• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
581
Points
1,040
Only if you have no bases outside of North America, I would guess.

The US submarine campaign in the Pacific during WW2 was one of the most effective in history, apparently.

Of course, being diesel boats, they relied on land bases in Guam etc.

The Silent Service: Submarines in the Pacific

Postwar records compiled by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee indicate Japan lost 686 warships of 500 gross tons (GRT) or larger, 2,346 merchantmen, and a total of 10.5 million GRT to submarines during 1,600 war patrols. Only 1.6 percent of the total U.S. naval manpower was responsible for America's success on its Pacific high seas; more than half of the tonnage sunk was credited to U.S. submarines. The tremendous accomplishments of American submarines were achieved at the expense of 52 subs with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted volunteers lost during combat against Japan; Japan lost 128 submarines during the Second World War in Pacific waters. American casualty counts represent 16 percent of the U.S. operational submarine officer corps and 13 percent of its enlisted force.

The problem with this comparison is it fails to take in to account the significant advances in technology that have taken place since that time.

A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations. It is considerably weaker in every other category and it's not even close. Once it's detected, it can be prosecuted as it lacks the speed of a Nuke boat.

A Nuke boat can shoot you, then drive away before you even know what hit you. Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship. It has no need to snort and has way more capability in every facet due to its powerplant.

I don't actually think the ASW exercises we presently do would reflect in anyway how a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare using Nuke boats would be conducted. It would be bloody and violent and the lack of investment in MPA in the West would be readily apparent for all to see.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
1,010
F no.

The whole reason why they cancelled it was because of the ballooning costs, and it would have been the launch customer for a massive re-design of something that wasn't designed that way (SSN to SSK).

Basically, the Cyclone all over again.
You are of course assuming that if we decided instead to purchase a German/Swedish/Japanese/Other SSK we wouldn't do exactly the same thing with their design...Canadianizing it and changing out everything from the electrical systems to fire control, weapons, etc.

I have no idea how far along they are on the re-design of the Barracuda, but if it's far enough along we might be ahead of the game. They may also give a discount to the contract price for a) saving them from a complete financial loss on the project and b) shifting the actual building of the subs back to France.

Option B would be to take over the contract keeping the already planned re-design of the fire control and weapon systems but maintaining the original nuclear propulsion.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,013
Points
910
You are of course assuming that if we decided instead to purchase a German/Swedish/Japanese/Other SSK we wouldn't do exactly the same thing with their design...Canadianizing it and changing out everything from the electrical systems to fire control, weapons, etc.

I have no idea how far along they are on the re-design of the Barracuda, but if it's far enough along we might be ahead of the game. They may also give a discount to the contract price for a) saving them from a complete financial loss on the project and b) shifting the actual building of the subs back to France.

Option B would be to take over the contract keeping the already planned re-design of the fire control and weapon systems but maintaining the original nuclear propulsion.
If you go to a Nuke boat - doesn't it make an Ass-ton more sense to do it with partners?
Which would be AUKUS...
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,798
Points
910
The problem with this comparison is it fails to take in to account the significant advances in technology that have taken place since that time.

A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations. It is considerably weaker in every other category and it's not even close. Once it's detected, it can be prosecuted as it lacks the speed of a Nuke boat.

A Nuke boat can shoot you, then drive away before you even know what hit you. Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship. It has no need to snort and has way more capability in every facet due to its powerplant.

I don't actually think the ASW exercises we presently do would reflect in anyway how a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare using Nuke boats would be conducted. It would be bloody and violent and the lack of investment in MPA in the West would be readily apparent for all to see.
I would add that I have prosecuted both SSN and SSK targets in a Sea King. It was about even odds that I could find, hold and kill an SSN. SSKs were much more difficult.

In a Cyclone, the SSK is dead, almost every single time. It is not even a close contest anymore. The SSN might be able to eventually break contact and run away, but they are aren’t much of a menace while they are doing that.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,010
I would add that I have prosecuted both SSN and SSK targets in a Sea King. It was about even odds that I could find, hold and kill an SSN. SSKs were much more difficult.

In a Cyclone, the SSK is dead, almost every single time. It is not even a close contest anymore. The SSN might be able to eventually break contact and run away, but they are aren’t much of a menace while they are doing that.
Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,798
Points
910
Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.
Humphrey made a point some days ago about Naval Warfare being a game of massing your strength. If you sail as part of a properly constituted Task Group with all the enablers, there is always something/someone looking.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
The SSN might be able to eventually break contact and run away, but they are aren’t much of a menace while they are doing that.

To add quickly for those not as famil with ASW stuff, that is also (semi) effective ASW.

I might not 100% support the "dead" part, but just because I believe the '46 lacks punch, but damaged/out of combat is a kill of sorts. A few ships with tails, a Cyclone dip pair and a 140 w/4 fish? 46s upgraded to 54s? Oh ya.
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.

