In the control room of submarines everywhere, processing and computer power has also been increasing at an astounding rate for decades now. Thus any new class of boats, even improved models such as Astute, will have its share of both updated legacy systems along with new gadgets and sensors. Radar and sonar systems for the Astutes will be essentially the same units as were found in the Trafalgars, albeit with some improvements. It now appears that the Astutes will be fitted with the same Type 2076 sonar system, which has already been successfully integrated into the most recent Trafalgar-class boats. It is also all but certain that the Astute will be fitted with towed array sonar, as have her predecessors, although the specific variant and configuration have yet to be announced. Finally, current plans call for the Astute class to contain her own non-hull-penetrating “optronics” masts with all-electronic displays, minus the lenses, mirrors, and prisms of traditional periscopes. These are similar to those that will be carried on Virginia and will likely provide some brand-new capabilities and challenges for the Perisher-trained skippers of the RN.
What is a submarine without its weapons? RN attack submarines have now been fitted with Block III Tomahawk cruise missiles, and as the world learned during NATO’s Operation Allied Force in 1999, Royal Navy submarines can shoot a lot of them, too! HMS Splendid launched more than two dozen against heavily defended Serbian targets, a sizable portion of the limited supply purchased from the U.S. When Astute enters service in June 2005, she will be equipped with a sizable complement of TLAMs, and the Royal Navy is also looking at development of a tube-launched version of the TACTOM missile currently under development for the U.S. Navy. Land attack missiles aside, Astute also has the requirement to engage surface ships and other submarines. For this mission, Astute’s six torpedo tubes will be compatible with both the RN version of the sea-skimming UGM-84 Block 1C Harpoon missile (for attacks against surface vessels) and the fast, albeit expensive, wire-guided Spearfish torpedo (for use against both submarines and surface ships). Mines can also be carried and may have a particular use in the littoral regions.
Habitability and sustainability are always key issues on a nuclear submarine. When judging a submarine with the capability of spending extended periods of time away from port and beneath the surface, habitability must always be taken into consideration. Current plans call for a crew of twelve officers and ninety-seven enlisted sailors aboard Astute. While increased size has led to the improvement of some accommodations compared with the Trafalgars, some Astute sailors will still probably have to hot bunk with their shipmates. This practice will be required for only the most junior of her sailors, since current estimates call for the sharing of around eighteen of the crew bunks.
All of the improvements and modernizations built into the Astutes will become a reality when the first of the class is commissioned into service in 2006, followed by Ambush in 2007 and Artful in 2008. As mentioned earlier, it now appears that at least two additional A-class boats will be built, and possibly even more, though these have yet to be named or officially ordered.
What comes next for the Royal Navy’s submarine force? Work has already begun on a submarine to replace the initial seven Trafalgar boats. The boats are so far unnamed, but what is known is that they will be nuclear powered and have a submerged displacement of between 5,000 and 8,000 tons. They will also be fitted with a “life of the boat” nuclear reactor, similar to those found in the Astutes and Virginias. In addition, VLS tubes may be fitted to this next class to allow for an increased load-out of Tomahawk Block III or TACTOM land attack missiles. As with the Virginias, any new attack submarine the Royal Navy builds will likely have provisions for UUVs. There is even talk that the Astutes will be the last manned submarine to enter service with the Royal Navy, something that requires more than a minor leap of faith and vision in the future of technology. In the end, though, the real strength of the RN SSN force will be what it always has been—superbly trained crews and Perisher-qualified skippers, able to outguess and outgun their enemies.
Conclusions: Toward the Unknown
Yes, a decade really does make a difference. Ten years ago we asked what the next decade of submarine development would be like. Well, after reading this last chapter, you can see that question has clearly been answered. Fortunately, the world has also learned some lessons about the nature of naval warfare along the way. Most importantly, we’ve learned that if there’s one thing we can’t predict, it’s the future! No one could have accurately predicted the end of the Cold War, and likewise no one will ever be able to accurately predict exactly what the next generation of submarine operations and missions will be like.
