5 ms·

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 un

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.
ethbro 12y ago
I believe the "subs as aircraft carriers" idea came from the fact that you generally want to interact with a target location on land. Nation states don't tend to have too many strategic targets underwater off their coasts. Options for interacting with a target land location (dates extremely rough, in rough historical order): - Subsonic aircraft: outpaced by projectile-based anti-aircraft since ~1935 - Supersonic aircraft: outpaced and obsoleted by missile and satellite technology since ~1970 - Satellite: excellent for reconnaissance and elint, limited interactive capabilities due to treaty obligations - Subsonic cruise missiles (aka light missiles): limited range (relative to coastal approach), limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses - ICBM (aka heavy missiles): expensive, high risk of escalation due to detection, risk of nuclear payload, and ability to apply last minute target corrections - Carrier launched aircraft: limited range, limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses - Supersonic cruise missiles: limited range, limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses - Drones: limited range, limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses You ideally want an aerial platform (freedom of movement, ability to interact with land targets), survivable in a hostile environment, as cheaply as possible. This was solved by a carrier air wing. However, the idea of A2/AD is to push the survivability line out far enough that the carrier can no longer approach close enough to let its air wing operate efficiently. The obvious go to is to take a platform that can penetrate that A2/AD coverage to a greater depth with acceptable survivability. (It's a lot easier to hide a submarine than an aircraft carrier / it's a lot more expensive to build a submarine detection net across large ocean regions) Then have that platform launch the equivalent of an air wing. E.g. stealth submarines serving as carriers for limited-range (because that buys you design to make them stealthier / more survivable / faster) aerial drones
- cocoablazing 12y ago
  Your ICBM trade-off regarding corrections is outdated. Disarmament community has reported USN test administrators as stating latest W76-1/Mk4A LEP has introduced real-time GPS corrections throughout re-entry and terminal phase. A similar effort is underway to upgrade USAF RB's. Hypersonic aerodynamics and control research is going to pay dividends at some point, and apply to both hypersonic in-atmospheric and sub-orbital weapon control. The "risk of nuclear payload" is only a severe problem if overflight is necessary. The RF would be able to assess that a non-overflying SLBM was not targeting RF territory as soon as it traveled through the radar nets. Obviously this is still probably a stupid weapon to use in a conventional context.
gaius 12y ago
The submarine aircraft carrier has already been tried http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/wreck_tours/159473/wreck_tour_5_the_m2.html http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/wreck_tours/159473/wreck_tour... It's a good dive :-)
- tomjen3 12y ago
  And we tried how many times to make an airplane before we did it? This is just attempt number one.

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.

ethbro 12y ago

I believe the "subs as aircraft carriers" idea came from the fact that you generally want to interact with a target location on land. Nation states don't tend to have too many strategic targets underwater off their coasts. Options for interacting with a target land location (dates extremely rough, in rough historical order): - Subsonic aircraft: outpaced by projectile-based anti-aircraft since ~1935 - Supersonic aircraft: outpaced and obsoleted by missile and satellite technology since ~1970 - Satellite: excellent for reconnaissance and elint, limited interactive capabilities due to treaty obligations - Subsonic cruise missiles (aka light missiles): limited range (relative to coastal approach), limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses - ICBM (aka heavy missiles): expensive, high risk of escalation due to detection, risk of nuclear payload, and ability to apply last minute target corrections - Carrier launched aircraft: limited range, limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses - Supersonic cruise missiles: limited range, limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses - Drones: limited range, limited survivability against active anti-aircraft defenses You ideally want an aerial platform (freedom of movement, ability to interact with land targets), survivable in a hostile environment, as cheaply as possible. This was solved by a carrier air wing. However, the idea of A2/AD is to push the survivability line out far enough that the carrier can no longer approach close enough to let its air wing operate efficiently. The obvious go to is to take a platform that can penetrate that A2/AD coverage to a greater depth with acceptable survivability. (It's a lot easier to hide a submarine than an aircraft carrier / it's a lot more expensive to build a submarine detection net across large ocean regions) Then have that platform launch the equivalent of an air wing. E.g. stealth submarines serving as carriers for limited-range (because that buys you design to make them stealthier / more survivable / faster) aerial drones

cocoablazing 12y ago
Your ICBM trade-off regarding corrections is outdated. Disarmament community has reported USN test administrators as stating latest W76-1/Mk4A LEP has introduced real-time GPS corrections throughout re-entry and terminal phase. A similar effort is underway to upgrade USAF RB's. Hypersonic aerodynamics and control research is going to pay dividends at some point, and apply to both hypersonic in-atmospheric and sub-orbital weapon control. The "risk of nuclear payload" is only a severe problem if overflight is necessary. The RF would be able to assess that a non-overflying SLBM was not targeting RF territory as soon as it traveled through the radar nets. Obviously this is still probably a stupid weapon to use in a conventional context.

gaius 12y ago

The submarine aircraft carrier has already been tried http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/wreck_tours/159473/wreck_tour_5_the_m2.html http://www.divernet.com/Wrecks/wreck_tours/159473/wreck_tour... It's a good dive :-)

tomjen3 12y ago
And we tried how many times to make an airplane before we did it? This is just attempt number one.