Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just read the fascinating thread on the M-4 Sherman tank. One poster mentioned our Navy's current doctrine of being able to "project power" anywhere in the world at any time. I was wondering how well we could do this if we were ever at war with a country with either a nuclear of diesel electric powered submarine force. As a friend commented, "There are two types of ships in the ocean. Submarines and targets." He may be right. I will appreciate your comments.
Location: The High Desert of the American Southwest
214 posts, read 230,623 times
Reputation: 364
I was a U.S. Navy submariner for eight years. I did three patrols on the USS Dallas (SSN-700), a Los Angeles class fast-attack boat; and I also completed three tours on the USS Florida (SSBN-715), which is a missile boat, or what is referred to as a "boomer."
A modern boomer carries around 30 ICBM's and each one of those has 6 MIRV's (multiple-independent-re-entry vehicles) or nuclear "bomblets." So...to do the math...24X6=144 cities a boomer could take out with a nuclear bomb several times larger than the one dropped on Hiroshima.
One single Navy boomer carries MORE firepower on it than has EVER been released in all the wars in the entire history of mankind.
I would call this an example of "projecting power."
The nuclear boomers are, and have been for 30 years, our first-line of defense. This will probably never change. Notice how when our government enters into any type of nuclear arms reduction talks with another country, the boomers are never mentioned. Oh, we might close a few silos here and there but no one is gonna make us touch our missile boats.
We use the term "peace through deterrence" to justify this, as our potential enemies know we have those boomers, but really can't do anything about it.
A couple other countries, Russia and China, have pretty good submarine forces, but they are several notches below ours in almost every technical category, such as weaponry and stealth.
Submarines has always been a risky business, though, when the fit hits the shan, as in war. In WWII the German U-Boat fatality rate for crewman was a staggering 80%. And even for us, we lost about 20% of all our sailors who served on subs.
"Fortune Favors the Brave" (this was our official Ship's Motton on the Florida!)
I just read the fascinating thread on the M-4 Sherman tank. One poster mentioned our Navy's current doctrine of being able to "project power" anywhere in the world at any time. I was wondering how well we could do this if we were ever at war with a country with either a nuclear of diesel electric powered submarine force. As a friend commented, "There are two types of ships in the ocean. Submarines and targets." He may be right. I will appreciate your comments.
Subs are not unstoppable. There are attack submarines and ships as well as aircraft that specialize in hunting subs. In addition there are areas of the ocean that have hydrophones installed to listen for possible subs or other shipping.
A couple other countries, Russia and China, have pretty good submarine forces, but they are several notches below ours in almost every technical category, such as weaponry and stealth.
During the Cold War Soviet subs were inferior to ours. From what I have been able to gather, both Russian and ChiCom boats still are, and rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran are way behind, and they would quickly be sunk if things went hot.
Quote:
Submarines has always been a risky business, though, when the fit hits the shan, as in war. In WWII the German U-Boat fatality rate for crewman was a staggering 80%. And even for us, we lost about 20% of all our sailors who served on subs.
For sure. Even though submarines inflict great damage, they pay a very high price for their success. In WWII US subs accounted for about 60% of all Japanese shipping sunk, but nearly one out of four sailors were killed, about 22%-23% I believe. Roughly 40,000 men went to sea in the Unterseeboots between 1939-1945. Only about 8000 came back. This is believed be the highest casualty rate for any service of any nation that fought in the Second World War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Subs are not unstoppable. There are attack submarines and ships as well as aircraft that specialize in hunting subs. In addition there are areas of the ocean that have hydrophones installed to listen for possible subs or other shipping.
In naval warfare deadly forces from all elements would be hunting enemy submarines from the air, surface, and subsurface. Besides hunter-killer subs, ASW aircraft and destroyers and frigates would be after them. All of them have very modern sophisticated sensors and weaponry able to deliver a fatal blow.
The big question, which is unanswerable, is would such warfare go nuclear, or would it stay with conventional weapons? If things went nuke, pretty much the whole picture changes.
Why do subs stand out as a threat any more than aircraft, land based missles or other ships? Forget about subs, a Chinese CM-400AKG can ruin a ship captains day real quick.
You put up countermeasures. Navy doctrine is based on the most formidible mobile platform currently knows to the world - an aircraft carrier fleet. The air and sea power from that single fleet alone can devastate the military force of 95% of the nations in the world with virtual impunity. For the 5% that have more advanced military technology, well an aircraft carrier fleet includes dozens of ships dedicated to every modern technological advancement available to detect, disarm, and defend against threats. Stuff to fry electronics, stuff to make the fleet radar invisible, lasers to shoot down missles; for subs there is new technology for sonar, radar, magnets, and stuff we don't even know about it. If a Russian submariner farts in the sub within the same time zone as our vessels, we will hear it and know about it. Most importantly - it's a challenge for a sub to even get past the screen of escort ASW vessels to hit the real combat vessels itself. If they want to waste a torpedo or cruise missile on an small escort ship, they won't live to get the next shot off.
Because it will likely result in national suicide, the decision to use nuclear weapons can be made only by a country's highest political authority (or by a terrorist group said country does not consider worth the cost of eliminating). There are countries insane enough to do this--but none of them have more than a half dozen nukes and these are at worst Hiroshima-size. With the probable exception of Resident Obambi--who would aparantly shrug the whole thing off if his response in the first Democrat Primary Debate in 2008 is to be believed--any American President would launch a very angry and determined military response with conventional weapons, but would not consider it worth unleashing our nuclear arsenal because these nuts are in the same neighborhood as Russia and China and the radioactive cloud would drift into their territory and so would amount to a nuclear attack on them and they'd likely hit us with a few nukes in return.
