Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gothland kills SSNs and Nimitz?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gothland kills SSNs and Nimitz?



    How accurate is this report? Or is this another of the dances Navy plays to get more funding?

  • #2
    RE: Gothland kills SSNs and Nimitz?

    Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
    How accurate is this report?
    Fairly accurate, within limits! Is the HMS Gotland going to chase down a carrier strike group... NO! If the carrier comes into the Gotland's area of patrol, then any surface ship is dead meat.
    A real problem is the USN is not allowed to practice with 'active' sonars, only passive sonars. In the litorals then shallow depths, wave actions, etc. generate noise of which makes it easy for SSIs to hide in. Fresh water rivers emptying into the ocean can cause distortion in sound waves, one of many sources of sound distortion.
    In a scenario of carrier conducting flight operations in the Arabian Sea (for air support over Afghanistan) the Gotland posses a small threat. To carrier strike or surface action groups, the HMS Gotland posses a real threat to ships going from (say) the Indian Ocean pass Indonesia and Malaysia into the Pacific Ocean, as the surface ships pass through the many narrow bodies of water. It is a great anti-denial / area denial weapon.

    Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
    Or is this another of the dances Navy plays to get more funding?
    No, this is not a song and dance to get Congress to panic and release more money for ASW.
    The USN's ASW capability is a mere shadow of its former self. Many of the Colossus and SOSUS stations have been shut down or leased to oceanographers for research! I know the PLAN has stations like this, how many and where they are, I have no idea. I know Russia has stations but, in what condition? What other navy's might have these listening stations, I don't know?
    In exercises, SSNs get killed by SSIs because the SSNs have to enter the area at high speed then slow down (RoEs) to hunt the SSI (an SSK with AIP). This allows the SSI is get an idea as to where the SSN is.


    The following is small portions of an article from the March 2006 issue of US Naval Proceedings. US Naval Proceedings "International Navies Special"
    "Friendly Enemy" By Norman Polmar 03/06 Pg. 22 & 23

    The HMS Gotland has a blue and gold crew. Each has 35 men and women (twenty officers and fifteen enlist). The blue and gold crews serve four weeks at a time and then are sent home until the next cycle.
    The captain, chief engineer and, (enlisted) cook, have their own bunk, everybody else "hot bunks." The captain has his own room.
    Gotland will spend 160 days at sea the first year with the US Navy normally deploying for twelve to sixteen days to help US Navy ASW forces learn how to cope with small quiet submarines. It has been difficult for US forces in deep water and will be more difficult in coastal waters. "At what we do," said Commander, "we are the best -IRS (intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance), special ops close to shore for long periods.


    A 'REBUTTAL' article appeared in the USN Proceedings (05/06 Pg #14-16) By Capt. James H Patton Jr. USN Ret. It puts things into a different perspective.

    To put things in perspective, on a nominal diesel-electric boat there might be about 300 megawatt-hours of stored energy in its full fuel oil tanks to supply high-power diesels that require large volume of air, and a lead-acid battery storing about 3 megawatt-hours of energy that can be drained quickly for high speed operations as necessary and later recharged by the diesels. With AIP, about 30 megawatt-hours of stored energy is available at 'low rates' --primarily to "hotel loads" (sensors, lights, air conditioning, heating, and other necessary auxiliaries) while keeping the battery fully charged. The hotel for these nominal submarines is in the order of 50-80 kilowatts (KW).
    The Gotland, then using one of the two Stirling engines, might have 10-20 KW left over for propulsion, which is 15-30 horsepower (HP) -- something that will provide "steerage" at 2-4 knots, but certainly not not drive that 1,600-ton submarine at 10 knots as the article claimed. Even with both Stirlings running, something redundancy-minded submariners would prefer not to do, the cubic relationship between speed and power would rapidly gobble up those extra 100-plus or so extra HP --if 20 HP drove the ship at 3 knots, 6 knots would require eight times as much, or 160 HP. AIP gives you endurance, but, not mobility --you don't go much of anywhere on it. The Gotland was delivered to San Diego on a barge.
    The AIP diesel-electric submarine is a formidable opponent when deployed in its own waters as an anti-access/area denial deterrent. If there was a U.S. need to defend the Gulf of Mexico, a six-pack of AIP SSks home-ported in Key West could "plug" the Straits of Florida and the Yucatan Channel very nicely against all but the most modern nuclear-powered submarine. In fact, in 1994 I was making a presentation at a London conference at which a Swedish submarine flag officer was briefing the then-very new Gotland. In a private conversation with him, I had to concede that his was the better solution for what his Scandinavian needs. When I asked him, however, what platform he would prefer if his mission were to operate if his mission were to operate off the United States, his answer was "one of yours!"

    Comment


    • #3
      Good to know, Thanks!

      I do want a bit of clarification though

      A real problem is the USN is not allowed to practice with 'active' sonars, only passive sonars
      Does this mean during the exercise, the Navy didn't use Active Sonars?
      Or just that they never gotten the practice prior to the exercise?

      Also, Why are the ASW capabilities so low on the priorities? Shouldn't the 5,000 crew on Carriers, and some another 4,000 on nearby escorts give a need to strengthen the ASW?

      Comment


      • #4
        A sub like this in the Iranian Navy might successfully attack a carrier task force, which would be signing it's death warrant, along with any others like it. After an attack, vast resources would be tasked to find and eliminate them. We would know they have to head for home someday, and when they show up in port...
        And, if we were "hot" with Iran-vast efforts would be made to find and neutralize them before they had a chance.
        Or am I way off?
        sigpicUSS North Dakota

        Comment


        • #5
          Wow, Thats a Blast from the Past.

          The US Navy used her from 2005 - 2007.

          Does this mean during the exercise, the Navy didn't use Active Sonars?
          Or just that they never gotten the practice prior to the exercise?
          The navy gets sued over Active Sonar during many of the major exercises, but they do use active sonar in training. No lawsuit stopped that. Settled all the environmental lawsuits back in 2008. Navy got to keep using sonar. Whale lovers got money. Everyone was happy.

          One of our biggest problems was that during the cold war, it was our allies that were the leaders in the ASW field. We had the CVNs and SSBNs and the SSNs to kill the soviet subs that leaked through. But it was our partners in the UK and Canada that practiced closing the GIUK gap.

          It wasn't a priority. Now we are trying to become great at everything.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Gothland kills SSNs and Nimitz?

            Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
            Why are the ASW capabilities so low on the priorities? Shouldn't the 5,000 crew on Carriers, and some another 4,000 on nearby escorts give a need to strengthen the ASW?
            Because the most difficult SSKs to detect are from countries that are friends of the USA. Countries like Iran, whenever one of their Kilo Class subs leaves port, it has a USN or RN sub to tail the Kilo around.
            Janes News Brief 11/19/07, stated that in "Exercise Sandstone" the US Navy (USN) and UK Royal Navy (RN) nuclear attack submarines have staged an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Northern Arabian Sea. Two SSNs and the SSK HMS Talent (S92) practiced detecting, tracking and, engaging what the USN described as 'hostile' submarines for six days close to Iran's southeastern coast during early October.

            Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
            The navy gets sued over Active Sonar during many of the major exercises, but they do use active sonar in training. No lawsuit stopped that. Settled all the environmental lawsuits back in 2008. Navy got to keep using sonar. Whale lovers got money. Everyone was happy.
            Thanx for that information.

            Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
            One of our biggest problems was that during the cold war, it was our allies that were the leaders in the ASW field. We had the CVNs and SSBNs and the SSNs to kill the soviet subs that leaked through.
            Didn't the USSR stopped in the 1980s, desiring to send their subs into the Atlantic basin when they found out how well NATO navies were able to track their (Soviet) subs. They then put more efforts into defending their SSBN bastions from NATO SSNs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks guys

              Any chance for the US to gain the ability to reliably track these silent beasts? Before the next contender shows up that is

              Also, I heard that the US mine(naval) hunting capability is subpar, at least according to the Chinese State Media.
              If this is true, would this not be a very effective denial system against the States?
              Last edited by cr9527; 26 Apr 10,, 03:48.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
                Thanks guys

                Any chance for the US to gain the ability to reliably track these silent beasts? Before the next contender shows up that is
                What do you think we were doing when we had her in San Diego all those years?

                Or what we are doing when we train with Collins class subs and other AiP subs during RimPacs and other exercises?

                Also, I heard that the US mine(naval) hunting capability is subpar, at least according to the Chinese State Media.
                If this is true, would this not be a very effective denial system against the States?
                Subpar compared to whom? We are working on that skillset also

                And how far out do you need to mine so that a Carrier Strike group cannot launch against you? Or Tomahawks cannot hit you?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                  What do you think we were doing when we had her in San Diego all those years?

                  Or what we are doing when we train with Collins class subs and other AiP subs during RimPacs and other exercises?
                  Umm, I didn't think one can upgrade their capabilities in that fast!

                  Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                  Subpar compared to whom? We are working on that skillset also

                  And how far out do you need to mine so that a Carrier Strike group cannot launch against you? Or Tomahawks cannot hit you?
                  According from the CCTV, its subpar to the Chinese Mine hunting capability.

                  Thats not what im worried about. Im more worried about the land invasion that would follow on from LPDs and similar vessels.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
                    Umm, I didn't think one can upgrade their capabilities in that fast!
                    Its not like we had no training to start with.


                    According from the CCTV, its subpar to the Chinese Mine hunting capability.

                    Thats not what im worried about. Im more worried about the land invasion that would follow on from LPDs and similar vessels.
                    I could bore you with various thoughts on that subject but the question has to be asked "How much of your coast do you mine to prevent an amphibious landing?"

                    Back in WW2 and all the way up to the mid 1980s only 10% of the worlds shoreline was vulnerable to an amphib assault. Now its 70%. A lot harder to decide where to place those mines.

                    Not to mention the OTH capabilities of amphib shipping today. No need to get right up on the beach any more. Our greater reliance on heloborne assault, LCACs and in stride breaching capability

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                      Its not like we had no training to start with.




                      I could bore you with various thoughts on that subject but the question has to be asked "How much of your coast do you mine to prevent an amphibious landing?"

                      Back in WW2 and all the way up to the mid 1980s only 10% of the worlds shoreline was vulnerable to an amphib assault. Now its 70%. A lot harder to decide where to place those mines.

                      Not to mention the OTH capabilities of amphib shipping today. No need to get right up on the beach any more. Our greater reliance on heloborne assault, LCACs and in stride breaching capability
                      Good to know, thanks!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
                        Thanks guys

                        Any chance for the US to gain the ability to reliably track these silent beasts? Before the next contender shows up that is
                        Hmm, let's see. On 17 June 1999 DDG-54 Curtis Wilbur located and tracked an Iranian Kilo. DDG-58 Laboon tracked a Peruvian SSK in April 2003 during the Multi-National Maritime Exercise. DDG-53 John Paul Jones tracked Chilean and Korean SSKs for 24 hours, holding continuous track for 3 hours during RIMPAC 2004. SSKs may be harder to find and track, but certainly not impossible.

                        Umm, I didn't think one can upgrade their capabilities in that fast!
                        One thing to be careful of, is not to stick to some piece of info that has become outdated. The USN identified the increasing trend in SSK procurement and noted the atrophy of their ASW skills some time back. Since then they have been devoting substantial time and money back in ASW. The statement you made applies to those countries which had negligible ASW skills, like China. With virtually zero experience draw on and little to none interaction with other experienced navies to leverage on, then yes - its certainly impossible to upgrade their skills in a few years. But the USN already has a core of ASW proficiency existing within it, and more than just the increased attention and resources devoted into ASW recently, it also has the very significant advantage of being able to train and interact with a large number of friendly navies in ASW ops. Many of which are truly proficient operators of high end SSKs. Germany, Korea, Japan, Chile.... the list goes on.

                        Also, I heard that the US mine(naval) hunting capability is subpar, at least according to the Chinese State Media.
                        If this is true, would this not be a very effective denial system against the States?

                        According from the CCTV, its subpar to the Chinese Mine hunting capability.
                        The US has a comprehensive mine hunting capability. The problem is that it is still not sufficient for their needs. But compare it to others, and it is still very substantial, to say the least. And if CCTV is saying PLAN's mine hunting capability is better, then it'd only because they have more junk to waste. After all, every ship can be a minehunter, once.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cr9527 View Post
                          Also, I heard that the US mine(naval) hunting capability is subpar, at least according to the Chinese State Media.
                          If this is true, would this not be a very effective denial system against the States?
                          US mine warfare capabilities suck. Not for lack of technology, or methods. USN MW warriors are superbly trained and equipped- they are a surgical scaple, but maybe we need a machete. The USN has 14 Avenger class MW vessels to serve all of its needs in the worlds major oceans and littoral regions. RPV's, helos and robots can augment that capability to an extent, but the total force is still anemic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As far as suck?
                            On the contrary they are more up to date then many give them credit for. Especially those forward deployed to the 5th Fleet.;)

                            Mine Warfare's Capability Highlighted During Surface Navy Association's Visit to Dextrous

                            The present and future.
                            What is State of the Art in Submarine Detection? ? Behind Blue Lines

                            This should give you an idea of how advanced the USN has become at sub detection. Its not nearly as lacking as the past and the present and future look very promising.

                            How close can they track them? Very close even using the towed sonar array. This is not state of the art as the article above is. The newer generation equipment is far beyond the towed arrays.

                            Sources: Navy was tracking Chinese sub - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

                            *Did you ever notice the USN does not publish such pictures and newslines when they sneak up on someone? Why you might ask?

                            Because silence and tracking causes fear to a potentially hostile countrys submarines and Navy and thats far better then showboating on any given day.:))
                            Last edited by Dreadnought; 26 Apr 10,, 16:57.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                              As far as suck?
                              On the contrary they are more up to date then many give them credit for. Especially those forward deployed to the 5th Fleet.;)
                              yes suck, 14 vessels and some other assets that can pitch in a bit of help if they are not on other missions. In the case of war against a nation with a large amount of mines, its too few numbers. Even the best, can't be everywhere at all times.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X