Posted on 04/14/2016 10:03:27 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The U.S. Armed Forces operate a wide array of sophisticated weaponry, in many cases superior to anything else in the world. But while the new destroyers, carriers, or the F-22 might have no equal, the U.S. Armed Forces face a significant gap in their capabilities: the total lack of any conventional submarines.
The United States hasn’t produced any conventional submarines since the Barbel-class in the late 1950s; every submarine class since then has been nuclear powered. This might have made sense in the context of the Cold War, where Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines had to be shadowed, but times have changed.
While previously conventional submarines had to snorkel roughly at least every two days of time under water to recharge their batteries, air-independent propulsion (AIP) has changed the game. German Type 212 submarines can stay under water without snorkeling for up to three weeks, traveling 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) or more. Without emitting heat and with no need for constant cooling due to the lack of a nuclear reactor, these German submarines and comparable designs are more than a match for nuclear-powered submarines in terms of stealthiness.
Whereas the Soviet Union had submarines cruising the globe’s waters, the next big naval challenge for the United States isn’t a revitalized Russian navy, but the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s subs and ships lurking in the South China Sea and East China Sea. These submarines could play a key role in trying to enforce China’s A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) strategy against a superior USN, with the goal of preventing the United States from intervening in any conflict involving the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands, the Senkaku Islands, and Taiwan.
With the PLAN’s mostly conventional submarine force, the USN’s superior anti-submarine warfare capabilities will continue to severely hinder any Chinese submarine operations outside the first island chain and outside of China’s land-based air cover. This limits the theater of operations to a high degree and puts it well into range for conventional submarines using only their AIP based in Okinawa, Singapore, Subic Bay, Guam, or possibly Zuoying Naval Base on Taiwan.
Whereas China can and will create a bigger subsurface fleet than the USN by mixing conventional submarines with nuclear powered ones, the financial burden of matching hull with hull is practically impossible for the United States, at least as long as it limits the USN to SSNs. Conventional submarines might change this.
While one Virginia-class submarine costs roughly $2.7 billion per unit, the same money could buy six to seven conventional submarines of the German Type 212 class. While U.S. nuclear-attack submarines are superb, many examples have shown that sophisticated conventional submarines aren’t just a match for surface fleets but also for older SSNs under the right circumstances.
In case of a conflict with China, the majority of naval combat will happen well within the first island chain, where a purely nuclear-powered fleet seems like a waste of assets. Neither their range nor their speed will be needed in most cases. As conventional submarines will be able to handle most tasks, the dramatically more expensive SSNs could stay out of the first island chain concentration on shadowing the PLAN’s SSBNs and SSNs outside this area, while keeping enough in reserve and out of harm’s way to maintain a credible deterrence against Russia at the same time. Additional conventional subs would also prevent the projected sub shortfall starting in 2021.
But going back into the business of building conventional submarines for the USN wouldn’t just make sense from an fiscal point of view for a navy that has limited resources. It would also offer various economic and political options for the United States.
President George W. Bush promised Taiwan eight conventional subs in 2001, which were never delivered. If the United States were to start building conventional submarines again, the pledge to Taiwan could finally be fulfilled. Moreover, the market for conventional submarines is gigantic. Most Asian nations are looking to establish, increase, or modernize their submarine fleets; Germany and France have both enjoyed particular success marketing their submarines to countries like South Korea, Indonesia, India, and Malaysia. Many of these nations are close U.S. allies or friends. The market for modern conventional submarines built in the United States would probably amount to several dozen hulls within the next two decades.
Built in the U.S., employing U.S. workers, and spreading the development costs over ever more hulls, Washington could seriously consider subsidizing some of those submarines for navies which are direly in need for a naval deterrence against an ever more aggressive China. If the United States doesn’t want to hand Asia over to China on China’s terms, a price might have to be paid in the end. It’ll be either money or blood. Subsidized submarines for the Philippines and Taiwan might just be what it takes to show the steadfast commitment for the status quo and the support for those two nations, which are under heavy pressure from the Middle Kingdom.
Conventional submarines with AIP wouldn’t just bolster the USN’s capabilities in this crucial theater for a comparative bargain, they would also allow the U.S. to enter a sizable weapons market while giving it the power to supply precious allies with exactly those tools they need for deterrence. The technology transfer necessary for building subs like the Type 212 could very easily be attained by a joint venture or even licensing the German subs from a company desperately looking for sales like Howaldwerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW).
Torsten Heinrich is a military historian from Germany, currently living in Switzerland.
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.