Why the US Navy should get new diesel subs

>>34665499
>submarine without Superstructure

no thank

>>34665499
>hisutton
>quotes war is boring
>discuss
"No"

File: why.jpg (39KB, 383x450px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 383x450px

>>34665499

>max speed (submerged): 20 knots

>>34665499

Whats the point? Diesel electrics are great for deterrence along your own shorelines, but we already have a massive bluewater navy and SOSUS nets for that. We also already have big nuke boats to slip SEALs and deliver missiles onshore.

>>34665499

Which retard drew this?

>flat area at the back will destroy the speed and stealth of the vessel.

>no sonar

>that fucking star trek bridge.

there's so much wrong with this it hurts.

Diesel subs have no place in a navy that can afford nuclear. Diesel subs may be quiter when operating on batteries. But they can only do so for so long and for so far. Their low power generation handicaps their detection ranges, so in open waters, western SSN's will always outdetect them.

If you have a costal/defencive navy or are short of funds/tech, sure import some diesel boats, but SSN's are the pinnacle. They are the most complex machines mankind has made.

>>34665499
The USN deploys across entire oceans. By that alone, diesels are not viable. If the US were right next to a big competitor, small diesels would be great. We aren't, so they aren't.

the only advantage diesels have is that they can go to battery power and have absolutely no constant noise being made by a machine. unlike nuclear submarines which always have water circulation noise.

nuclear submarines on the other hand out perform diesel boats in every other way.

>>34665926
It does, but if said navy has enough ships to ensure that your own shorelines will never (quote unquote) be the battlefield, i don't really see a whole lot of need for it either.

I suppose they could be deployed in naval bases in other areas (namely around Japan/China) to protect local assets. It would be another tool in the toolbox, and would free up larger subs for offensive (and lets face it, safer) tasks.

>that bridge
>that office space behind it
>34 torpedoes
>14 missiles
>sixty motherfucking six fucking seals loitering about

Did the combatreform guy learn how to draw all of sudden or something? Fucker's never been on a sub at least, that much's for certain.

>>34666386
>nuclear submarines on the other hand out perform diesel boats in every other way.
Not quite. One of the nice thing about diesels is that you can make them really small, which naturally decreases signature as well as providing for lesser water resistance, leading to easier maneuverability.

>>34665926
>Diesel subs have no place in a navy that can afford nuclear.

Wrong
Diesel engines are far cheaper

Now if the US Navy would stop jerking off defense contractors and produce a cheap 4th gen nuclear reactor design that didn't cost 500 + million

Then it would be great

No reason why a Nuclear reactor needs to be more expensive than a Diesel engine

File: 1472339263802.jpg (592KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1280x852px

make some that run on muh COAL! MAGA!

>>34665499
>Why the US Navy shouldn't get new diesel electric subs.
FTFY

>>34667104
>No reason why a Nuclear reactor needs to be more expensive than a Diesel engine

Opinion discarded. Come back when you even have the vaguest concept of how much it costs to make nuclear reactors retard.

>>34667183
>Make lump of Uranium which costs 35 dollars per pound
>add shit that absorbs neutrons to control reaction speed
>use heat to produce steam

>>34667218
>further confirming how stupid you are

pfft its fucking easy, that's why every country has nuclear power after picking up the parts in ikea

>>34667260
Nuclear is expensive because the government makes it expensive
It's stayed cheap in Korea

Obviously 80 IQ third world countries can't manage domestic nuclear programs, it takes a high IQ workforce

>>34667260
Come on now, everybody knows you have to get your reactor parts from Nebraska Furniture Mart. Ikea a shit

>>34667218
>fails to mention the multi billion dollar process of producing Uranium 235

>>34667218
>lump of Uranium which costs 35 dollars per pound

wat

>>34665499
I've long thought that the USN should acquire a number of off-the-shelf/license built AIP attack boats to forward deploy to places like the South China Sea, The Baltic or the Persian Gulf. These would be in addition to the current fleet of nuclear attack boats.

These boats could be used to deter potential enemies in these areas by bottling the PLAN or RN in port.

>>34667287
As opposed to the multi-billion dollar oil mining/refining/transportation industry?

It doesn't cost that much either
Can be very much cheaper

File: 1500912506506.gif (1MB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x250px

>>34667279

Anon, that's wrong though. There is so much wrong with what you said...

Anon, only people who are retarded say these things... Anon... Are you a retard?

>>34667377
It's literally just a lump of a material that generates heat by being a lump

Mechanically its the simplest thing in the world

Thats why the NRC was created in the 70's to ban new nuclear power plants.
Or why the military continues to use old reactor designs that require tons of hands on oversight + constant active cooling

The USA had regional allies in the Pacific for this. Japan and Australia especially have excellent SSK fleets. There is no reason for the USN to buy submarines with such a narrow use.

File: 1500057957836.gif (2MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x203px

>>34667118
Goddamn steam!

No reason to buy subs at all, this isn't WW2, you can sink commercial ships with cruise missiles from 2000 miles away.

>>34667414
and how does one procure said lump.

Please explain the entire process

>>34667624
You buy some uranium on the market
I was wrong earlier, its actually 20 dollars a lb

U3O8 Price (lb) $20.25

Then you either toss this into a breeder reactor to produce Plutonium, or you toss it into the centrifuges to extract U235

>>34667414
USA announces new Non-enriched Uranium-powered submarine.

Lump of uranium connected to a steam turbine. Mechanically it's the simplest thing in the world. The lump makes the condensed water in the turbine water slightly less chilly.

Crew sit drinking room-temperature coffee in the darkness. Creaking gets louder as the sub slowly sinks towards crushing depth.

50 years later, the sub is covered in algae at the dark depths of the ocean. The remains of the crew lay trapped in a steel coffin.

The lump of uranium continues to produce a soft, dull warmth. It will stay warm for many thousands of years.

>>34665499
Diesel electric subs are actually quieter than nuclear subs. Mostly because you can't turn off a nuclear reactor.

Now, what you really want is a diesel electric sub that can recharge from a nuclear sub.

>>34668392

A diesel might theoretically be quieter in some situations, but as others have said, the nuke boat is still going to have a big advantage because it has the energy to carry a much more powerful, much more sophisticated sonar. The nuke boat will be able to detect threats/targets from a much greater distance.

>>34667414
US military nuclear power doctrine is still in the (((Rickover))) era. that joo hated automation and was a safety freak. Which is why navy nuclear power plants are so labor intensive.

though the good bit, is we don't have the Soviet problem of submarines being lost ot nuclear incidents.

>>34666386
Can nuke boats run on batteries as well?

>>34667688
kek'd

>>34668776
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with that. While it burns the crew out, it's overall safer.

>>34669159
Yes and no.

>>34669693
Not really that familiar with sub tech. What's the difference?

Diesels run generators that charge batts.

Reactors turn turbines that are generators - that charge batts

>>34668776
It wold be more accurate to say the ghost of Rickover still haunts the Navy and the spirite of Rickover is still alive andwell in the NRC. The NRC is plain ludicrous with the extent of its requirements, which it is still growing.

As some else has pointed out, nuclear power is fundamentally very simple. All you are doing is boiling water with hot rocks. Granted that there is some subtly involved. It is made expensive and complicated due in large part to government regulation. Some of this regulation is sensible some of it is defiantly not.

>>34669759
Well, I'd this guy is right: http://rickcampbellauthor.com/styled/index.html

Then the batteries on a nuke boat are not sized for running the boat for any lengthy period of time(see the auxiliary machine room and battery compartment sections).

If a sub reactor is like a regular reactor then the most imperative thing to do when a reactor is shut down is establish power to run the cooling water pumps. I would tend to think that if the batteries are small then they are probably not sized for much more than to run the cooling pumps in a real emergency, until they can get the diesel generator started.

So, yes, a nuke sub can run off the battery but probably not for long and probably not very well.

>basically 2 full platoons of SEALs in a submarine

just what the fuck do you need that many submarine infantry for..

>>34667218
(You)

>>34670038
Assaulting R'lyeh.

File: 1490034898019.jpg (58KB, 800x497px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x497px

>>34670038
You clearly don't understand the situation below our shorelines. Terror from the deep my friend. You cant imagine the horrors we fight off.

>>34667284
>Nebraska Furniture Mart
>Not Stan's Nuclear Pile and Feed Store

Come on, Anon. It's like you don't even want a quality reactor.

I want to go on record saying this is a stupid idea, but I have a logistical question.

Currently all submariners have to go through more than a year of rigorous nuke training. Would training for the diesels be a completely different pipeline or would they just repurpose guys trained as nukes? Would they all function under the same submarine command?

As a lesser point, I think having diesels kind of undermines the prestige of the submarine force. I imagine it would be far harder to find nukes when you can earn your dolphins doing considerably less difficult training serving on diesels.

>>34670135
Last time I went to Stan's my horse died of radiation poisoning...

>>34665499
Putting the low speed props down there- in shallow water where such things might be useful prop wash is going to channel between the bottom and the hull, throwing up mud and leaving a large obvious trail for submarine hunters to follow.

>>34670208
>Currently all submariners have to go through more than a year of rigorous nuke training
Nope. The only guys learning how to work a nuclear reactor are the guys who work on them. Everyone else learns standard submarine stuff. The guys who worked on diesel engines would come from a different pipeline. Probably one that starts similarly to the surface navy engine guys, but diverts midway through to specialize on what they'll be working on.

>As a lesser point, I think having diesels kind of undermines the prestige of the submarine force.
I think you're full of shit.

>>34665499
HAHAHAHA This is Shturm carrier level of idiocy. Can't believe the American government is building this shit.

>>34670038
To defend the nations sea sheckles from the relentless assault by the tides on US shores.

>>34671117
This is why seals lie on beaches, to prevent soil erosion by using their bodies as a breakwater

>>34665514
So what do you think do they need a superstructure for?

Hint: Its because for decades periscopes and stuff had to be mechanical. You needed long (high) sails to get long enough periscopes to have enough water atop of your head when you were sneaking on enemy ships

Nowadays optronics is so sphisticated, that you dont need long periscope masts anymore. So you can get rid of the sail alltogether. Makes the sub lower and it can stay submerged in more shallow water

And WOW: Shallow water is exactly the home field of diesel subs

>>34667356
>>34667356
There is immense global civilian demand for oil and gas products that supports the industry regardless of government/military requirements. There is no equivalent for nuclear power sources, and certainly not for the highly refined fuels used in naval reactors.

>>34671589
>Makes the sub lower and it can stay submerged in more shallow water
this is the most retard thing i have ever read in /k/ so far

>>34671589
The sail allows for a lot more sophisticated gear. You think that most of it is empty space? They keep lots of important shit in there. Including room for all the masts.

If the sail would make the difference in depth you can be in, the submarine is fucked. You could literally see it through the water.

>>34667080

You can make nuclear submarines really small.
The NR-1 only displaced 400 tons. The first class of US nuclear subs displaced around 2,800 tons, which is comparable to many diesel boats today.

Nuclear subs don't have to be xbox huge, they just are because of mission requirements. Diesel subs with similar missions were not small either.

We see so many small diesel boats because cash strapped countries with zero need to project force need something to protect their coasts. Completely different mission and constraints than countries that tend to build nuclear subs.

>>34665499
Forward facing torpedo tubes
Why continue this obsolete meme?

>>34669798
>As some else has pointed out, nuclear power is fundamentally very simple.
But their fundamental problems are not. You can't just shut down reactor like any other engine in case of the problems. Decay heat requires cooling or you get meltdown. This bring requirement fro completely different level of cooling systems reliability.

>>34667279
Remind me again, how many nuclear submarines does Korea have?

>>34670038
Assault on ship or stealing Russian SAM from shore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rooster_53

>>34671858
>You could literally see it through the water.
But can't spot with radar. Difference of coverage with these methods is huge.

>>34667342
>potential enemies
>RN
>potential enemies

You know how everyone says you're a retard?

