Honest Numbers Question

[NATO AIR]

Shouldn't we be buying a lot more JDAMS and UAVS than nuclear subs?
I mean, I'm willing to sign off on the F/22 (after reading CSM's defense of it) and maybe even the F-35 (I think the Marines at least need it, badly). But more nuclear subs? Shouldn't we be building diesel subs and underwater UAVS with attack and recon capabilities?

http://www.slate.com/id/2135553/?nav=tap3

The slender relationship between money and value goes the other way, too. Among the most spectacular weapons programs of recent years are the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (the pilotless reconnaissance drones, such as Predator and Global Hawk) and the JDAM smart bombs. The UAVs cost as little as $5 million; JDAMs go for a little more than $20,000 apiece. Bush and Rumsfeld are proposing to accelerate production in all cases, building 132 additional UAVs and over 10,000 more JDAMs, for two-thirds the cost of a single attack submarine.

Someone who looked just at the dollars might think that the one sub was more vital to security than all those drones and smart bombs. No one who looked at the specific programs (except maybe a Navy submarine captain) would believe that for a minute. The point is, it's time to take a more tangible approach to the entire defense budget, line by line—to assess military security not according to how much we spend but what we buy.

 

[insein]

From my limited understanding of naval vessels, I believe diesel subs cannot submerge as far as nuclear subs putting them at a disadvantage against other nations with nuclear subs. Also i dont believe diesel can get to higher rates of speed. I believe in having a nuclear sub as part of our strategic defense net against China and Russia still the way things are looking.

Again my knowledge is limited but i believe thats the key difference between nuclear and diesel subs.

 

[NATO AIR]

From my limited understanding of naval vessels, I believe diesel subs cannot submerge as far as nuclear subs putting them at a disadvantage against other nations with nuclear subs. Also i dont believe diesel can get to higher rates of speed. I believe in having a nuclear sub as part of our strategic defense net against China and Russia still the way things are looking.

Again my knowledge is limited but i believe thats the key difference between nuclear and diesel subs.

Thanks for the POV. Aren't diesel subs more quiet than nukes?

I see the diesels as another line of defense for our deployed fleets. Maybe...

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks for the POV. Aren't diesel subs more quiet than nukes?

I see the diesels as another line of defense for our deployed fleets. Maybe...

Hell no. The quitest sub ever made has been the Wolfpack, a nuclear sub. There's no explosion involved, unlike an internal combustion sub. Then there's the fact that nuke subs have no exhaust and they, like, never need refueling.

 

[NATO AIR]

Hell no. The quitest sub ever made has been the Wolfpack, a nuclear sub. There's no explosion involved, unlike an internal combustion sub. Then there's the fact that nuke subs have no exhaust and they, like, never need refueling.

From Wikipedia's page on subs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines

Depending on the submarine's overall mission, the diesel-electric submarine is sometimes more suited for shallow water or littoral operations.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I see where diesels and AIP subs can be of great use though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP), is a term that encompasses technologies which allow a submarine to operate without the need to surface or use a snorkel to access atmospheric oxygen. The term usually excludes the use of nuclear power, and describes augmenting or replacing the diesel-electric propulsion system of non-nuclear vessels.

AIP is usually implemented as an auxiliary source. Most such systems generate electricity which in turn drives an electric motor for propulsion or recharging the boat's batteries. The submarine's electrical system is also used to provide "hotel services"—ventilation, lighting, heating etc—although this consumes a small amount of power compared to that required for propulsion.

A particular benefit of this approach is that it can be retrofitted into existing submarine hulls by inserting an additional hull section. AIP does not normally provide the endurance or power to replace the atmospheric dependent propulsion, but allows it to remain on station underwater for longer than a more conventionally propelled submarine could. A typical conventional power plant will provide 3 megawatts maximum, and an AIP source around a tenth of that. A nuclear submarine's propulsion plant is usually much greater than 20 megawatts.

The Swedes use this AIP, and they're who we like to war game with the most. Not bad.