That's a little scary. It sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else. We will get there faster, days instead of months. When we're talking coastal areas the enemy will have hours, not days. It's beginning to sound like we cannot detect bad guys even with active measures. I hope we've got a lot of money going to basic research as well, because we need a breakthrough.

The previous strategy was “attrition based,” he says. “We were counting on killing more of them than they were able to kill us.” Under the new concept, “We don’t necessarily have to kill submarines. We just have to be able to operate in the environment to our satisfaction.”

I'd sure like to know what's satisfying about operating in an environment where you can't detect the enemy until after the attack, and maybe not then.

There is more to submarine warfare than equipment. Super quiet diesel subs are not new and at best have simply kept pace with our own increasing technology, and probably not even that. The skill of the crews is what matters, and while there are a handful of nations that might stir up some relatively minor trouble with their small diesel sub fleets, taking on the US navy would be suicide. China is another matter, but again, China has no naval tradition, much less submarine tradition. If a war ever broke out over the Formosa Straights, our subs would the front lines, not our carriers. The secret of that scenario is that scenario is that so long as our subs can protect Taiwan (and theirs), invasion is impossible. No amount of diesel subs, or even Soviet nuclear castoffs will be able to chase our subs out. It would take some unforseen stroke of Chinese brilliance to do that.

Non-nuclear submarines represent a real threat in coastal areas. Their weakest point till now, the need to turn periodically the diesel engines on, is avoided in the most modern units using fuel cells or stirling engines (Diesels only work in the transit to and from the combat area). Thus they can lay on the bottom (in shallow waters) waiting for the enemy up to 14 days, making no noise, and then attack using missiles or torpedoes (six in one salvo) the last ones conventional or nuclear. They are some kind of "terrorists of the seas" striking where it seemed there was no danger, and hitting really hard. A good weapon to defend a coast.

Richard,

This has apparently been put together by folks in the field, not just folks in the staff rooms. Here's what I'm guessing - and without a clearance and inside docs, I am guessing somewhat.

Surprise... there's tactical surprise, and then there's strategic surprise. Sounds like the USA will become more reliant on strategic surprise, in order to set up tactical surprise. If you can plot a route where you know you'll need to go and "scrub" it in advance, instead of fighting once you're there, some things start to work for you. Your enemy won't be everywhere, so choices have to be made. An American sub that lays sensor fields etc. well in advance can let American ships etc. operate in the area, without having to find and kill a sub guarding some other channel.

This is also where some of the decoys, deception, and information warfare come in. Having better "battlespace awareness" (which takes serious investment, because you must integrate as well as network) helps quite a bit with that, and also help subs, sensors, UUVs, aircraft, and surface ships all work together as one to make discovery of enemy subs a very fast sentence of doom.

The "fast attack torpedo" reminds me of the Russian VA-111 Shkvall rocket torpedo, some of which have reportedly been sold to China. When detection is at a premium, one thing you want to do is to be able to get in the first shot and kill before retaliation is possible. Or at the very least, to maintain parity in that area if Russia starts selling more Shkvals.

Finally, my guess is that the long term plan involves a 3-tiered system of subs, UUVs, and autonomous sensors to keep things interesting under the sea. What's that sound? Is it a decoy sensor trying to get me to give myself away? An armed UUV? A sub? Guess wrong, and you're a dead man - or in a best-case scenario, playing a long stalking game of underwater chicken with a UUV instead of the real thing.

If you're an enemy sub commander, that can play with your head.

Advances in diesel subs are narrowing the USA's technical advantage in a littoral knife-fight, and that is cause for some concern. Still, it can't be avoided. Doctrine and coordination can help make up for the shift, however, even in the absence of a breakthrough. So I'm glad the USN is on it and working that angle, as well as whatever R&D they and the Brits come up with.

Thanks for the additional thoughts, Joe. I guess the silver lining is that the problem is acknowledged and being dealt with to the extent it can be with current technology. However, given the success the Aussies have had in "sinking" CVs in exercises, this problem is pretty big and this solution seems to address only a part of it. That breakthrough sure would be nice.

As historical background, if you haven't seen it, this was very interesting.

Very fine link, Richard... "The Third Battle: Innovation in the U.S. Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines." March 2000
Dr. Owen R. Cote, Jr., Associate Director. MIT Security Studies Program. He offers some very prescient comments about "The Fourth Battle" too.

This stuff is definitely an issue for the USA. Now, for an interesting twist: imagine what a headache this Asian sub buildup must be to China, as it begins to build a blue-water navy and adopt a "string of pearls" strategy from Southern China to the Persian Gulf.

I agree with Mr. Buehner regarding the impracticality of an invasion of Taiwan. Even if China managed to land a substantial number of troops, I don't think it could usefully supply them and sustain operations to militarily gain control of the island. A far more likely scenario, however, would be a blockade of Taiwan, using air, surface, and submarine forces to cut off Taiwan's trade and choke it into submission. Protecting merchant shipping traffic from lurking diesel subs would be a much more difficult undertaking than protecting a carrier battle group.

Mark,

American nuclear attack submarines won't be the first to engage the Chinese in the Formosa Strait. Japanese diesel-powered attack submarines will. Their crews are almost as good as ours and their electronics suites are about as good. And the Japanese submarines are much, much quieter than ours.

American submarine and anti-submarine tactics in coastal waters will be heavily dependent on 'droids, be they aerial, surface and subsurface, in the mid to long term.

We can play attrition games between our unmanned platforms and manned Asian diesal subs and win at a price America can afford. Or perhaps that should read, "...at a price only America can afford."

But for the short term, it is as Tom Holsinger says.

The coming War with China will see Japanese diesal subs operating under American Naval air cover in the Taiwan straits.

Speaking from personal and professional ASW experience...What a load of bologna! IMO, this statement is nothing more than a disinformation campaign.

The Defense Department has spent billions of dollars on high-tech communications, but there is no joint command-and-control net that integrates all U.S. military assets.

more bullshit

_
Also, the Navy will need sensors that can process information autonomously. There will not be enough bandwidth to move mountains of data from sensors at sea, for example, to human-operated workstations on land or aboard ships. Yoshihara characterized this as a “tough” challenge for technologists._

Have no fear folks. The USN and the USA's REAL allies (not the French, they are reported as "threat" not "friendly :-) have been working on this specific "problem" since, at least, just before "the end" of the cold war. That's 15 years.

There is another scenario to consider: The Decapitation Attack Scenario. This piece in the Asia Times Online lays it out pretty well. The gist of it is that China strikes Taipei by airborne troops along with missiles backed by bombers. They need only control the first 24 hours or so, presenting us with a fait accompli.

Iran already owns diesel subs. Iran is building A-bombs. Iran packs several A-bombs in a diesel sub and parks it off the NYC shore with a suicide crew. Iran...
Well, you get the idea.

Keeping the shipping lanes open around Taiwan is in IMHO a much tougher task than closing the sealanes. Especially when the Chinese can prepare the battlefield by laying smart mines.

No need for a suicide crew. Sub plants during peacetime A-bombs next to New York, Maimi, Los Angeles, etc. and when war goes really bad you release them.

Among other things to worry about: Jim Dunnigan reported a few days ago that Cuba is apparently sinking a lot of money and effort into building torpedoes. The idea seems to be to develop the capability to launch wake-homing torpedoes from their shores, with a range of up to 100 klicks.

Any naval war in Asia with America involved will start with American air parity, if not air superiority, from day one.

Third World Diesal Subs natural American enemy is an American strike plane with a JDAM hitting it's shore support facilities.

Once those facilities are gone and America sweeps the seas of surface traffic that can support those subs. It is a matter of time. When they come up to refuel and rearm they are as good as dead.

China has according to some reports deployed a laser near the Formosa streets. It is very hard to attain air cover when the enemy has laser weapons.

'a,' the good news is, it's quite easy. Lasers are temperamental, narrow effect, and require a GREAT deal of power to do much of anything. The source of which can always be blown up. Among other issues. There's a reason or five the USA doesn't use them as operational weapons, and it isn't lack of experimentation or interest. They just flat our aren't much good at this point.

Lots of real issues to worry about there, but that isn't one.

The concepts of a bolt from the blue, Chinese quick strike, laser weapons worth a damn, etc., are ludicrous. We might as well worry about a Chinese secret weapon to make us all turn inside out and explode.

Furthermore the concept of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan fails to consider what would happen even from a failed attempt, let alone anything more than that, i.e., no Chinese sea trade for six months and loss of access to the American market for as long as the Communists control the mainland.

What is really going on is the failure of what passes for a Chinese ruling clique to mediate between their factions.

IMO the whole thing will end with a US Marine expeditionary force of about brigade size, plus an Army air defense brigade and a composite air wing in Taiwan plus Chinese chest-beating for decades. Which might be what they want - not Taiwan but a symbol of Taiwan and foreign devils to further domestic political interests, i.e., the continued power of the hereditary Chinese ruling class (formerly Communist).

Having a narrow effect is a good thing in the case of a weapon. And the question if laser weapons are now effective is a bit mute as Taiwan has at-the-moment air superiority over China without American assistence.

Tom, do you really think than any unified chinese leadership would not persue a one China policy. Removing the communists wouldn't help

>China has according to some reports deployed a
>laser near the Formosa streets. It is very hard
>to attain air cover when the enemy has laser
>weapons.

Lasers are line of sight weapons that don't work through clouds.

JDAMS don't worry about such things.

Toss bombing was developed to deliver nuclear and precision guided weapons in an integrated air defense environment far nastier than the Chinese have on their South Coasts and the delivering planes never come in line of sight of their targets.

There is no such thing as a magic shield against American airpower.

>Furthermore the concept of a Chinese invasion
>of Taiwan fails to consider what would happen
>even from a failed attempt, let alone anything
>more than that, i.e., no Chinese sea trade for
>six months and loss of access to the American
>market for as long as the Communists control
>the mainland.

The outside world really isn't real to most Chinese factions. It is just a useful symbol to beat up other factions with.

Also consider for a moment tha we may be seeing Northern Chinese factions fomenting just such a unsuccessful war to knock the econmically dynamic Southern Chinese back in place.

Winning and losing a war with America is far less important to the Northern Chinese factions than staying in power.

a,

China's former communists are the major obstacle to reunification. Taiwan would IMO voluntarily reunite with a democratic China.

Our goal in China should be regime change. We can do that by peaceful means.

If they work through clouds depend a lot on the wavelenght used so can be tweaked.
Line of sight is over open waters at least 50km and much more if your not skimming over the sea.
The reason why toss bombing works has more to do with the speed at which anti aircraft shells fly than with not being seen. When a plan is 20km away than it will take a shell atleast 20 seconds to get there so it is very unlikely to be hit. The same is true for rockets but they can atleast change trajectory. Laser on the other hand is instant at that distance.
Stealth does work because what can't be seen can't be shot so America will still have airpower but it will loose its airsuperiority in respect to close air support

Tom,

the part of Taiwan that feels itself chinese may do that but a large percentage of Taiwan isn't chinese but taiwanese. The politics of power have also a lot to do with it as the president of Taiwan would become a mere gouverner. I think you can compare it with South America where i don't see a lot of progress in re-unifing Colombia and Venezuela

a,

I agree that the longer it takes for China to become democratic, the less likely voluntary reunification becomes. But economics is involved here too. There is much travel by Taiwanese to and from the mainland.

IMO the mainland's formerly communist hereditary ruling class is really, really afraid of travel by mainland businessmen to and from Taiwan, and one of the motivations of their saber-rattling is to minimize that.

So when will Canada and the US unify? Having a common economy and culture is not enough. There also needs to be a political will and i see that missing from Taiwan

a,

Now you are being silly. The U.S. and Canada were only unified for 12 years, 1763-1775, and that ended 230 years ago. China and Taiwan were unified for many centuries, and have been separated since 1775 during the Japanese occupation, and then from 1949 on. The situations are not comparable.

Tell us more about Ireland too.

tom,

Yes i am. But assuming that Taiwans desire for independants is only dependant of the communist in Bejing is i think wrong.

ps. Taiwan was occupied by the Dutch around 1620 and with China you always have to remember that the empire was far away

An invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly result in a nuclear exchange between the US and China, which is why it wont happen. If there is a last bastion of MAD, it is in that location. Conventional forces are simply political chess peices. The only victor in such a Stangelovian conflict would 'gain' either a Taiwan reduced to rubble or alternately a China forced into a full scale war and the corresponding end of the world (or at least half the world) scenario.

MAD only works if you know your opponent isn't bluffing. But the US is bluffing about Taiwan.

I can't believe you guys have the nerve to talk geopolitics and high-tech military operations when none of you know have enough basic knowledge and common sense I'd expect from the average high school grad.

In fact, none of you can handle basic English grammar!

hahahahaha

What a joke!

I strongly suggest that you guys go back to high school and work harder this time around.

One single laser AA battery can, at best, be just a little more effective that ol' good missiles or guns. Now, if the Chinese had hundreds of realiable, battle-tested lasers it would be a different matter.

whateversense,

Care to enlighten us with your obviously superior knowledge of geopolitics, military affairs and especially grammar?

The war with China is over.

In 1988 we exchanged defence ministers with the USSR. I said then that the Cold War was over.

This past week Rummy went to China to view military exercises. The war with China is over.

Note the move in China to do more for farmers and the interior. My guess is that this is coming out of their defence budget.

All the war talk of the last year was external signs of the internal conflict. That has now been resolved.

This change in doctrine isn't just about China, by any means. Whether you're right or you're wrong, the change is here to stay.

I want the Navy to bring back the tradition of naming subs after sea creatures.
USS Shark, damit. Not USS Salt Lake City.
Too much politics.

Oh be honest, you just want to see a USS Snook. :p

I want the Navy to bring back the tradition of naming subs after sea creatures.
USS Shark, damit. Not USS Salt Lake City.
Too much politics.

I have no problem with the current approach. It follows the old Navy tradition of naming battleships for states and cruisers for cities, with heavy cruisers being named for larger cities. Nowadays the ballistic missile sub is in much the same strategic position as the battleship was in the early 20th century, and attack subs have about the same importance as cruisers, so applying the old naming tradition to them reflects their role in the modern Navy.

And destroyers are named after deserving sailors and marines, only Nimitz got a carrier...I am more concerned about the recent policy of naming carriers after presidents. All the popular ones have been used and after USS George H.W. Bush (well, at least he was a navy pilot) can a USS William J. Clinton be next? Jimmy Carter was in submarines, so the navy dodged that bullet and named a sub after him (less visible).

Some good traditional carrier names currently unused: Saratoga, Yorktown, Ranger, Constellation, Essex, Intrepid, Independence, America.

A question: As far as I understand it - and I´m certainly no expert - the noise produced by nuclear subs comes from reactor pumps and steam turbines.

Can anyone tell me why the US does not build hybrid submarines that combine a nuclear power plant with fuel cells and electric motors for propulsion? That way it could deploy across oceans at 30+ knots, then operate very quietly using fuel cells as the power source for high-speed maneuvers.

While in the area of operations, the reactor could idle or run at low output, making extremely little noise, but it would be enough to prolong fuel cell endurance or even relaod them between spurts. All of that could lead to an endurance far beyond that of diesel-electric subs while producing not much more noise. And the option to surge the reactor to 100% is always there.

Maybe it is not a good idea, but I am sure somebody must have thought about this already?

wf, because it is difficult to safely operate the kind of nuclear power plants that US Navy attack submarines use on natural circulation alone. There have been a couple of one-off SSN's that did so, all have been retired.