Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Age of Submersible Navies
Godofgamblers    9/7/2009 3:20:31 AM
I was wondering why there isn't a navy in the world that doesn't solely use submarines for its navy. From their inception, subs have been used in a jeune ecole type approach, i.e. When a navy is not powerful enough to field enough ships of the line. We can take the example of Germany in the World Wars, the Hunley in the US Civil War as notable examples. However, with the many notable advances in submarine technolgy, is it not obvious that the sub is now versatile to take on the roles of surface craft without sufferring the same vulnerabilties? As the Japanese demonstrated, a submarine aircraft carrier is possible, a troop ship is possible due to the size of modern subs. Why do navies continue to build surface ships that are exposed to missles, aircraft, are easily trackable etc etc? How long will it be before the navies of the world go 100% submersible?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       9/7/2009 5:56:35 AM
Once below periscope depth a submarine has only a single sensor system -- sonar.
 
Without surfacing and negating it's stealth advantages it cannot:
?   Perform searches for non-radiating surface targets, targets on land, or targets in the air.
?   Stop, board, and search other vessels.
?   Defend against aircraft.
?   Launch surface craft and/or deploy troops other than SEAL equivalents.
?   etc.
A submarine cannot 'control' an area, it only denies safe access to the enemy.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       9/7/2009 6:57:54 AM

Once below periscope depth a submarine has only a single sensor system -- sonar.

 

Without surfacing and negating it's stealth advantages it cannot:


?   Perform searches for non-radiating surface targets, targets on land, or targets in the air.

?   Stop, board, and search other vessels.

?   Defend against aircraft.

?   Launch surface craft and/or deploy troops other than SEAL equivalents.

?   etc.


A submarine cannot 'control' an area, it only denies safe access to the enemy.

 




Your points are well taken, WN: good link too. Consider though the Falklands conflict. It is surprising how many vessels and how many lives the UK lost due to the vulnerability of surface vessels. All their defensive measures were ineffective. Now imagine if the same force could have been delivered by sub. Subs to interdict, as you point out, and to land the troops. You note that current subs can only launch SF teams, but i'm sure that shortcoming could be dealt with if there was the will to do so but designing subs for that purpose.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/7/2009 7:03:38 AM

Once below periscope depth a submarine has only a single sensor system -- sonar.

 not entirely true....

Without surfacing and negating it's stealth advantages it cannot:

?   Perform searches for non-radiating surface targets, targets on land, or targets in the air.
 not entirely true....

?   Stop, board, and search other vessels.

but, as they have done in various waters of interest, they can vector in other assets to do the job where interception or VBSS is required
 
?   Defend against aircraft.

 not entirely true....
 
?   Launch surface craft and/or deploy troops other than SEAL equivalents.

well, the SSGN's have "room/berthing" for 60+ "extra" personnel.  they could certainly inject a reasonable force, but their job is not ground force dominance..

A submarine cannot 'control' an area, it only denies safe access to the enemy.
have to disagree in principle, by denying safe access, by disrupting, dislocating or detering safe passaage, then they have the capacity to control an area - any capability which disrupts the enemy to divert assets into a location to try and manage or dominate that operational space is an effective tool as it pulls resources away from other enemy placements. it's power lies in being able to disproportionately influence an enemy to counter it.  that in a number of ways is area control.  
eg, 1 x sub can force a task force to shift - ie 1 boat can influence the movement of 6-12 ships.  1 sub can force a countries merchant or maritime logistics assets to travel in escort, to change route or to have that contry force protection via long range aviation patrol etc....
no other single asset can cause such a disproportionate reaction to contain, dominate or neutralise its presence

disrupt, deter, dislocate, dominate, destroy.  there aren't too many other platforms which give the same bang for buck 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/8/2009 3:09:06 PM

Once below periscope depth a submarine has only a single sensor system -- sonar.
 not entirely true....

Without surfacing and negating it's stealth advantages it cannot:
?   Perform searches for non-radiating surface targets, targets on land, or targets in the air.
 not entirely true....
?   Stop, board, and search other vessels.
but, as they have done in various waters of interest, they can vector in other assets to do the job where interception or VBSS is required

?   Defend against aircraft.
 not entirely true....

Could you provide more explanations for these comments and some modern examples, just to further my education.

A submarine cannot 'control' an area, it only denies safe access to the enemy.
have to disagree in principle, by denying safe access, by disrupting, dislocating or detering safe passaage, then they have the capacity to control an area - any capability which disrupts the enemy to divert assets into a location to try and manage or dominate that operational space is an effective tool as it pulls resources away from other enemy placements. it's power lies in being able to disproportionately influence an enemy to counter it.  that in a number of ways is area control.  
eg, 1 x sub can force a task force to shift - ie 1 boat can influence the movement of 6-12 ships.  1 sub can force a countries merchant or maritime logistics assets to travel in escort, to change route or to have that country force protection via long range aviation patrol etc....

You can deny military access to an area with submarines, but you cannot guarantee your own access.  That is what 'control' means.

