Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
In the US Navy Submarine Service there is a saying: "There are just two types of ships in the world; submarines and targets." And - they are right.
There. Feel Better now? ;)
That said: If I could help you I would. Alas... a single frigate against an Akula - not a fair fight.
Some one will come along who's won that one. When they do - pay attention to what they have to say 'cuz they will know what they're talking about or (more likely) they got really lucky.
Well - I can understand that feeling.
Here's a tale I can tell. In the Med somewhere north of the straits of Messina. The USN sub I was serving on at the time was invited to participate in a US Carrier group exercise. Out task sink as many ships in the TF as we could.
Cool - We had a pretty good Capt with lots of experience - above average compared to other sub Captains who quite honestly are the cream of the crop anyway.
Long story short - we took out the carrier 1st and over a period of about 12 hours or so took out the rest of the TF. Capt decided he was having too much fun to quit (true thing) so we hunted down the TF's support ships (oilers and supply ships). Sunk all of them and their escorts. By then we were out of torpedoes (the simulated one's) and we surfaced to send a message that we'd be leaving the exercise now. The radio men passed the word around later that they could tell that the TF Commander was really pissed off by his response.
That event took place back in the late 70's. The technology behind subs has advanced a great deal since then.
So yeah - having served in subs I will admit that I may be a bit biased but - not without very good reason.
EDITED to ADD: FWIW I think both the CMANO and CMO simulations have nerfed what subs can do in real life for gameplay reasons. The real deal subs on just about any side with just a few exceptions could sweep the seas clean in a relatively short period of time if turned loose.
Can you tell me if your experience refers to most submarines, or would some be better than other? For instance, I like to use Norwegian equipment. Would the norwegian submarines be just as stealthy and effective, you know?
Submerged diesel boats are very quiet and very difficult to detect and locate in littoral (coastal waters) where they are primarily designed to operate. On the other hand they have to come to at least periscope depth to charge their batteries using snorkels which is very noisey. In addition, they are, compared to nuke boats, very slow though some modern ones can do 20 kts submerged they can't do it for very long and most creep around at 3 to 5kts only going faster when absolutely necessary.
In short diesel boats cannot be compared to nuclear powered boats. They are neither better nor worse as they are designed for completely different missions.
Nuke boats are at a great disadvantage to diesel boats in shallow waters due to their sonars being degraded,and speed restriction due to cavitation. The main disadvantage of diesel boats in deep waters is that they have to recharge their batteries which is time consuming, noisey and restricts their speed. A good Nuke boat Captain would simply creep along well below the diesel boat's depth limits or moving back and forth above and below the layer and wait for the diesel boat to start charging its batteries which would be readily detectable. At that point it would get into the diesel boat's baffles and that's all she wrote for the diesel boat as the crew would soon be joining their fellow warriors in Valhalla.
That said a really good Capt can overcome those disadvantages. Submariners in any navy are generally the best men the navy can find and that goes for the sub Captains more so than all others.
As for crappy navies? The Chinese aren't that great but they have the very real potential to be great. 10 more years or so and they will eclipse the Russian navy (which has gone to h.ell in a flaming basket since the fall of the Soviet Union - YAAAAAYYY!) They'll be giving the US Navy a run for their money IMO.
The British have a very fine Navy that can compete with any on the planet.
The French - ehhh. They're OKAY could be better.
The Germans - haven't kept up so don't know. They make good diesel boats though that they export all over the world.
The Indians - up and coming but got a ways to go.
The Australians - not sure about their Navy
The Japanese - in building stage - strong technocrats - should do well - not there yet
Rest of the world - ehhh... might be effective against their next door neighbors but if any of the 1st world navies intervened they'd not last very long.
The only advantages a submarine carries over surface platforms are stealth and effective sensor range. But in the modern warfare environment, stealth and sensor range are decisive. Their disadvantages are speed, weapon range, and inability to defend themselves against aircraft.
The ASW frigate is not meant to hunt and kill submarines per se. It is meant to screen higher value units from submarines. In a one-on-one fight, the frigate will lose. But if the submarine wants to kill a carrier, and it hits the frigate first, the carrier will leave and the submarine will likely die to air.
I almost got the submarine once...I went forward at creep speed, located the sub and ran at flank speed towards him. Managed to get off a couple of torpedoes at 5* angle. He turned tail and ran, but he managed to get off a couple of torpedoes himself before I did and had me dead in the water.... as Homer Simpson would say; "Kids, you tried and you failed miserably. The lesson is...never try".
Again. Thanks for the clarification and comments! :)
NOTE: Most of the below applies to the USN. I can't speak for the capability of the boats of other 1st world nation's navies but imagine if not up to US standards they're pretty darn close. Regarding Russian boats - they were totally outclassed until the japanese sold them quiet propeller technology and even then they were still noisey enough for us to locate them. As for 3rd world navies. The Russian Tango and Kilo classes were very, very good at what they did and were widely exported. As for the Chinese - smart people and their Navy is advancing rapidly. Won't be long before they are a true blue water force that will be able to compete with the rest of the 1st world navies.
See highlighted text. Strong disagreement here.
Modern torpedoes can be launched from just about any depth, be pre programmed to change depth, use various search and acquisition modes and have an attack range that is generally way further than any surface ship can attack them back without using air assets. Add anti-ship missiles into the equation and it is even easier for subs to attack surface targets well beyond the horizon and from areas where even if there are air assets the search area grows exponentially in size that they have to search as range from the ship or ships they have to protect increases. In addition attacking a submarine depends upon locating it which is extremely difficult without supporting air assets. (in a real life exercise the boat I was assigned to - USS Sandlance - had to turn our noisemaker on and set it to sound like a Soviet November class boat and the surface units we were pitted against still couldn't find us. The only time we ever got simulated sunk the surface formation had to cheat to do it.
You got it right about stealth - more right than you know. As for a speed disadvantage - diesel boats for sure are at a big disadvantage. As for nucs - again - except for older boats which are speed limited due to age and design. The newer boats (at least in the USN) all I will say is nope.
As accurate as CMANO and CMO are they don't get everything right and when it comes to submarine capabilities I imagine that's on purpose for gameplay reasons and for real life reasons.
Submarines and Targets - CMO ain't about WWII and how it was back then.
When I say that submarines are speed disadvantaged, I'm not talking about their absolute ability to haul butt compared to surface ships. They are actually quite fast when they need to be. But they are absolutely NOT faster than an ASW helo or fixed wing patrol aircraft. I'm also talking about is their ability to use that speed. The problem for the sub is that going fast means going loud. Going fast is something subs do when they are deep, which inhibits their own ability to detect targets. Subs are only a danger to a surface group in a particular circumstance. That circumstance is when the sub is already between the surface group and its destination. This is why ASW screens aren't completely around the surface group. They concentrate the ASW assets in their intended direction of travel. If the surface group is making 25 knots, and the sub is behind them, there is no way for the sub to approach without being noisy about it.
And with modern quieting systems, such as Prairie Masker, it is far more difficult for submarines to detect the ASW screen. When surface groups run ASW exercises with friendly subs, they are always required to do it with Prairie Masker turned off due to the risk of a submarine colliding with an ASW vessel that it was unable to hear. Submarines are very quiet when they aren't going in a hurry, but their surface adversaries have become very quiet too.
However, I think you overestimate going fast you go loud. Quite True 40 years ago when I served but noise reduction technology has improved a great deal since then. Cavitation isn't an issue anymore (as long as Captains know their boat). Subs know what the max speed they can go at any depth and not experience prop cavitation. Propulsion systems (turbines, shaft, reactor coolant pumps, propellor, etc) are much, much quieter. Internal noise is very effectively isolated from the external environment and US subs have noise reduction tiles on the outside of the hull.
In general only transits are done deep and then at a non-cavitating speed (unless in known safe area and usually not even then - cavitation is very hard on a propellor). Running fast and deep will indeed prevent a sub from detecting new surface contacts. That said there are procedures to get around that and not get detected when heading above the layer (one wonders if TA's these days can be guided up/down/port/stbd - that'd make it easy not to be surprised) by surface or air assets when crossing the layer (except those d.amned MAD detectors - US ships get demagnetized fairly regularly - I never trusted it would work all that well - but that's just me - it was a requirement).
And don't believe for a minute that when a sub goes deep that that means a lost contact. The sub may not have a solid contact but the guys manning the plotting table are freaking geniuses. They can very accurately estimate where a contact will be in 5 minutes or 10 or even 30 (that stuff was always pure magic to me). At some point the sub will slow down, turn in a direction necessary to regain contact and pop up into the top layer and reacquire. And they'll do it for hours or even days if necessary and do it undetected (you can tell if you get detected). Sandlance tracked the Moskva for almost a week once in the Med. It was escorted by an Akula at the time (talk about noisey) and neither one ever detected us. The Moskva ended up pulling into an anchorage in Crete (to this day I have no clue which one) and anchored. Our Captain thought it'd be funny to say good bye and sent a single ping in the Moskva's direction.
That said:I do agree with you about surface ship quieting tech improvements. The Spruance and Perry class frigates are very difficult to detect when going slow. Add to that the TA systems they have available to them now and the sub's ability to engage does become very complicated, but not impossible.
The officers, Chief Petty Offices and enlisted men in the USN Submarine Service are the cream of the crop and all volunteers. It isn't easy to become a submariner in the USN and those that do are the most expert and professional sailors we had.
If nothing else all other things being equal that in and of itself tends to give the edge to the sub IMO.
Then again - like Nightstalker mentioned - I may be suffering from a personal bias based on my personal history.
It's been known to happen.
If there's stuff that's missing or inaccurate we want to know so we can make the simulation even more realistic.
As I am sure you are aware - there are a great many things about subs that is classified information Even after 40 years there are things I will not speak of to this day about the old Sturgeon class boats that I served in.
CMANO and CMO are not the only developer that serves various militaries around the world. One other that I know of openly admits that their military customers vehicle data bases have classified information in them that absolutely is not a part of their public version of the game release.
I suspect that CMO is the same - either that or the military customers are happy with the sim as it is because it adequately teaches the lessons it wants to teach.
In any event CMANO/CMO has come a long ways since initial release on Matrix games. I am very happy with the current iteration.