/k/ — Are U-Boats aka diesel electric subs obsolete?

>>65223724 (OP)
they have a use, but they're completely different from nuke subs and are mostly stationary in deployment.

If you actually want your subs to have useful range and time on station, yes.

Inb4 “diesel subs are quieter cuz they don’t have pumps!”

>>65223890
Nuclear?

>>65223724 (OP)
For attacking large flotillas of warships? Yes, they are outclassed. For completely wrecking civilian shipping and closing choke points? No, they are a viable weapon for asymmetric warfare

>>65223724 (OP)
Yes
Mining is cheaper and SSNs are more effective

>>65223724 (OP)
'Regular' SSKs are strongly hampered by the need to occasionally snorkel, even if/when running on AIP. Plus, eventually fuel runs out (whether it be diesel, or hydrogen).
The zhangistanis are rumored to be working on a passive nuclear powerplant, based on blueprints stolen from NASA. This powerplant features a fully-passive minireactor (originally intended for large satellites) used as a heat source for Stirling engines.
The combination would produce notably less power than a conventional PWR+turboelectric machinery, but is more compact and less maintenance-intensive (also likely cheaper). It would allow a sub to maintain a cruise speed of about 11+/- knots, while preserving battery power for sprints. Currently, SSKIs only manage 7-something knots on AIP; having +50% cruise speed, and technically unlimited range, would be quite the improvement.

>>65223724 (OP)
Submarines have 10000-15000 km range.
Drones don't.

>>65223974
An SSK or SSG (depending on sensors and weapons) will still be just as effective engaging surface warships as a SSN. The advantage of the SSN is in the strategic uncertainty it generates and the tactical flexibility inherent in the speed and range of nuclear propulsion but that comes at an extremely steep financial and technical cost. An SSK needs to play to its strengths in a chokepoint or a confined littoral environment. Alternatively, the SSK will require off hull target information IOT pre-position to mitigate against the speed advantage of the surface ships. The advantage is that they are (relatively) cheap.

>>65223974
diesel/aip subs are shallow water hunters
they can most certainly hunt floatilas once they are out of their home port

>>65223724 (OP)
>You can clog any shipping lane of note with long range missiles with drones and the lik
Explain to me how, specifically

>>65224486
>SSK or SSG (depending on sensors and weapons) will still be just as effective engaging surface warships as a SSN
As long as the crew don't mind dying after their first launch and you're ok trading an SSK/G for a single salvo.

>>65223724 (OP)
Ever think that maybe, just maybe, they *are* the cheapskate launch platform?

>>65223724 (OP)
Modern diesel-electrics are quieter than nuclear. They have a use if you are not an incompetent nation.

>>65224570
>assuming asw forces detect the launch
>assuming they detect it they are able to localise the launching platform
>assuming they have a datum they are able to get a hit
Risk of counter-fire is inherent to war. Speed is often a sub-optimal tactic to avoid counter-detection unless asw forces are poorly postured

File: Screenshot_ficci.in.jpg (135 KB, 1387x791)

>>65223890
>Diesel subs are quieter because they don’t have pumps.
Modern AIP subs running on fuel cells also do, since it's mostly an electrochemical reaction. The range for a small 1.800 tons boat is around 2.500 nautical miles, and you can also scale it up with a methanol reformer for inter-ocean range.
It won't be able to sprint at 30+ knots indefinitely like an SSN, but you can get at least 2 modern SSKs for the price of 1 SSN of similar displacement. So if you already have established forward bases in other countries, SSKs can now be a viable alternative to SSNs.

>>65224301
That depends.
a type 212A dedicated roughly 300t, or 20% of its displacement for AIP modules, H2/LOX tanks and reactants itself. Bear in mind that metal hydride is prohibitedly heavy and volumetrically consuming. Switching to methanol allow for a better energy density.
a 4000t SSK with above configuration, assuming it carry at least 250t of methanol and 400t of LOX could yield about 0,1692(H2 yield) * 33(H2 LHV) * 0,6 * 250 ~ 845,9 MWh.
A SSK/SSN would probably require around 1,5-2 MW for 13-14 knots. That should be enough for 18-24 days of continuously cruising. The „leaks“ from chinese account or sinodefenseforum also mentioned 13-14 knots transit IIRC.
USS Tubilee was also a fairly similar design to those hybrid low power reactor SSKN chinese are experimenting, and the high cost discouraged the USN from attempting any further hybrid design like that.

