Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

nationalinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#31

Post by vonmoltke »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #23
rbc wrote: post #13

Obsolete sounds a little strong. The denied areas for submarine operations will get larger, but the ocean is really big. Running the fixed and mobile sensor arrays to detect submarines is not cheap. Regardless of the foreseeable improvements in submarine detection, they'll still be harder to find than surface ships.

Right, but if they have to launch from the middle of the ocean, their advantage over ICBM's becomes much smaller, maybe none if they can't strike & destroy hostile C&C and launch sites. It is already a very small window of time that boomers are most useful for in a hot war. SLBM's utility in peacetime/pre-war is contingent upon people not knowing where they are. OTOH, relying on ICMB's is contingent on enough people…

I think both you and dimtar are confusing SLBMs with cruise missiles. The Trident II has a range of over 4000nm, only half the Minuteman III ICBM's range, with a similar flight profile to the ICBM. SSBNs have a significant advantage in that they are mobile and to some degree hidden.

A first strike can target ICBM launch facilities and effectively neutralize them, meaning those birds either fly when the balloon goes up or they don't fly at all. SSBNs have to be hunted down and destroyed individually. This provides a retaliation capability that cannot easily be destroyed by a massive first strike. They are "second strike" in the sense that they will be available to respond to any nuclear attack, no matter how overwhelming, thus ensuring MAD remains an effective deterrent to nuclear weapons use.

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#32

Post by leroy_masochist »

Pretty ironic that the subheading of the article says, "They could simply become the next battleship." Battleships would be an awesome asset today if we hadn't scrapped them. Their main guns can put 2500 lbs of ordinance on targets 40 km away. Think of what that capability would look like these days with GPS guided rounds. America's ability to project force in the littorals is worse-off for not having maintained battleships in the arsenal.

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#33

Post by binky56 »

bubbleHead wrote: post #7

This guy's premise is that submarines are going to lose their stealthy advantage. He is not qualified to say that, and the technology he mentions could become a threat to subs has been talked about for 20+ years. There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. I acknowledge that technology will require subs to become even more quiet, but new propulsion systems are no…

If you really where a 20+ year submariner then you should already know the screw is not the loudest thing onboard by a long shot. Also if you bothered to read the full article they are not using just sound to detect.

Granted this would only pertain to some of the current fast attack missions in regards to some countries. SEAL delivery is a relatively close up mission considering how big the ocean is.

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#34

Post by hellbanner »

exabrial wrote: post #15

Here's the thing about submarines you may not realize: they are the trump card when it comes to nuclear warfare and keeping MAD in place. If one country "struck first" and tried to wipe out our nuclear silos, nuclear armed subs would retaliate. Given the surface are of the world covered by water, there are quite a few hiding places too. What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really…

This month, and 3 years ago:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-intel-ship-s... http://www.businessinsider.com/a-suspected-russian-submarine... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/06/report-second-rus...

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#35

Post by cocoablazing »

dimitar wrote: post #28
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but if they have to launch from the middle of the ocean, their advantage over ICBM's becomes much smaller, maybe none if they can't strike & destroy hostile C&C and launch sites. It is already a very small window of time that boomers are most useful for in a hot war. SLBM's utility in peacetime/pre-war is contingent upon people not knowing where they are. OTOH, relying on ICMB's is contingent on enough people…

Nuclear ballistic missile-armed submarines are considered second strike weapons, even though there are first strike scenarios for their use. Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. However they can get really…

What is your reference for this range assertion? OS intelligence says that US SLBM's can strike any target in Eurasia from either ocean. What is your reference for the assertion that Trident is vulnerable to ABM? RF has no operational ABM system capable of striking RB's entering at 8 km/s. Why do submarines have to move quickly to enable a first strike? Can't they just stealthily move into the exact position necessary days prior to launch? You should review what public data is available on Trident testing, because it contradicts every one of your assertions. The Trident equipment section has been observed conducting 14 distinct warhead release maneuvers in space. The largest warhead Trident can carry is estimated to have a 500kt yield. Trident is estimated to carry a max loadout to >7e3 km, and a reduced (treaty) loadout to >11e3km. It is also estimated to exhibit the precision necessary to guarantee kills against the latest Russian silos (envelop the silo structure within the earthen blast cavity). This means that the Trident fleet can strike and neutralize every counter-force target in Eurasia from defended waters. There is no "proper air defence to take down the missiles" in existence, and there is no indication that current ABM programs have any hope of defeating a MIRV'd fleet of solid fuel launchers.

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#36

Post by dalke »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #32

Pretty ironic that the subheading of the article says, "They could simply become the next battleship." Battleships would be an awesome asset today if we hadn't scrapped them. Their main guns can put 2500 lbs of ordinance on targets 40 km away. Think of what that capability would look like these days with GPS guided rounds. America's ability to project force in the littorals is worse-off for not having maintained batt…

Battleships are expensive, with little flexibility for the types of missions they can do.

The Navy wants railguns. Eg, http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launche... :

> The Navy likes the weapon for several reasons, not the least of which it has a range of 100 miles and doesn’t require explosive warheads. That makes it far safer for sailors, and cheaper for taxpayers. According to the Navy, each 18-inch projectile costs about $25,000, compared to $500,000 to $1.5 million for conventional missiles.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Co... says there's a goal of 10 rounds per minute.

These don't need to be on battleship. Here's one on a destroyer. http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-thi...

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#37

Post by hackuser »

exabrial wrote: post #15

Here's the thing about submarines you may not realize: they are the trump card when it comes to nuclear warfare and keeping MAD in place. If one country "struck first" and tried to wipe out our nuclear silos, nuclear armed subs would retaliate. Given the surface are of the world covered by water, there are quite a few hiding places too. What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really…

> What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really know.

Also, what happens if one side develops or believes they've developed that capability, and the other doesn't know? For example, a surprise attack to forever end U.S. power could be very tempting to competitors. They may decide they never will have a better opportunity, to grab the brass ring and do something historic, or that their odds are better in a surprise attack than in some expected future conflict.

I see many responses dismissing your concern. How much are they willing to bet on those theories? The future of humanity?

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#38

Post by brudgers »

ghshephard wrote: post #18
exabrial wrote: post #15

Here's the thing about submarines you may not realize: they are the trump card when it comes to nuclear warfare and keeping MAD in place. If one country "struck first" and tried to wipe out our nuclear silos, nuclear armed subs would retaliate. Given the surface are of the world covered by water, there are quite a few hiding places too. What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really…

This article wasn't talking about Boomers, like the Ohio Class, which can go hide in the middle of the ocean, but attack class submarines, which need to get up close to their target. The theory is that with more advanced detection technology, you can blanket an small area with sensors, and deny that small area to an attack submarine. This has no implications for MAD.

To extend this, the US attack submarine has seen mission creep from suppressing the opponent's missile submarine; directly engaging the opponent's attack submarines to protect friendly boomers; and harrying the opponent's capital naval and merchant fleets. With the end of the Cold War, US attack submarines have been increasingly deployed out of blue-water roles for which they are truly suited.

Industrial inertia more than increasing opponent capability has been the driving force behind continued maintenance of a substantial attack submarine fleet via the development of replacements for the Los Angeles class...somehow the reduction in boomers to hunt for didn't mean significantly fewer attack submarines and there are more in service now than at the turn of the millennium.

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#39

Post by hga »

pm90 wrote: post #21
hga wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't the sole trump card, that role is also played by manned bombers that can launch on warning from the middle of the without committing to bomb that targets, without even having the ability to arm their warheads ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link ); SLBMs are trump cards against undetectable attacks, or at least ones that can be detected in time, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

Yep. MIRV's also make it incredibly hard for any kind of "Missile Defense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

I didn't clearly state my case.

A first strike requires reliably hitting a bunch of targets, often on a schedule. If your intended target has a possibility of randomly (from your viewpoint) taking out some fraction of these incoming warheads, how much more complicated does that make your plan?

If you're talking about protecting a target (nation) from an attack, then "Missile Defense" shouldn't even be your first line of defense. Civil Defense is to protect the people's lives, anti-missile defenses to protect their possessions and those who don't make it to a shelter in time.

Re: Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

#40

Post by cocoablazing »

ethbro wrote: post #16
tjradcliffe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The model of "subs as aircraft carriers" for UUVs seems less likely, though. UUVs are arguably better deployed like satellites than aircraft. This is the way underwater mines are deployed today: seed an area well in advance of hostilities with mines that dig themselves into the bottom, and activate them remotely at need. If you posit that submarines are going to be highly detectable (which is reasonable, and has been…

I believe the "subs as aircraft carriers" idea came from the fact that you generally want to interact with a target location on land. Nation states don't tend to have too many strategic targets underwater off their coasts. Options for interacting with a target land location (dates extremely rough, in rough historical order): - Subsonic aircraft: outpaced by projectile-based anti-aircraft since ~1935 - Supersonic airc…

Your ICBM trade-off regarding corrections is outdated. Disarmament community has reported USN test administrators as stating latest W76-1/Mk4A LEP has introduced real-time GPS corrections throughout re-entry and terminal phase. A similar effort is underway to upgrade USAF RB's. Hypersonic aerodynamics and control research is going to pay dividends at some point, and apply to both hypersonic in-atmospheric and sub-orbital weapon control.

The "risk of nuclear payload" is only a severe problem if overflight is necessary. The RF would be able to assess that a non-overflying SLBM was not targeting RF territory as soon as it traveled through the radar nets. Obviously this is still probably a stupid weapon to use in a conventional context.

Post reply on HN