Couldn't ballistic missile subs have been easily tracked?

[Simple Linctus]

During the cold war (and I suppose now) what was to stop stationing ships just in international waters outside ballistic missle carrying submarine bases, not hidden or anything, with active sonar dialed up to 11 (as there would be no intent to hide these ships). Then when a sub was detected they could have sent other units after them.

Surely an approach like that would have made submarine launched ballistic missiles completely pointless?

[usedtobe]

exactly how would these trackers work?

those subs do not return sonar signals - do a bit of research on anti-sonar coatings.

currently, the only hope for tracking those boats is the fact they do NOT emit sound - everything else in the ocean does. Google "passive sonar". And, before you get the same idea re stealth airplanes, google "passive radar"

[USCDiver]

Look at this map of international waters and rethink your strategy.

[John DiFool]

Just read an article in Popular Science which says that even deep-going subs can leave "footprints" on the surface which radar could identify.

[Hermitian]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Then when a sub was detected they could have sent other units after them.

Surely an approach like that would have made submarine launched ballistic missiles completely pointless?

I don't understand what you mean by "sent other units after them." Do you mean that the ships would try to sink the sub? Well, that is not a cold war, that is a hot war.

Do you mean that a surface ship would follow the submarine for its entire tour pinging it with active sonar? Ok, let's say that the sub got the signal to launch it's missiles. So it shoots a torpedo at the ship, sinks it, then fires its missiles.

I am trying to devise a system here that works.

Now, during the cold war, the US fast attack subs did follow Soviet missile subs around, but that was supposed to be a secret. It was not overt (in theory).

[The Second Stone]

For all their effort it is not known that the Soviets were ever able to track a US ballistic missile submarine. The Navy likes to brag about how poor the Soviets were at tracking subs. The Soviets did have spies in Ames and Walker that gave them a good idea in what part of the ocean the subs might be. But it isn't easy to track a sub 1000 feet down moving slowly or not at all. And you need the ships to do it.

I don't think it will happen anytime soon. If it does, it will be with satellites and computers picking up subtle signals.

And there really isn't anything to prevent the US from stationing boomers in the Great Lakes where they are not subject to being followed with ships.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by usedtobe

those subs do not return sonar signals - do a bit of research on anti-sonar coatings.

currently, the only hope for tracking those boats is the fact they do NOT emit sound - everything else in the ocean does. Google "passive sonar".

This is completely wrong. Acoustic coating can only reduce the sonar signal bounced off of it by active sonar compared to say, steel. It does not prevent a return signal. Secondly, all submarines emit noise. Some emit more than others, and great effort goes into reducing it, but they are always going to make noise. Additionally, I'm not sure what exactly you think passive sonar is. It's sonar that passively listens for sound rather than actively making noise and listening for the return signal. It's not sonar that tries to find the absence of sound.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

It's not sonar that tries to find the absence of sound.

But in theory it can. Whether that is a technique that is often or reliably used is a whole nother story.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

...And there really isn't anything to prevent the US from stationing boomers in the Great Lakes where they are not subject to being followed with ships.

Indeed there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Bagot_Treaty

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Then when a sub was detected they could have sent other units after them.

What happens when the homeported navy sends out escorts to clear passage for a boomer? Or, if we're talking about Americans tracking Soviet submarines, what happens when the Soviet submarine would head for the Arctic icepack?

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Indeed there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Bagot_Treaty

Treaties!? Just ask the Native Americans how that goes.

On a serious note, I agree that it does prohibit the use of the Great Lakes that way. And that is probably a good thing.

[gunnergoz]

The unclassified evidence is that it was, and remains, very difficult to track down the location of a properly operating and operated ballistic missile submarine. Some of the reasons for that have already been mentioned. Some exotic technology has been looked at (and will doubtless continue to be) for ways to detect submerged submarines of any type.

The actual and most practical tactic most often used seems to be to have an attack sub lie quietly in the expected path of newly deployed, outbound ballistic missile subs, then to follow in their wake ("baffles") where the pursuer can remain hard to detect from the missile sub. For this reason, on occasion friendly attack subs follow the ballistic missile subs out to sea, at a discrete distance of course, in an attempt to intercept any hostile attack subs that may try to do this.

There are a great many such "games" of skill and danger that go on in submarine missions and we, the public, will seldom, if ever, know of any of it.

BTW, I was not a submariner myself, but was for some years assigned to US Navy antisubmarine aircraft squadrons who tried to make life miserable as possible for Soviet submariners, even in peacetime. If we could locate one (which was fairly easy, they were very noisy back then) we'd harass them unmercifully with small noise bombs until we forced them to surface for the rest of their voyage to wherever it was they were deploying to - usually Cam Ranh Bay in Viet Nam or other ports operated by Soviet clients.

[Rick]

OK, to be in international waters, the Russian has to be 12 miles off the coast.
The sub leaves the harbor and submerges as soon as the water is deep enough, let's say 1 mile out. I don't know the range of the Russian active sonar, but I bet it isn't 19,000+ yards.
Now assuming a straight piece of coast the sub has a 180 degree course selection. The sub does not have to run right under the Russian. If the sub hugs the coast for a few miles he will be increasing the range, and can then turn for international waters when he chooses.
Meanwhile the US surface forces will undoubtedly being screwing with the Russian. Pinging away with their own sonar, dropping small explosive charges to deafen the Russian sonar operators, that sort of thing.
Also if the weather up top is shitty, the sub can step on the gas, and probably leave any surface craft in its wake. Per Wiki the reported top speed is 25 knots, try doing that in a destroyer in the middle of a big storm.

[Dano83860]

You could be right about tracking them but what advantage would that give them? They could still fire their missiles?

[gunnergoz]

Originally Posted by Dano83860

You could be right about tracking them but what advantage would that give them? They could still fire their missiles?

Ballistic missile subs have to be fairly close to the surface (or in some cases, on the surface) to fire their missiles. There are also other signs that a sub is behaving in a way consistent with it setting itself up to launch. The shadowing enemy sub would look (passively of course) for those signs and would probably fire a torpedo at the missile sub if it was determined that a launch was imminent. Of course, this would not happen in a vacuum - there would probably be plenty of other indicators in the news and in the intel being received, that war was imminent.

Also, not all missiles can be fired off at once - AFAIK, they have to be fired in a sequence that may take quite a few minutes to complete. So even if the missile sub got one missile off OK, its remaining lifetime would be measured in a very few minutes after that, if there was an enemy sub in the area monitoring the missile sub for launch preparation or actual launches.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by USCDiver

Look at this map of international waters and rethink your strategy.

Is that map correct? According to it, there is no route through "international waters" from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean except one that passes close to Antarctica. And no such route whatsoever from the North Sea(*) to the Atlantic Ocean. (* - or rather the Norwegian Sea, since the North Sea is shown entirely white in that map.)

[gunnergoz]

I suspect that map depicts oceanic regions that not within national areas of exclusive economic zones, which are usually within 200 miles of a nation's coastline. Warships of other nations do not need permission to enter a county's EEZ, whereas they must have consent to enter its territorial waters (between 3 and 12 miles offshore).

[USCDiver]

You're probably right, but that map was my way of making the same point Rick did with much more detail. No way can a surface ship in international waters hope to identify and track a sub coming out of a naval port.

[gunnergoz]

Yep, but another sub in international waters can sometimes do it if the conditions are right and the sub skipper and crew are competent. And lucky.

[anson2995]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Indeed there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Bagot_Treaty

Don't think this is this still in effect. The US operated aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes during World War II. One of the major military shipbuilders is located in Wisconsin and launches ships into Lake Michigan.

Do any ships operate out of the Great Lakes Naval Station?

[smithsb]

For a good read on US submarine espionage and tracking of Soviet subs, read, "Blind's Man Bluff".

US attack subs would trail the Soviet subs throughout their patrol. Soviet subs were very fast but noisy. The ballistic missile subs (Soviet) would go out with a surface escort actively pinging for US subs to keep them from closely tracking the missile sub. The Soviet "boomer" would then drop off on station under or near the Artic ice cap and just sit there awaiting orders. Without motion - vary had to detect. According to the book, the US attack sub sonar operators would look for a "hole in the ocean" where there were no sealife sounds and that was the boomer's location. Sealife would avoid the unnatural submarine. If the Soviet sub received launch orders, it would move closer to the surface and this movement (along with other intelligence) would trigger the US attack sub to torpedo the Soviet sub.

[Simple Linctus]

Thank you for all the information on what the tactics are.

What is the range of active sonar?

[drachillix]

Paging Robby to GQ

IIRC he used to work on an attack boat that would perfom just the type of task the OP is asking about

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

And there really isn't anything to prevent the US from stationing boomers in the Great Lakes where they are not subject to being followed with ships.

Except they are too big to traverse the Great Lakes locks and channels.

[robby]

Originally Posted by drachillix

Paging Robby to GQ

IIRC he used to work on an attack boat that would perfom just the type of task the OP is asking about

I also served on a ballistic missile submarine.

