What's an attack sub any good for?

[Hurricane144]

My theory is that they are basically all about choosing only the fights they want. I do t think they do anything better than air or surface assets once we're talking trading blows. They certainly have an exclusive ability to track and attack boomers under ice and they have some loiter advantages when trying to find other submarines. (Ships and air can't monitor a spot acoustically without being known and vulnerable.)

Is there anything else besides engagement selection and anti-sub stationing they are better at than a surface or air package of equivalent cost investment?

I guess some situation might arise where enemy anti air and anti surface is strong and their anti sub is weak, too. Special cases such as that.

[cf_dallas]

Killing big expensive targets:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-to ... 81fbc518fd

A quick Google search for "sub kills carrier" turns up lots of exercises where things don't go particularly well for the CVBGs ASW folks.

[dcpollay]

Fleet in Being.

The presence of a hostile submarine in an operating area (or even the suspicion of a sub) sends Task Force commanders into a tizzy and alters the basic operations in that area. Defenders have no choice but to assume the worst, and even if there is no actual sub there, a lot of resources get devoted and diverted to sanitizing the area and protecting whatever assets are threatened.

[TonyAAA]

Delivering naval mines to enemy harbors and choke points is something modern attack subs can do very well.

Mines aren't a particularly glamorous part of naval war but can be hugely important. Even the threat of being able to mine certain areas (like say, the entrance to the Persian Gulf) plays a role in geopolitics.

[Sakai007]

Submarines are my favorite ISR platform when we are talking air/naval engagements. They can pick up ESM hits at very large distances, most often out of range to be counter detected by radar that can spot a periscope. As far as nuclear powered attack subs go, you can put them down to almost crush depth and go to an area at flank speed without cavitation, then slow down and come to a more shallow depth and listen in on whats going on. SSK's aren't as fast, but they are nigh undetectable except at extremely close range of if you do something stupid. Someone on these forums once called them 'mobile minefields' and i think it's an apt description. The mere threat of a modern SSK being in your neighborhood requires extensive ASW efforts to transit safely, and even then one might slip through.

[comsubpac]

They are also good for surveillance and for supporting special forces.
A ship is, comparatively, easy to find. With a submarine you can never be sure.

[Gunner98]

Plausible deniability - peacetime surveillance that 'isn't there' and would take some significant diplomatic and military effort for a country to prove that it was happening.

B

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Hurricane144
Is there anything else besides engagement selection and anti-sub stationing they are better at than a surface or air package of equivalent cost investment?

I disagree with your notion that a platform must be universally better at some mission in order to be a justifiable expense. In reality most platforms have an array of capabilities all of moderate effectiveness. One typically uses a combination of platforms with complimentary capabilities to perform a given mission the idea being that if one platform fails the other will pick up the slack.

Attack submarines are good at intelligence gathering, providing locations of targets to other platforms so that they can strike them.

Attack submarines are good at anti-submarine warfare, and have certain advantages over other platforms in terms of their ability to employ sensors, and their covertness.

Attack submarines are good at attacking surface vessels. They can often achieve surprise and their covertness often gives them a first shot advantage.

Attack submarines are good at strike warfare. Their covertness allows them to employ land attack cruise missiles from positions which minimize the vulnerability of the raid to fighters and SAMs.

Are they universally the best platform for any of these tasks? Well... not necessarily it all depends.

Up close to an enemy coast line, I probably wouldn't want to use a surface ship or aircraft to do any sort of loitering and intelligence gathering. Both would be vulnerable to attack by land based weapons and aircraft as well as submarines. The surface ship would be vulnerable to mines.

Similarly, at ASW I probably wouldn't put an MPA or surface ship right outside an enemy's harbor, because they'd be attacked by land based aircraft and missiles. The surface ship would be vulnerable to submarines and mines.

At attacking surface vessels, sure an aircraft or surface vessel can do it too, but their ASCM raid might be shot down just as easily as torpedoes can be evaded and a submarine's ASCMs can be shot down. The best approach is actually to use assets in combination.

