It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Combined ICBM and Hunter Killer Sub?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The UK Govt has just indicated an intention to replace the Trident nuke subs by 2024 (ish)

Obviously it's early stages (we'll have to save up first
) but as part of the speculation the possibility was raised of combining the new ICBM boat with a hunter-killer role.

Does this make any sense to anyone? - I thought the idea of a boomer was to stay hidden just in case, not to charge about chasing other subs.

Worst of both worlds?




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
That's a terrible idea. If you go off hunting other subs, and you lose, congratulations, you just lost your ICBMs.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
absolutely agree. Didn't the soviets try something similar and found it was a daft idea?

The worry is the 'super sub' idea is a known non-starter and just a stalking horse for the 'carriers or nuclear deterrent' debate



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
its a stupid idea but the new boomers should have the capability to defend themselves and if they get the oppertunity to sink a major enemy ship then they should have the capability to do that as well. but they shouldnt be design as hunter killers.

justin



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
They DO have that capability, but as far as sinking shipping, that's a horrid idea. A Boomer is meant to go deep and slow and evade. An SSN is designed to hunt down shipping. You DON'T want your Boomers sinking tankers.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
i wasnt thinking tankers i was thinking more major ships such as aircraft carriers. obviously if it did this then there would be great risk involved. but you would have to weigh up the benefits of sinking an enemy carrier to possibly losing a ssbn. if the chance of loosing the ssbn is too great or if there is little benefit compared to the risk then it shouldnt sink the ship. but if the sinking of the carrier could stop the war or have a major negative effect on the enemy as the sinking of any carrier would then maybe it is worth risking an ssbn.

justin



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
ANY risk to your SSBNs is too great. Your SSBNs are your ultimate deterrent and you NEVER want to risk them, no matter how great the prize. Even a Nimitz would be too great a risk to send an SSBN after.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
i wasnt thinking that they should go after enemy shipping but if one day they find themselves alone(no other enemy ship within the detection range of the ssbn's sensors) undetected near an enemy carrier and the benefits out weigh the risks.

as a general rule i agree that ssbn's shoudn't attack enemy shipping as a general principal however it should have the capability to do so in an emergency and should definatly be able to defend itself with extreme prejudice.

justin

[edit on 22-6-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
In that situation, you report it along with course and speed and let them dig up someone else to hunt it. And SSBN has basic capabilities to defend herself (MK-48 ADCAP), but there is NO situation EVER that I would risk part of the nuclear triad. An SSGN MAYBE, and SSN sure, an SSBN NEVER.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
fair enough zaphod.

i guess that we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

what do other people think?

justin



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
A SSBN is too much a strategic asset to risk doing anything except self defense.The objective of boomers is to deploy out of sight for long periods preserving the nuclear retaliatory capability out of reach of the enemy.I dont think any captain would be prepared to sacrifice or put in danger his command for any vessel that comes along.
In regards to the UK replacing Trident who nows what shape this replacement could come in....

[edit on 22-6-2006 by bmdefiant]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Much of the role of SSBNs here in the States has been taken up with the new generation of SSNs having tomahawk capability in vertical launch tubes. While not as long range as the SSBNs...they are still capable of "special loadouts."

Some of the older SSBNs here are in the process of being outfitted as arsenal ships....carrying about 7 tomahawk missles per ICBM Tube....thats 7X24 tubes.

This seems to be a way of getting more of the taxpayers money from these boats rather than delivering them to the scrap heap...and still complying with treaty obligations. It will be expensive...for a nation like England...it is expensive for us....but if they still have good life remaining in the reactor cores..it is a option. These boats were very very expensive to build...in those days..as is a new boat today.

I do not think these olde boomers are as maneuvrable as SSNs.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
When it comes to us updating our nuclear arsenal (if we may call it that), we should look into the idea of sharing a joint nuclear arsenal with France. The idea has been brought up before (think it was back in 1993), we are neighbours and it would work out cheaper.

As someone said, the idea doesnt make sense and could end up the biggest waste of money.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
It entirely depends on what the threat level is where they're being used.

How much risk do SSN's really face in most modern day conflicts?
Not a huge conflict against a Russia or a China, but a more typical foe like Iraq - a marginal power with extremely limited ASW capability. The fact is, not much.

Now a sub that could be useful in this kind of role, and also fulfill a strategic deterrent role at the same time, makes a lot of economic sense. Especially for a nation like the UK, with major commitments and a limited budget.

The situation right now, where the RN has a small force of very expensive, very capable, high-tech, uberquiet boats that essentially do nothing except patrol & train against the unlikely event of a large scale nuclear conflict, seems impractical.

I wouldn't be surprised in the long term to see the US follow a similar route, with the follow on to the Ohios combining the SSBN & SSGN roles.



[edit on 6/24/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Unknown to most peoples and deliberately cultivated...submarines do not do nothing when they go out.

