The U.S. Needs Diesel Submarines Now? : USS Midwatch

[@Yandarval]

Diesels have their place. SSK's are much better that SSN's in littoral and coastal waters. Due to the size differences (SSK's are around 1/3 to 1/2 the displacement of an SSN). The SSK's are harder to spot from the air in shallow waters, generally quieter as well. As an aside, the Royal Navy has for decades, when designing a new SSN, also created plans for a SSK version of the SSN. Does the USN have anything remotely up to date for a SSK design?

[@22steve5150]

if we needed coastal defense assets it would be one thing but US subs have to go halfway around the world before their job actually begins. For diesel boats, that requires a logistical train of support ships and forward basing that is anything but cheap, and all to support subs that have a fraction of the overall capabilities and utility of our nuclear powered subs. One of the benefits of the nuke boats is they don't require such logics, able to sprint 600 to 900 miles a day to get on station quickly and begin theater operations while a diesel boat would take 3x longer to get on station and need to be refueled immediately after crossing the ocean, and then would need to be replenished multiple times for a several month long mission. instead of manned diesels we have several new classes of large drone subs that can loiter for months and can be launched from manned surface and submarine vessels, drones that are cheaper than any manned diesels and have excellent utility. *edited for clarification*

[@enricomandragona163]

​@@22steve5150 I don't agree with you in that SSN's require large logistics!! Diesel subs do!! Hence I already stated this

[@22steve5150]

@@enricomandragona163 oh whoops i meant that diesel subs require the logistics while nuclear powered boats do not. i have edited the comment to better reflect that.

[@Yandarval]

SSKs for coastal defence, not for galivanting around the World. The cheaper SSK's providing defence would allow for more of the SSN's to do the offensive taskings. As the SSK's would not be galivanting, the logitics costs are managable. The tail costs of not having to deal with the disposal of a spent reactor also adds to the equation. Being smaller, they could also be constructed in smaller yards. As currently, the US is really hurting for yards where SSN's and large warships can be constructed.

[@22steve5150]

@@Yandarval missile and torpedo carrying maritime patrol aircraft, frigate and cutter sized surface craft with ASW towed arrays, and small, fast patrol vessels do coastal defense just as well and for a lot less than maintaining a small fleet of SSK's. USN and Coast Guard has such craft in spades already.

[@enricomandragona163]

Well we're already in the NK commitment to go backwards as this has been a debate for decades just as the conventional carrier debate. Im all for conventional Ship's and subs because once they are done it's a problem storing and defueling reactors!! Besides that we no longer can sustain Conventional ship's and diesel subs because the stupid Navy needs Tenders to support them!! These ships need bigger logistics than Nuclear power ships and subs . Diesel subs are fine for countries that don't have global interest to protect! However a small squadron of diesel subs to protect our coastal waters makes many sense!!

[@rrondon1040]

I believe diesel subs are a thing of the past.

[@enricomandragona163]

That's your opinion!!