View Poll Results: Which is best non-AIP diesel submarine of world??

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • Type 209 (Germany)

    37 48.05%
  • Oyashio (Japan)

    6 7.79%
  • Collins (Australia)

    16 20.78%
  • Kilo (USSR)

    15 19.48%
  • Walrus (Netherland)

    3 3.90%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 76 to 87 of 87
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Which is best non-AIP diesel submarine in world??

  1. #76
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    2,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Master Chief View Post
    All the stats and all the other stuff, really does not mean a thing unless combat tested!

    and all "Exercises" are partial prosecutions.... There is a reason for that, but I guess no need to hilight why.

  2. #77
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    2,288
    This one might be pretty good:

    Sub collides with sonar array towed by U.S. Navy ship

    * Story Highlights
    * The array was damaged, but the sub and the ship did not collide
    * Navy does not believe it was a deliberate incident of Chinese harassment
    * Navy has complained of Chinese vessels disrupting U.S. naval activities

    From Barbara Starr
    CNN

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In what a U.S. military official calls an "inadvertent encounter," a Chinese submarine hit an underwater sonar array being towed by the destroyer USS John McCain on Thursday.

    The array was damaged, but the sub and the ship did not collide, the official said. A sonar array is a radar towed behind a ship that listens and locates underwater sounds.

    The incident occurred near Subic Bay off the coast of the Philippines.

    The official, who declined to be named because the incident had not been made public, would not say whether the U.S. ship knew the submarine was that close to it.

    However, the Navy does not believe this was a deliberate incident of Chinese harassment, as it would have been extremely dangerous had the array gotten caught in the submarine's propellers.

    The Navy has complained in the past that Chinese vessels, including fishing boats, have deliberately tried to disrupt U.S. naval activities in international waters near China. In one widely publicized incident in March, five Chinese vessels maneuvered close enough to the USNS Impeccable to warrant the use of a fire hose by the unarmed American vessel to avoid a collision. The Navy later released video of that incident.

    All AboutU.S. Navy Activities • China



    Find this article at:
    Sub collides with sonar array towed by U.S. Navy ship - CNN.com

  3. #78
    New Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 09
    Posts
    10
    Well if we take it apart and compair the vessels the newest submarines woul win because of systems and thetech inside.

    Reality is that although a few of these designs are 20+ years old for this il compaire the kilo and type 209 the old boats.

    The kilo's were around in the early 1980's and feature a then radical hull design for an SSK in the russian fleet the albacore hull something the russians came first at developing as it goes with the november class and specifically the K3 Leninsky komsomol.

    The 209 is of a similar era but retains a sort of ships hull if you can call it that, which by this time is near obsolete, but it has been an export success for germany and they like the kilos still are built in numbers for export.

    The kilo has the capability of diving down to 350 meters most diesel boats dont go down past 320meters it doesnt sound alot but the reality is that 30 meters is 100 feet, and 100 feet can mean the diffrence between being detected and killed.

    The type 209 can go down to around 280meters safe depth the early 1100s and 1200's were not realistically built for ocean deployment much like the kilo they were designed for choke points and littoral operations slwer than the kilo they are mainly used in this role and true they are good at it, the design like the kilo is pretty old by todays standards and replacements such as the type 212 and the lada are already coming down the slip.

    The type 209 is based on the older and smaller type 206 which in turn is based on the 205 its diffrence between most SSK's is that it can sport a towed array (the more modern ones) and the service life exceeds the kilos (kilos average 23 years the 209's 30) so far numbers have pretty much matched each other in the relm of eport sales.

    The kilo's big selling point is its hull because it has no loose ends no hydrodynamic impurities (it has a smooth efficent hull) it makes this submarine very quiet 53.25hz of out put sound on batteries (and thats only if you dont serve everyone borsch or curries) but the next big thing is its price tag, the kilo is far cheaper and simpler to operate than the type 209 hence why india an up coming 2nd rate power has chosen to keep buying kilos rather than ordering more type 209's.

    The type 209 is without fault a better unit its design and build qualities are far far better than the russian stuff and it lasts longer, but does not come with the same weapons package that the kilo does and thus lets it down a fair bit.

    It rather odd to note that even though the kilo is deemed a better boat the russian navy which once had 24 of these has laid up 12 of them, yet forign navies such as argentina and brazil who have had thier boats a fair time have no plans to replace them, maybe the budgets are the problem but i wouldnt have thought that it would play a big issue like that.

