6 ms·

Ohio Submarines Were Designed to Be Drone-Carrying Clandestine Command Centers

68 points by privong 7y ago

xwdv 7y ago
I wish submarine tech had more funding. It would be amazing if today we had the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier that could also submerse itself completely underwater and travel to destinations all across the globe.
- 1996 7y ago
  The travel part, yes it would be. But something like an aircraft carrier, made for mass killing of other humans by allowing to project power and deliver weapons closer to the enemy does not get me in awe.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  > I wish submarine tech had more funding How much money do you wish was spent on submarine tech? The last two CNOs were submariners, so I'm pretty sure the high water mark has been set rather recently.
  - tobinfricke 7y ago
    Seriously, this article says that the Ohio class submarines cost $2 billion, and their replacements $7 billion. That does not sound "underfunded" to me. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/ohio-nuclear-subs-cost-2-billion-a-piece-and-navy-will-be-happy-if-replacement-is-not-4-times-as-expensive.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/ohio-nuclear-subs-cost...
    - ReptileMan 7y ago
      That is also known as rounding error in f35 cost overruns
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        That’s an awful standard to measure anything against haha
- diveanon 7y ago
  I also wish we had more weapons of mass destruction.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I'm 99% sure that you're joking. But if not, have no fear.
  - larnmar 7y ago
    This, but unironically.
- basementcat 7y ago
  "Submarine Tech" has produced a fleet of quiet submersible vehicles powered by nuclear reactors and capable of continuously operating without provisions for several months, each containing several miniature nuclear missile silos with a missile inside each of which is capable of destroying multiple city-sized targets anywhere on the surface of the Earth on a moment's notice. And that is just the unclassified stuff.
  - doctorpangloss 7y ago
    There are no classified offensive nuclear weapons. Probably no classified launch vehicles. It would defeat the point.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      What about the fast neutron enhanced stuff?
    - kortilla 7y ago
      That’s a bad assumption because it presumes the only point of weapons at this point is to escalate MAD.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      > There are no classified offensive nuclear weapons. Probably no classified launch vehicles. I'm not sure this is really true. It's widely believed that Israel have classified nuclear weapons and launch vehicles.
      - skummetmaelk 7y ago
        That's only because they're not supposed to have them and announcing it would be an admission. Everybody knows they do though.
        chrisseaton 7y ago
        > Everybody knows they do though. That's literally what I said.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  It would be amazing if today we had the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier that could also submerse itself Submarine aircraft carriers really were a thing once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier
- mpweiher 7y ago
  (a) The reason we don't have submersible aircraft carriers is not lack of funding, but because actual submersible aircraft carriers are a bad idea. (It was tried) (b) The idea that submarine tech is underfunded is...interesting. (c) If you consider that the main purpose of an aircraft carrier is force-projection onto land via the air, I'd argue that the modified Ohio class subs discussed in the article, with room for 154 land attack cruise missiles, 60 special forces and drones, could probably count. So we do have that equivalent. If you check the operational history of the Japanese I-400, I think you will see that it matches those current capabilities quite well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine#Operatio... And coming back to point (a), the short-term force projection possible with a submergible aircraft carrier would be considerably less, and long-term operations would negate the advantages of being submergible. (d) The other purpose of aircraft carriers is "showing the flag" (visibly), and for this submerged aircraft carriers are somewhat unsuitable...
  - normaljoe 7y ago
    As to point d. It's also not just the carrier but the carrier group as a whole. The US CSGs rival most countries entire air capability. It's impressive to see and not something you are going to try and attack.
