Best Attack Submarine to play?

[Shadowfox]

Thanks for the opinions in advance

[sep3]

I have to ask, for what purpose/timeframe?

You want the best attack sub of all time? Seawolf.

Next!

[theCarthaginian]

Originally posted by AHGrinchY:

Thanks for the opinions in advance

By the time period, the MOST ADVANCED subs avialable in the campaign:
1968 - Sturgeon
1984 - Los Angeles
2000 - Seawolf

There isn't so much a 'best' as it is each has inherant strengths and weaknesses you play to...

Even the mighty Seawolf has its own weakness, as it was expressly designed to operate in the deep ocean, and its giant frame is ill-suited to the shallows of the SCS.

[Darkstar]

LA is the best all rounder imo. Older is more fun because they have crappy sensors but great performance. Unlike the Russians we learned that speed was inferior to sensors in the 70's. They stil are working on that conundrum.

[ultrablue]

Seawolf is objectively the best submarine available for Nato in this game. It's only available in 2000 though. The Los Angeles is seen as the second best otherwise but personally I take the Narwhal over it any day. Smaller, stealthier, more maneuverable (but slower). Also dives ~400 ft deeper than the LA too

[dph3057]

As in real life, "the best" depends on the type of mission, the crew and some luck. In a single mission the player may tailor their sub choice based on its capabilities. In a campaign however, the player must choose a compromise vessel that will generally perform well in a majority of the missions accepting that it may not be the best choice for any particular mission within that campaign.

The admirals generally task an asset based on the criteria that support the best outcome. Within the game, you and your sub, whichever one you choose, is all that's available so you pick and choose based on load out capabilities, speed, crush depth or whatever is important to you.

It really gets fun when in a campaign, you successfully abandon a damaged sub and get assigned a truly random replacement. Then you have to be a real leader and just make it work with what you are given. Keeping the same sub that you broke by reloading a saved game and trying again is certainly an option but in real life, your broken sub is going to be broken for a long time and you probably won't get another command. But CW lets you continue with a new but different class of sub, presumably that has been fix after some other skipper broke it. Who knows, he may get your sub one day...

[Pilot]

Seal clubbing is fun for a while, but to truly enjoy yourself, grab the Playable Subs mod and get stuck into using the diesels, lmao. They are great! No clubbing, all stealth & thought.

[Mehoo006]

Alfa class - fast and can go deep.

[sep3]

Originally posted by Mehoo006:

Alfa class - fast and can go deep.

And sounds like a trash can being beaten with a baseball bat.

[kalnaren]

Originally posted by Darkstar:

Unlike the Russians we learned that speed was inferior to sensors in the 70's. They stil are working on that conundrum.

This isn't exactly fair. Russian submarines -particularily the very fast boats like 705s and 945s- weren't designed in the same navel doctrin as American and British boats. They were designed to rush out to sea -fast- and kill surface groups, particularily aircraft carriers and convoy ships. More akin to aerial interceptors. They weren't designed as long patrol boats like Western nuke boats. This is also why Russians would operate multiple submarines in the same area. They were there to hunt surface ship -not submarines- so fratricide wasn't a concern. You don't need amazballs sensors to hunt a noisy carrier. You can also see this doctrin in their weapon systems. Their passive stuff wasn't great, but their active gear was just as or nearly as good as Western equipment.

Yank attack boats were designed to hunt Russian boomers, hiding in the very noisy vincinities of the ice caps, and defend fast carrier groups from submarines. Good sensors were paramount in both situations.

Another thing to consider. Russian naval reactors are simply more efficient than American ones. They get the same power out of smaller reactors. This simply gives them more power for their boats which translates into higher speed. Even the later 971 boats, which are bigger and quieter than the last flight of 688is, are still faster because of it.

Also on the note of sensors.. the Russians are the only ones who routinly fit their boats with non-acoustic detection gear and multiple design features to reduce non-acoustic detection -this is something western navies are just NOW starting to consider. And the Soviets were doing it in the 70s.

Originally posted by tigerbear:

Seawolf is objectively the best submarine available for Nato in this game. It's only available in 2000 though. The Los Angeles is seen as the second best otherwise but personally I take the Narwhal over it any day. Smaller, stealthier, more maneuverable (but slower). Also dives ~400 ft deeper than the LA too

This is also my favorite sub to use in the game.

[theCarthaginian]

Originally posted by kalnaren:

Originally posted by Darkstar:

Unlike the Russians we learned that speed was inferior to sensors in the 70's. They stil are working on that conundrum.

Another thing to consider. Russian naval reactors are simply more efficient than American ones. They get the same power out of smaller reactors. This simply gives them more power for their boats which translates into higher speed. Even the later 971 boats, which are bigger and quieter than the last flight of 688is, are still faster because of it.

Also on the note of sensors.. the Russians are the only ones who routinly fit their boats with non-acoustic detection gear and multiple design features to reduce non-acoustic detection -this is something western navies are just NOW starting to consider. And the Soviets were doing it in the 70s.

These are flat incorrect.

1.) The Deutsche Marine has been building non-magnetic hull submarines for DECADES, and now that they are selling them quite a few countries (Spain, Italy, Israel, Greece, Turkey, Republic of Korea and Pakistan)... meaning that the Russian navy is HARDLY 'the only ones routinely' worried about non-acustic countermeasures. Additionally, unless you have some serious information about deeply classified portions of submarine construction in the US, Britain, France, China and Japan (which I do not), I wouldn't jumpt to the conclusion that we've sat still on the issue either - we just don't sell a lot of our gear (though France is selling to Oz now) and thus we don't exactly make up brochures about selling points like HDW does for the 212 and 214s.

2.) Russian reactors in the 971s are NOT 'more efficient' than American reactors... as you stated about doctrinal differences, that is a complete misconception based on the fact that they are designed to do two entirely different things more efficiently than each other. Russian submarines are designed to move quite fast to intercept fast-moving carrier battle groups. Russian reactors must generate more power per ton - and this makes the more accident-prone, more maintenance-intensive and radiate more noise than a comparable US design.
Till I see documentation, I take the word of the sub sailors that I know who chased the few 971s since they first came out - they are dangerous, but they are not quieter than a US boat built during the same period... especially considering that they are outnumbered about 4:1 by just our LA-class boats, and those are neither our best nor will they be our most plentiful within 5 years.


The Russian Navy also cannot afford to replace the 971's for several more decades due to the same economics woes that have so far canceled the plans for the Project 23560 DDGNs to replace the Sovremennyys, Slavas and Udaloys and ensured that the Project 23000E CVNs have never gotten beyond a small model. With the current contraction of the Russian economy, construction of any new submarines beyond the Yasen seems in doubt... given the last few projects that Russia has managed to get hulls in the water on, the proposed 2027 delivery date could be more like 2035 or even later. I mean, the first of the Yasen class boats was laid down when I was just in my teens... I was a married man in my THIRTIES before it was completed.
Also, the recycling of old hulls to build the new Project 935 SSBNs - while creative and economically astute - signals that the Russian state is having a great deal of difficulty replacing losses to simple age in their submarine fleet. The Project 667BDRM subclass is old, noisy and falling apart at this point. Using 4 of the decommissioned or incomplete 971s cannot keep costs down enough to replace all the Russian SSBNs.

It'll be interesting to see how the situation develops... but as it stands right now Russian military procurement has ground to a screeching halt when compared to the need for new material. Russia has to find some funds or their military will fall apart.

Of course, the US needs to find some funds as well... its probably time we took a hard look at some AIP boats to keep numbers up.

[kalnaren]

For non-acoustic I was referring to things like SKOKS and the multiple design features on soviet boats like anti-vortex generators, not anti-magentic hulls. Degaussing and the like was largely intended to counter MAD arrays from AWS aircraft, not detection by other submarines. The Brits put a SKOKS array (or similar technology) on a Trafaulger, but they didn't incorporate them on the Astutes.

The word I got from some submariners is that the 971s (and even the last of the Victors) were very quiet for the first 12-18 months or so after construction, but after that the poor workmanship and maintenance caught up with them and they started to make all kinds of noise. Gepard is still a very quiet boat, but it's the only one of it's class.

There's two declassified reports that I know of of Russian boats tracking 688s using completely non-acoustic methods. One was for about two days near Guam. I can't remember what the other one was.

A lot of this information comes from Norman Polmar's research.

The Russian Navy also cannot afford to replace the 971's for several more decades due to the same economics woes that have so far canceled the plans for the Project 23560 DDGNs to replace the Sovremennyys, Slavas and Udaloys and ensured that the Project 23000E CVNs have never gotten beyond a small model. With the current contraction of the Russian economy, construction of any new submarines beyond the Yasen seems in doubt... given the last few projects that Russia has managed to get hulls in the water on, the proposed 2027 delivery date could be more like 2035 or even later. I mean, the first of the Yasen class boats was laid down when I was just in my teens... I was a married man in my THIRTIES before it was completed.
Also, the recycling of old hulls to build the new Project 935 SSBNs - while creative and economically astute - signals that the Russian state is having a great deal of difficulty replacing losses to simple age in their submarine fleet. The Project 667BDRM subclass is old, noisy and falling apart at this point. Using 4 of the decommissioned or incomplete 971s cannot keep costs down enough to replace all the Russian SSBNs.

I don't disupute any of that but I'm also not sure what it has to do with anything I said?

Look, I'm not sitting here saying "SoViEt SuBs ArE tEh BeStEsT sUbS", because one, it's not true (especially for the earlier ones), and two, I know just how much it hurts the superiority complex of Westerners suggesting that Soviet/Russian tech may not be the epic, collossal pieces of ♥♥♥♥ they think they are.

The Russians have done some pretty innovative things with their submarines, and they've done some things with their submarines that Western navies have not. The Russians learned fast from their mistakes with submarines, and they've closed the capabilities gap faster than the West has opened it. The attitude that "well if it was good and worked we'd have done it too" is ridiculous (I've seen this argument quite a bit with regards to non-acoustic detection, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary). The gap still exists of course, and it's pretty big in some places. But in others it's not as big as it was 40 years ago.

[theCarthaginian]

Originally posted by kalnaren:

*snip*

The Russians have done some pretty innovative things with their submarines, and they've done some things with their submarines that Western navies have not. The Russians learned fast from their mistakes with submarines, and they've closed the capabilities gap faster than the West has opened it. The attitude that "well if it was good and worked we'd have done it too" is ridiculous (I've seen this argument quite a bit with regards to non-acoustic detection, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary). The gap still exists of course, and it's pretty big in some places. But in others it's not as big as it was 40 years ago.

On the first part - don't have Polmar's books on the Sovs, but I will try to find them. My evidence largely comes from firsthand accounts stretching back to GUPPY crewmen in the early 1970s and culmonating with a guy that retired as off an LA and went on to be a contractor for General Dynamics. I'm sure there was a bit of braggadocio in the stories - and would be disappointed if a sailor didn't stretch things - but the truth was there... the Russian boats couldn't hide if the American boats wanted them found. It could be a bastard of a job, and you might not hold a solid contact, but they could find anything long enough to line up a shot (which does not always mean you're not in the gunsight yourself).

Superiority complexes are immaterial - Russians make good gear when it is used for what it is intended to be used for... only a fool DOESN'T admit that. Likewise, American subs suffer greatly from the lack of consideration to littoral combat - they are beasts of the deep, and catching them in a place like the SCS or Baltic would leave them at a fearful disadvantage against a competent and well-equipped opponent - like, say, a Project 636.3 (the US sub crewmen I've met fear a Russian diesel boat far more than a nuke).
Russian diesel boats are VERY frightening... though the lack of an AIP on them makes them weak endurance-wise against the (admittedly much more expensive) foreign competition. I'm interested to see if anything comes of the 'Kalina project' boats, of if they just turn into another Project 677 type 'false start.'
P.S. - as a soldier, there are some pieces of Russian kit I'd have kicked puppies to have had... the RPO-A Shmel comes to mind as one of them. Russian thermobaric weapons are top-of-the-charts and the US doesn't have diddly like them. Another personal pick is the AS Val, looks like a simple, solid integrally-suppressed rifle... though the .300 Blackout outdoes it ballistically, you don't need insane ballistics at <50m, just solid performance, low recoil and good sights.



The last part has everything to do with the Russian submarine situation for a single reason:
Russian boats have had EXTREME development/construction times over the last 20 years due to political and economic concerns. While the newest are extremely quiet and can give trouble to the 80's and 90's designs that dominate Western forces today, they are still lagging behind the more modern designs that are now beginning to fill ot the rosters as our fleets 'turn over' and retire the older vessels.
OTOH, Russian production cannot meet replacement needs... forcing older designs that were at least 'competative' when the Soviets began designing them to soldier on decades beyond their expiration dates. The technology gaps on new boats might have shrank in many ways, but the old boats are a higher percentage of the Russian fleet than they were ever intended to be - and that percentage must be maintained to provide adequate coverage in the forseeable future. This will (as it has with tanks and aircraft) lead to a slow decay in comparative capability with the 21st century boats in the US, British and German production lines.