Iran Test-Fires Sub-To-Surface Missile

[BPSCG]

It's for peaceful purposes, I'm sure. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700191.html)
Iran test fired a new submarine-to-surface missile during war games in the Persian Gulf on Sunday, a show of military might amid a standoff with the West over its nuclear activities. A brief video clip showed the long-range missile, called Thaqeb, or Saturn, exiting the water and hitting a target on the water's surface within less than a mile. The test came as part of large-scale military exercises that began Aug. 19.

[shemp]

Well, if that sub gets within less than a mile of Hampton Beach, let me know. Until then, I'm not giving up my prime spot on the sands across from Blink's Fry Doe! (http://www.phantomgourmet.com/showpage.aspx?content=reportCard&Id=3458) If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants my chocolate and peanut butter fried dough, he'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands!

[Rob Lister]

That is interesting.

I'm trying to imagine how long their subs will last were an actual conflict with the U.S. erupt. Seconds, I imagine. A few might actually get their missiles launched.

[BPSCG]

That is interesting.

I'm trying to imagine how long their subs will last were an actual conflict with the U.S. erupt. Seconds, I imagine. A few might actually get their missiles launched.What makes you thnk they have the U.S. in mind? I'm thinking more along the lines of a prominent non-Muslim entity in their neighborhood.

[Rob Lister]

What makes you thnk they have the U.S. in mind? I'm thinking more along the lines of a prominent non-Muslim entity in their neighborhood.

Well, if it gets that far I'm assuming we're involved. I would hope so, anyway.

[American]

I heard that subs are all but compromised by satellite systems that were originally made to image undersea topography. They are not necessarily a secretive weapon like in WW II, nor the doomsday machines of the Cold War.

War evolves fast.

[Rob Lister]

I heard that subs are all but compromised by satellite systems that were originally made to image undersea topography.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to such a Sat-system. Got a link? Guessing not.

[BPSCG]

Well, if it gets that far I'm assuming we're involved. I would hope so, anyway.If it gets that far, I don't think we'd have to get involved, other than vetoing any UN resolution to condemn Israel for its massive and ongoing retaliation.

[American]

I'd be interested in seeing a link to such a Sat-system. Got a link? Guessing not.

The source, circa 1995. (http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/leckie/) You are welcome to bother him about it.

I have a strong memory for odd trivia.

[WildCat]

The source, circa 1995. (http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/leckie/) You are welcome to bother him about it.

I have a strong memory for odd trivia.
I see no mention of submarines on that site... :confused:

Anyways, I imagine that Iranian subs are pretty noisy and have limited abilities underwater (probably can't stay down very long) so the US Navy can probably track them prety well.

[Kopji]

...Antiship cruise missiles. More than 40 Third World militaries now possess antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs), which can be launched from the shore, aircraft, ships, or submarines. Although they are not cheap, these missiles have been used to good--and sometimes devastating--effect in recent years. During the 1982 Falklands War, Argentine Exocet missiles inflicted substantial damage on the Royal Navy. In 1987, during the U.S. Navy's escort of reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War, another Exocet fired by Iraq severely damaged the USS Stark, killing 37 of her crew.

Iran has been particularly enamored of these missiles. Recently, the Iranian Navy test-fired an ASCM with a 60-mile range. The commander of U.S. naval forces in the region has expressed concern that, over time, Iran's acquisition of an increasingly capable inventory of ASCMs, when combined with its attack submarines, ballistic missiles, and antiship mines, could make the fleet's job "a lot tougher."

http://www.issues.org/13.1/krepin.htm


Sounds like a good idea to always take them seriously.

If a sub traveled underneath a large surface vessel like an oil tanker, I don't see how a satellite could ever be completely effective.

(searches about green laser technology are interesting)

[WildCat]

Depending on which source I look at, Iran has either 3 or 6 of these Russian-built (http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1997/961223-N-0000O-002.jpg) Kilo-class subs. A threat, but a very manageable one.

[Darth Rotor]

Depending on which source I look at, Iran has either 3 or 6 of these Russian-built (http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jan1997/961223-N-0000O-002.jpg) Kilo-class subs. A threat, but a very manageable one.
Only if you know where they are all the time.

As to this latest missile launch, they seem to have adapted a surface to air missile to a submarine tube (in a Kilo, that would be 65 cm tubes IIRC) rather than using other surface to surface missiles adapted to torpedo tubes.

Interesting.

Nothing to lose sleep over. We and the Russians have been doing this for about 30 years.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

So, do they want to get smacked upside the head, or are they just crazy stupid?

[HeavyAaron]

So, do they want to get smacked upside the head, or are they just crazy stupid?

False diachotomy. Clearly both. ;)

Aaron

[WildCat]

Only if you know where they are all the time.

The Kilo-class has a maximum range (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/specs.html) of 40 miles submerged at 3 knots, and only 12.7 miles at full speed of 17 knots. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

[geni]

That is interesting.

I'm trying to imagine how long their subs will last were an actual conflict with the U.S. erupt. Seconds, I imagine. A few might actually get their missiles launched.

Operation millennium challenge suggests otherwise. Quite posible that within a fairly short space of time subs will be all that either side have left.

[AmateurScientist]

The source, circa 1995. (http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/leckie/) You are welcome to bother him about it.

I have a strong memory for odd trivia.

Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble, American, but you seem to have linked to a webpage belonging to a paleontology professor in Colorado. Yes, he seems to have a sub-specialty in oceanic paleontology, but I doubt that man made submarines have been around that long.

Maybe he copied REO Speedwagon in his dissertation.

AS

[Mycroft]

I see no mention of submarines on that site... :confused:

Anyways, I imagine that Iranian subs are pretty noisy and have limited abilities underwater (probably can't stay down very long) so the US Navy can probably track them prety well.

Wasn't the super-silent US submarine fleet moth-balled?

[American]

Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble, American, but you seem to have linked to a webpage belonging to a paleontology professor in Colorado. Yes, he seems to have a sub-specialty in oceanic paleontology, but I doubt that man made submarines have been around that long.

I claim this professor as the source of what I heard. He is just a man who taught oceanography in the mid-1990s and said something that I retained.

Not a journal or a textbook -- only a man.

If anyone is brave enough to annoy him with questions about accidental-submarine-revealing-geology-charting satellites from a class taught more than 10 years ago, then one may write to him and ask about it.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Since I'm not a military expert (although I play one on TV), wouldn't the intended targets of the Iranian subs be something large and oil-containing? All the Iranians have to do is control the Strait of Hormuz.

Charlie (subs are for eating) Monoxide

[American]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

[Rob Lister]

Wasn't the super-silent US submarine fleet moth-balled?

erm...no. Although the numbers have been reduced, we still have many active boomers and twice as many hunter-killers. All [almost] perfectly quiet.

[Rob Lister]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

I suspect you are remembering our infrared surveillance satellites.

Yes, under the exact right conditions they could track nuke subs by the heat signature of the waters in which they traveled...or so the story goes. I too remember something of it. I have no idea of the accuracy.

[Rob Lister]

double post?

[BPSCG]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)Spoke with a friend this evening who's a sub engineer for the Navy department. Said if satellites could track subs, ther wouldn't be any need for attack subs. Said during the Soviet era, U.S. attack subs would tail Soviet boomers, with orders to destroy any Soviet sub on hearing the sound of the hatches opening to launch their nuclear missiles.

Guy acknowledged he doesn't know about satellites, but deems it unlikely that spy satellites could track U.S. subs.

[Dave1001]

In fact I remember the context, roughly... he was describing the fact that certain ocean maps released to the public had to be down-graded to conceal military interests, specifically submarines.

(He may have said radar, but I don't think so. Unless satellites use radar, which I wouldn't know.)

I'm no physicist, but I can say with authority that satellites don't use radar and never will to image anything on Earth.

[Rob Lister]

I'm no physicist, but I can say with authority that satellites don't use radar and never will to image anything on Earth.

With authority?

I suggest you google the subject.

[egslim]

The Kilo-class has a maximum range (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/specs.html) of 40 miles submerged at 3 knots, and only 12.7 miles at full speed of 17 knots. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

You dropped a zero, according to that link: submerged (3 knots) 400 miles.

Those subs pose no significant threat to Israel. If they have weapons with enough range to hit Israel from the Persian Gulf, then those weapons could be fired from the Iranian mainland just as well. With only short range weapons they need to enter the Mediterranean to get in range of Tel Aviv or any other important target. That means crossing the Suez or Gibraltar, the former impossible to do in secret, the latter extremely difficult.

I don't know how skilled the Iranians are, but those Kilo's are much better suited to the Persian Gulf than the US Navy. Detecting submarines in shallow water like the Gulf is very difficult, and Kilo's are quiet. Similar Western subs have repeatedly 'sunk' US carriers during exercises. Most likely those crews were better trained, but they also had the disadvantage of operating in more open water. If I remember correctly, before the '90/'91 Gulf War the US Navy refused to even operate carriers in the Gulf.

If the US attacks Iran while the latter has one or more subs on patrol, there's a significant chance the US Navy will lose one or more ships before they manage to sink the sub. The possibility should not be discounted.

[WildCat]

You dropped a zero, according to that link: submerged (3 knots) 400 miles.
Yeah, it was a typo.
I don't know how skilled the Iranians are, but those Kilo's are much better suited to the Persian Gulf than the US Navy. Detecting submarines in shallow water like the Gulf is very difficult, and Kilo's are quiet. Similar Western subs have repeatedly 'sunk' US carriers during exercises. Most likely those crews were better trained, but they also had the disadvantage of operating in more open water. If I remember correctly, before the '90/'91 Gulf War the US Navy refused to even operate carriers in the Gulf.

If the US attacks Iran while the latter has one or more subs on patrol, there's a significant chance the US Navy will lose one or more ships before they manage to sink the sub. The possibility should not be discounted.
I doubt the US Navy would send a carrier group into the Gulf w/ those subs unaccounted for, and they certainly don't need to to get within range of any place in Iran, especially considering we have Air Force bases east and west of Iran now. And besides, they have at most 6 of those subs, and they can't stay underwater for very long. Sooner or later they'd have to surface or go back to base (I think 45 days is the longest they can stay out at sea).

I'd be more worried about the many smaller gunboats Iran has that can fire anti-ship missiles, but again there's really no reason to send naval assets into the confined space of the Persian Gulf.

[egslim]

I doubt the US Navy would send a carrier group into the Gulf w/ those subs unaccounted for
Actually, they do. I'm pretty sure that since the Gulf War the US has kept one carrier continuously in the Gulf, and they had at least one on may 30 2006 - when the USS Ronald Reagan was circled by an Iranian UAV: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

and they certainly don't need to to get within range of any place in Iran, especially considering we have Air Force bases east and west of Iran now.
True, but there's quite a lot of competition between Air Force and Navy - I expect the Navy would want to be part of the action too. They don't want to appear redundant when the next budget is allocated...

And besides, they have at most 6 of those subs, and they can't stay underwater for very long.
They can snorkel. That'll make more noise, but they'll still be hard to detect because it is done submerged. With 6 subs I would think they can keep at least 2 of them at sea at all times, possibly 3.

[BPSCG]

They can snorkel. That'll make more noise, but they'll still be hard to detect because it is done submerged. With 6 subs I would think they can keep at least 2 of them at sea at all times, possibly 3.Do you think these subs aren't being tailed by U.S. attack subs?

[LW]

Actually, they do. I'm pretty sure that since the Gulf War the US has kept one carrier continuously in the Gulf, and they had at least one on may 30 2006 - when the USS Ronald Reagan was circled by an Iranian UAV: http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html

Call me surprised.

Can some one confirm that the carrier was actually in Persian Gulf and that the reporter didn't make a mistake?

Even though I'm nowadays classed as a navy reservist, my military training is from the other side (coastal artillery) so I'm not really qualified to question operational policies of carrier groups but there's no chance on Earth that I would sail a carrier group through the Straits of Hormuz: confined waters in the full view (from shore) of a not-so-friendly nation that has a sizable collection of anti-shipping missiles.

[Crossbow]

In some ways, the older diesel-electric subs (which the Iranains have) can be more of a threat than modern nuclear subs (which the USA has). When submerged, the older subs use batteries and electric motors for propulsion which is much quieter and difficult to track than a nuclear powered sub.

Also, I saw a notice regarding a new torpedo for their subs that is very, very fast and something like this could be a rather significant threat as well.

...

During the April maneuvers, Iran test-fired a new torpedo — the "Hoot," Farsi for "whale" — which is capable of moving at some 223 mph, up to four times faster than a normal torpedo. It also unveiled a new land-to-sea missile, the Kowsar, and a high-speed missile boat that skims above the water and is undetectable by radar.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060827/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile;_ylt=AnMSrDOUSwf3KLtw2j9kBOgLewgF;_yl u=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

[LW]

They can snorkel. That'll make more noise, but they'll still be hard to detect because it is done submerged. With 6 subs I would think they can keep at least 2 of them at sea at all times, possibly 3.

Back in WWII when Germans introduced snorkel the captains preferred to use it for 2-4 hours a day and run with electric power for the rest of the time. The reason: it made so loud noise that it would carry underwater for dozens of miles for enemy destroyers to hear and it also deafened the hydrophones of the submarine itself.

This was with WWII vintage listening equipment and in Mid-Atlantic.

I would think that modern equipment and confined waters of the Gulf make the life of a submarine commander even more interesting.

[egslim]

Do you think these subs aren't being tailed by U.S. attack subs?
Do you have any evidence they are? Shallow waters have poor sonar performance, and Kilo's are quiet.

Can some one confirm that the carrier was actually in Persian Gulf and that the reporter didn't make a mistake?
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=23895
We’ve spent the past several months supporting the troops on the ground in Iraq, as well as conducting maritime security operations throughout the Arabian Gulf.

This was with WWII vintage listening equipment and in Mid-Atlantic.

I would think that modern equipment and confined waters of the Gulf make the life of a submarine commander even more interesting.
Don't forget the snorkel equipment has improved as well. For WWII subs the snorkel was an improvisation, no work had been done to make the diesel engine quieter. I read somewhere that a modern diesel boat snorkling makes approximately as much noise as a nuclear powered sub. And it's a fact modern Western diesel submarines perform quite well during exercises, despite their disadvantage of having to snorkel. That suggests the penalty is not so large.
Also, the confined waters of the Gulf are actually an advantage to Kilo's. Shallow waters have poorer sonar performance, not to mention all the interference from passing shiptraffic.

In some ways, the older diesel-electric subs (which the Iranains have) can be more of a threat than modern nuclear subs
Diesel-electric subs can be modern too, and the Kilo-class is. Fairly modern, anyway.
Nuclear boats have the advantage of longer range and higher speed, diesel-electric boats are quieter and smaller, thus harder to detect. It's a trade-off.

[Darth Rotor]

The Kilo-class has a maximum range (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kilo877/specs.html) of 40 miles submerged at 3 knots, and only 12.7 miles at full speed of 17 knots. Shouldn't be too hard to keep track of.

From your link:

Range
with snorkel (7 knots) 6,000 miles
submerged (3 knots) 400 miles
at full run 12.7 miles

fuel endurance 172 tons
sea Endurance 45 days

With an AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) kit, the calculus changes considerably. Also, since the Iranian subs are in home waters, the waters are heavily travelled, and they are in a strategically defensive posture, their indiscretion rate (how oftern the snokel, surface, etc) would tend to be low, as they don't need to patrol at high speeds.

ETA: I just noticed someone else called you on the typo.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Diesel-electric subs can be modern too, and the Kilo-class is. Fairly modern, anyway.
Nuclear boats have the advantage of longer range and higher speed, diesel-electric boats are quieter and smaller, thus harder to detect. It's a trade-off.

Not really. The real tradeoff is not between speed and noise, but between speed and cost. A diesel-electric, even a modern one, costs considerably less than a nuclear sub. The modern diesel-electrics are a possible major threat because countries which we might fight against are much more likely to be able to afford them in significant numbers, NOT because on-on-one they stack up against nuclear subs.

[BPSCG]

Do you think these subs aren't being tailed by U.S. attack subs?
Do you have any evidence they are? I'm asking because I don't know. It would seem a logical thing to do, as opposed to tailing, say, Canadian subs.

[Ziggurat]

Since I'm not a military expert (although I play one on TV), wouldn't the intended targets of the Iranian subs be something large and oil-containing? All the Iranians have to do is control the Strait of Hormuz.

Charlie (subs are for eating) Monoxide

Quite so. Our naval ships have anti-missile systems which would make a sub-launched anti-ship missile probably not very effective (larger land-based missiles which go at very high speed pose a greater threat), and once the sub launched a missile, it would be killed shortly thereafter. But tankers have no anti-missile systems, they're big fat targets, and they don't normally travel in convoys which can strike back before the sub slips away. The real menace is indeed against shipping, not our navy.

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, they do.
Now and again, the CV leaves the Gulf, but it is generally on station year round. (Occasional port visits for a few days to various ports in the Gulf, or out of it, based on political demands.) The CV, or CVN mostly these days, supplies sorties to the Air Component Commander/Joint Force Commander for air operations in the CENTCOM theater of operations. Yes, I spent some time over there.
True, but there's quite a lot of competition between Air Force and Navy - I expect the Navy would want to be part of the action too. They don't want to appear redundant when the next budget is allocated...
There is a bit more to it than that, of course, but that consideration, the old "roles and missions," bogey is part of it. The other is macro political. There are political sensitivities about how many American warplanes can be based in various Gulf States. The Carrier provides extra sorties without having to re negotiate those issues, or use up ramp space for other aircraft, like tankers, etc.

As to "evidence" of the US keeping track of subs, if anyone who does that posts it on this board, a security violation has just been made. I spent parts of the Cold War trying to keep track of Russian subs. It was hard then, and it is hard now, though for different reasons.

How about you novices trust the Navy to do their mission, eh? Part of that is keeping an eye on subs in threat countries. The world is not a TV show, nor a debating hall, nor a video game.

Sheesh.

DR

[webfusion]

LW suggests:there's no chance on Earth that I would sail a carrier group through the Straits of Hormuz: confined waters in the full view (from shore) of a not-so-friendly nation that has a sizable collection of anti-shipping missiles.

U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Iran (Persian Gulf) apparently include Carrier Task Force 50 of the 5th Fleet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_5th_Fleet

and

http://www.navysite.de/navy/fleet.htm#5th

and

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar1996/n03141996_9603143.html


In the past, it certainly seems that operations of the major US carriers were inside the Gulf itself.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/where.htm

[egslim]

Not really. The real tradeoff is not between speed and noise, but between speed and cost.
True, diesel-electric subs have a cost-advantage too - as well as being harder to detect. The only inherent advantage a nuclear sub has is longer range and higher speed. Iran needs neither for operations in the Gulf, small size and less noise are far more valuable there.

I'm asking because I don't know. It would seem a logical thing to do, as opposed to tailing, say, Canadian subs.
Oh, I'm sure they would want to tail those Iranian subs - the questions are, can they 1) find them and 2) track them for an extended period of time? Under poor sonar conditions and interference from heavy sealane traffic? That seems to be rather against the odds.

How about you novices trust the Navy to do their mission, eh? Part of that is keeping an eye on subs in threat countries.
Unfortunately, on the other side are people who have to do their mission too. It's dangerous to assume they'll just roll over and die, the moment the US Navy snaps its fingers. If war breaks, there may very well be casualties on both sides.

[ponderingturtle]

As to "evidence" of the US keeping track of subs, if anyone who does that posts it on this board, a security violation has just been made. I spent parts of the Cold War trying to keep track of Russian subs. It was hard then, and it is hard now, though for different reasons.

How about you novices trust the Navy to do their mission, eh? Part of that is keeping an eye on subs in threat countries. The world is not a TV show, nor a debating hall, nor a video game.


So the public has no need to have any understanding what the meaning of this development in Iran's armament means? Knowing how much a threat its subs are is something that the public should have some capacity at understanding.

[egslim]

So the public has no need to have any understanding what the meaning of this development in Iran's armament means? Knowing how much a threat its subs are is something that the public should have some capacity at understanding.
While it is quite long, this .pdf http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is%20the%20us.%20navy%20overrated.pdf#search=%22US %20navy%20incompetent%20geocities%22
contains a number of facts about operations and exercises, as well as statements from Navy personel that raise doubt on the US Navy's ability to combat diesel-electric subs. As well as evidence that the US Navy prefers to ignore these problems rather than face them.

For example, the fact that during exercises a Chilean diesel sub moved within the perimeter of a Carrier Battle Group for several days. The US forces knew it would operate in attack mode, but were unable to find it.

[Darth Rotor]

So the public has no need to have any understanding what the meaning of this development in Iran's armament means? Knowing how much a threat its subs are is something that the public should have some capacity at understanding.
No, landlubber, the public should understand that the Navy keeps track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is part of their job.

Thanks for playing.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunately, on the other side are people who have to do their mission too. It's dangerous to assume they'll just roll over and die, the moment the US Navy snaps its fingers. If war breaks, there may very well be casualties on both sides.
And your point would be what? The enemy always gets a vote in a war, it's in the nature of the beast.

While we chased Russian subs during the Cold War, and kept track of them, the known was that should the shooting start, ships would sink, people would die, and both (or all) sides would shoot at each other with intent to hit and kill.

That is what war is. I fail to see how raising that added anything to the discussion regarding keeping track of subs, or keeping a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Yes, a CV could get hit, particularly if the lads in the Iranian Navy are very clever and attack by surprise. I am a bit concerned about the Sunburst misisle myself, and the potential floodig of the Persian Gulf with mines.

Part of putting ships to sea to undertake national policy goals is

RISK! Hey, they might shoot at you! (Whoa, who'd have thought that?)

Remember the USS Liberty, the USS Pueblo, and the USS Stark.

DR

[egslim]

And your point would be what? The enemy always gets a vote in a war, it's in the nature of the beast.
Indeed. That was my point, and it was in response to posts like these:
I'm trying to imagine how long their subs will last were an actual conflict with the U.S. erupt. Seconds, I imagine.
and
Anyways, I imagine that Iranian subs are pretty noisy and have limited abilities underwater (probably can't stay down very long) so the US Navy can probably track them prety well.
Statements which give the impression the US Navy would be able to act with impunity, in case of a war with Iran.

[Darth Rotor]

Indeed. That was my point, and it was in response to posts like these:

and

Statements which give the impression the US Navy would be able to act with impunity, in case of a war with Iran.
Well, no one in the Navy thinks it will "act with impunity" in the event of Iran trying to start something in The Gulf. I'd say many a bead of sweat is broken on a daily basis due to Iran issues in Fifth Fleet, and elsewhere.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

No, landlubber, the public should understand that the Navy keeps track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is part of their job.

Thanks for playing.

DR

So the US navy knows where all the subs in the world are 24/7? That seems highly unlikely depending on what defintion of track you use. Enough to have a general idea vs absolute positioning.

Then there are also cases of say the air force declaring the situation around a particular crash top secret so that they can hide the poor maintence that caused it, national security and all that. But that was durring the cold war, the military is now compleatly different and not just covering their asses, you have to take their word for it though.

[Darth Rotor]

So the US navy knows where all the subs in the world are 24/7? That seems highly unlikely depending on what defintion of track you use. Enough to have a general idea vs absolute positioning.

Then there are also cases of say the air force declaring the situation around a particular crash top secret so that they can hide the poor maintence that caused it, national security and all that. But that was durring the cold war, the military is now compleatly different and not just covering their asses, you have to take their word for it though.
How about you don't try to put words into my mouth?

As to the rest, landlubber, you don't pay for a zero defects military, so why should you expect one? You get more than what you pay for, which is the best equipment minimum bid, and Congressional influence brokering, can buy.

The laws and regulations on aircraft mishap investigations are a bit more complex than your layman's cum CTer's assessment permits. Since your attitude just about leaps off the page, may I suggest you go fly a kite?

DR

[Meffy]

I'm no physicist, but I can say with authority that satellites don't use radar and never will to image anything on Earth.

What exactly is your "authority" for making such a statement?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/imaging.html <-- doubtless a hoax
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=418 <-- transparent fakery
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Earth?order=Instrument&sort=ASC&start=20 <-- fabricated
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogEarth.htm <-- near bottom; obviously fraudulent

If you want any more you can google them yourself. But why bother? They're figments of my imagination.

[egslim]

As to the rest, landlubber, you don't pay for a zero defects military, so why should you expect one?
Since the US military's budget is about equal to the sum of all other nation's combined, I find the complaint about not receiving enough money rather laughable.

You get more than what you pay for, which is the best equipment minimum bid,
Hardly. There's often a "buy before you try" policy, where serialproduction of new weapons is started before tests of the final version have been completed. If the final version does not perform as specified - too bad, it can't be cancelled anymore. Also, "minimum bid" has lost most of its use - the number of defensecontractors has decreased sharply, so there is much less competition. Worse, in several cases weapons' purchase is decided not on the basis of quality or requirements, but to prevent the company in question from going broke.
Subcontracts are spread across as many states as possible, so that many members of Congress who could oppose a purchase risk losing jobs in their state because of it.

[Chaos]

Well, no one in the Navy thinks it will "act with impunity" in the event of Iran trying to start something in The Gulf. I'd say many a bead of sweat is broken on a daily basis due to Iran issues in Fifth Fleet, and elsewhere.

DR

Good.

As long as the Navy, at least, knows what it can do and what it can´t, I guess we can safely ignore people who are too proud to try to know.

[Huntster]

Wasn't the super-silent US submarine fleet moth-balled?

You mean the Los Angeles class? (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm)

Some of the boats are being decommissioned, (http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/02/news/story10.html) but I don't think the entire fleet is planned to be mothballed.

[egslim]

Good.

As long as the Navy, at least, knows what it can do and what it can´t, I guess we can safely ignore people who are too proud to try to know.
Let's just hope the politicians know it too.

[egslim]

You mean the Los Angeles class? (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm)

Some of the boats are being decommissioned, (http://starbulletin.com/2006/04/02/news/story10.html) but I don't think the entire fleet is planned to be mothballed.
New submarines are being built too, the Virginia class.

More advanced than the USS Honolulu, which will be decommisioned according to the article, are 31 688 class and 23 688I-class subs. Add three Seawolfs and probably already a few Virginia's, and the total comes to 57 submarines plus the Virginia's already in service. I guess roughly 60 modern subs are in service today, which doesn't seem too shabby.

[Rob Lister]

How about you don't try to put words into my mouth?

As to the rest, landlubber, you don't pay for a zero defects military, so why should you expect one? You get more than what you pay for, which is the best equipment minimum bid, and Congressional influence brokering, can buy.

The laws and regulations on aircraft mishap investigations are a bit more complex than your layman's cum CTer's assessment permits. Since your attitude just about leaps off the page, may I suggest you go fly a kite?

DR

It is probably best that you, like I had to do, go fly a kite. I agree with your assessment 100% but you're not going to get anyone else to agree with it unless you provide evidence, which you legally can't. And even if you could, they still wouldn't believe it. For some Military=fake/evil/bad/corrupt. You won't change their minds.

[egslim]

It is probably best that you, like I had to do, go fly a kite. I agree with your assessment 100% but you're not going to get anyone else to agree with it unless you provide evidence, which you legally can't. And even if you could, they still wouldn't believe it. For some Military=fake/evil/bad/corrupt. You won't change their minds.
I can, however, provide evidence that the US Navy has at times difficulty defeating diesel-electric subs: http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is%20the%20us.%20navy%20overrated.pdf Appendix A, page 85 lists US Navy ships 'sunk' during international exercises. The table is based on publicly availably sources, which obviously are only a subset of all 'sinkings' during exercises.

As for corruption, I think it's safe to assume that wherever politicians and large defensecontractors meet, the interests of those two parties (money, jobs, profit) will take precedence over those of the nation (an effective, cost-efficient military). Unless you believe politicians have the best interest of the country at heart, instead of their own re-election.
Not to mention the historical fact of competition between members of the armed forces for an as large as possible piece of the Defensive spending-pie by generals and admirals.

[Rob Lister]

I can, however, provide evidence that the US Navy has at times difficulty defeating diesel-electric subs: http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is%20the%20us.%20navy%20overrated.pdf Appendix A, page 85 lists US Navy ships 'sunk' during international exercises. The table is based on publicly availably sources, which obviously are only a subset of all 'sinkings' during exercises.



You're right. I don't know about Darth but I was just blowing smoke. I'll come clean now. Truth is always best. Fact is, our hunter/killers don't stand a chance against the Russian-made diesels. Never have, never will. Like their tanks and other weapon systems, their subs are far-far superior.

Darth might continue to argue but I, for one, admit debate defeat. I was just standing up for old glory.

As for the corruption, it extends from the top of the food chain all the way down to the lowliest airman, seamen, soldier and marine. We all took a course in Basic and Advanced Corruption in boot camp and had to re-qualify every two-years. Lord help the service member that didn't cheat on the re-qual exam (cheating was required!).

Best,
Rob

[HeavyAaron]

RISK! Hey, they might shoot at you! (Whoa, who'd have thought that?)


Risk is a good game, just don't let them get all of Africa. We'd never overcome their continental bonus.

Aaron

[Darth Rotor]

New submarines are being built too, the Virginia class.

More advanced than the USS Honolulu, which will be decommisioned according to the article, are 31 688 class and 23 688I-class subs. Add three Seawolfs and probably already a few Virginia's, and the total comes to 57 submarines plus the Virginia's already in service. I guess roughly 60 modern subs are in service today, which doesn't seem too shabby.
Rather than guess, you can go to www.navy.mil and see all the subs currently in commission. They tend to keep it pretty up to date.

DR

EDIT: looks as though they only update it every six or seven months. (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=100&ct=4)

[Darth Rotor]

Since the US military's budget is about equal to the sum of all other nation's combined, I find the complaint about not receiving enough money rather laughable.
Ah, but that's the cream of the joke. You look at the size of the pile of money and assume it buys you perfection. No one can afford a zero defects military, since no one is willing to pay the costs of training, time and materiel required for that. The R & D cycle eats money like no one's business. Why? Building complex tools for a complex job. Expensive equipment eats up immense piles of dough, then go obsolete, and the cycle continues. Oh, and everyone gets a share.

When you build a force intended to underwrite security around the globe, and fight the odd war here and there, which the US military has been doing since 1945; and when you build a force intended to go forth and do things beyond your borders; when you build a force reliant on volunteers (more expensive than conscripts); when you build a force intended to fight and win in modern warfare (not just show up and bleed); you soon find there isn't enough money for zero defects. But you and the landlubber want to believe that because it is very expensive, it must perform perfectly? Right, and Jaguars never break down. :rolleyes:

Attempting to equate the size of the dollar pile with zero defects overlooks the "marginal returns" problem inherent in war, and in military pursuits, and any human activity of most kinds.

What is the marginal cost of incremental improvement in human performance to the point of perfection? Maybe you see, after this comment, the seductive allure of finding the Silver Bullet that the Atom bomb at one point seemed to represent. That Holy Grail, the silver bullet that removes chance from war, error from military endeavors, and provides 100% situational awareness on the battlefield hasn't been made, and ain't ever gonna be made.

It's a myth, but some folks in suits think it can be found. That's part of where your money goes.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I can, however, provide evidence that the US Navy has at times difficulty defeating diesel-electric subs: http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/documents/is%20the%20us.%20navy%20overrated.pdf Appendix A, page 85 lists US Navy ships 'sunk' during international exercises. The table is based on publicly availably sources, which obviously are only a subset of all 'sinkings' during exercises.

As for corruption, I think it's safe to assume that wherever politicians and large defensecontractors meet, the interests of those two parties (money, jobs, profit) will take precedence over those of the nation (an effective, cost-efficient military). Unless you believe politicians have the best interest of the country at heart, instead of their own re-election.
Not to mention the historical fact of competition between members of the armed forces for an as large as possible piece of the Defensive spending-pie by generals and admirals.
Yes, the diesel electic sub is a sonofagun to find and defeat when he is in the defensive role and you are projecting force into his defensive zone. No question, it's a real hard problem to solve. (Classic case was the Argentine San Luis versus the RN during Falklands/Malvinas war) A good sub skipper, any graduate of the Brit Perisher Course, can do some real damage if his crew is well trained.

Knowing that, I leave as an exercise to the reader how one mitigates the sub's advantages when not playing war games. Loose lips sink ships, still.

As for corruption, I think it's safe to assume that wherever politicians and large defensecontractors meet, the interests of those two parties (money, jobs, profit) will take precedence over those of the nation (an effective, cost-efficient military). Unless you believe politicians have the best interest of the country at heart, instead of their own re-election.
Not to mention the historical fact of competition between members of the armed forces for an as large as possible piece of the Defensive spending-pie by generals and admirals.
The process is designed much as the Constitution was: to be ineffecient deliberately, with an eye toward preventing just the sort of back room deals and graft that you mention. If you want to see where some wasted billions have gone, look into the BRAC process: the original and the recent, to see what it costs to "save" money by closing bases in someone's district. *roolseyes*

DR

[Beerina]

I see no mention of submarines on that site... :confused:

Anyways, I imagine that Iranian subs are pretty noisy and have limited abilities underwater (probably can't stay down very long) so the US Navy can probably track them prety well.

I'd be willing to bet all Iranian subs (sub?) are tracked continuously anyway. Were it to launch something in an actual war, the sub wouldn't survive another few hours, much like anti-aircraft missle batteries are quickly destroyed as soon as they turn on their radars.

[drkitten]

No, landlubber, the public should understand that the Navy keeps track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is part of their job.

Er, no. The Navy wants to keep track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is indeed part of their mission -- but the question at hand is one of whether it's really part of their "job," in the sense that it's the sort of thing that they can be assumed to do.

As you yourself pointed out :

Yes, the diesel electic sub is a sonofagun to find and defeat when he is in the defensive role and you are projecting force into his defensive zone. No question, it's a real hard problem to solve. (Classic case was the Argentine San Luis versus the RN during Falklands/Malvinas war) A good sub skipper, any graduate of the Brit Perisher Course, can do some real damage if his crew is well trained.


If you acknowledge that subs generally are "a real hard problem to solve," then it's certainly reasonable to speculate about the Navy's capacity to solve this particular problem. If the Navy doesn't have the capacity to solve the particular problem of Iranian subs, then this problem just got much more serious and more important -- possibly enough more serious that someone's Congressman should be told about it and more resources devoted to the problem.

As you point out, the American public doesn't pay for a zero-defects mililtary. But they can usually be persuaded to pay for a zero-important-defects one.

[Darth Rotor]

The Navy wants to keep track of subs all over the world 24/7. It is indeed part of their mission -- but the question at hand is one of whether it's really part of their "job," in the sense that it's the sort of thing that they can be assumed to do.

If you acknowledge that subs generally are "a real hard problem to solve," then it's certainly reasonable to speculate about the Navy's capacity to solve this particular problem. If the Navy doesn't have the capacity to solve the particular problem of Iranian subs, then this problem just got much more serious and more important -- possibly enough more serious that someone's Congressman should be told about it and more resources devoted to the problem.

As you point out, the American public doesn't pay for a zero-defects mililtary. But they can usually be persuaded to pay for a zero-important-defects one.
Hi

The Navy's mission is to keep track of those subs 24/7: know where they are. When one drops off the tracker, it then needs to be found, same as during the Cold War. That hasn't changed a bit, only the emphasis on shallow water versus deep water operating areas. The situation is dynamic, not static, and the "enemy" or "country of interest" does not sit about and make the job easy. Put in military jargon, the enemy gets a vote. See Osama Bin Laden and friends, USS Cole, for a fine example,

My statement remains exactly where it started, and the fact that the task is difficult hardly matters. The mission continues, 24/7, and the Navy does it, 24/7, with such tools, time and people as are at hand.

*insert Orwell quote here*

As to which mission areas get more attention than others, you are invited to follow the money trail in defense appropriation since 1989, when the peace dividend maroons got hold of defense planning and wished away all threats when one big one went away. Following the programming and budgeting will give you a sense of what is or isn't deemed important within the FINITE (albeit large) amount of money allocated for research, acquisition, administration, and operations. Following so simple a program progression as the C-17 is enough to make one want to scream in frustration at how the rational process of requirements - mission - means logic gets perverted in the budgeting and planning process -- in whose district this month?

By all means, dearest furball regurgitating doctor, write to your Congressman and insist on a greater share of the finite money pie being invested in Anti Mine and Anti Submarine warfare. Plenty of folks inside the box have preceded you, for decades. I am sure anyone "not contaminated with having been too close to the problem" will do a far better job than anyone in the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, in the Fifth Fleet, they get on with it, 24/7.

DR

[drkitten]

As to which mission areas get more attention than others, you are invited to follow the money trail in defense appropriation since 1989, when the peace dividend maroons got hold of defense planning and wished away all threats when one big one went away. Following the programming and budgeting will give you a sense of what is or isn't deemed important within the FINITE (albeit large) amount of money allocated for research, acquisition, administration, and operations. [...]


That's kind of my point.

Should more money be invested in ASW? As you point out, it's a finite pie. Did the Iranian missile test just raise the stakes in ASW? Or should one be more worried about ballistic missile defense with the new long-range missile tests coming out of NK? Or our are missile defense systems sufficiently good that the real need now is in civilian anti-cyberterrorist infrastructure?

I'm afraid that your jingoistic statements that "the Navy does it, 24/7, with such tools, time and people as are at hand" don't inspire confidence. Either you're sufficiently out of touch that you believe that the Navy really can make bricks without straw, or you're even more seriously out of touch in that you believe that at current funding levels, the Navy can do anything that doesn't involve kryptonite.

A person from a smarter branch of the armed forces might recognize that even the US Navy has limits on what it can do.....

[Darth Rotor]

That's kind of my point.

I'm afraid that your jingoistic statements that "the Navy does it, 24/7, with such tools, time and people as are at hand" don't inspire confidence. Either you're sufficiently out of touch that you believe that the Navy really can make bricks without straw, or you're even more seriously out of touch in that you believe that at current funding levels, the Navy can do anything that doesn't involve kryptonite.

A person from a smarter branch of the armed forces might recognize that even the US Navy has limits on what it can do . . .
Where did I say the Navy was unlimited in capability? Nowhere, stop with trying to put words in my mouth. Your experience in real worls ASW is what? As to "the smarter armed service," there isn't such an animal.

The Iranian launch of that missile hardly raises the stakes. The Charlie II's launch of SSN-3's raised the stakes, about 30+ years ago. Iran's acquisition of Kilo submarines raised the stakes.

ASCM's are a different problem for a flotilla of ships than are torpedoes and mines, and a problem of lesser magnitude. For the layman, I'll explain it in terms you can understand: It is easier to sink a ship by letting the water in from the bottom than by trying to let the air out from the top. Mines and torpedoes are the more difficult hazard posed in the littoral ASW environment. The ASCM is a lesser included case of the already present Air Defense problem for the fleet. The only real "this is new and horrifying" prospect is a missile that is invisible to radar. Now THAT would raise the stakes.

But what was I thinking? True Smart People(TM) know better than people who've actuallly done ASW as a mission. *raspberry*

DR

[Darth Rotor]

So, it appears not to be such a big deal. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-missile10sep10,1,2478073.story?coll=la-news-a_section)
So, this sub launched missile is bogus?

Perhaps this is why President Mahmoud so likes CT'ers: that neato video editing deal.

DR

[BPSCG]

So, it appears not to be such a big deal. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-missile10sep10,1,2478073.story?coll=la-news-a_section)
So, this sub launched missile is bogus?

Perhaps this is why President Mahmoud so likes CT'ers: that neato video editing deal. Or maybe it's just his subordinates sucking up to him. See Potemkin Village (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village), Lieutenant Kijé (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Kije).