UPEMB%SEGUC11@gd3090.gd.chalmers.se (Mikael Borgman) (03/28/91)
From: Mikael Borgman <UPEMB%SEGUC11@gd3090.gd.chalmers.se> Charles Bergman writes: >Why waste your time with surface boats? Subs have been around for some 80 years now, and navys are continuing to use surface ships, there must be a reason. The Swedish navy operates oxygen independent conventional subs made by Kockums (they are by the way exported to Australia, chosen in competition with the german ones, feel free to order a few), but they cannot be everywhere. Subs are very effective, but not as "stealthy" as you would like. There are ways, as we all know, to locate and destroy subs before they can reach a vital target. Subs are also quite slow. Take sweden as an example. If we for the sake of this discussion assume that the threat comes from the east. A quick look at the map shows that it is a 12 hour trip by boat from coast to coast in the baltic sea (for troop carriers and other big ships, faster vessels could make it in half that time). Also, sweden has a very long coastline, almost all of it suitable for landing. In such a situation it is vital to be able to gather force very quickly to get to the attackers ships in time. Subs would be to slow, and even if they are there the attacker is well prepared for countering sub attacks. Fast surface vessels invisible to radar is an exellent solution to the problem. They would be cheap enough to be deployed in some number too. The Libyan fast attack surface missile boats were quite unstealhty, and unsupported. Swedish stealth boats would operate in cooperation with subs, attack aircraft and a very capable long range, land based coastal defence. So the stealth boat concept has its advantages as has subs, and carriers for that sake. However, taking a carrier group into the Baltic Sea would be a bad idea even without any stealth boats around. Mikael Borgman upemb%seguc11 at gd3090.gd.chalmers.se