9 ms·

Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

44 points by Sami_Lehtinen 12y ago

mabbo 12y ago
I forget where I heard it, but in a discussion about stealth fighters and stealth capabilities, the conclusion of one person was that it was a game of material scientists vs computer scientists, and that in the end, computer scientists seem to be able to outpace material scientists.
- mightybyte 12y ago
  Yeah, I saw a slightly different take saying that in the battle between stealth and detection, physics gives the advantage to the detection side. I have no idea what the justification was or even if it's remotely true, but it seemed like a plausible idea.
  - ethbro 12y ago
    > Yeah, I saw a slightly different take saying that in the battle between stealth and detection, physics gives the advantage to the detection side. You could boil this down to saying that moving things fast and stealth are fundamental tradeoffs. The energy for the former has to come from somewhere, and at anything less than ideal conversion there are only so many places to hide the waste without compromising the latter.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  The CS folks can iterate faster with software defined radios.
- dingaling 12y ago
  Some'big data' approaches to negating stealth include analysing holes that the aircraft create in the fabric of shortwave radio and cosmic background microwaves. It does seem that the detection people have data and CPY on their side.
Someone1234 12y ago
I'd suggest reading this article in full. I almost stopped when I read "big data" but it was a worthwhile article with some interesting thoughts on one potential future. I agree that UUVs could play a big part in underwater warfare/intelligence gathering 10-20 years from now.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  The model of "subs as aircraft carriers" for UUVs seems less likely, though. UUVs are arguably better deployed like satellites than aircraft. This is the way underwater mines are deployed today: seed an area well in advance of hostilities with mines that dig themselves into the bottom, and activate them remotely at need. If you posit that submarines are going to be highly detectable (which is reasonable, and has been a risk since the '80's, when thermal signature tracking looked like it might become viable) then there's no particularly compelling reason why you would deploy UUVs from subs rather than from planes or surface ships.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    Those are some great points. For long term UUV deployments however you would have to deal with the "fuel problem." They will be more efficient than a manned submarine, and can be quite streamlined, but regardless moving water is expensive. So, for example, dropping them into the water at Hawaii and expecting them to make it to China and back seems "unlikely" because anything large enough to have enough fuel to do that would also likely be detectable (which is the reason you aren't using manned submarines to begin with). So maybe that's why they're talking about manned submarines as UUV carriers. So that the UUV can have batteries in them and electric motors, maybe 24 hours max of power, and only need to make it 1/8th of the distance otherwise.
    - bryondowd 12y ago
      Right, but then what is the point of making a submersible carrier as opposed to launching the UUVs from a traditional surface carrier. If your carrier sub is detectable, you aren't going to be getting it any closer than you could get your surface carrier. And I would expect the surface carrier to be easier to build, with more capabilities for self defense.
Avalaxy 12y ago
Detecting a sub is one thing, but destroying it is another. Do they have a 'solution' to that?
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  If they were hard to destroy, why would they care so much about being detected?
- tsotha 12y ago
  Actually, the game is pretty much up when the sub is detected. Destroying is the easy part.
bubbleHead 12y ago
This guy's premise is that submarines are going to lose their stealthy advantage. He is not qualified to say that, and the technology he mentions could become a threat to subs has been talked about for 20+ years. There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. I acknowledge that technology will require subs to become even more quiet, but new propulsion systems are now on the boats instead of propellers. They are quieter than ever and no one could detect us before. Subs have already become “carriers” of SEALS and rockets. So that mission can only be expanded. Not much new in the article. Edit: Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >He is not qualified to say that, What about Bryan Clark? Is he? http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/20... >There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. Really? Are you qualified to say that?
  - bubbleHead 12y ago
    Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      I don't know you, nor do I know Clark, or any of the others, >>"We need to think about a new strategy for undersea warfare," said Bryan Clark, a former submariner and Navy strategist now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. This Clark guy, writing for DefenseNews claims to have been on a sub, and a place named the CSBA hired him. The trouble here is that I can't see why I should take either of yours or their assertions at face value. I don't know what their angle is, nor yours.