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  The Japanese Imperial Navy had a submarine aircraft carrier in the 20th century. It could carry three aircraft at a time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
- todd8 7y ago
  While taking a class on hydrospace vehicles (ships, submarines, hydrofoils, and hovercraft) I discovered that submarines have an efficiency advantage over surface ships; they don't have drag induced by the generation of the wave system (wake) that surface ships have. It seems like the ideal way to transport goods over long distances. However, there is a problem, loading and unloading of materials off of the submarine change its buoyancy. On the other hand, an aircraft carrier is a very large ship and I doubt that all of the planes being in the air versus on the ship can't make much of a difference in its gross weight.
  - btown 7y ago
    I can imagine a dock that has the ability to load extra temporary mass on and off a cargo submersible, all loading done completely underwater, to offset material being taken off the submersible. If the efficiency increases were significant, this could become worthwhile. However it's likely hard to beat the efficiency of how many cargo containers you can stack on a normal cargo ship, particularly while fuel is cheap.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  Your idea is not bad actually. For sure, as others have noted, submarine tech is not neglected at all, it has just as much funding as it needs. But, the idea of making submarines the "modern equivalent of aircraft carriers" makes a lot of sense. The key is to understand what "equivalent" means. Aircraft carriers are the main tool of power projection. More precisely, aircraft are the main tool of power projection, for the reason they can deliver cheaply more ordnance over a distance of 500-1000 km than the alternatives. The alternatives nowadays are 2: missiles or going with your troops over there and using ground artillery. The second option does not exist in most of the cases, while the first is orders of magnitude more expensive. To give you a sense of how expensive it is, the 2020 US procurement of Tomahawk missiles is only 90 missiles [1]. So, if the Ohio submarine were to unload all its arsenal, that's a year's worth of missiles. An aircraft carrier can deliver tens of thousands of munitions, and can wage an air bombardment campaign for weeks. The future will be different though. The US Army is pursuing a 1000 mile gun. Once such guns enter production, all of a sudden aircraft will cease being the most economical ordnance delivery platform. I bet a version of such a supergun can be mounted on an Ohio-class submarine and at that point, they'll be able to take over a significant part of the power projection role for the US. [1] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... [2]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29476778/army-long-range-cannon/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29476778...
- RobLach 7y ago
  Makes absolutely no sense to submerge a force projection vessel that is meant to deploy air power and posture force. If you want to stealthily attack with aircraft, attack with a stealth aircraft.
turk73 7y ago
Military. Industrial. Complex. We should just stop paying taxes and see what happens then.
SenHeng 7y ago
Holy back button hijack, Batman!
iscrewyou 7y ago
Completely off topic: I just went down a rabbit hole of old submarine games. After seeing some of the graphics in the article, I remembered I used to play a submarine game but couldn't name it. After plenty of googling (and finding out there are A LOT of sub simulations), I found it. Enigma Rising Tide was the game. It was the most janky game I ever played but that was part of the fun.
- platz 7y ago
  Almost every sub game I've played is trash, but Red Storm Rising was executed so perfectly, I don't think I've ever been able to find a game experience quite like it to this day. It had the feel of a simulation (with many controls) but also felt really minimal and action-based. The sound was also great.
  - acheron 7y ago
    Red Storm Rising is fantastic. I still go back and play it sometimes. There was a “spiritual successor” game on Steam called Cold Waters I think, but I never tried it out.
    - platz 7y ago
      I saw that, I'm interested but not sure how the gameplay feels The original was very cerebral and suspenseful
  - audiometry 7y ago
    My game was GATO on an old PC XT