>>34671919
>The NR-1 only displaced 400 tons.
It was also a tiny machine that couldn't be used for warfare, lacking all manner of armament, and the facilities for the crew associated with that. If you want a small coastal boat, you can make a diesel from 500 tons to 2000 tons. That's more than a bit smaller than a US fleet SSN's 7,000+ tons. Even the Australians, who are making SSK fleet boats for some ungodly reason, have an expected displacement of around 5,000.tons submerged. Now I"m not saying that the US doesn't expect its SSNs to go for longer than anyone else, just that, based on every indication we have, SSKs can be built smaller than SSNs. If you aren't the US, you don't have to travel across an entire ocean the long way to be where you want to fight. Yes, I'm aware of mission differences. Don't monologue to me, I get it.

>>34671996
Submarines wouldn't be sailing through such waters, you goddamn idiot. They would be dead fucking meat either way. Either they see you with their own eyes or their sonar bounces off the surface and the bottom really fucking well and they see you from dozens of miles away.

>>34671944
Actually, the next big thing will probably be a HLS; basically, a bank of tubes above the waterline (when surfaced) and outside of the pressure hull. I think the French have been working on the concept for over a decade now, and it's probably the most sensible upgrade outside of the ICBM-diameter VLS tubes the US is moving to.

>>34672237
>Submarines wouldn't be sailing through such waters, you goddamn idiot.
SOF delivery vehicles may. (OP psot is about kind of such)

> They would be dead fucking meat either way.
Depends on what security systems control this part of the shore.

>Either they see you with their own eyes
You need to fly/sail over submarine for that. If security is lone radar here comes submarine as delivery vehicle.

>>34671589

the sail is primarily for sea handling.

Without it your sub will roll over in the waves.

>>34667414
Refining uranium-235 for reactor use is a painstaking process that involves centrifuges and lots of them.

The thing is that Uranium-233 is the useful kind that you can use for reactors but most uranium is -238. As a result, it's kinda useless until you have a working reactor to enrich it. HOWEVER, Uranium-233 and Uranium-238 are almost entirely identical other than a very slight difference in density.

So unless you can buy pre-refined uranium-233 off the black market you've got to invest lots of time and money into getting nuclear power.

>>34668726
Active sonar isn't really an issue. You only want to use active sonar when there's lots of ambient noise. Generally, once you do you've given away your position and it's only a matter of time before the ASROCs arrive.

Passive sonar isn't really an issue because that implies a larger sonar array rather than a more power hungry one. Piezoelectrics create their own electric charges after all.

No, nuke boats are superior because they can stay submerged for MONTHS at a time. A nuclear submarine submerges as it leaves port and then never needs to surface until it returns for more food.

Also, you can cruise at like 30 knots for decades. Strategically that's massive.

>>34669159
Yes in that everything on a nuclear sub is electrically powered. No in that you can't turn the reactor off.

>>34672023
By RN I meant Russian Navy, not Royal. My apologies.

>>34673055
>You only want to use active sonar when there's lots of ambient noise.
Multistatic sonars, son.
https://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Proceedings154/gi-proc-154-208.pdf

>>34672900
what would happen to a submarine if it rolled over? could it right itself?

>>34670038
Why wouldn't you want a platoon of commandos for anything?

Also,
>need
SHALL

>>34673227
>https://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Proceedings154/gi-proc-154-208.pdf
Two issues with this.

First off, you need a buddy to take one for the team. A small drone might not have the output.

Second, you need to know the exact location of the broadcaster and since you can't get radio through salt water this can't be done ad hoc.

On a side note, passive sonar tends to get more range than active sonar since active sonar needs to get the sound to not only reach the target but also bounce back.

>>34670038
Capturing merchant ships, sabotaging port facilities, raiding near shore targets, hitting multiple targets per trip, evacuation of VIPs, hell, the Raid on St. Nazaire took about 250 commandos. Granted, most of them were killed or captured but they did keep one of the most dangerous commerce raiders out of the war.

>>34673259
Yes, and they have done so previously.

