areg@ifi.uio.no (Are Leif Garn}sjordet) (03/13/91)
From: Are Leif Garn}sjordet <areg@ifi.uio.no>
Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? We were having a few beers
one night and discussed the possibility of fast patrolboats armed
with exocet/harpoon/pingvin rockets.
Can someone imagine how much havoc some stealth boats could do to one
of the large carrier-groups.
/ArG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
email: areg@ifi.uio.no \ smail: Are Garnaasjordet
Students do it in the \ 1616 sogn. studby
summer. \ 0858 Oslo 8 NORWAY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) (03/14/91)
From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) In article <1991Mar12.233406.1012@cbnews.att.com> Are Leif Garn}sjordet <areg@ifi.uio.no> writes: >Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? We were having a few beers >one night and discussed the possibility of fast patrolboats armed >with exocet/harpoon/pingvin rockets. > >Can someone imagine how much havoc some stealth boats could do to one >of the large carrier-groups. Well, I always thought that a successfully infiltrating Improved Los Angeles class SSN could do wonders to a large task force. 8+ Tomohawk TASMs, plus 3 or 4 harpoons or Mk48 torps. Not a nice thing to wake to. Does anybody know how the radar signature of a Pegassus class PHM compares with a small FF? As I recall, they are armed with 4 (or 8?) harpoons in quad launchers... Ov course the problem with surface vessels is that you still can't defeat the Mk. I eyeball sensor system except during overcast/night. Then you have to worry about Night vision gear...
mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) (03/14/91)
From: mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) areg@ifi.uio.no (Are Leif Garn}sjordet) writes: >Have anybody thought about stealth boats? >Can someone imagine how much havoc some stealth boats could do to one >of the large carrier-groups. The recent PBS program (I believe it was on NOVA) on stealth technology showed new ship designs for limiting the the radar signature of large ships. I recall that a major problem is trying to "stealthify" the ship's infrared emissions. Do y'all have access to NOVA in Norway? Tim McGuire mcguire@cs.tamu.edu
urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi (Urban Fredriksson) (03/14/91)
From: urbanf@yj.data.nokia.fi (Urban Fredriksson) areg@ifi.uio.no (Are Leif Garn}sjordet) writes: >From: Are Leif Garn}sjordet <areg@ifi.uio.no> >Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? >/ArG > The Swedish Navy has. A test-rig is in the process of beeing built. It is a 'side-keel hovercraft' (a Norwegian invention). The test-rig will be armed with little of everything: 40 or 57 mm cannon, torpedoes, missiles (Rb 15M or Penguin) and mines. | Urban Fredriksson | I do NOT speak |"The best way to get rid of an | | Stockholm, Sweden | for my employer! | enemy is to make him a friend."| | Reply to: urban@kista.relay.nokia.fi | I'm off the net in April - May |
klewis@mwunix.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) (03/14/91)
From: klewis@mwunix.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) In article <1991Mar12.233406.1012@cbnews.att.com> areg@ifi.uio.no (Are Leif Garn}sjordet) writes: > >Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? We were having a few beers >one night and discussed the possibility of fast patrolboats armed >with exocet/harpoon/pingvin rockets. It *might* be possible to hide a boat from radar, but it's a whole new can o' worms to try to hide it from sonar. High speed boats tend to be loud and thus particularly vulnerable to passive sonar. >Can someone imagine how much havoc some stealth boats could do to one >of the large carrier-groups. The boat would have to outrun submarine-launched torpedos. Does anybody out there have a Jane's with torpedo speeds? A more "stealthy" boat would be the Russian mini-sub. A few years back they were discovered when one became disabled within Sweden's 3-mile limit, I believe. -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Keith Lewis klewis@mwunix.mitre.org, klewis@mitre.org "Tear the roof off the sucker!" - N. "Grease" Manelli
warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) (03/14/91)
From: warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) In article <1991Mar12.233406.1012@cbnews.att.com> areg@ifi.uio.no (Are Leif Garn}sjordet) writes: >From: Are Leif Garn}sjordet <areg@ifi.uio.no> >Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? I believe the concept of a "stealth boat" has been around for awhile -- one of the more recent entrants being the LA class attack sub. It seems that even the most radar-evasive surface ship would still "light up" on sonars making it far from stealthy. -- Chris -- Christopher A. Warack warack@eecs.umich.edu Graduate Dept, EECS (313) 665-4789 University of Michigan
urbanf@tuura.UUCP (Urban Fredriksson) (03/15/91)
From: urbanf@tuura.UUCP (Urban Fredriksson) areg@ifi.uio.no (Are Leif Garn}sjordet) writes: >From: Are Leif Garn}sjordet <areg@ifi.uio.no> >Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? >/ArG > The Swedish Navy has. A test-rig is in the process of beeing built. It is a 'side-keel hovercraft' (a Norwegian invention). The test-rig will be armed with little of everything: 40 or 57 mm cannon, torpedoes, missiles (Rb 15M or Penguin) and mines.
