Submarines about to become OBSOLETE? (article)

[CougarKing]

IMO, this article is jumping the gun on the demise of the submarine. If anything, submarines will continue to evolve...

National Interest

Are Submarines About to Become Obsolete?

What would happen if U.S. nuclear attack submarines—some of the most sophisticated and expensive American weapons of war—suddenly became obsolete? Imagine a scenario where these important systems became the hunted instead of the hunter, or just as technologically backward as the massive battleships of years past.

(...SNIPPED)

Submarines: The New Battleship?

The revelation is alluded to in a recent report by the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) called “The Emerging Era in Undersea Warfare.” Smartly named by a certain TNI editor as the “think-tank’s think-tank,” CSBA has crafted in the last decade many of the most detailed and sophisticated reports regarding the most pressing national-security challenges around—sometimes years before anyone else. Ever heard of a little operational concept called AirSea Battle? They were at the forefront of it before it was in the news.

In a piece for TNI, the report’s author, Bryan Clark, lays out the problem in more layman's terms:

Since the Cold War submarines, particularly quiet American ones, have been considered largely immune to adversary A2/AD capabilities. But the ability of submarines to hide through quieting alone will decrease as each successive decibel of noise reduction becomes more expensive and as new detection methods mature that rely on phenomena other than sounds emanating from a submarine. These techniques include lower frequency active sonar and non-acoustic methods that detect submarine wakes or (at short ranges) bounce laser or light-emitting diode (LED) light off a submarine hull. The physics behind most of these alternative techniques has been known for decades, but was not exploited because computer processors were too slow to run the detailed models needed to see small changes in the environment caused by a quiet submarine. Today, “big data” processing enables advanced navies to run sophisticated oceanographic models in real time to exploit these detection techniques. As they become more prevalent, they could make some coastal areas too hazardous for manned submarines.

Could modern attack subs soon face the same problem as surface combatants around the world, where some areas are simply too dangerous to enter, thanks to pressing A2/AD challenges?

Breaking Down the Dilemma:

“We need to think about a new strategy for undersea warfare,” explained Clark in a recent piece for DefenseNews. “Right now we tend to rely on submarines doing tactical operations on their own, in an environment where they can operate largely with impunity. All those things are going to change in the future...”

So what are the United States and other nations to do if Clark’s predictions come to pass?

Consider the problem in these terms: Washington is laying down two Virginia Class Attack submarines a year at a cost of roughly $1.8 billion per boat. These advanced subs were to be the backbone of Washington’s evolving Air-Sea Battle operational concept, recently renamed and now being retooled as the “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons” (JAM-GC). With even more expensive U.S. aircraft carriers facing mounting challenges, thanks to A2/AD weapons systems—specifically ballistic and cruise missiles being fielded by China, Iran, Russia and others—undersea platforms like submarines were to help Washington ensure it was one step ahead. While not completely replacing the capabilities of America’s carrier battle groups, U.S. attack subs armed with land-attack cruise missiles (TLAMS) would retain at least a portion of the capability to attack command and control nodes and work to destroy land-based threats, as well as advanced enemy sub or naval surface forces. If CSBA’s predictions become fact in the near-to-medium term, America and its allies will have a major problem to contend with.

The problems deepen when you consider even large issues like the deployment of America’s nuclear weapons. With Washington also needing to replace its aging Ohio Class SSBN submarines—armed with a good deal of America’s undersea nuclear deterrent—the problem set becomes even more dire.

How to Solve the Problem: Underwater Aircraft Carriers?

So what can Washington do to mitigate the problem? While presenting a number of solutions, one alluded to by CSBA’s Clark seems quite genius: essentially turning submarines into underwater aircraft carriers that would carry drone-like underwater unmanned vehicles or UUVs.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

oh underwater carriers, sounds like a new idea, um not the idea is early 20th century. I also wonder how many countries will posses the new ASW technology and how far can they project it from their shores?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You mean like this one from the 60's?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2uGNvmIRk&list=PLO7zsjv-vrPcKiLvKUA-sIp11Hnx1FUIg&index=7

 

[Halifax Tar]

Its funny seems that anything that is found obsolete will inevitably be needed again in the future.  Tanks ?  Body Armor ? Hell even a new type "Battleship" is stilled mulled about every now and then. 

When you think about it nothing can sustain the kind of shore support that 9 16in guns can. 

 

[Infanteer]

Submarines will be obsolete the day sailing ships are - this is the constant ebb and flow of offensive/defensive technology.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You mean like this one from the 60's?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2uGNvmIRk&list=PLO7zsjv-vrPcKiLvKUA-sIp11Hnx1FUIg&index=7

memories..loved that show as a kid  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

Its funny seems that anything that is found obsolete will inevitably be needed again in the future.  Tanks ?  Body Armor ? Hell even a new type "Battleship" is stilled mulled about every now and then. 

When you think about it nothing can sustain the kind of shore support that 9 16in guns can.

I wonder how far those buggers could shoot if they applied the same Vulcano technology to them that Oto Melara applied to the 76mm / 127mm / 155mm guns.  (900m/s - 40 km /808 m/s - 100 km /875 m/s - 80 km).

16" = 406 mm (820 m/s - ??? km)

 

[Shrek1985]

Its funny seems that anything that is found obsolete will inevitably be needed again in the future.  Tanks ?  Body Armor ? Hell even a new type "Battleship" is stilled mulled about every now and then. 

When you think about it nothing can sustain the kind of shore support that 9 16in guns can.

As a though to support what you're saying; consider what we would have to do and how much it would cost if for some reason, we ever had to suppress, neutralize, invade and destroy, in that order a heavily and intelligently fortified small island for some reason.

 

[tomahawk6]

I don't see underwater carriers.Cost will be the limiting factor for naval budgets.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Subs to carry smaller drones I can see for SF type missions.

 

[a_majoor]

Repurposed Ohio class submarines carrying 154 cruise missiles each are essentially what this article is talking about. Add a new generation of smart cruise missiles that can attack in concert (as a flock or swarm) and you are handing the enemy a huge headache. Even small submarines (or any other platform) can be used this way, the Los Angeles class attack subs could carry 12 VL launch tubes for cruise missiles, and Virginia class submarines also have expanded cruise missile carriage capabilities. If applied to Diesel electric submarines with anti ship missiles like Harpoon, this could make AA/AD more challenging as well.

 

[YZT580]

interestingly enough, the Virginia class boats are the same basic dimensions as the Japanese I-400 which carried 3 folding wing bombers in a water tight hanger.  If the Japanese could produce such a boat 70 years ago to launch manned a/c a similar capability using drones should be easily accomplished without adding putting the vessel out of economic reach.