Submarine Tactics
- Thread starter Nautilus
- Start date
- Status
patience my son!Francois said:
Berserk Fury
New Member
My bad.
Haven't looked into sub warfare in a long time xP
Haven't looked into sub warfare in a long time xP
stephen weist
New Member
You do not need any fancy hardware to get at a US carrier, a daring canadian killed a carrier with a old Oberon class(even kept the scope pictures to prove it). It depends on crew skill.
Thats very true, but the Oberon was regarded (right up until the first Kilo was floated) as probably the best conventional in the world for its time. In some respects they are still acoustically superior to a some of the current kit still in service in some navies.stephen weist said:
There's been any number of subs that have killed carriers in DUCT, a few of those have been genuine, quite a few have been "assisted". But in general terms proficiency and training is more useful than shiny bits of gear.
Berserk Fury
New Member
lol
Interesting....
though it also depends on weather conditions etc.
Less quieter subs could also have nailed a carrier.
Interesting....
though it also depends on weather conditions etc.
Less quieter subs could also have nailed a carrier.
stephen weist
New Member
I think if I were go go after a carrier battle group it would be estenial to have realistic goals. firstly, the ultimate goal is to prevent the carrier from launching strikes at my country, secondly would be to sink or cripple it. give me 2 to 6 conventional oberons/uphoulders, armed with harpoons and mk48 torps. mast mounted stingers would be nice to deal with the helos. then go for the escorts, with enough of them gone the carrier would have to retire from the area. if you use 4 of your boats to take on the escorts you could ambush the carrier with the remaining two as it retires.
Berserk Fury
New Member
2-6 subs.
CBG's also have subs of their own... at least one.
Plus a few Aegis ships along with ASW frigates/destroyers/corvettes and ASW helos from the carrier itself.
The way I see it, the only way to get to the carrier is to sneak under the defenses, not blow a hole through it.
The moment your subs open fire, you'll give your position away.
Plus, most ships of the CBG. including the carrier, have CIWS which might be able to cut the number of direct harpoon hits by 1/2 along with the towed decoy for the carrier... it'd be pretty hard to score a hit on the carrier if the CBG is already expecting an attack or if it's under attack.
CBG's also have subs of their own... at least one.
Plus a few Aegis ships along with ASW frigates/destroyers/corvettes and ASW helos from the carrier itself.
The way I see it, the only way to get to the carrier is to sneak under the defenses, not blow a hole through it.
The moment your subs open fire, you'll give your position away.
Plus, most ships of the CBG. including the carrier, have CIWS which might be able to cut the number of direct harpoon hits by 1/2 along with the towed decoy for the carrier... it'd be pretty hard to score a hit on the carrier if the CBG is already expecting an attack or if it's under attack.
stephen weist
New Member
to defeat the carrier you dont have to directly attack it, all you have to do is prvent it from performing its mission. the group has limited asw assets available and by taking these away I doubt if a carrier would stay in the area too long. with 13 carriers operating the available asw platforms are spread very thin and would take sometime to shuffle.
Berserk Fury
New Member
But the ASW assets aren't that limited.
It's decent enough to take out a few subs.
To keep a carrier you have to prevent it from performing its mission.
How? by preventing it from launching planes.
So, in order to scare the carrier off, you have to make the subs known to the CBG which would just call in more subs to supplement the CGB.
It's decent enough to take out a few subs.
To keep a carrier you have to prevent it from performing its mission.
How? by preventing it from launching planes.
So, in order to scare the carrier off, you have to make the subs known to the CBG which would just call in more subs to supplement the CGB.
Not so sure where some of you are working out your ASW screen numbers from - but I don't think it's based on a CSF config for the last 30 years.
there are 11 x CSF's available. Basing the numbers on the smallest of the CSF's gives you a typical config.
Carrier + 4-6 ASW helos
1 x Tico (min) Air Warfare
2 x Air Warfare and GP skimmers (Usually AB's) + 2-4 ASW helos
2 x ASW (DDG/FFG's) + 2-4 x ASW Helos
Min of 1 nuke sub - usually 2.
Each ASW asset has access to it's on TASS derivative
Bear in mind that this is not the 7th Fleet (Pacific) which is considerably bigger and has more forces on tap + has access to a greater pool of reserve respondents like nukes, FFG/DDG's ASW, AWD and AirWarfare.
Assuming that half the helos are up, the subs are doing their guard work and the ships are in a normal disposition - then its going to take an overwhelming force to persistently breech the screen.
Thats not even looking at the issue that the USN may well profile ASW strike groups like they did in the Cold War days. The Soviets were far from confident of breaching the CSF in a period where they had far greater capability to bring persistence and saturation to the table. No other current non US navy is anywhere near the capability of the Soviet Unions anti-shipping model.
I would think anyone attempting to breech mulitple CSF's formed up into an Uber Task Group (a variation of the TF58 mentality) is going to find it very very difficult. Apart from the fact that Whiteman would have their homeports on their targetting list - and the fact that the current test trials using JDAMs etc is showing that the USAF can standoff and strike enemy assets well before they close on a CSF.
CSF's don't act like a fishing fleet, so I think maybe some people have this vision that the CSF is layed out like a D Day photo opp - they're not by a long shot. The layered zones of engagement and protection are significant and large (and are not going to appear in a public forum)
there are 11 x CSF's available. Basing the numbers on the smallest of the CSF's gives you a typical config.
Carrier + 4-6 ASW helos
1 x Tico (min) Air Warfare
2 x Air Warfare and GP skimmers (Usually AB's) + 2-4 ASW helos
2 x ASW (DDG/FFG's) + 2-4 x ASW Helos
Min of 1 nuke sub - usually 2.
Each ASW asset has access to it's on TASS derivative
Bear in mind that this is not the 7th Fleet (Pacific) which is considerably bigger and has more forces on tap + has access to a greater pool of reserve respondents like nukes, FFG/DDG's ASW, AWD and AirWarfare.
Assuming that half the helos are up, the subs are doing their guard work and the ships are in a normal disposition - then its going to take an overwhelming force to persistently breech the screen.
Thats not even looking at the issue that the USN may well profile ASW strike groups like they did in the Cold War days. The Soviets were far from confident of breaching the CSF in a period where they had far greater capability to bring persistence and saturation to the table. No other current non US navy is anywhere near the capability of the Soviet Unions anti-shipping model.
I would think anyone attempting to breech mulitple CSF's formed up into an Uber Task Group (a variation of the TF58 mentality) is going to find it very very difficult. Apart from the fact that Whiteman would have their homeports on their targetting list - and the fact that the current test trials using JDAMs etc is showing that the USAF can standoff and strike enemy assets well before they close on a CSF.
CSF's don't act like a fishing fleet, so I think maybe some people have this vision that the CSF is layed out like a D Day photo opp - they're not by a long shot. The layered zones of engagement and protection are significant and large (and are not going to appear in a public forum)
Last edited:
stephen weist
New Member
If the layered defence is so great than why do determined sub commanders consistently get inside. the inside man can sit and wait untill a well executed mass harpoon attack is underway and then throw several fish into the carriers side. yes the escorts can be replaced but that takes time.
Berserk Fury
New Member
Missle attacks don't work well and neither do torpedoes.
Carriers have CIWS and towed torpedo decoys.
Plus, Aegis destroyers and Tico's can shoot down missiles.
It's obviously plausible for a sub to get through despite the odds though getting out would be even harder unless all other ASW elements are destroyed.
Carriers have CIWS and towed torpedo decoys.
Plus, Aegis destroyers and Tico's can shoot down missiles.
It's obviously plausible for a sub to get through despite the odds though getting out would be even harder unless all other ASW elements are destroyed.
There are a couple of critical elelments that need to be covered off to be able to prosecute successfully though.stephen weist said:
1) demonstration or capability to launch simultaneous and saturated attacks - and which current US enemy has even the remotest of similar capability to the old Soviet Union? No one - not even Russia who does have the missile technology and some platforms to get in close, The Chinese (as the contemp example) aren't anywhere near being able to mount an airborne maritime strike to the required levels
2) It assumes that the USN is willing to put a CSF within maritime strike range before sanitising the area so that they maintain air if not theatre dominance - which they've never been prepared to relinquish in the past - so why would they now?
3) It assumes that the OPFOR has sufficient and speedy resources to construct a "meeting engagement" of their choosing in both time and place and where they have the numbers. Again, to do that in volume against a CSF on a war footing is not the same as lining up for a RIMPAC or Talisman exercise. Against a Task Force the multiplication makes it significantly harder
I'm not suggesting that its impossible, as there are enough examples to show that a determined sub driver can get in close and score a hit. But, then you have to also work out whether the exercise was geared for training and experience (much like DACT) or things like whether it was an assisted shot etc...
The USN has made it pretty clear in sub warfare conferences that I've attended in the last few years that they've lost the same skillset edge that they had compred to the cold war days, principlally due to the fact that they threat matrix changed and they didn't see a compelling need to maintain that capability. Evewrything thats been coming out in the last two years (that I've seen anyway) suggests that ASW is big and large and back on the table.
It's also pertinent to remember that the estimates were that it would take approx 4+ ADCAP sized torpedoes to kill the carrier. That means that whoever is underwater and attacks has really got to get their act together to get in quickly and strike. Again in wartime footings, I think that its going to be commensurately harder - especially if they don't have the luxury of combining with other force elements to keep the CSF busy. (refer to 1, 2 and 3)
Last edited:
well, the russians have historically always been innovative wrt submarines. Their very first subs were american - and had been rejected by the USN as a useful design. the russians were quite happy with them thoughKGB said:
nope, I think there were better ways to go if you wanted to fight assymetrically.KGB said:
After being abord Akula's victor's and many other class submarines and backing up what USN analysts have said the conclusion is the russian navy has now got submarines quieter than USN main fleet submarines.
Project 971 bars known to us as Akula is quieter than the current 688i submarines of the USN, and now the newer submarines or project 971 known as Akula II are even quieter.
The new project 885 yasen according to USN officals is almost as quiet as seawolf class submarines, the new borey class is quieter than the ohio's and the new lada amur class is the 2nd quietest submarine in the world.
(Conventional and AIP submarines are quieter than nukes)
How do you find a submarine? simple all you do is use whats called narrowband sonar, it has a range of around 30 miles at most and can pick up any submarine including seawolf and type 214 subs.
As for lasers in space is a load of bull theres not even a laser capible of burning a nuke out of the sky and this has been going on since the kennedy days back in the 60's.
A typhoon SSBN can carry 200 nuclear war heads if these lasers existed thier capacity to stop all 200 well i strongly doubt especialy as it would be not just one submarine launching but probably five or six as russia still has 16 submarines capible of carrying nuclear missiles. so try around 1000 warheads no lasers will stop that.
Project 971 bars known to us as Akula is quieter than the current 688i submarines of the USN, and now the newer submarines or project 971 known as Akula II are even quieter.
The new project 885 yasen according to USN officals is almost as quiet as seawolf class submarines, the new borey class is quieter than the ohio's and the new lada amur class is the 2nd quietest submarine in the world.
(Conventional and AIP submarines are quieter than nukes)
How do you find a submarine? simple all you do is use whats called narrowband sonar, it has a range of around 30 miles at most and can pick up any submarine including seawolf and type 214 subs.
As for lasers in space is a load of bull theres not even a laser capible of burning a nuke out of the sky and this has been going on since the kennedy days back in the 60's.
A typhoon SSBN can carry 200 nuclear war heads if these lasers existed thier capacity to stop all 200 well i strongly doubt especialy as it would be not just one submarine launching but probably five or six as russia still has 16 submarines capible of carrying nuclear missiles. so try around 1000 warheads no lasers will stop that.
I actually work in signature management for subs - so I am quite familiar with what the acoustic levels are for a variety of subs.KAPITAIN said:
I can tell you quite clearly, and unequivocably that some of the statements about submarine quietness in the public arena is unmitigated rubbish.
Case in point - I know of at least 5 different sub types that are quieter than the Amur.
If the Russians are getting excited about being as quiet as a 688I then they're talking about a sub that is an order of magnitude noisier than some current subs and yet is quieter by considerable margin of approx 95% of the rest of the worlds sub types. Its acoustic difference between it and the other 95% is an order of magnitude.
Sorry, thats absolute rubbish. I can assure you that in real world scenarios thats not even remotely the case.KAPITAIN said:
If you think sub detection is easy, then I can think of 2 companies where you'll get a job overnight (not incl mine). Its a significantly complex undertaking - and technology available even in the last 18months is a generation ahead of prev benchmarks.
The reason why a lot of the comments made in the public arena are almost worthless is because there are a variety of detection processes that aren't even detailed in any public documents.
That is just blatant nonsense. There are at least 5 subs that are quieter - and I'm talking about dble digit decible margins.KAPITAIN said:
- Status