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: U.S. Navy Rethinks The Silent Service
SYSOP    7/6/2012 5:06:20 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
HeavyD       7/9/2012 9:11:48 PM
 The NAVY wants their subs to be the premier cruise missile launch platforms because they need to attach more missions to this platform.  This is the one of the main points of this article:  given the current evolution of warfare - where less than 20 blue-water surface ships have been sunk in all wars since WWII (I'm not sure whether to count the USS Liberty of not...), and practically no merchant ships sunk in open hostilities, subs need additional missions to justify their numbers and costs.
 
Fact is though if we were starting from scratch with a panel of objective experts the Air Force would be tasked with more of the Cruise Missile load:  Each B52 can carry as many readily-launchable cruise missiles as an attack sub but with twice the warhead size, to ANYWHERE in the world in 48 hours.  A SSN needs to be in-theater:  it can't be in the Persian Gulf one day and be off North Korea 48 hours later.  A Buff or a B1 can.  A B-52 on the ground waiting for a mission is a helluva lot less costly than a SSN. 
 
Subs are great for what they are, they do a lot of things well, but they are not the premier cruise missile platform.  Great to pop-and-shoot a dozen missiles to spank some shitheads up to mischief.   
 
HERE IS MY PROOF:  
1.  The US will NOT build anymore Ohios or a replacement with 150 Cruise Missile capability once they are taken out of service.
2.  The BULK of new cruise missile deployment capabilities will come from air assets, not surface ships, not subs.  WHEN (not if) the US doubles it's ready-launchable cruise missile capability, the bulk will come from the air. 
 
I have no axe to grind, and if we had an annual trillion dollar budgetary surplus, then hell yeah, build more subs!  But we don't, so I'll just call it like I see it.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB       7/10/2012 2:30:51 AM
The problem with that analysis is that the USAF isn't very interested in cruise missiles and only has a few hundred in their inventory.  The subs are more versatile than you believe and in any potential conflict they're already on station doing various tasks and additionally can launch cruise missiles.  The B-52's and tankers have to be deployed in theater or you need a lot more tankers to operate them out of theater.  Large USAF deployments are something potential foes will be aware of vs the subs they can only suspect are on station.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/10/2012 10:11:59 AM
grngh...
 
Subs are not cruise missile launchers. They have and will continue to be best at interdicting enemy shipping, warships and serving as a nuclear deterrent.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/10/2012 10:12:54 AM
Well that is some of them are, but to think that will be their primary purpose with the ranges these days... arghhhh...
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/10/2012 10:14:55 AM
That is it is of course a good tool, but the main purpose of submarines has always been presenting a danger to enemy ships of all kinds, and since the cold war to present a final deterrent. This is backed up by a hundred years of submarine warfare.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/10/2012 10:22:54 AM

Having served on US SSNs, I can tell you there are numerous capabilities not known by the public.

Definitely, everything I've read confirms they can do everything from spy to start a nuclear war. 
 
But I still think the author of the article is mad to think of launching cruise missiles as the future primary purpose, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the article or just disagreeing with something Heavy-D said, if it's the former I would be really confused since being an old sea hand you must know what you're talking about (not that I'm sure, but you sound real enough).
 
Oh well, nuff reading strategypage. : )  
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/10/2012 10:24:10 AM
Yes, there may be less and less wars now, but deterrance against the effectiveness of conventional warfare is an important part of that since nukes can't stop all wars.

Ridiculous to think SSN's are obsolete in a modern naval campaign. The Falklands War showed the value of all assets, but it was the Brits who brought subs to bear. If you recall they bluffed that their subs were already down there and the Argentines froze. The subs got there, sank a ship, and the Arg navy left the scene leaving it up to their air force(which was very capable-brits got lucky) to prosecute the attack.

 

To say air power will win the day in a naval campaign is akin to saying air power will win a land war by itself aka Desert Storm. 

 

There's nothing in modern warfare/strategy which has diminished the SSN forces importance in dealing a foe's naval forces. They're the first modern stealth war machine and they are getting stealthier. How can that be marginalized? How long as you have surface assets, you'll have SSN's to kill them.



 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/10/2012 11:34:24 AM
Subs are not generally designed for sustained bombardment, TLAM capability does provide capability for them to attack and disrupt enemy airbases, radar and C4i with little or no warning.
 
That they can also prevent enemy naval assets from leaving port and importantly that area-denial or engagement can take place even without air superiority overhead: For example, if Mount Pleasant Airbase in the Falklands was somehow put out of operation the Argentine navy would still have to think very carefully about a naval expedition unless they had the necessary ASW capabilities, they have no idea how many SSN's are in theatre. The same logic applies elsewhere, without being able to track or engage SSN's an enemy is forced to risk-manage either with ASW (resource intensive) or by keeping ships in port. 
 
And this is the key point: An adversary that is aware that the USN has a huge SSN fleet is aware that any number of them may be in their backyard, how can you mitigate that which is present in unknown quantities? surely the greatest effect of SSN's is the tactical and strategic deterrent itself, which therefore requires that known operational platform numbers be maintained. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD    Reactive   7/10/2012 3:22:25 PM

which therefore requires that known operational platform numbers be maintained. 

 Given the proliferation of threat subs in littorals I'd argue that we increase overall sub count, with a preponderance of new builds of the smaller and cheaper SSK varieties.  Surfacing every 3-5 days for 6 hours to run the diesels doesn't compromise the mission much at all:  Our enemies know we have subs in strategically important areas already, so it matters little if they know for example that we have a SSK or two near the Korea Strait because they can detect snorkel activity.  They operate as if we're there anyway.  I'd like to 'sub' 4 type 212's (or the like) for every other new SSN.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    SSN's   7/10/2012 4:19:08 PM
Work for the USN, because of their hi transit speeds and low logistic requirements.  No SSK is going to deploy from Norfolk to Bandar Abbas in nearly the time and stealth as an SSN.  And there is no refueling them.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics