The Mess

[Okeefenokee]

The semester is complete. Time to settle this debate with world of warships.

[ssu]

The surface combatant is the constable of the seas, general purpose, their role is patrol and escort, they deter and influence by patrolling, they escort against submarine and air attack.

The submarine of the sniper of the seas, highly specialized, it's very good at what it does, but it really only does that and cannot do anything else.

The submarine arm is something that basically people have totally forgotten. I think the last operational activity was the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano, right?

Crew of HMS Conqueror with the Jolly Roger raised after sinking the Belgrano returning back to the UK from the South Atlantic.


And the whimsical and totally ignorant idea that you could replace Navies by Airpower can be shown to be ludicrous with many examples, but the submarine is one that comes to my mind immediately.

[Smitty-48]

HMS Conquerer is in fact the only nuclear submarine to ever fire a torpedo in anger, so shows how rare indeed that a nuclear submarine is forced to be the arm of decision, so while it is obviously the arm of decision in a shooting war, as shooting wars are not what actually rules the waves, the submarine is not the centre of gravity of naval power, naval power actually flows from a large fleet of frigates conducting persistent patrol and escort.

Whenever you have to use a submarine in anger, that is not a sign of naval power, rather, that is a sign that you have lost the rule of the waves and are in fact being forced to regain freedom of navigation in extremis. The reason why the US Navy nuclear submarine force has never fired a torpedo in anger, is that the US Navy has never been challenged for supremacy on the high seas, the reason therein being, they've simply made that a non starter, by being present everywhere enforcing freedom of navigation, with no challengers capable of relieving them of that therein.

Even the Soviet Navy, the best they could do was try to keep the Americans from sailing right into their bastions with impunity, but that all came a cropper in 1981, when Ronald Reagan actually ordered a Carrier Battle Group to do so, and totally got away with it, showing up in the Barents without any warning, totally undetected on the approach, demonstrating that America could do it anytime that America pleased, and that the Soviets were in fact not going to do anything about it.

Th supremacy of the United States Navy was asserted, even into the Barents Sea itself, nary a shot fired.

[ssu]

Submarines are the killers of the ocean (or the lurkers under the icecap), but they seldom can do anything else

I remember reading from the US Naval Proceedings of actually a Canadian submarines actions. US fishing boats had been illegally fishing on Canadian Waters, yet denied the accusations. Well, Canada sent it's submarine to catch the Yankee trawlers doing illegal fishing and behold, the Canadian submarine took perfect night-time pictures of the American vessels deep in Canadian fishing areas. This got the American fishermen really upset when they heard about this, and some actually (and smartly) advised to ram the periscope if they see one. The Canadian Submarine crew was actually worried about this as a submarine is in the end a quite fragile ship.

The small anecdote just tells how unusable a submarine is for other purposes than sinking ships (or being a missile launching platform).

And one interesting thing with submarines has never happened: an actual submarine vs submarine fight. Now that would be interesting.

[Smitty-48]

As I said, the submarine is the sniper of the seas, but most of what a sniper does is actually gather intelligence by covert observation, bear in mind however, while a sniper may be able to deny ground to the enemy, the sniper cannot seize hold and control it at all.

[Smitty-48]

And one interesting thing with submarines has never happened: an actual submarine vs submarine fight. Now that would be interesting.

Nuclear submarines would not actually fight, one gets the jump on the other, up in the saddle in the baffles, surprise attack, there is no manoeuvre in a submarine fight, other than manoeuvring up into the saddle undetected in the other guy's baffles.

Once you're there, fights over, at which point you can either sink him, or simply inform him that he is dead to rights and at your mercy therein; active sonar, tubes flooded, bow caps open, wire guided torpedo point blank; the no escape zone.

The nuclear submarine is entirely an ambush predator, where it is not in position to spring an ambush, all it does in hide in the weeds and waits for the opportunity to do so.

This of course is why they are not suitable for sea control, as one cannot rule the waves by ambush predation alone, and a global commercial trading empire does not rule by the law of the jungle, the very antithesis of that in fact.

[Xenophon]

And one interesting thing with submarines has never happened: an actual submarine vs submarine fight. Now that would be interesting.

Nuclear submarines would not actually fight, one gets the jump on the other, up in the saddle in the baffles, surprise attack, there is no manoeuvre in a submarine fight, other than manoeuvring up into the saddle undetected in the other guy's baffles.

