China Builds Subs

[Norske3]

web page (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040716-123134-8152r.htm)

[TimH]

This war with China is going to be ugly....

[John E Hardiman]

1954 all over again...Need to get the tin cans out there now. They won't shoot if we are there as they are even more conseritive than we are. they respect a sharp sword and the willingness to use it (to paraphrase George Washington).

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The build up of submarines by China (which has a very long way to go) does seem to be directed at the idea of imposing a submarine blockade on Taiwan; hence the interest in diesel submarines, which have sufficient range and endurance for this. China does not have anything like the amphibious warfare capability to invade Taiwan, the use of nuclear weapons on a "rebel province" would seem counterproductive so a submarine blockade seems the best option, since Taiwan depends hugely on international trade by sea.

However, I think this is all posturing. More than one million Taiwanese citizens now live on the Mainland; Taiwanese investment and industrial expertise is the biggest single driver behind the mainland economy. A shooting war with Taiwan would wreck this - and is therefore incrediby unlikely.

For Mainland politicians, on the right wing of the CCP, "Taiwan" is a "hot button" like "Cuba" or "terrorists" are for those on the right of the Republican party in the USA - you get a wholly predictable response.

[martin schulz]

The Navy should consider building its own diesel attack submarine to be able to "effectively duke it out with the new tidal wave of Chinese subs, that if left unchecked, may soon dominate the Asian littoral regions," Mr. Fisher said. Just buy some from us - but there is already a waiting list :D

Quieter, faster, deeper - HDW has been building conventionally powered submarines for the German Navy, NATO partners and navies of friendly nations for more than 30 years.To date, HDW has delivered more than 90 submarines. Continuous research and development ensure that the HDW designed/built boats always represent state-of-the-art technology.

After 1960, HDW first built the 205 and 206 class submarines for the German Navy. Their design originated in the offices of the famous Ingenieurkontor Lübeck (IKL) which today belongs to HDW. Based on this compact design, the Class 209 was developed and has remained the most successful class of submarine ever built in the Western world. Since 1967, various types of this submarine have been built for 12 different navies. It stands to reason that the enormous progress in submarine technology has been taken into account during the last 30 years. 209 class submarines which are under construction today, still belong to the most modern boats in the world.
A new type of submarine was developed at the request of the German Navy and in close co-operation with Thyssen Nordseewerke, Emden: the class 212 submarine. The outstanding feature of this new type of submarine is its air-independent propulsion system using a silently operating fuel cell plant. The fuel cell plant which was developed by HDW, considerably increases the submarine's underwater endurance.

HDW's latest achievement in submarine design is the class 214, a new type of submarine based on the successful design principles of the famous 209 class family and further improved by the integration of innovative features of the 212 class submarines for the German Navy.

Greece and South Korea have decided to equip their navies with Class 214 submarines. They will each be supplied with 3 submarines of this type.

http://www.ikt.rwth-aachen.de/exkursion_2003/u31.jpg

[John E Hardiman]

The USN cannot afford, for strategic, tactical, and economic reasons to have diesel subs. The glorified mines like the 209, 212, and 214 make sense for the land focused powers and minor nations with no real naval capability, but have no place in US policy because they do not allow global projection. The sole reasons for a modern submarine is to cause either the vast expendatures of capitol assets to counter it (either by hunter-killer vessels or acceptable losses), or to force the opponet to accept the strategic and tactical limitations they place upon maneuver and force concentration. The effect of the Argentine 209's on the Falklands War is an example of the ability and limitations of a modern diesel sub.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

John, don't tell the Canadians - they bought ours! ;)

Seriously, though, I thought that there was a noise issue - diesel-electic submarines, when running sumberged in the electric mode, are quite a bit quieter than nuclear subs, which have "noisy" boilers and turbines.

[mmd]

Yes, Andrew, we did; and we are having a helluva time fixing the plumbing! :eek: :D

Halifax, N.S. — The Canadian navy has discovered that some valves in all of of its four new submarines have to be replaced, and the repair bill will total about $2 million.

The navy had hoped the valve problem it already knew about was isolated to one submarine that's already in Canada. But, testing in England has shown all the diesel exhaust valves on all four submarines are cracked or corroded.

It's a result the navy wasn't expecting, and a blow to its new fleet of submarines purchased from Britain. - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (04 June 2002)

For full article , go to http://novascotia.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ns_subvalves020604

[John E Hardiman]

It's not the noise, it's the tactical footprint. Yes any submarine is quiet; but a mine is quieter still. And for about the same capital cost I can cover the same footprint with mines with no recurring costs. Now I can't move a minefield once I set it, but I can move a sub. However, with a diesel sub, I have to charge the batteries, which basically tells the whole world where I am. If I run on batteries, my daily footprint is about a 25 nmi radius, great for choke points and costal waters, but it just makes me a sitting duck for a nuke boat, because I'm locked into a constrained area and all he has to do is wait until I charge. The new AIP (212's, 214's, Viking class, etc.)boats give the capability to go an entire mission with charging, provided I don't combat maneuver at high speeds, but my range is still not trans-oceanic, and I still have to snorkel to ventilate every other day. Additionally, the nuke boat has power to waste so he can have three to four times the intrinsic sonar capability, as well as the legs to run if he come up against an air capable ASW unit. A diesel can only hide, it can't run, and it can only hide for so long.

A submarine is just a moveable, politically acceptable, minefield. It is only effective against countries that cannot/will not pay the cost necessary to defeat them. The USN has no place in the TOE for the limited capability of a diesel sub. But we do need one to play wargames with.

As for the Canadians buying the "O" class...boys and their toys... :rolleyes:

[TimH]

Well They *are* working on re-commisioning the U505 in Chicago for Persian Gulf duty. ;)

[Paul Pless]

A submarine is just a moveable, politically acceptable, minefield. It is only effective against countries that cannot/will not pay the cost necessary to defeat them. The USN has no place in the TOE for the limited capability of a diesel sub. But we do need one to play wargames with. It should also be noted that the US sub fleet takes a very active role in intelligence gathering and more recently is becomeing a method of delivery of special operations forces.

[ 08-03-2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Paul Pless ]

[John E Hardiman]

Originally posted by Paul Pless:
It should also be noted that the US sub fleet takes a very active role in intelligence gathering and more recently is becomeing a method of delivery of special operations forces.Those missions have been around since WWI and perfected during WWII, and all the more reason not to risk people in "in'jin country" in a low endurance diesel boat. An NR-2 (http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1395/) would be nice. :D

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Seriously, I think Canada got a bargain with the "O" class, which according to RN submariners of my acquaintance are very, very quiet, and went for a fraction of their build cost. But as John says, it depends what sort of navy you want to have. Diesel - electric subs are effective for coast defence and interdiction in circumstances (eg peace!) where you do not want to lay huge minefields. That is pretty much Canada's case.

But the RN is stuck with the problem that it is either a blue water Navy or it is nothing; it has not done "coast defence" since Henry VIII. The RN's whole doctrine, nay, more than that, its very essence, is "offensive", to the point that it had to be ordered to organise convoys.

This attitude of mind seeped into the IJN, which, in the days when Japan and Britain were allies, was trained by the RN, hence much of the doctrine of the IJN in WW2, such as no convoys.

Today's RN has to be a blue water Navy on a tight budget; it wants a pair of big new carriers and so the "O" class had to go.

[martin schulz]

...The outstanding feature of this new type of submarine is its air-independent propulsion system using a silently operating fuel cell plant. The fuel cell plant which was developed by HDW, considerably increases the submarine's underwater endurance

I don't know why I suddenly become so patriotic in this discussion. :confused: Must have to do with the U-Boot-topic.

[ 08-04-2004, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

[John E Hardiman]

Andrew, I think my big objection with Canada wanting the new "U" class boats (HMCS Victoria,Windsor,Corner Brook, & Chicoutimi; all ex-UK Upholders) is that they can't meet the requirements of the White Paper's (and there have been several since the first one back in 1987-88 calling for nuclear subs) that defined a need for the boats. That need is ostensibly to defend Canada's "internal" waters from "intruder" submarines. The fact that they justified the diesel boat by their being quieter shows a lack of understanding of sound propagation in the arctic. A diesel or even AIP boats are limited to the Marginal Ice Zone (MIZ) because of the limitations of endurance ( nuc's also have limitations under ice, but they are of a different sort) which limits them to a poor acoustic environment, nullifying any perceived acoustic advantage. So it seems to me they are just a sop to the publics fears, the greater of which is the "N" word.