Nevertheless, I can't really comment on the questions raised in this thread.

[Simple Linctus]

For security reasons or because my idea is utterly retarded?

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

But it isn't easy to track a sub 1000 feet down moving slowly or not at all.

The OP mentioned active sonar, dialed up to 11. I think it would be easy-peasy to find a boomer with active sonar from 1000 feet. Rick mentioned that it wouldn't be easy to get that initial lock, because of the 12-mile restriction on getting near the port.

However, once a sub was found, I'm with the OP in not really understanding why a Soviet destroyer wouldn't just follow it around the ocean, tracking it with active sonar. Why go to all the trouble of having secret attack subs?

[robby]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

For security reasons or because my idea is utterly retarded?

Because the topic being discussed involves classified information.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by robby

Because the topic being discussed involves classified information.

Oh come on...of course you know classified information, but surely there are some unclassified aspects that you can discuss.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by CurtC

The OP mentioned active sonar, dialed up to 11. I think it would be easy-peasy to find a boomer with active sonar from 1000 feet. Rick mentioned that it wouldn't be easy to get that initial lock, because of the 12-mile restriction on getting near the port.

However, once a sub was found, I'm with the OP in not really understanding why a Soviet destroyer wouldn't just follow it around the ocean, tracking it with active sonar. Why go to all the trouble of having secret attack subs?

The Soviets had few destroyers. They would rapidly run out of fuel (US subs have years of nuclear fuel aboard). The subs were faster the destroyers. Even with active sonar, it's still possible to avoid/break detection (temperature/density stratification of water, go under an icepack, pass through a controled waterway, lose them in a surface storm, etc...). Have your fleet chase the destroyer away. Spoof or spoil the sonar signal with decoys. And other ways.

[UncleRojelio]

Originally Posted by CurtC

The OP mentioned active sonar, dialed up to 11.

The issue is not dialing your sonar up to 11. Although there are limits as to how much power you can effectively put in the water. The real issue is the speed of sound in the water. You can't make it go any faster. An active sonar works by sending out a ping and then waiting for that ping to return to the receiver. The further your target, the slower the ping rate. The slower the ping rate, the further behind your course corrections to follow the target and the further away you become. It's a vicious cycle.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Oh come on...of course you know classified information, but surely there are some unclassified aspects that you can discuss.

Some of those pieces of paper the gubment makes you sign are kinda scary. Heck, if I was former submariner (or the like) I'd be hestitant to say more than I served, what we ate, and which crew member farted the most (using an alias of course).

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by anson2995

Don't think this is this still in effect. The US operated aircraft carriers in the Great Lakes during World War II. One of the major military shipbuilders is located in Wisconsin and launches ships into Lake Michigan.

Do any ships operate out of the Great Lakes Naval Station?

No, it's still in force. However, it's always open to the parties to agree to modifications or interpretations of the treaty. During the War, the Canadian and US governments agreed to allow armed vessels on the Lakes for the duration.

See: Canada Treaty Information: Rush-Bagot Treaty.

[Sicks Ate]

Originally Posted by billfish678

Some of those pieces of paper the gubment makes you sign are kinda scary. Heck, if I was former submariner (or the like) I'd be hestitant to say more than I served, what we ate, and which crew member farted the most (using an alias of course).

Then allow me to direct any interested parties to Tom Clancy's Submarine.

I haven't read it for a while, but I remember it being very detailed. Might pull it off the shelf* and read it again.



* Where it is positioned directly below Clancy's Marine.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by smithsb

For a good read on US submarine espionage and tracking of Soviet subs, read, "Blind's Man Bluff".

. . .

Excellent book. Read it and you'll have a whole new respect for those who serve on subs.

[Rick]

Blind Man's Bluff is another great book about modern subs.
At the time it came out I was working with a former bubblehead that served on the Baton Rouge. When I got to the part in the book where they describe the accident between the BR and the Russian sub I did a little math and realized that my coworker was onboard.
The next day the conversation went like this:
Me: you were driving that day wern't you
Him: what?
Me: you were driving that day wern't you?
Him: what?
Me: the sub you were driving that day
(look of comprehension hits his face)
Him: No it wasn't me, I swear I was in line for chow.
Me: suuuure you were. :-)

Anyway he borrowed the book read it and came back amazed at how detailed it was and how nobody got in trouble for telling these stories.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Rick

Me: the sub you were driving that day
(look of comprehension hits his face)
Him: No it wasn't me, I swear I was in line for chow.
Me: suuuure you were. :-)

Well of course. How do think that collision happened in the first place?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

Treaties!? Just ask the Native Americans how that goes.

