terryr@cse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/21/90)
From: Terry Rooker <terryr@cse.ogi.edu> Path: ogicse!terryr From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: [Re: H202 Submarine Propulsion (was Re: Nicknames)] Message-ID: <11520@ogicse.ogi.edu> Date: 20 Aug 90 14:49:01 GMT Article-I.D.: ogicse.11520 Posted: Mon Aug 20 07:49:01 1990 References: <1990Aug15.032837.27755@cbnews.att.com> Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 44 In article <1990Aug15.032837.27755@cbnews.att.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: > > >many argue that the US was too quick to discard the conventional >submarine, though. they're cheaper and they're quieter (batteries >driving electric motors make a lot less noise than reactors driving >steam turbines driving generators driving electric motors.) the >US has retained in active service a number of older conventional >powered subs so that anti-sub forces can practice exercises and learn >about the unique problems presented by conventional powered submarines. > Although I tend to agree, I also accept the Navy's arguments. The first nukes were very noisy. There have been some comments to the effect the early boats were so noisy that they were next to worthless. By the early 60's nuke technology was suffeciently advanced, that they were competitive with the diesels, and had many advantages. By then the 2 styles of submarines required largely different technologies, it was a choice of where to concentrate funding. Attempting to develop both would probably have been too expensive for congress to swallow. Considering the state of diesel boats through the early 70's, this was probably a wise decision (yes, there are exceptions, most notable the German type-207's and derivatives). Now the situation is very different. With modern batteries, and air-independent propulsion the diesels can compete with the nukes in every area but sustained high speed. As events in the Persian Gulf( and the Falklands for that matter) show this requirement is still very important to the USN. Advances in submarine propulsion have also made the most modern nukes competitive with diesel boats on batteries. So I guess the choice is still not obvious. There is also the problem with maintaining two separate personnel training and qualification systems. It is the lack of specialized training and experience that have been attributed to causing the accidents on the USN's conventional boats. That may just be political chaff to justify scrapping them. Of course the accidents make the decision for the boat that burns. During this fiscal year, or by next fiscal year the last of the USN SS's will be gone. At that time the USN will have the distinction of having the only all-nuke submarine fleet. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (08/23/90)
From: xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) In article <1990Aug21.025615.2757@cbnews.att.com>, terryr@cse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) writes... ^ ^In article <1990Aug15.032837.27755@cbnews.att.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: ^> [nuke vs conventional sub discussion deleted to save bandwidth] ^ ^There is also the problem with maintaining two separate personnel ^training and qualification systems. It is the lack of specialized ^training and experience that have been attributed to causing the ^accidents on the USN's conventional boats. That may just be political ^chaff to justify scrapping them. Of course the accidents make the ^decision for the boat that burns. During this fiscal year, or by next ^fiscal year the last of the USN SS's will be gone. At that time the ^USN will have the distinction of having the only all-nuke submarine ^fleet. ^ ^-- ^Terry Rooker ^terryr@cse.ogi.edu Wasn't there also the assumption that the Europeans would concentrate on conventional subs for "coastal" defence while we would worry about the long ranging sub activities? I assume that is also why the US has very few PHMs but the Europeans have quite a few. Another debate of the same period was the double hull vs the single. It would seem that there is some concern that the US may have made a bad choice to go with single hulled subs now that it appears that the Soviets has made the concept work. On the other hand we did enjoy a long period (40 years?) where US subs were much better than the Soviet counter parts. Aren't there concerns that US ASW torpedoes may have trouble killing the later generation Soviet subs (I guess we're talking about the lighter ASROC Mk50s and helo dropped torps rather than the Mk48) because of the standoff distance between the double hulls? Add the fact that the new Soviets are as quiet as older LAs and new models are expected to be quiter the Seawolf and Improved LAs may be badly outclassed in the years to come. The problem appears to be that subs are approaching the point where further reductions in noise are less important (although being quiet at any significant speed is still difficult) since they will approach the ambient noise. This is very bad for US subs as doctorine has been to take the noisier Soviets out at long range with our better detection gear. Now it seems that we may have to engage much closer and we may not get a clean kill with the first shot. Assuming the Soviets continue to develop their "wolfpack" tactics a LA in that situation would find it self engaging several subs all of whom are going to "shooting from the hip". This means 4 torpedo tubes against quite a few more. What it probably really means is a dead LA. This brings us back to the original discussion with something of a different aspect: Would more conventional subs (we're assuming that conventional subs are much cheaper to build and perhaps to run) organized in hunter packs be more effective than fewer, nucs that will probably have to operate alone? NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) (08/30/90)
From: gatech!srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin) In article <1990Aug23.015128.3150@cbnews.att.com> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: > >This brings us back to the original discussion with something of a different >aspect: Would more conventional subs (we're assuming that conventional subs >are much cheaper to build and perhaps to run) organized in hunter packs be >more effective than fewer, nucs that will probably have to operate alone? When you're trying to listen for a stealthy enemy, it makes no sense to do it with all your brothers and sisters along. ;-) Also, the current generation of torpedoes are *very* lethal. For the unitiated, that means they pack an explosive punch of whalloping magnitude. (How's that for being really technical?) Test shots have not only literally cut a scrapped destroyer in half, but that same single shot near *vaporized* a good-sized chunk out of its middle. -- John T. Baldwin | johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu Search Technology, Inc. | | "... I had an infinite loop, My opinions; not my employers'. | but it was only for a little while..."