operator@desire.wright.edu (03/15/91)
From: operator@desire.wright.edu Concerning Stealth Boats, When the government announced the existence of stealth projects in 1980, they said at the time (Defense Sec. Harold Brown) that they actually planned to build boats, tanks and subs with stealth tech. They actually figured at the time that they could retrofit existing systems with stealth tech, which they have done in some cases (subs and planes). I don't know exactly what has been done in the past few years as far as boats. I do know that there have been some unusual experiments with paint on the hull and superstructure to make the boat less visible. I believe that the French have researched this and have not made any significant progress. Also, the Soviets are building many of their newer ships with radar evasion in mind and have primarily used shaping techniques to achieve this. Robert Mack, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio
hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) (03/18/91)
From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> In article <1991Mar14.034333.25380@cbnews.att.com> warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) writes: > .. are there any stealth boats? For surface craft, I think boats used to infiltrate commandos, and agents used in by the US/ARVN in the Vietnam war and North Korea would somewhat qualify. I think they use wooden or fiber-lass hulls to reduce surface radar signatures. Whether anyone has tried to arm them with anything substantial, I don't know but it should not be that hard to if we can get a good fire-n-forget autonomous missile or torpedo. I'm not so sure how good passive sonar would be for detecting surface ships ... on the surface, aren't there waves and other ships that distort the motor sounds? -Han Kim
UPEMB%SEGUC11@gd3090.gd.chalmers.se (Mikael Borgman) (03/18/91)
From: Mikael Borgman <UPEMB%SEGUC11@gd3090.gd.chalmers.se> Stealth boat technology is a concept which is regarded highly promising by the Swedish Navy. A fully functional prototype/research vessel called "Smygen" is already operational and will be used for testing for three years. It has the sleek, mean looks associated with the F-117 and B-2, but painted dark green instead of black. The hull is of course smooth and angular with all equipment stored inside. Active radar masts are extendable trough hatches. It is a twin keeled hoovercraft which gives it a high top speed and smooth running even in very high seas, which is good for gun and missile firing. As said earlier a ship with good stalth characteristics and the capability of launching approx. 10 heavy ship to ship missiles would be a true threat to a carrier group. Imagine 5 or 10 stealth boats closing in from different angels at very high speed. Such threats would keep a lot more of the carriers forces tied up in close defense. Mikael Borgman upemb%seguc11 at gd3090.gd.chalmers.se
video@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry J. Cobb) (03/18/91)
From: video@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Henry J. Cobb) mcguire@cs (Tim McGuire) writes: > >The recent PBS program (I believe it was on NOVA) on stealth technology >showed new ship designs for limiting the the radar signature of large >ships. I recall that a major problem is trying to "stealthify" the >ship's infrared emissions. Do y'all have access to NOVA in Norway? > >Tim McGuire >mcguire@cs.tamu.edu Water jet propulsion offers a large 'heat dump' to mask the ship's direct IR signature. Sea water is used in a heat-exchanger to mask the exhaust from the gas turbine, and run the body panel cooling system. Stealth aircraft have to rely on the much lower heat capacity of air. -- Henry J. Cobb video@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu SFB Tyrant "The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present" -Hobbes
arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) (03/18/91)
From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes: >Does anybody know how the radar signature of a Pegassus class PHM >compares with a small FF? As I recall, they are armed with 4 (or 8?) >harpoons in quad launchers... according to an article in the US Naval Institute Proceedings, the PHM has a radar signature of a helicopter :o). it moves faster than the radar operator thinks a boat should move. more seriously, i believe that there was a boat being designed for the special forces (SEALs) that was to have relatively stealthy characteristics. it was cancelled for a variety of reasons, one of which was it's IR signature was very large. over the past year, there have been a few articles in the USNI Proceedings about stealifying major combatants. there was much criticism about how unstealty current ships are - the super-structure, cranes, antennas, etc have very large radar crosssections. -- arthur
urbanf@tuura.UUCP (Urban Fredriksson) (03/18/91)
From: urbanf@tuura.UUCP (Urban Fredriksson)
The Swedish Navy stealth boat project is aimed at reducing
radar, IR, acoustic (active and passive) signatures.
As for the Eyeball Mk I:
- You render lots of weapons ineffective if their sensors
can't see you.
- Swedish warships(/boats) are painted in a splinter
pattern of grey, grey, grey and greenish grey. When
parked close to a steep islet they can be covered with
camouflage netting. If they were highly visible on
radar this wouldn't be as effective.
Outrunning torpedoes I don't think is possible. Does
anybody know how good torpedoes are agains hovercraft?
_________
/ \ The Swedish stealth boat is a 'side-
/ \ keel hovercraft'. Add skirts front and
| | aft in this headon view. When running,
| |-------| | the keels only project 0,5 m into the
| | | | water. It is said this makes it highly
| | | | resistant to mine- and torpedo-explosions.
~~\_|~~~~~~~|_/~~ It is hydrojet powered.
The Norwegian Navy recently ordered a
dozen minehunter/sweepers designed after this principle.
Stealth tanks
The Swedish Army's next light tank will also be
stealthed, which for example makes things like JSTARS
less effective. I think we'll also see demagnetized
tanks before long.
| Urban Fredriksson | I do NOT speak |"The best way to get rid of an |
| Stockholm, Sweden | for my employer! | enemy is to make him a friend."|
| Reply to: urban@kista.relay.nokia.fi | I'm off the net in April - May |cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (03/18/91)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) The visibility to surface search radar is related most closely to the size of the vessel; small boats have small radar cross-section, and are harder to pick out of the sea return. Surface search radars have to have filtering to pick out a real target from the sea return. Doppler radar helps, but, since the waves move around, it has limitations, too. Plastic boats are harder to see; return is mainly from engines, and rigging. Wakes are highly visible from extreme distances, so high speed on the surface will give good intel about course, speed, and numbers. Wide-angle satellite photos show wakes very clearly. The most stealthy craft is a plastic sailboat! If you sail at night offshore, it is a good idea to hoist a radar reflector to keep from being run down by a freighter or tanker.
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (03/18/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) >From: Are Leif Garn}sjordet <areg@ifi.uio.no> >Have anybody thought about stealth boats ? We were having a few beers >one night and discussed the possibility of fast patrolboats armed >with exocet/harpoon/pingvin rockets. yes, they are called submarines... max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu my opinions are my own
saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Kenneth Wayne Delaughder) (03/21/91)
From: saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Kenneth Wayne Delaughder)
In regard to stealth boats, I remember a quite lengthy article in Popular
Mechanics awhile ago ('bout a year) if anyone remembers the article, please
post it...
The boats themselves (artists conception, of course) were real flat and had
vertical launch tubes for thier missles, as well as low profile superstructers
They even had a stealth carrier if I remember (small with VSTOL planes)
Hope the info helps...
--
* * * * * * * * Subscribe to The COLLISION if you dont already!! * * * * * * *
* Ken DeLaughder *
* <saxman@ksuvm.ksu.edu> "College is just one big f**king excuse *
* <saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> to avoid work" - John Hunkins *x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) (03/27/91)
From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
Why waste your time with surface boats?
I once heard from a submariner, "There are only two types of ships;
submarines and targets!"
