The conclusion of the in-depth ...and in-length article:
"...The stealthy submarine isn’t gone; it still has years of life left. That gives us ample time to find new ways to keep the peace."
Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
11–20 of 159 posts
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#12At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
The idea is subs deliver missiles halfway around the world, the rockets do the rest. It’s a matter of an hour for a rocket to transit from the Great Lakes to the other side of the planet, but half that for rockets fired from most of the way there already.
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#13The conclusion of the in-depth ...and in-length article: "...The stealthy submarine isn’t gone; it still has years of life left. That gives us ample time to find new ways to keep the peace."
Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#14At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
We could use that as a defense against Canada. ;)
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#15At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
The US uses submarines to threaten attacks on far away countries, not for defence.
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#16At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
The US uses submarines to threaten attacks on far away countries, not for defence.
No it doesn't. Ballistic missile submarines are exclusively useful as second strike weapons: they don't carry enough warheads, nor are they accurate enough to first strike weapons (which have to reliably hit military targets and threaten an opponent's retaliation ability).
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#17At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
The US uses submarines to threaten attacks on far away countries, not for defence.
subs can deny access to an incoming navy by sinking them
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#18At least for the US why not keep one or more nuclear missile subs in the Great Lakes? Lake Superior alone covers 31,700 square miles to an average depth of 483 feet. It’s far to large an area to target with a first strike and well protected from non US/Canadian forces. Edit: A US/Canadian treaty demilitarized the Great Lakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
The idea is subs deliver missiles halfway around the world, the rockets do the rest. It’s a matter of an hour for a rocket to transit from the Great Lakes to the other side of the planet, but half that for rockets fired from most of the way there already.
Hmm…maybe I don’t quite understand what you’re saying. But I think you’re implying is that subs drive pretty far away with their nuclear missiles and shoot closer to the target?
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#19Seems like new war of attrition is more likely between increased listening posts and new AI powered submarine noise decoys
A since-deleted comment suggested that you'd need nuclear power to operate long durations under water decoys.
Not neceessarily. There's a fleet of solar-powered self-navigating sensor drone ships being developed.
Something quite similar, with a low detection profile, could drag an array undewater at submarine depth as desired. And presumably at low cost.
For all that data fuzzing is challenging, in this case (thin positive signal), it might work well, especially within the period of error / uncertainty around peak concern.
Best I can tell, Team R have 17 nuclear attack submarines, and 11 ballistic missile submarines. I suspect only a subset are active at any one time.
http://russianships.info/eng/today/
Team A have 50 nuclear attack submarines, and 14 ballistic missile submarines.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_Uni...
Decoys would have to successfully occupy enough hunter-killers to leave sufficient ballistic submarines for a counterattack.
Re: Will AI steal submarines’ stealth?
#20by the mentioned 2050 MAD would probably include space based (free flying as well as Moon and asteroids based) components.
Worth noting that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits “weapons of mass destruction” in space, though that is generally interpreted to apply only to nuclear weapons.
No post body was provided.