Well….if you’re talking about conventional “non-nuclear” subs, well, then, um…Heck, yea! AIP or variants thereoff….This is something where a defense contractor could–I think–make some money by building something on spec…Aside from the strategic “positioning” that would come from being the only yard with experience building these things, we’re desperate for training opportunities, so even just a training sub would be an asset the Navy would be glad even just to rent for predeployment work-ups.

If we can get past the cultural impediments within the service, I’d say go for it! The carrier navy doesn’t like small carriers, the surface navy doesn’t like small warships, and the nuke submariners will resist this. All see warship alternatives as a competitor to stretched shipbuilding funds. Industry and Congress backs them up.

A d/e sub would be better at littoral warfare than a giant attack submarine. It should be small and cheap enough to be expendable. A 7000 ton Virginia certainly is not! I see the latter as the new cruisers, and their size and firepower bear this out. So if we already have blue water cruisers we need some “destroyers” to go along with them for sundry duties (the traditional kind of destroyers, not our current DDG battleships which are hardly kin to the versatile greyhounds of the war years).

Diesel boats provide a certain amount of capability, as the previous commenters have noted, but that capability comes at a price. The real questions that should be asked are “What elements of the Maritime Strategy would a diesel submarine satisfy?” and “Is a diesel submarine the most cost effective means of satisfying that element?”

In general, why does the United States build and develop our own ships and subs? Europe has capable d/e subs, especially Germany, that are cheap when compared to our Virginias. The USN leadership has to realize that we can not keep spending billions on developing new platforms (DDX, LCS) and expect to procure those ships in the numbers we need. Why not take a European design, the Dolphin subs, many different Frigate designs, and adapt those to our needs? Wouldn’t that save a bunch of money?

That said, for various reasons, we will need our nuclear boats but a mix is not out of the question in order to field a larger force. Surface and undersea assets could benefit from the High-Low schemes of the past. I would venture to say that for many missions that SSNs are taking currently, a d/e could do as good if not better due to the operations in littoral waters where size is a disadvantage.

More like a big red target, Peter.

Rather than going off on my own rant, I’ll point to Chap’s post above. Ok, one additional point. One of the favorite Pro-SSK arguments is their maneuverability in the littorals due to their smaller size. The problem with this argument is that it’s not as huge an advantage as people suppose. A Lada or Kilo has about 1/3 less length than a Virginia, but almost the same beam. If we put R&D into technologies that allow a transition to less space-consuming machinery, such as Conformal sonar and Electric Drive, we can get our SSNs to nearly the same overall dimensions as the diesels WITHOUT sacrificing the capabilities that make SSNs such superior platforms.

I also despise the expendable” argument. We’re going to amazing lengths to protect guys on foot patrol with layers of body armor and MRAPs. Our surface assets have huge amounts of reserve buoyancy and layered air defenses. Why take survivability and defensive speed away from the Dolphins?

No Diesel Subs.

I just wonder how all these fancy nuke subs (Seawolf excepted) are going to resupply after they shoot off all their torpedoes?

I mean, AIP sub payload, speed and endurance is only going to increase over time. They’re already boasting something in the range of 16-18 torps/missiles. How many torps does a Los Angeles usually carry, hmm? And when they’re gone, a nuke sub is just a bunch of neutrons in a tube. Frankly, I think the tooth to tail ratio gets pretty high with some nuke sub load-outs.

What’s the harm in, for once, getting ahead of the technological 8-ball rather than behind it?

Rubber Ducky,

No hope the question is going away – at least not this week.

Good dialogue everyone!! Keep those cards and letters coming! Welcome aboard Jeff – tell your friends

Assuming you understand enough about the pints Chap brings up lets hit the hard one when it comes to our position as the the only A-List superpower with a trend in expenditures and not getting the value for our equipment that may change this.

In this environment diesel boats will be commissioned ships beside their more capable and expensive SSN brethren. Which one do you think those in congress who don’t understand submarines will want to buy the coastal defense ones that are really quiet, or the useful ones for power projection and other things?

Playing devils advocate to myself we are seeing an interesting swing the the unexpected direction in the fights against the Zumwalt, but these are unexpected. Remember NAVSEA 08 (Director Navy Nuclear Propulsion) is usually the only four star submarine admiral.

If we were to continue the current de facto strategy of going it alone and ignoring allies, might argue for diesels. But if the Bush Administration’s braindead policy is an aberration, as surely it should be and likely is, then we approach security issues at sea in company with allies who have a grunch of modern diesels and AIP submarines. We should stick with nukes and avoid competing programs that would detract from our advantage here.

Yes am biased, but from an odd direction, that of a diesel guy with experience all the way through command. There’s a label under the DBF dolphins on display at the Submarine Museum at Pearl: “Device Worn By Incurable Romantics.” Indeed.