Submarine Tactics

[turin]

Diesel electric is starting to be phased out give it 20 or 30 years there wont be Diesel electric any more. thats my belief.

You seem to have a misconception of AIP in comparison to diesel-electric propulsion. AIP ist thought to be a complementary system, it is not qualified to replace diesel at all.
Take the german boats for example. The fuel cell is thought to kick in, when the boat is going "stealth", meaning, its sneaking around doing maybe 5 knots. Then the fuel cell is able to deliver enough power in order to move the boat (or hold it on position). But as soon as you increase speed and esp. if you want to travel over larger distances, you will have to use a more powerful system, meaning you switch to diesel-electric systems.
Unless you want to exchange diesel for nuclear or the power output of fuel cells and other AIP concepts can be vastly increased, there is no way diesels will see an end in submarine service.

Note also that different AIP systems show different characteristics in terms of mission efficiency. Therefore I can understand why the Aussies may have evaluated AIP and found it to be without notable advantages. Besides the fact that Australia in terms of oceanic environment (from my humble point of view) may actually have a requirement for nukes, though not affordable from an economic perspective, the AIP advantage varies with the system employed.
So, Gary, do you know which AIP was being tested for the Collins? I take it, it was a Stirling engine, since the Swedes had a hand in development...

 

[KAPITAIN]

With oil reserves now running low estimation that in 40 years time or a little less we wont have any more fossil fuels, so how can you run a diesel submarine without diesel?

Note probly be something alot better come out before this happens

 

[turin]

With oil reserves now running low estimation that in 40 years time or a little less

These estimations are disputable to say the very least. I dont want to go too much OT here but estimations for this range from your stated ~40 years to something around 80 to 100 years, all depending on which political or economical party is issueing its "estimation". Of course there is the issue of oil prizes etc. but this will firstly be an issue for the civil economy and not so much for the military sector, which is light years away from the aforementioned in terms of consumption and expenses.
To make this short: there certainly will be oil for diesel subs in 40 years, otherwise I will buy you a full box of fine german beer. Just message me when the time has come...

 

[KAPITAIN]

Ok your on

 

[KGB]

I think the confusion in public forum debates lies in the fact that sometimes people try to relate the warfighting doctrine of a nuke to a conventional when they are very very different. eg A conv sub driver trying to chase a nuke is just not doing their job properly - as thats not the game.

So exactly what is the game/ role of a conventional sub?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So exactly what is the game/ role of a conventional sub?

depends on the navy.

but, the main issue is that subs work effectively when silent. carriers travel at speed, so as soon as a sub chases a carrier (and that means that as soon as they go beyond 5 knots) then everyone can hear them.

it's how the USN, UK, French CSF's operated - and its also how the Sovs (and the Russians when they spasmodically wargame) do it as well.

Conventionals require different engagement options

 

[KAPITAIN]

It would be unfair to say purely costal defence,as GF0012-aust said australian submarine routinely monitered east soviet fleets in the pacific and that is far beyond thier coast lines.

German submarines have been known to prowl around in the bearents sea and also in the carrabean, but it depends on what role is given to the submarine when it is designed, some are large ocean going conventional submarines some are specificaly designed for costal littoral waters.

The type 212 / 214, Kilo, type 209, Upholder's, and scorpenes are designed to be ocean going, while say the Nakken, Zwardviss, Gotland, are smaller and more suited to coastal roles.

It just depends on what the country A need's and B what is designed and built into that unit.

 

[KAPITAIN]

This is a scan from one of my book's it shows how the soviets would defend if an invasion by N.A.T.O happend.

If you look and see the greay blobs they are submarine area's now this is an exercise so you would probably only have 10 submarines to one box, in war time maybe 30 or 40 (by 1980's soviet union had over 400 submarines).

What is surprising is they realy depend on submarines and not surface ships like the USN, the soviets couldnt match the USN in carrier development so they had to go for the next best thing, and develop weapons and weapon platforms that could defeat carriers.

The ideology was that in time of war the pacific black sea and northern fleets would deploy every submarine availible and kill as many carriers as possible, at choke points en route.
One choke point is the bay of biscay area place submarines there and they cant go through the english channel, next iceland fareos channel, then denmark straight and then they would place the diesel submarines such as Foxtrot and Tango's and Julliete's to streach from north cape to svalbard.

and in the middile of that there would be a entire fleet of surface ships ready, but why did the russian's build so many submarines?

Answer lies with the fact the technology gap was so great they only way to keep up was to build up in numbers, the russian's expected high losses so they built for that which in the end did little more than bankrupt them.

Ok thats my view please comment on anything

 

[KAPITAIN]

These are just close ups to what you see in the other post its so you can see the pictures better, also there are two other pictures in there that are not from the origional post.

 

[Awang se]

concentrating on choke points did carry it's own danger though. the task force commander would've scoured the area with every ASW platforms at his disposal before he allow the carrier to pass through. so any sub commander who sit there will find itself in a dangerous position.

 

[Viper75]

For a view on soviet sub tactics...

For an excellent discussion on Soviet submarine tactics - as well as ASW tactics - I recommend checking out Milan Vego's "Soviet Naval Tactics" (US Naval Institute Press, 1992). I bought a copy last year. Don't be put off by the numerous abbreviations and formulas, which are sometimes quite tedious Note: this is _not_ meant as a commercial, as you should be able to find it in well stocked or specialized (military/navy) libraries as well as Amazon / the USNI.

 

[scraw]

Gf-

Any links or leads on the docs about RAN subs running around Russia?

I used to have a link to a site detailing a little on their 'special' missions but lost it in a computer meltdown.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gf-

Any links or leads on the docs about RAN subs running around Russia?

I used to have a link to a site detailing a little on their 'special' missions but lost it in a computer meltdown.

Unfortunately no. You'd be able to track them down through Hansard from when they were released under the 30 Year Rule. Aust Archives should have a listing.Failing that, try a Jan 1 search in the major papers for "classified documents"

 

[Pursuit Curve]

GF I suppose that Diesel Subs are better in the Littorial ops than Nukes? I suppose that my question gives me away as not really understanding Submarine Warfare.

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF I suppose that Diesel Subs are better in the Littorial ops than Nukes?

Not an easy question as there are no absolutes and it all depends on context - as well as which navies we talk about.

In very superficial terms, a diesel has more advantages than a nuke in littoral ops.

but, that can be countered immediately by the simple fact that subwarfare is very much about sensor awareness - and good sensors are power hungry and demanding. The larger the sub, the better its ability to have more powerful systems. As an example, one of the reasons why the Collins Class are effective is because they have the onboard power to support a very wide range of sensors and systems - thats why it was "easy" to put the same combat system as the US nukes like Virginia and Seawolf on board. There are really only 2 other diesel sub types that are capable of supporting that combat system. Smaller diesels don't have that generation advantage - and it does count depending on mission/tasking.

Ironically, the larger the sub, at a technology level, the quieter it can be. A sub is in effect a giant underwater transducer - the more mass, the better its ability to distribute noise and vibration within its mass

In the case of ISR systems, the new LWA sonars are power hungry - immensely so, there is no way that a diesel could carry the same sensing capability. So again, a large nuke like Seawolf using WA sonar ironically will be better in sniffing out the enemy in shallow waters.

Where this all gets challenged however is the strides that the USN is making in other sensing packages - at a submarine level, I'd argue that they are now probably a platform generation (at a minimum) ahead of everyone else. The way that a submarine will fight and can fight is changing pretty rapidly. In comparative terms (against the PLAN for an eg), they are probably 3 generations ahead in war sensing as well as weapons delivery comparison.

The Russians (always excellent designers on paper) seem to have got stuck in the immediate post cold war design fixation for SSBN's. That seems odd to me when the game has changed dramatically. It still seems to be a legacy of cold war planning, Building a 1982 Bentley with new computer management sub systems to compete against a 2006 Mercedes S600 seems to me to be an approp analogy.

I suppose that my question gives me away as not really understanding Submarine Warfare.

well, in comparative terms, I know stuff all about ground/armoured warfare - so it's all relative.

