Nuclear Submarines for Air Defense and Surface Warfare?

How about this for a novel idea, a drone AEW that can be launched vertically from the missile tubes of a SSBN-class sub?

The size of the missile deck would allow for easy recovery.

It has been studied by DARPA but for research.

But what about using passive Detection? DO you know Vere systen or Vera - NG?
It uses passive detection what is even better latter model allows to use BI -static interference. Meaning that it uses EM smog as means of detecting air craft. If there non em smog it can the dump cheap emitter and use it.
The antena could be retractable inside a ship or by cable so on Surface only small piece of kit would be exposed.
Once you have detection you fire LOAL Lock After lunch missile..


Surface warfare is easy SSGNs or SSGs do it. Major upgrade would be to have Universal missile with ability to atack Ship or Surface targets even moving ones with all bells and whistles you can think of. AESA seeker, IR seeker two way up link. INS and GPS/ Glonass + DSMAC + Swarm logic and then you decide if you want fast moving Hypersonic or slow stealth approach.
 
It's already happened - 3 Israeli Gal class subs are equipped with blowpipe SAMs - although most navies don't think this is a good idea.

And during the Falklands War, British submarines served as air defence pickets.
 
Your scenario means the first convoy gets hit harder than if they used whatever budget they spent on subs for conventional Aegis ships used with the convoy, if the first convoy isn't enough, later convoys aren't going to matter.
So one convoy lost = war lost?:rolleyes: Yes, the first several convoys are going to take more of a pounding, while you get your Aegis subs into position, but then, you can attrition their bombers very heavily (and their tankers) and those that don't get shot down have to still have enough fuel to RTB, so expect many more to be lost to running out of fuel over the ocean hundreds of miles offshore. And even then, those few that do survive, will no longer have many tankers left (as the tankers are slow, they will probably suffer heavier losses than the bombers), and this means that even fewer bombers would be able to strike at the convoys for lack of tankers.

Also, consider that there are many convoys to provide cover for, as well as several CBG, but only one ambush site needing to be covered. If one tries to divide a greater number of hulls between a dozen or more potential targets, as opposed to massing them along the return path, then you get a lesser return rate, plus, you are not actually killing their bombers at all, so you still take greater losses amoung the merchant ships, as the missile threat is not being reduced.

The US already has a Backfire killer, the F-14 with AIM-54 missiles. In the book the Tomcats got suckered by decoys, but so would your Aegis sub in that same scenario.
No, they really wouldn't. I must not be explaining this very well or clearly, for you to precieve that that would even be a possibility. I am not proposing that the Aegis subs would form an outer 'picket line' just north of the convoy lanes, nor even 100 miles north, but rather, well north of Iceland, where the Soviets think they are relatively safe, their bombers fuel reserves are about at their lowest, and their tankers are nearby. And as the mission has already launched their missiles (or decoy drones), they have nothing left to sucker the Aegis subs, who they don't even know are there. So no, the subs will not be suckered by such a ploy.

The bombers were also dealt with by the expedient of wrecking their runways with cruise missiles.
And still could be, on top of getting creamed before they even got to their bases.

An SSGN would be a lot cheaper than your Aegis sub (use existing hull form, existing missiles and launch systems), and could do more.
Well, if you want to accept the risk of sitting right off the soviet coast, and possibly panicking them into launching ICBMs at the US, in the mistaken belief that the initial missile boost phase was SLBM and not non-nuclear cruise missiles. Not to mention the greater and greater risk to the subs themselves, and the fact that many of the bombers could be repaired, because they were damaged on the ground at their airfields, rather than 100s of miles offshore.
 
So one convoy lost = war lost?:rolleyes: Yes, the first several convoys are going to take more of a pounding, while you get your Aegis subs into position, but then, you can attrition their bombers very heavily (and their tankers) and those that don't get shot down have to still have enough fuel to RTB, so expect many more to be lost to running out of fuel over the ocean hundreds of miles offshore. And even then, those few that do survive, will no longer have many tankers left (as the tankers are slow, they will probably suffer heavier losses than the bombers), and this means that even fewer bombers would be able to strike at the convoys for lack of tankers.

Also, consider that there are many convoys to provide cover for, as well as several CBG, but only one ambush site needing to be covered. If one tries to divide a greater number of hulls between a dozen or more potential targets, as opposed to massing them along the return path, then you get a lesser return rate, plus, you are not actually killing their bombers at all, so you still take greater losses amoung the merchant ships, as the missile threat is not being reduced.

No, they really wouldn't. I must not be explaining this very well or clearly, for you to precieve that that would even be a possibility. I am not proposing that the Aegis subs would form an outer 'picket line' just north of the convoy lanes, nor even 100 miles north, but rather, well north of Iceland, where the Soviets think they are relatively safe, their bombers fuel reserves are about at their lowest, and their tankers are nearby. And as the mission has already launched their missiles (or decoy drones), they have nothing left to sucker the Aegis subs, who they don't even know are there. So no, the subs will not be suckered by such a ploy.

And still could be, on top of getting creamed before they even got to their bases.

Well, if you want to accept the risk of sitting right off the soviet coast, and possibly panicking them into launching ICBMs at the US, in the mistaken belief that the initial missile boost phase was SLBM and not non-nuclear cruise missiles. Not to mention the greater and greater risk to the subs themselves, and the fact that many of the bombers could be repaired, because they were damaged on the ground at their airfields, rather than 100s of miles offshore.
Potentially yes, the first wave forces are the most critical, if they are insufficient then later forces matter less, you have to survive the short term to worry about the mid term and long term

The issue is that you know the bombers have to come at the convoy. You don't necessarily know what route they will take back, with enough aerial refueling they can take a roundabout route, means fewer bombers, but given Soviet intel they will know about the existence of your AA subs

Okay so you want your AA sub North of Iceland? On the wrong side of the SOSUS line? Something that will reveal its position every time it fires? Given that the Soviets know the path the bombers and tankers are going to take, don't you think they won't station a few attack subs there? NATO is going to be too busy trying to prevent any attack or cruise missile subs from breaking south to do much ASW patrol up there

More importantly your AA sub can be countered by buying more Charlie's and fewer Backfires. Your AA sub would be less efficient than an Aegis cruiser against those

Tomahawk cruise missile. 1000 km plus range, can hit most likely airbases from safe within a Norwegian Fjord. Not sure if it shows up on launch detection systems. Still unless the Soviets launch instantly they will realize it is not a ballistic missile strike. Yes bombers can be repaired, cruise missile subs can also be reloaded and a round trip from northern Norway to Holy Loch is about a week. Edit: Cruise Missile strikes also kill skilled ground crew who need to be replaced
 
Last edited:
Top