Why do US and UK submarines have so large crews?

[OPSSG]

Your just trying to boost australia and flame Sweden arnet you?Cause that reply had nothing really to add to this conversation it was pure flame (dressed in facts)

@Maskirovka, take a chill pill man! Remember what I said about learning from others, rather than fighting with others?

When the Sjöormen class (now called the Challenger class) was first built, the RSN, as an organization (in it's current form) did not exist and we only had 2 wooden ships (and the ships were under the 'Maritime Command', which is a predecessor of the RSN). Maskirovka, your country has a naval tradition to be proud of. We are starting to develop ours. From my perspective, as a Singaporean, I am grateful for the Swedish and the Australian input into our submarines (both of whom I consider our very good friends).

In fact, I would be grateful if you have information on the development of the A26 project, as I can't read Swedish...

 

[Maskirovka]

@Maskirovka, take a chill pill man! Remember what I said about learning from others, rather than fighting with others?

When the Sjöormen class (now called the Challenger class) was first built, the RSN, as an organization (in it's current form) did not exist and we only had 2 wooden ships (and the ships were under the 'Maritime Command', which is a predecessor of the RSN). Maskirovka, your country has a naval tradition to be proud of. We are starting to develop ours. From my perspective, as a Singaporean, I am grateful for the Swedish and the Australian input into our submarines (both of whom I consider our very good friends).
In fact, I would be grateful if you have information on the development of the A26 project, as I can't read Swedish...

Listen. I have been a member her almost two year more then you. I know who gf0012-aust is and I know hes an expert on subs, on this board and in real life. That does´nt mean I treat him as a god. The best thing to with experts and anyone is to question them if you have another belief. That is the best way to learn something or perhaps even learn them something. I think its called a discussion. Doesn´t matter if he is a host or a n00b like me.

And regarding his latest answer I consider my self being correct but we call it by different names. What I call "naval traditions" he calls "battle experience", "doctrine development" or "different philosophies" . Other navies has also those experiences but has chosen a different path. They have chosen less crew and more automation. Same thing different names...

And btw gf0012-aust isn´t always right. He once claimed (and probably still does) that the Swedish Visby stealth corvette was in USA during its developing phases to try out both the US navy and let her be tried out by them. At that time a Visby had never crossed the Atlantic and I don´t think anyone still has. I said he had confused her with a Norwegian stealth FAC (that actually was testet by the US navy) but he would´nt admit it. And trust me, I have spoke to at least one in every crew on every ship since they where launched, and such a thing would have been published openly since were and open country.

 

[Grim901]

Listen. I have been a member her almost two year more then you. I know who gf0012-aust is and I know hes an expert on subs, on this board and in real life. That does´nt mean I treat him as a god. The best thing to with experts and anyone is to question them if you have another belief. That is the best way to learn something or perhaps even learn them something. I think its called a discussion. Doesn´t matter if he is a host or a n00b like me.

And regarding his latest answer I consider my self being correct but we call it by different names. What I call "naval traditions" he calls "battle experience", "doctrine development" or "different philosophies" . Other navies has also those experiences but has chosen a different path. They have chosen less crew and more automation. Same thing different names...

And btw gf0012-aust isn´t always right. He once claimed (and probably still does) that the Swedish Visby stealth corvette was in USA during its developing phases to try out both the US navy and let her be tried out by them. At that time a Visby had never crossed the Atlantic and I don´t think anyone still has. I said he had confused her with a Norwegian stealth FAC (that actually was testet by the US navy) but he would´nt admit it. And trust me, I have spoke to at least one in every crew on every ship since they where launched, and such a thing would have been published openly since were and open country.

First off, that last paragraph is completely irrelevant to the discussion, now who's flaming?

And second, from reading the posts here I don't think you've grasped the subtle differences between tradition and doctrine, i'm guessing from you posts that English is not your first language so it's understandable.

Doctrine is based on pertinent battle experience and techniques that have been tried and tested. Naval tradition is more like former doctrine (i'm trying to simplify), that may no longer serve a useful purpose, or it might still.