You also cannot block merchant marine access to an area with submarines without resorting to unrestricted warfare.  Doing so which will result in more than just an UN sanction the first time you sink a ship without warning that is registered to a 3rd country without proof that it is carrying military supplies.
 
no other single asset can cause such a disproportionate reaction to contain, dominate or neutralize its presence
disrupt, deter, dislocate, dominate, destroy.  there aren't too many other platforms which give the same bang for buck 


I totally agree, but there are some things that it can not do and should not attempt.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/8/2009 4:13:41 PM
Could you provide more explanations for these comments and some modern examples, just to further my education.
Probably not without cutting my own head off.  There has been substantial tech in test development play over the last 6 years.  I'd have to check and see how releasable it is before further comment.


You can deny military access to an area with submarines, but you cannot guarantee your own access.  That is what 'control' means.
Control in a total war sense used to mean being able to enter and dominate a battlespace at will.  It does also mean in the modern context that you can singularly influence and determine how the red force enters and plays in a battlespace.  it no longer means phycial presence.  one of the single advantages of NCW is that you can effect and influence what happens in the battlespace without having to put a marker on the board to denote a physical asset in place. you can influence in absentia.  even without NCW you can influence in absentia - eg Falklands and the de Mayo


You also cannot block merchant marine access to an area with submarines without resorting to unrestricted warfare.  Doing so which will result in more than just an UN sanction the first time you sink a ship without warning that is registered to a 3rd country without proof that it is carrying military supplies.
you don't have to.  we've already seen the visible examples of how even piracy can exercise sea control even though there is no permanent phycical presense of "red" combatants.  When countries start diverting their merchant vessels from preferred sea routes then you have by rote, injected control
I totally agree, but there are some things that it can not do and should not attempt.
Ah, but I'm not saying that they are master of everything, I'm saying that at the singular platform level they are and continue to be the one asset that can invoke the "5 D's and 5 P's" better than any other military combat asset.  You can't use them for everything, and thats never been an issue - but even now, some 20 years after the fall of the iron curtain, and when subs and ASW became assets with an ill defined purpose (and caused ructions through all the major militaries) - subs are now doing more than what they used to do.  new tech has made them far more flexible assets in the ISR space.  Control ISR and you have the foundation to control the battlespace.



 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/17/2009 4:50:52 AM
 
You also cannot block merchant marine access to an area with submarines without resorting to unrestricted warfare.  Doing so which will result in more than just an UN sanction the first time you sink a ship without warning that is registered to a 3rd country without proof that it is carrying military supplies.
 
you don't have to.  we've already seen the visible examples of how even piracy can exercise sea control even though there is no permanent phycical presense of "red" combatants.  When countries start diverting their merchant vessels from preferred sea routes then you have by rote, injected control

Yes, vessels are now using routes around the areas with the greatest levels of Somali pirate activity.  The pirates are engaging in a form of unrestricted warfare which they can get away with because they occupy a sort of diplomatic no-man's land.  But that is only vessels that doe not have cargoes for ports in that area.  It is a different story if you are trying to enforce a blockade but are required to permit the passage of humanitarian aid by international agreements.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Submersibles, Submarines, and Surface Ships   9/17/2009 5:37:59 AM
A submersible operates on the surface the vast majority of the time and only operates underwater occasionally.  Almost every "submarine" in WWII was actually a submersible not a submarine.  The IJN's large "subs" had a "hanger" that stored I believe 4 small float planes not fully assembled and was not anything like a carrier.  The USN used large "subs" for Marine Raider attacks early in the war.
 
A modern sub can do a lot but due to myriad factors one would not build a submarine container ship, oil tanker, etc.  You really don't want to try and design a submarine LPD.  Assuming one could however design and build a submarine amphibious ship you will still be operating on the surface and will require major systems to deal with enemy aircraft, missiles, etc.  Do you want to now try and design and operate an Aegis submarine? To what purpose?  
 
If one wants to project power ashore one needs surface ships carrying aircraft, troops, equipment, supplies, etc., and ships to protect these from air threats as well as other ships, subs, mines, small boats, etc.  Unless you can launch aircraft while submerged  you have to operate on the surface all the time anyway so it's a tad pointless.  Note DARPA requested a flying submarine able to carry 8 men last year, lol.  In any case it's my understanding that one tries to limit holes/hatches in the pressure hull so I believe most of all this is rather moot.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/17/2009 6:02:55 AM
 In any case it's my understanding that one tries to limit holes/hatches in the pressure hull so I believe most of all this is rather moot.

in rough terms, as soon as you have anything on a hull thats not conformal or acoustically sympathetic, hen you have added a transducer effect to the sub.
its an undesirable trait.

 

 



 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/18/2009 12:44:44 AM

OK, I've sent in a petition to have Bluewings removed from the forum for aggravated trolling (flames, unsubstantiated statements and outright falsities reducing the quality of the board consecutively for years). Regardless of whether you find him entertaining or not I encourage you to a great degree to join this measure.

I was actually starting to see reasonable conversations about the Rafale and other topics on French matters until he reappeared.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/18/2009 5:21:36 AM

OK, I've sent in a petition to have Bluewings removed from the forum for aggravated trolling (flames, unsubstantiated statements and outright falsities reducing the quality of the board consecutively for years). Regardless of whether you find him entertaining or not I encourage you to a great degree to join this measure.

I was actually starting to see reasonable conversations about the Rafale and other topics on French matters until he reappeared.

can you stop spamming each post?  we get the picture.  on principle I'm not going to line up to push BW out when what you are doing is becoming just as aggravating.
get over it.  ignore him and pull your head in with the holier than thou approach when you're posting just as much rubbish in the last 24 hrs.




 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics