"Germany Does Not Have One Working Submarine" Topic

This looks grim. Six on hand with all down for various reasons, plus only three trained crews available. Army and Air Forces not much better.

link

Wow. Talk about gutted and exposed.

But I guess that's exactly how some people would like for all of the West to be. So there's always a good chance that this was done to Germany by design and not by mere chance.

Dan

Sssshhhhhhh…… quiet, please!

This is only one of the many major issues facing NATO right now. Up time for most weapons platforms (ships, subs, aircraft, etc., ) aren't very good and not much funding is being given to keep things going. On top of that there are huge problems with power projection and rapid transport. NATO clearly relies on the U.S. to act as a shield, but it would take time for ships, troops, etc., to fully deploy and NATO at least needs to hold the line in case Russian forces would ever attack. It's looking more and more like Russia could take most of Western Europe if it really wanted to.

Even in the USN, I wouldn't expect but two of those 6 u-boats to be deployed or deployable. Two should be in refit, two just out of refit working up to get ready to go to sea, and two at sea.

But when you have that small a number of hulls, it's really easy to end up with a time when there are no available ships because someone broke a shaft and someone else has a broken sonar (or whatever the issues are).

The 'ol Guns or Butter Battle…Butter is winning…the cost of a modern diesel submarine is about $250 USD Million Euro, and the German defense budget is about $37 USD Billion Euro.

In contrast, the German government spends about $150 USD Billion Euro on social welfare programs, and on top of that expects to spend almost $97 USD Billion Euro by 2020 just on the "migrants issue" it has imposed on itself.

Since the end of WWII and reunification, defense has been low in priority for the Germans. They still have war guilt even though WWII happened over 70 years ago.

I think SBminisguy hit the nail on the head. I could only add that the reparations/war debts still being paid out also is a burden. But if we're honest, where would the subs patrol? Despite the media rhetoric, Russia is not going to attack Germany. They could go in circles in the Baltic, but that's just wasting money.

Despite the media rhetoric, Russia is not going to attack Germany.

Because…you know what the future holds if a revanchist Russia tries to push around an increasingly weak Europe??

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Remember just the other year the Germans paid off the WWI reparations. Wonder when the next 100 years would be paid off.

Russian GDP has been cut in half in the last year due to the drop in oil prices and sanctions. Russia went from 6 to 14 place. So not too worried about Russian Hordes crossing the border.

Then again it is just stupid to not be armed. Letting your military rot is bad.

How worried should one be about Russian military capabilities when their invasion of Ukraine has been stalled outside of Lugansk and Donetsk since 2014?

However, it might be prudent to save a bullet for yourself if the Ukrainian army collapses and the revanchist Russians begin their blitz to la Manche. They might try to force you to consume Beluga malossol caviar and chilled vodka. A terrible fate, to be sure.

I doubt it is war guilt compared to mooching off the deep pockets of the US.

Well, there's this to consider from September. Sounds like everyone had a great time.

Snip:
Russia practiced full-scale invasion of Europe with bombing raids on Germany during Vladimir Putin's military drills. At the time, Putin claimed the exercises were for anti-terror purposes and were purely defensive in nature. However, the paper reported that the drills were a dry-run for a "shock campaign" against Western European NATO countries.

link

But if we're honest, where would the subs patrol?

The Baltic Sea, and up the Norwegian coast. Maybe the North Sea while we're at it.

But those boats CAN deploy into the North Atlantic. Blue water is not the exclusive domain of the nuclear sub.

In order to keep a credible number of subs at sea, you really need at least 12-14. This also gives you the extra numbers to avoid having two broken boats immobilizing your entire fleet.

But 33% availability is par for the course for ships. The only way to get higher hull availability is to design the ship from the ground up for quick turnaround and have two crews. Doing that will let you put a hull out to sea for 3 months out of every 4. And that also requires having a huge number of spare parts and tracking equipment to replace before it actually fails. "Ok, the CO2 scrubbers last about 6 patrols before they break down, so we should replace them every 5."

Let's put this into comparison: Your car needs an oil change every 4,500 miles or so. If you're a delivery driver or a taxi, you travel about 20mph (average). Ships operate 24/7, so if the ship needs it's oil changed every '4500 miles', that's pulling the ship into the shop every week for an oil change.

Paraguay doesn't have a single working sub, either.

Paraguay also doesn't have an outward-looking Russia to its east.

I'm still laughing that Bolivia and Paraguay both have navies.

Dan

It seems the German submarine fleet has sunk without trace, submerged by political necessity!

@CC: Sure, brown-water navies.