>>65224598
Launch transients are not quiet. Enjoy having your entire environment immediately turned into a sonarbouy field and then dying to an air launched torpedo when you can't clear datum.

>>65223724 (OP)
Ww2 diesel subs are slow and noisy trash cans. It’s hilarious that germoids never thought of developing something to avoid allies ASW, hedgehog and DC were dirt cheap to build, and they turned uboats into coffins for 16yo hans just as easy

>>65224567
if we're thinking on retard terms
>look at shipping lane on sattelite
>see ship
>calculate and dial in coordinates
>launch shit missile
>watch as the enemy uses valuable assets to guard the pokemon onahole container ship against shit missile
you can improve vastly from this.
Alongside using drones on shorter ranges since i don't think it's worth it to make a drone large enough to go very long ranges but you can possibly do that too

>>65224581
what about the meatbags inside? why would i want to train them, feed them and then proceed to deal with any relatives when they have to kamikaze themselves periscope down style or die because the diversity hire left a hatch open

They're good, but autonomous undersea drones fill that role far better now. Subs should be equipped with autonomous torpedos that operate as drones. The Subs can then pop out the drones close to the area, then leave and let the drones do the dirty work.

>>65224656
Where are you getting the satellite? The enemy isn't contending this at all?
How cheap do you think is a missile that can reliably hit a moving target at hundreds of (to a thousand) km?

>>65224677
>satellite
You can any number of recon assets
>The enemy isn't contending
with more expensive assets and personell
>How cheap do you think is a missile that can reliably hit a moving target at hundreds of (to a thousand) km?
About three fiddy. A drone is ideal

>>65224634
>clear datum
Nta, but relying on speed to save your butt is rather a hope 'n cope.
Take the Seawolf, it's physically and mathetically impossible for the S6W to propel it over 40 knots. Modern ASW torpedo top speed tends to be over 70 knots, and while their range is rather limited at that speed, it's still (at least) a 10 nmi radius deadzone that the SSN has to break away.
In some cases, having that extra HP can be your life-saver, but SSN was(still is) a lot slower than ASW torpedo.

>>65224696
>You can any number of recon assets
Try again esl
>with more expensive assets and personell
What are you basing this analysis on?
>About three fiddy. A drone is ideal
Same question then, but for a drone now.

>>65224634
If you are getting sonobuoys dropped on you by a Y9/P8 or a Romeo/Z9 speed isn't going to save you. Launch transients are loud but so is a task group full of maneouvring warships.

>>65224712
Clearing datum is about being able to go pretty fast relatively quietly indefinitely so that there's too large an error bubble to solve once they can get sensors back on you. Only nuclear boars can do that. Separately, torpedo evasion is a thing as well and flat out speed is critical for that, and diesels just can't do it. One eel and they're dead.
>>65224753
If your submarine requires that the enemy never deploys any bouys anywhere near you to operate and stay alive, then you're in a fucking death trap and you commanders are feeding you false scenarios that imply this is even vaguely plausible to keep your sprits up.

>>65224780
Lol wut? Subs can't evade homing torps by speed. They can only deploy decoys and hope for the best. The best defence IS not being detected in the first place. Surface ships, or rather their ASW aircraft can always be faster than subs. Did you think nuke subs have shields or something. One torp is all it takes. Even a near miss explosion can break the hull. Pressure waves are more deadly underwater. Lol.

>>65224629
>USS Tubilee was also a fairly similar design to those hybrid low power reactor SSKN chinese are experimenting
According to various (admittedly close to "trust me bro" veracity) rumors, it's not like the one tested in USS Tullibee or that Soviet sub. Those used classic PWRs with turboelectric machinery, which turned out to be uneconomical, because PWRs are inefficient under a particular size, and so are turboelectrics.

The rumored zhang powerplant is a scaled-up version of the passive nuclear Stirling generator intended to go in larger satellites. Except that, instead of using sodium like the US Kilopower experiment, they use helium, similar to the older concept (which they stole). Also, they have experience using helium for nuclear power purposes, since they operate a pair of gas-cooled reactors.

>>65224634
>Launch transients are not quiet.
They can be, if you slowly dribble the fish out of the tube (unpressurised launch) like the proverbial shit out of a dog. And keep speed low (<10 kt) until you get the steel eel far away enough from the boat, to increase the uncertainty bubble, before starting the actual attack run.

>>65224908
A well crewed nuclear sub can evade torpedoes. It's not a sure thing, but it's a hell of a lot better than being dead for sure like a diesel boat.

File: power_speed chart.png (110 KB, 845x878)

>>65224972

Another anon, but feel like have to step in
>A well crewed nuclear sub can evade torpedoes. It's not a sure thing, but it's a hell of a lot better than being dead for sure like a diesel boat

SSK, aside from the old af Kilo tends to operate on a mixture of AIP propulsion for cruising mode, and the secondary battery system - LAB, or more recently, LIB in the case of Japan for evasive maneuvers. The capacity of the battery system can range from 5 to 20 MWh, at least based on sub nerds calculation and 'guesstimation'. SSK can do evasive maneuver, too. And I doubt high speed maneuver would be nearly as important aside from the very odd cases of dodging torpedo. You've already fucked up badly the moment they got a ping on you.
reference on pic related, 10-20MW can give you about 1 hour at 30 knots

>>65224301
>The zhangistanis are rumored to be working on a passive nuclear powerplant, based on blueprints stolen from NASA. This powerplant features a fully-passive minireactor (originally intended for large satellites) used as a heat source for Stirling engines.

The RTG required to propel a sub at 11kts would have to be the size of the sub itself if not bigger. There's a reason they're only used for satellites, their output to weight ratio is not suitable for anything other than running sensors and other low power equipment for a long ass time.

Much better in littoral waters than a nuclear sub.

File: U1407.jpg (254 KB, 947x812)

>>65224650
>It’s hilarious that germoids never thought of developing something to avoid allies ASW
Lurk more, normietard.

Walter turbine for submarine was more or less matured enough for operational use by late 1944/45. Shortage of HTP due to V1/V2 ate up most of the supplies, plus air raids slowed down further plant constructions took their toll. Tbf, had the OKM has even a little bit of a strategic vision, HTP turbine development could've been accelerated from early 30s.

U-1407 underwent post-war trials in bongland, and they did impress the admiralty enough with their maneuverability. For 1940s techs, that thing would borderline be an USO/submersible UFO to the Allies. Dedicated ASW torpedo wasn't available until late 50s/60s, and effective ones like mk48 wasn't until late 60s.

I'm also curious if the Walter turbine could have been a cheaper alternative to nuclear propulsion. Per Ulrich Gabler's Submarine Design (p. 79), specific consumption for each type of system process is:

>5 kg/kWh or more in the cold process(used in me-163 and v1/v2 rockets)
>2,35 kg/kWh in the hot direct process(used in walter submarines)
>1,85 kg/kWh in the hot process using a condenser
>1,32 kg/kWh in the indirect process

A modernized version with better efficiency and HTP storage could be interesting to compare against low-power hydrogen fuel cell AIP systems. The Me-163 was an awful idea, but the submarine application remains promising. Sadly, the EU 'hydrogen economy' obsession makes an HTP turbine chance ever see the light of day again practically zero.

>>65225565
nobody likes HTP
the future is lithium ion

> had the OKM has even a little bit of a strategic vision, HTP turbine development could've been accelerated from early 30s
Allies would just have built more fast escorts
Walter submarines were dangerous in the late war given the vast numbers (US and Empire combined, maybe a thousand?) of slow escorts the Allies had built
but if they had built fast submarines beginning in the 30s, the Allies would have built fast escorts

>>65224737
>Try again ESL
no, recon assets are interchangable, you are just a sea jew wanting to milk govts fro ship shekels
>People are cheaper than drones
maybe in the turd world
>Drones are expensive
really? As compared to a manned ship with multiple room sized systems and long term deployment. i don't buy it chief, some iranian cave engineer can design a shitty drone with range and payload enough tothreaten any old cargo ship

>>65225565
> had the OKM has even a little bit of a strategic vision, HTP turbine development could've been accelerated from early 30s.
...How? Didn't donitz essentially give Walther everything the moment he heard his vaguely useful idea despite the coastal sub built being sub par?

>>65223724 (OP)
It would be easier for a drone to just have a torpedo, I mean it's not like we have the tech to already do that. Actual submarines now are just deterrents instead of sea hunters.

>>65224486
>has to sit and wait, hoping the ship runs into their range on its own
>just as effective

>>65224592
if you're not an incompetent nation your nuke subs are just as quiet and you have no use for diesel-electric

File: _density.jpg (17 KB, 583x299)

>>65225640
>the future is lithium ion
You at least do know that hydrogen is on the order of magnitude far more energy-dense than the highest capacity lithium battery, right?
Even then, that's like saying rechargeable battery would replace nuclear power and petroleum when they are two drastically different sources of electricity.

>>65225052
Diesel subs are not doing 30 knots. While exact speeds are mostly classified, estimates put most of them topping out at between 20 and 25 knots.

> 1 hour at 30 knots
Nuke boats will do 30 knots for…ever. Or at least for a couple decades.

File: 8546b307-bb86-4ea7-8eb7-cc918e70cd4b.png (2.20 MB, 1536x1024)

>>65223724 (OP)
FUCKIN BUILD ONE WITH FUCKIN YEEHAW TORPEDOES AN FUCKIN IDK ICBM FAGGOTS AND SHIT WEEEEEEEEE GONE RULE THEM FUCKIN SEAS AND YES WE RAM NIGGAZ.
So also can't we come up with some gay einteinium hebe way of using sea water for power?

>>65223724 (OP)
Useful for smaller seas such as Baltic Sea.
Also will probably experience a renessance once unmanned versions become realistic.

>>65225704
>no, recon assets are interchangable, you are just a sea jew wanting to milk govts fro ship shekels
No. I'm not saying I disagree with you, esl. I am telling you that I can't comprehend your butchering of my language and that you need to try again to communicate whatever your point is.

Everything else in your post is not anything I said so I have no idea who you are schizo replying to.

>>65225640
>Allies would just have built more fast escorts
Sonar wasn't particularly effective at all over 10 knots.

pwencycl.kgbudge.com/S/o/Sonar.htm

And during depth charge run or hedgehog attack, ASW escorts mostly operated in 15-20 knots speed regime, which is why DE and corvette were mostly designed around that speed in the first place, a 35-40 knots fleet DD wont do much without effective, dedicated ASW torpedo that wasn't available until the cold war was already underway for a while (the 60s).

>>65225785
>Didn't donitz essentially give Walther everything the moment he heard his vaguely useful idea
I don't recall that Donitz was already KM chief during the 30s, much less from late 20s when HTP turbine was first proposed.

>despite the coastal sub built being sub par?
In a way, the sub was rather noisy, but that's due to the lack of anechoic tiles, do you expect them to fit them on an experimental boat, when they didn't have enough rubber for every frontline uboats? The aim was to verify the operational readiness of the turbine, and it more or less was functional with no critical engineering nor operational flaw, regarding the turbine itself or HTP storage, in this case was stored in neoprene bag under the pressure hull and also underwent several underwater explosion tests(Die schnellen Unterseeboote von Hellmuth Walter, p. 21).

>>65228996
>Donitz wasn't in charge
i vaguely recall him being in charge of the submarine school or whatnot and constantly shilling for anything u-boat shortly before and during the war despite anglo german treaties and bismarck shenanigans. Since the kriegsmarine was a new org, hitler preferred it alongside the luftwaffle to the army which was filled with prussian aristocrats, so it wouldn't be suprising if donitz gets away with retarded projects with dubious qualities
>do you expect them to fit them on an experimental boat, when they didn't have enough rubber for every frontline uboats?
yes. They should have gotten porsche involved pre-tiger trials aswell so the waste of money would be towards this project instead of combusting into flames in italian mountain villages

>>65226355
yeah but nobody wants to faff around with HTP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_X-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sidon_(P259)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-99

>>65228996
>Sonar wasn't particularly effective at all over 10 knots
not effective at all, more like
but still, not relevant because WW2 escorts didn't attack at high speed
>during depth charge run or hedgehog attack, ASW escorts mostly operated in 15-20 knots speed regime
no, they could not do that as they would lose sonar contact
>which is why DE and corvette were mostly designed around that speed
no, the main driver of speed for ASW escorts was the ability to dash around a convoy attacking contacts, and catching up afterwards

how would early proliferation of higher-speed Walter submarines change all this?

it would become an early operational necessity for escorts to coordinate attacks by having one slow escort hold contact with sonar, and direct the high-speed escort chasing and attacking the sub
complete changeover to heavyweight depth charges would be necessary, in order to be able to sink fast enough to damage fast submarines
Hedgehog, Squid and Limbo development would have to be prioritised to ensure better kills

if it was detected that Germany was switching over completely to Walter submarines, I don't think this would be unrealistic

>>65229406
>hitler preferred it alongside the luftwaffle to the army which was filled with prussian aristocrats
read your Minecraft, Hitler had always been a subaboo
besides, the capital ships needed more steel which Hitler allocated to tanks and artillery instead

>>65224516
JMSDF is using conventional diesel sub with LIBs. West Pacific is not a shallow region at all

>>65231499
read what i said again

File: scoobagroove.gif (3.88 MB, 330x330)

>>65225565
>Ulrich Gabler's Submarine Design
My nigguh, Love this book. I also recommend
>Concepts in Submarine Design by Burcher & Rydill
>Applied Naval Architecture by Zubaly
and of course
>Manned Submersibles by R. Frank Busby
for those who want to get into the absolute weeds when it comes to talking about submarines and other underwater craft.
Honorable mentions
>Man Beneath the Sea by Walter Penzias and M.W. Goodman
>Living and Working In the Sea by James W. Miller and Ian G. Koblick
for those interested in underwater life support systems and habitation

>>65223724 (OP)
No.
Nuke subs are also louder generally.

>>65224629
>>65224944
Thank you for using high reasoning, unfortunately OP is our resident w sperg.

>>65225565
>Per Ulrich Gabler's Submarine Design
>>65232378
sheeeiiit I have that book as well

File: photo_2026-06-12_20-52-42.jpg (199 KB, 1280x796)

>>65232508
Here's my collection, mostly submarines. I may or may not have a minor obsession with the U-Deutschland.

>>65232378
thanks mate
I'm just finished all the Norman Friedmans and am casting around for more naval books

>>65230533
>the capital ships needed more steel which Hitler allocated to tanks and artillery instead

He wasn't wrong, imo. Given a typical large wolfpack could consist of 20 boats or more, that alone would cost them at least a whole panzer division worth of steel, if not more. And no one could have predicted France's collapse in 6 weeks, the 1940 campaign could've turned into another quagmire

"True to the German belief in combined arms, each division paired a Panzer brigade with a motorized infantry brigade. The Panzer brigade contained four battalions, each with a strength of 128 tanks. Counting command tanks, the division had some 561 in all, enough to satisfy even the most diehard tank fanatic."
>https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/rise-panzer-division

>>65233644
yeah, I think Hitler made the only right call
Germany's steel industry was strained to the limit in the 30s, so there's nothing more to give
anyone saying they want more Uboats or ships or whatever, the answer is: okay, so how many tanks, howitzers, and shells do you want to give up?
(ammo gobbled up metal resources of all kinds as well)

>>65223724 (OP)
As always it depends on who you expect to fight and where. You aren't going to sink a modern navy in open oceans but you will be able to go toe to toe with them in green water and dunk on older navies in the oceans.