Truth on subs

POST: China's Subs: Six Patrols in 2007, By Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, January 09, 2008

Some useful skepticism.

Truth on subs is that they're only good at three things: go after shipping, go after each other, hold nukes.

The last one is still marginally useful in small numbers.

The shipping bit works only in long sustained major war. That one gets pretty creaky with time.

Going after each other still makes sense so long as rogues maintain some marginal capacity. But the numbers game that we and Japan enable vis-a-vis China is a complete waste of resources. Bad for us and bad for China and bad for Japan.

There are simply more useful fish to fry, but great power theorists love their theories and so we must "hedge" against each other, playing such useless games.

When was the last torpedo fired in anger? How many sub battles since WWII? Not Tom Clancy novels and not pinging, but actual sub-on-sub combat?

It's not a pretty picture--this historical reality, so better to stick with the academic theorists.

(Thanks: Terence Dodge)

Comments

[Jim Keenan]

Last torpedo fired - 1982, sinking of ARA Belgrano by HMS Conqueror in Falklands War?

[Robert Kawaratani]

American and British submarines were used to fire cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. One of the recently coverted Ohio class submarines was recently featured on a Japanese television program. The potential impact of the 154 cruise missiles that could be carried by these submarines was emphasized in the reporting.

[Tom Barnett]

I wrote about the "ragtops" (converted ICBM subs) in PNM.

It certainly is a way of using them, but you don't need subs in numbers to deliver cruise missiles anymore than you'd build to insert SOF stealthily. Just about any sizable naval platform can deliver a cruise. That's why all our combatants look so sleek now (no cannons to speak of, and just a lot of tube holes in decks you can't see from the side).

But I do stand corrected, so thanks for reminding me.

[Galrahn]

"I wrote about the "ragtops" (converted ICBM subs) in PNM.

It certainly is a way of using them, but you don't need subs in numbers to deliver cruise missiles anymore than you'd build to insert SOF stealthily. Just about any sizable naval platform can deliver a cruise."

That you wrote about it and didn't mention it caught my attention initially.

I do disagree, mostly from a tactical perspective though, technically you are correct.

In my view the submarine has a major role to play for the US Navy as the enabler for Naval SysAdmin. Not directly of coarse, but indirectly I see submarines as both the strategic and tactical enabler for a future balanced force. I'll have to blog this point to make it.

[Anonymous]

Galrahn: please come back and give us a link when you're done.

[Galrahn]

My thoughts on the subject.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/01/to-connect-gaps-build-bridge-underwater.html

[Anonymous]

thanks, Galrahn