Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[TCO]

IGD, a few more items:

-I am not intimidated by any "hard to hear escort with a towed array". (personal experience). We can "green flare" them way more than they can get us.

-I am not intimidated by sonobouys or dipping sonar. I am concerned about visual detection by air assets when the ship is at PD. If they do see us, they may drop bouys or dip on us. But without a visual detection, it is not a concern.

-sub vs CVBG is pretty much a bloodbath. To make it "fair" the sub is ordered to carry a noise-maker and to run through pre-determined points at specific times so that the ASW assets have a chance.

[notyoueither]

You make it sound pretty bleak for the surface forces GP.

You obviously have your facts straight for modern sub warfare. Can you tell us what the sub vs sub situation is? I would like to know out of general interest, but also for when I get serious about modding.

PS. You're an officer in the sub force? Where do you find time for Poly?

[TCO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You make it sound pretty bleak for the surface forces GP.

You obviously have your facts straight for modern sub warfare. Can you tell us what the sub vs sub situation is? I would like to know out of general interest, but also for when I get serious about modding.

PS. You're an officer in the sub force? Where do you find time for Poly?

I left active duty in '93. I am still in the reserves. I'm probably being politically incorrect and maybe even "insulting to fine professional naval officers". But I am giving you the straight scoop, IMHO.

Don't know what you mean by sub vs sub. US subs are pretty much way better than Russian ones. Way better training. And some techinical advantages (but that is a mixed bag...)

[KrazyHorse]

Isn't the big problem with the Russkies their reliance on conscripts for the Navy?

[notyoueither]

No, what I mean is how practical is sub on sub warfare?

Assume that in a hypothetical non-nuclear conflict, all the surface units are destroyed or withdrawn into port.

Do subs fight subs effectively? Leave boomers off the table. What about the hunters vs the hunters?

Would there just be a wide ocean blue with nothing much happening, or would the subs be locked in a struggle to the death with each other? And would they be effective?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Isn't the big problem with the Russkies their reliance on conscripts for the Navy?

Also, they didn't have ADM Rickover, we did. And their CO's have nowhere near the freedom US COs do. Our subs operate for months with no comms to shore. We train to operate independandlty. They are much more mehcanical...

[TCO]

I do not think the seas would be swept of surface ships unless you had 2 opponents with US quality sub fleets (not in real world...myabe in hypothetical).

In hypothetical-land, would probably still have some surface vessels. sub on sub encounters would occur near ports or would be related to targeting of merchant shipping. blue-ocean huntdowns would not occur. Ocean is vast. Also relatively easy to hide in the arctic.

[notyoueither]

So. the sub on sub war is not practical due to means of detection and interdiction. I thought so. Good to have confirmation.

What about air assets? What threat to subs is posed by aircraft ASW today?

[IGD]

Originally posted by GP



Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Havent been accused of that before, sorry GP, It didn't come across quite as it was meant. You clearly have a great deal of experience in SUB OPS and it is a pleasure to discuss these things with you. I am also at a disadvantage because I am A Brit and have only the experience of working with the US (Always a pleasure) but not for them. From my perspective as a surface warfare officer, I have spent years in ASW from the other side of the fence (UK not US admittedly) and have to say that in a lot of cases submariners over state their superiority, they usually get a rude shock when they see it from the other side. Not your experience I know, but believe me submarines don't have it all their own way. For example you say :


I am not intimidated by any "hard to hear escort with a towed array". (personal experience). We can "green flare" them way more than they can get us.


This is not my experience. With an integrated ASW force, decent quiet escorts (i.e. Type 23 in ultra quiet, which incidentaly is also forced to carry a noisemaker outside strict waterspace managed exercises since submarines can't hear them) organic ASW air assets (dippers and weapon carriers, with plenty of off axis I Band flood) MPA and organic JEZ for seeding roads with on board processing and Link. Add to that good people (The most important aset of all) who understand TMA, the SSN targeting problem and his weapon suite your advantage disappears. That doesn't mean that the submarine doesn't get through now and then and I have seen my share of "Green Flares" but there are plenty of accurate weapon drops too, don't tell me you have never had crackers dropped on your head before. I am just saying that it is a complicated business and I believe the equation is much more equal than you are painting it to be .. but then I would say that !

As a final note, just so we don't all get too depressed about the survivability of Uncle Sams CVBGs - A CVBG has SSNs in support too. After all despite what they may tell us our ones are still the good guys.

[IGD]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So. the sub on sub war is not practical due to means of detection and interdiction. I thought so. Good to have confirmation.

What about air assets? What threat to subs is posed by aircraft ASW today?

Be interesting to hear GP on this, but I believe a sub is still the best weapon against a sub (although it hurts me to say it) and therefore it is a highly likely scenario in any future conflict between players with decent navies. The point about vast oceans is very true but the fact is that the target of one enemies submarines is likely to be protected by the submarines of the other. Rather forces them both into the same area of sea.

I would like to think that if we (ie the west) were one of the protaganists, we would have a rough idea of the whereabouts of the enemies submarines anyway, which always helps.

[notyoueither]

IGD. So you don't see the sub as being as effective against surface forces as GP paints them to be. Good. Glad to know the RN hasn't neglected the lessons of 2 world wars.

You must be aware of the stats of sub vs surface from 1939 to 1945. Do you think subs would do better or worse today vs surface fleets than then? Try to divorce Boris from the equation. Imagine that Germany were building and crewing the modern subs you would have to go up against (in other words, as good as or maybe better than the American and British Hunters).

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You must be aware of the stats of sub vs surface from 1939 to 1945. Do you think subs would do better or worse today vs surface fleets than then? Try to divorce Boris from the equation. Imagine that Germany were building and crewing the modern subs you would have to go up against (in other words, as good as or maybe better than the American and British Hunters).

Based upon the ability to stay submerged and the vastly improved underwater speed, I would think that the subs would have an advantage over the surface vessels (relative to WWII). Something that hasnt been mentioned yet, that is counter to this though, is better intelligence about sub locations. If you know where they are, you have a chance to kill them. SOSUS didnt exist in WWII. Based on my knowledge of that world (20 years ago) the german subs would never reach the atlantic. Those based in France would have a small chance to evade detection, but not much.

[TCO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So. the sub on sub war is not practical due to means of detection and interdiction. I thought so. Good to have confirmation.

What about air assets? What threat to subs is posed by aircraft ASW today?

visual detection threat is highest both for surface and air assets. Once a helo detects a sub, it is hard for the sub to get away. The helo can move its dipper very quickly. But unless there is a previous detect, helo not too much too worry about. IMHO, sonobouy fields are not that effective.

[TCO]

IGD, I'm honored to discuss this with you. Glad you didn't get prissy about my panty-flaming. You know us naval officers have foul mouths, despite being gentlemen (ala JPJ).

I can understand having a noise emitter on the TA if it is not waterspace managed. To be honest, probably makes more sense to keep it out of the sub stratum. (It is a collision hazard. We don't hear arrays.) But we do hear the ship. That's what I meant when I said I wasn't worried about it.

Part of my mindset is based on having to do exercises where we ran through points or just "gave ping time" to the surface/air forces. We are capable of much more free play ourselves. But the exercise/training is a waste for the ASW operators if they never see the sub other than via flares. In discussions with ASW officers they were "overly" proud of any detects (because they were rare unless part of a set exercise), whereas we watched/heard our own surface forces all the day long.

[Venger]

GP - I assume since you left in '93 you were still on assigned to an SSN during 1989. About then I believe we had what, 90 LA class? And the Soviets had 60+ SSBN's.

You may or may not know, however I have an inkling there were general operating orders that if general warfare occurred between WP and NATO that the first orders from CINC of both Atlantic and Pacific was to immediately bottom every Delta and Typhoon they tailed as well as any Yankee's they'd sortied into theatre nuke roles. I don't know where you were in the chain of command, but the command staff always talks - so any sort of inkling on this? Or was it considered too provocative to bottom the Soviets boomer fleet?

Venger