Are submarines still valuable now that there are so many different

>>32250490
Yes, considering the Russian and Chinese don't even have the ability to actually search for them and even then they use older outdated equipment. Here's a fun fact: A Virginia class submarine one the move just above the layer is acoustically quieter than a Los Angeles class tied up a dock. Some guy who did 20 years in the Sub fleet told me that.

>>32250526

Probably because the LAs are getting old as shit

I think that detecting a submarine is hard not because the difficulties of detecting it. But because the submarine can easily already detect their hunters from way beyond their radar range.

>>32250686
My brother was a Nuke RO on the USS Maine out of Kingsbay.

When they were leaving port. Their sonar could hear the cruise ships going around the Bahamas and Bermuda.

>>32250490
Actually they are so valuable because they are getting much harder to detect. There are not many ways to detect them. Sonar underwater, radar when they stick something out of the water, and getting your ass blown up by their torpedo. Let's see, that's three ways...yup, three sure fire ways!

In the vastness of the ocean, finding a submarine is incredibly difficult. Most of the methods of finding a submarine are used to defend your own littoral waters, or the area immediately around your fleet. the threat of a submarine striking your logistics vessels, or lone ships where your ASW measures are weakest is difficult to counter.

Also, the weapons used by submarines have never been more deadly. Torpedoes can strike from 50+ km away, AShM & land attack cruise missiles from hundreds of km, and SLBMs from thousands of km away. The area a submarine can hide in, yet still attack from is bigger than ever.

>>32250526
And one year ago an old french Rubis class submarine (the smallest nuclear subs in the world) virtually sank a US carrier while being undetected.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-sink-us-navy-carrier-china-turns-france-ideas-14605

And these things sure aren't exactly the most up to date in terms of acoustic discretion.
What was your point again ?

To OP :
>>32250490
YES they are very valuable, and NO there aren't many ways to detect them at all if they keep it quiet enough.
Not to mention they can be fitted with anti aircraft capabilities nowadays. Or at least it's an idea that keep coming around.

Videos related, from DCNS, one using a MICA encased in an Exocet container, the other using a Mistral shot from an emerged mast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn6L3MlKL8k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGl42ELB_A

Both concepts were proof-tested and validated.
This alone makes the value of any helicopter on an anti submarine mission prone to a level of danger unseen until now.

Now imagine the same concept with other kind of weapons, or even with missile pods let loose at sea between 2 waters just like mines are layed out.
Except this time there's a SM3 or an ASTER inside the pod.

Say goodbye to naval patrol aircrafts. Gotta replace them with high and fast aircrafts. Which is not a good way to achieve submarine detection from these platforms. Or to fill them with expensive ECCM/DIRCM, making them way more expensive to operate than they currently are, thus giving the edge to the antiaircraft capable submarine force again.

So it's really not a simple issue, and the years coming, with the chinese stirring up shit, will be VERY interresting to watch.

For now, just watching all of the world buying mass of submarines is a solid enough prood that yes, indeed, the submarine is still a very deadly weapon.

>>32254844

>Not to mention they can be fitted with anti aircraft capabilities nowadays.

Aegis subs when?

>>32250490
This question may be random, but how do subs implement mines?
Do they have a door that opens and poop a mine? And how much mines can a sub hold? 2?

>>32254927
Best part is this is a serious question anon.

There aren't a lot of technical difficulties to overcome in order to be able to launch SM2/3/6 missiles from underwater. Just like it's already the case with tomahawks.

Networking may render these options even more lethal.

File: dieseljust.jpg (52KB, 615x809px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 615x809px

>>32254844
The yanks let every piss ant nation and his dog """sink""" one of their carriers for shits and giggles, I wouldn't put too much stock in it m8.

>>32254844
>What was your point again ?
What was your point bringing up a carrier when he was talking about submarines? Your post just literally proved his point about subs being relevant.

>>32254967
>but how do subs implement mines?
Torpedo tubes.

> And how much mines can a sub hold?
Depends on the mine. You lose space for torpedoes for the mines.

>>32254844
>Or at least it's an idea that keep coming around.
Soviets were doing this with mast mounted Iglas long time ago.

>>32255022
War isn't rock paper scissors.

>>32255019

Goddamn, that would be glorious.

File: 1452189147446.jpg (122KB, 594x594px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 594x594px

>>32255059
>MFW LA-class can missile trap.

>>32250490
>Are submarines still valuable now that there are so many different ways to detect them?

Nope.

