Non-nuclear missile subs?

There actually were some civilian submarines built in Imperial Germany during World War I to evade the Royal Navy blockade. One of them was paid off on its first voyage to the United States. Cargo submarines were also one of the options considered for transporting petroleum from the North Slope of Alaska...

There are also drug smuggling submarines, although they can only operate at shallow depths.

The first two are very specialised roles though, which aren't the basis for an entire industry - one is a desperation move because Germany can't break the blockade any other way and the other would be a very inefficient way of moving a bulk item like oil.

You'll struggle to create an industry building subs for drug cartels in any non-pariah state :D
 
If you don't have nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles as weapons are relatively ineffective. There are significant difficulties in chemical or biological weapons via ICBMs both in not having the "active agent" destroyed in the process and delivering enough agent in a proper way. Once you have precision guided weapons/cruise missiles, the SSG's become valuable. The first step will probably like the Soviet Echo and Juliet class with anti-ship missiles, then move up to land attack variants.

Submarine transports for Marine raiders/special forces have a potential, but for commercial transports they are simply uneconomic, especially conventionally powered where to traverse any distance you use speeds that burn through battery power meaning lots of snorkel time (at limited spped/limited by sea state) or on the surface recharging (so what is the advantage).
 
If there are no nuclear weapons I can't see ICBMs being put on submarines. You would likely have tomahawk style weapons fitted to subs but icbms would stay in land based silos if they were used at all. I can see two ways it could go, first the V2 and heavy losses of aircrew spur development of ever longer ranged missiles and any conflict is marked with long range missile bombardment. The other way is that without Nukes there is no reason to develop the ICBM and the path of development stops at cruise missiles and maybe IRBMs.
 
I-400 class, Type XXX class, Type 216 class

I-400 for Imperial Japan, Type XXX for Nazi Germany, Type 216 for modern Germany. The largest built and supposedly largest designed non-nuclear subs until at least the 1960s for the first two, among the largest for the last.
 
Mike D said:
I don't see it, because even if subs become cheaper they'll never be cheaper than a similar sized surface vessel.

I can't think of a reason why you'd need a civilian submarine (outside of those little tourist ones you get in some places) - they're more expensive than a ship (even if you reduce the price due to the military having more), they'll have less capacity than the same sized ship (because of the extra room taken up by ballast tanks, the requirements for a thicker hull to withstand pressure etc), the large openings required for a cargo vessel (to allow access to the cargo hold) compromise the hull integrity and (in a 'cruise ship' guise) who wants to spend a couple of weeks underwater rather than on the surface?
Submerged operations are actually cheaper, since you get away from the drag of surface effect. (IDK if the benefit outweighs the cost...:eek:) I'd imagine you'd want them to be supertanker-sized, to get the most "bang for buck".

As mentioned, there's also the benefit of being able to transit the Arctic Ocean, which is hard for surface ships much of the year, & impossible for the rest of it; the distance saved isn't trivial. (For the likes of Oz or India, no...but North America or Japan to Europe & back, yes.)
tofer said:
If there are no nuclear weapons I can't see ICBMs being put on submarines. You would likely have tomahawk style weapons fitted to subs but icbms would stay in land based silos if they were used at all. I can see two ways it could go, first the V2 and heavy losses of aircrew spur development of ever longer ranged missiles and any conflict is marked with long range missile bombardment. The other way is that without Nukes there is no reason to develop the ICBM and the path of development stops at cruise missiles and maybe IRBMs.
The reason I expect ICBMs, longer-range ones than OTL sooner, is because of the speed & endurance limits. IMO, it's easier to build a long-range SLBM than a long-range AIP/fuel cell sub, & easier to improve accuracy than endurance.

Given their greater vulnerability to ASW, I'd also say they'd be more likely to have some kind of SAM or anti-escort missile (SLAM? *Sub-Exocet?).
 
Submerged operations are actually cheaper, since you get away from the drag of surface effect. (IDK if the benefit outweighs the cost...:eek:) I'd imagine you'd want them to be supertanker-sized, to get the most "bang for buck".

As mentioned, there's also the benefit of being able to transit the Arctic Ocean, which is hard for surface ships much of the year, & impossible for the rest of it; the distance saved isn't trivial. (For the likes of Oz or India, no...but North America or Japan to Europe & back, yes.)

The reason I expect ICBMs, longer-range ones than OTL sooner, is because of the speed & endurance limits. IMO, it's easier to build a long-range SLBM than a long-range AIP/fuel cell sub, & easier to improve accuracy than endurance.

Given their greater vulnerability to ASW, I'd also say they'd be more likely to have some kind of SAM or anti-escort missile (SLAM? *Sub-Exocet?).
Actually ICBMs are unlikely in a non nuclear world, too expensive for too little gain, Strategic bombers would get a longer lease because you can make them accurate enough for conventional bombing (ICBMs, as opposed to MRBMs and lighter, are blinded on reentry by plasma) and they are reuseable and multimission (fit cruise missiles for dealing with hard targets, iron bombs for easy stuff), not to mention without nukes they will not have to be exposed to the dangers of deep penetration. ICBM research was driven by the nuclear mission OTL, absent that no one is going to try them

MRBMs are not blinded to the same degree and can use radar to find targets, and before that travel less distance so they are more accurate

More likely you would see all the major powers building large Milk Cow type subs to support their SSKs, SSBs and SSGs
 
RamscoopRaider said:
More likely you would see all the major powers building large Milk Cow type subs to support their SSKs, SSBs and SSGs
That works for me.:) It suggests they'd also be available for supporting *P6Ms.:cool:
 
Top