On a serious note, I agree that it does prohibit the use of the Great Lakes that way. And that is probably a good thing.

Well, it'd be dumb anyway, because then people would have a much, much better idea of where the sub was. While you can hide them once they're under the high seas, it's hard to keep their construction and launch a secret - indeed, they don't even try to, it's a big event - and so if you launched a boomer into Lake Superior everyone would have a pretty good idea where it was. Superior looks pretty big if you try to swim across it but it's a blip compared to the ocean. I mean, at that point, why build a submarine at all? Just build a missile silo.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by billfish678

Well of course. How do think that collision happened in the first place?

Now that makes PERFECT sense.

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by smithsb

...the US attack sub sonar operators would look for a "hole in the ocean" where there were no sealife sounds...

That's a load of hoooey.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by Batfish

That's a load of hoooey.

Billed as factual in Blind's Man Bluff. I have no actual knowledge.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by USCDiver

http://www.deconcrete.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/International-waters-map.png

Yes, the map IS of the "Economic Zones" -- the 200-mile limit. I recognize that from the lines in the Caribbean, where there ARE "International Waters" in the territorial sense but the whole basin is covered by someone or another's claim for resources, thanks to some islands Venezuela and Colombia own well off their shores.

[gunnergoz]

One thing's for sure: the physics of sound propagation in the oceans are so complex and so many variables are involved, that it is a miracle that submariners accomplish as much as they have over the years. It takes a lot of skill to locate and track targets underwater, and even more so with modern silencing technology, advanced screws and similar advances. Unless you have done it yourself (or have really read up on it and conversed with veterans about some of it) you have no clue about how difficult it is and how they go about doing it. Suffice it to say that we civilians will never know the whole story and what we hear is only part of what goes on. I was lucky to have served when the bad guys were noisy and easy to locate. Once the Japanese sold certain large industrial metal milling machines to the Soviets, the Soviets began to build even quieter subs equipped with advanced screws that did not cavitate as much at high speed. Life got a lot tougher for our navy after that. Submarine and Anti-sub warfare continues to be a challenge and everyone is doing their best to be better at it than the other guy.

[skdo23]

Originally Posted by Rick

OK, to be in international waters, the Russian has to be 12 miles off the coast.
The sub leaves the harbor and submerges as soon as the water is deep enough, let's say 1 mile out. I don't know the range of the Russian active sonar, but I bet it isn't 19,000+ yards.
Now assuming a straight piece of coast the sub has a 180 degree course selection. The sub does not have to run right under the Russian. If the sub hugs the coast for a few miles he will be increasing the range, and can then turn for international waters when he chooses.
Meanwhile the US surface forces will undoubtedly being screwing with the Russian. Pinging away with their own sonar, dropping small explosive charges to deafen the Russian sonar operators, that sort of thing.
Also if the weather up top is shitty, the sub can step on the gas, and probably leave any surface craft in its wake. Per Wiki the reported top speed is 25 knots, try doing that in a destroyer in the middle of a big storm.

Plus, a submarine base can be situated in a place that is much further than 12 miles from international waters. For example, the submarine base in New London, CT, is further isolated from international waters because it is located on the coast of Long Island Sound, not just the Atlantic Coast.

This is completely wrong. Acoustic coating can only reduce the sonar signal bounced off of it by active sonar compared to say, steel. It does not prevent a return signal. Secondly, all submarines emit noise. Some emit more than others, and great effort goes into reducing it, but they are always going to make noise. Additionally, I'm not sure what exactly you think passive sonar is. It's sonar that passively listens for sound rather than actively making noise and listening for the return signal. It's not sonar that tries to find the absence of sound.

My father worked as an engineer at the submarine building skunkworks of a defense contractor during the early 1970's. If I had to describe his job in one sentence, it would be to come up with ways to reduce the amount of noise made while the sub was compressed by the increase in water pressure as it descended into deeper waters.

[Mr. Excellent]

Originally Posted by Sicks Ate

Oh come on...of course you know classified information, but surely there are some unclassified aspects that you can discuss.

Certainly. But robby almost certainly doesn't keep track of which bits of information have been declassified (or were never classified), and which have not. He *could* figure this out, if he really wanted to - but it would be a lot of work to say anything more than "Blind Man's Bluff is well-regarded in the submariner community," - so it isn't worth it.

[gunnergoz]

For those interested in seeing what a community forum of current and past submariners like to talk about, check out this site: http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/
Some of the discussions are technical jargon and some are about professional career matters, but if you are patient you will see issues discussed that seldom come up outside of this unique close-mouthed community. They remain sensitive about classified matters but there is still much the interested reader can infer between the lines.

[skdo23]

My father worked as an engineer at the submarine building skunkworks of a defense contractor during the early 1970's. If I had to describe his job in one sentence, it would be to come up with ways to reduce the amount of noise made while the sub was compressed by the increase in water pressure as it descended into deeper waters.

In hindsight, a better way of describing his job is that he tried to find ways to reduce noise while both descending and rising, as common sense would dictate it goes both ways.

Ballistic missile subs have to be fairly close to the surface (or in some cases, on the surface) to fire their missiles. There are also other signs that a sub is behaving in a way consistent with it setting itself up to launch. The shadowing enemy sub would look (passively of course) for those signs and would probably fire a torpedo at the missile sub if it was determined that a launch was imminent. Of course, this would not happen in a vacuum - there would probably be plenty of other indicators in the news and in the intel being received, that war was imminent.

If so, it was probably even more important to reduce noise when the sub was rising.

Also, not all missiles can be fired off at once - AFAIK, they have to be fired in a sequence that may take quite a few minutes to complete. So even if the missile sub got one missile off OK, its remaining lifetime would be measured in a very few minutes after that, if there was an enemy sub in the area monitoring the missile sub for launch preparation or actual launches.

I remember someone else that I know who served on a submarine (probably late 70's) telling me that a Trident sub could carry seven missiles (w/ multiple independently guided warheads, mind you), but the conventional wisdom was that on average you could expect to squeeze off only three before a Soviet attack sub pinpointed your location and took you out. My numbers might not be exact, but the ratio between capacity and capability would still be about the same.

[Declan]

Originally Posted by Confused dart cum

Surely an approach like that would have made submarine launched ballistic missiles completely pointless?

Boomers are a strategic second strike weapons platform. The second leg of the triad and the air force bombers being the third. During the early phase of nuke boat operations, the boomers and fast attack boats were using the same power plants.

When a boomer sortied on a war patrol, a fast attack boat was sortied with it or rendevoused at some point on a map with one, so the soviet sniffer would end up tracking the fast attack boat , while the boomer made its way to hide with pride.

American fast attack boats on the other hand were able to loiter off the coasts of Russia, as those boomers were sailing, and get really close. So close, that part of the damage that Walker was able to do, was to explain to the startled Russians, exactly how naked their force was, and inventing the crazy ivan as an immediate counter measure.

If you have watched the hunt for red october, this is explained in detail. Until the walker class russian boats started to come online, the soviets went with a more practical plan, with the bastion defense. having the SLBM's range being long enough, they kept them inside home waters, and used them as mobile missile launchers, rather than their official role.

Declan

[Batfish]

Originally Posted by smithsb

Billed as factual in Blind's Man Bluff. I have no actual knowledge.

They forgot to mention that in Sonar School. Or at any time during the 4 years of sonar watch on a fast attack boat actually tracking Soviet subs.

You track subs by the noise they transmit into the water. Admittedly it got much harder starting with the Typhoon and following classes because their sound profile was much more like ours.

They idea that they block out biological or other ambients is like saying a car parked on the other side of your block "makes a hole" in the noise of the of all the cicadas and tree frogs.

I remember reading Blind Man's Bluff, I don't remember many details. The authors crafted their story from research of formerly classified documents and from interviews. The fact that you put forward never came from any official document, perhaps an interview. The tendency of former service members to embellish their stories probably doesn't need any cite.

I seem to remember that "hole in the noise" scenario being part of Hunt for Red October. Clancy is a fictionist, a word I hope I just coined, I don't know why people accept him as an authority on these things.

ETA: Oh, and smithsb I wasn't attacking you for repeating hooey. I was just trying to let you know it was hooey.

[DWMarch]

Originally Posted by Batfish

I seem to remember that "hole in the noise" scenario being part of Hunt for Red October. Clancy is a fictionist, a word I hope I just coined, I don't know why people accept him as an authority on these things.

It was actually in "The Sum of All Fears," in which a Soviet attack sub is able to track an American boomer out in the deep waters. However, in the story it isn't because the Ohio-class is noisy or silent in any particular way. It happens because the skipper is an asshole who is trying to impress the brass. Well, and also because the Russian skipper was a student of Ramius' Vilnius Academy.

But as regards the "hole in the ocean" idea, I think it's a brilliant bit of disinformation. Sure you can track a boomer! Just stick your head in the water and listen for the quiet spot! What does a whoosh sound like underwater?