PC/WI: Hudson Bay used as a "SSBN Sanctuary"?

It's a bay surrounded on three sides by land one way in one way out .If a hunter killer got in there it could rack up a big kill list before it got taken out .
With a functioning SOSUS net (easy its shallow and NATO controlled) and a single P3, how does the HK survive at all or at least past its first kill?
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
With a functioning SOSUS net (easy its shallow and NATO controlled) and a single P3, how does the HK survive at all or at least past its first kill?

Let alone, say, a squadron of ASW helos or Auroras.
 
There has been at least one live test of an artillery fired atomic projectile. IMHO if nuclear weapons can be made to function after being fired from an artillery piece then at first glance a functional nuclear warhead for an earth penetrating missile warhead seems feasible.

That being said I still have my doubts that the U.S. Actually deployed an ICBM launched earth penetrating nuclear warhead.

Is there any point in one? What's the difference between a megaton warhead initiating on the surface, and one going off twenty metres underground or underwater? Not much, I think.

The only value in it is for low-yield weapons where those few metres become more significant. But it would seem to me that it'd be much cheaper to use a bigger warhead than to design a penetrating warhead. Furthermore, if you choose the penetrating option, than you absolutely need good accuracy for your small warhead. This probably isn't sensible before for the inaccurate early ballistic missiles, and is probably unnecessary for later accurate ones.
 
Is there any point in one? What's the difference between a megaton warhead initiating on the surface, and one going off twenty metres underground or underwater? Not much, I think.

The only value in it is for low-yield weapons where those few metres become more significant. But it would seem to me that it'd be much cheaper to use a bigger warhead than to design a penetrating warhead. Furthermore, if you choose the penetrating option, than you absolutely need good accuracy for your small warhead. This probably isn't sensible before for the inaccurate early ballistic missiles, and is probably unnecessary for later accurate ones.

Detonating a few meters underground gives you a much better coupling factor. Coupling factor is the percentage of energy from the blast that is turned into ground shock/cratering effects, versus the amount that turns into air blast/surface effects. Since ground shock is the primary kill mechanism against buried targets, and the difference can be a factor of ten or more, it's a nice add-on if you're targeting silos, and it's a massive improvement if you're targeting bunkers.

The main potential downside I can see, aside from making sure the bomb survives the impact, is the weight of the earth-penetrating casing. I'm not sure how much that is, but if it's very heavy, I can certainly see SAC deciding that the extra utility just isn't worth the lower number of MIRVs.
 
Detonating a few meters underground gives you a much better coupling factor. Coupling factor is the percentage of energy from the blast that is turned into ground shock/cratering effects, versus the amount that turns into air blast/surface effects. Since ground shock is the primary kill mechanism against buried targets, and the difference can be a factor of ten or more, it's a nice add-on if you're targeting silos, and it's a massive improvement if you're targeting bunkers.

I understand the principle. What I wonder about is the difference in crater volume - using that as a proxy for energy transfer - for bombs at ground level and at 20 m depth. And whether the mass required for the penetrating case would be better used in a bigger warhead without a heavy case.

Okay, Nukemap says that a 100 kt bomb at ground level gives a 30 m deep crater. There's no option for underground bursts, but the shallow depth of the crater indicates that initiation at half the 30 m depth, 15 m, would produce a much greater crater volume.
 
I understand the principle. What I wonder about is the difference in crater volume - using that as a proxy for energy transfer - for bombs at ground level and at 20 m depth. And whether the mass required for the penetrating case would be better used in a bigger warhead without a heavy case.

Okay, Nukemap says that a 100 kt bomb at ground level gives a 30 m deep crater. There's no option for underground bursts, but the shallow depth of the crater indicates that initiation at half the 30 m depth, 15 m, would produce a much greater crater volume.

It's been a while since I dug into this, but my memory is that - based on the results of the Plowshare tests - even a few meters penetration depth makes a massive difference. As in, a 100 kT bomb at a few meters depth is equivalent to a 1 MT bomb on the surface, something like that. Crater and ground shock don't scale linearly with yield, but it's still a surprisingly huge improvement.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Detonating a few meters underground gives you a much better coupling factor. Coupling factor is the percentage of energy from the blast that is turned into ground shock/cratering effects, versus the amount that turns into air blast/surface effects. Since ground shock is the primary kill mechanism against buried targets, and the difference can be a factor of ten or more, it's a nice add-on if you're targeting silos, and it's a massive improvement if you're targeting bunkers.

The main potential downside I can see, aside from making sure the bomb survives the impact, is the weight of the earth-penetrating casing. I'm not sure how much that is, but if it's very heavy, I can certainly see SAC deciding that the extra utility just isn't worth the lower number of MIRVs.

Wouldn't a surface ship have a high degree of survivability against a nuclear attack since it can roll with the shock? As long as the guidance systems aren't damaged or knocked out of alignment it seems quite likely the ship could even go on to retaliate.
 
Wouldn't a surface ship have a high degree of survivability against a nuclear attack since it can roll with the shock? As long as the guidance systems aren't damaged or knocked out of alignment it seems quite likely the ship could even go on to retaliate.

That's one area I'm not familiar with, sorry. It would be heavily irradiated, but I'm not sure how well the ship's hull would protect the crew.
 
Wouldn't a surface ship have a high degree of survivability against a nuclear attack since it can roll with the shock? As long as the guidance systems aren't damaged or knocked out of alignment it seems quite likely the ship could even go on to retaliate.
Rolling isn't an issue, the shock wave starts at something like the speed of sound and even several miles away is going hundreds of miles an hour. The bigger issue is the shock going through the water, which can collapse the hull easier than an airborne shockwave. But even miles away, the shockwave will destroy any relatively fragile antennae.

That detonation (small yield) sank the carrier USS Saratoga at 1/4 mile.
 
In a similar vein to the OP, there was a proposal to create mini-SSBNs that would be based in the Great Lakes. They have almost all of the benefit of the Hudson Bay sanctuary and offer basically no way for a Soviet SSK/SSN to get inside.

I'll try and see if I can find the source I read from.
 
This was actually a scenario in the original Harpoon Computer Game, except it was Soviet subs that had snuck in.

It is actually an interesting tactic, one that, AFAIK, the Soviet and then Russian Navy still use in the Sea of Okhotsh and White Sea. Put the boomers in the region and deny access with a combination of SSN, surface units, and aircraft, backed up by sensors.

The Western navies don't use it, believing that their boomers are impossible to find in the open ocean.
How plausible would it be, with Canadian permission for USN "Boomers" to be based on the shoreline of the Hudson Bay?

Would this work?

How effective would this be?

Regards filers

It works for a retaliatory strike but less functional for a first strike. As part of NATO's flexible response policy in the 60s and 70s, you would want to be able to put an SSBN reasonably close to the enemy to provide the maximum possibility of a decapitation strike. A SSBN sitting the Hudson doesnt offer that possibility, at least not to the same degree as the early warning radars would give the enemy 15-30 minutes notice to respond and counter attack. So a remote sub bastion is better suited for deterrence.

As to Hunter Killers, I would be interested to know what the accoustics are like entering and within the bay. Are there enough temperature zones that might effect sonar performance that HKs could have a decent chance of making it in?

Here's a crazy thought expanding on the Hudson bay idea. Could you stick a few in the great lakes - Superior, Huron and Michigan?

edit: ninja'd by the post above. Crazy minds think alike.
 
In a similar vein to the OP, there was a proposal to create mini-SSBNs that would be based in the Great Lakes. They have almost all of the benefit of the Hudson Bay sanctuary and offer basically no way for a Soviet SSK/SSN to get inside.

I'll try and see if I can find the source I read from.
I believe there might be a provision in the SALT treaty forbidding that,the Russians don't put boomers in the Caspian sea and we don't put any in the great lakes.
 
Is there any point in one? What's the difference between a megaton warhead initiating on the surface, and one going off twenty metres underground or underwater? Not much, I think.
Well with a spherical blast front the underwater detonation would be significantly more efficient.

The only value in it is for low-yield weapons where those few metres become more significant. But it would seem to me that it'd be much cheaper to use a bigger warhead than to design a penetrating warhead. Furthermore, if you choose the penetrating option, than you absolutely need good accuracy for your small warhead. This probably isn't sensible before for the inaccurate early ballistic missiles, and is probably unnecessary for later accurate ones.
For attempts to engulf a large area like HB you'd need a lot of warheads anyway. Quite possibly a secondary result would be the destruction/disruption of assets protecting the sanctuary against intruding SSNs doing a follow up attack.
 
I'm still dubious about the HK's ability to get into the zone, let alone make a kill, without being detected and neutralized first.
Since its all in territorial water of Canada you can legally mine/ fire on any sub even in peace time, to get in you need to transit the Hudson Strait or even smaller Fury and Hecla Strait cant see it as being easy with a few layers of SOSUS detectors and mines.
 
OK, I know bugger all about the geography/geology of the HB area but could the approaches to the bay be closed to hostile subs by ASW patrols supplementing SONUS nets around Resolution island (where the Hudson Strait meets the ocean) backed by a second layer around Salisbury/Nottingham/Mansel islands and a smaller system in Roes Welcome Sound?
Map
 
Wouldn't a surface ship have a high degree of survivability against a nuclear attack since it can roll with the shock? As long as the guidance systems aren't damaged or knocked out of alignment it seems quite likely the ship could even go on to retaliate.

Antennas and sensors are somewhat delicate and the ship may structurally survive but it would most likely suffer a mission kill.
 
Top