Tweet
The debate continues:
Admiral Throws Cold Water On Diesel Sub Proposals
Nuclear-powered Boats Have Speed, Stealth That Cannot Be Matched, He Says
Print This Article E-mail This Article
Special Reports Most Popular
“To build a diesel submarine with the payload of a 688 or Virginia, you'll start to get up to the same cost.”
Rear Adm. Mark W. Kenny
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
± China OKs Law To Attack Taiwan
± Church Gunman Was Angry Over Sermon, Police Say
± Dreams And Nightmares Of Casinos Sustain Debate On Federal Recognition
± Benjamin Lathrop Running In Norwich
± Israel Pledges To Remove Some Outposts In The West Bank
± Jill Scott Proves To Foxwoods Crowd Just How Beautifully Human She Is
± Political Foe Says His Job Poses Conflict Of Interest With The City
± Protesters Prepare For Terror Drill
± Protesters Rally Against Road Project
± Scientists: State Needs $100 Million For Stem Cells
± Sometimes The First Sign Of Spring Never Goes Away
± Summer Trips Likely To Go On Despite High Gas Prices
± Times Change
± U.S. Report Says Airline Security Still Has Holes
± Vintage-Rules Baseball May Be Played At Fort Trumbull
± Woman Taken Hostage By Suspected Courthouse Killer Was ‘Levelheaded'
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer, Navy/Defense/Electric Boat
Published on 3/13/2005
Groton — When the Pacific Fleet needed an additional submarine, the USS Alexandria headed out from the Naval Submarine Base, went up under the Arctic ice, and arrived was in the western Pacific “very quickly,” said Rear Adm. Mark W. Kenny.
“A diesel submarine would have probably taken six to eight weeks, and a lot of that time would have been snorkling, so it would have been detectable,” Kenny said. “And it couldn't have gone under the ice. That's probably the most glaring contrast between the two platforms.”
As some top military and civilian analysts push the Navy to at least consider diesel-electric submarines as a less-expensive alternative to nuclear boats, Kenny, the commander of Submarine Group Two and the Navy Region Northeast, said submariners are skeptical.
“It's something we certainly will look at, because we've been asked to look at it, but I think the answer will come out the same, that it's not worth it to invest in diesel submarines,” Kenny said.
Diesel submarines are limited to slow speeds while submerged on battery or air independent propulsion or AIP systems and are noisy when they're charging their batteries on the surface, he noted. And even advanced AIP systems only give submarines a couple of weeks underwater.
Nuclear submarines can maintain high speed and stay submerged for months at a time, making their own air and water. They're the best platform for a Navy that often has to sprint to trouble spots to protect U.S. interests, he said.
“If we had to worry about undersea superiority off the east and west coasts of the United States, diesels would have a huge part in that,” Kenny said. “But our focus is forward, our focus is speed. If you read anything from (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld, you're going to always see speed mentioned: speed of operations; speed of action; speed of options. Then you'll hear stealth.
“We don't want to have a large footprint overseas, we don't want to have forward bases,” Kenny said. “The submarine force has always been about forward, stealth, endurance and speed. Diesel submarines are very capable adversaries, quiet, but their weakness is their inability to transit.”
Even the most capable diesel or AIP submarine is designed to be quiet at about 3 to 5 knots, and the faster they travel the less time they can spend underwater, so if you spot a conventional submarine on the surface, you can be pretty sure it's within a 500-mile radius a week later.
A nuclear submarine, on the other hand, could be more than 5,000 miles away in the same week.
In addition, Kenny said, diesel submarines on the open market are less expensive because they're smaller, which means that they can't bring as many weapons or sensors to a fight.
“To build a diesel submarine with the payload of a 688 or Virginia, you'll start to get up to the same cost,” Kenny said. “Even if you powered it by diesel you're going to be up in the price range of a nuclear submarine, if you want to have equivalent capability — and I would argue that you would never have equivalent capability, just by the nature of the diesel submarine.”
Kenny said the submarine force instead should look at expanding its capabilities through technologies such as “leave-behind modules,” a package that could be placed on the ocean bottom near a trouble spot to monitor a situation and possibly take action where necessary.
“A leave-behind module could have sensors ... It could have unmanned underwater vehicles that could be sent out based on a sensor trip wire, to go out and search and possibly attack,” Kenny said.
Kenny said he favors technologies that would allow a submarine the size of the current Virginia class to carry more “payload,” either inside the hull or externally.
“It's not so much the size as the bang for the buck,” he continued. “We could get a submarine of equivalent size and put twice the payload or twice the volume for war-fighting capability. That's really I think a better goal.
“People focus in on the size, but we are really looking at capability for the buck,” Kenny said. “We think you're going to need a certain size if you're going to take weapons to the fight, and that's going to drive your payload volume. But cost is a driver, and that's what we need to look at, capability for the cost.”
Admiral Throws Cold Water On Diesel Sub Proposals
Nuclear-powered Boats Have Speed, Stealth That Cannot Be Matched, He Says
Print This Article E-mail This Article
Special Reports Most Popular
“To build a diesel submarine with the payload of a 688 or Virginia, you'll start to get up to the same cost.”
Rear Adm. Mark W. Kenny
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
± China OKs Law To Attack Taiwan
± Church Gunman Was Angry Over Sermon, Police Say
± Dreams And Nightmares Of Casinos Sustain Debate On Federal Recognition
± Benjamin Lathrop Running In Norwich
± Israel Pledges To Remove Some Outposts In The West Bank
± Jill Scott Proves To Foxwoods Crowd Just How Beautifully Human She Is
± Political Foe Says His Job Poses Conflict Of Interest With The City
± Protesters Prepare For Terror Drill
± Protesters Rally Against Road Project
± Scientists: State Needs $100 Million For Stem Cells
± Sometimes The First Sign Of Spring Never Goes Away
± Summer Trips Likely To Go On Despite High Gas Prices
± Times Change
± U.S. Report Says Airline Security Still Has Holes
± Vintage-Rules Baseball May Be Played At Fort Trumbull
± Woman Taken Hostage By Suspected Courthouse Killer Was ‘Levelheaded'
By ROBERT A. HAMILTON
Day Staff Writer, Navy/Defense/Electric Boat
Published on 3/13/2005
Groton — When the Pacific Fleet needed an additional submarine, the USS Alexandria headed out from the Naval Submarine Base, went up under the Arctic ice, and arrived was in the western Pacific “very quickly,” said Rear Adm. Mark W. Kenny.
“A diesel submarine would have probably taken six to eight weeks, and a lot of that time would have been snorkling, so it would have been detectable,” Kenny said. “And it couldn't have gone under the ice. That's probably the most glaring contrast between the two platforms.”
As some top military and civilian analysts push the Navy to at least consider diesel-electric submarines as a less-expensive alternative to nuclear boats, Kenny, the commander of Submarine Group Two and the Navy Region Northeast, said submariners are skeptical.
“It's something we certainly will look at, because we've been asked to look at it, but I think the answer will come out the same, that it's not worth it to invest in diesel submarines,” Kenny said.
Diesel submarines are limited to slow speeds while submerged on battery or air independent propulsion or AIP systems and are noisy when they're charging their batteries on the surface, he noted. And even advanced AIP systems only give submarines a couple of weeks underwater.
Nuclear submarines can maintain high speed and stay submerged for months at a time, making their own air and water. They're the best platform for a Navy that often has to sprint to trouble spots to protect U.S. interests, he said.
“If we had to worry about undersea superiority off the east and west coasts of the United States, diesels would have a huge part in that,” Kenny said. “But our focus is forward, our focus is speed. If you read anything from (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld, you're going to always see speed mentioned: speed of operations; speed of action; speed of options. Then you'll hear stealth.
“We don't want to have a large footprint overseas, we don't want to have forward bases,” Kenny said. “The submarine force has always been about forward, stealth, endurance and speed. Diesel submarines are very capable adversaries, quiet, but their weakness is their inability to transit.”
Even the most capable diesel or AIP submarine is designed to be quiet at about 3 to 5 knots, and the faster they travel the less time they can spend underwater, so if you spot a conventional submarine on the surface, you can be pretty sure it's within a 500-mile radius a week later.
A nuclear submarine, on the other hand, could be more than 5,000 miles away in the same week.
In addition, Kenny said, diesel submarines on the open market are less expensive because they're smaller, which means that they can't bring as many weapons or sensors to a fight.
“To build a diesel submarine with the payload of a 688 or Virginia, you'll start to get up to the same cost,” Kenny said. “Even if you powered it by diesel you're going to be up in the price range of a nuclear submarine, if you want to have equivalent capability — and I would argue that you would never have equivalent capability, just by the nature of the diesel submarine.”
Kenny said the submarine force instead should look at expanding its capabilities through technologies such as “leave-behind modules,” a package that could be placed on the ocean bottom near a trouble spot to monitor a situation and possibly take action where necessary.
“A leave-behind module could have sensors ... It could have unmanned underwater vehicles that could be sent out based on a sensor trip wire, to go out and search and possibly attack,” Kenny said.
Kenny said he favors technologies that would allow a submarine the size of the current Virginia class to carry more “payload,” either inside the hull or externally.
“It's not so much the size as the bang for the buck,” he continued. “We could get a submarine of equivalent size and put twice the payload or twice the volume for war-fighting capability. That's really I think a better goal.
“People focus in on the size, but we are really looking at capability for the buck,” Kenny said. “We think you're going to need a certain size if you're going to take weapons to the fight, and that's going to drive your payload volume. But cost is a driver, and that's what we need to look at, capability for the cost.”
Comment