68 points by privong 7y ago

xwdv 7y ago

I wish submarine tech had more funding. It would be amazing if today we had the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier that could also submerse itself completely underwater and travel to destinations all across the globe.

1996 7y ago
The travel part, yes it would be. But something like an aircraft carrier, made for mass killing of other humans by allowing to project power and deliver weapons closer to the enemy does not get me in awe.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
killjoywashere 7y ago
> I wish submarine tech had more funding How much money do you wish was spent on submarine tech? The last two CNOs were submariners, so I'm pretty sure the high water mark has been set rather recently.
- tobinfricke 7y ago
  Seriously, this article says that the Ohio class submarines cost $2 billion, and their replacements $7 billion. That does not sound "underfunded" to me. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/ohio-nuclear-subs-cost-2-billion-a-piece-and-navy-will-be-happy-if-replacement-is-not-4-times-as-expensive.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/11/ohio-nuclear-subs-cost...
  - ReptileMan 7y ago
    That is also known as rounding error in f35 cost overruns
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      That’s an awful standard to measure anything against haha
diveanon 7y ago
I also wish we had more weapons of mass destruction.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I'm 99% sure that you're joking. But if not, have no fear.
- larnmar 7y ago
  This, but unironically.
basementcat 7y ago
"Submarine Tech" has produced a fleet of quiet submersible vehicles powered by nuclear reactors and capable of continuously operating without provisions for several months, each containing several miniature nuclear missile silos with a missile inside each of which is capable of destroying multiple city-sized targets anywhere on the surface of the Earth on a moment's notice. And that is just the unclassified stuff.
- doctorpangloss 7y ago
  There are no classified offensive nuclear weapons. Probably no classified launch vehicles. It would defeat the point.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    What about the fast neutron enhanced stuff?
  - kortilla 7y ago
    That’s a bad assumption because it presumes the only point of weapons at this point is to escalate MAD.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > There are no classified offensive nuclear weapons. Probably no classified launch vehicles. I'm not sure this is really true. It's widely believed that Israel have classified nuclear weapons and launch vehicles.
    - skummetmaelk 7y ago
      That's only because they're not supposed to have them and announcing it would be an admission. Everybody knows they do though.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        > Everybody knows they do though. That's literally what I said.
goatinaboat 7y ago
It would be amazing if today we had the modern equivalent of an aircraft carrier that could also submerse itself Submarine aircraft carriers really were a thing once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_aircraft_carrier
mpweiher 7y ago
(a) The reason we don't have submersible aircraft carriers is not lack of funding, but because actual submersible aircraft carriers are a bad idea. (It was tried) (b) The idea that submarine tech is underfunded is...interesting. (c) If you consider that the main purpose of an aircraft carrier is force-projection onto land via the air, I'd argue that the modified Ohio class subs discussed in the article, with room for 154 land attack cruise missiles, 60 special forces and drones, could probably count. So we do have that equivalent. If you check the operational history of the Japanese I-400, I think you will see that it matches those current capabilities quite well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine#Operational_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine#Operatio... And coming back to point (a), the short-term force projection possible with a submergible aircraft carrier would be considerably less, and long-term operations would negate the advantages of being submergible. (d) The other purpose of aircraft carriers is "showing the flag" (visibly), and for this submerged aircraft carriers are somewhat unsuitable...
- normaljoe 7y ago
  As to point d. It's also not just the carrier but the carrier group as a whole. The US CSGs rival most countries entire air capability. It's impressive to see and not something you are going to try and attack.
gorgoiler 7y ago
The Japanese Imperial Navy had a submarine aircraft carrier in the 20th century. It could carry three aircraft at a time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
todd8 7y ago
While taking a class on hydrospace vehicles (ships, submarines, hydrofoils, and hovercraft) I discovered that submarines have an efficiency advantage over surface ships; they don't have drag induced by the generation of the wave system (wake) that surface ships have. It seems like the ideal way to transport goods over long distances. However, there is a problem, loading and unloading of materials off of the submarine change its buoyancy. On the other hand, an aircraft carrier is a very large ship and I doubt that all of the planes being in the air versus on the ship can't make much of a difference in its gross weight.
- btown 7y ago
  I can imagine a dock that has the ability to load extra temporary mass on and off a cargo submersible, all loading done completely underwater, to offset material being taken off the submersible. If the efficiency increases were significant, this could become worthwhile. However it's likely hard to beat the efficiency of how many cargo containers you can stack on a normal cargo ship, particularly while fuel is cheap.
credit_guy 7y ago
Your idea is not bad actually. For sure, as others have noted, submarine tech is not neglected at all, it has just as much funding as it needs. But, the idea of making submarines the "modern equivalent of aircraft carriers" makes a lot of sense. The key is to understand what "equivalent" means. Aircraft carriers are the main tool of power projection. More precisely, aircraft are the main tool of power projection, for the reason they can deliver cheaply more ordnance over a distance of 500-1000 km than the alternatives. The alternatives nowadays are 2: missiles or going with your troops over there and using ground artillery. The second option does not exist in most of the cases, while the first is orders of magnitude more expensive. To give you a sense of how expensive it is, the 2020 US procurement of Tomahawk missiles is only 90 missiles [1]. So, if the Ohio submarine were to unload all its arsenal, that's a year's worth of missiles. An aircraft carrier can deliver tens of thousands of munitions, and can wage an air bombardment campaign for weeks. The future will be different though. The US Army is pursuing a 1000 mile gun. Once such guns enter production, all of a sudden aircraft will cease being the most economical ordnance delivery platform. I bet a version of such a supergun can be mounted on an Ohio-class submarine and at that point, they'll be able to take over a significant part of the power projection role for the US. [1] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... [2]https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29476778/army-long-range-cannon/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29476778...
RobLach 7y ago
Makes absolutely no sense to submerge a force projection vessel that is meant to deploy air power and posture force. If you want to stealthily attack with aircraft, attack with a stealth aircraft.

turk73 7y ago

Military. Industrial. Complex. We should just stop paying taxes and see what happens then.

SenHeng 7y ago

Holy back button hijack, Batman!

iscrewyou 7y ago

Completely off topic: I just went down a rabbit hole of old submarine games. After seeing some of the graphics in the article, I remembered I used to play a submarine game but couldn't name it. After plenty of googling (and finding out there are A LOT of sub simulations), I found it. Enigma Rising Tide was the game. It was the most janky game I ever played but that was part of the fun.

platz 7y ago
Almost every sub game I've played is trash, but Red Storm Rising was executed so perfectly, I don't think I've ever been able to find a game experience quite like it to this day. It had the feel of a simulation (with many controls) but also felt really minimal and action-based. The sound was also great.
- acheron 7y ago
  Red Storm Rising is fantastic. I still go back and play it sometimes. There was a “spiritual successor” game on Steam called Cold Waters I think, but I never tried it out.
  - platz 7y ago
    I saw that, I'm interested but not sure how the gameplay feels The original was very cerebral and suspenseful
- audiometry 7y ago
  My game was GATO on an old PC XT