The rest of the world is going to figure out that a few diesel-electric
subs can easily mess up the operations of an entire U.S. surface fleet.
And mess up supply from the States.
The Germans are working on new conventional subs that are more quite and
cheaper then our nuclear ones. Soon they'll export those and we'll have a
trillion dollar ineffective surface navy!
All Iraq needed was a a small sub fleet and we would have been
sucking all across the Atlantic. There are very effective cheap subs
available, like the ones Israel is buying from Germany, and soon they'll be all
over the world. Look at the North Korean Navy -- subs can keep us from
resupplying the South in an invasion or from any Inchon landing.
All you need is a Submarine navy and a well organized mine laying
operation and you can put surface fleets out! Mines are cheap and take time to
clear. They worked in Haiphong Harbor and worked in the Persian Gulf (Marines
didn't land). We need surface ships to protect transportation from air and to
project air power where friendly air fields aren't available, but lets hope
that subs don't get in the hands of Hussein types cause then it won't work.
Just a thought.
P.S. About fast attack surface missile boats, remember the Libyian ones??
Harpoons took care of those! Now if they had some subs....
[Wheee! Feel free to answer but remember, NO flames on
sci.military and keep the technical content high. I was
wondering when we'd see the "Aircraft Carriers are obsolete"
thread in one form or another. -- CDR]
Charles Bergman
CDT, USMA
x35147d3@usma8.usma.eduswilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (03/27/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >The rest of the world is going to figure out that a few diesel-electric >subs can easily mess up the operations of an entire U.S. surface fleet. >And mess up supply from the States. Three major disadvantages of the diesel-electric subs are: 1) they have limited combat range due to limited fuel tank capacity; 2) they need to surface regularly to recharge batteries; 3) they need to stay near home ports to refuel and resupply. When they surface, or when they return to their home ports, they become sitting ducks .... Several countries are building diesel-electric subs mainly for coastal defense, which is okay. It does not necessarily mean that they will be as deadly as our attack submarines. Building a submarine is one thing; building electronic equipment necessary to track and attack targets is another thing. Building a diesel-electric submarine to rival our nuclear attack submarines capable of stalking underwater "indefinitely" and capable of tracking and destroying enemy ships/submarines is still another thing. Training the submarine crew into a fighting team is still another thing. >The Germans are working on new conventional subs that are more quite and >cheaper then our nuclear ones. There is an old saying, "You get what you pay for it." >Soon they'll export those and we'll have a trillion dollar ineffective >surface navy! Not necessarily. The submarine's greatest enemy are destroyers and aircrafts. Our anti-submarine patrol planes (P-3s) can cover a large area of water searching for submarines in a short time and carry Harpoons, torpedoes, depth bombs, and rockets to blow the subs out of water. The destroyers wait in a game of cat and mouse, knowing that the diesel-electric submarine will have to come up sooner or later to recharge (sub batteries last about 8 hours, depending on the speed). When the sub's batteries are nearly "drained," the sub had better run fast for its dear life on the surface with all those destroyers, anti-submarine, and attack planes swarming all over! The sub's home port is vulnerable to aerial attacks, too. Once its home port is destroyed, the sub is practically finished. >All Iraq needed was a a small sub fleet and we would have been >sucking all across the Atlantic. What makes you think that an Iraqi submarine (if Iraq had one) could accomplish anything that the rest of the Iraqi Navy couldn't? The Iraqi Navy was, for all practical purposes, wiped out early in the Gulf War. >There are very effective cheap subs available, like the ones Israel >is buying from Germany, and soon they'll be all over the world. Israel has only 3 active patrol submarines, with 2 planned/building. Their speed is 11 knots surfaced and 17 knots dived. Not very fast. They carry 10 Sub Harpoons/torpedoes. Only America's friends get the Harpoon missiles. >Look at the North Korean Navy -- subs can keep us from resupplying the >South in an invasion or from any Inchon landing. North Korea has 22 patrol submarines (old Russian submarines) and 42 midget submarines. These patrol submarines have no anti-submarine performance or potential. North Korea's air force is inferior to ours, and will go fast early in the battle like the Iraqi Air Force. Then the North Korean Navy will fall next when its home ports are destroyed. >All you need is a Submarine navy and a well organized mine laying >operation and you can put surface fleets out! In order for a submarine navy to be effective, you need a large number of submarines. That's because about 1/3 of the submarines will be on patrol, 1/3 in shipyard for repair/service, and 1/3 on way to or from patrol areas. (Note: this applies to the American and German's submarine forces; I am not sure how this would apply to the coastal defense submarines) Neither does Israel nor North Korea have a sizeable submarine force. I can't argue about the effectiveness of the mines. But you can't have both large minefields and an effective submarine force in any small body of water; your submarine might become victim of your own minefield.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (03/28/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu >From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) >The Germans are working on new conventional subs that are more quite and >cheaper then our nuclear ones... As I've mentioned before: be careful, you are comparing apples and oranges. Nuclear and non-nuclear subs are very different, in more ways than just their propulsion systems. They are different classes of vessels with different missions and different equipment -- for example, non-nuclear subs rarely have the big, capable, costly sonar rigs of the nuclear attack subs -- and comparing price tags is a dubious practice. Once or twice people have tried to build non-nuclear subs to do nuclear-sub missions, and those have turned out to be far more costly than the usual run of non-nuclear subs. >The rest of the world is going to figure out that a few diesel-electric >subs can easily mess up the operations of an entire U.S. surface fleet. Now this I am inclined to agree with. The RN worried a lot about the one or two Argentine subs in the Falklands, and it appears they had one or two close calls. >And mess up supply from the States. This isn't too likely. Non-nuclear subs are unlikely to show well in anti-merchant missions in open ocean against modern opposition. They have to spend most of their time on the surface if they want to cover distances, and surfaced they are conspicuous and vulnerable. Their specialty is short-range coastal operations. > ... and a well organized mine laying operation >and you can put surface fleets out! Mines are cheap and take time to clear. >They worked in Haiphong Harbor and worked in the Persian Gulf (Marines >didn't land)... The Marines did fake an amphibious landing as a planned deception in support of the ground offensive, so they weren't too frightened of mines. Minelaying and minesweeping *is* an area that the USN has neglected badly -- most of the Allied minesweeping capability in the Gulf was British -- but it's an area that most of the likely troublemakers have neglected too. Whether in the USN or a third-world navy, "you don't get promoted for commanding a minefield". -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
janesdc@uunet.UU.NET (03/28/91)
From: eplrx7!janesdc@uunet.UU.NET >From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) >Why waste your time with surface boats? >I once heard from a submariner, "There are only two types of ships; > submarines and targets!" While I do not doubt that if Saddam had had submarines the war would have been a bit longer and bloodier, I doubt they would have been the cure-all for his military problems that the above poster thinks. Consider: o The extreme shallow water in most of the Persian Gulf. This would make finding the subs a fairly simple task, no matter how quiet they were. o The fact that there would be no operating base that they could safely return to after the hostilities began. o There is a relatively large segment of the US Navy, both surface and submarine dedicated to the finding and destruction of enemy submarines. There is no reason to believe that these individuals would have performed their jobs any worse than the other segments of the coalition military did. o The submarine force in all likelihood would have been as ineptly led as the rest of Iraq's military. Against a more capable opponent, it is possible that submarines could have inflicted severe losses on the US Navy, it is equally possible that a more capable opponent could have inflicted unacceptable causualties on our ground forces with chemical or biological agents, or even just plain artillery. There are no guaranteed victories in warfare. Dave
tarl@stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) (03/28/91)
From: tarl@stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) In article <1991Mar27.051519.23104@amd.com>, x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) writes: |> The Germans are working on new conventional subs that are more quite and |> cheaper then our nuclear ones. Soon they'll export those and we'll have a |> trillion dollar ineffective surface navy! I assume you are talking about the german type 212 class. The first trials of this sub will be in 1994 (according to the U.S. Naval Institute's re-published 1990/1991 combat fleets of the world) so it is a little early to speculate on how effective they are. However, the other two in-service german diesel-electric subs (type 206 and type 205) both have speed limits of 10Kts on the surface and 17Kts submerged (5Kts when snorkelling), and a max range (at 5kts) of 4500 nm snorkelling and 200 nm submerged. Not enough to traverse the persian gulf submerged, and the first time you surface in a hostile environment is the last time you surface. Even quiet subs are still detectable with active sonar (e.g., sonobuoys dropped from S3 Vikings or ASW helicopters). Once a sub has been detected, it can be destroyed with air-dropped torpedoes. I speculate that if Iraq had owned subs when we went into the gulf, the first order of business would have been to block the straights of Oman and fumigate the entire gulf with land-based aircraft. I suspect that (not needing to hide their presence), US Navy ships would have had active sonar in operation as close to continuously as they could arrange, producing a hazardous environment for enemy subs. ----------------------------------------------------------- Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (03/29/91)
From: ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com > From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) > The rest of the world is going to figure out that a few diesel-electric > subs can easily mess up the operations of an entire U.S. surface fleet. > And mess up supply from the States. Not likely. Open ocean interdiction of warships is not simple. It also requires mobility that a diesel doesn't really have. A diesel is a good chokepoint protector but that also tends to localize its operating area leading the opposition to know where to look for it. BTW, most of the world's chokepoints belong to friendly allies (UK gap for example). A diesel boat makes a great "manned, mobile mine" but it has to charge its batteries *sometime*......... and when it does: a. It has to suck air thru something b. It has to run engines louder than electric motors. c. It has to be near the surface d. It probably won't be moving very quickly e. It may not be able to hear very well (self-noise) Diesel-busting is an art, but not an impossible one. Ron Miller ex-Lt USN USS CINCINNATTI SSN-693
HYD@psuvm.psu.edu (03/29/91)
From: HYD@psuvm.psu.edu It's not completely true that diesel subs have to surface to recharge their batteries, or it wouln't be true for long. Several countries, including the US, are developing closed cycle diesels which can be run under water. In this way the sub could recharge without exposing itself. On the other hand, the much larger and more capable nuclear attack subs should have little trouble killing diesel subs. As quite as diesel subs might be,they are too small to carry the sophisticated sonar carried by Los Angeles or Sea Wolf class subs. Also the "new improved" diesel subs are still limited by the amount of fuel they can carry. Sorry, I don't have any sources for this post. It's all stuff I picked up from the Discovery Channel, Popular Science or the old High Technology mag. Paul
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (03/31/91)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) [8 lines of unnecessary quoted text deleted. --CDR] Diesel-electric boats suffer one fatal problem, they can't run fast down deep for long. A surface battle group, especially a carrier battle group, is normally spread over a *lot* of ocean. The US Navy's anti-submarine warfare systems are very very good. Without the capability to *quietly* and *quickly* move long distances under water, a sub has little chance against a US Navy battle group's defenses. Only if the sub is lying quietly in wait at just the right place when the battle group zigs, is the sub going to have a chance to get off a shot. In restricted waters, where a diesel-electric boat has the best chance of getting within striking range, the Navy can concentrate a *lot* of anti-submarine attention making it very likely that the sub, even lying doggo, will be found and destroyed. Even in WWII, narrow places like the English Channel became very unhealthy places for subs, even snorkel equipped subs. Also in WWII, *fast* surface ships never bothered to run in convoy because a diesel-electric boat simply wasn't fast enough to get a firing position. Today's best diesel-electric boats have fast dash capability, but because of limited battery capacity, still have to be very very lucky to manage to get into a firing position on a 30 knot surface ship that is taking standard evasive action. Now nuclear attack boats are a different story. They can *sustain* the underwater speeds necessary to close on a fast target. They can stay deep enough while doing so to have a fair chance at remaining undetected. They routinely take nice periscope pictures of aircraft carriers in exercises. The advantages of nuclear power for an attack submarine in open ocean are overwhelming. Even our boats, and they are very very good, don't like working in narrow or shallow waters. They can be caught fairly easily without the depth or room to hide or run. A submarine is an awesome weapon, but so is a carrier battle group. Gary