SSK, and K is for Coastal
Drebbel
http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
My questiosn are:
1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
2) If this is true why not use 'C' (SSC) ?
--
Drebbel
http://www.DutchSubmarines.com
Dutch Submarines: The submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy 1906 - 2002
Paul J. Adam
<dre...@wanadoo.nl> writes
>According to the USNA:
>http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
>
>The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
>
>My questiosn are:
>
>1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
I've understood it to mean 'ASW specialised'.
>2) If this is true why not use 'C' (SSC) ?
I've seen SSC to mean just that (small coastal boats like the Sang-O).
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Tom Schoene
"Drebbel" <dre...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:3d41c61a$0$12269$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> According to the USNA:
> http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
>
> The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
>
> My questiosn are:
>
> 1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
You are correct. It's derived from the USN's post-war "Hunter-Killer" ASW
tactic.
The few US SSKs were intended for operations in the GIUK gap, hardly coastal
by any standard.
Compare with CLK, the short-lived designation for light cruisers (e.g.
Norfolk) designed to command ASW hunter-killer groups. They were anything
but coastal forces.
> 2) If this is true why not use 'C' (SSC) ?
>
No good reason; SAC is indeed the better designation for coastal subs. SAC
would apply generally to very small boats with limited endurance and diving
depth.
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but
the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment."
Karl Friedrich Gauss
Drebbel
> "Drebbel" <dre...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:3d41c61a$0$12269$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> According to the USNA:
>> http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
>>
>> The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
>>
>> My questiosn are:
>>
>> 1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
>
> You are correct. It's derived from the USN's post-war "Hunter-
> Killer" ASW tactic.
Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
Andrew Toppan
>Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
If they say that "SSK" means "coastal submarine", yes.
There seems to be a pervasive trend of using "SSK" to refer to any
diesel-electric submarine. Also, USN tends to believe diesel-electric
submarines are only useful in coastal waters. Combining these incorrect
beliefs, it's easy to turn "SSK" into "coastal submarine".
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
Per Nordenberg
"Andrew Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:o0r3kuoe9sqa3q4jm...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:30:30 +0200, "Drebbel" <dre...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
> >Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
>
> If they say that "SSK" means "coastal submarine", yes.
>
> There seems to be a pervasive trend of using "SSK" to refer to any
> diesel-electric submarine.
Indeed. Swedish submarines have often been referred to as 'SSK', although they
didn't even have any operational heavyweight ASW torps until a couple of years
(only lightweight ASW torps). This is because their main mission for decades used
to be anti surface invasion.
Per Nordenberg
Peter Skelton
<acto...@gwi.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 01:30:30 +0200, "Drebbel" <dre...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
>>Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
>
>If they say that "SSK" means "coastal submarine", yes.
>
>There seems to be a pervasive trend of using "SSK" to refer to any
>diesel-electric submarine. Also, USN tends to believe diesel-electric
>submarines are only useful in coastal waters. Combining these incorrect
>beliefs, it's easy to turn "SSK" into "coastal submarine".
>
They are at probably their best in coastal waters. One would
think that in 1942 the US would have learned that the choice of
coast rests with the owner.
____
Peter Skelton
Steven James Forsberg
: According to the USNA:
: http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
: The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
: My questiosn are:
: 1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
: 2) If this is true why not use 'C' (SSC) ?
According to an authorative source (the U.S. Naval Vessel Register),
the (currently unused) designator "SSK", when used by a US navy vessel,
means "Anti-submarine, submarine". The is no US ship designator that
includes the words 'submarine' and 'coastal' in its definition.
As others have pointed out, the "K" came into USN use in the late
240s and early 50s with submarines that were popularly called "hunter -
killers", though the 'K' may also have come from the fact that this new
class of subs were the result of 'Project Kayo'. These submarines (starting
with SSK-1 Barracuda, SSK-2 Bass, and SSK-3 Bonita) were diesel electric
subs specially designed for ASW barrier patrols, most notably including the
then cutting-edge BQR-4 sonar array.
Since virtually all modern subm (diesel electrics included) have
a major ASW mission, adding a 'K' is sort of redundant -- like adding a
'G' for ships with guided missiles. I'm not certain when the USN stopped
using the SSK designator, but as far as I know no nuclear boats ever
carried a 'K' (as in SSKN).
Of course, for reasons that still mystify us US people, other nations
often use their own designators/ship types. Other nations might have their
own definitions, which of course helps confuse everyone. (What the hell is
a BPK? Do you mean Cruiser?--types of arguments)
regards,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
sjfo...@bayou.uh.edu
Ogden Johnson III
>>> According to the USNA:
>>> http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
No, according to an unattributed comment in an unattributed reference
on a USNA web page
>>> The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
>Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
No. We're saying that whomever wrote that definition in the document
presented on that web page was incorrect.
But, whomever wrote that definition, would have been a bit more
correct had he said "SSK, diesel-electric submarines originally
created and designated as hunter-killer ASW submarines now find their
missions, varied as they still are, generally relegated to coastal
regions. Thus, SSK might better be defined as "Coastal Submarine"
than ASW attack "killer" submarine." Or something to that general
effect.
OJ III
[Hey! I never said I was a writer. I'm a Navy report composer, who
writes in the Navyese subset of Governmentese; neither of which will
be confused with any variation of the English language.]
B F Lake
> As others have pointed out, the "K" came into USN use in the late
> 240s and early 50s with submarines that were popularly called "hunter -
> killers", though the 'K' may also have come from the fact that this new
> class of subs were the result of 'Project Kayo'. These submarines
(starting
> with SSK-1 Barracuda, SSK-2 Bass, and SSK-3 Bonita) were diesel electric
> subs specially designed for ASW barrier patrols, most notably including
the
> then cutting-edge BQR-4 sonar array.
"Starting with" maybe should use their first names, K 1, K 2, and K 3
(completed 1951-2) They got their fish names 15 Dec 55 BARRACUDA went
from SSK 1 to SST 3 , BASS went from SSK 2 to SS 551, and BONITA went from
SSK 3 to SS 552 in 1959. Some GATOs were also SSKs for a while in the
1950s
> Of course, for reasons that still mystify us US people, other nations
> often use their own designators/ship types.
I remember Brits in the 70s using "SSK" to mean their regular subs vice
their boomers. Not sure if they only meant their Diesels or nukes too.
1961 Janes calls the projected nuclear powered VALIANT "Hunter Killer
(Anti-Submarine) Type" and the Diesels "Attack Submarines" but the 1974
Janes has her and other nukes as "Fleet Submarines" while the Diesels are
"Patrol Submarines"
I don't have the NATO designators for these from then (they change a lot
too) . These NATO letters sometimes differ from the USN ones. Anybody
know if SSK is/was in the NATO designation system?
Regards,
Barry
Guy Alcala
> Drebbel <dre...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> : According to the USNA:
> : http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
>
> : The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
>
> : My questiosn are:
>
> : 1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
> : 2) If this is true why not use 'C' (SSC) ?
>
> According to an authorative source (the U.S. Naval Vessel Register),
> the (currently unused) designator "SSK", when used by a US navy vessel,
> means "Anti-submarine, submarine". The is no US ship designator that
> includes the words 'submarine' and 'coastal' in its definition.
> As others have pointed out, the "K" came into USN use in the late
> 240s and early 50s with submarines that were popularly called "hunter -
> killers", though the 'K' may also have come from the fact that this new
> class of subs were the result of 'Project Kayo'. These submarines (starting
> with SSK-1 Barracuda, SSK-2 Bass, and SSK-3 Bonita) were diesel electric
> subs specially designed for ASW barrier patrols, most notably including the
> then cutting-edge BQR-4 sonar array.
> Since virtually all modern subm (diesel electrics included) have
> a major ASW mission, adding a 'K' is sort of redundant -- like adding a
> 'G' for ships with guided missiles. I'm not certain when the USN stopped
> using the SSK designator, but as far as I know no nuclear boats ever
> carried a 'K' (as in SSKN).
Tullibee would have been the only one. She was designed to be a nuclear version
of an SSK, i.e. small, relatively slow and cheap, but with good sonars and
weapons. Friedman's U.S. Sub design history would probably say if she ever
carried the designation in service, but I think not.
Guy
Tom Schoene
> Tom Schoene wrote:
> > You are correct. It's derived from the USN's post-war "Hunter-
> > Killer" ASW tactic.
>
> Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
It's been known to happen.
I don't know the context of that little paper, but I'd guess it's a plebe
(first year) indoctrination sort of thing, not a rigorous academic lesson.
David Bromage
>
> >Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
>
> If they say that "SSK" means "coastal submarine", yes.
>
> There seems to be a pervasive trend of using "SSK" to refer to any
> diesel-electric submarine. Also, USN tends to believe diesel-electric
> submarines are only useful in coastal waters.
A bad case of selective amnesia there. Especially re the Vinson being
'sunk' by 30 year old Oberon during RIMPAC'98.
Cheers
David
Andrew McCruden
> Tom Schoene wrote:
> > "Drebbel" <dre...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3d41c61a$0$12269$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> >> According to the USNA:
> >> http://www.usna.edu/Training/prorefcent/FallProbook/05_USW.doc
> >>
> >> The 'K' in SSK stands for Coastal.
> >>
> >> My questiosn are:
> >>
> >> 1) Is this true ? I always thought it ment Killer ?
> >
> > You are correct. It's derived from the USN's post-war "Hunter-
> > Killer" ASW tactic.
>
> Are you saying the US Naval Academy teaches its student incorrect things ?
>
in the days before every Sub was an ASW platform, there was even a (single)
SSKN (Nuclear ASW submarine) before the USN merged all its SSN development
lines into one class that incorperated all the charictaristics of both the
ASW designs (Large passive bow sonar array, quietness) and the "Fast attack"
designs (High speed) : The Thresher/Premit Class
Ben Phillipps
"David Bromage" <dbro...@omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:ca7386a3.02072...@posting.google.com...
Just out of interest how would the attack that the RAN officer pulled off in
he career progression. I imagine that more than a few drinks were brought
for him and his crew when they returned to shore.
Ben
Alan Minyard
wrote:
The ROE for RIMPACs are notoriously unrealistic. Been there, done
that.
Al Minyard
Ben Phillipps
"Alan Minyard" <aminya...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:6ksaku0jjs4bc4b6i...@4ax.com...
Could you please elaborate a little more for the rest of us that don't know.
In what way?
Ogden Johnson III
>> >A bad case of selective amnesia there. Especially re the Vinson being
>> >'sunk' by 30 year old Oberon during RIMPAC'98.
>> The ROE for RIMPACs are notoriously unrealistic. Been there, done
>> that.
>Could you please elaborate a little more for the rest of us that don't know.
>In what way?
A lot of, as Al said, restrictive ROEs, a lot of "scripting", etc.,
etc., to make sure that all participants get their desired/expected
training, and nobody gets badly embarrassed. Sometimes, as in RIMPAC
'98, there's enough wiggle-room in the scripts/ROEs that an alert
captain with initiative can exploit it, so that embarrassment can and
does occur from time to time.
OJ III
Drebbel
"David Bromage" <dbro...@omni.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:ca7386a3.02072...@posting.google.com...
And what about this:
"...During exercise JTFEX / TMDI99 (early 1999) the Dutch Walrus (2) 'sunk'
the US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, the submarine launched two
attacks and managed to sneak away....."
Guess she was too close to the coast :-))
".....Other ships that were sunk by the Walrus (2) during this exercise are:
USS Boise SSN-764, Ro?m DDG-70, R? DDG-61, Ville De Quebec FFH/FFG-332,
Stephen W. Grooves FFG-29, Holstein F-216, Vella Gulf CG-55, Mount Whitney
LCC-20...."
Guess they were having a coastal party :-))
Alan Minyard
>>
>> The ROE for RIMPACs are notoriously unrealistic. Been there, done
>> that.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Could you please elaborate a little more for the rest of us that don't know.
>In what way?
>
"shot". What that means is that, if you have OPFOR subs
participating, certain scenarios will be used to "allow" the sub to
get a shot. This was done so that the subs could get experience in
approaches, weapons launch, etc. This also applied to other units.
It is counterproductive to kill all of the "bad guys" before they
reach their weapon launch point. Realism gives way to utility in many
exercises.
Al Minyard
Peter McLelland
for getting shot up in an exercise.
Peter
Alan Minyard
Not to mention the Brit's ability to bomb the White House with
obsolete bombers facing no defenses what so ever!!!
Al Minyard
Drebbel
>> explanation for getting shot up in an exercise.
>>
>> Peter
>>
> Not to mention the Brit's ability to bomb the White House with
> obsolete bombers facing no defenses what so ever!!!
When did that 'happen' ?
Alan Minyard
wrote:
>>> Isn't it amazing how the US surface fleet always has a very good
>>> explanation for getting shot up in an exercise.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>> Not to mention the Brit's ability to bomb the White House with
>> obsolete bombers facing no defenses what so ever!!!
>
>When did that 'happen' ?