Once you can counter something in any way, it automatically becomes useless. Just like tanks, planes, infantry, etc...

>>32250490

Here's a hint: Something is useful based on what it can do, not what you can do to counter it.

If we only looked at whether or not something can be countered, we'd never go to war in the first place - because after all, people can be killed by bullets.

>>32255033
The point was about the quietness of new subs making them much better than older designs : even older designs are still very dangerous even against current sophisticated threats if manned by a well trained crew.
Which sure makes modern subs even more dangerous on paper.

>>32255043
>Soviets were doing this with mast mounted Iglas long time ago.
Correct. Newer systems, more accurate and more resistant to jamming, may allow for a comeback of this design.

>>32255121
P-8s recently got a GPS tailkit for torpedoes to enable high-altitude release. So, at least on some level, someone takes the idea of sub-launched SAMs seriously.

File: 7344_300507125118.jpg (64KB, 530x298px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 530x298px

>>32255142

>>32251520
Don't forget magnetic anomaly detectors.

File: aaok.jpg (66KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 450x600px

>>32255142
Working on MAD drones for them too.

Could we design a VertLaunch drone? Something like a cruise missile that shoots upward, levels out, deploys some wings and then does a flyover?

Subs could do forward recon, disposable eyeballs in the sky.
Or maybe Satellites have replaced the need for airborne reconnaissance?

>>32255198
>Could we design a VertLaunch drone? Something like a cruise missile that shoots upward, levels out, deploys some wings and then does a flyover?

Absolutely not.

That's fundamentally impossible on so many levels. Shame on you for asking such a ridiculous question.

File: a26.jpg (765KB, 3507x2480px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 3507x2480px

>>32255198
Launching a tube vertically that would extend wings and operate as plane would be very difficult. There are sub designs that can deploy special forces, and they could carry drones with them as well to be deployed when they reach the shore. Helicopter style drones could probably be effective to deploy this way as an alternative to insert the unit with a HALO jump if you can't get a plane close enough but you could get close enough with a sub.

>>32255198
Whether or not it's possible, it's unnecessary. MQ-8 Fire Scout just made surface ships a lot better at deploying airborne sensors. Even shitty, tiny LCS has a better footprint with 1 MH-60 and two Fire Scouts than Burkes have with two MH-60s. Zumwalt all the more so with three Fire Scouts and a Seahawk. There are also other systems that are contributing there. F-35, MQ-4C, whatever will eventually come of UCLASS, these are all augmenting the already-formidable airborne sensor breakdown for the USN.

>>32250490
Apparently not.

There was that story you hear about how a Dutch Submarine, or some other Euro sub coming, maybe Asian sub in a Naval War-game sailed up beside a US Navy destroyer\carrier and nobody in the "US" side noticed.

I might be butchering the story, but that's the jist of it.

File: 1460682843587.jpg (6KB, 220x175px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 220x175px

>>32250490
>Construction began in 1993

>>32250490
When Trump said he's going to increase the fleet does that include submarines? Or only surface vessels?

>>32255325
It'll include subs if he and Mattis have at least half a brain between then.

>>32255043
>War isn't rock paper scissors.
Its also not a good idea to let other nations see your countermeasures operating at full blast just to keep them from taking a photo of your carrier during peacetime

>>32254844
I'm the dude you replied to, btw. Every time we do these exercises the odds are stacked in their favor because if they weren't it would not get any favorable results. Like the time that Swedish boat got a couple of pictures of a carrier, when it was reported they left out the fact that only organic ASW helicopters were allowed sweeping a box that was little more than the size of the fleet's disposition itself (and not allowed to use active, only passive).

>>32255295
It happened on several occasions yes.
Read this
>>32254844

>>32255492
Fucking kek. US Navy BTFO

I also remember another story about a Japanese air squadron "sinking" a USN battlegroup in another Wargame, and the USN Admiral incharge flipped his shit, cried, and demanded that the wargame be retarded because the Japanese weren't "Playing fair".

>>32255365
i'd put that to at least 45% in Mattis's favor.

>>32255521
Restarted*

kek phone auto-corrected into retarded

>>32255521
Take your shitposting elsewhere.

>>32255550
Not shitposting, faggot.

Someone posted the story and article on a /k/ thread a year or two ago and we gave the USN so much shit for it.

File: pepetp.png (597KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 800x800px

>>32255454
There's no point explaining this m8, the europoors need to believe it's true.

File: russia-Ka-27m-anti-submarine-helicopter.jpg (48KB, 600x340px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x340px

>>32250686
>>32250686
>>32254844
>>32255022
>>32255086
>>32255148
>>32255260

Nice submarine you got there.

Sure would be a shame if something happened to it...............

>>32255601
What are you going to do? Impoverish it to death?

File: slavcano.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>32255601
Pretty sure it can dodge a flaming wreck.

>>32255615
Knowing Russian Naval Aviation, it will probably fall out of the sky due to shoddy maintenance and crash on the submarine.

>>32255637
lmao

>>32254967
They have torpedos that you can drive via wire to location and they float in position
Hell, that's old LA class tech

>>32255121
This
Has no one seen down periscope?

>>32255168
Doesn't work on whatever class of titanium hull subs the Ruskies use

File: slavtub.jpg (182KB, 700x768px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 700x768px

>>32255648
Improvised depth charge.

>>32255786

I'll have you know that is my favourite documentary of all time.

>>32255601
>ASW aircraft vs. Anti-aircraft submarine

The Slavs are going for a swim.

>>32253468

Underrated comment.

ASW is extremely difficult, even against crappy old SSKs with modern ships. Take for example the Falklands War - the British who (arguably) were most experienced ASW hunters at the time (from being the primary guardians of the GUIK gap), had a very hard time hunting and prosecuting the two Argentine submarines. One of which was a WW2 submarine.

Over approximately 200 ASW weapons were fired at these two submarines during the courses of 28 days.

The North Koreans aren't dumb for investing into their SSKs by the dozens.

>>32255848
Me too. Right up there with Pentagon Wars

File: uss-minnesota-construction-1200x800.jpg (191KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1200x800px

>>32250490

So if submarines are so great, then why even bother with surface ships anymore?

>>32256008
>if tanks are so great, why do we even bother with infantry?

>if fighter jets are so great, why do we even bother with tanks?

>if fig is so great, why do we even bother with drones?

Fuck off, retard.

>>32254927
>>32255019
>>32255059
You guys realize that the primary defense for subs is complete and total silence, right?

You put a big-ass SPY radar on a sub and then surface it and radiate, that's throwing up an enormous "KILL US NOW" sign to anything nearby with ASROCs.

If they fit serious SAMs on USN boats, it will be primarily anti-radiation with a terminal IR or active radar seeker head. The sub will never radiate; they'll launch on naval patrol and other craft using surface search radar which they can detect and localize with an EM mast at relatively low risk of discovery.

Even then, if the aircraft is on the ball and close enough to the launch datum, they can still drop two fish blind more or less right on top of the boat with a good chance of ruining their day.

For the most part, AA capabilities on subs in the USN died as a viable and reasonable tactic with the Triton. It just doesn't give enough strategic and tactical options to be worth it. Remember, it's never just one craft. It's the 5-10 aircraft working a grid. Kill one, and all the others converge and drop enough sonobuoys to float the Titanic on your head while any nearby ships start chain-launching ASROCs.

Makes way more sense to go quiet and clear datum when ASW aircraft catch a wiff.

>>32255198
>>32255218
Ohio class SSGN conversions already field a version of this in converted SLBM tube modules to support secret squirrel ops.

>>32255325
Subs are half of the USN's main naval attack and sea control arm (the other half being carrier strike aircraft). If he listens to ANYONE in naval procurement, subs will be one of the two major priorities. The USN is already nervous as hell about deployable SSN fleet levels after all the Sturgeons went away in the 90's and the 688s are being retired at 2-3 per year while the Virginias are only building at a current average of a little better than one per year. They're already stepping that up to two per year, and if Trump throws more money at them they'll be commissioning three per year within two years.

The beauty of modular construction and all that.

>>32256027

I didn't mean to completely get rid of all surface vessels, anon. That would be silly.

What I meant was that most of the ships should be submarines, not that all the ships should be submarines.

File: 10parchessn683.jpg (40KB, 646x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 646x350px

>>32256104
>What I meant was that most of the ships should be submarines, not that all the ships should be submarines.
Subs can't enforce air superiority, for one thing. You can't protect your shipping and enforce sea control without air power to suppress land-based aircraft and strike land-based artillery and AShMs. Remember that at some point, just about every major shipping artery in the world passes through a strait or within 200nmi of a landmass, which means exposure to land based threats. You also need aircraft for recon and bird-dogging OPFOR assets on land and sea so subs and other things can vector in and send them to meet the flying spaghetti monster, and those have to be protected.

You want complete sea control even when you have no nearby airbases? You have to have carriers. You want your carriers to stay alive? You have to have escorts.

The USN is completely devoted and set up to achieve two things anywhere, anytime:
>dominate the airspace
>facefuck anything on land or sea which threatens friendly shipping, military logistics or forces
The two most powerful tools they have for that are subs and carriers. All the recon, intel gathering, ASW/AA screening, etc. is all first and foremost dedicated to ensuring the USN stays ahead of the curve in their capability to do those things. That's why the force mix makes sense.

>>32256104
>>32256276
Oh, and you also have to retain the capability to reduce shoreline and AA defenses to force a landing from sea or air if you need to go dickslap someone. Subs can't very well do that either without serious air and surface force support.

>>32256008

The USA needs surface ships, because it is isolated from Europe by the Atlantic, and Asia by the Pacific, while wanting to credibly intervene in both those places.

To do that it needs to; transport equipment by sea (logistics ships), use amphibious warships to land forces when port facilities aren't available, aircraft carriers to secure the skies where there is insufficient available land airbases, then air defence warships to protect all that from air and missile attack, missile armed warships to attack other ships and land targets, then mine sweeping vessels to prevent mines obstructing them, also ASW warships to patrol for submarines, then all that will need to be resupplied far from the USA so you'll need oilers. .......AND Oooops, I've accidentally ended up with the largest navy in the world.

On the other hand, the USSR was able to focus on having a mostly submarine navy because its contiguous land mass with Europe and Asia meant it didn't need to secure the seas to reach its areas of interest in war, only to deny them to NATO.

File: Workday.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5312x2988px

Alright, the actual professional is here to answer nub questions

>>32257309

What's the deepest that a virginia or seawolf-class submarine can go?

>>32257355
Can't say, but the official navy answer is greater than 600ft. I can say no submarine can match the Seawolf class. They are absolutely absurd. Virginias can go deeper (They are made of HY 100, vice HY 80) than a 688.

>>32257309
688I? Sexy.

What rating?

>>32257406
Yerp, we are one of the last ones built.
NAV-ET, or whatever the fuck stupid code I was assigned is. I'm really heavy into the operations side of the house though. Hence the clearance and having to do briefs and shit x.x

>>32257400
>>32257400

So 1000 ft is a good estimate?

>>32257425
>>32257309
Say you were in some kinda hunt for red october no shit submarine vs submarine battle. How many people on the boat would actually have any idea of what was going on?

>>32255218
Ahahahaha....hahahahaha.......

>>32255601
Be a damn fucking shame if your lambtail worked and you could do your fucking job. Oh, wait....You cant find anything. Ever.

>>32257425
Still in love with your boat, or have you gotten a close enough look at Seawolf or Virginia berths to start getting the itch?

>>32257445
I mean there's some tom clancy books out there that have some real good 'supposes'. But remember, there was a huge deal of restriction and law of operation that was a big thing when we lost Scorpion. Some of those rules still have some effect. But it really depends on what the situation is. The CO always has the call to where the ship goes. He says take the bitch to crush, fuck it we're going. Plus theres the engineering design that says 'Well, it should be good to blank feet, plus or minus some nerd percentage'. No set depth is a drop dead instakill.
>>32257449
If it was someone with like tactical parity, the nubs might shit themselves, but the senior guys we'd lock down pretty good. As for the Chiefs and senior officers, they'd all have massive boners.
But if its some broke ass diesel, it's done. Now AIP boats, those fuckers are good. Fucking AIP's.

>>32257425
>>32257483
Oh, and as a rough ballpark, how much more liquid sex do the VA boats get with their side scan sonar hardware, chin mounts and now LABs compared to the 688I hardware? We talking blind midget VS The Rock or more like a drunk, in-shape Chad VS someone actually sober and CQC trained?

Are we still in baby seal clubbing territory VS the latest Vodka canoes (Borei, Yasen)?

>>32257483
Well I'll never do a VA, because females are starting to intergrate. Fuck. that. noise. It's already a massive problem at subschool. As for the 21 and 22, I'd probably give them a shot. And I want nothing to do with 23. They tried to scoop me up and I was like NOPENOPENOPE.

>>32257550
Not excited about Special Projects?

Don't you want to be able to hand your kids a book like Silent War or Blind Man's Bluff in 30 years with a wink and certain chapters circled? Pop did just that with me a few years ago. I still laugh about it.

>>32257400
The Type 212 is officially cleared to 2200 feet. Does that mean the Seawolf goes below that?

