Best Submarine

Don't know if it's possible to put a finger on a single "best" sub, but I have two that I like the best

The Russian Alfa, with its titanium hull, which renders it invisible to MAD gear and is quite fast, breaking 40 knots while submerged

And the Ohio Class SSBN/SSGN. Nearly impossible to find/track and is quieter while going 20 knots that previous subs were going 6kts
 
Korean Seaboy said:
I prefer the Los Angeles class. A giant of a thing, that monster
Click to expand...


They are not to big from what I can find on them, fast attacks boats in the U.S. generally aren't, the replacing Virginia Class attack boat is roughly the same size.

But I am to lazy google it or pull out the id book I got on warships...

Least I admit that haha.
 
The more modern a submarine is the better it should be, really they should be split into the Wars that they fought in and what each submarine was designed to do
 
Newest and Best Nuclear Subs?

Virginia Class, SSN-774, the most modern sub class in the USN,

Displacement:7,800 tonsLength:377 feet (115 m) [1]Beam:34 feet (10.4 m) [1]Draft:32 feet (9.8 m) [1]Propulsion:S9G reactorSpeed:25 knots (46 km/h)Test depth:greater than 800 feet (244 m)Complement:134 officers and menArmament:12 VLS tubes, four 21 inch (530 mm) torpedo tubes for Mk-48 torpedoes

commissioned in 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Virginia_(SSN-774)

these depth and speed numbers are "official" figures and are not accurate indicators of the actual performance

the British Astute, S119, would also be a contender.

commissioned in 2010
7400 tons, 323'x37'x33', 6 21" TT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Astute_(S119)
 
Last edited:
OVERDRIVE4825 said:
The Russian Alfa, with its titanium hull, which renders it invisible to MAD gear and is quite fast, breaking 40 knots while submerged
Click to expand...
Yes the Alpha is very fast and it dives very deep (+2,000-ft) but, it is noisy and the reactor is a large source of the noise. Above ≈10kts, the pressure wave around the bow will greatly limit is ability to detect other subs.... and by fifteen knots it is blind to detect anything with its sonars. So, even going slow it will most likely be detected first and the Alpha hopes it can out-run the torpedoes of it opposition.
Its magnetic footprint just as it is with other forms of stealth, does not make it invisible but, rather reduces greatly its detection range.
The depth and speed can be a real asset in deep water against the lightweight torpedoes.
During the Cold War, it was designed to scramble from its base to the last reported position of a USN SSBN then, hunt the US sub but, unless another sub or other means of detection has a track on the boomer... will be detected long before it could detect the boomer!
 
It's got a 100-foot extension made to the hull and has been refitted for a whole bunch of super-secret-squirrel stuff that no one will talk about. It's not so much an attack sub anymore as a special operations boat.
 
AVON said:
Yes the Alpha is very fast and it dives very deep (+2,000-ft) but, it is noisy and the reactor is a large source of the noise. Above ≈10kts, the pressure wave around the bow will greatly limit is ability to detect other subs.... and by fifteen knots it is blind to detect anything with its sonars. So, even going slow it will most likely be detected first and the Alpha hopes it can out-run the torpedoes of it opposition.
Its magnetic footprint just as it is with other forms of stealth, does not make it invisible but, rather reduces greatly its detection range.
The depth and speed can be a real asset in deep water against the lightweight torpedoes.
During the Cold War, it was designed to scramble from its base to the last reported position of a USN SSBN then, hunt the US sub but, unless another sub or other means of detection has a track on the boomer... will be detected long before it could detect the boomer!
Click to expand...


Is the Alpha-class still operative?


The Swedish navy has a sub, which is very silent. This sub was to the Pacific to train ASW operations with the US Navy. If the sub is good? I do not know


http://www.kockums.se/en/products-services/submarines/gotland-class/

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=17621
 
What is the purpose of Submarines in Modern warfare?

1. Destroy enemy surface ships/targets with torpedoes and missiles? Torpedoes require the target be very close (very low chance) and allied surface ships can carry bigger cruise missiles and much more of them. Aircraft are more reusable and are expendable if they were to be lost. Replacing a destroyed strike aircraft is much easier than replacing a SSN and its entire crew.

2. A Nuclear missile launch platform. ICBM have more range and carry more warheads. No submarine could completely destroy another countries ability to retailiate. This is why "first strike" weapons are unfeasible. Any nuclear attack against another nuclear armed country would provoke a nuclear retaliation. This is the cornerstone of MAD.

3. Reconnaissance/Surveillance mostly surpassed by Aircraft and Satellites.

3. To deploy/recover Special Ops and other covert missions. Ok, this is feasible but you wouldn't need to build a giant monster submarine in order to do this.

4. In order to access remote parts of the world like the North Pole or Antarctica for weather, supply or research duties. Also a feasible solution, but same reason as above.
 
Last edited:
MMarsh just doesn't like navies in general...doesn't like carriers, doesn't like submarines...doesn't leave much. Surface Combatants are all well and good, but we can't do everything.

Your reasoning for #2 leaves out survivability. Everyone knows exactly where every missile silo is. Submarines...not so much.
 
