It's good to plan for how we would expect the next war to be fought but it would be foolish to expect any war would adhere to that or any plan.

 

It seems it is wiser to expect in the event that a war would diverge from any and all plans.

 

So, we should be prepared for the eventuality that our air assets may be at least temporarily neutralized.

 

So maybe we should want subs to be able to deploy mines too.

 

....

 

I have heard of unmanned submersibles. I wonder how many robotic submersible craft may be employed by our or other's navies. They might be hard to communicate with while submerged in another country's coastal waters but it seems such assets could be deployed well ahead of a war and then just sit unitl needed.

 

 

If the Chinese vessels cannot get insurance then they will be carrying nothing but Chinese cargoes. There is insurance coverage for much more than the value of the vessel involved here, including the value of the cargo and guarantees of timely delivery. Only shippers already in a similar situation (i.e. Iran) would be willing to take the risk. China will also be unable to ship on 3rd party vessels if they automatically lose their coverage by taking on a Chinese cargo. Just look at the effects an insurance ban is having on Iran.

 

Now China can set up its own insurance system, but given their history of legal corruption, it is unlikely to be an acceptable substitute.

It is safe to assume that we, the general public, know less than 1/3 of the actual capabilities of the SSN.

 

For instance: RPV's theoretically make it possible for nuke subs to carry their own air attack or even air combat assets.

 

If you can think of it, the Navy has already tried and probably deployed.

 

Never underestimate the resourceful creativity of the paranoid genius.

 

 

 

 

Sure, a P-8 can launch a couple cruise missiles, and a B-52 up to 20, and they can get to the launch point in hours, but that is ONLY IF they are already deployed in the theater. How long to deploy them, and their logistics tail, into the theater? Probably well over a month. The sub can be there in under a week. Planes are tactically faster, but the sub is strategically faster. Which is more useful depends on the situation, but in most cases time will be a luxury you don’t have.

 

And deploying those aircraft in advance will be an obvious and provocative act. The submarine is ‘deniable’ – in fact it is even better if they suspect is there, but can’t be sure. Because then they will have to act as if it were there, even if it is not. The British demonstrated just how effective that can be in the Falkland Islands campaign.

AIP systems have severely limited range, on the order of 100 hours at 2 knots (there are a LOT of ocean currents faster than 2 knots), or 2 hours at 20 knots. As a results AIP systems are useful for defensive operations (like blocking a critical passage), but of very limited use in offensive operations and long deployments, and unable to self deploy strategically.

 

The US Navy use AIP submarines as a substitute for nukes because of NIH syndrome, but because they are inherently incapable of performing the missions required.

6 hours after the satellite pass your missile will need to be capable of searching 14,000 square km of ocean to find the target. That is not going to leave you much for standoff range.

A total waste of the taxpayers money. The correct solution for that situation is to send in a corvette with a 40mm cannon (assuming a Chinese anti-piracy team on board) to board and impound the freighter. A hell of a lot cheaper and the legally correct thing to do.

Dude, anyone remotely in the know realizes that we can get subs into the Black Sea or other waters controlled by our potential enemies.  Yes they are AWESOME for intelligence collection and laying mines but the LAST THING a sneaky sub deep in enemy water wants to do is to announce it's presence by touching-off a cruise missile or a torpedo.  Stealth aircraft are much better at 'blowing shit up', to quote Demi Moore in G.I. Jane.

 

Even if one is in the middle of Shanghai harbor, what's it gonna do?

 

Please read the article (methinks you skipped straight to the comments).  If you want to add the Navy Brass to the list of 'Ignorant Sluts', that's your prerogative. But the facts are as plain as your bias:  subs are not EVER going to be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to (conventional) destruction.  That's the role of air power, even for the Navy, and has been since oh, 1943 or so.

 

Put it this way:  On a football team, submarines are like the Special Teams.  They usually don't score the most points or run the most plays but nothing can change the momentum or demoralize an opponent more than a return for a touchdown or a punt being downed inside the 1 yard line...

 

Did HeavyD really just use a Demi Moore quote from G.I. Jane?

 

Carry on. 

The USN has about 3,500 Tomahawk's and almost every SSN has 12 VLS tubes for Tomahawk.  Tomahawk of course is also carried by our surface ships with VLS but here you have to give up SAM's vs the subs being equipped to carry nothing else.   That's 600+ on the SSN's and 600+ on the SSGN's allowing the subs to deploy about 1/3rd of the total inventory, and the subs can carry more by swapping out torpedoes.

 

It's crystal clear that the USN views it's subs as premier cruise missile platforms.  Moreover, the ability of a nuclear submarine to launch cruise missiles and clear the area quickly is obviously not a major issue or every single SSN in the inventory wouldn't be specially equipped to launch them.  Indeed the Seawolf's were designed to carry dozens.  The entire design history indicates the USN very much wants it's subs launching cruise missiles.