Ausfalia has invested in a fleet of 12 long-range SSKs (actually scaled down, conventionally powered AIP variants of a SSN design) under the delusion that they will be able to disrupt Chink shipping at a long distance in a potential conflict... in essence, the same way the Japs intend to use their 18 AIP SSKs.
Is this a viable strategy or are they going to be swarmed by dozens of cheap and shitty Romeos/Kilos/Yuans on the first day of the naval conflict?
>conventionally powered
... is a joke. can' do shit with that against SSNs.
Why not? SSKs are cheaper, in this case has enough range and are usually quieter.
holy shit can you imagine a fucking sub filled with aussies? that much retarded in one tiny ass box is going to disrupt something critical in the world
In the narrow, relatively shallow waterways around Indonesia and below the SCS they'll likely be pretty capable. Especially if they're not travelling very far.
dude, that's basic submarine warfare 101. don't be fucking lazy. go read the first essay/book that comes up in search.
OP asked about disrupting chinks shipping. it's laughable to think that they could.
Any modern western-designed SSK will be significantly quieter than most of the boats that China operates. However, an SSK isn't an ideal solution to perform offensive operations with, as they're better suited for defense of coastlines and chokepoints. You could probably set some up in various straits to hit Chinese merchant shipping, but odds are, older US SSNs like the LA class will end up doing most of the heavy lifting on that front.
There are subs filled with Indians, and if that hasnt fucked the world over yet I doubth the aussies will
They'll do a good job when they are on station.
The only problem is the amount of time they can be on station.
With the need for resupply and refuel, they would either have to rotate out boats, limiting their concentration of fire power and the area they can cover, or resupply forward of friendly bases which puts a large, visible presence that kinda tips off where their boats will be, especially if they resupply boats in multiple areas.
And this goes double for the number they employ. Several more multiples of these boats will allow them to meet the coverage and effectiveness of fewer nuclear boats but at a much higher cost.
spotted the chink shill
And China has like what? 5 operational SSNs that isnt 50 years old?
I dont see how they will render Australias 12 SSKs useless, especially as Australia will never fight alone, and never with only submarines.
They would need to rearm after a while anyway, no matter if they were nuclear or not
SSNs are absolutely capable of being sunk by SSKs. In a lot of scenarios, an SSK has the potential to be much quieter than an equivalent nuclear boat.
>OP asked about disrupting chinks shipping. it's laughable to think that they could.
Not really, it all goes through straights around Indonesia. That's prime territory for SSKs.
>tfw you opt for SSN design to get range needed to tickle the dragon, but because of tree hugging hippies in your cunt, you also want it diesel powered, necessitating a radical redesign from its original specs, and will be a guinea pig for an essentially untested and probably defective monkey model with none of the advantages of the nuke boat
lmao this is going be like the collins all over again
Australian are no match for TNI-AL Nagapasa class
Not yet
>lmao this is going be like the collins all over again
So a major fuck-up caused only by Australia self, then hyped up a million times just to shit on political opponents, despite the submarine in question beeing relativly good.
>No expensive nuclear shore facilities.
>AIP
>Mines and possible LACM
Its a good boat for the Ausies and can pose a very real threat to the Chinese.
True. But that is AFTER they've done their job and expended their weapons of which they'd need to relocate anyways to avoid the ASW search.
But un order to be combat effective, a submarine needs to be in the right position and then remain there long enough to capitalize on that.
Submarine warfare has more in commin with sniper/LRS employment than ship of the line combat.
>Is this a viable strategy or are they going to be swarmed by dozens of cheap and shitty Romeos/Kilos/Yuans on the first day of the naval conflict?
Considering:
A. Australia will not get into a shooting war with the PRC wothout the US
B. Will likely be invovled in the multinational coalition that rallies behind the US
C. The RAN and JMSDF have been doing new exercises where multiple (as in 4+) SSKs do training exerises with USN SSNs. Which, in my view, indicates the USN is now putting emphasis on having allied subs operate with their own. Creating modern wolfpacks, if you will.
Also keep in mind that the USN is known for tracking enemy SSK/SSNs, and PLAN subs, especially the older ones, are notoriously noisy. Its gonna be hard for PLAN attack subs to overwhelm western counterparts, since those western counterparts have been tracking them for the past month as the tensions flare up, which starts whatever war this would be.
Pic very, very related.
These types of conflicts dont happen in a vacuum
But severely more limited in range of employment and loiter time on station.
>Pacific Faggot Gay
Welp, thread's officially fucked
This is true. However, in a scenario where an SSN is approaching an area that's defended by an SSK, the SSK can have the advantage.
Huh, sorta like having a US SSN as the "quarterback" with allied SSKs to act as forward platforms? That's pretty interesting.
The range of an SSN is basically infinite. Anything looks small in comparison to infinity. That doesn't mean that SSK's are actually short-ranged.
Or the SSN can outwait the SSK until it has to refuel, which requires either leaving the area and surfacing OR a resupply platform entering the area and surfacing.
There aren't many tactical situations where you can just sit around waiting that long.
>that disadvantage doesn't matter because the enemy is required to punch the sharpest and hardedt edge if my knife!
Infinite range and submergence is the ENTIRE reason the US went to all nuclear propulsion despite the time, tech, and expense.
If you can negate all the stealth and other aspects just by having a boat that can hold out longer with no resupply, you use it.
Sure there are.
I don't want to be sunk by submarine X, so I'll just outwait them.
The actual exerises and operational concepts are classified. Literally all we know is that US SSNs have been doing exerises with the RAN and JMSDF. What I said is pure speculation.
Well isnt it fucking fantastic that Australia isnt fighting the US Navy then?
This is a hypothetical scenario against China, and Chinas submarine fleet isnt exactly all-nuclear.
The ability for an SSN to have its hull optimized for high speeds is an absolutely massive advantage over SSK.
What makes it hard for SSKs to have high-speed hulls? Obviously their speed and power output are lower when submerged, but I don't think there's anything inherent to non-nuclear hull design that precludes high speeds.
>disrupt Chink shipping at a long distance in a potential conflict
And what? Disrupt the entire global economy? Nobody wants a war with China
Well, I imagine that the reason is that the SSK can't spend enough time in high-speed mode to justify it. An SSN can spend forever in high-speed mode. An SSK has to ration its usage of limited fuel.
But they still have to deal with limited loiter times.
For all the fun and games at China's quantum expense they are not idiots. And the best thing to fight a submarine is not another submarine, it's air assets supported by surface ASW.
>But they still have to deal with limited loiter times.
Naturally, but with the budget Australia has what could they really be expected to do? Trade those 12 SSKs for perhaps 4 SSNs?
Only on a one-to-one basis.
Australia is probably getting more total time on station with SSKs then SSNs. The additional cost of the required shore facilities for nuclear boats alone would cut their buy in half. Factor in increased per boat cost and the SSK fleet is going to spend more time doing things then a much smaller SSN fleet.
>What makes it hard for SSKs to have high-speed hulls?
SSN can always run at a constant high speed, SSK cannot.
Australia has 0 chance of crewing these things.
>French
>First boat in 12 more years.
Yeah, they fucked themselves, hard.
Cry harder fruitbat.
>tree hugging hippies demand diesel over nuclear power
What a time to be alive.
>will subs be good at a thing they were not acquired to do
No, user, of course not.
>conventional subs arent generally more silent than SSN's
>conventional subs arent preferential in shallow or congested water-ways
Go look up Exercise Amazolo, a joint exercise between a NATO task force and the South Africans. A single South African Type 209 "sank" the entire task force and remained undetected - the task force included a De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate, Ticonderoga-class and a couple corvettes.
Just because Uncle Sam doesnt use it doesnt mean it isnt good.
In the event of a war with China, Aussie subs aren't going to be the thing fucking with the global economy.
>I don't want to be sunk by submarine X, so I'll just outwait them.
And get sunk by literally anything else while doing so.
Or the war just deteriorates around your ass in general.
This, if the submarines are refilled by supply ships, range really isn't a problem and the diesel engines are known to be more quiet than nuclear powered submarines. They did this in WW2 with devastating affects, modern stuff should just be better.
Totally viable.
Nuclear power is only useful for the United States since it allows longer deployments. Besides that it's utterly a hindrance in almost everyway.
>SSK > SSN
If, if, if.
>If, if, if.
That's all real life is, applied 'if's. Nothing is ever clean.
>the best thing to fight a submarine is not another submarine
Wrong.
Sub v Sub?
Conventional should have a huge advantage because it isnt constantly having to pump coolant through a reactor. Its also smaller so magnetic-anomaly detection is harder.
Nuke boats are better when range is your big problem. For example, if you are based in Norfolk and you have to cross the Atlantic before you even get on station, you're gunna want one of them fission bois.
Ram those mother fuckers.
>if the submarines are refilled by supply ships, range really isn't a problem
t. milch kuh
>diesel engines are known to be more quiet than nuclear powered submarines
You are an incredibly stupid cunt.
The very first exercises with the USS Nautilus, a noisy as fuck nuclear powered submarine, showed how much better it was than surface ships and diesel electric.
>You are an incredibly stupid cunt.
Turn off the reactor.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
>You are an incredibly stupid cunt.
Its common knowledge at this point. Flick on the electrice drives and you are pretty fucking quite because you dont have to worry about a reactor. AIP just adds to that.
imagine the smell
Yeah. Decades before subsafe and worthwhile noise reduction.
>at that point
Why?
popularmechanics.com
Submarine tenders really aren't a thing anymore for the United States, but I don't see why other countries still using diesel subs can't use it and likely be even better than nuclear power.
Oh, so it's quiet only on electric drive? Diesel engines are not, after all, quieter than nuclear?
1. Nuke subs are quieter than Diesel Electric
2. Nuclear reactors cannot be shut down entirely
PICK ONE
>so it's quiet only on electric drive
So at this point you are merely trying to win an argument as opposed to trying to be correct?
The diesel engines charge up batteries, so the diesel engines aren't really even running while the sub is attacking. It's basically impossible to find.
Subsafe is not relevant to this thread.
Noise reduction? I'm telling you the USS Nautilus had it's way when noisy as all hell. Against EVERYONE.
The implication is over your head, so- a quiet Nautilus is EVEN BETTER.
The point he is making us that it is no longer 1953 and there is a reason why countries that have nuke boats (like the USSR, UK and France) chose DE for their attack boats.
>The implication is over your head, so- a quiet Nautilus is EVEN BETTER.
And a sub QUIETER than a quiet nautillus will be EVEN BETTER.
Transiting AIP and DE submarines are noisy. Do you not know this?
So you get caught during transit, or your supply ships get sunk.
Holy fuck, you really don’t know shit about submarines, do you? SSNs are obviously more quiet than SSKs when they have their diesels on, but an SSK operating on batteries can be much quieter.
Accept the fact that we will always be able to hear the reactor coolant turbopumps and leave the thread in shame already.
You still have to go back for food anyways, essentially make that point moot.
>41786070 stated "diesel engines are known to be more quiet than nuclear powered submarines". My point is that is a very incorrect statement.
Yes, so for America who subs have to transit half the globe to get to their AO, nukes are good. For countries who's subs AO is literally anywhere outside of port, DE is better.
I get the feeling that this debate has more to do with jingoism than actual interest in subs.
jfc
When the diesels are running
to charge those batteries
noise is generated.
And how long must diesels run per unit of travel?
Yes, when conventional subs are not trying to be sneaky, they are infact not sneaky. Well done.
Yet: when they are trying to be sneaky, they are the sneakiest.
Go ahead and stop.
Yeah.
Poverty.
Laughable thread
Old Type 209's have a range of 400nmi while running on batteries.
And a nuclear powered sub QUIETER than a quiet nautilus will be EVEN BETTER.
ftfy
An SS doesn't run on batteries that much. Especially when in transit.
>And how long must diesels run per unit of travel?
Google it if you want to know because that question could have so many variables that the answer could go anywhere depending on what you're looking at.
Of course that doesn't matter because I feel like you looking to find some information that is wrong for your inevitable ad hominem attack to make yourself feel like less of an idiot.
see S8G
Faster and more quietly, yes. And less often.
Its the usual deal. So to some insecure anons, saying something the US doesnt use is good is the same as saying that the US equivalent is bad.
In this instance its neither. US uses nuclear subs because thats what the US needs for its operations - they dont have the luxury of using conventional subs which although quieter, have short legs which is a problem when your boats operate globally.
If your targets are outside your port, you are doing it wrong.
The can't stay sneaky for long. This relegates non-nuclear submarines to being a somewhat mobile minefield.
like I said, older Type 209's have a battery range of 400nmi.
That means you can start your attack 200nmi out, complete, and sail another 200nmi before you have to make any noise at all.
America has to sail across the globe before the subs even got on station, and a sub that sneaks off the US mainland only to have to pop up in England for gas, en-rout to Russia, is pretty fucking useless to Uncle Sam.
I asked how long it takes to charge those batteries.
But I already knew you didn't know.
Google it if you want to know because that question could have so many variables that the answer could go anywhere depending on what you're looking at.
haha
The easy answer is "a long time".
At that point you might as well just use surface ships because any competent navy would find that shit in a heart beat.
But, the real problem with the US Navy that needs to be fixed is that it's all about looking good on paper rather than really dealing with problems. The only thing keeping it afloat right now is that we don't have anything sinking it.
Pic related
>swarmed by dozens of cheap and shitty Romeos/Kilos/Yuans
Swarming tactics don't really work with subs
SSK are not actually that much quieter than modern western SSN. Chinese SSN and certain types of Soviet era SSN are noisy as fuck.
Congratulations, you win your internet argument, so fuck off.
Non-nuclear submarines are a luxury? I think our frames of reference may be insurmountable.
Put one nuclear and one conventional submarine against each other. Pick an initial distance. Aboard which would you rather be?
I think both running into each other would have a bad day.