Jay

Surprising N.Korea has will and means to operate 12-20 subs. I thot they were non descrept coastal navy.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Feanor

Again there is a difference between 12 -20 subs and 12-20 subs. North Korean subs, like most of their army, is likely to be rather outdated.

gf0012-aust

Thats true enough - but in absolute terms this is a sail count - and not an absolute capability count. eg, one could argue the same with the Indonesians and their navy. Its barely functional but still has listed penants that still count as working assets - albeit in an a fractured inconsistent operational sense.

OSINT docs are always legacies of the original source - and as such, the definitions per se of what constitutes operational could vary considerably. Arguing for a baseline can be an exercise in frustration.

Feanor

Which was my whole point, what in one country is operational, in the rest of the world might count as scrap metal.

Jay

Eh, not really, they can still block the SLOC in/near their shores and they still pose a threat to SK surface naval/merchant ships.
Again, I'm not saying they have a chance against any NATO countries, but they are capable of atleast one kill with their current force.

Galrahn

Maybe, but remember the rest of the world has their own standard as well. In the end, each nation defines its own level of operational readiness. When counting sails, you have to count subs based on whether it "can" deploy, not whether it "should."

At the end of the day, it would be foolish to not count a deployable submarine in North Korea (or any nation for that matter), no matter how old it is, because if it comes to gametime that old rust bucket might be a factor. There are countless instances in military history where an old, thought to be obsolete piece of equipment made a significant impact. The sinking of the Bismark comes to mind, among others.

Feanor

Realistically though, freak accidents and perfetionists who wanna fight a war with no casualties, those subs, and many Russian subs, are not in deployable condition.

Galrahn

Actually, if we are speaking realistically, you go with the Navy you have, not the Navy you wish you had.

Feanor

Lol. It would not take much work to reform the Russian Navy back into operating condition. It would just take serious financing, which the current Russian government has no interest in. putin would rather poket the money then spend it on maintaining our subs (I'm not being literal, more of a general illustratory statement).

Galrahn

Well, keep in mind there is a very big difference between the state of the Russian shipbuilding industry and the state of its submarine building industry. The submarine industry is operating at a higher tempo (in tons and numbers) of new builds than it was at the end of the cold war, while the shipbuilding industry is putting out less than 50% of the total tonage it was at the end of the cold war.

Remember, Russia still has deliveries to make on current orders before it could even get to Hugo Chavez and his proposed purchase. Why do you think he is being offered 5 older refitted Kilo's instead of 9 new Amurs? Because those Kilo's are built sitting in ready reserve to be suited, and can be churned back into service from a drydock, as opposed to from a factory line where there is no space to build a new submarine in Russia for a few more years.

I think you are a bit uninformed on the state of Russian submarine construction, or perhaps forgot? Russia has built around 20 submarines this decade for various customers (including themselves), and has an additional 10+ in the pipeline. By comparison, the US has built a total of 4 SSNs this decade so far.

Feanor

This just means that Russia needs to invest money in expanding the submarine construction industry. Instead this money is sitting in the stabilization fund doing nothing.