Western "Oscar" type submarines

What would a Western Oscar Class ssubmarine look like? For those who don't know the Oscars or Project 949 class are a Russian cruise missile submarines, (SSGN), a sort of side step between the nuclear attack subs, (SSN), and the nuclear ballistic missile subs, (SSBN), operated by the navies of the five main nuclear powers.

They are basically a type of attack submarine like the Astutes or Seawolves but larger, almost the size of a missile submarine, coming in at more than 10,000 tons, and carry a large number of cruise missiles in addition to torpedos.

So what would a British, French or American SSGN of this type look like given a POD of 1945?

And before anyone starts going on about how the Ohio SSGN's fill the role or how Western navies don't need such a class because it's a waste of resources and regular SSN's do just as well I am asking for a hypothetical design, not a discertation on naval policy.
 
Strangely enough...

...I looked into a cruise-missile-armed submarine class as a strategic weapon system for the British Tierra del Fuego TL, and for a putative independent Scotland. We're talking of a refitted diesel-electric submarine class based on the excellent (and very quiet) Royal Navy 'Porpoise' and 'Oberon' classes, but with the capability added to the Australian 'Oberon' 'HMAS Oxley', of an OTH Harpooon-type cruise missile launch. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_class_submarine for more details.

Quietness and reasonable cost later made the RN order the Upholder class as a replacement; the subs were essentially SSN powered by diesel-electric systems and could have been progressed further to SSG status. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria_class_submarine for the troubled history of the class sold on to Canada.

It is tempting to consider Oberon or Upholder vessels as a 'poor man's SSG', a replacement for a cancelled Polaris or Trident programme, but with conventional or nuclear warheads. Any takers for a discussion of this? They were already quieter than most SSNs, the Upholders being surprisingly fast. Air Independent Propulsion systems such as those used by the Germans and Swedes, could have been an effective and quieter alternative to nuclear reactors. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-independent_propulsion for some details.
 
Um, already done

Take a look at the wiki on both the reworked Ohio-class, Virginia class boats with VLS batteries. IIRC the Ohios have 22*7 (154) Tomahawks or Harpoons. One parked outside Shanghai or Vladivostok could erase a whole fleet group!:eek::eek::eek::D:D:D. So you don't want to hear about Ohios?
OK, check out the Virginias who still could take a CBG by themselves without sweating it with 12 VLS tubes and 4 torpedo tubes, with a loadout of 38 T-hawks, Harpoons, or 533 mm torpedoes. Even with Aegis countermeasures, you'd have a dead flattop and CG so a follow-on air or ASM attack could make mincemeat of the survivors.

I'll grant you, the Oscar-class was a pants-filling nightmare for a 1980's NATO carrier group. They weren't LA-class quiet, but they didn't need to be under a competent skipper willing to kamikaze a carrier group and either scratch the flattop and CG, or flattop and two escort vessels to open a nice big hole for the follow-on strikes I mentioned earlier. They were close-in knife fighters, overloaded with weapons to get in a devastating barrage and run like hell, scattering torpedoes to sink or scare any subs or escorts trying to pursue them or block their escape vector. Not very helpful against helos or P-3's which are a sub's worst nightmare, but I digress.

Long story shorter, the NATO navies especially USN and RN from 1945-1990 weren't interested in suicide missions using one sub to take out a carrier battle group solo which is why the Soviets came up with the Oscar-class. Once the practice of launching Tomahawks through torpedo tubes became a standard operation, why only shoot 2 at a time when you can set up the whole complement vertical ready to go? Since it wasn't a crash priority, it got implemented around the turn of the millennium IIRC. Also, these are bombardment boats that aren't terribly worried about opposing navies disturbing their firing solution at way beyond BVR, say 100-200 nm. No need for ninja stealth. Though it's nice to be able to sneak in and out as they can, about as well as nukes can with that teakettle hissing in the deeps, which is still quite impressive with that handicap.

