US Lacks Conventional Submarines in Dealing with China


The Norwegian ULA class submarine Utstein (KNM 302) participates in NATO exercise Odin-One. Image Credit: US Navy

The Norwegian ULA class submarine Utstein (KNM 302) participates in NATO exercise Odin-One.
Image Credit: US Navy

In his article titled “Why the US Needs Conventional Submarines” published on The Diplomat, German military historian Torsten Heinrich says that the US has only nuclear submarines due to its Cold War strategy in dealing with the Soviet Union and the shortage of conventional submarines at that time in having to come to the surface every two days.

Now, the US has to deal with China instead of the Soviet Union and due to the progress of technology, conventional submarines can stay underwater for 3 weeks without coming up to the surface for air. As conventional submarines can be quieter and stealthier than nuclear ones, US nuclear submarines will not be a rival to China’s larger number of conventional submarines within the first island chain. As nuclear submarines are much more expensive and the US lacks funds to build new submarines, Mr. Heinrich suggests that the US shall make conventional submarines for its own navy and for export.

The following is the full text of Mr. Heinrich’s article:

Why the US Needs Conventional Submarines

Filling a capability gap in the U.S. Navy’s Pacific operations.

The U.S. Armed Forces operate a wide array of sophisticated weaponry, in many cases superior to anything else in the world. But while the new destroyers, carriers, or the F-22 might have no equal, the U.S. Armed Forces face a significant gap in their capabilities: the total lack of any conventional submarines.

The United States hasn’t produced any conventional submarines since the Barbel-class in the late 1950s; every submarine class since then has been nuclear powered. This might have made sense in the context of the Cold War, where Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines had to be shadowed, but times have changed.

While previously conventional submarines had to snorkel roughly at least every two days of time under water to recharge their batteries, air-independent propulsion (AIP) has changed the game. German Type 212 submarines can stay under water without snorkeling for up to three weeks, traveling 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) or more. Without emitting heat and with no need for constant cooling due to the lack of a nuclear reactor, these German submarines and comparable designs are more than a match for nuclear-powered submarines in terms of stealthiness.

Whereas the Soviet Union had submarines cruising the globe’s waters, the next big naval challenge for the United States isn’t a revitalized Russian navy, but the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s subs and ships lurking in the South China Sea and East China Sea. These submarines could play a key role in trying to enforce China’s A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) strategy against a superior USN, with the goal of preventing the United States from intervening in any conflict involving the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands, the Senkaku Islands, and Taiwan.

With the PLAN’s mostly conventional submarine force, the USN’s superior anti-submarine warfare capabilities will continue to severely hinder any Chinese submarine operations outside the first island chain and outside of China’s land-based air cover. This limits the theater of operations to a high degree and puts it well into range for conventional submarines using only their AIP based in Okinawa, Singapore, Subic Bay, Guam, or possibly Zuoying Naval Base on Taiwan.

Whereas China can and will create a bigger subsurface fleet than the USN by mixing conventional submarines with nuclear powered ones, the financial burden of matching hull with hull is practically impossible for the United States, at least as long as it limits the USN to SSNs. Conventional submarines might change this.

While one Virginia-class submarine costs roughly $2.7 billion per unit, the same money could buy six to seven conventional submarines of the German Type 212 class. While U.S. nuclear-attack submarines are superb, many examples have shown that sophisticated conventional submarines aren’t just a match for surface fleets but also for older SSNs under the right circumstances.

In case of a conflict with China, the majority of naval combat will happen well within the first island chain, where a purely nuclear-powered fleet seems like a waste of assets. Neither their range nor their speed will be needed in most cases. As conventional submarines will be able to handle most tasks, the dramatically more expensive SSNs could stay out of the first island chain concentration on shadowing the PLAN’s SSBNs and SSNs outside this area, while keeping enough in reserve and out of harm’s way to maintain a credible deterrence against Russia at the same time. Additional conventional subs would also prevent the projected sub shortfall starting in 2021.

But going back into the business of building conventional submarines for the USN wouldn’t just make sense from an fiscal point of view for a navy that has limited resources. It would also offer various economic and political options for the United States.
President George W. Bush promised Taiwan eight conventional subs in 2001, which were never delivered. If the United States were to start building conventional submarines again, the pledge to Taiwan could finally be fulfilled. Moreover, the market for conventional submarines is gigantic. Most Asian nations are looking to establish, increase, or modernize their submarine fleets; Germany and France have both enjoyed particular success marketing their submarines to countries like South Korea, Indonesia, India, and Malaysia. Many of these nations are close U.S. allies or friends. The market for modern conventional submarines built in the United States would probably amount to several dozen hulls within the next two decades.

Built in the U.S., employing U.S. workers, and spreading the development costs over ever more hulls, Washington could seriously consider subsidizing some of those submarines for navies which are direly in need for a naval deterrence against an ever more aggressive China. If the United States doesn’t want to hand Asia over to China on China’s terms, a price might have to be paid in the end. It’ll be either money or blood. Subsidized submarines for the Philippines and Taiwan might just be what it takes to show the steadfast commitment for the status quo and the support for those two nations, which are under heavy pressure from the Middle Kingdom.

Conventional submarines with AIP wouldn’t just bolster the USN’s capabilities in this crucial theater for a comparative bargain, they would also allow the U.S. to enter a sizable weapons market while giving it the power to supply precious allies with exactly those tools they need for deterrence. The technology transfer necessary for building subs like the Type 212 could very easily be attained by a joint venture or even licensing the German subs from a company desperately looking for sales like Howaldwerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW).


3 Comments on “US Lacks Conventional Submarines in Dealing with China”

  1. Joseph says:

    If the American has money, they would just buy those German subs, no problem. The only restriction the Germans impose is cash, no credit. They are not fuzzy, and willing to accept commodity as payment. However, the way Angela Merkel is being hated so much is only because she insisted the American pay their bill, only means that the US does not have even commodity to trade. If Germany is not a US ally with the most successful economy in Europe, the US would have scorned and smeared Germany the way they do to China to avoid paying or even mentioning that enormous debt. Furthermore, given the closeness of Germany to China, I doubt the Germany would want their technology to be used against China. German economic success is after all contributed by its trade with China. Even historically, German’s hostility toward China was only attributed by the German half-British emperor Wilhem II. And Wilhem II was infamously blamed for the demise of his powerful German Empire on the WW1

    Like

  2. Steve says:

    I would have thought the German Type 212 Subs are outdated. China has already secured the Type 214 submarine technology from Germany. What is clear are China’s capability of securing the A2/AD area, within the first island chain, Paracels and Spratlys islands protected by the PLAN, PLAAF and land based missiles. External to the parameters, China will face tremendous opposition of the enemy’s nuclear submarines lurking in the depths. China has already deployed permanent sonars to protect it’s naval ports, construction of warships and submarines from enemy subs lurking within range. No doubt, US has lots of alliances to base their submarines.

    Like

  3. alking1957 says:

    the article sounds more like an advertisement or marketing page for selling German subs….

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s