I’m impressed by the sub’s location accuracy here:
I mean, those guys are close. Yeah you want to be close to see and experience it, but you don’t want to be so close as to be on the breaking ice.
Robby thanks for all the technical info. As for polar bear watch, are there Marine Detachments on submarines? I’m guessing the guy sent out is the youngest private or PFC they have. Maybe a Lance Corporal. “Private Shmuckatelli, you have polar bear watch at 0530. Grab your parka, M-16, some gloves and a canteen, and we’ll relieve you in 2 hours.”
And yeah, a 5.56mm round would only piss off the polar bear. Now, 3 30-round magazines might do a little damage…
We never had any Marines on board. Note that a submarine has a relatively small crew; you don’t really have room for unqualified (meaning “unqualified” in submarine operations) riders.
It’s easier to train existing crew members in rifle marksmanship, so we just used seamen and petty officers from Deck Division. The same personnel are used for security in port.
Also note that you only needed a polar bear watch when you had personnel out on the ice. We weren’t too worried about a bear breaking in…
Former Permit (Thresher) class rider here. The 594’s were not capable of under ice operations, they did not carry the requisite SONAR equipment, the sail was not reinforced, and the fairwater planes did not rotate to 90 degrees. Only the 637 class was so equipped.
My mistake. I knew that a number of old boats had done ICEXes, but it looks like the ones I was thinking of were indeed 637-class boats, like the USS Puffer (SSN-652).
For some reason, I was sure that some 594’s had gone as well, but I guess I was mistaken.
The U.S. Navy has been conducting ICEXes for decades so that U.S. fast attack submarines can gain expertise in Arctic and under-ice operations. Part of this expertise is being able to surface through the ice, so that you can do this in an emergency (such as a fire or or other casualty requiring use of the emergency diesel generator).
Once you have gone to the trouble of surfacing through the ice, you may as well go out and walk around some and enjoy some “ice liberty.” I remember that it was very cold (about 10 degrees below zero Fahrenheit), but with the sun shining and no wind, it was actually fairly pleasant.
robby’s answer is definitive, but I can address your deeper misconception. No special expertise, other than general military culture. (Retired AF, in my case).
Almost every entity in the US military has a stated mission description. Like you say, an attack submarine is for stealthily killing other ships (surface or submarine). Of course, a modern attack sub is also a form of long-range Naval artillery, with precision-strike cruise missiles and such.
But also, every entity in the US military has an unstated additional mission description, and in my experience it’s pretty uniform. You see it sometimes in job descriptions or mission assignments for personnel. It goes (after the end of the overt and obvious mission description) like this:
“…and other duties as assigned by <command>.”
An apprentice aircraft mechanic on the flight line of an Air Force Base may be temporarily detailed to pick up trash or tend to gardening around the base along with a dozen other lucky young Airmen. A squadron of high-performance combat-ready fighters may be painted up in exotic and impractical color schemes and permanently assigned to fly from town to town, giving air shows, for the sole purpose of public relations.
A submarine is versatile enough, and available enough, to do more than lurk and pounce (or to only practice lurking and pouncing). Public relations, supporting scientific missions on the polar ice, exploring the possibilities of operating through ice… I’m just speculating, but I can imagine those reasons without trying.
I had thought that lurking and pouncing on the Soviet Northern Fleet and its ports, or rather *preparing *to lurk and pounce on them if needed, and letting them know we could, was the Navy’s primary reason to operate in the Arctic.
Wouldn’t we normally have at least a few subs under the ice that, if instructed to launch a Trident (or its modern equivalent), would breach the ice first and then launch their missle(s)?
That was what really kind of jarred me about the commercial. I mean, they got the dive planes being vertical for surfacing through the ice, but then leveled them out for some unfathomable reason toward the end of the commercial.
Not saying it would be strategically necessary, but the engineering needed to do that kind of thing doesn’t happen by accident, so it’s reasonable to assume that such capability was a mission and design requirement, not a happy accident.
Ok, I was only thinking of US subs. First, it’s a lot more dangerous being under ice. Then you have to find ice suitable for breaking through, and on top of that US subs can only launch submerged. I’d be surprised to find out the Russians routinely patrolled under ice and didn’t just do a demonstration launch or two.
Something about a poster named **yoyodyne **opining on matters of submarines ascending and descending vertically through the water & ice struck me funny.
Why? Voyage got it exactly right.