Could other navies have done it? Sure around 1990! Any of the SSK's (diesel-powered attack boats) mentioned would suffice. The question is what mission is that boat for?
Sea superiority? Coastal defense? Giving the Fab Four an underwater tour?
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the wiki on both the reworked Ohio-class, Virginia class boats with VLS batteries. IIRC the Ohios have 22*7 (154) Tomahawks or Harpoons. One parked outside Shanghai or Vladivostok could erase a whole fleet group!:eek::eek::eek::D:D:D.
The Virginias still could take a CBG by themselves without sweating it with 12 VLS tubes and 4 torpedo tubes, with a loadout of 38 T-hawks, Harpoons, or 533 mm torpedoes. Even with Aegis countermeasures, you'd have a dead flattop and CG so a follow-on air or ASM attack could make mincemeat of the survivors.

And I suggest you take a look at the OP.

Landshark said:
And before anyone starts going on about how the Ohio SSGN's fill the role or how Western navies don't need such a class because it's a waste of resources and regular SSN's do just as well I am asking for a hypothetical design, not a discertation on naval policy.

There are times I seriously wonder about the comprehension skills of members of this board. Every time someone posts a double blind or asks for replies on a specific topic there's always someone who needs to have the idea explained to them in person.
 
The doctrine of the Western navies in the Cold War era was to use submarines for two primary goals - kill other submarines and gather intelligence, with killing surface ships being a third but not as important objective. The primary striking arm of the western navies was their aircraft carriers, and the Russians only had two ways of dealing with those - anti-ship missiles launched from other bombers or submarines and submarines themselves. Looking at Soviet doctrine, the idea of an SSGN makes a lot of sense, but it makes rather less of one from the American perspective. The VLS tubes added to the Los Angeles class submarines was primarily to give a secondary land-attack ability to them using Tomahawks, which can be very useful from both tactical and strategic objectives. But western fleet doctrine had sufficient strike assets from the carriers that SSGNs aren't really needed.
 
The only SSGNs that the Navy considered were for the never deployed Regulus II Cruise Missiles. U.S.S. Halibut (SSGN-587) was the only one built, though several of what became the Permit class were originally contemplated as SSGNs. Primary mission was land-attack, with the missile carrying the W-27 nuclear warhead. She did carry Regulus Is on cruise until 1964, before being refitted as the first "special projects" boat.
 

Deleted member 9338

The difference is the Regulas was a strategic weapon, while the Oscars were tactical.

The only SSGNs that the Navy considered were for the never deployed Regulus II Cruise Missiles. U.S.S. Halibut (SSGN-587) was the only one built, though several of what became the Permit class were originally contemplated as SSGNs. Primary mission was land-attack, with the missile carrying the W-27 nuclear warhead. She did carry Regulus Is on cruise until 1964, before being refitted as the first "special projects" boat.
 
And without a large Soviet surface fleet in the late '50s and early '60s, there's no reason for SSGNs for anti-ship operations.
 

NothingNow

Banned
So what would a British, French or American SSGN of this type look like given a POD of 1945?

It'd be a narrower SSBN design, and better fitted out for closer in operations, and much more maneuverable than an SSBN. They'd probably have to be insanely quiet for any nuclear sub, and might mount up to say, 40 or 50 separate weapons bays, each loaded with something like a Beefed up Talos optimized for Surface to surface warfare.
 
I'm reposting this in big red letters because half the people posting in this thread seem to have missed it the first time round.

And before anyone starts going on about how the Ohio SSGN's fill the role or how Western navies don't need such a class because it's a waste of resources and regular SSN's do just as well I am asking for a hypothetical design, not a discertation on naval policy.

I specifically said that this was about a hypothetical design. Not about how Western navies already have submarines that fill the role just as well or about how such a "battlecruiser submarine" would be against their doctrine, but about what such a boat would look like if they decided for some reason to build it.

Seriously people, why is it so hard for some of you to just go along with an idea and imagine a paper design for a submarine?
 
IMHO, it would be a design that is larger than 688, but smaller than Ohio. They might employ them paired with 688 to ensure cover and perhaps (if we are talking about modern time) possibility to launch a drone for recon purposes and to provide missile guidance, but only if its launch could be done stealthily enough. I do not know if vertical launching of cruise missile might make an enemy think he is being attacked by SSBN and if so, I'd opt for torpedo tube launch. However, if discrimination is possible than vertical launch.