 

[Ding]

Since I saw Scorpene mentioned a few times.... Just want to ask the experts, how would you rate Malaysia's purchase of the Scorpene? How about the capability and effectiveness? Our navy has always been a defensive force. How does the subs fit in to the role? How about the Agosta 90B? We will be taking deliveries of 2 Scorpenes and an Agosta 90B.

Any comments is greatly appreciated.

 

[Big-E]

Since I saw Scorpene mentioned a few times.... Just want to ask the experts, how would you rate Malaysia's purchase of the Scorpene? How about the capability and effectiveness? Our navy has always been a defensive force. How does the subs fit in to the role? How about the Agosta 90B? We will be taking deliveries of 2 Scorpenes and an Agosta 90B.

Any comments is greatly appreciated.

The Scorpene with AIP is a very capable platform, give it ADCAP torpedoes and its deadly.

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys i dont have much knowledge of submarines(though i have a lot of interest in them).

i would be glad if someone can explain to me what is a convergence zone and what role it plays in submarine warfare?

also i would like to know if a submarine(let's say a small attack submarine in 1800 ton class) can sneek under a tanker size ship and remain undetected by enemy submarines if both(the small attack sub and the large tanker) are moving at the same speed, i believe that the acoustic signature of the submarine can be distinguished from that of the surface ship under which it is hiding due to the difference in the number and type of propeller blades that they have. can someone confirm this?

 

[Darrel_topgun]

I thought I kick off a discussion on submarine operation and tactics in general. I hope this is the right forum and the title is sufficiently close.

Russian and Chinese subs are often described as nosier than their western counterparts. The way I understand it, SSK's generate quite a bit of noise when running on diesel engine but comparatively little noise when running on batteries. Since there are no cooling pumps (?) that have to run permanently like on SSN's, I assume SSK's can be totally silent while holding a position right?

So would it be save to say, that SSK's generate noise proportionally to the speed they are traveling at (on batteries that is)?

Well of course, whether it is an SSK or SSN, the acoustic emanation is directly proportional to the speed of the sub. The only advantage of a SSK over a SSN is a SSK could travel faster while on batteries making it quieter than if a SSN travels with the same speed, the determining factor in the overall acoustic audability of a SSK or SSN is the rate of cavitation. What is cavitation? it is the formation of tiny air bubbles due to the rapidly revolving screw, the greater the speed the greater the rate of cavitation. A solution to overcome and mitigate the rate of cavitation is to increase the depth, increasing the depth also increase the water pressure and likewise the overall momentum of the water. Another effective method of acquiring a submarine is through active sonar, using active sonar however has its own disadvantages. Using active sonar reveals your relative bearing to an enemy submarine's waiting acoustic intercept receiver that is capable of determining the source or location of the sonar waves and therefore will be able to formulate a firing solution to your sub. Sudden erratic maneuvering that will produce an anomaly or knuckle in the water can also reveal your position because passive sonar is capable of detecting the disturbance or cavitation due to your maneuvering. :wave

 

[Darrel_topgun]

hey guys i dont have much knowledge of submarines(though i have a lot of interest in them).

i would be glad if someone can explain to me what is a convergence zone and what role it plays in submarine warfare?

also i would like to know if a submarine(let's say a small attack submarine in 1800 ton class) can sneek under a tanker size ship and remain undetected by enemy submarines if both(the small attack sub and the large tanker) are moving at the same speed, i believe that the acoustic signature of the submarine can be distinguished from that of the surface ship under which it is hiding due to the difference in the number and type of propeller blades that they have. can someone confirm this?

I'tll be an honor to give you some information on the topic at hand. Firstly, about convergence zones, these are zones in the seas/oceans that when the water is sufficiently deep and consequently the water pressure is great, sound waves tend to travel longer distance much like the behavior of AM radio waves making it possible to detect sonar contacts farther than the usual. Normally, Convergence zones occur every 30 miles.

(Second question)
Very novel indeed, you have a very vivid imagination. What you are speculating is highly feasible but if your instruments are sensitive enough, it can distinguish the difference of the acoustic signature of the tanker and the submarine. A factor that contributes to the distinct acoustic signature of contacts is the number of blades in its screw, a screw with less blades are likely to produce less cavitation and hence an acoustic signature. :duel