# In a modern full-scale naval shooting war, would non-subs be sunk fairly quickly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 3, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-modern-full-scale-naval-shooting-war-would-non-subs-be-sunk-fairly-quickly/736527 "2015-11-03T15:23:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-modern-full-scale-naval-shooting-war-would-non-subs-be-sunk-fairly-quickly/736527/81 "2015-11-08T19:36:50Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > …You’re probably bet right and as **Gray Goose** states, the sub assets aren’t connected to the high-speed networks because of transmission reasons. For what my out-of-date minimal experience and WAG is worth, I expect there is some exchange of data: the sub releases a buoy/balloon that transmits after it reaches the surface and allowed time for the sub to depart the area, a helo lowers a powerful dipping transmitter to send data in predetermined the 200 square mile area at a predetermined time for the sub, ect… We know that EM transmission has to be out because water interferes with signal propagation (but see [blue-green lasers](http://optics.org/news/1/4/21), which evidently do it quite well), but what about sound transmission? I.e., what is the practical symbol rate for a modulated sonar signal, as well as the likelihood of it being overheard? I am thinking of something like the SOSUS system, only with transmitters as well as microphones, and having the sub use modulated sound to communicate with the larger network. Also, what stops the sub from having sensor-carrying ROVs on very long tethers? Like towed arrays, but with more autonomy, ability to move out on the flanks of the submarine, etc… Alternately, go wireless, and have the ROVs communicate using modulated sound as above. Are there ROVs with sufficient speed and endurance to operate in concert with a modern nuclear attack sub? ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2015, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-modern-full-scale-naval-shooting-war-would-non-subs-be-sunk-fairly-quickly/736527/82 "2015-11-08T20:15:41Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > 1. Short-range air threats: Couldn’t helicopters do that in addition to their anti-sub duty? Putting a ship in-between a missile and the carrier seems like an awfully expensive way to protect the carrier. > > Hitting a destroyer worth more than 2.5 billions (I’m including the personnel, munitions and upgrades) is a pretty good success for any potential enemy. More generally, I don’t really get using ships for anti-aircraft warfare when ships are so vulnerable to aircraft attacks. Helicopters don’t carry the sensors or the weaponry for effective AAW. They’d be sitting ducks against a missile aimed at them. If anything, they’d prefer that the surface ship defend them, rather than the reverse. U.S. surface ships, exemplified by the aforementioned [_Arleigh Burke_-class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer) destroyers, carry AAW sensors like the sophisticated [AN/SPY-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1) phased array radar system as well as 90-96-cell [Standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard) SAMs, [Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM) designed to counter supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles, and the last-ditch [Phalanx CIWS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS). I’m not sure where you get the idea that surface ships are particularly and uniquely vulnerable to aircraft attacks. The one U.S. surface ship that was attacked and struck by an anti-ship missile was the [USS Stark (FFG-31)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_%28FFG-31%29). However, in that case, the main issue appears to be the ship not taking the Iraqi aircraft seriously as a threat. (The Stark was actually notified of the Iraqi jet by an AWACS plane, subsequently tracked the plane herself for several minutes before the attack, noted that the jet had locked his fire-control radar onto the ship, but failed to detect the missile launch. The CO of the _Stark_ was later relieved of duty and recommended for court-martial.) > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > 1. Surface threats: So, to defend against enemy green-water navies? Yes, as well as blue-water surface ships. Submarines are capable of engaging blue-water surface ships (the whole point of this thread). However, submarines are not well equipped to engage surface threats like small [fast attack craft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_attack_craft) that may best be engaged using guns. Surface ships, such as cruisers and destroyers, can do both, which is one reason why I don’t advocate getting rid of surface ships. That being said, in a full-scale shooting war with submarines involved, I don’t see them lasting long. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > …Couldn’t a ship or sub have more than 1 sonar array? Of course. [They do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Improved_sonar_systems). > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > …If there are questions you don’t want to answer, could you explicitly say so? Yes, there are questions I don’t want to answer. You can tell which ones by my lack of a response. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-a-modern-full-scale-naval-shooting-war-would-non-subs-be-sunk-fairly-quickly/736527.md?page=4)