Submarines for the Argentine Navy

The only credible defense strategy for Argentina is to abandon any attempt to achieve the kind of sea control needed to send amphibious forces against an adversary, and instead what should be done is to ensure that an adversary cannot send its amphibious forces against the mainland, or strike a foreign Navy off shore. This approach - a sea denial strategy - is much simpler and cheaper than sea control, and is the only strategy that economically Argentina can sustain independently. So instead of wasting money on surface vessels in order to implement a sea-control strategy that has no chance of working, Argentina should invest instead in a large and capable submarine force, because they are the best way to achieve this goal.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions (closer to a billion) on the purchase of newer surface ships the Argentine navy should upgrade its existing destroyers and frigate.
The purchase of more ships can not ethically be utilized in any serious conflict due to their vulnerability in the face of swarms of ever more sophisticated anti-ship weapons and is a strategy that should be abandoned.

The existing Meko Destroyers and Frigates are still useful Naval vessels and should be used in maritime policing and fisheries protection roles. The older Drummond class Frigates/corvettes should be transferred to the Prefectural Naval (Coast Guard) and the existing fleet of older patrol boats and auxiliaries should be decommissioned.

Huge savings in time and money can be achieved by buying off-the-shelf diesel electric submarines for self -defense. Three Amur Class diesel-electric submarines ($US100 million), Type 39, type 41 boats (for more money) could be purchased for about the same price of a modern Destroyer and provide much more effective and survivable defensive capacity.

Recently the President of Argentina (in all her glorious stupidity) announced that she wanted the Navy to operate a Nuclear-powered submarine. Not only are these vessels expensive, but also they are inherently noisier than diesel-electric submarines as well as being much more difficult to maintain. New US and European Nuclear attack submarines cost over $US2 Billion each. The key advantage of nuclear submarines is their range, which allows them to attack shipping far from the nation shore. Thus they are primarily an offensive weapons system. Because of their higher cost and noise profile, nuclear submarines are not a cost-effective defensive asset.

The use of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) systems are available on new non-nuclear submarines, and provides the diesel electric boats with a new advantage. This allows the submarine to remain fully submerged for days or weeks at a time. Also modern diesel-electric submarines can recharge their batteries at periscope depth in a couple of hours and then run on batteries for over 24 hours.

Any Thoughts?

Of course a cheaper strategy would be to invest in a couple of squadrons of Naval strike aircraft

the nuclear submarine part is ridiculous

but i disagree about the disadvantage of purchasing new ships versus upgrading

if you have the money, it is almost always better to buy new
new frigates and destroyers are very potent and capable platforms, i'm not familiar with the South American scene so i'm shooting in the dark here, a pair of or four ASW/AAW frigates and a pair of modern diesel sub can go a long way for Argentine

also Amur can't be on $100mil price tag, any respectable modern submarine will cost north of $300million

Not only are these vessels expensive, but also they are inherently noisier than diesel-electric submarines as well as being much more difficult to maintain.

Click to expand...

Ahh Virgina, Ohio, Seawolf, LA class subs are very quiet with unlimited range...unlimited range.. They are very quiet due to the superior noise dampening equipment developed by US naval engineers.

Nuclear sub is out of question for Argentina Navy(budget problem and countries like US, Russia, French and Chinese are not allow to transfer nuclear sub technology to other countries).

Electric -diesel Sub is the only solution.

paintgun said:

the nuclear submarine part is ridiculous

but i disagree about the disadvantage of purchasing new ships versus upgrading

if you have the money, it is almost always better to buy new
new frigates and destroyers are very potent and capable platforms, i'm not familiar with the South American scene so i'm shooting in the dark here, a pair of or four ASW/AAW frigates and a pair of modern diesel sub can go a long way for Argentine

also Amur can't be on $100mil price tag, any respectable modern submarine will cost north of $300million

Click to expand...

Yes I agree the operation of a nuclear submarine is ridiculous. It would take away acquisition monies and maintenance monies form the rest of the navy that would be doing the bulk of the work.
In regards to the Amur class submarine. From what I have read the Russians have five different sizes available. They range from 700 tons displacement to 2,600 tons displacement. I would wager that the 700 ton vessel would be the $us100 million unit and the 2,600 ton vessel would be in the $US500 million plus range (India is interested in a modified version of this vessel for its conventional ballistic missile submarine program). $US100 million for a 700 ton vessel is “doable” and would attract many third world and developing nation begin, or augment there submarine arm.

Lion said:

Nuclear sub is out of question for Argentina Navy(budget problem and countries like US, Russia, French and Chinese are not allow to transfer nuclear sub technology to other countries).

Electric -diesel Sub is the only solution.

Click to expand...

Granted that a nuclear submarine would not be at the same level as America Russian or even English SSN it will be a first step into the nuclear submarine arena. Argentina was one of the first countries in Latin America to have nuclear generating facilities and has over the last half century developed a safe and efficient nuclear power industry (I know this since my father was a nuclear engineer and designed the facilities).
However, when designing a nuclear submarine there are many different disciplines involved; naval architecture, electronics, weapon systems, propulsion, just to name a few. All of these need to be choreographed to build an effective submarine. The engineers with the skills to apply the trade exist and can be called on to preformed the design of the system. Argentine would most likely combine efforts with Brazil to develop this naval platform. They would also most likely obtain assistance from the French (as the Brazilians have). However, as mentioned earlier it would not be in the country's best interest to develop or operate such an expensive system at the cost of purchasing or upgrading other systems within the Navy.

Miragedriver said:

Granted that a nuclear submarine would not be at the same level as America Russian or even English SSN it will be a first step into the nuclear submarine arena. Argentina was one of the first countries in Latin America to have nuclear generating facilities and has over the last half century developed a safe and efficient nuclear power industry (I know this since my father was a nuclear engineer and designed the facilities).
However, when designing a nuclear submarine there are many different disciplines involved; naval architecture, electronics, weapon systems, propulsion, just to name a few. All of these need to be choreographed to build an effective submarine. The engineers with the skills to apply the trade exist and can be called on to preformed the design of the system. Argentine would most likely combine efforts with Brazil to develop this naval platform. They would also most likely obtain assistance from the French (as the Brazilians have). However, as mentioned earlier it would not be in the country's best interest to develop or operate such an expensive system at the cost of purchasing or upgrading other systems within the Navy.

Click to expand...

may be the way is not a full blown nuclear sub.

something like a nuclear AIP sub.
I.e. an deisel-electric sub with an AIP plug section that is powered from a low power reactor plant.
no need for 30 kts underwater speed.

it would have the lower cost than a full blown SSN, but just endurance and tactical flexibilty better than a diesel electric AIP.

btw,
back in the 80s Canadian thought they can do exactly this by using low yield reactor. a "nuclear battery", in their Canadian Submarine Acquisition Project (CASAP) program.
basically from the look of things it was for all intents and purposes a high temperature gas cooled reactor ( HTGRs) . with graphite coated fuel pallets and all and very compact. idea being everything is same as a deisel electric boat, except you add a plug that has a self contained reactor powerpack.
enough to runlow speed and charge the batteries.

look it up.
I always thought that approach is the best AIP approach.

i.e. said:

may be the way is not a full blown nuclear sub.

something like a nuclear AIP sub.
I.e. an deisel-electric sub with an AIP plug section that is powered from a low power reactor plant.
no need for 30 kts underwater speed.

it would have the lower cost than a full blown SSN, but just endurance and tactical flexibilty better than a diesel electric AIP.

btw,
back in the 80s Canadian thought they can do exactly this by using low yield reactor. a "nuclear battery", in their Canadian Submarine Acquisition Project (CASAP) program.
basically from the look of things it was for all intents and purposes a high temperature gas cooled reactor ( HTGRs) . with graphite coated fuel pallets and all and very compact. idea being everything is same as a deisel electric boat, except you add a plug that has a self contained reactor powerpack.
enough to runlow speed and charge the batteries.

look it up.
I always thought that approach is the best AIP approach.

Click to expand...

I’m in 100% agreement. As I mentioned above; the diesel-electric vessel would have to incorporate AIP technology.

bd popeye said:

Ahh Virgina, Ohio, Seawolf, LA class subs are very quiet with unlimited range...unlimited range.. They are very quiet due to the superior noise dampening equipment developed by US naval engineers.

Click to expand...

Having been told this information, and therefore I am repeating it and possibly subjecting it to my bias between nuclear and diesel-electric vessels. Nuclear vessels have many advantages over conventional vessels, except for a few
The biggest advantage that nuclear submarines have is that they are truly independent of the surface for as long as their food (and the sanity of the crew) holds out. Nuclear submarines make their own water and oxygen, nuclear submarines don’t have to come to the surface to run a diesel engine, nuclear submarines batteries can be recharged even while deeply submerged, All the energy nuclear submarines needed can be done submerged. This is a huge tactical advantage.

The nuclear reactor also let the vessel operate at high speeds for long periods of time. nuclear submarines can cross oceans at a higher rate of speed than any conventionally powered ship because they don’t have to slow down every so often to take on new fuel. A nuclear submarine could cross the Pacific Ocean in around two weeks, or less, compared to over two weeks for a conventionally powered surface ship. A diesel submarine would probably not have made the trip because they may not have had enough fuel to go over and back, while remaining on station long enough to do any good.
So, as long as the food and crew held out, nuclear submarines can stay happily under water snapping photos of surface ships through the periscope.

Nuclear submarines have a lot more room, and living conditions are much nicer than a diesel boat. Granted that crews do not live in the lap of luxury, however it is a lot nicer than on a diesel submarine; frequent showers plus laundry, Not the a five star hotel but not bad.

With that said, the main disadvantage is that a nuclear power plant is noisier than a sub running on batteries. Nuclear submarines pumps are noisy (no matter how quiet they make them), and have steam noise, and the electric plant put out a 60-cycle "hum," all of which can be picked up by a good sonar system. Even if running quiet, the quietest nuclear sub makes more noise than a conventional boat running on batteries. Fortunately for the USA, England and France, most other navies don't have very good sonar (although that is changing), so they are able to spend long durations near “enemy” shores without being heard.

The other disadvantages are fairly obvious; nuclear subs are larger, more expensive, and more complicated than diesel boats. However, from a strategic force projection stand point, the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages for real blue water Navies with money to burn.

Miragedriver said:

With that said, the main disadvantage is that a nuclear power plant is noisier than a sub running on batteries. Nuclear submarines pumps are noisy (no matter how quiet they make them), and have steam noise, and the electric plant put out a 60-cycle "hum," all of which can be picked up by a good sonar system. Even if running quiet, the quietest nuclear sub makes more noise than a conventional boat running on batteries. Fortunately for the USA, England and France, most other navies don't have very good sonar (although that is changing), so they are able to spend long durations near “enemy” shores without being heard.

Click to expand...

It's more than that:

The stealth weakness of nuclear submarines is the need to cool the reactor even when the submarine is not moving; about 70% of the reactor output heat is coupled into the sea water. This leaves a "thermal wake", a plume of warm water of lower density which ascends to the sea surface and creates a "thermal scar" observable by thermal imaging systems, e.g. FLIR.

Click to expand...