We do know that the past ten years of submarine operations have consisted of the unexpected. From Operation Desert Storm to our Navy’s involvement in the recent NATO actions in the Balkans, the one theme that has remained the same throughout the 1990s has been doing more with less. The submarine communities of the U.S. and Royal navies, along with those of our other allies, have had their budgets cut, their submarines retired from service, and their crews downsized, all while being asked to conduct more activities and operations than at any time in recent memory. All this has been happening while highly capable submarines such as the Project 877/Kilo-class boats have been entering the navies of “rogue” nations at a far greater pace than new classes such as Seawolf, Virginia, and Astute will be entering ours.
What’s the solution to this problem? In today’s high-threat environment, where we don’t have the benefit of looking in a specific direction to watch for flying bullets, we must be prepared for every contingency. And we are. A quick look at America’s modern submarine force shows that. They’re out there on patrol for the nation, in the backyards of our enemies and competitors—literally on their doorstep day in and day out—already prepared for any contingency. Whether it’s a TLAM strike against a future enemy nation or a special operations rescue mission launched from the depths of a submarine dry-dock shelter, the sailors of today’s submarine fleet are doing their best to stay prepared for any emergency. And for that we owe them our respect.
Getting back to our first question, what exactly does the future hold for the submarine force? The truth is, we don’t know. Maybe the Virginias and the Astutes will be the last manned submarines the U.S. and Britain will ever build, eventually to be replaced by advanced unmanned submersibles. Or perhaps our fleets will become more and more sub-surface-centric as the surface ship becomes increasingly vulnerable to antiship missiles and other weapons. We just don’t know yet what the future holds. However, whatever it may be, our nation’s submariners (hopefully along with those of our allies) will be on patrol, ready to defend our national interest in times of trouble and threat. Can we ask for anything more?
Other People’s Submarines
It is something of an oddity that in a world where the numbers and sizes of military forces are decreasing, submarines continue to be built. In fact, while it is not quite a growth industry, production of diesel-electric submarines is continuing in a number of countries and yards worldwide. In addition, those countries that have the capability to build nuclear submarines are fighting desperately to maintain the industrial base to do so. While the nations of the world have been downsizing their own submarine forces, they have also been trying to market the products of their building yards to developing countries that desire an entry into the world of submarine capabilities.
It also is rather ironic that while the number of submarines in the world has decreased radically, the overall quality and age of the remaining boats has improved—rather a strange situation for those who suggest that peace has broken out around the world. Thus, anyone choosing to hunt other submarines is facing the reality that the task is probably getting tougher. In addition, nations that are generally considered as outlaws (like Iran and Algeria) are obtaining a number of new production diesel-electric boats. This proliferation means that the United States and our allies may have to hunt enemy subs in places we have never gone b
efore. The recent deployment of the USS Topeka (SSN-754) to the Persian Gulf, at the same time the first of the Iranian Kilo-class boats was being delivered, is probably not a coincidence. Even more interesting, though, would have been to see if another U.S. boat, perhaps even another 688I, was invisibly trailing the Kilo on its delivery trip.
The section that follows is a compendium of the more modern submarines, both nuclear and conventionally powered, that might face the U.S. sub force. Some of them, like those of the United Kingdom and France, are operated by nations that are considered allies. Others, like those of the Russian Navy and the clients of the Germans and the French, might still pose a threat to the forces allied with the United States. This should not be considered a list of every single boat in the world, however. For that, I defer to A. D. Baker’s incomparable biannual work, Combat Fleets of the World (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Md.).
