Per today, five countries operate nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. Analyst Zackary Moss gives a summary of post Cold War ballistic submarine deployment worldwide.

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/vessels/33575.html

Nuclear submarines worldwide—current force structure and future developments

With the Cold War over, the need for stealthy SSBN forces has diminished. Naval planners, while maintaining their fleets of SSBNs, are focusing on expanding their multipurpose submarines, equipped with cruise missile launchers.

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/vessels/34070.html

I firmly believe SSBN race will not be decline but in fact hot up due to new competitor like China and India coming in to replace Russian! Although both countries SSBN number r still small but with further economic success,their number will increase! SSBN prove to be a valuable asset for China and India to project themselves as military super-power as their ICBM base in SSBN can virtually hit anywhere in the world.

While US already have a develope SSBN fleet,their focus may lie in countering tthese ICBM.With longe range SAM able to fit into torpedo and fire from nuclear-sub. US may apply their 'Missile defence shield' missile into sub than Aegis destroyer.Surface ship is easily detected while these cannot be same for nuclear sub once submerge.Enemy will find it harder to pinpoint and destroy US 'Missile defence shield' platform instead giving US higher chance of destroying incoming ICBM.

Can a nuclear submarine give Singapore some 'depth'?

This will bring the nuclear sub out of the two roles mentioned in the article - nuclear deterrence and first strike.

Of course ours will have no nuclear weapons on board.

The only thing I can think of is you can motor around for as long as your internal supplies last without refueling. Not much of an advantage really for a littoral navy.

As for the question of whether Singapore will want to have nuclear subs (if we ignore the vehement protest which I foresee coming from ALL regional nations), let's consider another question. Do you wish to have a nuclear reactor operating within Singapore to provide energy? (Sorry if this sounds like apples and oranges, but this is significant in my mind) Even with govt propaganda, I think locals would be hardpressed to have one in our backyard. Remember Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?

Any accident involving nuclear materials within our littoral waters is a catastrophic environmental event. IMHO of course.

And how good are we technologically when it comes to handling nuclear engines, byproducts and waste? The recent Navy accident with the tanker and our own Nicoll Highway collapse does not give me any confidence that the Navy can handle such technologies as of this time (I'm a cynic). Remember that the Russkies have had problems with their nuclear fleet and if I remember correctly there's at least one incident of a US nuclear sub colliding with a Japanese fishing vessel; which I thought the US Navy got away with by luck (except for the Japanese guys who got killed).

These pressing issues will need to be investigated in detail if SG is ever to have any sort of nuclear capability and IMO, it's better to invest in other technologies to get a better bang for the buck.

Originally posted by Fairyland:

Can a nuclear submarine give Singapore some 'depth'?

This will bring the nuclear sub out of the two roles mentioned in the article - nuclear deterrence and first strike.

Of course ours will have no nuclear weapons on board.

Maybe a kilo sub will do the job! The Russian is hard on cash and may be tempted to sell this most advance diesel-electirc sub to us if we have the capabilties to pay!

Well, I'm a cynic too. I wonder really if Singapore cannot be caught off guard.

So maybe a underwater SSBN Air Force One or USS Blue Ridge may buy the leadership some time to drum up political support and run a military response.

Maybe one day the nuclear technology will stabilise but I don't think this SSBN should be operating in our waters.

Maybe nearer Christmas Islands? But still needs maintenance.

There been research done, that show convenstional subs is more slient then nuclear ones. The advantage of nuclear sub is the endurance underwater.

However new feed cells in convenstional sub have make improvement, think countries like Singapore will still stay with convenstional sub.

Double posting

Originally posted by storywolf:

There been research done, that show convenstional subs is more slient then nuclear ones. The advantage of nuclear sub is the endurance underwater.

However new feed cells in convenstional sub have make improvement, think countries like Singapore will still stay with convenstional sub.

A submarine is most vulnerable when sufacing for refueling and replenishment.If there is enough food for a nuclear-sub to last 2yrs.We wouldn't see it for on surface for 2yrs but that is quite unlikely as ammo will use up quickly with the war intensify.Nuclear sub still need to surface often to rearm for next assault even with long energy and food!

Originally posted by zenden9:

A submarine is most vulnerable when sufacing for refueling and replenishment.If there is enough food for a nuclear-sub to last 2yrs.We wouldn't see it for on surface for 2yrs but that is quite unlikely as ammo will use up quickly with the war intensify.Nuclear sub still need to surface often to rearm for next assault even with long energy and food!

Well sometime, all depend on how the sub is deploy, to see the need if it need to stay down how long. Not mean the longer the better.

Food that will last 2 years? That's a hell of a proposition actually. Cite your source for this if you have any (the closest thing I can think of is a Mission to Mars). Being cooped up in a claustrophobic steel tube for even 6 months is something which stretches psychological endurance, try spending that amount of time in your house without leaving. If you don't choose your personnel carefully, you'd have a mutiny. What about the crews' spouse and kids? Are they supposed to remain single? What about sex? Even Nasa has voiced concerns about that particular thing for long range Mars missions. One idea has been to chemically neuter the space travellers but you can always say, crew can always masturbate right? These are very, very dicey topics and I think we all should be aware of them. I think we're a bit too limited with thinking of the weapons systems itself and not thinking too much about the human side of it.

Still, if the government deems fit to acquire nuclear weapons or propulsion (which I believe they won't by the way) I will voice my opposition to it no matter what. Within our context, I believe it's not the right thing to get into. An accident worries me no end and it'll screw up our immediate environs. Just imagine a nuclear sub going along the Straits (which is very heavily trafficked) and encountering an accident with a tanker. The cost of cleanup will bankrupt us as a nation and would make us either the most idiotic navy around, inept or just plain can't care less. All my humble opinion of course.