>>32257521
>>32257449
I mean more like how many people in the boat would be aware that they were in a life or death fight, what they were fighting, how the fight was going. stuff like that. I'm sure everyone is plenty competent.

>>32257546
Well VA's are quieter but seriously there's some crazy shit out there that makes platform specific hardware/software meaningless. Trust me. Haha.

As for the Yasens (Only really had to deal with Sev), they are actually pretty damn capable with the Amfora system, but we train 20000x more than we do. So crew-wise and on most tech we outpace them. So funny fact, the Dolgoruiky is literally an Akula and an Oscar II slamfucked together into a submarine.

I hate how so many people with 0 engineering or physics background post this shit here all the time

Its still very difficult to find a submarine, theres many ways but its nowhere even close to easy.

Part of it is the ocean itself

>>32257571
Even wiki gets you a ballpark collapse depth on the -21 of 730 m (2,400 ft). And that's before we account for USN OPSEC fudge.

>>32257593
>So funny fact, the Dolgoruiky is literally an Akula and an Oscar II slamfucked together into a submarine.
Fuck me. I never heard that. They still running bastions with those, or are they feeling froggy enough with those quieter boomers to start freeballing like we do with our Ohios?

>>32250526
>Yes, considering the Russian and Chinese don't even have the ability to actually search for them and even then they use older outdated equipment.
No.

It is about 20 years since the Russians got aircraft radar systems that could detect the surface distortion that occurs when a sub is in motion. you are way past the curve here.

>>32257563
Not about that Optempo man, WAY too much for me.
>>32257571
Well, there's variants of the 212, but again there's some things I can't say.
>>32257590
Battlestations Torpedo means somethings getting fucking destroyed and hold on to your assholes. Everyone would know, not everyone would know right away what we were fighting.

>>32257593
>Well VA's are quieter but seriously there's some crazy shit out there that makes platform specific hardware/software meaningless. Trust me. Haha.
How much of that software side magic and external resources do you boys horse swap with the RN? Are the Astutes everything the USN would hope they are?

>>32257590

Reminds me of a story I read on a forum from a person who served in the Falklands on HMS Ardent. Great story if you want to know what it is like on a warship under attack.

The two Chinese laundrymen didn't even know the ship was under attack until the bombs exploded!

>>32257660
>HMS Ardent
**HMS Argonaut

>>32257621
Noob-question: what class is the -21 class? Cant find anything about it. My Google-fu is lacking

>>32257656
>Not about that Optempo man, WAY too much for me
Fair enough.

>It is about 20 years since the Russians got aircraft radar systems that could detect the surface distortion that occurs when a sub is in motion.
You know how limited those are RE: sub depth, sea state and wind conditions, right? Even under perfect environmental conditions a sub needs to be running at depths they rarely do for that detection method to return a positive.

>>32257682
The Seawolf is SSN-21 (not to be confused with the liquid-sodium reactor '50s vintage SSN-575 Seawolf).

>>32257633
Putin's a funny bastard. Russia's doing all sorts of weird shit.
>>32257657
I personally do not know, but the Astute's are pretty legit in exercise.
>>32257682
The Seawolfs. 21 is Seawolf, 22 is CT, 23 is a monster.

>>32257713
>23 is a monster.
I really hope they publicly release most of the Parche patrol records before I'm dead. I really, really want to read what the most decorated unit in US military history was up to all those years.

No chance I'll live long enough to really read about the Carter.

>>32257696
Ah, thanks. Was just wondering because the only depth number i could find on wiki was 800ft +. No doubt thats a lowballed number though

>>32257743
Will never happen. SCI falls into this whole other level of controls.

>>32257748
Remember, you've got 3 depths for any boat, and most non-bubblehead info sources cock them up constantly:
>test depth is the peacetime max operations depth
>max operating depth is the max depth under any circumstances
>crush/collapse depth is the estimated depth when the hull starts buckling and failing rather than flexing

So you often see journalists, for instance, comparing crush VS test depth between two boats. This is further complicated by the fact that navies generally don't release hard humbers on ANY of these depths, and usually just give a vague X+ number without noting which of the three it is on operational hulls.

>>32257713

So you do interact submarine - submarine with allies in exercises. Is that always adversarial (with one side defending friendly surface ships) or ever cooperative (both coordinating to achieve a mission)?

I've always wondered, because submarines are probably the most secretive part of any country's navy, but some US allies (like the UK) cooperate very closely on naval matters.

File: 1473819638787.jpg (69KB, 640x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x795px

>>32257762
Let me dream, anon. Just let me dream.

They released Ivy Bells, Azorian and a bunch of other shit. I just want another few windows before I shit my spleen out and die on top of a prostitute.

Found the story I was referring to in >>32257660

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/falklands-war-hms-argonaut.244349/

Cannot recommend it enough.

>>32257870
>https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/falklands-war-hms-argonaut.244349/
Fucking great read, anon. Thanks.

>>32257870

What I find interesting about the Falklands War, is that the British task force actually suffered many setbacks and losses, losing several warships completely (with several more damaged), losing almost all of the helicopters to support ground operations as well as a lot of other equipment on the Atlantic Conveyor, suffering severe losses with the disaster at bluff cove, and having to take attack an entrenched enemy with an inferior number of light infantry with only modest fire support.

There hasn't really been a war quite like it since, and for quite a while before.

File: tu-123 yastreb mute.webm (2MB, 476x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 476x360px

>>32255198
So basically old soviet drones, only with a bit less inclined launch?

>>32258728
The hilarious/tragic bollocks of it all is if the Argies hadn't lost their damn minds, the Brits probably would have sold them the Falklands for little more than minimal basing/port rights during the mid-'90s cuts. Now they'll never get them.

>>32258831
No. The Ohio class SSGN conversions at the very least have vertical tube canister-launched high persistence recon birds they can throw up to support special warfare teams which they can also transport and launch in some configurations.

>>32255198
you mean like the one that was test two years ago? http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/submarine-drone-launch/index.html

>>32255287
Fire Scout has little growth ability for sensors. The majority of the front "cabin" is already full of avionics and the entire rears "cabin" is a fuel tank to give helo legs.

Aside from that, you aren't going to have a surface US surface ship allowed where US subs are operating today. Ain't gonna happen.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-08 at 6.17.46 PM.png (209KB, 389x349px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 389x349px

>>32255218
Yeah impossible! Ohhhh...wait...They have this already! "AeroVironment’s so-called Blackwing miniature tube-launched drone can be launched from fully submerged attack and guided missile submarines" http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/us-navy-to-deploy-submarine-launched-drones/

>>32258908
>Aside from that, you aren't going to have a surface US surface ship allowed where US subs are operating today. Ain't gonna happen.
Either I'm completely missing the point on this, it's really really dumb considering one of the primary SSN missions of CSG escort or this anon messed up the typing.

Someone unpack this for me a little?

>>32258908
>Fire Scout has little growth ability for sensors.
You do realize there are two completely different airframe variants both called Fire Scout, right? Also that there's such a thing as progressive sensor/avionics hardware miniaturization simply as a feature of continuing processor and PCB/IC development plus cooling system advancements, right?

>>32256037
Go quiet and clear datum...must be using sails to clear datum! LMAO. You go girl!

>>32257309
what bunk do you sleep in sailor? Wanna meet in the supply shack after watch?

>>32259144
>Go quiet and clear datum...must be using sails to clear datum! LMAO. You go girl!
In sub terms this means to get on the other side of the thermocline from whatever sensor you think has your scent (remember, sonobuoys usually get dropped above and below the thermocline in a pattern over a grid), reduce turns to best quiet speed which for a Seawolf or Ohio might mean best natural convection reactor cooled speed, go quiet and clear the immediate area of your last point of contact.

>>32259236
yeah...I know what clear datum is. I've taken a shit at test depth. But how is the surface ship going to do that?

>>32250490
>designed and constructed in 1993
>construction doesn't finish for 17 years
This seems like way the fuck too long for something that needs to be as modern as a sub.

>>32259268
Sweetheart, maybe you should read the fucking post again:

>>32256037
>You guys realize that the primary defense for subs is complete and total silence, right?
>You put a big-ass SPY radar on a sub
>If they fit serious SAMs on USN boats,
>detect and localize with an EM mast at relatively low risk of discovery.
>AA capabilities on subs in the USN died as a viable and reasonable tactic with the Triton
>Kill one, and all the others converge and drop enough sonobuoys to float the Titanic on your head while any nearby ships start chain-launching ASROCs.
>quiet and clear datum when ASW aircraft catch a wiff.
All the places in that post where I explicitly or implicitly specify I'm talking about submarines. Not once do I mention surface ships outside of nods to opposing forces. I even mention OPPOSING ASW literally two words after the phrase you decided to mock.

You should spend less time posting, and more time actually learning to read. Then work on getting your fucking fish, nub.

>>32255198
>anything designed by committee by the military
>disposable
anon, it'll cost $325m each and they'll build 3.

>>32259309
It was. It basically sat completely idle in the graver's dock for a decade before they found the funds to finish it.

The second boat in class had to be so thoroughly updated in design they laid it down in 2009 and it STILL hasn't been launched, much less commissioned. Every year they say they'll launch it. Most current public comments say it'll launch in 2016 (kek) and commission in 2018. Between the redesigns and completely bullmoose fucking crazy corruption on the docks, it's completely donkeyfucked for the foreseeable future.

File: Eagle shit.jpg (181KB, 1842x1074px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1842x1074px

>>32259268
>I've taken a shit at test depth
>>32259368
>You should spend less time posting, and more time actually learning to read. Then work on getting your fucking fish, nub.

Nothing better than watching cocky new meat get slapped around by the old salts.

>>32257309
is the whole ocean that flat?

>>32258908
Fire Scout also takes up a third of the space of a Seahawk in the hangar. Weaker sensors and shorter range are offset by doubling the number of avaliable aircraft when operated alongside an MH-60. Which you should always do because Fire Scout can't torpedo or dip.

Anyways. Sub launched drone is an interesting niche capability, but subs don't need the help to track surface ships, and can't communicate by radio without sticking their necks out anyways. So you're either handing the drone off to a landing team operating off the sub, or you're handing it off to surface ships that have better airborne sensors than something you could shoot out of a VLS. The former is a niche role, and the later is a non-role.

>>32257648
Yes, if the sub is near the surface, and that's assuming they can even get an aircraft to the area in the first place, their Naval Air Arm is so poorly funded they can barely scrape together enough aircraft to get half a squadron on the Kutz. The Chinese are even in a worse place, i think they have like 10 maritime patrol aircraft total.

>>32259512
Anon. Jesus. I mean I get you've probably left Kansas, but you have to be familiar with something as consistently famous in media for the last 3,000 years as the changeability of the sea, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state

>>32250490

They're the biggest, strongest, stealthiest, most heavily-armed warships afloat at the moment. The question you should be asking is why aren't we replacing our DDs with them en-masse? Even if they weren't any less detectable than a surface vessel they'd still be better in almost every way.

>>32251520
Radar observation of submarine movement as well. Airborne laser detection of submarine. Long range low frequency active detection.

>>32255198
Tactical tomahawk does this already.

>>32255637
literally don't even need radar to detect the Russian fleet

>>32260389

>The question you should be asking is why aren't we replacing our DDs with them en-masse?

Because destroyers are primarily used as escorts in carrier strike groups and submarines would be terrible at that. A submarine would not be able to defend the carrier from attacking aircraft.

>>32257713
>23 is a monster
This. Opsec isn't for the USN, it's for everyone else.

File: 70edfc1f9239589cbea37464e9bbc9b5.jpg (571KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1024x768px

Are we entering the beginning of the Seaquest DSV era?

>>32255260
It looks like a big fat sea slug resting on the sea floor.

Nudibranch-class sub when?

>>32257309
What's the strangest or creepiest shit that you've ever seen or heard when out and about in the deep blue sea?

>>32257445
It's a very good estimate.

>>32257590
You'd be manning battlestations torpedo, so literally everyone on the ship would know you're in combat.

However, only the personnel in the control room and sonar shack would have a clear picture of what was actually going on.

>>32263059

Wikipedia suggests that the Seawolf has a maximum operating depth of 1600 feet and a crush depth of 2400 feet.

>>32263059
It's a fucking retarded estimate. Even the Thresher/Permits had a test depth of 1,300ft plus, not even mentioning max operating or crush depth.

How are the non-nuclear subs made by say the other euro countries?

Like say, German subs?

My country can't into nuclear club (pls no bully) and that's all we can get.

>>32255260
do subs ever actually sit on the sea floor like this?
is it even possible to detect them with sonar if they do this
is modern sonar used good enough to be 'imaging'

>>32263372

For SSK's it is a completely viable tactic to sit on the bottom and wait for somebody to come by.

>>32263425
And for SSNs too.
Once again, for the fourth time in as many threads, the USN has put careful engineering and thought into redundant, highly placed coolant ports for reactors for just this reason since the Permit/Thresher class. There is literally zero reason why bottoming to wait and/or do secret squirrel shit isn't a viable tactic for USN SSNs.

>>32260618
>>32255198
>Literally a cruise missile

>>32257425
How was VMS in its older iterations?

>>32262802
Nigga, that's what got me into subs.
>commissioned 2015
>built in newport news
>co almost starts war
>reassigned to un peacekeeping
>so powerful ayys need it

Looking back, shit was wacky.

Hey guys, look up Russia's Status-6 nuclear powered torpedo. 50-100 Megatron warhead, 5000km range.

How do we counter it?

>>32265588

By deterrence. Russia knows by using that weapon they've opened the can of worms that is a limited nuclear war (defined by use).

>>32250526
my god stop believing in fairy tales us tard

>>32265588

AUTOBOTS, ROLL OUT!

>>32263243
Less noisy than nuclear ones.

>>32265620

Well yeah, but I mean when the shit is in the blades of the fan, what sort of system might we use to prevent losing our harbors? Some sort of "interceptor" torpedo? Do we (the US) have active supercavitating torps?

>>32266866
>Well yeah, but I mean when the shit is in the blades of the fan, what sort of system might we use to prevent losing our harbors? Some sort of "interceptor" torpedo? Do we (the US) have active supercavitating torps?
The US developed supercavitating torpedoes and discarded them because they required larger torpedo tubes and were completely impossible to guide. They're dumb weapons, suitable only for nuclear warheads. The Russians now claim they have guide-able versions but simple physics reveals this to be bullshit.

Also, remember that a Russian sub would have to actually get close enough to an American port to execute an attack like that. Several issues:
When the balloon goes up, every single Russian SSN/SSBN/SSGN/SSK is fair game. Anywhere from a quarter to three quarters of their entire deployed sub force is being actively tracked at any given time and 90% of it is localized to within a hundred miles. You do the math on how many of them make it to US ports. One or two? Maybe a handful? Sure. At the cost of their entire deployed navy, more or less. And they get one port each before getting swarmed under by rotary wing ASW and P-3/P-8s. They'd be more effective short term taking out a deployed CSG with that torp nuke.

CONT

>>32266996
Any port they nuke will immediately provoke a NUTS exchange of ICBMs and possibly low deflection SLBMs. In a very real way, a nuclear torpedo exploding in a port would be a far, far worse attack than an airburst. Consider Bikini Atoll after the Crossroads Baker shot:
>The cleanup was hampered by two significant factors: the unexpected base surge and the lack of a viable cleanup plan. It was understood that if the water column fell back into the lagoon, which it did, any ships that were drenched by falling water might be contaminated beyond redemption. Nobody expected that to happen to almost the entire target fleet.[144] No decontamination procedures had been tested in advance to see if they would work and to measure the potential risk to personnel. In the absence of a decontamination protocol, the ships were cleaned using traditional deck-scrubbing methods: hoses, mops, and brushes, with water, soap, and lye.[145] The sailors had no protective clothing.
>Warren also observed that the radsafe procedures were not being followed correctly.[149] Fire boats got too close to the target ships they were hosing and drenched their crews with radioactive spray. One fire boat had to be taken out of service.[149] Film badges showed 67 overdoses between August 6 and 9.[138] More than half of the 320 Geiger counters available shorted out and became unavailable.[150] The crews of two target ships, USS Wainwright and USS Carteret, moored far from the detonation site, had moved back on board and become overexposed. They were immediately evacuated back to the United States.
Basically, the entire water column and all the silt gets thrown up, covers everything within several miles and then everything is permafucked for 50ish years, if not longer. Far more persistent effects and much more impossible cleanup than an airburst. You can't even use water for firefighting after something like a Baker shot.

>>32266196
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not really.

>>32263243

Diesel submarines are very slow and short-ranged compared to nuclear submarines. However, they are still a very serious threat.

>>32255198
USS Jimmy Carter has these.

File: plates.jpg (139KB, 500x440px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 500x440px

>>32267661
I've heard about the potential for submarines to use stirling engines as a way of replacing or supplementing diesel engines, do they exist yet and can they be as quiet as a diesel sub?

>>32266996
Your a dumb weapon. Shkval can turn.

>>32270217
Never said it can't turn. It just doesn't have homing capabilities. All you can do it program the INS and send it off to school.

>>32270200
Yes they exist. Swedes use it for years in their subs. Fuel cells are the latest meme though.

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/07/06/explained-how-air-independent-propulsion-aip-works/

File: 1ed89857c3f0c42b20b7909c19a18e31.jpg (962KB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 2272x1704px

Somewhat related to the topic:

What happened to pic related? The russians have their version in service for quite a while now. What are the germans doing.

>Diehl Barracuda, also known as SUPERKAVITIERENDER UNTERWASSERLAUFKÖRPER