Yes they do train..no doubt ..constantly...they must to maintain thier skill levels...but their number one job potential when on any patrol is to gather intelligence..of all types. on the surface or underneath the surface. They are ideal platforms for this. I will grant you now that every navy ship can do this and does. But submarnines are ideal for this because of their inherent stealth capabilities. The nuclear platforms have only enhanced this intelligence gathering with endurance capabilities.

This is a specialty feature of submarines not usually promoted among the public because of the bad connotations that intelligence gathering gives off among the public not to mention that this area becomes very very classified as to potential and capabilities.

Yes ..they are very expensive platforms ...no doubt about it. So the use is one which is particularly husbanded for critical roles...usually roles in which thier special capabilities are of great importance in accomplishing these tasks.

This submarine service here in the states is often refered to as the "Silent Service." This is a title especially earned by generations of submariners. It is no accident.

Yes I also agree with some kind of combined roles..as the technology is changing rapidly as to the tasks and how they will be accomplished.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Unknown to most peoples and deliberately cultivated...submarines do not do nothing when they go out.

Yes they do train..no doubt ..constantly...they must to maintain thier skill levels...but their number one job potential when on any patrol is to gather intelligence..of all types. on the surface or underneath the surface. They are ideal platforms for this. I will grant you now that every navy ship can do this and does. But submarnines are ideal for this because of their inherent stealth capabilities. The nuclear platforms have only enhanced this intelligence gathering with endurance capabilities.

This is a specialty feature of submarines not usually promoted among the public because of the bad connotations that intelligence gathering gives off among the public not to mention that this area becomes very very classified as to potential and capabilities.

Yes ..they are very expensive platforms ...no doubt about it. So the use is one which is particularly husbanded for critical roles...usually roles in which thier special capabilities are of great importance in accomplishing these tasks.

This submarine service here in the states is often refered to as the "Silent Service." This is a title especially earned by generations of submariners. It is no accident.

Yes I also agree with some kind of combined roles..as the technology is changing rapidly as to the tasks and how they will be accomplished.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Thanks Orangetom maybe it's not such a crazy idea.

I agree with Infinite, we should explore the options with France if we want a truly independent capability. At the very least it'd give us a bargaining chip if we did buy Ameican



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I wasn't referring to submarines in general but to SSBN's specifically.

I am aware of the important surveillance role submarines play, though I am interested in how much of this type of work SSBN's do while on deterrence patrol. If it's true, then SSBN's are already participating in a mission commonly thought of as an attack sub role, giving some credence to the argument referenced by the original poster.

[edit on 6/27/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I will give you a example of what submarines do..not much of a example but more by contrast.

More advanced nations in the technological arena...use satellites to gather information. This also means these advanced nations also know what other nations satellites are doing and what thier capabilities are with thier satellites. The orbits of satellites are know propertys of physics. THe high points and low points of orbits are known. As I recall this is known as apogee and perigee. This means it is also known when a satellite is deliberately retasked to change positions in space. No doubt we also monitor the command signals ...from the launch/control command centers of our opposition.
It now becomes a exercise in predicting or knowing when the satellite is overhead to gather its information.
There are certain intelligence jobs for which submarines are more ideally suited than satellites since the locations of our submarines are not predictable as are sattelites. You see???

Remember now ...there is work going on in which drones are launched from submarines. Not all of them are weapons ..launchs from submarines tubes. Combine this with digital controls and stealth...both in the submarine and the drone...this represents a quantum leap in information gathering..not necessarily picture/photo data..but signals emissions too. And all under the stealth umbrella.
It is a different day..than what most people know or can think through.

Those of you familiar with the model airplane industry and their products..take a close look at how far the industry has come in the last 20 years. A quantum leap in technology advancement. And it is advancing even faster today. Think about what this means..and not just as a hobby.
Seems to me the Discovery Channel has done several programs on Model airplanes/drones and the advanced technology in this field. I dont know if they have combined this with submarine technology but to do so is not a quantum leap in thinking.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I do not believe we will be doing many joint military ventures with France in this field.

The number one reason for this is political instability. France is not as predictable or dependable in this field as we would like.

France has consistently demonstrated a position contrary to the intrests of the United States since the 1960s and Charles De Gaulle telling us we had to leave France with our military presence. While we maintain Ambassadors in France and vice versa....France had not shown itself to be dependable outside of certain arenas...politically.

As I recall..during the unrest with Libya in the 1980s...the Air strike on Libya..France declined our request to fly over their air space..necessating a longer inbound and return trip. More inflight refuelings were required.

It has also been discovered...albet ..downplayed in the media..as to how deeply France and Germany both were involved with the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein.
Notice this is no longer an angle you hear about at all in the media... Nor from this administration. It is being deliberately downplayed...for political reasons.

Nevertheless..I dont see it happening simply because of the long track record of politically undependability/unreliability of the French Government.

Think this through carefully.
Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join