Why the US Needs Conventional Submarines

Exactly! the USN doesn’t really need a high-end German Type-212 or Japanese Soryu. A Type-209 vanilla diesel-electric will do!

I’d spring for AIP option. I understand it’s now available for the 209.

Say a half dozen or so for the Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean, a half dozen or so working out of Southern California, and maybe a half dozen or so working out of Guam. That would probably be less than the cost of a couple of the nuclear powered boats.

If the navy said they didn’t want them, give them to the Coast Guard.

In order to build conventional subs they would have to stop or slow the building of nuclear subs. Is it worth it?

The production rate now is determined by the need to keep the production lines open.

The Type-214 is essentially a 209 fitted with AIP.

The problem with AIP is that it makes a sub more maintenance intensive and widens the logistical requirements — you have two powerplants. Its for this reason why the likes of Japan and South Korea are doing research on lithium ion batteries, so you’ll have just one powerplant and more fuel.

The risk of a country like the U.S. going the AIP route is that the politicians will have a greater rationale to cut nuclear boats. Its for this reason that the French only build nuclear boats for themselves while hawking conventional subs for export.

The production rate now is determined by the need to keep the production lines open.

It's determined by capacity. The navy would like to produce more than two subs per year but neither yard has the capacity for more.

I served on three US destroyers during the late 70’s in antisubmarine warfare, (secret clearance, required) I knew what our subs and the Russian’s could do or not do. I regret to this day that I didn’t go into subs. I had the “knack”.

My take: You could write a 6” encyclopedia on Hyman Rickover. He was CRAZY. Crazy and brilliant sometimes go together. He was the most feared Admiral in either the US or Russian fleet. (Chinese didn’t count back then) To look good, he would shut off the heat on the bridge of his earlier ship(s) while his watch standers froze, (so his energy conservation report would look good on reviews). A skipper of a nuclear sub once would not tell him something secret that Rickover demanded, (Rickover had no right to know), so he demoted a captain on a nuclear submarine to a desk job.

Once a congressman challenged him on why he named newer nuclear “boats” for American cities instead of fish. Rickover replied: “People vote ($$$$$) fish don’t !

He also made sure that the nuclear power program was safe. He was quoted as saying: “American mothers won’t allow their sons to become submariners if we irradiate them”.

He also once said before Congress and Strom Thurmond, things as they are, if we went to battle today, I would rather be commanding what the Russians have !

Rickover did not want conventional “boats” taking money away from the bigger nuclear program. Remember the context. Trying to develop nuclear submarines, the cold war with Russia, very long coasts, and so on.

Nuclear was the new pizzazz, and perhaps rightly so. How are you going to operate in the Bering straights, if you have to surface every 30 hours ?

Then we had this nice conventional boat, with a great history, USS Bonefish (April 24, 1988) It was equipped with (just changed out) silver zinc batteries. For some reason the Captain did not notice that a hull hatch dripped salt water and that salt water dripped on batteries and buss bars. When that salt water shorted, off of Miami, Florida, a 1,200F blowtorch heat melted everything, resulting in a runaway fire. They surfaced and abandoned ship.

It really wasn’t the fault of the batteries, just a series of bad things, not corrected, resulting in catastrophe. Three men dead. One or two million dollars of batteries wasted, boat so badly damaged, it was scrapped.============== end of conventional boats;

So, time has passed. Batteries are better, submarines are better, other options like fuel cells, improved lithium Ion batteries exist, and so on.

Here is what I think the US should do. (No one ever listened to me as a sailor, so I don’t expect anyone will listen to me now)

The US needs to build non nuclear submarines for several reasons. We need non nuclear to quietly intercept Russians and Chinese as they come to our coast: East, West, Gulf of Mexico, to do to us what we did to them (Russia). Reagan put listening devices on their trans Atlantic (or local) cables, right ? Well it is pay back time. The Russians and Chinese want to return Reagan’s favor.

We need non nuclear boats because we really don’t want a Virginia or SeaWolf class boat to be forced to work in The Spratleys when it only has 250 feet of water under it. The Virginia class heat signature alone will give it away in shallow waters. (nuclear reactor ?) Fight fire with fire ! NOBODY IS GOING TO PUT OUT NUCLEAR SUBS IN SHALLOW WATERS unless they are completely crazy !

Virginia Class is wonderful, but not with only 200 feet of water beneath it.

NON NUCLEAR SUBS (and France’s nuc sub) ARE SMALL AND SUPER QUIET. Duh.

If I was in charge, I would purchase at least one of Frances “small” quiet nuclear submarines, (much smaller the US) use it, and study it to death. Then go out and do likewise. Heck, the Chinese are doing so !

Next, you can build 3 or 4 or 5 conventional subs for the cost of one nuclear submarine, (just a ratio) and that stretches the Navy budget, Duh

We have obligations to Taiwan, The Phillipines, and in my opinion 6 other countries. Why do we want to give a minimum of work to American shipyards ?

I don’t get it. SOMEBODY is going the build the world’s submarines! The next best top notch shipbuilder is probably France or Germany. Submarines have to be built according the needs of a particular country. Sweden stays mainly in their fjords, goes out for 2 - 3 weeks and comes back to comfortable beds and delicious food. I’m not saying that their submarines are not good, but their needs are not the same as Australia’s. Mexico doesn’t sail around the world, but Australia may have to cover 4,000 miles without refueling.

We are short on shipyards. (America can only build so many submarines and Carriers so fast) So why not build conventional ones in the Phillipines or someplace else ? cheaper costs ? In a serious war, Electric Boat or Ingals or Newport News will be blasted, to put them out of business. You never put all your eggs in one basket !

So anyhow we wind up building 4 - 10 non nuclear submarines basically stationed in the Pacific. Most will STAY there until decommissioning. You can do a blue / Gold crew sort of thing. One crew flies home, (they want to see honey) the other crew from the states either goes over on a destroyer or Carrier, or flies in.

Now notice what this does to the strain on the nuclear submarines. It frees up the nuke subs and gives them flexibility to do what THEY do best, with fewer numbers. You just multiplied them. God forbid they go into harm’s way, yet all submarines compliment each other ! All the subs have common armament; same communications,

Aussies use the same equipment; similar sonars, same weapons. And China draws a breath BEFORE THEY DO SOMETHING STUPID. I think this is workable.