With the death of the Dolphin the US doesn't have an indigenous SSK any longer. Having leased the Gotland from Sweden we have something to conduct exercises with but one is hardly adequate to train the ENTIRE fleet with. The US has never gotten into the global SSK market and doesn't even have the capability to enter without considerable investment. The use of SSKs with AIP has been adressed here but not particularly towards the USN. Would the USN and US defense industry benefit by getting into this market? Could SSKs serve a cost effective purpose in the USN to augment SSNs? Considering only 30 Virginias are planned would it not be helpful to supplement the Silent Service with additional SSKs?
US & SSKs
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
Das Kardinal
New Member
From a purely military PoV it would, but from a financial and manpower PoV... I doubt it. With the deployments in the Middle-East costing billions, I suppose even the American military budget cannot be stretched indefinitely !
It makes more sense to lease or train in exercises with allied navies that use SSKs.
OTOH there's the new DCN concept of "low-cost" SSK, the SMX-23. Maybe the US Navy could afford a dozen for the price of a Virginia
It makes more sense to lease or train in exercises with allied navies that use SSKs.
OTOH there's the new DCN concept of "low-cost" SSK, the SMX-23. Maybe the US Navy could afford a dozen for the price of a Virginia
The USN attaches warfare officers to some of our subs for familiarity training (and vice versa). They also provide a few crew for Perisher certification with the RAN, RN and Dutch navies.
Plus co-op training happens in our sub warfare training area.
I still think that the USN missed a golden opportunity by not leasing the entire danish sub squadron when they were up for pasture. Far more useful than leasing the Gotland - and they could have had the same deal by leasing danish crews as well.
In broad terms though, the USN gets substantial exposure to allies subs, there would probably be more than 15 countries I can think of where they train against conventionals throughout the year. The disparity curve is of enormous benefit - and far more useful than owning your own SSK fleet per se.
Plus co-op training happens in our sub warfare training area.
I still think that the USN missed a golden opportunity by not leasing the entire danish sub squadron when they were up for pasture. Far more useful than leasing the Gotland - and they could have had the same deal by leasing danish crews as well.
In broad terms though, the USN gets substantial exposure to allies subs, there would probably be more than 15 countries I can think of where they train against conventionals throughout the year. The disparity curve is of enormous benefit - and far more useful than owning your own SSK fleet per se.
The USN has worked closely with Australia in developing improvements for the Collins class SSKs and Collins class vessels exercise regularly with USN units in the Pacific. With allied nations operating SSKs it seems to me that it is sensible for the USN to continue to build and operate nuclear submarines and work closely with their allies to 'practice' against SSKs.
At the same time there might be a valid argument for the USN to procure a small number of SSKs to maintain expertise in this area but IMO this should not be at the expense of the nuclear fleet.
At the same time there might be a valid argument for the USN to procure a small number of SSKs to maintain expertise in this area but IMO this should not be at the expense of the nuclear fleet.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Most definetly not as an "only for practice" option but what about dual use to augment SSN forces? What about competing on the international market as well? Are we missing out on a cash cow?
They'd be an interesting force multiplier if you went the sea basing route...
yes, the strength and soundness of US design exists in Barbell/Oyashio. I spoke to EB/NG and Boeing UDT staff in Hawai'i a few years ago and they were all lamenting the fact that they'd been approached by people in the Indian Navy and had missed out on opportunities.
there was some very very strong traffic at one stage about a US buy up of ASC in australia as it would have given automatic access into some countries. There are a number of unlisted australian companies that provide niche technology into acoustic and signature management.
definitely - and the US has missed the boat (no pun intended) on the major "turn of the millenium" opportunities
I think that while the market for SSKs is increaseing its still a fairly small and competative market. We probably missed our chance decades ago when we stopped building diesels and would have been better off keeping a nuke-deisel sub navy going , as did France, the Soviets, and even the Brits with the Upholders. To start up such a program now, while our own navy is replacing hulls, would probably be impossable. And it would be difficult to grab market share from already established programs.
And i guess it never occured to anyone back in the 60's,70's, and 80's, what in hell should we do if the Cold War would actually end. And now we have to send 7,000+ ton SSNs into 100' of water.
And i guess it never occured to anyone back in the 60's,70's, and 80's, what in hell should we do if the Cold War would actually end. And now we have to send 7,000+ ton SSNs into 100' of water.
contedicavour
New Member
The international SSK market is a duopoly : HDW (which also owns Sweden's Kockums btw) and DCN of France. Russia may still make a comeback with the Lada/Amur but the fact that India selected Scorpene recently is a huge setback for Russia.
Then there are a few outsiders... Fincantieri with its S1000 partnership with Russia, Spain's Navantia with its S80, potentially China with its cheap SSKs (but of unproved reliability). Japan could also export but that would require a huge mindset change.
The US shipyards could come up with good AIP SSKs but the world market is already filled up by HDW and DCN. Besides, most countries now require local production and that severely restricts margins !
cheers
Then there are a few outsiders... Fincantieri with its S1000 partnership with Russia, Spain's Navantia with its S80, potentially China with its cheap SSKs (but of unproved reliability). Japan could also export but that would require a huge mindset change.
The US shipyards could come up with good AIP SSKs but the world market is already filled up by HDW and DCN. Besides, most countries now require local production and that severely restricts margins !
cheers
The last thing the US needs to do is build SSKs to insure viablity on the export market.
The things that make US submarines so much better than the competitor SSKs on that export market is the systems onboard USN submarines, which wouldn't be made available to the majority of nations currently buying in the SSK market, so why bother throwing money at a technology unlikely to be fruitful for the industry?
The only exception would be a guarenteed purchase of a class numbering at least 8 where development costs were shared. Taiwan perhaps?
I also don't think the US needs to build a class of SSKs for the USN, not unless geopolitics change and the Gulf of Mexico needs to be defended by some phantom enemy. There is no currently operational role for a USN SSK, they lack the power output to field the incredible systems US nukes deploy.
In my opinion, the funding for underwater technologies is better spent making SSKs obsolete through development of underwater sensor networked technologies that enable the Navy to deploy lethal payloads with precision at long range.
The things that make US submarines so much better than the competitor SSKs on that export market is the systems onboard USN submarines, which wouldn't be made available to the majority of nations currently buying in the SSK market, so why bother throwing money at a technology unlikely to be fruitful for the industry?
The only exception would be a guarenteed purchase of a class numbering at least 8 where development costs were shared. Taiwan perhaps?
I also don't think the US needs to build a class of SSKs for the USN, not unless geopolitics change and the Gulf of Mexico needs to be defended by some phantom enemy. There is no currently operational role for a USN SSK, they lack the power output to field the incredible systems US nukes deploy.
In my opinion, the funding for underwater technologies is better spent making SSKs obsolete through development of underwater sensor networked technologies that enable the Navy to deploy lethal payloads with precision at long range.
absolutely. the amount of change in unmanned underwater platforms is phenomenal. the degree of growth and change in capability of new sensor systems is just as extraordinary.
I see no reason as to why some of the current tech demonstraters convert into real time assets - and start to replace manned conventionals in some mission types.
If you compare UDT tech that was promoted as buck rogers material in 2003, and compare it to Nov/Dec 2006 UDT technology - then they are almost generations apart already.
Approx 70-80% of current unmanned solutions are being driven by US requirements and vision.
I really see the changes in the platform landscape at the unmanned level as being far more important than the comparable generational differences that the F-22 brings to manned combat.
we cant say that it is a setback for russia ,with indian navy still evaluating the lada for their second submarine line.the renewed interest in the joint russo-italian project is also a positive sign.
contedicavour
New Member
Let's not forget that the Collins is originally an improved version of the Swedish submarine design... and today's Swedish Kockums is owned by HDW of Germany... so replicating something similar to Collins requires go-ahead from German industries as well ! Why on Earth would they help in creating a potential strong competitor ??
cheers
I seriously doubt that we would ever go with a Kockums legacy design again. The swedes almost completely stuffed number 1 and we spent years modifying design flaws.
all the acoustic modifications and signature management improvements were australian designed and had nothing to do with the Kockums original design, so I would assume that we would greenfields another project with a more competent partner.
We do actually own the rights to those mods - so there's nothing that HDW could do about it anyway.
The visible hull mods were basically compliments of USN related acoustic data extracted from seawolf/virginia - so I can't see the americans wanting the swedes to get access to that either.
More was achieved in fixing the hull flow flaws with USN assistance than was ever achieved by working with Kockums. So it would make sense to work with the US on Collins Mk 2 (which won't be a nuke)
My preferred design partners would be either the US or Japan for the future sub.
Considering that Collins uses a common combat system suite, common combat suite layout (to ease familiarity issues), common weaps, common secondary tech and shares common fluid mechanics related mods from Seawolf/Virginia - then failing a falling out between the two countries (and unlikely considering the level of access the US is providing to Aust on critical data) - then I'd be assuming that the US would be rating highly. In casual informal conversations I've been lucky to have with a couple of US builders, all have expressed an interest in getting involved with our next generation of subs.