At strike warfare, yes, aircraft can do it too, and are probably more versatile in the role, but using a submarine's LACMs to hit some targets while your aircraft hit others frees aircraft to do other things (like DCA, or more strike sorties for example).

I think that claiming any one platform is a silver bullet for all missions is a mistake. What you really want is a wide range of capabilities that enable you to marshal combination of forces which you can best apply to take advantage of the vulerabilities of a particular situation. The over all result is much more effective than any single platform or platform type individually.

[Hurricane144]

Thanks for the answers. Is a carrier attack a suicide mission for an attack sub?

[Hurricane144]

SeaQueen,

The qestion of cost-effectiveness is definitely not cut and dry. Not always. Sometimes though, it is. A Virginia class submarine costs as much as 139 F-16's. If I have the option of adding 140 aircraft to an attack or one submarine, the sub better be WAAAY better at the job.

[comsubpac]

U24 managed to "sink" the USS Enterprise back in 2001. The Klasse 206 was small, outdated and designed for a different task. The Klasse 212A is supposed to be virtually undetectable.

[Hurricane144]

I think there was a Swedish sub that sunk an American carrier during wargames too.

[SeaQueen]

Okay... let's think about this:

A CSG has 5 DDGs. Each of those DDGs carries 96 surface to air missiles, for a total of 480. If each of your 140 F-16s (or similar fighter-bombers) carries 2 ASCMs, that's 280 missiles. Depending on what your Phit is for the surface to air missiles, you can potentially annihilate the entire raid without necessarily even emptying the magazines. That isn't even taking into account the effects of the surrounding defensive counter air assets. Those aircraft will most likely take some losses as they approach their target, reducing their salvo size. Who says that you're going to be able to put all of your 140 airplanes in the air anyhow? Maintenance requirements mean that only a fraction of them will be available on a given day, that means your sortie size (and the salvo size that results from it) will be even smaller. On top of that, air bases are subject to attack from aircraft and ballistic missiles. You might not even be able to get those aircraft up at all if the airfield is closed.

On the other hand, a relatively small salvo of torpedoes from a single SSN is almost certainly going to hit something. Furthermore it might continue on and sink other things over the course of time as well. They remain on station for months at a time, and aren't constrained by the ability of air bases to operate. Even if the SSN doesn't necessarily always make the attack, their onboard sensors make attack by other platforms possible so that other platforms (like aircraft) can make the attack at some point in the future.

This isn't to say I favor aircraft over submarines, because I don't. Rather, each of these systems represents multiple methods of attack against a given target. All of those methods might fail. In combination, however, locating a target with an SSN, attacking it with aircraft and torpedoes, draws down the enemy forces much more quickly.

ORIGINAL: Hurricane144

SeaQueen,

The qestion of cost-effectiveness is definitely not cut and dry. Not always. Sometimes though, it is. A Virginia class submarine costs as much as 139 F-16's. If I have the option of adding 140 aircraft to an attack or one submarine, the sub better be WAAAY better at the job.

[mikmykWS]

Big expensive SSN's are good at lots of things but they were initially designed for long endurance patrol missions to hunt other subs (specifically SSBN's). This involves deep depth searches and hunts under the ice packs which surface ships don't do as well.

Antisurface warfare is another important role and their stealth and endurance is a key factor in their success at doing this. You know this because when nations can't afford massive surface navies but have adversaries with these they often buy submarines.

Mike

[jtoatoktoe]

ORIGINAL: Hurricane144

I think there was a Swedish sub that sunk an American carrier during wargames too.

Yup and the U.S. borrowed the sub and crew for 2 years in San Diego to train and try to understand them better.

I've always thought the U.S. should build a small fleet of these AIP boats for certain operations. A better choice in shallow water areas.

[cf_dallas]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Okay... let's think about this:

A CSG has 5 DDGs. Each of those DDGs carries 96 surface to air missiles, for a total of 480. If each of your 140 F-16s (or similar fighter-bombers) carries 2 ASCMs, that's 280 missiles. Depending on what your Phit is for the surface to air missiles, you can potentially annihilate the entire raid without necessarily even emptying the magazines. That isn't even taking into account the effects of the surrounding defensive counter air assets. Those aircraft will most likely take some losses as they approach their target, reducing their salvo size. Who says that you're going to be able to put all of your 140 airplanes in the air anyhow? Maintenance requirements mean that only a fraction of them will be available on a given day, that means your sortie size (and the salvo size that results from it) will be even smaller. On top of that, air bases are subject to attack from aircraft and ballistic missiles. You might not even be able to get those aircraft up at all if the airfield is closed.

On the other hand, a relatively small salvo of torpedoes from a single SSN is almost certainly going to hit something. Furthermore it might continue on and sink other things over the course of time as well. They remain on station for months at a time, and aren't constrained by the ability of air bases to operate. Even if the SSN doesn't necessarily always make the attack, their onboard sensors make attack by other platforms possible so that other platforms (like aircraft) can make the attack at some point in the future.

This isn't to say I favor aircraft over submarines, because I don't. Rather, each of these systems represents multiple methods of attack against a given target. All of those methods might fail. In combination, however, locating a target with an SSN, attacking it with aircraft and torpedoes, draws down the enemy forces much more quickly.

ORIGINAL: Hurricane144

SeaQueen,

The qestion of cost-effectiveness is definitely not cut and dry. Not always. Sometimes though, it is. A Virginia class submarine costs as much as 139 F-16's. If I have the option of adding 140 aircraft to an attack or one submarine, the sub better be WAAAY better at the job.

And in addition to all that, the Virginia SSN IS $2.6B, in 2015. Modern fighters go for $100M+ (see the Brazil Gripen buy, the Iraq F-16 buy, etc). There hasn't been a modern western fighter selling for $20M for a long time. So you're not looking at 140 fighters, equal money gets you 20-30 fighters today. A lot less if your target is defended (you need jammers) or more than 400 miles away (you need tankers).

[Hurricane144]

I think I'd take 140 Mig-29's even. I get what you're saying though. Something about the way T-34's worked in WW2 impressed upon me the importance of numbers over quality. The other thing I think highly of are dummy attacks and flooding an area with targets. (Drones, etc.)

[SeaQueen]

In an ideal world, you'd have lots and lots of super-powered weapons. Reality is you get a few super-platforms and never enough smaller platforms with less firepower.

The important thing isn't the individual platforms. In the terms of Von Clausewitz, it's the ability to concentrate sufficient firepower on an enemy's center(s) of gravity. There are definitely those who would argue in favor of lots and lots of small, cheap, heavily armed craft (e.g fighter-bombers, drones or missile boats). Massed fighter-bombers can bring a lot to bear, but even with the gigantic raid you described, it's not enough. You need more. Torpedoes and ASCMs from attack submarines and ASCMs from surface vessels add more firepower to the mix. Ballistic missiles bring more firepower to bear. The problem is that it's generally impossible to get enough small cheap platforms together to concentrate enough firepower on the enemy's center of gravity, that's where the big "heavy hitters" come in.

It needn't necessarily be an aircraft carrier either, it might be an airfield protected by a combination of strategic and point defense SAMs, as well as AAA guns. It might be a tank farm, industrial park, oil facility or C3 node.

Air launched decoys job is to get a given target to exhaust it's magazine on decoys so the real raid is more likely to succeed.

ORIGINAL: Hurricane144

I think I'd take 140 Mig-29's even. I get what you're saying though. Something about the way T-34's worked in WW2 impressed upon me the importance of numbers over quality. The other thing I think highly of are dummy attacks and flooding an area with targets. (Drones, etc.)

[Hurricane144]

So when does the DND hire us?

[SeaQueen]

I already have a job.

ORIGINAL: Hurricane144

So when does the DND hire us?