"One ping only, Captain"?
Posted on 06/21/2007 7:37:25 AM PDT by SShultz460
Last week, the third in a new class of underwater battleships, the USS MICHIGAN, joined the fleet after a $1 billion face lift. The 4 converted subs of the OHIO class, former Trident missile ships, are the undersea equivalent of the reborn IOWA class from the 1980’s. Armed with over 150 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus the ability to carry special forces and unmanned vehicles, they give the Navy an incredible ability to strike decisively from the sea.
I am of the opinion that in full-scale shooting war at sea, the US surface navy will be devastated in the first day., by the combination of cruise missiles and stealthy submarines. The survivors would all be forced into port, unable to participate in the counterattack, which would likely be initiated by our own deadly nuclear attack submarines.
What this means is, our current force of colossal and pricey warships including aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and amphibious ships are obsolete in today’s precision, push button warfare. They are also tremendously expensive to build and operate, with only the richest of earth’s superpowers able to afford them in ever declining numbers. If this wasn’t reason enough for maritime nations to reevaluate their shipbuilding priorities, there are few if any jobs the surface fleet can do which the submarine cannot. I’ll elaborate:
Command of the Sea
Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets. There’s valid reasons for this. Since World War 2 anti-submarine defenses have failed to match the attack boat’s advancements in speed, stealth, and weaponry. For instance, since 1945 the average speed of destroyers have remained at 30 knots, with only nuclear vessels able to maintain this rate for any period. In contrast, the velocity of nuclear attack submarines, beginning with the launch of USS NAUTILUS in 1954, has tripled and quadrupled from around 10 knots submerged to 30-40 knots.
Also, an antisubmarine vessel must get within a few miles of an enemy sub to fire its rockets or torpedoes. Its only long-range defense, the helicopter, is slow and must linger in a vulnerable hover while its sonar buoys seek out their prey. Some Russian-built boats come equipped with anti-aircraft missiles which makes this standard ASW tactic suicidal.
In contrast, a modern submarine can launch its missiles from 75 miles away and farther. Should it choose to close the distance, as occurred when a Chinese SONG class stalked the USS KITTY HAWK last year, to fire its ship killing torpedoes, it can do so at speeds as fast as and sometimes surpassing surface warships. Whether attacking with cruise missiles or wake-homing torpedoes the attack boat remains submerged; the preeminent stealth vessel.
The sub has likely held this dominate position on the high seas, since the dawn of the first nuke ships beginning in the 1950’s. The only lacking factor has been a full-scale naval war to prove it. The single example is the sinking of the Argentine cruiser BELGRANO 25 years ago by the British submarine HMS CONQUEROR in the Falklands Conflict. Afterward, the Argentine Navy fled to port and remained there!
Commerce Raiding/Protection:
This traditional role of the submarine is one which it excelled in the last century. The difference today is, neither America nor Britain has the capability to mass produce the thousands of anti-submarine escorts which just barely defeated Germany’s U-boats in 2 world wars, even if it would matter. In the next war at sea, the submarine would bring all commerce to a halt, making a mockery of the globalized free market system. The only counter to this menace is perhaps a combination of aircraft and submarine escorts, with the latter acting as the destroyer, shepherding its convoy through the “shark” ridden waters.
Amphibious Assault
Admittedly, this is not a role in which the submarine excels at , with its sparse crew and cargo capacity. Where they do stand out is the ability to land small raiding parties, like the elite Navy SEALs, and underwater demolition teams in preparation for a full-scale assault.
Still, with the submarine maintaining command of the seas, it would allow a surface amphibious task force free reign against an enemy beachhead. Rather than requiring expensive standing amphibs, reserve vessels could be maintained on both our coasts, with a cadre crew ready for any emergency. Some could also be rapidly converted with landing strips for heloes or whatever air assets are needed. Some small and inexpensive littoral ships fitted with cannon could provide escort close to shore.
For standard peacekeeping operations, some large subs could be built or converted for troop carrying, as in the above mentioned MICHIGAN. The ex-ballistic missile warship and her three sisters can load up to 66 SEALs, or more, I imagine, in a pinch, plus their equipment.
Conclusion
If America were to suddenly lose her preeminent surface fleet of carrier groups in such a future conflict, she would still have an excellent and capable submarine force to carry the fight to the enemy. The Navy says it must build 2 boats per year to maintain 50 in commission. Perhaps a doubling or tripling of this number would be necessary to replace the surface ships in the manner I propose. A fleet of 100-150 nuke submarines would be far cheaper to maintain, but also doubtless give the USN an unmatched mastery at sea for the rest of the century.
