Poll - Should the United States Navy build a conventional submarine class?

[AMDR]

The United States has been known for building some of the best nuclear attack submarines in the world, the latest being the Virginia-Class. (Virginia-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some subs that use AIP (Air-independent propulsion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) can be somewhat more quiet than nuke subs. One example is the Swedish Gotland-class (Gotland-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Therefore some say that the USA should use their expertise and technology in submarine building to build an extremely quiet conventional submarine with AIP. They can deploy them regionally to places like the Western Pacific and Europe, then use ports in allied countries as a forward base. Of course the US would still build nuclear subs to in addition to conventional ones.

Others say that the US Navy is a global force and therefore should rely more on nuclear submarines, which are faster and can travel longer distances than conventional submarines. Although one drawback is that they are more expensive to build.

What do you think? Leave your comments below!

 

[Kompromat]

The USN likes to have perpetual operational endurence due to its global reach. However, i do think not having AIP subs is a disadvantage for USN.

 

[Víðarr]

The United States has been known for building some of the best nuclear attack submarines in the world, the latest being the Virginia-Class. (Virginia-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 211354

Some subs that use AIP (Air-independent propulsion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) can be somewhat more quiet than nuke subs. One example is the Swedish Gotland-class (Gotland-class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
View attachment 211355
Therefore some say that the USA should use their expertise and technology in submarine building to build an extremely quiet conventional submarine with AIP. They can deploy them regionally to places like the Western Pacific and Europe, then use ports in allied countries as a forward base. Of course the US would still build nuclear subs to in addition to conventional ones.

Others say that the US Navy is a global force and therefore should rely more on nuclear submarines, which are faster and can travel longer distances than conventional submarines. Although one drawback is that they are more expensive to build.

What do you think? Leave your comments below!

Because of the US submarine doctrine, nuclear boats are the way to go. You can never trust your ally to continue to be that, even tomorrow, nuke boats allow the US the safety of endurance and a lack of reliance on regional bases. Plus, they are larger, carry more firepower and better sensors, tend to be faster, may not be as quiet, but their benefits are worth it.

The only downside I can pinpoint is the cost, 1.5 billion for a Virginia class sub. AIP just can't offer the same benefits as a nuke boat. They can't do the following good enough.

What U.S. Nuclear Submarines Do

U.S. nuclear submarines conduct numerous critical missions - many in ways that submarines are uniquely able to perform. Although details of these missions are classified, they include:

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR).
Submarines provide the nation a crucial intelligence-gathering capability that cannot be replicated by other means. Operated with care and cunning and deploying multiple sensors, submarines can monitor happenings in the air, surface, or subsurface littoral battlespace, providing a complete picture of events across all intelligence disciplines. They are also an intelligence "force-multiplier," providing tip-offs of high interest events to other collection assets. Submarines are able to monitor underwater incidents and phenomena not detectable by any other sensor. Since they are able to conduct extended operations in areas inaccessible to other platforms or systems, submarines can intercept signals of critical importance for monitoring international developments. The unique look-angle provided by a submarine operating in the littoral region enables it to intercept high interest signal formats that are invisible to reconnaissance satellites or other collection platforms. Furthermore, the ability to dwell covertly for extended periods defeats efforts to evade or deceive collection by satellites and other sensors. The intelligence gleaned from submarine operations ranges from highly technical details of military platforms, command and control infrastructure, weapons systems and sensors to unique intelligence on potential adversaries' strategic and operational intentions. Our submarines can provide real time alertment to National Command Authorities on indications of imminent hostilities. And unlike other intelligence collection systems such as satellites or reconnaissance aircraft, submarines are full-fledged warfighting platforms carrying significant offensive firepower.

Power Projection - Conventional Land Attack.
A U.S. attack submarine can carry a 16-Tomahawk land-attack missile salvo ready for submerged launch, with up to 12 additional Tomahawks that can be reloaded and fired without surfacing. Typically, submarines provide about 20 percent of the Tomahawk firepower in a carrier battle group. Because of their stealth, these attack submarines can be positioned to operate alone in environments where the risks would prevent surface ships and aircraft from operating without extensive protective cover. Submarines have become increasingly important to the Navy's precision strike capabilities. In DESERT STORM, submarines launched less than five percent of the Tomahawks successfully fired. During Operation ALLIED FORCE in Kosovo, Allied submarines fired nearly 25 percent of Tomahawks launched against Serbian targets.

Whatever an opponent's ability to deny access to, or preempt, U.S. military presence, it can use these weapons in only limited ways against submarines. Coastal cruise missiles, tactical ballistic missiles, and weapons of mass destruction pose little or no threat to a well-operated nuclear submarine. A credible attack capability against our submarines could be developed only by substantial investment in an attack submarine force comparable to our own. Accordingly, so long as we maintain our investment advantage, submarines will remain one of the most credible, survivable, and potent land attack missile platforms in our arsenal.

Sea Control.
The United States is a maritime nation whose trade and military power-projection capabilities depend upon assured use of the high seas. Ocean transport satisfies the vast majority - over 90 percent in most cases - of our strategic lift requirements. Submarines are the quintessential sea control platforms, with proven anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities. Several historical examples illustrate the power of submarines in naval warfare.

Two world wars demonstrate that even submarines of limited performance are a major threat to sea transport. American World War II submariners, comprising less than two percent of naval personnel, sank over five and a half million tons of Japanese shipping - more shipping than was sunk by all other means combined. Their campaign was a critical factor in the industrial collapse of the Japanese war effort. At the same time, a small number of German U-boats placed a death grip on the Atlantic sea lanes that was only broken by the commitment of overwhelming sea, air and intelligence assets.

More recently - during the 1982 Falklands War - a single unlocated Argentine submarine caused the expenditure of 203 British anti-submarine weapons, with no hits. One British SSN employed in that same war sank the Argentine cruiser Belgrano, resulting in the Argentine fleet's hasty retreat to homeport for the duration. Had even limited-performance submarines been used against the United States in the Korean, Vietnam, or DESERT STORM conflicts, or in our efforts to escort Persian Gulf tankers, the resulting military costs and delays in delivering forces could have been significant.

Modern U.S. submarines - vastly superior to their historical ancestors - possess unsurpassed abilities to hunt and kill submarines and surface ships on the high seas and in the littorals. They provide our only assured capability to wrest control of the sea from a determined enemy employing submarines in an area-denial role. As a result, today's U.S. Navy, which includes nuclear submarines in its combined-arms anti-submarine capability, is able to sail freely on the world's oceans. In turn, the sealift needed to support power projection can be counted on whenever and wherever needed.

Submarines excel at preparing and controlling the littoral battlespace for joint expeditionary forces, even in the face of substantially improved capabilities to locate, target, and engage non-stealthy platforms near land. By determining an adversary's order of battle and force dispositions before the outbreak of hostilities, they allow U.S. commanders to engage and destroy key threats decisively at minimal risk. Before an aircraft carrier battlegroup or amphibious ready group with nearly 10,000 Sailors and Marines onboard ventures to approach a high-threat area, a submarine can have already detected, reported, and destroyed major threats.

Mine Warfare.
In both covert offensive mining and mine reconnaissance, submarines provide capabilities that no other platform can deliver. The submarine offensive mining capability allows national leaders to place mines precisely for maximum effect without enemy alertment and with minimal risk. Mine reconnaissance capabilities from submarine-launched Unmanned Undersea Vehicles allow the submarine to covertly detect and report mine danger areas without risk to other naval forces. As a result, potential adversaries have fewer clues indicating potential locations of American expeditionary operations, and U.S. military planners are better able to exploit the element of surprise.

Special Operations.
Submarines are an excellent means of clandestine insertion for special operations forces operating in the littorals. The submarine's inherent stealth and endurance, as well as sophisticated communications equipment, sensors, and navigation suites, enable covert, precise insertion of Navy SEALs and other special operations forces close to their objective and provide a reliable means for their extraction.

Survivable Strategic Deterrence.
Because of the invulnerability of nuclear submarines operated in vast ocean areas, they provide the nation's strategic deterrent more effectively and at less cost than other systems. Our TRIDENT submarines (SSBNs) now carry 54 percent of our nation's nuclear deterrent using less than 1.5 percent of naval personnel and 35 percent of our strategic budget. These Navy capital ships will form the backbone of the nation's strategic nuclear force well into the 21st century.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have nothing against AIP subs, they just don't fit into the US Navy's current submarine doctrine.

 

[C130]

build? no, buy...yes.!!

either

Type 212 or a advance derivative.

or

Soryu Class

I think a fleet of 16 with 12 for the Pacific and 4 for the Atlantic fleet would be good.

 

[wiseone2]

you need conventional subs for exports