    But in order both are very good in thier roles and both we will see at sea for atleast another 20 years.

    The more modern boats like the oyashio's from japan are up for replacement according to the JMSDF and are being replaced 1 on 1 with newer AIP boats.

    The collins class which are essentially a swedish naken class are not sutible in my opinion for australia and thier needs, i think they would do alot better with a type 212 or even two nuclear boats the royal navy does have a couple of swiftsures laying around :D

    Diesel boats / AIP boats will remain because not every navy has the funds to maintain crew and work a nuclear boat, im waiting for the boats of 2020 and what that will bring.

  4. #79
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    2,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    The collins class which are essentially a swedish naken class are not sutible in my opinion for australia and thier needs
    The Collins hull was only partially based on the Gotland - and that was part of its problem.

    I'm not sure how you can make any throw away comment on suitability of a class for a given country without qualifying the reasons why. eg what part of the requirements for the definition documents were unsuitable and relevant with respect to Collins on RANs needs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    Well if we take it apart and compair the vessels the newest submarines woul win because of systems and thetech inside.
    Sorry, thats just a silly statement to make - certainly when unqualified.

    The bottom line in all events is crew competency and training, its irrelevant how good the technology is if the crew is not able to do the job. There are any number of instances where older gen subs have successfully (albeit partially) prosecuted against far more lethal targets.

    I know of subs that are technologically way beyond some of their adversaries and they've been spotted, tracked and "killed". Training is everything in the end.

    Having seen some of the future designs for subs circa 2025, then you might be in for a shock....
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 24 Jul 09, at 00:57.

  5. #80
    New Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 09
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    The Collins hull was only partially based on the Gotland - and that was part of its problem.

    I'm not sure how you can make any throw away comment on suitability of a class for a given country without qualifying the reasons why. eg what part of the requirements for the definition documents were unsuitable and relevant with respect to Collins on RANs needs?



    Sorry, thats just a silly statement to make - certainly when unqualified.

    The bottom line in all events is crew competency and training, its irrelevant how good the technology is if the crew is not able to do the job. There are any number of instances where older gen subs have successfully (albeit partially) prosecuted against far more lethal targets.

    I know of subs that are technologically way beyond some of their adversaries and they've been spotted, tracked and "killed". Training is everything in the end.

    Having seen some of the future designs for subs circa 2025, then you might be in for a shock....

    True is the part about competancy and training i must admit i over looked that part a bit.

    The view i have for the australians is the collins although capible in home waters i would find maybe lacking in oceanic patrols ie patrols into the indian ocean south china sea areas because of thier limited range and australias quite remote location on the map.
    There fore maybe they may benefit from something like the german type 212's and i know its far fetched an SSN of some kind.
    Australia is as far as i know active in iraq working along side the british there fore shouldnt they have a navy more capible to deep ocean deployments?
    I understand you have the new AWD's coming in and you still have anzac class and perry class frigates which are very capible units and able to go the distance but maybe a small carrier or LPH ?
    My knowlege of the australian navy is far from perfect and this is only an opinion and yes ok people will inveriably find fault with it but that makes for a more intresting discussion.

    In terms of qualifications i am a qualified merchant seaman but only able rating, i have done my lifeboat ticket coxswains ticket first aid and competant crew, although for the last year and a half i havnt been at sea ive been off doing something totaly diffrent (no want for british able seamen anymore) i must admit i have thought about the RN alot and going into submarines but i end up earning more in the RFA which is my next plan.

    At the end of the day i respect your opinions views and knowlege simply because i can learn from it and it also throws in other factors too.

  6. #81
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    2,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    The view i have for the australians is the collins although capible in home waters i would find maybe lacking in oceanic patrols ie patrols into the indian ocean south china sea areas because of thier limited range and australias quite remote location on the map.
    Thats incorrect. These wwre designed as long range subs - they were designed originally to run blue/gold crews because they were undertaking mission sets comparable to nukes - in fact they are one of three conventionals that are able to undertake that atypical nuke mission cycle. The Oberons in the RAN operated all the way to Vladivostok - and inside russian waters (as recently revealed when the 30 year rule expired on some Aust classified docs). Collins outperforms the Oberons in range, persistence, and performance by a considerable margin.

    You are fundamentally and significantly incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    There fore maybe they may benefit from something like the german type 212's and i know its far fetched an SSN of some kind.
    Again incorrect. They are longer ranged than the 212's, Weapons fit and carriage is designed for long range activity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    Australia is as far as i know active in iraq working along side the british there fore shouldnt they have a navy more capible to deep ocean deployments?
    It already is. Your assumptions were incorrect (horribly incorrect, so I'm assuming that you are guessing rather than working from facts)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    I understand you have the new AWD's coming in and you still have anzac class and perry class frigates which are very capible units and able to go the distance but maybe a small carrier or LPH ?
    The LHA's provide a similar operational footprint - but whats the mission set? whats the operational requirement? whats driving the need to have a carrier against the threat matrix that cannot be contained or managed by oher capabilities and political constraints?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    My knowlege of the australian navy is far from perfect and this is only an opinion and yes ok people will inveriably find fault with it but that makes for a more intresting discussion.
    There is nothing wrong with any opinion, but when you make empirical statements about things like range without being aware of the actual capabilities, then it will colour the quality of the rest of your contribution, and it will raise doubts as to the extent of your knowledge and claims. Always better to caveat responses rather than make empirical claims which are palpably wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    In terms of qualifications i am a qualified merchant seaman but only able rating, i have done my lifeboat ticket coxswains ticket first aid and competant crew, although for the last year and a half i havnt been at sea ive been off doing something totaly diffrent (no want for british able seamen anymore) i must admit i have thought about the RN alot and going into submarines but i end up earning more in the RFA which is my next plan.

    At the end of the day i respect your opinions views and knowlege simply because i can learn from it and it also throws in other factors too.
    No harm no foul. I worked on Collins are a number of diff levels (inside and outside over a 10 year period. I also worked on signature management systems for subs - and am more than aware of the capabilities of the 212's, Oyashios, and Kilos (which IMO are over-rated and more visible due to media spin than actual capability) Having seen one close up, I can tell you I know what I'd rather be in.

  7. #82
    New Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 09
    Posts
    10
    it is good to find out true performance about such vessels obviously only the people than man such platforms only know its true capabilities, im working off two diffrent books both giving two diffrent specifiations about the same boat.

    For example on boat claims a range of the collins at 6500nm the other 11000nm the information which is obviously classified isnt consistant for the civilians but then again you cant publish the true abilities so some one like me who is out the box has to sort of work off whats written and take a stab in the dark at some things.

    I too have been on board some submarines but not in any capacity that you have GF, but i am here to learn and ive always thought things and given my opinions so people can look at it and go well thats right but thats not and correct it if nessasery which you have done.

    I can and am standing up to say yes i am wrong but like i said this would be my opinion and yeah i still could believe that the aussie navy could do with a light carrier on the grounds that it would provide air defence capabilities, strike abilities, and could act as a command post.

    But again we do run into other things here, such as the new AWD's would provide the C.A.S and land attack missiles from submarines could project a strike capability and any ship can act as a command post.

    My knowlege of the australian navy as stated is limited but as i am seeking employment with the RFA its intresting to find out about other navies especially when we train with them.

    Thankyou for the input ive learnt alot this evening.

  8. #83
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    2,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    it is good to find out true performance about such vessels obviously only the people than man such platforms only know its true capabilities, im working off two diffrent books both giving two diffrent specifiations about the same boat.
    I haven't given you "true" performance. As you are already aware, real figures don't end up in pubs like Monch, Combat Ships of the World etc.... apart from physical dimensions, most of the info you see in open source material (esp with respect to subs) is rubbish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    For example on boat claims a range of the collins at 6500nm the other 11000nm the information which is obviously classified isnt consistant for the civilians but then again you cant publish the true abilities so some one like me who is out the box has to sort of work off whats written and take a stab in the dark at some things.
    The best place to start in any assessment is to look at the country of purchase definition requirements for the actual requirement - bear in mind that the publicly viewable docs are obviously incomplete and do not show any of the relevant performance requirements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    I can and am standing up to say yes i am wrong
    its never an issue of right or wrong - the end state is the content and quality of logic People with opposing views can both present coherent arguments....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    but like i said this would be my opinion and yeah i still could believe that the aussie navy could do with a light carrier on the grounds that it would provide air defence capabilities, strike abilities, and could act as a command post.
    The issue is the threat matrix... where who what and how we intend to go and fight. sans partners, con partners etc....

