# The Roles of Submarines



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

At the end of his naval warfare book The Price of Admiralty, military historian John Keegan postulates that eventually, almost all roles of surface warships will be taken over by submarines, as they will be the only naval units capable of evading the increasing intelligence capabilities (space satellites, airplanes etc.) that a fight between evenly matched modern states could bring to bear on them.


Like I said Subs are important.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2008)

Unfortunately, your quote hasn't been true for over fifty years.  Submarines have some stealth capabilites, but there are numerous sensors other than those quoted that are used to detect and track them.  Nuclear submarines are the most easily tracked of the lot.


----------



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

It's true in the sense that the sub could take on most roles.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2008)

It is still exceedingly difficult to pick up a sub. Sonar Ops have to be well trained to know what to listen for, for that matter all Sensor Operators and look outs have to be well trained to be able to spot periscopes, snorkles etc. Finding a sub these days is still like finding a needle in the proverbial haystack. Thank Gawd we have aircraft to help us.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2008)

Future_Soldier said:
			
		

> It's true in the sense that the sub could take on most roles.



No! it is not.  It can not launch a fleet of Aircraft.  An Aircraft Carrier can.  Subs alone cannot defend Aircraft Carriers.  Aircraft Carriers need a fleet of surface ships for defence and supply/support.  Subs can not do that.  Submarines are part of a "Defence TEAM".  They have an important role to play, but they will not be able to undertake all the roles called upon the Navy to fill.


----------



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

Actually they could launch aircraft. Heres a link to a WW2 submarine aircraft carrier,

http://www.amazing-planet.net/I-400.html


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2008)

Future_Soldier said:
			
		

> Actually they could launch aircraft.



That would be one big sub to launch a fleet of aircraft as found in a Naval Air Wing.  Such a sub could never make port, as it would probably not have the draft to get in.

One plane per sub is not a Naval Air Arm, unless you are going to have a number of subs equalling the number of aircraft in a Naval Air Arm.  What a waste of money.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2008)

Future_Soldier said:
			
		

> Actually they could launch aircraft. Heres a link to a WW2 submarine aircraft carrier,
> 
> http://www.amazing-planet.net/I-400.html



Wrong term actually...it was an aircraft carrying submarine _ not_ an submarine aircraft carrier. The only practical aircraft these days a submarine _may_ consider are UAVs, but even then launching aircraft goes contrary to what a submarine hopes to accomplish in this century.

A submarine wants to be able to place its weapons on target(including personnel) without being detected by aircraft, other submarines and surface vessels.


----------



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

George could you take these posts and put them in its own topic with the title of Submarines and there roles.


----------



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

Thanks alot didn't want to disrupt the other topic. Ex-Dragoon With the development of the STOVL aircraft all you would need is enough room for maybe 3 aircraft, and enough room for it to take off.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2008)

That would be a lot of gases that would need to be vented off, plus you would need a deck that would be even more reinforced. Plus a STOVL aircraft still taxis to takes off, a ramp would only add to its radar cross section.Even with 3 aircraft today trying to support that flight with spare parts, maintenance crew, weapons, mission packs. There is not a lot of space on a sub to begin with. Rerolling an SSBN might do it but an SSBM needs deep water to operate in, what happens if its detected? One or more aircrew might not make it back if their sub is forced deep


----------



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

I didn't take the spare parts,etc into consideration. Also the leaving a bird in the air would be bad, but theres a problem with carriers to, if the carrier was sunk while birds were on sorties then where are they to go?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2008)

But whats escorting a submarine? A USN carrier operates in a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) which generally has a cruiser, 2-4 destroyers, maybe a frigate, an SSN and a tanker. Its a lot harder to kill a carrier then a sub. As soon as a sub spots a potential foe it dives. A submarines best defence is being able to stay submerged. Embarking aircraft removes that and makes it a liability and a major waste of resources.


----------



## guns_and_roses (2 Jan 2008)

That is true, you have proved my idea as stupid . Thanks alot for the help. 

(No sarcasm intended)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Jan 2008)

As wil look at it this way...if it had some viability do you not think one of the major navies in the world would have refined it to make it work? After all look how long the Harrier has now been around as well as SSBNs? The Russians and the US like technologies that put them ahead of the other.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jan 2008)

To me a sub is sort of an area denial weapon. in sense a mobile minefield, which forces your opponent to react in a certain way or expend resources in countering it. Most of the older subs would be a  one attack deal against a modern navy, however if they were able to cripple a US carrier, it would be a significant event, even if the sub did not survive. The more modern subs don't have to get so close, but the further away you attack from, the longer the opponent has to react. The modern sub is certain a huge threat to most 2-3 third world navies, as the Argentineans found out.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jan 2008)

Any submarine whether old or not, if properly maintained and crewed can be a threat even to the most modern navies. Go down to Sub Squadron and see the pictures of a variety of airccraft carriers and other capital ships taken from an O Boat's periscope just illustrates the threat a sub, _any_ sub can be.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jan 2008)

Also keep in mind, that it is not just the sub that is the threat, but the weapons it has on board. Some can travel pretty damn far to reach its target...perfect example would be the SS-N-19 "Shipwreck". Can travel 600km to reach its target!!! HOLY CRAP!!  lol


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2008)

Springroll said:
			
		

> perfect example would be the SS-N-19 "Shipwreck". Can travel 600km to reach its target!!! HOLY CRAP!!  lol



Its a little more complicated than that but your point is valid.

The missile has a very long range but the target has to be provided and updated for the sub by another asset such as an MPA in order to fire at max range.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jan 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Its a little more complicated than that but your point is valid.
> 
> The missile has a very long range but the target has to be provided and updated for the sub by another asset such as an MPA in order to fire at max range.



I agree...just didn't want to go into too much detail. My lunch hour is only so long...lol


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2008)

The power of the submarine rests in its potential and its stealth.  ONE submarine in 1982 forced the entire Argentine fleet back into port when it sunk the General Belgrano (spelling) as Colin P alluded to.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> The power of the submarine rests in its potential and its stealth.  ONE submarine in 1982 forced the entire Argentine fleet back into port when it sunk the General Belgrano (spelling) as Colin P alluded to.



If I recall correctly, it was two Mk8 mod 4 torps that took it down, right?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (10 Jan 2008)

Two hits with 1930's vintage Mk VIII torpedoes, out of a salvo of 3.


----------



## Springroll (10 Jan 2008)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Two hits with 1930's vintage Mk VIII torpedoes, out of a salvo of 3.



That is awesome! 
I wasn't too sure if I remembered it correctly or not.


----------



## gwp (2 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The only practical aircraft these days a submarine _may_ consider are UAVs, but even then launching aircraft goes contrary to what a submarine hopes to accomplish in this century. A submarine wants to be able to place its weapons on target(including personnel) without being detected by aircraft, other submarines and surface vessels.


You predicted it here .. Cormorant submarine launch UAV. No requirement to surface for launch or recovery

http://g35driver.com/forums/lounge-off-topic/236339-lockheed-cormorant-sub-launch-recover-uav.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIbOoBtqA-I


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2008)

The Iranian's are way ahead of us   ;D

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a6_1217641838


----------

