Conventional Submarine based 2nd Strike Capability

[SABRE]

For a research purpose I would like opinion & information on pros & cons of dependability on a Conventional Submarine (SSK) to carry out a nuclear strike or deterrent sail with nuclear tipped cruise missiles as opposed to a nuclear submarine, particularly the Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN).
​

 

[Quiller]

For a research purpose I would like opinion & information on pros & cons of dependability on a Conventional Submarine (SSK) to carry out a nuclear strike or deterrent sail with nuclear tipped cruise missiles as opposed to a nuclear submarine, particularly the Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN).
​

You are a superMod so you'll probably slap me down for this... but your post, as I read through it, appeared unintelligible. I actually work in the area of SLBM strategies... so... could you, sort of rephrase your question?

Are you asking about the relative deterrent effects of subs capable of cruise missile launched nukes versus the deterrent effects submarine launched ICBM launched nukes? Isn't this a request for a comparison in violation of the rules?

 

[Quiller]

For a research purpose I would like opinion & information on pros & cons of dependability on a Sonventional Submarine (SSK) to carry out a nuclear strike or deterrent sail with nuclear tipped cruise missiles as opposed to a nuclear submarine, particularly the Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN).
​

That being said.. a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Though the deterrent effect of an ICBM, such as Trident or Bulava, I would think is based on psychology.. A larger bang will always be perceived as... well. a larger bang. So we are dealing with fear factors here. A nuke cruise missile will airburst much lower over a target, and probably be pretty target specific. That is less likely, I would guess, to paralyze a population with fear, as would an ICBM expected to incinerate an entire city or region.

 

[StingrayOZ]

For a research purpose I would like opinion & information on pros & cons of dependability on a Sonventional Submarine (SSK) to carry out a nuclear strike or deterrent sail with nuclear tipped cruise missiles as opposed to a nuclear submarine, particularly the Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN).
​

Firstly cruise missiles are completely different to ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles are able to be intercepted by relatively common systems commonly found on ships and aircraft. Ballistic missiles have much greater range are much much harder to intercept particularly with multiple re-entry vehicles.

A SSK has limited transit capability to manoeuvre to be able to fire cruise missiles. A few days at silent running and a few days on station. Its typically not suited for the transoceanic voyages SSBN's go on nor can they sustain on station for any decent length of time. Nor are they able to move out of area afterwards.

 

[Quiller]

Firstly cruise missiles are completely different to ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles are able to be intercepted by relatively common systems commonly found on ships and aircraft. Ballistic missiles have much greater range are much much harder to intercept particularly with multiple re-entry vehicles.

A SSK has limited transit capability to manoeuvre to be able to fire cruise missiles. A few days at silent running and a few days on station. Its typically not suited for the transoceanic voyages SSBN's go on nor can they sustain on station for any decent length of time. Nor are they able to move out of area afterwards.

I agree completely regarding this post. The bottom line is SSK's really are tactical platforms, while SSBN's are strategic platforms. A submarine capable of launching ICBM's also has more hide capability due to the range of it's missiles.
But the case remains complicated by perceptions, Israel is not believed to be in a position to field ICBM equippped submarines... but is highly suspected of fielding subs that can launch nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Wthin their sphere of influence, one can imagine the nuke cruise missile results in a significant deterrent effect. This inquiry does not lend itself to a simple answer it seems. For your research project, you probably must flesh out a lot of details and specifics to arrive at valid conclusions for different strategic and tactical theaters.

 

[OpinionNoted]

For a research purpose I would like opinion & information on pros & cons of dependability on a Conventional Submarine (SSK) to carry out a nuclear strike or deterrent sail with nuclear tipped cruise missiles as opposed to a nuclear submarine, particularly the Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN).
​

A convential subs pros-its firing nuclear tipped cruise missiles as opposed to one that not.

cons-speed/endurance.

What about feilding an ssbk?...improved endurance.Dont know what kinda speed you could build a convential to.

 

[MrConservative]

You are a superMod so you'll probably slap me down for this... but your post, as I read through it, appeared unintelligible. I actually work in the area of SLBM strategies... so... could you, sort of rephrase your question?

Are you asking about the relative deterrent effects of subs capable of cruise missile launched nukes versus the deterrent effects submarine launched ICBM launched nukes? Isn't this a request for a comparison in violation of the rules?

Sabre's request for information on this subject is entirely valid as the comaprison sort was not platform specific. He is quite entitled to ask for information and seek opinions about such subject matter and indeed he added the caveat for research purposes. Lets focus on giving quality replies rather than been cheeky.

 

[1805]

Didn't a U212 sail from Kiel to Cadiz in 2 weeks without surfacing. I think much would depend on the other sides anti submarine and anti missile capabilities. I suspect only a handful of navies can hunt subs effectively; defending against an attacking sub is very different from finding one that is just trying to get lost. But shooting down a cruise missile maybe not so challenging.

 

[ProM]

Shooting down a cruise missile is quite challenging, but is more easily achievable than a defence against a multiple RV, manoeuvring ICBM. A cruise missile also has more limited range and may require transit through a friendly or neutral airspace which may be no small complication if it has a nuclear warhead.