[TimH]

protect Canada from what? As far as I can tell Canada is under no threat since they stay out of international trouble. The only danger they are in is because they are righ near the US, and we get involved in all kinds of trouble.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

John, I see your point, but the waters most likely to attract an intruder are surely the ice-free, commercially important ones?

[John E Hardiman]

Andrew and TimH; Canada's problem is a political and strategic one; not a war fighting tactical one right now. Canada defined thier need for an ice capabile boat when the great ocean grab was going on in the 1970's-80's. Many of the larger ocean powers, (you can guess who they are) just ignored most of these large territorial clams or forced the issue (remember the cod and tuna wars? the Gulf of Sidra, the Black Sea and Barents task groups?). When Canada claimed sovereignty over the waters internal to the Canadian arctic islands, they suddenly were faced with a problem. They coudn't project power to enforce that decree. The US almost immediatly sent an ice breaker, and several subs up there to enforce the right of free navigation (Free Trade and Sailors Rights!!) and embarrased Ottawa. That and the "Whiskey on the Rocks" set off bells in the DND/CF and the "N" word for submarines was raised, only to be shouted down by "public" outcry. Canada still has the problem of enforcing it's claims.

As to Andrew's question about choice of hunting grounds, yes the subs have to go to where the targets are. But you have to project out several hundred miles with todays weapon systems. If you don't starting hunting him until he gets to the edge of the ice, he'll just "shoot and scoot". A submarine has to be engaged when he is out of range to the high value targets. And trading a cheap escort ship for an expensive sub is the cruel math of winning the ASW war. That is why DD's and FF's now all have Helo's that are able to hunt the sub from outside of the sub's reach. But that doesn't work in the ice or the littorials. You have to send in something that hunts the sub where it hides, and that is another sub.

[LandLubber No More]

Interesting thread. Some very good opinions and some interesting points of view. I spent 10 years as an Officer in Canada's Navy and still am a Part timer. I think Canada's purchase of the UK Upholders was a good decision and will be put to good use (if for nothing else they will be invaluable when it comes to training our own surface fleet and our allies in how to chase a Diesel threat). What you have to understand about Canada's military spending is this: the guys(and gals) in uniform will put forth the strategic requirement, such as nuclear subs, and make a recomendation. Once this is filtered through our political system what comes out the other side is usually completely changed and geared towards not raising too many eyebrows from a public that barely knows Canada even has a Military. Politicians rule military spending and unfortuately it takes helicopters to fall from the sky or jeeps being blown up before major aquisitions are made. Jeez, do I sound bitter, sorry about that. Back to topic, these new (to us) subs won't patrol the Artic but they will be a formidable force in Littoral waters.

[htom]

"... can't move a minefield ..."

Maybe not for long. If I can imagine a mine with a GPS, a computer, a receiver, a big battery, and a couple of propellers, I'll wager that others have too. Like a UAV, but submerged.

[Donn]

Originally posted by htom:
..imagine a mine with a GPS, a computer, a receiver, a big battery, and a couple of propellers..Like a UAV, but submerged.Sounds like a perfect APWC device! ;)

[John E Hardiman]

Can you say MK-60 CAPTOR Mine

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/captor2.jpg

Same problem as a diesel sub, battery only lasts so long.

[htom]

Well, start with that, and modify it.

We need a little buoy to periodicly take the GPS receiver up to the surface, and to provide a snorkle. We need a floatation collar that we can inflate and deflate, and a thruster or two.

We drop this collection of bits like we used to. Twenty-four hours later, it "listens" for nearby activity, and when it finds none, it sends up the buoy and "listens" for commands; receives them, and lowers the buoy. Knowing that it is to move 2 km NNW, it sufficently inflates the collar so that it's mobile and powers up the thrusters. (It's been watching local currents, and knows where it is.) After (say) an estimated half of the journey is complete, it "looks" again, adjusts, and continues until it's within the margin of error.

It deflates the collar by compressing the air or releasing it (using the snorkel to refill the inflation tank.)

Battery drain would be a problem; I had not thought that it would be "hovering".

[martin schulz]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
Same problem as a diesel sub, battery only lasts so long.Perhaps this can (again) fuel imaginations:

.The outstanding feature of this new type of submarine is its air-independent propulsion system using a silently operating fuel cell plant. ...The fuel cell plant which was developed by HDW, considerably increases the submarine's underwater endurance

[George G]

Battery drain would be a problemHang a pipe underneath it that reaches below the thermocline and use the water temperature difference to generate current. Slow, but constant.