To MMarsh

Submarines are very important in the aspect that If you cant see me, dont know where Im at, or have no idea I exist, Ive already got the upper hand. I can strike first, and dive deeper and move away If I wanted to.
I also know that most modern ships today are equipped for anti sub warfare, but nothing is absolute. I dont need to be near you to do some massive damage, especially for an SSBN.
We act as an active deterrent because if you suspect im there, would you really want to chance do something rash? I could not be there, but you might not know.

All naval ships play an important role in modern warfare.

"Run silent, run deep"
 
Last edited:
c/Commander said:
MMarsh just doesn't like navies in general...doesn't like carriers, doesn't like submarines...doesn't leave much. Surface Combatants are all well and good, but we can't do everything.

Your reasoning for #2 leaves out survivability. Everyone knows exactly where every missile silo is. Submarines...not so much.
Click to expand...

Do I detect a slight bit of defensiveness? Attacking the poster instead of the post DOESN'T make your opinions anymore correct.


Wars are won by the side that thinks AHEAD not by the one that thinks BEHIND. I do question the NAVY'S vision for the future. It seems like the NAVY has evolved very little in 60 years and things that don't evolve die. The NAVY still plans for traditional naval engagement even though such engagements are getting increasingly rare. What can a ship do that a aircraft or cruise missile cannot? You tell me.

And no, I think surface ships are almost as vulnerable as carriers, but I do think they have a little more life in them because they are more modular than carriers or submarines are. They also don't cost as much.

Technology, no matter what it is will eventually become obsolete. My job in the civilian world is precisely this. To think what NEW technologies can benefit my company. When one works in Tech, you never cling to past ideas to move yourself forward.

Is the NAVY so different? I wouldn't know for sure as I never served but I highly doubt it. After all, how many sailing ships does the NAVY still have in commission?

The problem is that ships are slow missiles/aircraft are fast. Ships are easy to hit, aircraft much less so. Ships are very expensive and slow to build, aircraft and missiles are not.

The NAVY needs to find a new niche for itself, but building weapons for the expectation of the next Midway or even Jutland is a waste of time and resources.

As for Silos, the Russians have been using flatbed Missile launchers for decades and those are even harder to detect than a submarine is.

MMFNAUX

True, stealth is a part, but that's 70 year old cat and mouse game between the subs ability to stay quiet and the Hunter's ability to detect the sub. However, its the Hunter that wins the race as ASW technology usually catches up very quickly to the subs ability to stay undetected. We saw this in the Atlantic with the Allies against the Uboats and even in the Pacific where Japanese ASW technology got increasingly better the 4 years the war went on..
 
Last edited:
Carriers, Boomers, Fast attacks..........force projection. DDG's, FFG's etc.......protection for the big boys. You will not be able to project force without the vessels you disdain by using the little boys alone.
 
Enter the Marine Expeditionary Force for example, which has a proven long list of uses in itself already in past decades.

Another example, it was not planes and missiles that retook the Falklands, or planes and missiles that turned the Argentinian navy around.

Besides, look at the political or other uses of warships in non warefare situations, such as anti piracy operations, to the humanitarian relief efforts of tsunami victims in 2004, and Hurricane victims in 2005,

Warships are not always limted to being warships, morever they have doubled in recent years as mobile disaster relief or hostage rescue platforms.



And lastly upon the question of how many sailing ships the U.S. Navy employs today, I do believe it's just one.
 
Yossarian said:
Enter the Marine Expeditionary Force for example, which has a proven long list of uses in itself already in past decades.

Another example, it was not planes and missiles that retook the Falklands, or planes and missiles that turned the Argentinian navy around.

Besides, look at the political or other uses of warships in non warefare situations, such as anti piracy operations, to the humanitarian relief efforts of tsunami victims in 2004, and Hurricane victims in 2005,

Warships are not always limted to being warships, morever they have doubled in recent years as mobile disaster relief or hostage rescue platforms.



And lastly upon the question of how many sailing ships the U.S. Navy employs today, I do believe it's just one.
Click to expand...


The last large scale Amphibious invasion was the Inchon invasion in 1950. How many more of those do you honestly think we will see in our lifetime? I am guessing zero. We live in a very different world now, with 24/7 cable access its simply impossible to launch a large scale naval operation without the whole world knowing about it.

Incidentally I was reading that the NAVY/Marines are experimenting with the idea of a Advanced Floating Staging Base (AFSB). as opposed to ships to do support missions. Now that seems like a very sensible idea and is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Planning for the future instead of trying to wage the last war.

But this gets back to my original point, why build expensive subs given their very limited role? Could you imagine trying to sinking a Dhow with a MK48 torpedo? Its like trying to kill a mosquito with a 20 gauge. There are far better platforms suited for that role. The recommissioning of USS Ponce in 2014 for example seems like good stop-gap measure.

The Falklands was 40 years ago. Ranges of both aircraft and missiles were in their infancy. In 1980 a Exocet had a range of 100nm, a 2012 Tomahawk has the range of 1500 nm. Furthermore the Argentinean Navy was largely obsolete even by 1970s terms. What worked then, will not work now. Which is exactly why I wouldn't recommend sending USS Constitution into the Straits of Hormuz.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top