>>34674206
>First off, you need a buddy to take one for the team.
Obviously Arleigh Burke in CVBG. SSN operate as free hunters. DDG as ASW pickets.

>Second, you need to know the exact location of the broadcaster
Encoded into sonar signal.

>passive sonar tends to get more range than active sonar
But passive sonar relies on targets sound that can be very low. Rumors are SURTASS LFA has over 300 miles range against submarine and is revolution in the ASW. Boats BTFO.

>>34672900
Yeah what is a ballast tank you giant faggot?

>>34665499

why not both?

>>34670208

>submarines
>prestige

you're sitting in a filthy tin can with 90 other adolescent boys who can't stop thinking about sex and if anyone fucks up everyone dies with a burial at sea

it fucking sucks like everything in the navy, but it's a job that has to be done and the pay is usually acceptable

>>34674539
>thinks a ballast tank offers much in the way of sideways stability

have you ever sailed a boat?

File: Gulf-of-Mexico-Rigs-Fishing.jpg (128KB, 631x390px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 631x390px

How many Deepwater Horizons could a Russian sub blow up before we figured out what was happening and stopped it?

How badly could this sort of attack fuck us up?

>>34674536
>Obviously Arleigh Burke in CVBG. SSN operate as free hunters. DDG as ASW pickets.

Sure, at if you're working with an ASW fleet this is perfectly fine but if we're talking diesal vs nuclear submarines it's entirely out of context.

>Encoded into sonar signal.

Can't. Sonar pulses need to be loud enough to bounce off the target and simple enough to recognize the return. Active sonar uses a single, monotone note for maximum clarity.

>But passive sonar relies on targets sound that can be very low. Rumors are SURTASS LFA has over 300 miles range against submarine and is revolution in the ASW. Boats BTFO

Doesn't help surface ships. Surface ships inevitably cavitate but when under more pressure the requirements for cavitation are higher. As a result a sub is always going to be quieter than any surface ship.

Moreover, modern subs can fire AShMs from torpedo tubes so surface ships don't have a range advantage.

>>34674855
To figure out?Maybe two. Torpedo explosions are distinct in both sound and damage.

Stopping? Hard to say. I don't think we've got any SSNs in the gulf but there are only about a dozen people who would know if we did or not. Well, not counting crews. We could have coastguard and national guard ASW up but I don't have much faith in them. Navy ASW air power could catch a russian sub but it's tricky.

>>34674855

If it ever became a significant problem the gas industry would happily pay a higher sales tax for an expanded submarine fleet to deal with it for them.

>>34674855

>How badly could this sort of attack fuck us up?

Not much because after a few suspicious sinkings the NOAA, USCG and USN would (their powers combined) put a million sensors in every square mile of the Gulf. This would make any sort of sneaky submarine ops there significantly more difficult, enough where further attacks wouldn't happen because the chances of them getting found out would be too high.

>>34674911
>Torpedo explosions are distinct in both sound and damage.
What if they used frogmen with demo charges or even cutting torches?

>>34675653
Both would be even more distinct. Demo charges and torpedoes pulverize concrete and implode metal. Cutting torches leaves melted metal.

>>34675047
Judging by the environmental and economic effects of the Deepwater Horizon industrial accident, it would only take one surprise attack to fuck us up real bad.

Imagine if three or four oil rigs started spilling oil simultaneously. It would genocide the entire ecology and fishing/oil industry in the entire gulf. It would take months just to cap the wells. Recovery would take years.

A half dozen torpedoes in the gulf would be a devastating blow during wartime.

>>34676643

>environmental and economic effects

liberals can live without their seafood for a few years and it's not like coastal louisana isn't poor as shit anyway

>Recovery would take years.

it can't be worse than Katrina, and Katrina only fucked up Texas because that's where NOLA dumped all their darkies off. And during a wartime scenario it wouldn't do 1/10th the damage a comparable attack on the west coast could do.

>>34676643

anything destroyed in the deep south is a net gain because the feds will replace it with something newer and better

prove me wrong you can't

>>34665499
Probably not. The US is typically in the business of putting submarines in other peoples waters.