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    But again we do run into other things here, such as the new AWD's would provide the C.A.S and land attack missiles from submarines could project a strike capability and any ship can act as a command post.
    Our two current command vessels are non combatants - but any ship in the fleet can do command with prior warning and fitout. even a merchant ship given enough warning and lead time

    Quote Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post
    Thankyou for the input ive learnt alot this evening.
    My pleasure. none of us know everything, all of us continue to learn. its a moving feast
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 24 Jul 09, at 08:52.

  9. #84
    New Member
    Join Date
    22 Aug 14
    Location
    Lexington South Carolina
    Posts
    6
    Everything is a compromise or "tradeoff". A diesel sub is quiet on motors, UNTIL or UNLESS you start the diesel, or perhaps raise a snorkel. Then you are located. I can't comment on the range of fuel cell submarines. Even if it is quiet, you are still using fuel, especially crossing an ocean. World navies will not talk about that.

    I hear these negatives about nuclear boats. Well one, newer ones, either have quiet pumps or are designed to run most of the time using natural convection. (Think of a shark drowning if he stops, because he get no more oxygen from the water through his gills) If you design a sub to have more than enough natural cooling running at say 12 knots, or even slower, how much noise do you think it is making ? There are NO pumps running, therefore under those conditions, they are momentarily, no more noisy than AIP. Would a "waiting submarine in The Spratlys or off the Iranian coast have an advantage ? Only if the approaching nuc is making noise the other can easily hear. This dates back to when Hyman Rickover overruled some of the more complex and expensive "Conform" designs as he pressed to get his first class of Los Angeles Submarines. Because of compromises that had at that time to be made over cost, THOSE submarines HAD to have "somewhat" noisy pumps, but they weren't really all that bad back then. The Russians rarely heard us.

    It is NOT an established fact that the newest western nuclear submarines cannot shut down a reactor. Any nuc can shut down the reactor temporarily. (That may not be common in fleet doctrine) The question is: do we have enough battery power (if submerged) to run the circulating pumps properly and safely until the reactor re-fires and produces enough steam to bring the turbo generators online ? This is the reason American and most other nuclear subs are equipped with powerful diesel generators. As a last resort, if a reactor is shut down submerged, the sub can surface, start the emergency diesel and do a "by the list" reactor restart. It happened on a regular basis at the very beginning of America's experiment with nuclear power in submarines.

  10. #85
    New Member
    Join Date
    22 Aug 14
    Location
    Lexington South Carolina
    Posts
    6
    Rickover killed conventional submarines in the US because he wanted all the US Navy funding for an all nuclear submarine fleet. I understood then, and understand now, his reasoning. But today is NOT 1960.

    As an ex US Navy Radarman, I say the US should be manufacturing AIP submarines 1) to save or stretch Navy defense monies) 2) guard our coasts more easily, 3) free up nuclear attack boats to patrol overseas, 4) to build and export to our allies, so as to keep on the cutting edge of submarine manufacture AND TO KNOW HOW TO COMBAT them if we face them in war.

  11. #86
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    7,437
    Thread over 5 years old. Why????

    Name:  233170_main.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  78.6 KB

    Name:  necropost-kitten.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  18.6 KB

    No one got in before the kittens!!!!!!!
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  12. #87
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Thread over 5 years old. Why????

    Name:  233170_main.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  78.6 KB

    Name:  necropost-kitten.jpg
Views: 70
Size:  18.6 KB

    No one got in before the kittens!!!!!!!
    This kitten thing was funny for the first hundred times but it's getting wheeled out way to often.

    WABs getting quiet these days and I think it needs to loosen up a bit. The chap above wrote something that contributed to the thread and may fire it up again.
    Stomp on the trolls but leave new members alone if all they do is pull to an old thread. If he had of simply written 'I like submarine' then yeah stomp him.

    My 2 cents and nothing to do with Mr Grape.
    Stitch likes this.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lee Kuan Yew's View of the World
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 05 Sep 09,, 11:38
  2. Should members of the Church of God go to war?
    By Ray in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08 Jan 09,, 01:49
  3. Naval submarine free play exercise question
    By Shadowsided in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 31 Aug 07,, 14:04
  4. Scorpene vs. U212
    By Blademaster in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16 May 06,, 04:58
  5. A View from the Eye of the Storm
    By tim52 in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14 Feb 06,, 04:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •