Who needs a submarine?

[joe308]

I�ve always wondered why so many countries own and operate submarines. Have u ever asked yourself that question? Once you remove the USA, UK, USSR and China from the list (for oblivious reasons) you are left with a whole lot of countries who, IMHO, have wasted tons of money of a defense purchase that seems totally useless to them. I have to wonder what better purposes money spent on submarines could have been put to in such countries as Vietnam, Brazil, Indonesian or Azerbaijan (really?)

[MareNostrum]

Hear ya, a completely sensible question, and of course it could be, has been, asked about nuclear weapons. One conventional answer is along the lines of status, national pride, notions such as that. My own take, while acknowledging, that-- and I'm bound to get more than a little blowback on this-- is that the American Empire subsidizes nonsense expenditures such as this to form a network, more or less, of other navies aligned against our hyped up and overly imagined enemies, first the Soviets, then Russia, latest being China. It also makes things easier for The Empire to keep regional powers in check by letting each have a few arrows.

Reminds me of what someone once told me the definition of a boat is: a hole in the water into which you pour a lot of money.

"Swords into plowshares"? Wasn't that once a global aspiration after WWII? Now it's a video game?

[DougC]

There is greater profits from swords than plowshares. Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.

[Timmy C]

The topic of small(er) navies is one that doesn't get as much attention as it should, but there have been a few attempts at categorizing them and what their roles are as part of more generalized studies on seapower. You would do well to read the following:

Geoffrey Till, Seapower (various editions from 2003 onwards)
Eric Grove, The Future of Sea Power, 1990
Ken Booth, Navies and Foreign Policy, 1978

There are a couple of more recent works dedicated to small navies, but they're from academic publishers that aren't so easy to acquire on the average person's budget.

But on submarines themselves, much of it comes from whether you think conventional deterrence (whether in a war to limit the opponent's options or to keep that war from happening in the first place) is worth pursuing and maintaining. I think HMS Conqueror's role in the Falklands has a lot to do with shaping navies' perceptions on the power of the submarine. The sinking of the Belgrano was of little tactical value, but the consequences of it had enormous operational and strategic value in forcing the Argentinians to essentially hold their entire navy back. The fear and threat that a single undetected, but known, submarine provides much more influence at sea than any other warship in our current time period. Given the limited budgets of many small navies, the increased per-unit cost of submarines provide much more combat and deterrent value than any other warship type. To have the same sea denial (or control, depending on the objective) capability that a submarine provides, you'd need a lot more surface and aerial assets, which come at much high cost.


Brazil's decades-long quest for nuclear-powered subs and a domestic sub-building capacity is certainly one of the odder trends. While us Canadians can tell you about the utility of the submarine as a latent threat for securing disputed fishing rights (see Turbot War, 1995), it's far from the best expenditure of resources for defending the resources of the "Blue Amazon" where the issue lies less at the political level and more at the tactical, where it's illegal foreign fishers who are intruding into politically undisputed EEZs.

For Vietnam and Indonesia, the South China Sea disputes provide ample reason for wanting some level of underwater conventional deterrence. While current violence is limited to coast guards and militia forces, having a submarine force provides extra insurance to deter the use of outright "naval" forces in any potential escalation.

[Admiral John Byng]

Timmy I agree with much of what you say, but HMS Conqueror's sinking of the General Belgrano was of great tactical value. The Argentinians were working up a pincer attack on the British carriers with the V.S. de Mayo aircraft carrier coming from the north while Belgrano waited in the south with Exocets. If they had managed to coordinate a strike it could have won them the war before it even started.

[Timmy C]

Byng, I'm not finding any reliable indications that Belgrano had Exocets, only Seacats. I did find one mention that her having Exocets is an incorrect rumour, though.

[Rick E Davis]

Quote; of other navies aligned against our hyped up and overly imagined enemies, first the Soviets, then Russia, latest being China.

A rather stupid comment. Other than USSR then Russia and China had and still have large numbers of nuclear weapons, I guess they are harmless peace loving countries. The Soviet Union was a hyped up and overly imagined enemy? The countries of Eastern Europe would disagree. Russia today is a shadow of her former USSR self militarily, except they still have those nukes.

China is building up her military and using her muscle to intimidate and claim territorial waters of her neighbors in the South China Sea. They have stole their way in acquiring the advance technology to build modern military forces and have no problems with using "unconventional" warfare to get their way. The neighboring countries to China in that region can't hope to compete against China in acquiring a large military in defense of their territory, but submarines do provide a "cost effective" deterrence that the Chinese have to factor.

Several other countries around the world (Iran with 31 submarines, N Korea with 78 submarines (most in the world), etc) have acquired submarines in large part to counter US and allied interests and to meet their aggression intent, not the other way around.

Other countries still have rivalries with neighbors (the South American countries have played that game for a couple of centuries and India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is another example) and again, rather than building large surface fleets as a show of force, they decide to acquire submarines as an "invisible" deterrent. Some of the countries with submarines inherited them as the USSR fell apart. Apparently, some 42 countries currently have submarines (plus a couple of drug cartels), with North Korea having the most, with the USA, China, and Russia rounding out the top four. BUT, effectiveness of these submarines is another matter. Many of the Russian and North Korean submarines are not operational and/or very obsolete. Some dozen countries have retired their submarines over the last ten years or so.

Small countries spending money on submarines may well be a waste of resources. But, countries have been spending money on their defense from aggressive neighbors for centuries. Which is more of a threat to a country - spending on defense that deters an aggressor or not doing so and being subjugated?

[Admiral John Byng]

Byng, I'm not finding any reliable indications that Belgrano had Exocets, only Seacats. I did find one mention that her having Exocets is an incorrect rumour, though.

I could have sworn I saw a photo a few years back but I can't find it now so perhaps you are right. Presumably they were relying on her 6 inch guns to close the pincer?

[maxim]

The more likely candidates for having Exocets were the two destroyers in General Belgrano's task group: ARA Piedra Buena and ARA Hip�lito Bouchard

[Haijun watcher]

I�ve always wondered why so many countries own and operate submarines. Have u ever asked yourself that question? Once you remove the USA, UK, USSR and China from the list (for oblivious reasons) you are left with a whole lot of countries who, IMHO, have wasted tons of money of a defense purchase that seems totally useless to them. I have to wonder what better purposes money spent on submarines could have been put to in such countries as Vietnam, Brazil, Indonesian or Azerbaijan (really?)

JOE,

One shouldn't just look at the major powers that you named.If you look closer at regional tensions or local rivalries, you will see why these other countries even maintain sub fleets.

For example, Greece and Turkey both have submarines since those two have had distrust for each other ever since the Greeks revolted and freed themselves from Ottoman Empire rule.

Taiwan/ROC has submarines because it needs a counter to China's massive sub fleet and surface fleet that may invade their island one day.

Japan, which you didn't name among the powers above, also has subs to counter against China and other possible threats such as North Korea or Russia. And Japan's Maritime Self-Defence Force has one of the best sub forces in the region.

Malaysia has two Scorpene class subs as a counter to Singapore's Swedish made subs not to mention Indonesia's Type 209s and Type 206s from Germany/South Korea.

While it can BE argued that Israel has subs as well to OFFSET the fact it is surrounded by many enemies that could outnumber her numerically on the naval front as well, their recent acquisition of the Dolphin class subs, which possibly have nuclear missiles, is aimed squarely at countering Iran's nuclear threat.

No doubt that Timmy or Maxim or someone else will probably correct me if I got any details of any of the situations above wrong, but I think I got the gist...

-------------------------------------------

It can probably be also argued that for other nations with more limited military funds that they cannot spend on capital ships such as carriers or large numbers of surface ships, having a sub might be a "great equalizer" since their ability to slip undetected under an escort screen allows them to target the capital ships and amphibious transports of an enemy fleet. Of course their ability to penetrate an enemy fleet is relative to how good the enemy's ASW is, but it gives these smaller nations the capability to attack at the heart of an enemy fleet.

Subs can also disrupt an enemy nation's maritime commerce much like surface raiders do, and would be much harder to intercept; Germany and the US both used their sub fleets to disrupt enemy merchant ships in the Atlantic and Pacific, respectively. Germany, twice , in both world wars.

Furthermore, modern subs ' ability to launch missiles, whether ballistic or even just SSMs/cruise missiles, would allow them to strike undetected from within enemy waters at targets of opportunity.Of course, not all the countries I named above have this ability, but some such as Israel do.

[Admiral John Byng]

The more likely candidates for having Exocets were the two destroyers in General Belgrano's task group: ARA Piedra Buena and ARA Hip�lito Bouchard

You are right, apparently they did.

I also found this interview with "Coco", a nickname for the man who was the third officer on the Belgrano:


"I asked Barcena [former captain of Hippolito Bouchard, escort to the Belgrano] if his ship had carried Exocet missiles, and he confirmed it had, but when I asked Coco the same question, he laughed and told me the Belgrano's carpenters had fabricated Exocet launchers out of wood, to make it look as if the cruiser carried the missiles. He added that the Belgrano had not even been fitted with a sonar."

Full story here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vict ... -1.1122766