Enemy Fleet in being

[uk 75]

For most of its history the Royal Navy has
been able to determine its capabilities by
comparing them with an enemy or potential enemy
fleet in being.
Today this is especially hard to do. Apart from the Russian Navy there are no real candidates. It is hard to see circumstances in which the UK would clash with the Chinese or Indian navies. Other navies could be sunk by a single Fleet Submarine.
So we are talking about Putin's fleet. Apart from one aircraft carrier its main strength lies in nuclear submarines. The US Navy retains an overwhelming lead in this capability so that our boats can rely on support.
The surface fleet is another matter. The QE and a few frigates are just targets for submarines or long range bombers.
Well that should start a bar room argument.

 

[Avimimus]

This ignores a scenario where the U.S. is the enemy (or the U.S. has broken up in a civil war). There really aren't happy scenarios of course, but it is the type of thing military planners make contingencies for.

 

[uk 75]

Given that before WW 2 the US Navy was regarded as a possible enemy fleet in being, you may have a point.
Just as modern China was pretty unimaginable in the early 70s, the reverse process for the US seems impossible now
but combinations of natural and national catastrophes could lead to a failed US, with its weapons being divided up.
Canada might well ask the UK for support under these circumstances.

 

[uk 75]

I want to widen this question to take in all Western navies and their opponents.
The West's traditional enemy has had a few issues with its navy in the last few years.
China is now seen as the main opponent for the USN.
Other enemies like the Houthi in Yemen are local nuisances.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A collapsed USN kinda depends on the nature of the collapse. Some messed up modern civil war would likely split along Urban/Rural divides, so the Urban part would likely keep the USN mostly whole. The rural states might keep the USN in Washington state (not because the state isn't urban/liberal, but because the state government deeply offended the USN when they refused a namesake visit from the USS Olympia submarine crew "because they were warmongers.") Might also keep Maine, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. But Connecticut and Virginia are heavily urban, and that's where the builders yards are for subs and carriers. California and Hawaii are highly urban, they'd likely keep their chunks of the USN.

 

[publiusr]

What Russia has to its credit is a magnificent icebreaker fleet.

Perfect to guard resource extraction.

 

[shin_getter]

Surface navies are purely defensive and exists to escort transports in an era of reusable space rockets in my opinion.

No point attacking at 30knots when you can drop 100tons at 13,000knots anywhere while keeping your launch vehicle safe on the other side of the planet.

Cheap and high performing batteries plus unmanned tech makes subs much better. Increases in airframe efficiency also closes far more gaps for land based aircraft coverage.

 

[Byeman]

Surface navies are purely defensive and exists to escort transports in an era of reusable space rockets in my opinion.

No point attacking at 30knots when you can drop 100tons at 13,000knots anywhere while keeping your launch vehicle safe on the other side of the planet.

Not true. It would not be 13000 knots and it is easy to defend against. Launching 100 ton payload from a floating platform is an easy target. It would be huge and undefendable. Rockets are fragile.

 

[Byeman]

What Russia has to its credit is a magnificent icebreaker fleet.

Perfect to guard resource extraction.

They provide no additional advantage. They can't guard anything nor is there any vessel in the Russian fleet worth breaking ice for.

 

[uk 75]

In the absence of decent Chinese SSNs becoming available in numbers all these shiny new surface vessels seem nice targets for Virginias and co.
Even worse if the neighbours start doing Ukrainian style replies when China tries bullying them. Not wishing that the Philippines and others watched the Moskva go down and think, hum maybe we can do that.

 

[Dilandu]

In the absence of decent Chinese SSNs becoming available in numbers all these shiny new surface vessels seem nice targets for Virginias and co.

Considering Chinese experiments with water-penetrating green laser sensors, are you sure that those shiny new Virginia's would not become target for Chinese surface units?

 

[uk 75]

oh dear. do tell more?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Considering Chinese experiments with water-penetrating green laser sensors, are you sure that those shiny new Virginia's would not become target for Chinese surface units?

Those have limited effective depth, only about 100m of water. If those LIDARs are in satellites, the subs will know exactly when the satellite will be overhead and can likely dive deep.

 

[CV12Hornet]

In the absence of decent Chinese SSNs becoming available in numbers all these shiny new surface vessels seem nice targets for Virginias and co.
Even worse if the neighbours start doing Ukrainian style replies when China tries bullying them. Not wishing that the Philippines and others watched the Moskva go down and think, hum maybe we can do that.

I'm not counting on that absence lasting and neither should you. China manifestly wants to start cranking out SSNs like they do DDGs, you don't build submarine shipyards the size they have otherwise.

 

[apparition13]

I'm not counting on that absence lasting and neither should you. China manifestly wants to start cranking out SSNs like they do DDGs, you don't build submarine shipyards the size they have otherwise.

Agreed. Now is not the future, the future is the future. PRC is in a one sided arms race - those are easy to win.

 

[Dilandu]

Those have limited effective depth, only about 100m of water. If those LIDARs are in satellites, the subs will know exactly when the satellite will be overhead and can likely dive deep.

My point was, that nobody actually knew how good Chinese ASW capabilities are - or how good American nuclear submarines may be against them. Modern anti-submarine warfare is quite theoretical due to lack of any practical experience for decades since the end of Cold War. The recent incident with Chinese destroyer and American planes (which attempted to intimidate her) demonstrated, that Chinese targeting radar could work through American jamming. Which is quite impressive, actually, since US military is considered to be on the top of electronic warfare. So the assumption that "American submarines would easily destroy Chinese warships" is dubious at best.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm not counting on that absence lasting and neither should you. China manifestly wants to start cranking out SSNs like they do DDGs, you don't build submarine shipyards the size they have otherwise.

Not to mention that PLAN is mass-producing the quite sucsessful line of Type 039A conventional submarines with AIP. In defensive stance near Chinese coastal waters - and there are no reasons to assume that PLAN is planning (sorry for the pun) to advance across Pacific in foreseeable future - the AIP submarines are quite comparable to nuclear ones. They are smaller, cheaper, less noisy and could sit down completely silent (which nuclear submarines not quite able to do). So while PLAN clearly have problems with their nuclear submarine mass-production, their submarine force is not exactly nonexistent.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not to mention that PLAN is mass-producing the quite sucsessful line of Type 039A conventional submarines with AIP. In defensive stance near Chinese coastal waters - and there are no reasons to assume that PLAN is planning (sorry for the pun) to advance across Pacific in foreseeable future - the AIP submarines are quite comparable to nuclear ones. They are smaller, cheaper, less noisy and could sit down completely silent (which nuclear submarines not quite able to do). So while PLAN clearly have problems with their nuclear submarine mass-production, their submarine force is not exactly nonexistent.

Covert Shores says the Type 039As have Stirling AIP, which is not completely quiet. Stirling engines have moving parts, after all. That said, they're a much better/safer option than Fuel Cells, since fuel cells mean handling hydrogen inside the hull.

Also, the crew is the biggest source of noise transients that would allow the detection of a sub.

 

[publiusr]

Well--the term "Chinese Fire Drill" exists for a reason you know--no drunken fools banging bottles in Sherwood Forest.

 

[Dilandu]

Covert Shores says the Type 039As have Stirling AIP, which is not completely quiet. Stirling engines have moving parts, after all.

It is completely silent - while the sub is not moving. Nuclear submarines produce some engine noise even at dead stop (they still need to cool the reactor), while AIP could lay completely silent. Not counting unavoidable crew noises, of course.

 

[publiusr]

Theoretically the German type 212s with fuel-cells would seem quietest in concept if not execution.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It is completely silent - while the sub is not moving. Nuclear submarines produce some engine noise even at dead stop (they still need to cool the reactor), while AIP could lay completely silent. Not counting unavoidable crew noises, of course.

Depends on type of AIP engine. Fuel cells are completely silent, they have no moving parts. Stirling engines are not completely silent, they have moving parts. But fuel cells need to run on hydrogen, while stirling engines can run on diesel fuel.

Which makes the choice between "silent but dealing with compressed hydrogen" and "moving parts but runs on diesel fuel."

And again, Covert Shores says the 039As have Stirling engines.

Theoretically the German type 212s with fuel-cells would seem quietest in concept if not execution.

Yes, in theory.

But you can't pay me enough to deal with compressed hydrogen inside a submarine. That stuff is miserable to work with and will blow up if you look at it funny.

 

[Dilandu]

Depends on type of AIP engine. Fuel cells are completely silent, they have no moving parts. Stirling engines are not completely silent, they have moving parts. But fuel cells need to run on hydrogen, while stirling engines can run on diesel fuel.

Again; the AIP submarine could be completely silent if it just not moving. The stopped Stirling produce zero noise, you know) While nuclear submarine could not completely shut down its powerplant; even standing still, it would still produce some noise due to cooling requirement.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Again; the AIP submarine could be completely silent if it just not moving. The stopped Stirling produce zero noise, you know) While nuclear submarine could not completely shut down its powerplant; even standing still, it would still produce some noise due to cooling requirement.

If the stirling engine isn't moving it isn't making any power, you're just running on batteries at that point.

 

[Dilandu]

If the stirling engine isn't moving it isn't making any power, you're just running on batteries at that point.

Exactly. My whole point was, that there are SOME advantages that AIP subs have over nuclear ones. The ability to wait completely silently in ambush is one of such. Granted, it isn't a game-breaking advantage; but it is still useful.