about that. My ASW/Submarine Warfare knowledge is not as good as I like. When I said "Agressor Squadron" I meant it to be an all encompasing with regard to training against the growing SSK threat. This is just my interpretation of the situation and not representative of anything official.

No need to apologise. I was merely indicating that they are "possibly" looking at other manned opportunities that aren't necessarily combat offensive in the traditional sense..

 

[KAPITAIN]

The advantages over nuclear boats are that the conventionals are quieter when running on batterys because they dont have noisey pumps or turbines, also they cost less.

Conventional submarines will find thier homes normaly in littoral waters where as nukes find themselves in blue water, USN doesnt opporate SSK's because they dont have any littoral areas of importance only a coast line that can easily be defended by nukes, not only that america is generaly thousands of miles from any hotspot and a diesel submarine would take too long to get to the area.

In 1991 Britian sent HMS Ocelot to go to war in the gulf 2 weeks later and just about half way into the med she had orders to return home, because she was too slow.

You have two types of SSK the conventional diesel electric and AIP air independant propulsion, and both are entirely diffrent.

 

[Truculent]

Kapitan would you please name your source for the item on Ocelot being returned home during GW1.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Personaly go to HMNB Chatham it has it written on the walls that she was involved to an extent with GW1, also the tour guide there served on Ocelot at that time.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Kapitan would you please name your source for the item on Ocelot being returned home during GW1.

I was under the impression that HMS Onyx was the only conventional to actually participate in the Falklands. She dumped one of the SBS teams.

I think you'll find that the Chatham reference is only as a build link ie, she was I think, the last sub built at the Chatham dockyards, so it's not as a deployment link - AFAIK she was not a Falklands partipant.

My recollection from Adm Woodwards book is that there were 4 nukes and 1 conventional (Oberon ie Onyx) involved.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was under the impression that HMS Onyx was the only conventional to actually participate in the Falklands. She dumped one of the SBS teams.

I think you'll find that the Chatham reference is only as a build link ie, she was I think, the last sub built at the Chatham dockyards, so it's not as a deployment link - AFAIK she was not a Falklands partipant.

My recollection from Adm Woodwards book is that there were 4 nukes and 1 conventional (Oberon ie Onyx) involved.

I think he referred to GW1, I don't remember seeing the Falklands mentioned, though it's late and I'm geting tired...

 

[contedicavour]

The reason that many nations have SSK is what I would call leverage.Look at the Falklands war.The RN declared there was an ssn in the area shortly after the war began and before one was actually there.However this threat was very hard to disprove by a nation with a small navy ,no sosus and no access to satellite pictures to see how many were alongside.As far as they were concerned one could have been waiting offshore.Unmanned vehicles will need some kind of mothership to operate from and unless it is a submarine you may as well invite the opposition to a cocktail party on the quarterdeck!If you do use a submarine then the problem is solved straight away.It took the RN three weeks to get an Oberon in position to do the sneaky stuff whilst Conqueror did the business on the Belgrano.
All you have to do as an ssk operator is declare that you are at sea,declare an exclusion zone and then make sure you are not seen unless you really want to be.In the 1970s sabre rattling an RN SSN was seen in the Falklands area-deliberate,probably!

I'm fine with all of this. However the defending Navy has to be a credible threat, i.e. at least 2-3 operational SSKs (=> at least 4 in inventory). Just think of the Argentinian Navy in 1982. It did have some subs. They could have been a threat patrolling close to the Falklands. However it was only the Royal Navy subs that proved to be a real threat. The Argentinian subs were never a threat because only 2 were modern.

cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

I'm fine with all of this. However the defending Navy has to be a credible threat, i.e. at least 2-3 operational SSKs (=> at least 4 in inventory). Just think of the Argentinian Navy in 1982. It did have some subs. They could have been a threat patrolling close to the Falklands. However it was only the Royal Navy subs that proved to be a real threat. The Argentinian subs were never a threat because only 2 were modern.

cheers

I disagree with that, the RN definitely took the threat of Argentine SSKs seriously. In fact from memory it was factoring in this threat that was a large part of the UK actions around the Falklands. And from memory a few anti sub torps were dropped by anti sub patrols.

I have read this from multiple sources over the years, but someone with more knowledge might want to comment?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Unmanned vehicles will need some kind of mothership to operate from and unless it is a submarine you may as well invite the opposition to a cocktail party on the quarterdeck!If you do use a submarine then the problem is solved straight away.

Was thinking about this comment. An unmanned platform could be dropped into an area of interest quite clandestinely it seems. Even by surface ship or aircraft. You could seed a littoral area with passive and active sensors as well as UUCV's which could be disposable like a torpedo. They could spend the vast majority of the time inert except for monitoring audio/rf frequency in a low powered state waiting for enemy SSK to enter "the web". I realise this is a lot like a mine field but then again so is an SSK to an extent. This application just seems to be a more net-centric unmanned version of the SSK with more persistence.

 

[Truculent]

Just to go back to the which Oberon was where story,I am sure that Onyx was in the Falklands as there is too much documented proof she was there.In GW1 Onyx and a.n.other oberon both received a gulf camouflage paint scheme and were involved in operations.A number of other boats also took part in operations not necessarily against the primary agressor!
As to air dropping a unmanned submarine vehicle,the platform would have to be robust enough to withstand the drop,plus ifyou want it to lay dormant robust enough to withstand its enviroment.The technical challenges I fear would be large and therefore expensive.Put your pc in a waterproof bag,drop it and then try and get it to activate itself a month later.I think you will get my point.
One of the most fascinating books I ever read was called the "Secret War Against Sweden" and covered the submarine intrusions into the Stockholm area in the 1980s.At the time it was believed that the CCCP were responsible but the author makes a very convincing argument that the real culprits were the west,who were trying to discredit the Labour government of Sweden and turn the population towards NATO.The whole operation was very succesfull and used manned minisubs and a mother submarine .It was also believed that the minisubs could have been inserted into the area through a mother ship.The Italian Decima Mas,used this technique in Gibraltar harbour in WW2 when using chariots,and this unit,s descendants still exists!!

 

[Grand Danois]

Ah! Saw a Swedish programme on the Cold War incursions in the 80's. They interviewed two marine biologists that supposedly had been approached by the Swedish Navy to find out what was on the acoustic recordings of what was believed to be submarines. They classified it as farting fish (absolutely not kidding). To be precise, it was herring IIRC!