An SSK is a tough target to find in the short term, but obviously provides opportunities for detection. A hostile nation could in theory exploit such an opportunity at a time of their choosing to initiate a first strike which takes out the deterrent at the same time. They could (in peacetime) devote large resources to finding such an opportunity knowing that they only strike if such an opportunity arises, whereas for conventional ASW warfare that is not an option

A ballistic missile submarine also has to be quite large, which negates some of the advantages of an SSK and makes nuclear propulsion more attractive, as does the endurance as already stated

Some of the newer technologies for SSK may make them more attractive, but I don't think they are mature enough to be relied upon for the deterrent yet

 

[1805]

Prehaps we are looking at this the wrong way. Does the classic SSBN make sense for say India. Their missiles are fairly short range, but then the target (if Pakistan is fairly near, if China not so useful?), but you could claim a single SSBN on patrol is "all their eggs in one basket". Also there is limited value other than as a deterrent in the SSBN, a huge investment in a system never likely to be used.

If however you have 20 SSK, you can use for many purposes (the same would also be true of a SSN), and who would know which one, or if all had 2-3 nuclear tipped cruise missiles onboard.

Big danger, who would know if an incoming cruise missile was a conventional or nuke, could trigger a first strike?

 

[StevoJH]

Just a quick point, don't throw all Conventional Submarines into the same basket in terms of capabilities.

A Japanese Soryu or Australian Collins class submarine is larger, has much longer endurance and has much more electrical generating capability (especially then Collins) then say a German Type 212 class Submarine.

Using data from wiki as an example, Wiki states that the U212 has an MTU 16V 396 engine, the MTU website states it as having a maximum power of 2150kW. That is approximately half of the 4,200kW of generating capacity of a Collins has (3x 1,400kW generators linked to its diesels).

 

[Belesari]

Just a quick point, don't throw all Conventional Submarines into the same basket in terms of capabilities.

A Japanese Soryu or Australian Collins class submarine is larger, has much longer endurance and has much more electrical generating capability (especially then Collins) then say a German Type 212 class Submarine.

Using data from wiki as an example, Wiki states that the U212 has an MTU 16V 396 engine, the MTU website states it as having a maximum power of 2150kW. That is approximately half of the 4,200kW of generating capacity of a Collins has (3x 1,400kW generators linked to its diesels).

Thats one of the things about weapons they are many times dependent upon the users needs. Japan and Australia need much longer ranged Subs and ships than your typical user. So their subs are larger and more powerful.

Its one reason why the US uses Nuclear powered subs.

And i would submit to the question asked that a sub such as the US SSGN is in some ways superior to the SSBN in first strike. Much harder to hand what? 177 Cruise missiles with nuclear tiped heads as well as much cheaper.

I believe the US took their nuclear warheads for cruise missiles out od service under start. It was one of those political decissions more than technical or strategic.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Thats one of the things about weapons they are many times dependent upon the users needs. Japan and Australia need much longer ranged Subs and ships than your typical user. So their subs are larger and more powerful.

Its one reason why the US uses Nuclear powered subs.

And i would submit to the question asked that a sub such as the US SSGN is in some ways superior to the SSBN in first strike. Much harder to hand what? 177 Cruise missiles with nuclear tiped heads as well as much cheaper.

I believe the US took their nuclear warheads for cruise missiles out od service under start. It was one of those political decissions more than technical or strategic.

Your up late tonight Tennessee boy, This is one of those questions, the nuclear force may be further reduced, "after the election, when I have more flexibility?" No wonder you can't sleep, with mr. flexible at the helm. It does come come back to circumstances, and why would you do this in the first place. If you are relatively close to a lightly defended target, you have a high probability of a succesfull first strike, especially if they are not looking for you. So it would depend on what your objective was geographically, as well as militarily, if you intend to take out the other guys command and control and his follow on strike capability. So while it is a great question Sabre, and one I will admit had crossed my mind in passing, the negatives always precluded a great deal of excitement in my mind, but that being said AIP and other conventional advances in capabilities do suggest that it has at least a marginal to good chance of success?

 

[971]

@ SABRE

A complete answer to your inquiry about the dependability mentioned based on pros and cons would probably end up with a long list of critical factors from the differences in building methods and materials and to the final mission envelope of a nuclear vs. conventional submarine.

I will try not to do that and try to address the topic by mentioning the general defining attributes for a conventional sub.

Conventional submarines are ideal for littoral/coastal deployments. Protection of coastal waters where you don’t need the huge investments and capabilities of the nuclear boats. They have a limited range and endurance and certainly a far more limited speed. The coastal range of operational sectors gives them plenty of advantages of shallow waters, fjords, gulfs, bases etc. where they could reach immediately without the need of high submerged speeds if they need to quickly get out of harm’s way. So close to the shores, they can also benefit of a plethora of supporting platforms from friendly surface assets to friendly air support. It’s a well-known fact that a conventional sub with its electric engines is the quietest one submerged. Very difficult to detect and track, especially in shallow waters. But this quietness in a way turns against it in case of detection and prosecution by ASW platforms. Because in this case a sub needs speed. And they lack it being dependent of its battery endurance. When you have to get out from a hot zone a submerge speed of 15 knots won’t cut it. Any higher speed than that and your battery endurance will drop dramatically even further.

So they can be useful in carrying SLCM attacks against a neighboring country (or at least one which is situated pretty close), probable targets being shore installations or targets farther inland. But personally I find this kind of mission as a highly risky one. Once those missiles break the surface you’re spotted in various ways. Being so close to the shores of the enemy the subsequent ASW prosecution will be on top of you in matter of minutes. For a fair chance to safely get away – from a submarine point of view – you need three crucial things: speed, deep sounding and then quietness. In this case, a conventional sub has only one of them. It won’t be enough.
A SSBK? It will never happen. Not because it’s impossible but because building something like that will be as useful as a 18th Century “Man of war” in a 21st Century naval warfare.

With a nuclear powered sub, you’re really in a totally different ball-game. Why anybody bother then to build SSKs still? Lots of reasons. But chief among them is the cost, lack of experience/tradition in nuclear underwater propulsion and national naval doctrine.

 

[Belesari]

Your up late tonight Tennessee boy, This is one of those questions, the nuclear force may be further reduced, "after the election, when I have more flexibility?" No wonder you can't sleep, with mr. flexible at the helm. It does come come back to circumstances, and why would you do this in the first place. If you are relatively close to a lightly defended target, you have a high probability of a succesfull first strike, especially if they are not looking for you. So it would depend on what your objective was geographically, as well as militarily, if you intend to take out the other guys command and control and his follow on strike capability. So while it is a great question Sabre, and one I will admit had crossed my mind in passing, the negatives always precluded a great deal of excitement in my mind, but that being said AIP and other conventional advances in capabilities do suggest that it has at least a marginal to good chance of success?

Right on all counts there. I believe that there is speculation that the israelies may have modified their dolphin class subs with the ability to launch SLCM with nuclear tipped warheads.

 

[Jhom]

Right on all counts there. I believe that there is speculation that the israelies may have modified their dolphin class subs with the ability to launch SLCM with nuclear tipped warheads.

Well the isreali case is really complicated because of the "nuclear ambiguity" policy, if they dont admit to have nuclear weapons at first they certainly wont admit they have submarines with nuclear weapons onboard, but...

As far as I know that speculation is in reality a well know fact, they do have those missiles onboard armed with nuclear warheads, and whats more, one german ex-secretary of defence (Lothar Rühl) stated that the German goverment knows this perfectly.

Link to the article on Der Spiegel: Israel Deploys Nuclear Weapons on German Submarines - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Cheers, and once again I apologize on advandce for the low quality of my english.

 

[Zhaow]

Isn't the Russians pitching a conventional SSK Strike Submarine called the Amur class submarine. They are coming out with two versions of the Amur class submarine called the Amur-1650 and Amur-950. The Amur 950 would have the capability to carry like a SLBM, the BrahMos missile. The Amur-1650 would be an upgrade of the Lada and Kilo class SSK.

Amur-1650
http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/en/projects/naval_engineering/conventional_submarines/amur_1650/

Amur-950
http://www.ckb-rubin.ru/en/projects/naval_engineering/conventional_submarines/amur_950/

Here's the link
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amur_class_submarine"]Amur class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Belesari]

Well the isreali case is really complicated because of the "nuclear ambiguity" policy, if they dont admit to have nuclear weapons at first they certainly wont admit they have submarines with nuclear weapons onboard, but...

As far as I know that speculation is in reality a well know fact, they do have those missiles onboard armed with nuclear warheads, and whats more, one german ex-secretary of defence (Lothar Rühl) stated that the German goverment knows this perfectly.

Link to the article on Der Spiegel: Israel Deploys Nuclear Weapons on German Submarines - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Cheers, and once again I apologize on advandce for the low quality of my english.

Yea everyone knows the israelies have them and probably have warheads for man weapon systems.

However there is nothing wrong with that sense they never signed the nuclear proliferation treaty.

 

[971]

Isn't the Russians pitching a conventional SSK Strike Submarine called the Amur class submarine. They are coming out with two versions of the Amur class submarine called the Amur-1650 and Amur-950. The Amur 950 would have the capability to carry like a SLBM, the BrahMos missile. The Amur-1650 would be an upgrade of the Lada and Kilo class SSK. - Zhaow

The planned Amur class is basically the export version of Projekt 877 Lada.
Both versions are SSKs, albeit the 950 will basically be an SSGK. Brahmos is a cruise and not a ballistic missile.

 

[STURM]

Why anybody bother then to build SSKs still? Lots of reasons. But chief among them is the cost, lack of experience/tradition in nuclear underwater propulsion and national naval doctrine.

I would say that for many navies, operational requirements, rather than doctrine or lack of experience is the reason why they operate SSKs and why they would have no need for SSNs [even if they could afford them] or ocean/deep water SSKs like the Collins or Kilo.