For example, when I think of Naval tradition I think of the Dress uniforms of Royal Navy Ratings, parts of it has a long history and started off as something useful aboard ships say 200 years ago (someone with more in depth knowledge of the RN might be able to help out with details). Now it is just there for the sake of it.

So when you say that the USN and RN have bigger crews due to tradition,I can see what you mean, but it's actually to do with modern doctrine and battle techniques, rather than how we used to do things.

Finally, I don't think your assertions about the RN and USN not trusting technology are right, if you look at the evolution of our surface fleets that becomes much clearer.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And btw gf0012-aust isn´t always right. He once claimed (and probably still does) that the Swedish Visby stealth corvette was in USA during its developing phases to try out both the US navy and let her be tried out by them. At that time a Visby had never crossed the Atlantic and I don´t think anyone still has. I said he had confused her with a Norwegian stealth FAC (that actually was testet by the US navy) but he would´nt admit it. And trust me, I have spoke to at least one in every crew on every ship since they where launched, and such a thing would have been published openly since were and open country.

1) I don't regard myself as an expert

2) this is the second time that you have effectively called me a liar.

I'm giving you a really short period to apologise, otherwise you can forget about coming back.

I have said before and I will say again. The company that was used to assess and manage the signature management of Collins, Singapores subs and one other navy was contracted within Kockums (prior to their onsell) to do a sig assessment of the Visbys. You do realise that the design has been in play for almost 20 years? You do realise that you could ask any Collins submarine crewman, Singaporean crewman who did the sig assessment and hull tuning on their subs and they wouldn't know? DSTO and DSTA staff involved would.

I don't give a flying fox how many crew you speak to, I seriously doubt that unless they've been involved with sig trials from 8 years ago, then they would have no idea. The only thing that would get their attention is the equipment used - they would have no idea of anything else.

and again, I worked with the company involved - whether you believe it or not is irrelevant - calling me a liar is completely unacceptable.

I don't give a hoot what you think of me at a nationalistic albeit personal level, but implying that I'm a liar is not on.

You can either apologise offline, or you can stay banned.

 

[riksavage]

I don't think we can realistically compare manning levels between diesel and nuclear boats. The latter are designed for extremely long patrols (four - six months submerged) and are designed not just as weapons platforms but strategic intelligence gathering assets capable of remaining on station for extended periods of time. Manning will reflect this, they need the redundancy and capacity for the crew to remain at their peak.

Not being a submariner myself I have no idea how long a diesel can remain at sea without snorkelling or refueling. A Nuclear boats only restriction is the amount of food and other consumables it is able to carry, it can generate fresh water and power infinitum (bar mechanical breakdown).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not being a submariner myself I have no idea how long a diesel can remain at sea without snorkelling or refueling. A Nuclear boats only restriction is the amount of food and other consumables it is able to carry, it can generate fresh water and power infinitum (bar mechanical breakdown).

Collins and the Upholders (if they'd ever been built to their proper potential) were designed to undertake long cycle missions (ie a month minimum)

as an example, RAN Oberons during the Cold War too happy snaps inside russian and chinese ports (released by the Govt under the 30 Year rule a few years back). Collins was designed to surpass this duty cycle by some margin

In fact all of the fleet heavy conventionals (Collins, Oyashios, and the Upholders on a good day) are long runners

 

[green_ramp]

sub crews

non soviet subs are halfsize of sovs, and more modern, it has to do with liability. creew liability concerns are of wages and maintenence levels beside combat policies and practices. the sovs sub fleet is the last of armed forces to be somewhat fully funded, even strategic land nukes feel the auditers axe prior to subs. soviet sub duplicate evrythingits the western navies that automateon greater more efficient model. as for the french , thier fleet projection and mission is different of that of most navies, with more theater and coastal purpose that that of blue water fleets. a another factor is the costs of building these platforms, and the multi mission intent on all new clases, requiring more specialized crew training within the bounds of crew retention. each sub has two or three crew sets to keep sub off anchor and dock time where they are easy, open targets.