Here you go (-:
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
Did I get that right, LS? Please correct us slower readers.
Carriers take weeks to get anywhere, (and can’t do so stealthily) unlike aircraft, which launched stateside or from our overseas bases, and refueled on the way can get anywhere in the world in just a few hours.
The vast majority of ordinance dropped in Iraq and the Gulf war was from land-based aircraft. Why? One cannot launch bombers of any size (or planes with 2000 lb. bombs) from carriers. Real airpower is still done through bombers, supported by fighters and tankers; serious air warfare needs land based aircraft, period. Carriers also are enormous sitting ducks—no matter how huge the fleet protecting them.
I really think with modern precision weapons—the era of the carrier, like that of the battleship, is passed. Just a few strategically placed aircraft bases are far more secure—and even less expensive—not to mention more effective.
But even worse, you are either shading the truth or unable to grasp it, stainless. Here's the post (yes, I know you linked to it, but I just want to put it here):
Don’t be ridiculous. Guess we could say the same thing of General (traitor) Lee. See how silly that gets, quick? Kyl is a great American and has been a terrific senator.
The fact that LS says it is silly to use the word traitor seems to be missed by you. In fact, his statement could be rephrased as "It's as silly to call Kyl a traitor as it would be to call Robert E. Lee a traitor and wish he'd been hanged after Appomattox."
LS, sorry about that. Didn't mean to bait anklebiters from the Lost Cause caucus.
General Lee’s (removes hat) submarine sank. So much for the idea of a submarine only force
No, and I say that as a hardcore strategic airpower advocate and former SAC crew chief. Fixed bases are vulnerable just in the fact that they are fixed. There were planners who expected our bases in West Germany to be toast under a shower of short range missiles with conventional warheads in the first hours of WWIII in Europe. The same thing could happen to any land bases outside the American homeland. Good missile defense can cure this, but then, the same technology could protect the carriers just as well, and you have to find the carrier first.
Seriously though, my biggest objection to the sub only force is that you need a pretty big sub to carry a Marine Expeditionary Unit. :-)
Drink that kool-aid, fanboy.
Here's a new verse of Dixie that relates to you and other FR Lost Cause anklebiters:
For a few poor souls in the Land of Cotton
Historical fact is plum forgotten
Drink Kool-aid, drink Kool-Aid
For a fake Dixieland.
Then I can only suggest that you do your best to be as cool as I was then. Don't let the doot hit you on the butt on the way out...I hate to see buttprints on a perfectly good door.
LOL. My great grandfather, a German immigrant, fought for the Union during the Civil War, and according to family lore, felt no great personal animosity towards the men who shot at him. None of his descendants were instilled with a bitter hatred of all things Southern. And me? I served with a whole slew of Southern boys who, like me, had a family tradition of military service, and I remain friends with several of my rebel buddies 25 years later. Yet the Lost Cause caucus, as you call them, just can’t let it go. The truth is Lincoln out-thought and out-fought the lot of them—Lee and Davis and Jackson and all the rest. A good thing, too, and so pathetically bizarre those CSA lovers still—to this day—go on about ‘the war of Northern Aggression’.
Was Lee a traitor? Given the tenor of the times, the loyalties involved, I (personally) would have to say no, and the same would hold true for all of the CSA’s leadership. They were, for the most part, men guided by firm principle and iron conviction. No, the traitors were the copperheads, Southern supporters in the Northern states too chicken to actually fight for the Cause they so vociferously espoused, along with quisling, peace-at-any-price politicians like Valandingham. Had I lived in those times, I would’ve advocated hanging them all. Suspension of habeas corpus would’ve been the least of their worries.
Most of those cheap missiles will be jammed and drop like flies before they reach a close range. The ones that survive electronic countermeasures get hit with another missile, or a wall of tungsten hail. Oh yeah, the carriers can easily out run the destroyers and leave them behind if they need to. If they have to they can run 40+ knots all day.
China’s wet dream is to take out our satellites and try to hit our forces blind with nukes and overwhelming force. They need a prayer to be able to knock out our ability to track their missiles.
bttt
Good post. Thanks for your service, when and which service?
bttt
19NOV80-19NOV84, SGT/E-5, 11B2P, Weapons Squad, 1st Platoon, B Company, 1/508th Battalion (INF), 3rd Brigade, 82nd Division (ABN).
No sky too high, no blast too fast, you call we fall.
just for the record, my beef with Neo-Yankees here is that they join the same bandwagon as the NAACP or Morris Dees in trying to demonize the South for the Civil War and slavery. it appears to me that they are the ones trying to refight the war or perhaps more accurately Reconstruction specifically
i for one am tired of seeing my history down here being supplanted with their idea of what it should be...no regional pride flags, no courthouse monuments to my dead kin, no plaques like George Bush took down, no schools named after Southerners, basically the South presented in their image....Reconstruction 150 years later.
I am opposed to that and have been since it started up around 20 years ago with a coalition of northern liberals and local black agitators and John Edwards types using this to enrich their coffers. that folks who call themselves conservative play along is the real depressing fact, not that some southerners like to go on about Lincoln’s excesses.
I do find discussing that period of history interesting and many southerners are more likely to be more supportive of why the South fought and to think differently of why our kinfolk fought. You have to remember many of us were born and raised on land our families had for generations precisely where these battles were fought. I for one dug for artifacts as a boy on the Jackson-Clinton road with my dad on our land....found stuff too. Everywhere you turn, there is more to remind ya. My land has redoubts still at the top near Shy’s Hill. To Northerners...most of whom came after the war, this is a distant history thing, for us down here, we are living in the middle of it...the memories, the peoples and the ramifications. You guys are not except at Gettysburg for the most part.
Why we would resist that history we live with daily and our ancestors died as a part of being retold by outsiders who reject us should not surprise you. I would not respect anyone from anywhere who would allow their traditions trampled as such.
That does not mean anyone but the most unusual are calling for secession today.
For the opportunists, their allegiance is to money and power. They have no country.
God bless the men in blue and the men in butternut and gray.
Here you go (-:
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.