[Newsbot]

Title: Russian general confirms submarine patrols near U.S.
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-08-06 00:05:06
Canadian

[GreenTiger]

At least it will be a good sonar exercise for the American Navy. If they don't fall apart.

[-Wario-]

submarines had done nothing to provoke concern

They are at the border of our waters.... that is concern enough

[Mukluk]

I love this stuff. Never having been in the military, submarines and the whole covert nature of their operation really fascinates me.

Plus I watched The Hunt for Red October, and I'm sure it's EXACTLY like that in rl.

m

[Scape]

This has more to do with Georgia and Biden then anything else.

[bootlegga]

Scientist confirms sun in sky is our own! News at 11.

Where's the report about USN sub patrols?

[Hyack]

Mukluk Mukluk:

I love this stuff. Never having been in the military, submarines and the whole covert nature of their operation really fascinates me.

Plus I watched The Hunt for Red October, and I'm sure it's EXACTLY like that in rl.

m

I think it would be a bit more insane....

[ridenrain]

I found this very interesting and damned versatile.

$1:

As of last year, the U.S. Navy has completed the conversion of four Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), to cruise missile submarines (SSGN). Each of these boats now carries 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and provides space (for living, working and training) for 66 commandos (usually SEALs) and their equipment (including all those UAVs).

[bootlegga]

Those are the vessels that will replace aircraft carriers in future wars.

[ridenrain]

When UAVs replace manned aircraft perhaps. The great thing about conventional carriers is the ammound of assets they can deliver, over an extended period of time. I can't see a sub being able to launch and recover or being able to store enough one way vehicles.


If you ever see a book called:
Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage

be sure to get it. It's a great read of some of the US cold war sub mssions during the cold war. The one that was most impressive was Ivy Bells which had a US sub sitting over an underwater telephone line between the Soviet Pacific Fleet naval base at Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula to the Soviet Pacific Fleet's mainland headquarters at Vladivostok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

[RoyalHighlander]

Mukluk Mukluk:

I love this stuff. Never having been in the military, submarines and the whole covert nature of their operation really fascinates me.

Plus I watched The Hunt for Red October, and I'm sure it's EXACTLY like that in rl.

m

Tom Clancy has a book out although its a few years old it details all the different types of Boats and what thier task is and what will be expected of subs in the new age etc A very good read

Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship
(1993)
A non fiction book by Tom Clancy

[Mukluk]

RoyalHighlander RoyalHighlander:

Tom Clancy has a book out although its a few years old it details all the different types of Boats and what thier task is and what will be expected of subs in the new age etc A very good read

Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship
(1993)
A non fiction book by Tom Clancy

thx RH.

[Canadian_Mind]

Didn't the Japanese have a submarine aircraft carrier capable of holding, launching, and recieving 4 Zero planes?

It might not be alot for aircraft, but you could really fuck a place up long before the enemy could respond if your airstrip is surfaced only a couple KM from the intended target, and is submerged again by the time your aircraft arrive.

[bootlegga]

Yes, the I-400

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400_class_submarine

Missile armed subs (like those Tomahawk-armed Ohios) will probably replace carriers as the 'capital ship' sometime in the future (likely after the USN loses one of theirs in a conflict), for a variety of reasons.

1. Subs are far harder to find than carriers.
2. Cruise missiles these days are incredibly accurate and can do the same job as a fighter-bomber most of the time.
3. Subs are cheaper and far more cost-effective.
4. If you lose a sub, you lose 100 sailors or so. If you lose a carrier, you lose 5,000. Even more if part of the (or whole) task force goes down with it (after a nuke hits) That's a helluva lot of letters to write...

The only real advantage a carrier has over a sub is it intimidation factor.

The USN has tried to maintain a strong capability in both carriers and subs, but as time goes on (and prices increase), it fields fewer and fewer of each type of vessel. Eventually, it will get to the point that it can't afford 12 carrier task forces.