For the benefit of the reader, the following explanations of the terms used is provided:
Class name: Name of the first boat of the class or building program
Producer (country/manufacturer): Country of origin and production site
Displacement (surfaced/submerged): Surfaced and submerged in long tons (2,240 lbs per)
Dimensions (ft/m): Length: Bow to stern; Beam: Side to side; Draft: To keel
Armament: Number of tubes/launchers and weapons
Machinery: Power plant(s), number of screws, propeller blades, and shaft horsepower (SHP)
Speed (knots): Maximum
Number in class: In service + building + planned
Users: All countries currently using
Comments: Some thoughts and features of the class
Russia /Commonwealth of Independent States
While the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union may be dead, the navy built by the USSR is alive and still useful. Despite having suffered the breakup of the nation it was designed to serve, and having scrapped over half of all its warships, the Russian Navy is still one of the most powerful fighting forces afloat. They still deploy something like 240 submarines of various types, as well as a large array of surface ships. And while the Russian Navy and its CIS brother services are suffering from a shortage of almost everything, the missile boats are still making their deployments, with the attack boats still supporting them in the bastions.
The big challenge for the Russian submarine force, like everyone else, is surviving the present to move on to the future. Their first problem is, of course, how to maintain their existing force of attack, guided missile, and ballistic missile submarines. This problem has been made extremely difficult by the financial troubles of the Russian Republic, though they have managed to hold things together until now. Another problem is the fleet of aged submarines (many of them nuclear powered) that they have. The recent news photograph of an abandoned Russian submarine poking its bow through the winter pack ice in Vladivostok is a chilling statement on the inability of the Russians to deal with this problem. Clearly, just how to dispose of over 150 obsolete nuclear submarines is a problem that will require the help of the United States and her allies.
As for the future, only events will tell us that. The one thing that does seem certain is that the Russians will continue development of submarines and their related technology. While many of the design bureaus for aircraft and tanks are in desperate trouble, there are continuing reports that they are still funneling their limited military R&D funds into designs for newer and quieter submarines. The most likely projects for such research will probably be a replacement for the Delta IV SSBNs, a new SSN derived from the highly successful Akula-class boats, and possibly a new diesel-electric design to replace the Kilo and support export sales. The replacement SSBN makes sense in light of the new START arms agreements, which have the Russians placing over half their deliverable nuclear warheads on submarine-launched missiles. And just as obviously, the Akula and Kilo replacements will be needed to protect those SSBNs and maintain the credibility of the CIS nuclear deterrent.
Overall, this is a major reduction from several years ago, when the R&D effort was probably two to three times this size. Rumor had the Russians working on replacements for the Oscar-class SSGNs, the Typhoon SSBNs, the SSNs of the Sierra class, and even a Rubis-sized SSN for export to the Indian Navy. All of this though is based on what we see happening today. And as any honest watcher of Russian military trends will tell you, the crystal ball is cloudy and the tea leaves unreliable where they are concerned. In the end, it will probably come down to whether Boris Yeltsin can hold things together long enough for an actual trend to develop. So here it is as of today.
Victor III. JACK RYAN ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Russian Victor III nuclear-powered attack submarine underway. OFFICIAL U.S. NAVY PHOTO
Class name: Victor III (Project 671 RTM)
Producer (country/manufacturer): Russia/Russian Admiralty; Komsomolsk
Displacement (surfaced/submerged): 4,900/6,000
Dimensions (ft/m): Length: 341.1/104 Beam: 32.8/10 Draft: 23/7
Armament: Four 650mm and two 533mm torpedo tubes with 24 weapons
Machinery: Two PWRs with steam turbines driving one tandem 8-bladed screw; 30,000 SHP
Speed (knots): 30 (submerged)
Number in class: 26
Users: Russia
Comments: While it soon will be the oldest class of SSN in the Russian inventory, the Victor III is still a dangerous and capable opponent. Well armed and relatively quiet (roughly similar to the Sturgeon class), this boat was the first Soviet SSN capable of matching Western boats. The stern pod, first found on Victor IIIs, is now a feature of every modern Russian SSN; it contains a passive towed array sonar system.
Akula. JACK RYAN ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Russian Akula-class nuclear-powered attack submarine underway. OFFICIAL U.S. NAVY PHOTO
Class name: Akula (Russian: Bars class) (Project 971)
Producer (country/manufacturer): Russia/Severodvinsk, Komsomolsk
Displacement (surfaced/submerged): 7,500/10,000
Dimensions (ft/m): Length: 370.6/113 Beam: 42.6/13 Draft: 32.8/10
Armament: Four 650mm and four 533mm torpedo tubes with 30+ weapons
Machinery: Two PWRs with steam turbines driving one 7-bladed screw; 45,000 SHP
Speed (knots): 35 (submerged)
Number in class: 7+?
Users: Russia
Comments: When western submariners have nightmares, they usually revolve around this class of SSN. Akula is the quietest SSN yet produced by Russia and represents a boat in the class of a Flight I Los Angeles. Probably utilizes a raft sound isolation system to keep noise down. Reportedly the last remaining Russian SSN class still in production. President Yeltsin has announced that the Komsomolsk shipyard, located in the far east, is going to be converted to civilian production by 1995 or ’96. After that, only the Severodvinsk shipyard, located in the Kola Peninsula, will produce submarines for the Russian Navy.
Sierra. JACK RYAN ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Aerial view, Russian Sierra-class nuclear-powered attack submarine underway. OFFICIAL U.S. NAVY PHOTO
Class name: Sierra I/II (Russian: Barrakuda class) (Project 945A and 945B)
Producer (country/manufacturer): Russia/Krasnaya Sormova
Displacement (surfaced/submerged): Sierra I—6,050/7,600; Sierra II—6,350/7,900
Dimensions (ft/m): Length: 351/107 or 367.4/112 Beam: 41/12.5 Draft: 24.3/7.4
Armament: Four 650mm and two 533mm torpedo tubes with an estimated 30 weapons
Machinery: Two PWRs with steam turbines driving one 7-bladed screw; 45,000 SHP
Speed (knots): 35 (submerged)
Number in class: 2/1 + 1
Users: Russia
Comments: The evolutionary descendant of the Alfa, the Sierra is a titanium-hulled follow-on to the previous classes of Soviet SSNs. Very quiet and well armed, it has been overshadowed by the highly successful steel-hulled Akula-class boats. Reportedly, once the last Sierra II is completed,
Krasnaya Sormova will convert to civilian ship production.
Charlie II. JACK RYAN ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Russian Charlie-class nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine. OFFICIAL U.S. NAVY PHOTO
Class name: Charlie II (Project 670M)
Producer (country/manufacturer): Russia/Krasnaya Sormova
Displacement (surfaced/submerged): 4,300/5,500
Dimensions (ft/m): Length: 337.8/103 Beam: 32.8/10 Draft: 26.2/8
Armament: Eight SS-N-9s in external tubes; six 533mm torpedo tubes with 12 weapons
Machinery: One PWR with steam turbines driving one 5-bladed screw; 15,000 SHP
Speed (knots): 24 (submerged)
Number in class: 6
Users: Russia
Comments: These boats may possibly be the oldest guided missile submarines that will be retained by Russia. Relatively noisy, but they can still pack a powerful punch with their battery of SS-N-9 Siren antiship missiles.
Oscar. JACK RYAN ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Class name: Oscar I/II (Russian: Granite/Antey classes) (Project 949 & 949A)
Producer (country/manufacturer): Russia/Severodvinsk
Displacement (surfaced/submerged): Oscar I—13,900/16,700; Oscar; II—15,000/18,000
Dimensions (ft/m): Length: 478.9/146 or 505.1/154 Beam: 59/18 Draft: 32.8/10
Armament: Twenty-four SS-N-19s in external tubes; six 650mm and 533mm torpedo tubes with 24 weapons
Machinery: Two PWRs with steam turbines driving two 7-bladed screws; 90,000 SHP
Speed (knots): 33 (submerged)
Number in class: 2/7+
Submarine (1993) Page 24