US military budget: How would you change it?

[Asher]

Lonestar, do you think that the Canadian diesels would be easily detectable with active sonar?

They missed the old Canadian Oberon-class subs. And the Victoria-class ones are much, much quieter.

[Asher]

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/The%20Wrong%20Sub%20for%20New%20Warfare%20Era.htm

The Wrong Sub for New Warfare Era

With the paradigm shift from strategic to tactical warfare operations, the United States Navy has found itself with an aging fleet of virtually obsolete nuclear submarines designed to fight a war that never happened – and which they played a significant role in preventing. (For a review of the post-Cold War state of our nuclear submarine fleet and the modern alternatives waiting in the wings to supplement or even replace these aging behemoths, see my 2002 article, “Tomorrow’s Submarine Fleet – The Non-nuclear Option,” DefenseWatch, Feb. 6, 2002).

In the two and a half years since that article appeared, the world of submarine warfare has changed significantly. This month, on Sept. 3, the nuclear submarine that eventually will be commissioned as the USS Virginia (SSN 774) underwent sea trials off the coast of New England .

According to Adm. Frank Bowman, director of naval nuclear propulsion, “This sea trial was an absolute success, a clean sweep, as we say in the Navy. It met every expectation of mine, for the propulsion plant and for the ship.”

It was, as the Navy says, a “clean sweep.”

The Virginia is the result of several years of round-the-clock efforts by thousands of people from 3,500 companies located in 46 states. It is an extraordinarily stealthy, futuristically high-tech, astonishingly expensive underwater marvel. To the tune of $2 billion.

What did we get for our hard-earned bucks?

The sub is 377 feet long with a beam of 34 feet, and it displaces 7,300 tons submerged. Compare this to the other “new” submarine – the USS Seawolf (SSN 21) – 353 feet long, 40 feet beam, displacing 9,137 tons submerged.

The Virginia carries a plethora of systems and weapons designed to keep the sub quiet, and to allow it to operate near-shore for battlefield support and for unmanned vehicle and Seal Team deployments.

A major element in the argument for canceling all but three of the proposed twenty-nine Seawolf Class subs was the substantial per-sub cost of about $2 billion. The new Virginia Class was supposed to cost less, but at you can see, it didn’t work out that way. Furthermore, the smaller Virginia Class was supposed to be better suited for operating close inshore, but – again as you can see – these subs are 24 feet longer. Because they displace significantly less, they are more maneuverable, but their added length limits their maximum angle when operating in waters about as deep as they are long.

In my earlier article discussing the non-nuclear submarine option, I pointed out that a typical modern Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarine costs about $250 million. As I related in that article, AIP design since the end of World War II has followed on four different fronts:



* German Thyssen Nordseewerke (TNSW) developed a closed-cycle diesel using liquid oxygen, diesel oil, and argon. The same diesel is used as a conventional air-breathing engine for surface propulsion. These systems are suitable for both retrofitting and new construction.



* Howaltswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in Germany has developed a hybrid fuel cell system for a diesel-electric sub. High-speed operations run off the conventional battery, while the fuel cell recharges the battery, and provides energy for low-speed operations. Typical submarine cost using either HDW or TNSW AIP systems is $250 million.



* Hybrid diesel-electric units propel Swedish Gotland Class subs, supplemented with Kockum Stirling engines running on liquid oxygen and diesel oil to turn a generator to produce electricity for propulsion and to charge the vessel's batteries. Typical cost for a Gotland class sub is $100 million.



* The French “MESMA” (Module d’Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) AIP steam-turbine system burns ethanol and liquid oxygen to make steam to drive a turbo-electric generator. The design permits retrofitting into existing submarines by adding an extra hull section. Typical cost for a new submarine powered by MESMA is $250 million.

One could argue, therefore, that a potential enemy who is willing to spend $2 billion on submarine technology could deploy eight subs against a Virginia Class that are significantly quieter than a Virginia Class, significantly more maneuverable than a Virginia Class, and with every bit as capable in their weaponry as a Virginia Class.

Do I need to play out the battle scenario for you?

This potential enemy probably could do the same thing with just two or three AIP subs. In fact, even in a one-on-one situation, all other things being equal, he still has the advantage.

So tell me: Exactly why are we spending eight times as much for less than one-eighth the capability? It really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies says that at least 300 foreign submarines ply the world’s oceans today. Unnamed Pentagon officials put the number at more than 400 owned by Great Britain , France , Germany , Russia , Sweden , Norway , Canada , Poland , Italy , Spain , Singapore , Indonesia , Algeria , Colombia , Croatia , Vietnam , Pakistan , India , Egypt , Chile and Turkey .

If we factor out our certain allies (as I see it: Great Britain , France , Germany , Sweden , Norway , Canada , Poland , Italy , and Spain ), and our probable friends ( Russia , Singapore , India , and Turkey ), that still leaves us a formidable list of potential adversaries with submarine capability: Indonesia , Algeria , Colombia , Croatia , Vietnam , Pakistan , Egypt and Chile .

France and Germany have been selling AIP submarines as fast as they can produce them. Sweden is about to enter the market. Russia has “leased” a nuclear submarine to India , and has plenty more in stock.

At least half of the known foreign submarines are in the hands of friendlies or are of the older, strictly diesel variety that pose no match for anything we have – even our oldest missile subs. That still leaves 200 or so highly capable submarines that are potentially every bit as good as anything we have. As an ex-submariner (pronounced submarine-er), I will pit our guys against anyone out there, even at two-to-one odds. Our guys are absolutely as good as they get.

But the odds aren’t two-to-one. They’re more like four-to-one. The bad guys can station one of the new ultra-quiet AIP subs at a choke point, and seriously damage or even sink a carrier. An AIP sub can sneak up on a Virginia Class deploying a Seal Team with devastating results. A hunter-killer pack of several AIP subs can take out any nuke we have, once they find it. They don’t have our sophisticated locating technology, but you don’t need sophistication at choke points – all you need is numbers, and they’ve got those, in spades.

Following the end of the Cold War, we downgraded the underwater SOSUS surveillance system, putting much of it in standby (see “Confronting Maritime Terrorism”, DefenseWatch, May 12, 2004 ), but even if it were fully functioning, I’m not certain it could detect a properly configured AIP submarine.

In a phone interview early this month with the Newhouse News Service, Capt. Tom Abernethy, who commands the sub-hunting Destroyer Squadron 22 based in Norfolk , Va. , said: “Shallow water, you get a lot of noise reverberation and additional traffic, and you're fighting in somebody else’s back yard which they know pretty well …. [In that environment, even a diesel sub] is absolutely a real threat, a formidable threat …. ” By implication, he said that AIP subs were equal to or better than anything we have.

Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr. of the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command wrote in the June 2004 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings: “The uncontested undersea superiority experienced during recent conflicts is not likely to be repeated against determined and capable adversaries.”

It’s time to reexamine our reexamination of our submarine fleet. We mustn’t allow our nuclear superiority to overcome technological common sense. We are spending eight times as much for arguably one-eighth the capability.

I know our school systems are not producing math whizzes, but even a Los Angeles South Central drop-out can figure this one out.

[Lonestar]

I'm not going to take your word on this -- sorry. Any real sources?

Mea cupla. I can't find any sources that state that Nukes are quieter than diesels when running on batteries. I do think that the benefits of nuclear power(specifically, the speed it allows for rapid transit times and no need to replace fuel for several years) are better for the US than non-nuclear vessels.

And the Canadian are Victoria...the Brits called theirs Upholders.

Real big into splitting hairs, aren't you?

[Asher]

Just clarifying.

[Lonestar]

Stupid article. It seems to assume that "fuel cells" are an unlimited source of power that don't need replacement(Hint: They do, and much more often than nukes) or that they can make high speed transits. They can go very fast...they just can't go very fast all the way across, say, the Pacific ocean. A nuke can.

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher, the Virginias are already costing much less. The initial block were much more expensive but the price has declined precipitously as the production has advanced.

[Asher]

Asher, the Virginias are already costing much less. The initial block were much more expensive but the price has declined precipitously as the production has advanced.

Are they 1/8th the cost?

Last data I've found (from 2009) indicates it's $1.8B. I don't consider that "much less" than $2B.

Canada bought four Victoria-class subs for $400M US total.

[Lonestar]

Asher, the Virginias are already costing much less. The initial block were much more expensive but the price has declined precipitously as the production has advanced.

Went from 2.5bil to 2bil a pop and heading towards 1.8bil. Still a chunk of change, but the reactor alone costs $700mil+ and the unwillingness of the USN to sue the holy **** out of Newport News and Electric Boat when they screw up means the taxpayer eats those costs.

[Whoha]

Lonestar, do you think that the Canadian diesels would be easily detectable with active sonar?

Active sonar absolutely detects everything, the new strobe pulse sonar stuff that kills all the marine life in the ocean is even better. The move for quieter ships is to evade passive sonar which is the only thing that ships which aren't trying to broadcast their location have to rely on.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also, what that article fails to consider is whether the main cost of the sub is producing or operating. Obviously if the sub costs less they can build more, but can they crew more?

[Lonestar]

What Whoha said. The best you can hope for is for a smaller return, but even then the giant sub is gonna leave one hell of a return compared to sealife.

[Hauldren Collider]

Active sonar absolutely detects everything, the new strobe pulse sonar stuff that kills all the marine life in the ocean is even better. The move for quieter ships is to evade passive sonar which is the only thing that ships which aren't trying to broadcast their location have to rely on.

So if we were concerned about e.g. the Chinese sinking our beloved USS Abraham Lincoln we could just flip a switch and know where they were in seconds, that about right?

[Asher]

Also, what that article fails to consider is whether the main cost of the sub is producing or operating. Obviously if the sub costs less they can build more, but can they crew more?

Errr.

Isn't the idea that you can save a ****load of money, instead of spending a ****load more money to build excessive numbers of subs?

[Hauldren Collider]

Well we wouldn't want to go with diesel for cost reasons because we wouldn't be able to send our ships around the world on diesel. We use our subs for more than coastal defense. Also, our nuclear-armed submarines obviously need to be nuclear because they have to remain submerged and undetected continuously.

[Asher]

What Whoha said. The best you can hope for is for a smaller return, but even then the giant sub is gonna leave one hell of a return compared to sealife.

That's another thing -- Nuclear subs are far bigger than Diesel subs. Bigger target, easier to find with sonar.

So if we were concerned about e.g. the Chinese sinking our beloved USS Abraham Lincoln we could just flip a switch and know where they were in seconds, that about right?

This would apply even moreso to any Nuclear sub.

Did you even read the articles? The problem is when you're in coastal water, there's a ****load of wildlife, more ships (especially in a noisey US carrier fleet), closer seafloor, etc. It supposedly becomes very difficult to make heads or tails out of active sonar in that kind of situation. If you're only in the deep, deep sea I'm sure it's pretty good.