- binky56 12y ago
  If you really where a 20+ year submariner then you should already know the screw is not the loudest thing onboard by a long shot. Also if you bothered to read the full article they are not using just sound to detect. Granted this would only pertain to some of the current fast attack missions in regards to some countries. SEAL delivery is a relatively close up mission considering how big the ocean is.
rbc 12y ago
Obsolete sounds a little strong. The denied areas for submarine operations will get larger, but the ocean is really big. Running the fixed and mobile sensor arrays to detect submarines is not cheap. Regardless of the foreseeable improvements in submarine detection, they'll still be harder to find than surface ships.
- pm90 12y ago
  Absolutely. Case in point: the missing Malaysian airplane is yet to be found.
  - lettergram 12y ago
    That even had a transmitter, and wasn't designed to be difficult to find.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Right, but if they have to launch from the middle of the ocean, their advantage over ICBM's becomes much smaller, maybe none if they can't strike & destroy hostile C&C and launch sites. It is already a very small window of time that boomers are most useful for in a hot war. SLBM's utility in peacetime/pre-war is contingent upon people not knowing where they are. OTOH, relying on ICMB's is contingent on enough people at SAC being sober, which may not be a safe bet.
  - dimitar 12y ago
    Nuclear ballistic missile-armed submarines are considered second strike weapons, even though there are first strike scenarios for their use. Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. However they can get really close to major population centers near the oceans and kill millions. Thus second-strike forces are supposed to act as deterrence. Area denial can make them much less effective if combined with proper air defence to take down the missiles.
exabrial 12y ago
Here's the thing about submarines you may not realize: they are the trump card when it comes to nuclear warfare and keeping MAD in place. If one country "struck first" and tried to wipe out our nuclear silos, nuclear armed subs would retaliate. Given the surface are of the world covered by water, there are quite a few hiding places too. What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really know.
- hga 12y ago
  They aren't the sole trump card, that role is also played by manned bombers that can launch on warning from the middle of the without committing to bomb that targets, without even having the ability to arm their warheads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link ); SLBMs are trump cards against undetectable attacks, or at least ones that can be detected in time, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment... You'd also have to be very confident in your ability to carry out a first strike. Ah, and there's a quick fix, a limited ABM deployment (we've got them and are pretty confident they work). Since you can't pick which warheads get taken out by the ABM systems, the difficultly becomes massively greater. Note also that historically only the US believed in MAD, the Soviets correctly thought it was unmitigated evil. Then again, they had to accept it....
  - pm90 12y ago
    Yep. MIRV's also make it incredibly hard for any kind of "Missile Defense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
    - hga 12y ago
      I didn't clearly state my case. A first strike requires reliably hitting a bunch of targets, often on a schedule. If your intended target has a possibility of randomly (from your viewpoint) taking out some fraction of these incoming warheads, how much more complicated does that make your plan? If you're talking about protecting a target (nation) from an attack, then "Missile Defense" shouldn't even be your first line of defense. Civil Defense is to protect the people's lives, anti-missile defenses to protect their possessions and those who don't make it to a shelter in time.
leroy_masochist 12y ago
Pretty ironic that the subheading of the article says, "They could simply become the next battleship." Battleships would be an awesome asset today if we hadn't scrapped them. Their main guns can put 2500 lbs of ordinance on targets 40 km away. Think of what that capability would look like these days with GPS guided rounds. America's ability to project force in the littorals is worse-off for not having maintained battleships in the arsenal.
- dalke 12y ago
  Battleships are expensive, with little flexibility for the types of missions they can do. The Navy wants railguns. Eg, http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/ http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launche... : > The Navy likes the weapon for several reasons, not the least of which it has a range of 100 miles and doesn’t require explosive warheads. That makes it far safer for sailors, and cheaper for taxpayers. According to the Navy, each 18-inch projectile costs about $25,000, compared to $500,000 to $1.5 million for conventional missiles. http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Code-35/All-Programs/air-warfare-352/Electromagnetic-Railgun.aspx http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Co... says there's a goal of 10 rounds per minute. These don't need to be on battleship. Here's one on a destroyer. http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-thi...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

