In an extended naval shooting war, would subs rule?

[Rocketeer]

@Cardinal

Diesels are harder to find than nucs? I don’t get that. IC engines are loud, and I thought I had specifically heard the reverse.

Diesel-electric. Diesel on the surface, electric underwater.

[archmichael]

@Cardinal

Diesels are harder to find than nucs? I don’t get that. IC engines are loud, and I thought I had specifically heard the reverse.

As I understand it, they use the diesel engines to charge batteries, so that when they are in an attack stance they are running off of batteries. As you can imagine this is very quiet.

[What_Exit]

@Raguleader

So what it sounds like, is if a shooting war does break out, subs have a distinct advantage against surface warships, but are severely limited in what they can do OTHER than destroying the enemy surface warships (I mean, you can try to build a submarine aircraft carrier like the Japanese did, but somehow I doubt such a thing would be terribly effective nowadays…)

There are also Ballistic Subs that shoot Missiles. I believe these can cause some serious infrastructure damage to any coastal country. They would be virtually unchallenged and were always one of the scariest threats in case of Nuclear War. They are not restricted to Nuclear Warheads however.

Jim

[rabbit]

@spifflog

As Naval Officer, I can say that as good as subs are, we and the Russians and the Chinese, have spent a ton of money on how to acquire, track and sink tthem. Nukes are easier to find than diesel subs are, but they are more lethal. Diesel subs are very hard to find, because they are so quiet, but they have a number of issues, not the least is speed and endurance. Most of the war games that I’ve seen, and that I’m willing to discuss, have a fairly even distribution of kills among surface ships and submarines.

You can add the type 212 to the mix. Wikipedia entry here.

Stealth of a diesel and able to stay submerged (without snorkeling) like a nuclear sub.

[Raguleader]

@rabbit

You can add the type 212 to the mix. Wikipedia entry here.

Stealth of a diesel and able to stay submerged (without snorkeling) like a nuclear sub.

Nifty. Random question: Do the Germans ever name their submarines, or do they only get alphanumeric designations? Or would it work like airplanes (ie: a plane might be NC93857 as far as anyone official cares, but it’s “real” name is “Texas Rose” or something)?

[UncleRojelio]

@Raguleader

I’ve heard that one trick is to use a satelite to literally look for a hole in the water…

The phrase “Hole in the water” comes from the sonar arena. US subs are said to be quieter than the background noise of the ocean. To find them acoustically you need to look where there is less noise rather than more. A metaphorical “hole in the water”.

[kellner]

@Raguleader

Random question: Do the Germans ever name their submarines, or do they only get alphanumeric designations?

Almost never. As far as I can tell (and Wikipedia agrees) only five out of more than 1500 navy submarines since 1906 had names: Three early post-war training submarines were called U-Hai (shark,) U-Hecht (pike) and U-Wal (whale, later named Wilhelm Bauer.) In 1966 there were two experimental vessels, the Hans Techel and the Friedrich Schürer but both were decommissioned after a few months.

Or would it work like airplanes (ie: a plane might be NC93857 as far as anyone official cares, but it’s “real” name is “Texas Rose” or something)?

There might be nicknames but I’ve never heard anybody using anything except the U-number designations. That is the traditional naming scheme for German submarines and submarine crews seem to take their traditions very seriously.

[yoyodyne]

@What Exit?

There are also Ballistic Subs that shoot Missiles. I believe these can cause some serious infrastructure damage to any coastal country. They would be virtually unchallenged and were always one of the scariest threats in case of Nuclear War. They are not restricted to Nuclear Warheads however.

You don’t have to limit it to coastal countries. Any country in the world can be hit and effectively destroyed from a sub.

[robby]

@UncleRojelio

The phrase “Hole in the water” comes from the sonar arena. US subs are said to be quieter than the background noise of the ocean. To find them acoustically you need to look where there is less noise rather than more. A metaphorical “hole in the water”.

This is another persistent urban (military?) legend, IMHO. If something is quieter than background noise (the veracity of which is another topic), why would there be “less noise” from that direction? What exactly do you think “background” means, anyway?

[robby]

@What Exit?

I tend to agree with your statement and I am much less knowledgeable than you on this subject. However, I believe in the eighties we had one to two ASW aircraft in the air around the clock. We also had one or more fast attack subs assigned to the carrier and BB fleets. When the Ranger CV-61 and the New Jersey BB-62 were put together as a joint fleet for exercises outside the Persian Gulf*, we were told we had an escort of at least six fast attack subs.

How effective do you think one or two ASW aircraft would be with respect to protecting a whole CV/BB joint fleet from an enemy sub?

I’d place a whole lot more confidence in the six friendly SSNs. As the saying goes, the best defense against a sub is another sub.

@What Exit?

• This exercise was a classic example of the USN deploying a small portion of her force to remind Iraq and Iran that we had floating enough power to wipe out their Air force and much of their Infrastructure or “Flag Waving”.

I think you mean “showing the flag.” And it goes without saying that carriers and battleships are far more effective at this than a sub.

[What_Exit]

@robby

@What Exit?

I tend to agree with your statement and I am much less knowledgeable than you on this subject. However, I believe in the eighties we had one to two ASW aircraft in the air around the clock. We also had one or more fast attack subs assigned to the carrier and BB fleets. When the Ranger CV-61 and the New Jersey BB-62 were put together as a joint fleet for exercises outside the Persian Gulf*, we were told we had an escort of at least six fast attack subs.

How effective do you think one or two ASW aircraft would be with respect to protecting a whole CV/BB joint fleet from an enemy sub?
I’d place a whole lot more confidence in the six friendly SSNs. As the saying goes, the best defense against a sub is another sub.

