while most of the currently deployed SSNs around the world are still old cold war designs, SSKs and other conventional boats have made impressive progress in the last two decades. will they finally dethrone nuclear subs as the ultimate force in submarine warfare, making them obsolete in the future?
No, SSKs still suffer from poor mobility compared to SSN. Their max speed of 20 knots vs 30 submerged means that there are tactical situations where SSKs will never be able to compete with SSN, especially for fleet support/fleet shadowing.
But doesn't high speed make for a ton of noise anyway? If you are trying to be sneaky and you don't have to traverse the globe, wouldn't these be better? Or at least couldn't they be?
>But doesn't high speed make for a ton of noise anyway?
Not if you maintain your sub.
High speed makes more noise but there's still situations where you need high speed. Being able to sprint and drift gives far better sonar information than having to continuously go at medium speed if you need to move.
Having a high maximum speed doesn't mean you can't just sit there or cruise at any lower speed if you want/need to anon. And before OP brings it up
>b-b-buh nuclear reactors are le noisier!
solved with latest generations.
Nuclear attack subs are undeniably very very expensive and very challenging. Few countries have any real need for them, they're for blue water force projection. Better fuel cell subs aren't irrelevant, they are something of an equalizer for other nations purely interested in their own territorial waters. Just don't be a hyperbolic homosexual about it.
> solved with latest generations.
Not even that.
Ohios had natural circulation reacyors
>Ohios had natural circulation reacyors
I don't think the SSNs did though until a little later? Maybe I'm misremembering though. SSBNs obviously always had absolute max priority on stealth above all else and even more budget then already high budget nuke subs, so I thought they got it first.
>I don't think the SSNs did though until a little later?
You're correct except for a single prototype (USS Narwhal SSN-671)
It wasn't just a prototype, it actually operated along with the rest of the fleet and was the quietest US sub until Ohios. Even LA class was louder at slow speeds than it.
The reason they didn't make more was because the design didn't adhere to the SUBSAFE rules, from the inception.
Any good histories on USN sub development? I mean, I'm sure a lot of it is super classified even today but still fascinating stuff.
Blind Man's Bluff is decent reading but a lot of the actually development beyond the GUPPY program is still classified information. The Rickover Effect talks a lot about how the Nautilus came to be if that's what you're looking for, but submarine construction and design post-1960 isn't available online
I have a good book by Jane's on the subject, but it's at home. It's not one of the standard Jane's titles and I dont remember it off the top of my head so if you don't mind waiting till I get back from work and the thread's still here.
I'll absolutely be keeping an eye out, no huge rush anon but yes I'd be super interested.
Thanks anons, figures, but I'll look for some of that story. At least on the aircraft side of things I recently got a copy of Skunkworks by Ben Rich. That was a superb read even if mostly kept more high level. They took a really dim view of the navy though so a sub book would be an interesting followup.
Not really. US did tons of research in the late 50s and subsequently released 3 classes of SSNs almost simultaneously with each being substantially different and more advanced. Skipjack was a loud and speedy one, similar to the soviet stuff, Permit was quiet and slower while Sturgeon was the quietest and the most capable US SSN at the time. They served for a long time and still supplanted the LA class later on. Russian subs were all about speed and only after one massive homosexual named John Walker leaked as much USN classified material to soviets as the atomic spies and they learned that SOSUS was tracking them from port and US subs were tailing them for months undetected did they start to try to make them quieter. It would still take them years to get to even the Permit level with all the US technical data and only after Toshiba and Kongsbers sold them state of the art CNC machines did they make actually quiet subs. Thankfully soviet union collapsed back then and US didn't have to worry about the 2 unmaintained subs that could have been a threat.
That homosexual Walker also leaked the operation Ivy Bells which you can read about, although it's likely that similar operations happened in other soviet fleets. USS Parche isn't the most decorated US ship for nothing, and one of the seawolfs is currently serving in that role and ramping awards all the same.
>That homosexual Walker also leaked the operation Ivy Bells which you can read about
the seething in the soviet command when they learned the US had been tapping their undersea cables is still unmatched historically
I think that time when they lost the high command of their entire Pacific fleet to a plane overloaded with toilet paper is also up there.
>Permit
You mean Thresher.
Sturgeons were Threshers with a taller sail and minor electronics improvements.
Thresher was renamed to Permit after the USS Thresher was lost and the rest modified to mitigate that. Sturgeons were also quieter and slower than Thresher/Permit class subs.
>Thresher was renamed to Permit
I obviously know that, mouthbreather. And that is disrespectful to every man aboard Thresher for her final dive.
The Sturgeons were slower because of the taller sail, dumbass. Calling them quieter is a reach.
All the reports i've seen rate Sturgeons quite a bit quieter than they do Permit/Threshers
Reminder that Kongsberg only got a slap on the wrist compared to Toshiba, even though they were almost as guilty as them (the original mislabeling came from Kongsberg themselves).
Wonderful scale on that y-axis you got there.
>And that is disrespectful to every man aboard Thresher for her final dive.
It absolutely isn't, it's naval tradition to rename classes when the lead ship has suffered a catastrophic incident. No sailor wants to be onboard a Thresher-class submarine, especially when the cause of the accident was unknown for quite some time following her sinking. Even some events surrounding the incident are classified to this day, much like the Scorpion.
Name another instance, then, dumbass.
Tradition was a result of a few too many saturday beers, what I was getting at was that USS Thresher has been struck from the naval register. No vessel will ever carry that name, even as the name of the class.
If you think it dishonors their memory, you don't understand just how much respect boats on eternal patrol are given. Every April 10th there's a ceremonial tolling of the bells at every submarine base, which has memorials for lost submarines. At the submarine service ball there's a prayer said for every soul lost aboard those ships. Their memory isn't forgotten, and won't be any time soon.
US Submarines Since 1945 by Friedman.
Cold War Submarines, also from Friedman, has more info on Russian and USN subs than I ever thought I'd see.
Thanks anon.
Also funny how guns gives a new perspective. New price I see, $100, was like "oof no way a BOOK costing that much!?" and 20 years ago that could have been it, but now it's like "a day at the range or less will I get more long term enjoyment of some really cool military history than a single range trip".
Thanks anon, prototypes are always neat (like the commie's K-222, fastest one ever I think) and I hadn't remembered that one had it, but yeah I wouldn't count it as rolled out there yet. Anyway ultimately point is that the old "diesel/electric is quieter on batteries!" is now kind of a fuddlore thing that we'll probably be hearing about forever.
It’s better to have the ability and not need it than to need it and not have it. You fricking moron
A submarine literally can't outrun its threats.
Clearing datum is a thing.
>Their max speed of 20 knots vs 30 submerged means that there are tactical situations where SSKs will never be able to compete with SSN
That's not even the main problem. The main problem with SSKs is their submerged range. You either go days at 3 knots or 1 hour at 20 knots, then you're drained and done.
The AIPs can stay submerged a lot longer and don't have this problem. However the AIP's do that for focusing on endurance vs range, and the moment you push the throttle past 10 knots the AIP's drain their endurance real fast.
AIP has a little more submerged endurance than a diesel-electric. It does not match the quantum change of nuclear power.
>will they finally dethrone nuclear subs as the ultimate force in submarine warfare
Post range/cruise time/top speed vs SSNs. Why is that not on your picture?
u212a is 20 knots submerged
ohio class is 22, 25 tops. not much of a difference, considering that the latter is twice as big and with far more powerful engines.
range is 9200 mi at 9 knots vs virtually unlimited (duh, with a reactor, but that's because SSNs are glorified mobile ICBM banks and the U212 is a littoral boat)
>I'm almost as good as old tech no one bothered to update in a single metric
Whoa...
SSNs are a monstrous drain on state funds. plus they are big, they're noisy and their deployment is redundant in the vast majority of circumstances, unless you just want to flex in front of the poor nations. OP pic could mop the floor with an Akula and they wouldn't even know what hit them
SSNs are noisy? The Virginia program office would like a word with you.
>their deployment is redundant
Smoothbrain take
>Hunter killer SSK vs a literal BOOMER
What is it you bargain for?
>u212a is 20 knots submerged
>ohio class is 22, 25 tops
That's an SSBN you absolute fricking mong, not an SSN.
Seawolf or Viriginia, or even the old Los Angelas, would be the actual comparison just for America, and those are all 30+ kn submerged. Astute and Trafalgar are also 30+. Soviet boats could go even faster, Alfa class could go over 40kn.
So the answer to your question is "no, frick you." Will they be useful for non-nuclear powers? Yes absolutely. "Ultimate force" lol.
virginia hardly pushes to 25 and both she and the seawolf are newer designs just as old as barracuda, u208 or scorpene.
>virginia hardly pushes to 25
>virginia hardly pushes to 25
>hardly pushes 25
Why are you lumping ballistic missile boats (Ohio SSBNs) in with fast-attack boats (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia), all of which are smaller and faster than boomers?
>range is 9200 mi at 9 knots
what are you on?
> will they finally dethrone nuclear subs
No
Nukes are still better. There have been great strides in conventional tech but when factoring in those costs nuclear isn’t much more.
SSNs are more expensive and fewer countries can afford or make them and there's little export market for them so they get iterated on more slowly
SSKs aren't going to be anything more than defensive boats for a very, very long time purely because their time on station outside of home waters is abysmal.
Points and lines.
SSKs are for points, SSNs are for lines. If your area of interest in a point like the Northern Sea than there is nothing better than a SSK, if your area of interest is getting stuff from the USA to Europe than you want SSN.
No
If you can afford a SSN, you should get a SSN
That's the end of the discussion
rare informed post
no, you fricking moron. SSKs don't compete with nuke subs, their role and area of operation is enirely different
SSKs are this close to be hydrogen propelled exclusively. meanwhile the fissile fuel reservoirs are dwindling and the scare for nuclear is still much real. even nations who could afford SSNs like germany don't do it out of principle. while they still remain on top due to their limitless range, soon we'll have ships that can fuel themselves through the very water they navigate into. that will be an end for sub reactors for good, as no one wants a potential dirt bomb 3 meters from where they sleep.
how would you get hydrogen out of water without nuclear power?
plain simple electrolysis, just like everyone did before even the steam engine was invented
yes, where do you get the energy for that electrolysis on a sub?
hydrojet turbines, duh
>but where do you get the energy to start the boat
big ass battery
How will you recharge the battery underwater?
This Black person inventing a perpetual motion machine.
Lol. Lmao.
I seriously doubt people knew about Electrolysis during the age of The Steam Engine. Realistically Diesel Powered Subs are just as capable of punching about the same weight as a SSN (though SSNs are pretty based, not gonna lie).
> just as capable of punching about the same weight
Was this supposed to be a meaningful sentence?
I like Diesel Powered Subs, so, STFU.
You probably like staring at men's asses too, homo.
>I seriously doubt people knew about Electrolysis during the age of The Steam Engine. Realistically Diesel Powered Subs are just as capable of punching about the same weight as a SSN (though SSNs are pretty based, not gonna lie).
1. You're wrong. Water electrolysis was first demonstrated in 1789 by Jan Rudolph Deiman and Adriaan Paets van Troostwijk using an electrostatic generator, just 13 years after James Watt developed steam engine useful for anything more than niche applications.
2. Whether or not people knew about electrolysis during the Steam Age has nothing to do with the fact that hydrogen electrolysis is not going to let your submarine break the laws of thermodynamics, which anyone who's graduated from middle school should recognise is what you're proposing.
3. That too has no relation to whether diesel-powered subs (why the caps bro?) are just as effective as SSNs.
the german military is a fricking joke even among european militaries, don't pretend for a second that their budget could justify nuclear even if their spineless overlords would allow it.
a nuclear navy takes decades to build. You have to build facilities capable of refining fuel, manufacturing the reactor/pressure vessel, establish proper containment protocol and procedures, as well as schooling for the crews that will operate them(probably requiring a schoolhouse reactor to get practice run time on), nuclear certified welders on the payroll, intermediate fleet maintenance depots for periodic overhauls on top of shipyards capable of handling that level of bullshit, and finally a nuclear ship recycling and scrapping program to dispose of the spent core when the ship is finally decomm'd.
The cost of an SSN isn't just what a standalone ship costs, because the industry and logistics supporting it are several billion dollars more.
>the german military is a fricking joke
yet their subs are the best in europe if not the world and provide for countries all over the EU. the fact that italy, which has arguably the longest tradition in submarine designing and construction worldwide, had to buy their submarines speaks volumes on the quality of their hardware.
>but they're just gap fillers for the next gen domestic sub
lol no they already commissioned two NFS from thyssenkrupp
>but they're just gap fillers for the next gen domestic sub
who are you quoting? I said nothing about anything you're talking about in your post
the fact that italians bought something doesn't magically make Germany able to afford nuclear, regardless of the quality of their current submarines or not. It was never a choice for them
> if not the world
Lol.
Lmao.
.t Virginia
Also t. Seawolf
> fissile fuel reservoirs are dwindling
What? There's tons of uranium ore left. Heck, the Japanese tested out a system for extracting the parts per billion floating around in seawater; it worked, it just costs more than conventional uranium mining operations, so it's been shelved until it's needed.
And when you add breeder reactors, from CANDU to molten-salt reactors, you gain the ability to run partially or even entirely on U-238 or thorium, which exist in sufficient quantities to replace the world's entire electrical production for a few hundred *years*.
>soon we'll have ships that can fuel themselves through the very water they navigate into
Errr... fuel cells work by combining hydrogen with oxygen to make water. You're talking about using hydrogen fuel to make water in order to extract hydrogen from seawater.. that's "perpetual motion" territory.
Something no one talks about is if the age of the submarine is coming to a close soon if not already. Satellite imaging, new low-frequency listening tech and advanced hydrophone networks everywhere important. I wouldn’t be surprised if we could detect a sub from across the ocean at this point.
People say this stuff about every iteration of the cat/mouse, particularly when it comes to stealth. Fact is anon that while subs (or stealth aircraft for that matter) temporarily enjoyed something closer to "cloaking" stealth is still super useful even if it's just making things harder. The fancy detector systems you talk about are themselves vulnerable, expensive, and not everyone has them. It's still another resource drain and set of considerations. It's still harder and requires different stuff to engage submarines vs surface vessels. There's still a big difference between "yeah we're pretty sure something is out there in that few hundred square miles" vs "firing solution".
So nah subs aren't going anywhere, though undoubtedly doctrine on how to use them will shift just as with aircraft.
Back in the '80s, there were all kinds of claims that new "blue-green lasers" would make the oceans transparent. Computer processing has gotten miles better since then, but it's hard to hear a slowly-moving hole in the water.
SSKs are pretty cool, robust, and sturdy designs. BUT, can they accommodate the Tomahawk Missile Package/Ammunition Variety that a Cheyenne Class SSN?
latest 212cde proposed to Dutch would have multi purpose vertical locks. So yeah, they could
And norwegians. I honestly don't know why they want a SSK on steroids, neither have particular claims over sea routes and neither have nearby enemies to look out for
>but russia!
Russia is practically landlocked at this point, all their ships are ghosted and there's like 7-8 european navies combined ready to act at a moment 's notice.
Arctic and upcoming Chinese boogaloo. Having big subs for blue water operations is a necessity nowadays
Not the Far East though
Any non-nuclear propelled submarine must stick a snorkel out of the water and run noisy engines daily. And if it reaches a destination, all it can do is wait for opportunities.
It'll still sink a ship anyway. But then, as long as the SSK commander doesn't fire off their Sonar and give their location out first, then that's all the advantage they need (I read Tom Clancy's "SSN" - really BASED book to read on SSN warfare).
If the target goes right over its location.
>monthly conventional submarines have an advantage over nuclear submarine thread