44 points by Sami_Lehtinen 12y ago

mabbo 12y ago

I forget where I heard it, but in a discussion about stealth fighters and stealth capabilities, the conclusion of one person was that it was a game of material scientists vs computer scientists, and that in the end, computer scientists seem to be able to outpace material scientists.

mightybyte 12y ago
Yeah, I saw a slightly different take saying that in the battle between stealth and detection, physics gives the advantage to the detection side. I have no idea what the justification was or even if it's remotely true, but it seemed like a plausible idea.
- ethbro 12y ago
  > Yeah, I saw a slightly different take saying that in the battle between stealth and detection, physics gives the advantage to the detection side. You could boil this down to saying that moving things fast and stealth are fundamental tradeoffs. The energy for the former has to come from somewhere, and at anything less than ideal conversion there are only so many places to hide the waste without compromising the latter.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
The CS folks can iterate faster with software defined radios.
dingaling 12y ago
Some'big data' approaches to negating stealth include analysing holes that the aircraft create in the fabric of shortwave radio and cosmic background microwaves. It does seem that the detection people have data and CPY on their side.

Someone1234 12y ago

I'd suggest reading this article in full. I almost stopped when I read "big data" but it was a worthwhile article with some interesting thoughts on one potential future. I agree that UUVs could play a big part in underwater warfare/intelligence gathering 10-20 years from now.

tjradcliffe 12y ago
The model of "subs as aircraft carriers" for UUVs seems less likely, though. UUVs are arguably better deployed like satellites than aircraft. This is the way underwater mines are deployed today: seed an area well in advance of hostilities with mines that dig themselves into the bottom, and activate them remotely at need. If you posit that submarines are going to be highly detectable (which is reasonable, and has been a risk since the '80's, when thermal signature tracking looked like it might become viable) then there's no particularly compelling reason why you would deploy UUVs from subs rather than from planes or surface ships.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Those are some great points. For long term UUV deployments however you would have to deal with the "fuel problem." They will be more efficient than a manned submarine, and can be quite streamlined, but regardless moving water is expensive. So, for example, dropping them into the water at Hawaii and expecting them to make it to China and back seems "unlikely" because anything large enough to have enough fuel to do that would also likely be detectable (which is the reason you aren't using manned submarines to begin with). So maybe that's why they're talking about manned submarines as UUV carriers. So that the UUV can have batteries in them and electric motors, maybe 24 hours max of power, and only need to make it 1/8th of the distance otherwise.
  - bryondowd 12y ago
    Right, but then what is the point of making a submersible carrier as opposed to launching the UUVs from a traditional surface carrier. If your carrier sub is detectable, you aren't going to be getting it any closer than you could get your surface carrier. And I would expect the surface carrier to be easier to build, with more capabilities for self defense.

Avalaxy 12y ago

Detecting a sub is one thing, but destroying it is another. Do they have a 'solution' to that?

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
If they were hard to destroy, why would they care so much about being detected?
tsotha 12y ago
Actually, the game is pretty much up when the sub is detected. Destroying is the easy part.

bubbleHead 12y ago

This guy's premise is that submarines are going to lose their stealthy advantage. He is not qualified to say that, and the technology he mentions could become a threat to subs has been talked about for 20+ years. There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. I acknowledge that technology will require subs to become even more quiet, but new propulsion systems are now on the boats instead of propellers. They are quieter than ever and no one could detect us before. Subs have already become “carriers” of SEALS and rockets. So that mission can only be expanded. Not much new in the article. Edit: Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>He is not qualified to say that, What about Bryan Clark? Is he? http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/20... >There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. Really? Are you qualified to say that?
- bubbleHead 12y ago
  Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    I don't know you, nor do I know Clark, or any of the others, >>"We need to think about a new strategy for undersea warfare," said Bryan Clark, a former submariner and Navy strategist now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. This Clark guy, writing for DefenseNews claims to have been on a sub, and a place named the CSBA hired him. The trouble here is that I can't see why I should take either of yours or their assertions at face value. I don't know what their angle is, nor yours.
binky56 12y ago
If you really where a 20+ year submariner then you should already know the screw is not the loudest thing onboard by a long shot. Also if you bothered to read the full article they are not using just sound to detect. Granted this would only pertain to some of the current fast attack missions in regards to some countries. SEAL delivery is a relatively close up mission considering how big the ocean is.

rbc 12y ago

Obsolete sounds a little strong. The denied areas for submarine operations will get larger, but the ocean is really big. Running the fixed and mobile sensor arrays to detect submarines is not cheap. Regardless of the foreseeable improvements in submarine detection, they'll still be harder to find than surface ships.

pm90 12y ago
Absolutely. Case in point: the missing Malaysian airplane is yet to be found.
- lettergram 12y ago
  That even had a transmitter, and wasn't designed to be difficult to find.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Right, but if they have to launch from the middle of the ocean, their advantage over ICBM's becomes much smaller, maybe none if they can't strike & destroy hostile C&C and launch sites. It is already a very small window of time that boomers are most useful for in a hot war. SLBM's utility in peacetime/pre-war is contingent upon people not knowing where they are. OTOH, relying on ICMB's is contingent on enough people at SAC being sober, which may not be a safe bet.
- dimitar 12y ago
  Nuclear ballistic missile-armed submarines are considered second strike weapons, even though there are first strike scenarios for their use. Their missiles don't have the range to hit launch sites that are far inland in North America or Eurasia. Even if they did the missiles would be vulnerable to anti defence. Additionally they are slow moving, which is very undesirable in first strikes. However they can get really close to major population centers near the oceans and kill millions. Thus second-strike forces are supposed to act as deterrence. Area denial can make them much less effective if combined with proper air defence to take down the missiles.

exabrial 12y ago

Here's the thing about submarines you may not realize: they are the trump card when it comes to nuclear warfare and keeping MAD in place. If one country "struck first" and tried to wipe out our nuclear silos, nuclear armed subs would retaliate. Given the surface are of the world covered by water, there are quite a few hiding places too. What happens to MAD after we have a reliable way to detect subs? :/ Don't really know.

hga 12y ago
They aren't the sole trump card, that role is also played by manned bombers that can launch on warning from the middle of the without committing to bomb that targets, without even having the ability to arm their warheads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link ); SLBMs are trump cards against undetectable attacks, or at least ones that can be detected in time, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment... You'd also have to be very confident in your ability to carry out a first strike. Ah, and there's a quick fix, a limited ABM deployment (we've got them and are pretty confident they work). Since you can't pick which warheads get taken out by the ABM systems, the difficultly becomes massively greater. Note also that historically only the US believed in MAD, the Soviets correctly thought it was unmitigated evil. Then again, they had to accept it....
- pm90 12y ago
  Yep. MIRV's also make it incredibly hard for any kind of "Missile Defense". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
  - hga 12y ago
    I didn't clearly state my case. A first strike requires reliably hitting a bunch of targets, often on a schedule. If your intended target has a possibility of randomly (from your viewpoint) taking out some fraction of these incoming warheads, how much more complicated does that make your plan? If you're talking about protecting a target (nation) from an attack, then "Missile Defense" shouldn't even be your first line of defense. Civil Defense is to protect the people's lives, anti-missile defenses to protect their possessions and those who don't make it to a shelter in time.

leroy_masochist 12y ago

Pretty ironic that the subheading of the article says, "They could simply become the next battleship." Battleships would be an awesome asset today if we hadn't scrapped them. Their main guns can put 2500 lbs of ordinance on targets 40 km away. Think of what that capability would look like these days with GPS guided rounds. America's ability to project force in the littorals is worse-off for not having maintained battleships in the arsenal.

dalke 12y ago
Battleships are expensive, with little flexibility for the types of missions they can do. The Navy wants railguns. Eg, http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/ http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launche... : > The Navy likes the weapon for several reasons, not the least of which it has a range of 100 miles and doesn’t require explosive warheads. That makes it far safer for sailors, and cheaper for taxpayers. According to the Navy, each 18-inch projectile costs about $25,000, compared to $500,000 to $1.5 million for conventional missiles. http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Code-35/All-Programs/air-warfare-352/Electromagnetic-Railgun.aspx http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Co... says there's a goal of 10 rounds per minute. These don't need to be on battleship. Here's one on a destroyer. http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-thi...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]