Rumoured "mini-nuke/diesel" Submarine SSK-N(?) thread

[TK3600]

Here is the argument for smaller subs: combat attrition. Sure you can cover more space with larger sub in peace time, but when shooting begins you begin to lose units. It is better to lose SSK than an SSN if much the combat is close by.

If SSK cover 1 area at 1 cost, maybe SSN can do 10 area at 5 cost. But when most important battlefield is close by and there is a ton of attrition, 5x 1 cost unit will outlast 1 5 cost unit, despite latter's efficient coverage. If both types lose a unit, 4x SSK will cover more than 0x SSN.

This is just to illustrate the point. I dont mean anything literal. The idea is SSN being more efficient at peace might not translate into efficiency under heavy war attrition.

I envision SSKN being the similar kind of attrition resistent platform, but less restricted in range than SSK. SSN can becomes the sharp sword inflicting damage, while SSKN is like a persistent wall. They complement each other quite well.

Perhaps with advent of attrition resistemt SSKN, SSN can afford to specialize into a more elite strike platform. It can focus more on quality, knowning it can offload some duty to SSKN, thus less exposed to danger.

 

[tphuang]

I'm just using historical precedence for the littoral mission.

We asked you not do it and you still do it.

You cannot communicate effectively with UUVs using RF, seawater strongly absorbs optical signals and sound is broadband and can be distorted. There's no other way to communicate remotely with an underwater craft even in theory.
Due to poor optical and RF propagation, the only possibility of sensing the environment is sonar. Because of the requirement to remain hidden, active sonar is unwise to use. Any undersea craft is essentially blind to anything that does not make noise. Note that not making noise does not mean it does not exist - see random underwater mountains or sunken debris.

Due to multipath propagation in the littorals and a noisy environment in the littorals due to presence of commercial shipping, it is also difficult to make an AI that can usefully make choices in the absence of human intervention. The AI will be further limited because it can't actually train on data, since there just isn't a large volume of publicly available subsurface hydrophone readings for obvious reasons.

This means that, in the absence of the possibility of both remote piloting and autonomous vehicles, you need at least 1 human to pilot the vehicle. But 1 human has low endurance and uptime, as 1 human tends to need to eat and sleep. You might want more humans on board for 24 hour uptime. Starts looking awfully like a SSK at this point.

I won't go too far into this, but you are wrong about this.

Here is the argument for smaller subs: combat attrition. Sure you can cover more space with larger sub in peace time, but when shooting begins you begin to lose units. It is better to lose SSK than an SSN if much the combat is close by.

If SSK cover 1 area at 1 cost, maybe SSN can do 10 area at 5 cost. But when most important battlefield is close by and there is a ton of attrition, 5x 1 cost unit will outlast 1 5 cost unit, despite latter's efficient coverage. If both types lose a unit, 4x SSK will cover more than 0x SSN.

This is just to illustrate the point. I dont mean anything literal. The idea is SSN being more efficient at peace might not translate into efficiency under heavy war attrition.

I envision SSKN being the similar kind of attrition resistent platform, but less restricted in range than SSK. SSN can becomes the sharp sword inflicting damage, while SSKN is like a persistent wall. They complement each other quite well.

Perhaps with advent of attrition resistemt SSKN, SSN can afford to specialize into a more elite strike platform. It can focus more on quality, knowning it can offload some duty to SSKN, thus less exposed to danger.

That's the problem, SSK covers a lot less than 1. As soon as it starts transiting, it gets to PD level. Longer term, I fail to see the advantage of SSK over UUVs. Whereas I do see a purpose of having mini nukes around, because they don't have range limitations.

You can basically use mini nukes within 2nd island chain. You can have them sustain presence around Indonesia and Malacca strait. I don't see how you can have 039B do the same.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

We asked you not do it and you still do it.


I won't go too far into this, but you are wrong about this.

That's the problem, SSK covers a lot less than 1. As soon as it starts transiting, it gets to PD level. Longer term, I fail to see the advantage of SSK over UUVs. Whereas I do see a purpose of having mini nukes around, because they don't have range limitations.

You can basically use mini nukes within 2nd island chain. You can have them sustain presence around Indonesia and Malacca strait. I don't see how you can have 039B do the same.

I'm wrong about what?

Remote 2 way communication with undersea objects is a known problem and it is one of physics and not engineering.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is a fact that sea water absorbs short wave RF and scatters light. It is a fact that you cannot communicate with sound without making sound. It is a fact that a submarine making sounds is bad.

I'm correct until proven otherwise. Good luck getting around physics.

 

[tphuang]

I'm wrong about what?

Remote 2 way communication with undersea objects is a known problem and it is one of physics and not engineering.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It is a fact that sea water absorbs short wave RF and scatters light. It is a fact that you cannot communicate with sound without making sound. It is a fact that a submarine making sounds is bad.

I'm correct until proven otherwise. Good luck getting around physics.

Based on what I heard, you are wrong that they are unable to communicate from under the water. I won't go beyond that. Things don't work how you think.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Based on what I heard, you are wrong that they are unable to communicate from under the water. I won't go beyond that. Things don't work how you think.

Based on the laws of physics that is, in fact, exactly how it works. The burden of proof is on you to show something against scientific consensus.

 

[tphuang]

Based on the laws of physics that is, in fact, exactly how it works.

You are assuming they have to directly use RF underwater for communication, when they do not have to.


I'm going to stop the back and forth. Because this is going nowhere.