Originally posted by ferret69:

Food that will last 2 years? That's a hell of a proposition actually. Cite your source for this if you have any (the closest thing I can think of is a Mission to Mars). Being cooped up in a claustrophobic steel tube for even 6 months is something which stretches psychological endurance, try spending that amount of time in your house without leaving. If you don't choose your personnel carefully, you'd have a mutiny. What about the crews' spouse and kids? Are they supposed to remain single? What about sex? Even Nasa has voiced concerns about that particular thing for long range Mars missions. One idea has been to chemically neuter the space travellers but you can always say, crew can always masturbate right? These are very, very dicey topics and I think we all should be aware of them. I think we're a bit too limited with thinking of the weapons systems itself and not thinking too much about the human side of it.

I say 'if ' in my thread.But in war time,there is no time for u to think abt wife,family,yr personal properties and sex.The only thing for a military personel to think of is yr own life when in action.How to not be the one sleep inside the coffin and all other thoughs comes in later when the action is over.

As I understand it, diesel/electrics are more silent when running on electric cells. But after the cells run out, you'd have to run the diesels again to recharge, and that will make you as noisy as a nuke sub (correct me if i'm wrong)

It could be a moot point though because our (and any other) littoral waters are very noisy and it's a bit more difficult to detect and isolate a contact with the background noise than in open seas.

I think the best use of our submarines within our littoral waters is for reconaissance and as "mobile underwater mines" during war, setting up exclusion zones, staying in them and from which we can prosecute targets.

Originally posted by storywolf:

There been research done, that show convenstional subs is more slient then nuclear ones. The advantage of nuclear sub is the endurance underwater.

However new feed cells in convenstional sub have make improvement, think countries like Singapore will still stay with convenstional sub.

Originally posted by ferret69:

As I understand it, diesel/electrics are more silent when running on electric cells. But after the cells run out, you'd have to run the diesels again to recharge, and that will make you as noisy as a nuke sub (correct me if i'm wrong)

It could be a moot point though because our (and any other) littoral waters are very noisy and it's a bit more difficult to detect and isolate a contact with the background noise than in open seas.

I think the best use of our submarines within our littoral waters is for reconaissance and as "mobile underwater mines" during war, setting up exclusion zones, staying in them and from which we can prosecute targets.

Our sub is just use to frighten folks only, usually folks will just tied up a fleet to look for sub, that it enable your other ships more freedom to do damage, more a mind issue.

Granted, if I was in uniform, when in times of war, especially in our local context, I'd consider everyone I cared for dead (but hey, the sex part is still important ).

Also, if and a VERY BIG IF, war happens, we (and our adversaries) won't last more than a few months since our (and our local adversary) war supplies will run out within a few weeks I'd say. The current modern battlefield eats up materiel like Pac-man on the highest levels. Fuel will run out. Ammo dumps will be dry and our economy will be wrecked, water too would be a big deal. That's the reason we go for broke and achieve our military objectives within a few short weeks and then sue for peace. I can't see a scenario where we can prosecute war for more than 2 months.

Originally posted by zenden9:

I say 'if ' in my thread.But in war time,there is no time for u to think abt wife,family,yr personal properties and sex.The only thing for a military personel to think of is yr own life when in action.How to not be the one sleep inside the coffin and all other thoughs comes in later when the action is over.

Navy plans to purchase new submarines

Yuli Tri Suwarni, Bandung

The Indonesian Navy has proposed that the government purchase two submarines from North Korea (typo mistake) under a countertrade scheme worth US$600 million and involving 30 CN-235 passenger planes produced by state aircraft manufacture PT Dirgantara Indonesia (DI).

Navy Chief of Staff Vice Adm. Bernard Kent Sondakh said that the deal would be negotiated by the Indonesian and South Korean governments.

He said that the new submarines would play an indispensable role in augmenting the Indonesian Navy fleet, which was currently in bad shape.

"At present, we only have two German-made submarines that are less than 20 years old, far below the ideal figure of 12 submarines," he said.

Although the lack of submarines had not dealt a severe blow to the country's defense system, it did put its credibility at risk, the admiral said.

"Neighboring countries would easily know that we only have two submarines when we dock one of our armada," he said.

Bernard said that one South Korean-made submarine, which he said was of good quality, was priced at between US$200 million and $300 million.

He also said that the Navy fell short of possessing the ideal number of helicopters for air defense. "The Navy now has only 166 helicopters, far below the ideal figure of 300 units," Bernard said.

PT DI director of production Budi Wuraskito said that his company would need 5 years to complete manufacturing the aircraft that would be sold under the proposed countertrade deal.

"We can only produce six CN-235 aircraft per year, therefore we will need five years to complete the order," he said.

He also said that the countertrade scheme had been discussed by the ministries of defense of both countries in the last two years. "But the Korean defense ministry said that the deal was not included in its 2004 state budget -- maybe for 2005 or 2006," he said.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailnational.asp?fileid=20040525.C05&irec=7

Originally posted by zenden9:

A submarine is most vulnerable when sufacing for refueling and replenishment.If there is enough food for a nuclear-sub to last 2yrs.We wouldn't see it for on surface for 2yrs but that is quite unlikely as ammo will use up quickly with the war intensify.Nuclear sub still need to surface often to rearm for next assault even with long energy and food!

Consider: What if DSRVs were used to conduct underway replenishment?

Said DSRV may not even need to be carried by a sub. What about covert insertion, say by supertanker, or perhaps similar vehicles carried by a larger sub to serve as a mothership?

Perhaps such methods are already being used by the USN. A short amount of research on the Soviet Navy will reveal that they had a similar project.