Submarine should share all the propulsion characteristics with Ohio, so it would make it undetectable until combat starts.
 

Pangur

Donor
The mission for the submarine class is to sink ships & land attack with cruise missiles?

Perhaps take the Yasen class as the starting point. Might want to make it a bit smaller and automate more, get the crew size down to a total of 70.
 

sharlin

Banned
Royal Navy Lion class SSGN.

Designed 1975, laid down 1978, first launched 1981
Number built 4, Lion, Tiger, Panther, Leopard.
Max dived displacement: 5600 tonnes
Length 99 meters (original Churchills 86 meters longer)
Speed: 28 knots
Crew: 127

With the growing development of cruise missiles the Royal Navy began looking at a way of delivering these weapon systems without risking a surface ship and that the majority of RN ships were built for air defence, an anti-shipping submarine seemed to fill a niche.

Initially based on the Churchill class submarine but with increased beam, length and weight with a submerged weight of 5600 tonnes the Lion's were designed to launch 8 Exocet missiles from just below the surface and then withdraw.
Also armed with 6 x 533mm torpedo tubes like the Churchill class the Lions were powerful and expensive ships that were nearly cancelled twice due to budget concerns. The RAF complained bitterly that the money could have been better spent on their Nimrod AWACS which was cancelled to help fund the construction of the Lions.

In the Falklands War the HMS Lion remains the only British submarine to hit an enemy vessel with missiles. Operating with HMS Conqueror the two SSN's intercepted and attacked the Argentinian cruiser Belgrano and her two escorts. The Conqueror engaged the Belgrano in a classic torpedo attack using WW2 torpedos whilst the Lion engaged the two Ex USN Gearing class destroyers with her Exocet missiles, scoring three hits on both which left them both aflame and sinking.

Roughly similar to the Soviet 'Charlie II' SSGN the Lion class did not catch on with NATO although in exercises in the 80s and 90s the submarines did manage to sneak close to 'attack the enemy forces' in many exercises. In the 1980s they were fitted to fire Harpoon missiles and then finally retrofitted to carry the Tommahawk cruise missile with all four subs firing missiles at Iraq during the First Iraq war in 1991. After that war all four were decomissioned and scrapped as an economic measure and with the collapse of the Soviet Union the four subs were ships without a role and the new Trafalgar class submarines could launch ASM's from their torpedo tubes and were fitted from the beginning to launch Tommahawk missiles.
 
As others have said it would probably be a stretched version of an existing SSN. It wouldn't be anything like as big as an Oscar, one of the reasons why they're as huge as they are is that the Shipwreck missile is an absolute monster and the Oscar had to carry 24 of them so as to try and saturate the defences of a convoy or battlegroup.
 
But you don't need a nuclear boat!!

SSGs are a poor man's deterrent and counter to capital ship task forces. They can carry mines, torpedoes or cruise missiles.

I recall with delight the concept of FAE-warhead cruise missiles launched from SSGs and aircraft to attack land targets and large naval units. cruise warheads can be thermobaric, HEAP, HEGP, chemical, biological or cluster munitions. Or even ASROC or Exocet.

Why waste dosh on a nuke if an AIP diesel-electric will do just as well? The very quiet Swedish subs were investigated by the USN because they were so stealthy.

I'm for an advanced Oberon or Victoria class sub as an alternative UK deterrent force. Cheap, non-radioactive and far easier to refit and maintain than a Trident boat.
 
I don`t think a western SSGN would be massive like an Oscar because the west could build supersonic AShMs much smaller than the Soviets. An LA class style VLS section would probably do the trick quite nicely, with the size of a tommahawk being used to create speed instead of great range.
 
Seriously people, why is it so hard for some of you to just go along with an idea and imagine a paper design for a submarine?

Doctrine and policy inform design. Trying to imagine design without the reasons pushing it is a rather pointless exercise in fiction. Also, yelling at people is hardly necessary.
 
Top