Sorry, don't recall exactly. The A/C were Buccaneers, IIRC. Popular
thread a while back
Al Minyard
Peter McLelland
Peter
Alan Minyard
>> Not to mention the Brit's ability to bomb the White House with
>> obsolete bombers facing no defenses what so ever!!!
>>
>The dear old Bucks also managed to get several US carriers as well.
>
>Peter
>
Al Minyard
Paul J. Adam
<aminya...@netdoor.com> writes
There was almost nothing that could keep up with a Buccaneer at sea
level without shaking the pilot's eyeballs out of their sockets, and on
that profile it was also extremely hard to detect from any distance. A
_very_ good low-level strike aircraft for its day.
--
Paul J. Adam
David Henderson
>There was almost nothing that could keep up with a Buccaneer at sea
>level without shaking the pilot's eyeballs out of their sockets, and on
>that profile it was also extremely hard to detect from any distance. A
>_very_ good low-level strike aircraft for its day.
ISTR reading somewhere that these days the Tornado GR is the fastest
aircraft in the world at sea level. Vrai/faux?
--
David Henderson.
Thoroughly bloody nice bloke.
Alistair Gunn
> ISTR reading somewhere that these days the Tornado GR is the fastest
> aircraft in the world at sea level. Vrai/faux?
I remember reading something to that effect once as well (can't quite
remember the title of the book in question though!), however I suppose
the answer could be due to differing definitions of "low level" between
the Tornado and Buccaneer communities?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
David Henderson
>David Henderson twisted the electrons to say:
>> ISTR reading somewhere that these days the Tornado GR is the fastest
>> aircraft in the world at sea level. Vrai/faux?
>I remember reading something to that effect once as well (can't quite
>remember the title of the book in question though!), however I suppose
>the answer could be due to differing definitions of "low level" between
>the Tornado and Buccaneer communities?
I didn't mean them as mutually exclusive principles. After all, the
Tornado was supposed to replace the Bucaneer to a certain extent,
wasn't it? There were plenty of non-overlapping years.
Guy Alcala
> David Henderson twisted the electrons to say:
> > ISTR reading somewhere that these days the Tornado GR is the fastest
> > aircraft in the world at sea level. Vrai/faux?
>
> I remember reading something to that effect once as well (can't quite
> remember the title of the book in question though!), however I suppose
> the answer could be due to differing definitions of "low level" between
> the Tornado and Buccaneer communities?
IIRR, Tornado took the no longer officially recognized (because of the
danger) low altitude speed record, at something like 920 mph, from the F-4
Sageburner a/c at (IIRR) 902 mph. The fastest speed officially recorded on
the deck was that achieved by Darryl Greenamyer's F-104 Red Baron, at
988.260 mph, with the fastest run being over 1,000 mph. Flat out down low,
either Tornado or the F-111 (or for that matter, most fighters) is faster
than the Bucc, because they've got A/Bs and can sweep the wings back, and
the Bucc doesn't have either. It's possible that the F-111 is actually
faster in a straight line on the deck than Tornado, but the official record
requires, IIRC, four runs (in one flight, with onboard fuel) below 100m
over the straight line course with two in each direction, bringing turn
rate/radius, turn drag, fuel consumption and acceleration into the mix. I
have seen low altitude speeds unofficially quoted by F-111 pilots, that are
in excess of the record.
When the Tornado/F-111 are in dry thrust the Bucc keeps up with them quite
well, and owing to its higher dry t/w ratio (and internal bay, if the
stores are carried there) will probably outrun and (by crew accounts)
outrange the Tornado. Tornados are notoriously poky when carrying tanks,
pods and weapons.
Guy
Paul J. Adam
<dh...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>In article <1JPXGDHt...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>There was almost nothing that could keep up with a Buccaneer at sea
>>level without shaking the pilot's eyeballs out of their sockets, and on
>>that profile it was also extremely hard to detect from any distance. A
>>_very_ good low-level strike aircraft for its day.
>
>ISTR reading somewhere that these days the Tornado GR is the fastest
>aircraft in the world at sea level. Vrai/faux?
I think it's somewhere between the Tornado GR.1 and the F-111 (which the
Australians still use) depending on the usual raft of mission, payload,
pilot, exact state of engines and airframe...
--
Paul J. Adam
Derek Lyons
> I'm not certain when the USN stopped using the SSK
>designator, but as far as I know no nuclear boats ever
>carried a 'K' (as in SSKN).
SSKN 597 USS Tulibee, an ill considered attempt to build a 'small
cheap' nuclear boat.
D.