New Fast-Attack Nuclear Submarines to be Named Arizona and Oklahoma

[formernuke]

Think bigger picture. A sub that actually sank a carrier (as opposed to war games) might get away inscathed but the country that ordered it wouldn't. You might be able to hurt an enemy with dramatically greater resources and meet and negotiated objective, but you can't enrage them. Pearl Harbor being the classic example.

Completely agree.

My point is a sub can sink a carrier or other ship, general pratice if a sub sinks ANY SHIP it becomes traget number 1 for the rest of fleet, and then get away from the fleet.

Using WWII as an example look at the number of ships sunk by subs compared to subs sunk. It was to the point that US and Britain largely focused on combating the sub threat by attacking the fuel source so the germans couldn't operate them, along with tanks planes etc.

 

[lexvil]

Completely agree.

My point is a sub can sink a carrier or other ship, general pratice if a sub sinks ANY SHIP it becomes traget number 1 for the rest of fleet, and then get away from the fleet.

Using WWII as an example look at the number of ships sunk by subs compared to subs sunk. It was to the point that US and Britain largely focused on combating the sub threat by attacking the fuel source so the germans couldn't operate them, along with tanks planes etc.

The chance of sinking one is pretty good, two...

 

[Bob DBF]

Britain largely focused on combating the sub threat by attacking the fuel source so the germans couldn't operate them, along with tanks planes etc.

I believe the major demise of the U-boat was reinstating the convoy from WWI, radio direction finding, HF radar, carrier task groups, and of course the allies
having their Naval codes. The boats had fuel to run patrols until the end of the war, if they could survive the gauntlet to open water to start the search for a target.

 

[Akimbo]

The chance of sinking one is pretty good, two...

That may have been true before sub-launched cruise missiles. The trick is getting far enough away from where the missiles break the surface to remain undetected.

The military objective may not be to sink a carrier, only to make it stop hurting you for a period of time. Disabling a carrier puts the entire task force out of business. It is false economics to look at the cost and personnel on a carrier. You have to account for the entire task force, which probably includes some submarines. You have to wonder how sustainable the concept of a floating airport is. They are looking more like ironclads and battleships to me.

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

At some point, UAVs flown form half way around the world or weapons deployed from space will accomplish the mission with less risk, much faster mobilization, and lower investment. Interesting times.

 

[lexvil]

That may have been true before sub-launched cruise missiles. The trick is getting far enough away from where the missiles break the surface to remain undetected.

The military objective may not be to sink a carrier, only to make it stop hurting you for a period of time. Disabling a carrier puts the entire task force out of business. It is false economics to look at the cost and personnel on a carrier. You have to account for the entire task force, which probably includes some submarines. You have to wonder how sustainable the concept of a floating airport is. They are looking more like ironclads and battleships to me.

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

At some point, UAVs flown form half way around the world or weapons deployed from space will accomplish the mission with less risk, much faster mobilization, and lower investment. Interesting times.

True-dat

 

[Bob DBF]

You have to wonder how sustainable the concept of a floating airport is.

It’s more about optics, carriers are big and can be used for humanitarian missions and sorties against enemies that have no access to submarines. It’s great for a brushfire war, not so good in the next real one.

It projects the illusion of power.

If you ask me, and no one did, we should have been working on developing a Space Navy thirty years ago. There is more than one advantage in being at the top of a gravity well.

 

[formernuke]

Swimming

I believe the major demise of the U-boat was reinstating the convoy from WWI, radio direction finding, HF radar, carrier task groups, and of course the allies
having their Naval codes. The boats had fuel to run patrols until the end of the war, if they could survive the gauntlet to open water to start the search for a target.

have to stop home renovations, I've got people on the internet to argue with (all in good fun of course)

It just like everything in war was a combination. The bombing of the fuel sources limited the number of subs, just like everything else. radio direction and naval codes helped with general over there right now. The convoy tactic at first worked by just volume, have so much out there that the subs couldn't sink all of them. The biggest was the increased air patrols. WWII subs had a major weakness, underwater they had to work on batteries and had limited run times before having to come to or close enough to the surface to pretty much be on the surface. A sub on the surface is a just a target, torpedo's compared to ship guns are very short ranged. At first the subs could hide in the vast ocean recharge and then attack. With the US increased plane range the plane could damage the sub just enough to keep it from submerging and then call the surface ships or other planes in to finish it off.

Is a sub the perfect weapon of naval warfare, no they are a part of a larger fleet where each one has it's job. If you want to put a lot of ordinance on a target use a carrier, battleship etc, if you want to sink ships use a sub the best defense and best way to sink a sub is with a sub hence why we use fleets containing multiple ships and not just fleets of one type of ship.

 

[BoundForElsewhere]

Maybe I'm biased but shouldn't a fast attack anything be called the New York?
Or Texas.
And in the case of Florida, fast attack back.

 

[Akimbo]

It’s more about optics,

There is that, especially when you look at all other vessels in the task force -- which is bigger than some navies.

It is a heavy price for intimidation, until you compare it to the war that was averted.

 

[HKGuns]

Also proven when we drove right under, I forget now which Carrier and they didn’t have a clue. Asked us to ping so they could find us.

True story.

If the guys on the targets really knew how vulnerable they are, they would not cross the brow.

Oh and yes they were using helos as well as P-3’s. There are reasons fast attacks complete very dangerous missions.

We were very, very careful of NimRods when operating in the North Atlantic. The Brits driving those were really good.