Future naval warfare ideas
- Thread starter Kurt
- Start date
Equation
Lieutenant General
being too lazy to type something worthy for the discussion, ill just post this
I can see this as another sub hunter and mine sweeper type, perhaps even small surface ship combatant.
Anyone thought about using nuclear subs as launching platforms as ASAT platforms? Since many current ASAT missiles are modified ICBMs I think the transition should be relatively straight forward. Once the trajectory of the satellite has been computed ahead of the times the subs could reach the relevant coordinates and launch the attack when the opponent least expects it. Land based and air based platforms are still prone to satellite surveillance. Perhaps the subs could make a game changer?
I've been pondering a science fiction idea about how an invading force defeated Earth's conventional "space fleet" assets and proceeded to occupy LEO. Although they eliminated most of the surface combat ships with strategic "rod of god" strikes some observation vessels and submarines of the Terran surface fleet remained unscathed. In the end the ignorance of the invading fleet cost them the war since the terran submarines were able to launch a volley of ASAT missiles equipped with X-ray laser warheads capable of targeting multiple enemy vehicles separately... Just thought the idea of a space fleet versus a surface fleet is kinda cool. Hopefully I'll have time to write it...
Oops I've gone off topic... Back to topic now.
I've been pondering a science fiction idea about how an invading force defeated Earth's conventional "space fleet" assets and proceeded to occupy LEO. Although they eliminated most of the surface combat ships with strategic "rod of god" strikes some observation vessels and submarines of the Terran surface fleet remained unscathed. In the end the ignorance of the invading fleet cost them the war since the terran submarines were able to launch a volley of ASAT missiles equipped with X-ray laser warheads capable of targeting multiple enemy vehicles separately... Just thought the idea of a space fleet versus a surface fleet is kinda cool. Hopefully I'll have time to write it...
Oops I've gone off topic... Back to topic now.
I think any missiles of ICBM-ish size in a submarine is likely to be strategic, and hence nuclear. The space seems to me to be too precious to be given to just ASAT roles.
I think even a sub based AShBM for targeting high value large ships is more plausible. (though granted sat are also expensive and needed for modern warfare there likely would be a lot of redundancies built it.)
I think even a sub based AShBM for targeting high value large ships is more plausible. (though granted sat are also expensive and needed for modern warfare there likely would be a lot of redundancies built it.)
Kurt
Junior Member
Have you thought about putting these weapons on a mentioned above? It's the cheapest idea to go underneath the water at a fraction of the costs of a nuclear submarine with a similar abilty to cover range during deployment. Equipping it with artillery can give you a large railgun with abilities similar to guns for ASAT with low probability of launch detection until only a short distance away and rapidly accelerating with a rocket engine once outside the atmosphere (with a high starting speed).
SMX-25 will be the alternative for all countries who want to have a submarine escort for their carrier, but won't or can't have a nuclear one (Germany, Italy, Australia?). Plus, it's the best littoral warfare concept in my opinion (modify Zumwalt like this for a few bucks) that can be combined with a gun(as precise, but much cheaper munitions than guided missiles) that endangers all platforms that otherwise can't shoot and scoot quickly enough to escape enemy detectors and their sophisticated search algorithms.
Plus, space is much less expensive than on a full-fledged submarine, especially of nuclear design. So this ship is best suited as a submarine missile carrier with an arsenal for many more lower value targets than the traditional missile submarines with nuclear tipped armament. This missile capability will likely be combined with commandos and UAV operating as scouts.
The nuclear strike missile submarine makes sense as the best second strike platform in a world where China and India make nuclear first strike a non-option and thus render the giant expensive nuclear arsenals of the Cold War antagonists irrelevant for their new world order. Nukes will be rather bottomless defence money holes than security assets, with their role increasingly limited to providing prestige.
The same arsenal distributed to small arsenal ships versus large arsenal ships means staggering costs because you have to buy several times the same capabilities for much less munitions. Steel is cheap, chips are expensive.
It's pretty generous of an enemy if he lines up high value targets for your arsenal ship to turkey shoot them. Normally, you have to knock through numbers of inexpensive assets before being able to strike the object you want to destroy. That's the reason why there is a .
Another factor is that satellites are careful not to get close to ships that simply kill them ASAP with ASAT, much reducing their detection ability if you don't want to trade satellites for ships (both are expensive and limited).
Great input guys, makes one look at problems from many different angles and find unexpected things.
SMX-25 will be the alternative for all countries who want to have a submarine escort for their carrier, but won't or can't have a nuclear one (Germany, Italy, Australia?). Plus, it's the best littoral warfare concept in my opinion (modify Zumwalt like this for a few bucks) that can be combined with a gun(as precise, but much cheaper munitions than guided missiles) that endangers all platforms that otherwise can't shoot and scoot quickly enough to escape enemy detectors and their sophisticated search algorithms.
Plus, space is much less expensive than on a full-fledged submarine, especially of nuclear design. So this ship is best suited as a submarine missile carrier with an arsenal for many more lower value targets than the traditional missile submarines with nuclear tipped armament. This missile capability will likely be combined with commandos and UAV operating as scouts.
The nuclear strike missile submarine makes sense as the best second strike platform in a world where China and India make nuclear first strike a non-option and thus render the giant expensive nuclear arsenals of the Cold War antagonists irrelevant for their new world order. Nukes will be rather bottomless defence money holes than security assets, with their role increasingly limited to providing prestige.
The same arsenal distributed to small arsenal ships versus large arsenal ships means staggering costs because you have to buy several times the same capabilities for much less munitions. Steel is cheap, chips are expensive.
It's pretty generous of an enemy if he lines up high value targets for your arsenal ship to turkey shoot them. Normally, you have to knock through numbers of inexpensive assets before being able to strike the object you want to destroy. That's the reason why there is a .
Another factor is that satellites are careful not to get close to ships that simply kill them ASAP with ASAT, much reducing their detection ability if you don't want to trade satellites for ships (both are expensive and limited).
Great input guys, makes one look at problems from many different angles and find unexpected things.
Last edited: