Outnumbered by hull count, but a large fraction of those foreign boats are old-ass diesels and Soviet-era nukes. Also, the article counts SSBNs and coastal defense boats among the foreign hulls against only the SSNs of the US fleet.
We also have allies. The article, particularly the headline, is just a touch alarmist. We aren't anywhere near losing our undersea superiority at the moment.
At any rate it's interesting to see us back down from Atoms for Peace and the nonproliferation treaty we have with them.
Strategy also matters. US and allied SSN’s are going to loiter in the deep water at the entrances to the South China Sea and destroy anything that tries to break out. We’re not going into the SCS to duel with a bunch of SSK’s.
Yeah, numbers are important, but so is the quality. Especially when it comes to vessels whose entire value is being undetectable. Granted diesels are quiet, and with the advances in battery technology, they do still have a limited time submerged. The older the nuke, the more noise it makes from simple wear and tear on bearings, and wear on the dampening hull coating.
With the caveat that I don’t know what I’m talking about, I think submarines are still irreplaceable. Barely any signal can penetrate hundreds of feet of water, so any craft that you want to stay properly hidden will need to be manned.
Nuclear makes sense for Australia, not South Korea. As much as it pains me to give this credit (even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but it is absolutely true that the three things that matter most are location, location, location. Holding Chinese submarines at risk at the choke points exiting the First Island Chain, and maybe to a lesser extent ISR around Taiwan, is the strategic goal in that AOR. Australia needs the endurance of nuclear submarines to give sufficient time on-station; South Korea does not. Korea is better served by more diesel boats than fewer nuclear.
Outnumbered by hull count, but a large fraction of those foreign boats are old-ass diesels and Soviet-era nukes. Also, the article counts SSBNs and coastal defense boats among the foreign hulls against only the SSNs of the US fleet.
We also have allies. The article, particularly the headline, is just a touch alarmist. We aren't anywhere near losing our undersea superiority at the moment.
At any rate it's interesting to see us back down from Atoms for Peace and the nonproliferation treaty we have with them.
Agreed. Won’t say no to more allies at least, because the Japanese and Aussies are already impressive as hell.
Strategy also matters. US and allied SSN’s are going to loiter in the deep water at the entrances to the South China Sea and destroy anything that tries to break out. We’re not going into the SCS to duel with a bunch of SSK’s.
If you listen to people arguing why Australia needs SSN and aukus, to go into the SCS is precisely the reason they say we need them.
Yeah, numbers are important, but so is the quality. Especially when it comes to vessels whose entire value is being undetectable. Granted diesels are quiet, and with the advances in battery technology, they do still have a limited time submerged. The older the nuke, the more noise it makes from simple wear and tear on bearings, and wear on the dampening hull coating.
Very alarmist. 1 country is outnumbered in subs vs. all the other countries in the Pacific and their subs. More at 7
The future is in the unmanned crafts
With the caveat that I don’t know what I’m talking about, I think submarines are still irreplaceable. Barely any signal can penetrate hundreds of feet of water, so any craft that you want to stay properly hidden will need to be manned.
Yeah. I think we’re very far off from that kind of autonomy
Nuclear makes sense for Australia, not South Korea. As much as it pains me to give this credit (even a stopped clock is right twice a day), but it is absolutely true that the three things that matter most are location, location, location. Holding Chinese submarines at risk at the choke points exiting the First Island Chain, and maybe to a lesser extent ISR around Taiwan, is the strategic goal in that AOR. Australia needs the endurance of nuclear submarines to give sufficient time on-station; South Korea does not. Korea is better served by more diesel boats than fewer nuclear.