Fully agreed, I think I said that in a prior post. I was just letting you know that we did have ASWs in the air. I was responding to your post where you said:

@robby

ASW aircraft are only typically deployed if the presence of a sub is suspected.

It may not be true currently, I have no clue of current operations.

@robby

@What Exit?

• This exercise was a classic example of the USN deploying a small portion of her force to remind Iraq and Iran that we had floating enough power to wipe out their Air force and much of their Infrastructure or “Flag Waving”.

I think you mean “showing the flag.” And it goes without saying that carriers and battleships are far more effective at this than a sub.

Absolutely correct, dumb mistake on my part and I thank you for the correction.

Jim

[robby]

@What Exit?

Fully agreed, I think I said that in a prior post. I was just letting you know that we did have ASWs in the air. I was responding to your post where you said: “ASW aircraft are only typically deployed if the presence of a sub is suspected.”
It may not be true currently, I have no clue of current operations.

Fair enough. Actually, while I was indeed writing broadly, I was thinking more of a single ship equipped with an ASW helo.

It makes sense that a carrier would have one or two ASW aircraft (S-3 Vikings, presumably?) in the air at all times.

(I was never involved in an exercise with a whole battle group, just us against a destroyer and/or a cruiser.)

[Cerowyn]

@robby

This is another persistent urban (military?) legend, IMHO. If something is quieter than background noise (the veracity of which is another topic), why would there be “less noise” from that direction? What exactly do you think “background” means, anyway?

The idea is that the sub blocks background noise, creating an audio shadow. A project I worked on many years ago made use of this technique, amongst others, to identify and track underwater targets.

[Quartz]

Paging casdavefor the enlisted submariner view.

[UncleRojelio]

@Cerowyn

The idea is that the sub blocks background noise, creating an audio shadow. A project I worked on many years ago made use of this technique, amongst others, to identify and track underwater targets.

Yeah, what Cerowyn said. I’ve worked at a acoustic research facility for 25 years. I assure you that you can track the absence of sound just as well as you can track the presence of it.

[robby]

@Cerowyn

The idea is that the sub blocks background noise, creating an audio shadow. A project I worked on many years ago made use of this technique, amongst others, to identify and track underwater targets.

Did the technique work?

@UncleRojelio

Yeah, what Cerowyn said. I’ve worked at a acoustic research facility for 25 years. I assure you that you can track the absence of sound just as well as you can track the presence of it.

I’m just not convinced that it’s a useful technique in the real world. If the enemy sub is far away, I don’t think enough of a shadow will remain to detect because of refractive effects. If the sub is on top of you, you’ll pick up other acoustical effects.

This is assuming that any subs are truly quieter than background noise in the first place.

Unfortunately, I don’t think I can go into any more detail on this forum.

[UncleRojelio]

@robby

I’m just not convinced that it’s a useful technique in the real world. If the enemy sub is far away, I don’t think enough of a shadow will remain to detect because of refractive effects. If the sub is on top of you, you’ll pick up other acoustical effects.

There are range limitations.

@robby

Unfortunately, I don’t think I can go into any more detail on this forum.

You and me both there Chief.

[HPL]

@Cardinal

Diesels are harder to find than nucs? I don’t get that. IC engines are loud, and I thought I had specifically heard the reverse.

Diesel Electrics can also shut everything down if needed, something nuke boats can’t do(the reactor needs to keep running).

[mlees]

Hey Jim! Mark, USS Ranger (CV-61) 1986-1989! I remember the BB gun shoot demonstration they did for us on that cruise. (By the time I heard about it and got to the flight deck, I saw the very last salvo. Forgot to take the lens cap off… sigh.)

The OP directly mentions Warsaw Pact/USSR forces versus NATO. My opinions:

If the war was sudden and unexpected for one or both sides, there would be an initial glut of sinkings by subs and aircraft attacking surface targets in and around Europe, especially closer to the naval and air bases that can provide air supremacy for the dedicated antisub and antiship forces to do their work. (You probably dont want to send in P3 Orions into an area dominated by Soviet fighters. You send your F15’s first, and clear them out, if you can.)

I think the US CVN battlegroups can defend themselves for the most part against enemy air threats, but less so against subs. After a while, assuming it didnt go nuclear, the ships (military and civilian) will have cleared out of the war zone(s), and left a sorta no-mans land.

Anyway, judging from the world wars, the big ships will be preserved as much as possible, as a “fleet in being” threat, while the smaller ships (frigates, destroyers, minelayers/sweepers, sloops, picket boats, and subs) do the daily grunt work of convy duty, distant blockade duty, and restricted passage denial (like the Gibraltar straits).

Seas dominated by enemy mines, subs, and aircraft tend to make the use of the biggest naval warships reserved for only the most important operations, where it’s best when conducted as a combined arms (air/surf/sub) job.

But, if you are sorta asking if we should do away with the surface navy, I would say “no”. Subs are great at stealth, but surface ships are more versatile and less expensive.

In WW2, subs were hard to find. (Especially without radar.) Eventually, the Allies realised that if you build (assemble) the convoy, the subs will come to you. (So they ceased useless oil wasting patrols.) Also, due to geography, there will be chockpoints that the enemy subs will have to pass through to get to you. Those chokepoints can be mined and patrolled.

So, surface shipping will still be possible, on a case by case basis. I would expect something similar if another major naval war broke out.

[Cerowyn]

@robby

Did the technique work?

Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: It worked well from stationary data collectors that had reference baselines to work from, which was the application we were working on. I understand that it was later to be implemented on mobile platforms, but that was long after I left. In all honesty, I can’t speak to its performance in that role.