US Navy diesel powered submarines?

[Rickshaw]

Diesel Submarines: The Game Changer the U.S. Navy Needs

 

[TomS]

Diesel Submarines: The Game Changer the U.S. Navy Needs

Is it that time again? This idea comes up every decade or so. It runs into the basic problem that the USN rarely has the luxury of reliably operating close to its forward bases. Sure, sometimes your new, "cheap" SSKs will be operating in the Sea of Japan. But sometime you'll need to surge to the Persian Gulf again, and those SSKs will be too far away to be operationally useful.

 

[Moose]

We're building better robots. They're cheaper and they don’t get their crews killed recharging their batteries.

 

[Rickshaw]

Diesel Submarines: The Game Changer the U.S. Navy Needs

Is it that time again? This idea comes up every decade or so. It runs into the basic problem that the USN rarely has the luxury of reliably operating close to its forward bases. Sure, sometimes your new, "cheap" SSKs will be operating in the Sea of Japan. But sometime you'll need to surge to the Persian Gulf again, and those SSKs will be too far away to be operationally useful.

Methinks you have misread the article, if you believe that is what it is about. What he is proposing is a theatre only use of diesel electric submarines, rather than a world-wide use of them. The SSNs would handle the world-wide deployment of the US Navy while the SS would handle the needs of being deployed close to the PRC, along with the Japanese.

Is it a good idea? I have no idea. I put the article up for comment to see what others thought about it's reasoning. What I find interesting is that he limits his views only to employing Japanese boats and ignores the ROK and ROC presence in the South China Sea. I wonder why?

 

[Foo Fighter]

From my limited experience, the NI seems to make several arguments for a position but does not follow any of them to a logical conclusion. Almost disinformation style. I wonder why too.

 

[F-14D]

There's one other consideration regarding SSKs that is not often considered: Congress.

Specifically, to a large portion of them a submarine is a submarine. In other words, if an SSK is built they'll look at it as "OK, We've funded a submarine for the Navy, so now they don't need a SSN". Repeat over and over.

 

[sferrin]

There's one other consideration regarding SSKs that is not often considered: Congress.

Specifically, to a large portion of them a submarine is a submarine. In other words, if an SSK is built they'll look at it as "OK, We've funded a submarine for the Navy, so now they don't need a SSN". Repeat over and over.

"And it's cheaper and requires fewer sailors." Same reason pretending small carriers can replace CVNs is a stupid idea.