So our boomers are an insurance policy against the Russians and Chinese nuking us or our neighbors and their nukes deter us from attacking them and their neighbors.
So let's look at the conventional Navy.
The purpose of the Navy is to keep the sea lanes open.
Yaaawwwn. So?
To win a war you need boots on the ground. Those soldiers need food, ammunition, fuel, and medical supplies. Not only is it bad PR when our troops start pillaging and looting civilian homes for something to eat, but the enemy just might be smart enough to poison that food while evacuating his people. And in any case if the front lines get bogged down our boys are going to get mighty hungry once they've eaten up all the food in the area. And how are we supposed to hold off the enemy if our weapons run out of ammunition? In a retreat it sure will be a shame to aboandon our tanks and other equipment because we don't have fuel. Be worse if the enemy does have fuel and gas up all that lovely equipment of ours. Be awful bad if our wounded have to keep bleeding till we can get them back to the States.
The purpose of the Navy is to keep the sea lanes open. Does a light bulb begin to go on? The Marine Corps is part of the Navy and the purpose of the Marine Corps is to seize and secure ports. (That generally has to be done by landing on a beach near-by.) Supplies for the Army and the Air Force are unloaded at these ports. (By the way, the purpose of the Air Force is to destroy the enemy's source of supplies: his factories that make aircraft, tanks, weapons, ammunition, and the supply routes that deliver these things to the front.)
Supplies reach the soldiers in trucks and helicopters. It takes 5-10 helicopters to carry the supplies carried in one cargo plane. It would take 50 cargo planes to carry the supplies brought in by one cargo ship. There are not enough cargo planes in the world to haul the supplies brought in by one convoy of 50-60 cargo ships. On any given day of World War II we had five or six such convoys making their way across the Atlantic. That's what it takes to win a war. Two thirds of the aircraft on an aircraft carrier specialize in detecting surface and subsurface threats to the convoy and vectoring the destroyers and other aircraft to the vicinity to take out the threat. So our Navy is built around aircraft carriers and how many other ships we need is determined by how many carriers we need.
It takes 5 aircraft carriers to cover the sea lanes across the Atlantic. These are deployed for six months at a time while 5 other carriers are in port being repaired and re-fitted. We need 2 more carriers for the North Sea and 2 for them to rotate with. 2 other carriers are needed for the Mediterranean and 2 more for them to rotate with. We need 13 carriers to cover the Pacific and 13 more for them to rotate with. We need more for the Indian Ocean and a few other places.
In the event of serious hostilities we will need more than 44 aircrafrt carriers. We only have a dozen.
Why do subs stand out as a threat any more than aircraft, land based missles or other ships?
Because the damn things can be very, very hard to find. Submariners train constantly in stealth and evasion tactics, and they are extremely good at it. Back in the day when I wore a uniform, ASW was a large part of my work, and after many, many exercises, I respected just how good they are. Recent conversations with active duty sailors confirmed that they are still good at it. Thank heaven that they are our guys and not theirs.
Just because you have the most modern sophisticated gear and sensors does not mean that you are automatically going to find an enemy sub. The ocean is not a transparent substance like the sky, there are places and ways to evade and hide. A submarine is an offensive platform. In order to neutralize it, it must be found, attacked, and destroyed before it can utilize it's weapons. If a sub can get into position to fire it's torpedos or launch missiles undetected it is going to cause horrible damage. Even after doing so it may still escape unharmed, counterattacking destroyers or aircraft just may not be able to find and sink it.
Last edited by BlackShoe; 08-14-2014 at 12:08 PM..
Just because you have the most modern sophisticated gear and sensors does not mean that you are automatically going to find an enemy sub. The ocean is not a transparent substance like the sky, there are places and ways to evade and hide.
Yep. Relatively minor changes in salinity and temperature can greatly affect sound -- even light -- transmission, diffraction and deflection in the oceans of the world. It is possible to hide a very large boomer "in plain sight" under a thermocline.
It would appear that subs would of course be part of an overall strategic and tactical plan to defeat our enemies in various operational theaters under varying battle circumstances. But I'd agree that things sure could get 'fluid' on that issue as black shoe noted about conventional and nuclear war. It could get real complicated when looking at battle scenarios especially with the use of nukes. I'd be sure curious how war planners would deal with that kind of naval matter.
It would appear that subs would of course be part of an overall strategic and tactical plan to defeat our enemies in various operational theaters under varying battle circumstances. But I'd agree that things sure could get 'fluid' on that issue as black shoe noted about conventional and nuclear war. It could get real complicated when looking at battle scenarios especially with the use of nukes. I'd be sure curious how war planners would deal with that kind of naval matter.
Are we talking nuclear in terms of naval warfare? Of course submarines have always been a delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons since the cold war, but one would think the use of a nuclear weapon against a ship or fleet is overkill. However - during the cold war the US developed the Mark 45 - nuclear tipped torpedos. No doubt USSR had something equivalent.
Small tactical nukes designed for usage against military land targets on a battlefield were of course common.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
