Submarine first, Carrier second

Hmm Type 094 and 093 SSBN and SSN are keeping a very low profile...suspicious since the PLAN have build at least one of each I wonder why aren't their any photos??? Wouldn't it be suprising if their were already operating in deep waters without anyone knowing.

Of course there are photos, PLAN has, may be USN also has, may be even JPMSD has...... But those bloody folks just don't release them.......

Finn McCool said:

You can use my pet invention, the Ballistic Torpedo. Fire a ballistic missle with enough accuracy to drop a torpedo from 100 feet into the water within range of the carrier. It's the accuracy of a torpedo with the launch platform-reach and survivability of a ballistic missle!

Click to expand...

I think this could be very very hard. US is just developing that JDAM like torpedo, now you come up with this ballistic missile one with 500 times faster speed.......

In the concept of submarine first and carrier second, I'm thinking the Carrier will play the air-defense, support role to a fleet of submarines acting together in carrying out their missions, instead of going alone. The fleet of submarines can consist of three types, depending on the mission (sea superiority, amphibious assault, escort, etc.): submarine-hunters, anti-ship subs, and cruise missile subs. Air-defense will be provided for by the aircraft-carrier and the destroyers. The aircraft carrier, destroyers, and any accompanying frigates can have secondary roles of ground support for marines and anti-ship. The sub-hunter submarines will be mostly equipped with torpedoes that act to protect the more vulnerable or valuable members of the fleet, particularly the cruise missile submarines. The anti-ship subs will be equipped with a combination of anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes. They will help in the elimination of the enemy surface fleet as well as counter against attacks. The cruise missile submarine will be mostly used for land-attack and deep strikes against enemy infrastructures. They will also be equipped with a few torpedoes for self-defense. They can also carry ballistic missiles that could be a huge threat to enemy Carrier groups. This combination with submarine as focus will be more lethal and effective against a powerful aggressor.

As many of you are aware, I'm a big proponent of future unmanned combat vehicles.

I believe that with improvements in sonar and detection ability, it'd become near impossible for large submarines to "hide" itself in the future ocean. The future under-water combat will be dominated by unmanned under-water combat vehicles.

These UAV-submarines will be deployed by land, air, or sea. They'll resemble large, over-sized torpedoes, pre-programmed with mission profile with smart AI. They can either patrol an area or lay in wait. Upon engaging the enemy, the UAV will act as a kamikaze. If its fuel or predetermined service life is expended, the UAV will self-destruct.

I predict these combat UAV's will be cheap enough (<$10 million USD each) to mass produce and be deployed en mass (by dozens or even hundreds). That is, trucked to the coast, rolled off a ship, dropped off a plane, etc. It'd be like land-mining ocean grids, rendering surface-shipping during war very difficult against "advanced" opponents.

Before we get there, we'll go through a transitional stage where these combat UAV's are deployed from manned ships, and possibly remote controlled. But eventually I think most manned combat vessels will be replaced by unmanned ones. Your opinion may vary.

adeptitus said:

As many of you are aware, I'm a big proponent of future unmanned combat vehicles.

I believe that with improvements in sonar and detection ability, it'd become near impossible for large submarines to "hide" itself in the future ocean. The future under-water combat will be dominated by unmanned under-water combat vehicles.

These UAV-submarines will be deployed by land, air, or sea. They'll resemble large, over-sized torpedoes, pre-programmed with mission profile with smart AI. They can either patrol an area or lay in wait. Upon engaging the enemy, the UAV will act as a kamikaze. If its fuel or predetermined service life is expended, the UAV will self-destruct.

I predict these combat UAV's will be cheap enough (<$10 million USD each) to mass produce and be deployed en mass (by dozens or even hundreds). That is, trucked to the coast, rolled off a ship, dropped off a plane, etc. It'd be like land-mining ocean grids, rendering surface-shipping during war very difficult against "advanced" opponents.

Before we get there, we'll go through a transitional stage where these combat UAV's are deployed from manned ships, and possibly remote controlled. But eventually I think most manned combat vessels will be replaced by unmanned ones. Your opinion may vary.

Click to expand...

Possible developments could include flying subs, which the USN had worked on and seen in sci-fi shows.

come on friends, sub cv, flying subs .... we ar in a serious board, not in sci fi scene ....

Sczepan said:

come on friends, sub cv, flying subs .... we ar in a serious board, not in sci fi scene ....

Click to expand...

Thanks Sczepan..this is a serious discussion based on facts not conjecture..let's keep it that way...

I broadly agree with Ryz05. With cruise missiles, submarines can handle many of the missions that carriers have been tasked with such as coastal and deep inland strikes on less hardened, static targets as well as surface ships, freeing up carrier strike aircraft to hunt moving land targets, targets of opportunity, and hardened targets that require very heavy precision guided munitions to take out. Granted, cruise missiles are expensive, but letting submarines take out many of the more pedestrian targets (I don't mean using cruise missiles on machine gun nests and field kitchens)-and air defenses- frees up, to a certain extent, highly-trained aircrew to go after targets that missiles can't handle.

Using so many submarine-launched cruise missiles in lieu of carrier-based air strikes does raise the issue of sustainability. Even at the highest sortie rates in wartime, carriers can sustain air strikes for at least a few to even several days without replenishment, whereas until recently no submarines carried more than about 2 dozen cruise missiles, and those on the Oscar/Oscar IIs were anti-ship, not land attack. A few submarines so equipped MAY be sufficient to deal with a carrier battle group (potentially very useful to China), but even with land-attack missiles aboard, such a force just can't do enough damage, let alone keep it up, on land targets compared to a carrier. Now, the conversion of the first four Ohio-class SSBN to SSGN each with 154 cruise missiles open up an entirely new world of possibilities. Many more such conversions would be necessary, though, to create a force of such SSGNs large enough to appreciably lighten the strike burden on the carriers, for American purposes, anyway.

I am not saying that such boats could replace aircraft carriers, but given their heavy missile load-outs a few of these operating with a carrier or two could considerably reduce the strike load on the carriers, allowing them go after targets cruise missiles can't handle and to mop up targets that cruise missiles didn't finish.

For Chinese purposes, it would make sense to have a large force of cruise missile-equipped submarines, both for land strikes and to deal with surface ships-and it might reduce the need for China to ultimately seek carrier parity with the U.S. in the decades to come if such submarines could fulfill some of the taskings of the aircraft carrier. A carrier could be reserved for the more difficult strike missions requiring human finesse, or, as Ryz05 observed, used Russian-style to protect their SSBN bastion in the Yellow Sea/ Bay of Bohai.

I am not saying that such boats could replace aircraft carriers, but given their heavy missile load-outs a few of these operating with a carrier or two could considerably reduce the strike load on the carriers, allowing them go after targets cruise missiles can't handle and to mop up targets that cruise missiles didn't finish.[/QUOTE]

The Ohio class will not work with the Aircraft Carriers, they will work alone like the other 14 Ohio ( 12 of them operational and 2 at dock) class that carry Nuclear Warheads. :coffee:

The Ohio class will not work with the Aircraft Carriers, they will work alone like the other 14 Ohio ( 12 of them operational and 2 at dock) class that carry Nuclear Warheads. :coffee:[/QUOTE]

I did not mean to imply that the Ohio class either do, or should, work directly with carriers, just that in an overall campaign plan higher headquarters might see fit to assign cruise missile strike missions to the Ohios that would complement the strike missions of the carriers in such a way that the strike load on the carriers moght be reduced.