Ah Challenge: Submersible Ships

Your challenge, should you accept it, is to make submersible ships become an accepted part of a modern day navy. And when I mean 'submersible ships' I mean naval vessles like the HMS M1 and the Surcouf. The POD and the necessary design changes are totally up to you. What can you think of?
 

Markus

Banned
And when I mean 'submersible ships' I mean naval vessles like the HMS M1 and the Surcouf.

Both of which were ordinary subs with an exceptionally powerful artillery. The modern version of artillery are missiles. So any kind of sub that can fire at least a cruise missile and of course the ICBM-armed Boomers fullfill these criteria.
 
1 - Submarines are correctly called boats, because the bulk of them is under the waterline.

2 - Any diesel-electric sub is more or less a submersible, for it often runs on the surface (during peacetime, anyway).

3 - As stated above, cruise missiles and long range heavyweight torpedoes fulfill the land attack and anti-shipping roles: modern ranges of detection and attack are far in excess of the range of the guns stuck on corsair submarines.

4 - Sticking a big gun on a sub wrecks its 'aquadynamics', making it both slower and noisier: it was only really of permissable benefit in the days before decent radar and sonar.

And it is never 'the HMS...'. It's either 'HMS...' or 'the [name of vessel]'
 
1 - Submarines are correctly called boats, because the bulk of them is under the waterline.

2 - Any diesel-electric sub is more or less a submersible, for it often runs on the surface (during peacetime, anyway).
That is true, I used ships in this case just to invoke images of large ships into mind.

4 - Sticking a big gun on a sub wrecks its 'aquadynamics', making it both slower and noisier
That didn't stop the 1920s. :D

And it is never 'the HMS...'. It's either 'HMS...' or 'the [name of vessel]'
A mistake on my part, I admit.

Although the cruise missile point is certainly valid, I originally posted this thread with 1920s style submersible cruisers in mind. If it is ASB then that's okay. I just wanted to see what the community could think of.
 

Markus

Banned
4 - Sticking a big gun on a sub wrecks its 'aquadynamics', making it both slower and noisier: it was only really of permissable benefit in the days before decent radar and sonar.

No to the former, a maybe to the latter. The Surcouf with radar would have detected any airplane well in advance and even if a tin can managed to sneek up on her that would have meant the tin can is in for a surprise, actually two.
 
No to the former, a maybe to the latter. The Surcouf with radar would have detected any airplane well in advance and even if a tin can managed to sneek up on her that would have meant the tin can is in for a surprise, actually two.

A submarine is far more vulnerable versus even an outgunned warship, if they want to be able to dive safely afterwards. They were designed to attack merchant ships or bombard coastal areas, not take on destroyers and above.
 
I spent a day at the Naval Design Library at White Oaks, Marysland.
One of the Design reports there on the shelfs was a report from the 1950's on Designs to allow everything from Destroyers up to Aircraft Carriers to be totally submersible.

The idea was that the fleet would sneak into position along he Coast, and then sit three on the Bottom till time to emerge and launch the Attack.

This whole concept was of course killed by advances in Sonar and underwater listening devices.
 
There have been some modern proposals for submersible or semi-submersible ships. The idea being that the ship would have a normal draft during normal cruising, but in a combat situation the ship would increase its draft to reduce its radar signature or reduce the effects of air or surface detonated nukes.
 
Your challenge, should you accept it, is to make submersible ships become an accepted part of a modern day navy. And when I mean 'submersible ships' I mean naval vessles like the HMS M1 and the Surcouf. The POD and the necessary design changes are totally up to you. What can you think of?

Today submarines might be considered to be true submersible batteships. Take USS Ohio conversion, for example, it's capable of delivering over 100 cruise missiles to strike land targets (and the versions to strike against surface ships and nuclear versions have been in service, albeit withdrawn) for a range of some 2500km's. They have also torpedoes against other subs or surface ships and have capability to deploy special forces. If deemed necessary they could also deploy IDAS-T short range SAM's. With acoustic modems and satellite communications they can be a part of the battlefield network. Future capabilities may include small unmanned robotic submarines (AUV's) and flying helicopter drones for reconnaissance.

The capability which is really missing with present technology is the capability for true area air defense and tactical naval gunfire support. First mission could be perhaps reached with provision of targeting data from outside sources, ie. satellites or AEW aircraft or drones. Actual firing of SAM's from underwater VLS cells could be made possible. Second capability might be reached via use of vertical gun technology or VLS missiles, a la proposed Sea Lance.

Of course all this would be far more expensive than providing many of the capabilities included by surface ships.

For 1950's USN version I'd propose reduction of carrier force, some handwawium to cure technological problems of Martin SeaMaster and Convair SeaDart and voila - there's need for submersible aircraft carriers and aviation support ships. Combine these with already existing picket submarines, transport submarines etc. and you have a submersible fleet ready to meet the needs of New Look. Maybe a NGFS sub could be included as well, using either 6" automatic turret or perhaps a USS Carronade -style rocket firing arrangement.
 
SAMs have been trialed and used aboard submarines for decades. The only problem is you have to be near to the surface to use them. This limits their efficacy, because the aircraft could've already deployed torpedoes before they come into range; and being shallow generally makes you far more vulnerable to detection, if you wanted to surprise the asw aircraft.

With cruise missiles, there's little point in putting a gun on a submarine - aside from, perhaps, a retractable, remotely operated machine gun for policing actions in the War on Tourism/anti-piracy. If you're going to bombard a hostile coastline, you may as well send a surface ship.
 
Submersible ships

They were impracticable. The most effective way of utilising a submarine was through attacking with torpedos. The idea of submarine cruisers commerce raiding worried the Royal Navy and the X1 was prematurely scrapped with design problems exagerrated to discourage the idea. The Surcouf was a white elephant possibly sunk in error. There weren't really any others by 1939 apart from a few submarines carrying aircraft in limited numbers and submarine minelayers. A surfaced submarine is vulnerable to damage limiting its ability to attack although initially before radar became widespread, U boats used to attack convoys at night on the surface to avoid being detected by sonar/asdic.

Submarines may have been used more widely as merchant ships for blockade running like the Deutschland in WW1. They were used on a limited scale between Germany and Japan for precision goods like ball bearings and submarine minelayers ran a few cargoes to Malta. However space was limited.

They became useful miore recently for launching cruise missiles and as they are difficult to detect as platforms for ballistic missiles. However the challenge.

The Royal Navy ceases to be paranoid about cruiser submarines and develops them as a means of sidelining the Washington Treaty. A naval arms race ensues as Japan follows suit and America arms against Japan. The London Naval treaty places restrictions on the further development of cruiser submarines. They sustain heavy loses in WW11.

At the risk of a Tunfisk. Geologically speaking, Iceland is in the Mid Atlantic neither in Europe or the USA. the Mid Atlantic Ridge runs through Iceland. The Atlantic opened around 70 million years ago the sea floor spreading and separating Europe from America. Iceland in Europe? Well the alternate pre history challenge would be to stop the Atlantic from opening in the days of the Dinosaurs
 

burmafrd

Banned
A well designed (and the X-1 and Surcof neither were) gun sub would have had some definite potential in WW2. With a rapid firing 6" gun (hard to do but possible) it would have the ability ( with radar directed fire) to stand off and wreck a convoy. The problem is that you have to make it big enough to carry a lot of shells and therein lies the rub. The bigger the sub the more unwieldly and vulnerable it is.
 
A well designed (and the X-1 and Surcof neither were) gun sub would have had some definite potential in WW2. With a rapid firing 6" gun (hard to do but possible) it would have the ability ( with radar directed fire) to stand off and wreck a convoy. The problem is that you have to make it big enough to carry a lot of shells and therein lies the rub. The bigger the sub the more unwieldly and vulnerable it is.

Fair point, and using this technique one would have to use cruisers to escort convoys. This also means that as corvettes and frigates would not be as useful as in OTL, they would be replaced by fewer (although more cabable) escorts, meaning less defences against submerged attack too.

6" gun would be also of good size: it does not require complicated fully automated loading system, it also outranges escorts with maximum of around 5" guns.
 
I suppose that pointing out that 'ALL ships are submersible - it's getting them back to the surface that is the problem' wouldn't be helpful, would it.
 
That didn't stop the 1920s. :D

1. Even without a deck gun, those boats weren't going very fast underwater. The common submarine tactic when attacking an enemy ship was to determine the targets course, surface (outside of visual range of target), apply full speed (which was pretty decent on the surface) and resubmerge ahead of the target so that, provided it maintains course, the target comes to you.

2. The state-of-the-art method for submarine detection at that time was to shut off your engines (as well as have any friendlies nearby do the same), drop a microphone into the water and see if you hear anything. ASW techniques have advanced since then.
 
The question seems to be about "ships" capable of engaging other ships on the surface (or launching missles/aircraft), but which can travel underwater to acheive surprise, etc. SSNB's like the Ohios would not qualify because they are true submarines which both travel and fight underwater. As mentioned the Surcouf and others like her sort of qualify, and the large Japanese I-400 class might be considered a submersible aircraft carrier.

The main problem is that any vessel designed to "voluntarily" submerge would include so many compromises that its use as a surface combatant would be nil. They would be unarmored egg-shells, under gunned, and slow both on the surface and underwater.
 

Markus

Banned
Deck guns were quite worth their weight. Ships sailed alone form time to time, the gun is very useful for stopping and sinking a "looner" or shooting up ships in an ill-protected convoy. It helps conserving the torpedoes.
 
I'll extrapolate a little about 1950's submerged fleet... any comments are welcome..

First, let me recommend an excellent book "Attack from the sea" which is about development of Martin SeaMaster flying boat bomber and Convair SeaDart waterborne fighter...

http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Sea-Hi...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220907333&sr=8-1

On submersible aircraft carriers, I think about the only time they can be considered to be worth trouble would be around early 1950's when cruise missiles were still unreliable, ballistic missiles still the future and the budget money was ample. Invention of nuclear weapons makes the point of aircraft carrying quite a little throw-weight quite moot. Alternatively one may consider the point that SAM's were still the future wave of technology and maybe not so reliable that one would rely on the air defenses for that.

So, let's go to ATL mode...

As a result of these extraordinary decisions the submerged aircraft carriers were born. The first submerged aircraft carrier was a conversion of a Guppy converted Balao-class submarine USS Tincan. As it's "air wing" it had a single FJ Fury fighter carrying a Mk 7 tactical nuclear bomb and a lot of extra fuel, giving this USN Sabre derivative a range of some 1000km's. The equipment for the pilot included an elaborate survival gear intended to keep the pilot alive after he had ejected close to the launching submarine. Naturally, a landing to a friendly base was the preferred option.

The FJ Fury was mounted in a container behind Tincan's sail. Inside the container was the most critical piece of equipment, ZELL launch rails for zero-length launches enabling the launching of a high performance jet from the submarine.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html

Compared to the cancelled (in this ATL) Regulus cruise missiles the FJ Fury offered much more credible way to deliver a nuclear warhead. After many publicity stunts the first operational patrol of USS Tincan was made in 1955.

The FJ Fury was just an interim aircraft before introduction of F2Y Sea Dart into operational service (enter handwavium) in 1957. Construction of new submerged aircraft carriers carrying six of these planes was given a very high priority, as Sea Darts were seen as a way of giving the United States a truly survivable retaliation capability. Initial ability, employing buddy refuelling, was clumsy but effective as SeaDarts were at their best in low altitudes. In war situation they would have delivered their B28 bombs deep into Soviet Union with deadly accuracy.

Later on it has been questioned whether these huge nuclear powered submarines were necessary as some have questioned that a good enough ballistic missile might have been produced to serve aboard the ships earlier than 1980's. Countercritics have pointed out that putting ballistic missiles aboard submarines would have posed tremendous security risks and might even have risked an accidental nuclear war due to irreversbile nature of taking a decision to employ nuclear weapons via ballistic delivery. Ballistic missile submarines would have also been essentially single-use items without any relevance to other tasks than massive nuclear conflagration.

Cold War would not have been Cold War without US-Soviet competition and British innovations. Soviets had considered also various cruise missile schemes but with US example made their own submerged aircraft carriers. First of them was almost exact copy of USS Tincan, a modified Zulu-class submarine employing a MiG-19 with ZELL-arrangement. These experimental craft were supplanted by operational ECHO-class (ATL) submerged aircraft carriers carrying Beriev-designed flying boat fighters.

With difference of US practice the mission of the Soviet submerged aircraft carriers was essentially defensive. They were to patrol in Soviet northern waters and also under the ice pack and surface irregularly deploying their fighters irregularly, making the task of SAC much harder in penetrating Soviet air defences. Additionally they were to support Soviet seaborne striking force based in similar concept to the abortive Martin SeaMaster Seaborne striking force. Although Beriev-10 flying boat (historical) had teething problems, it would prove to be a troublesome theoretical foe against US air defences.
 
Top