My blog is at newwars.blogspot.com
###
Mike Burleson is a regular columnist with Sea Classics magazine and an advocate of Military Reform. He resides in historic Charleston, SC. http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/ http://newwars.blogspot.com/
charbookguy@myway.com
We don't. Flying supersonic takes a good sized engine and a whole lot of fuel. That means the missile has to be larger. The Tomahawk and the Harpoon, the current anti-ship missile, are designed to be small, hard to detect, hard to hit, and carry a sizeable warhead. Depending on which version and block, Harpoons have a range of around 150 miles and Tomahawks even further than that.
When a carrier group sites off shore, out of the range of shore batteries, they are very, very difficult to hit effectively. While some subs can sneak close to surface combatants, they still have to get through the sub escorts in the carrier group.
Another item the author neglects is that a carrier group can TAKE OUT an enemys ability to do anything from a great range.
Only in a total "surprise" scenario could any force do substantial damage to the US fleet...and then there'd be hell to pay.
The benefits of overwhelming the defenses with cheap missiles so far outweighs the costs that someone, somewhere, someday will find it in their interests to try.
The Russian weapons are designed primarily to defeat AEGIS. The AEGIS system employed by the US Navy is built around the SPY-1 (or SPY series) of phased array radar. The system can detect and track a huge number of targets, simultaneously.
Russian weapons like SS-N-22(sunburn) are designed to overwhelm AEGIS using high speed (mach 3+) and erratic terminal maneuvering. Testing showed AEGIS was somewhat vulnerable to such weapons.
The Navy has improved tactics and systems to defend against the threat. Very successful ASMD systems like RAM have been developed, Standard Missiles have improved maneuverability to go head to head, TAS (SPS-23) is especially tailored to detecting low flyers, SLQ-32 systems are aboard carriers to provide quicker detection and ECM, and all those systems are better integrated in CIC or CDC.
Your right on the money in your understanding..
We do need aircraft carriers for less than Nation State War. The problem is the egos of our Admirals and their fetish for ever more expensive platforms. I have written several times there is a need to increase the numbers of ships while reducing the size and costs. Someone recently wrote about producing the Jeep Carrier again.. And they are right.. But we must get the costs down. We have got to get decision makers to understand we can lose a war by breaking ourselves economically more easily that we would lose an actual fight.
What this fellow wrote about the surviving ships not being able to leave their harbors is absolutely correct..Further it meshes with what I just said about the economics. Finally it is history that proves this point. In WWI the Capital Ships of Germany and England represented such tremendous costs their respective Admiralties and Governments did not deploy them only holding them back until the war was over..
W
Tom Clancy portrayed that scenario in his second book, “Red Storm Rising.” A carrier in that book was overwhelmed, if I recall correctly, by lots and lots of long range missiles fired from Soviet long range bombers.
On the other hand, that was just a book.
And don’t forget Eric Portman as the former u boat commander visiting the bedford to help teach tactics - Hollywood was rehabiliating West Germany’s image at that time.
He might be a nazi, but he was our nazi
I am hoping! But am weary of the loose lips thing. T -30 seconds from Tehran....
“Yes, my captain.”
"One ping only, Captain"?
Maybe we will EMP them to kill the electronics. Cant you see the MSM shrieking over that.
Subs are expensive as well, but we all know that subs are necessary.
I believe the Germans tried (to some extent) the “all sub navy” idea in WW2, and while they sank a lot of enemy ships, it didn’t work out ultimately.
I've never understood the carrier battle group threat to a USSR invasion of Western Europe.
If surging carriers could have threatened Soviet land forces, I'm certain the Soviets would have nuked 'em.
I don't believe for a minute that we would incinerate millions in response to a successful attack on a warship on the high seas.
We wouldn't have done it to Moscow or Leningrad, and we won't do it to Teheran or Beijing, either.
But you can bet all you own that the Chinese are working feverishly on antiship technology, and it's a good bet that Iran is the farm team that will try it out.
Theoretically, I think the carrier groups were there to keep the sea lanes open for the transport of troops from the US to ports in western Europe. Once there, they link up with and relieve NATO forces trying to slow down Warsaw Pact forces.
I strongly agree with your last point. Good one.
See post #51...
;^P
As long as there's a man in the White House..
As long as our enemies have either uncertainty of our willingness to fully respond, or they care that we would incinerate millions, our ships are relatively safe.
SubRoc? They’re obsoleted as far as I know and have been for years.
ASROC, not SubRoc. SubRocs were fired from submarines but have been obsolete for decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.