Once you're there, fights over, at which point you can either sink him, or simply inform him that he is dead to rights and at your mercy therein; active sonar, tubes flooded, bow caps open, wire guided torpedo point blank; the no escape zone.

The nuclear submarine is entirely an ambush predator, where it is not in position to spring an ambush, all it does in hide in the weeds and waits for the opportunity to do so.

This of course is why they are not suitable for sea control, as one cannot rule the waves by ambush predation alone, and a global commercial trading empire does not rule by the law of the jungle, the very antithesis of that in fact.

Would submarines be the primary method of Russian nuclear attack against America? I ask because I was researching the range of American and Russian nuclear missiles, and neither power can really fire from one mainland to the opposing one. Although my sources are dubious at best, so I could have bad information.

[Smitty-48]

And one interesting thing with submarines has never happened: an actual submarine vs submarine fight. Now that would be interesting.

Nuclear submarines would not actually fight, one gets the jump on the other, up in the saddle in the baffles, surprise attack, there is no manoeuvre in a submarine fight, other than manoeuvring up into the saddle undetected in the other guy's baffles.

Once you're there, fights over, at which point you can either sink him, or simply inform him that he is dead to rights and at your mercy therein; active sonar, tubes flooded, bow caps open, wire guided torpedo point blank; the no escape zone.

The nuclear submarine is entirely an ambush predator, where it is not in position to spring an ambush, all it does in hide in the weeds and waits for the opportunity to do so.

This of course is why they are not suitable for sea control, as one cannot rule the waves by ambush predation alone, and a global commercial trading empire does not rule by the law of the jungle, the very antithesis of that in fact.

Would submarines be the primary method of Russian nuclear attack against America? I ask because I was researching the range of American and Russian nuclear missiles, and neither power can really fire from one mainland to the opposing one. Although my sources are dubious at best, so I could have bad information.

It would be the primary method if approach by stealth for preemptive counterforce was the mission, this is the classic submarine surprise attack, simply elevated to use against strategic targets with thermonuclear weapons.

The only reason to launch a surprise attack with strategic thermonuclear weapons, is counterforce, the only reason to launch a countervalue strike, is retaliation, the countervalue retaliatory role of the SSBN, or Strategic Missile Carrying Heavy Submarine Cruiser as the Russians call them, would be survivable second strike in the wake of a counterforce targeted against Russia.

[ssu]

Would submarines be the primary method of Russian nuclear attack against America? I ask because I was researching the range of American and Russian nuclear missiles, and neither power can really fire from one mainland to the opposing one. Although my sources are dubious at best, so I could have bad information.

Submarines are the most survivable... the one's lurking in the sea, not in harbour. They rather complement the other weapon systems in the nuclear triad, meaning any attack that intends to cripple the other one's ability (somehow) would likely not be done just by submarines. What their edge is that a deployed submarine, that hasn't been tracked and known, obviously can survive a nuclear first strike and obviously can make the second strike.

Russia has the edge on land based nuclear ICBM, where the emphasis is now at the mobile, not silo-based, weapon systems. (China similarly follows has chosen mobile systems than silo-based systems). The US has more nuclear submarines (in total and those carrying SLBMs) and also more strategic bombers. What is important to understand that if the Soviet armed forces collapsed, Yeltsin and later Putin had as their first priority was the ex-Soviet nuclear forces and the modernization of this force.

[Smitty-48]

A nuclear preemptive counterforce or first strike against the CONUS, would involve a combination of tactical and strategic weapons, tactical nuclear torpedoes, anti-submarine rockets and cruise missiles against the American surivable second strike bastions, naval submarine bases and inland command and control facilities, combined with SLBM's launched on a depressed tracjetory from just off the coasts against the land based ICBM's on the Great Plains. All this would be initiated when the early warning DSP sattelite constellation was struck in orbit with ASAT's, to blind American forces just prior to the strike commencing.

Certainly, some US nuclear forces would survive, however, with the counterforce executed, America would be at the mercy of the Russian land based countervalue assets, lacking the capacity to retaliate against Russia without sufffering unacceptable losses therein, thus, the Russians would then be in a positon to impose an American capitulation by nuclear blackmail against her population centers.