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: Concrete submarine tactics : a future nightmare for Navies around the world ?
Florisv    9/27/2005 3:27:49 PM
I am only an amateur so don't expect wonders. If I'm wrong about something the feel free to point that out. Concrete submarines,when I first read about htem I couldn't help but think at big coffins. But while researching about them for a post I wanted and still want to write, they seemed more real, and even had potiental use, that is well, metionned, but not looked at in more detail. As I want to include some possible future strategies of this craft in the post I'm writting, for on I would much appreciate your help. Currently I hve one basic scenario worked out, where the Us would be attacked, and I am wroking one basic plan to sue skybval torpedo's to defend the english channel. It took the US not becuase Iahev anything against them, I don't but that for some groups they would be a preferable target. Now lets start: A Carrier battle group moves from the medeteriannin towards Iraq, and has to pass by the Suez canal. 5 c-subs (as shown in the link, but) will take part in this attack. The attackers do not care about there life. That changes there tactics as well. Call it a worst case scenario. When the carrier battle group last ship wants to enter the Suez canal the 1st c-sub fires its skyval weapons and sinks it. Now I read a rumour that there would be guided skyval toperdo's already, but I am not sure.The sub moves from postion, but stays around. So that when a ships coems the stricken ship to its aid, it is sunk also. Worst case scenario would be if the Skyval torpedo would have a nuclear warhead. Not only because it destroys the ship, but contaminates the area, and the Suez canal is in the Middle East. But in this case it not necessarly is. I go out from the idea that the other ships of the carrier battle group would want to move out of the Suez canal which is a trap. At the other end, near Suez two c-subs lay waiting. They let the ships of the carrier batlte group pass. Except the carrier itself. C-sub 2 fires it skyval torpedo's at the carrier, with as aim to sink it. Normally I though a carrier battle group has two submarines as escort. Because the aircraft carrier would be attacked at the moment it trys leaving the canal, and would be sunk, it will block the canal at its other end. Thereby trapping any ships still in the canal. Any of the ships that had already passed, then face a moral dilema. Run and try and safe itself, or come back to help the carrier, but face the treat of being sunk themself. If one of the two escort submarines has already passed, or both. They become the next target of C-sub 2 and C-sub 3. The c-sub can stay under tem and shoot a skyval straight up in there midle section. At a speed of 230 mph or 345 km/h they are very hard to evade. After that the one or two subs are taken out. The other ships become targets. Near Djiouti another c-sub would be waiting. To catch any ships that owuld try and pass there. Not only would such an act shatter morale, it would happen in area the Middle East, where people do not like the US that muchs and that could destabilize things. There is on c-sub to spare. That could be used or not. STEP 2 Taken further. One can imagine two or 3 possibly 4 c-subs being transported to the Persian gulf neer Al kahab or in front of the coast of Iraq. There target would be to attack the carrier battle group that is operating there. That way taking out two carrier battle groups in close succesion or preferably at the same time. Very bad for moral. And not only Moral. STEP 3 The following steps would be to place two c-subs in or near the Bosporus, two c-sub at the streat of Gibraltar and to send conventional subs and c-subs to attack naval ports in Europe. STEP 4 Transport C-subs or do that before to the Panama channel. And try to get some C-sub into or nead naval bases. That way when any ships leaves they can be sunk as well. Locking ships in there own harbors, and making them far less effective. This step could also be the first, then followed by the attack at the Suez Channel and the rest. C-subs stron points. Tehy can dive deper, possibly out of the effecitve range of exisitng weapons systems. Meaning that they could fire be detected, but not beeing taken out. But they would still have firing capability. Because they are made of concrete, one article I read suggested that they would therefore be very ahrd to detect. What they have agianst them. They might be noisy, and they are not as manouvrable as they could be. The cnocnret might crack. And there batteres may run out. But in the above scenario that doens't matter, as the people doing the attack don't care if they survive or not. One of my won potiental desings/concept is for manouvrability, not stealth, and should be able to out manouver the c-sub and most other subs. It behaves more like a harrier underwater, but with the advantage that it can turn in all directions, even on its back. I know that technically speaking the skyva
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
jlb    RE:Concrete submarine tactics : a future nightmare for Navies around the world ?   9/28/2005 7:11:23 AM
You'd have to cover the sea floor with those subs. The Shkval is unguided AFAIK and a guidance system for such a torp does not seem easy to develop - and just getting it to turn must not be much easier. So except if something happens to sail just straight above your sub, it's just sitting there uselessly, and such a small sub can't have much autonomy. A (laser?) guided, maneuverable shkval would be a nice addition to regular subs, though.
Quote    Reply