I'm not sure I 100% understand your thought on this one; it would be rare thing IMO for a single hull to be out there on it's own. There's a fairly significant amount of sensory capability airborne, surface and sub-surface...putting a torp in the water is like turning on a spotlight at night and some assets can react to that fairly quickly. Personally, I'd be a little more concerned with better standoff SSMs from newer class nucs if I was on a skimmer (capsulated torps in SSM are part of the equation, but they're either/ors to me so I am referring to traditional torps; lauch-and-swims). Think about what the Oscar class was designed for...take a look at Yasen, Borei. Those airborne exploding telephone poles have better range AND speed over fish.

Adding things like MSA (Multi Static Active) systems to the toolbox are changing the game somewhat...for now.
 
Last edited:

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations.
Including magnetically "quieter" (generally speaking...there's factors that affect that of course). MAD can be an attack sensor...

Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship.

Speed = loud, too, though and severe sensor degradation for the boat...double-edge sword for them.
 
Last edited:

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,574
Points
1,160
There are about a half dozen designs out there if you do some Google-fu. Breaking down the pros and cons of a graphine moderated reactor vs Fast neutron vs pressurized water etc... is a bit much for the thread. However, the most notable to me is a CANDU reactor which is the OG of no meltdown technology.
Agreed, Underway. Not sure how the form factor of the CANDU reactor would scale to a sub, but D2O-moderated reactors are about as safe as nuclear fission power can get. By virtue of the fuel-bundle geometry, dumping the heavy-water moderator out of the core immediately shuts the reactor down. Even better, is that once core-related issues would be resolved, the moderator can be returned to the core and reactor restarted.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
Agreed, Underway. Not sure how the form factor of the CANDU reactor would scale to a sub, but D2O-moderated reactors are about as safe as nuclear fission power can get. By virtue of the fuel-bundle geometry, dumping the heavy-water moderator out of the core immediately shuts the reactor down. Even better, is that once core-related issues would be resolved, the moderator can be returned to the core and reactor restarted.


😁
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,010
I'm not sure I 100% understand your thought on this one; it would be rare thing IMO for a single hull to be out there on it's own. There's a fairly significant amount of sensory capability airborne, surface and sub-surface...putting a torp in the water is like turning on a spotlight at night and some assets can react to that fairly quickly. Personally, I'd be a little more concerned with better standoff SSMs from newer class nucs if I was on a skimmer (capsulated torps in SSM are part of the equation, but they're either/ors to me so I am referring to traditional torps; lauch-and-swims). Think about what the Oscar class was designed for...take a look at Yasen, Borei. Those airborne exploding telephone poles have better range AND speed over fish.

Adding things like MSA (Multi Static Active) systems to the toolbox are changing the game somewhat...for now.
I know SFA in this niche and have learned more in the last two hours than in the last 30 years. It always seemed to me that subs had an advantage based on the greater range of their torpedoes vs an ASW component. I appreciate the insight.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
There's so many variables, there's no real "DS solution" when it comes to ASW. I've been fortunate enough to hold sensor/visual contact on friendly and adversary sub-surface contacts (Ex's and Op's) , work co-op with MH/surface/subsurface joint forces etc. I'm not an expert, by any means, though and my opinions are debatable I'm sure. I likely fit the "questionable mentality" part...

It's not impossible for a sub to "get inside" and take someone out with a torp, of course...but I'd consider that their "most dangerous COA" and one that is going to be fairly hard to pull off in a shooting war.

ASW.jpg

One thing I'll always believe; the best ASW platform is....a capable submarine with a well-trained, disciplined crew. If I'd of been born south of our border, I'd likely have made significant efforts to earn dolphins vice Wings.
 
Last edited:

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,728
Points
940
Of course the subs might be going after the AOR's steaming to join the task force, who has been busy burning up fuel. I guess how long can a task force operate independently before it needs more fuel? Assuming a CV(or similar), couple of AD Destroyers, 4-5 Frigates and a AOR.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
779
Points
1,010
Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.
You can open source this but a Mk48 heavyweight torpedo has a much further range than a Mk 46/54 lightweight torpedo. Because lightweight torps are designed mainly to be air launched against a target. Hence the helicopter is the most valuable ASW asset that is organic to the ship.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
Mk 48 = 1,000lb warhead

Mk 46 = 100lb warhead

Mk48 can also be "steered" by the sub after firing...open source and fiction, but SSN by Clancy is a decent read (if a little biased...).
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
F no.

The whole reason why they cancelled it was because of the ballooning costs, and it would have been the launch customer for a massive re-design of something that wasn't designed that way (SSN to SSK).

Basically, the Cyclone all over again.
And we’ve yet to receive all of the Cyclones….
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
697
Points
940
And we’ve yet to receive all of the Cyclones….
Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground
 
Top