SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

C-Wolf · 01-16-18, 08:46 PM

Just as any potential 1980's-era adversary's priority naval intelligence target was the location of USN Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups, the USN's primary intel focus was focused toward Soviet's SSBN locations, --especially when they were underway.

A tremendous amount of training, resources, funding, and technological effort was made to ensure: "No more Pearl Harbors." This engrained philosophy has dominated US naval planning and doctrine since 1941.

SLBMs can strike the US mainland much sooner than fixed ICBMs due to their shorter range/decreased flight times, making determining their location paramount. As sonar supervisors, we were updated with the latest "hot cock" regarding potential adversary submarine movements every watch.

With a variety of sophisticated techniques that have never been revealed, I can say with certainty the life expectancy of a Soviet boomer sailor would have been very brief if the US submarine force had been tasked with removing Soviet SSBNs from the playing field at any time during the 70's-80's.

I never heard of a substantiated account of a Soviet SSN holding sustained trail on a US SSBN during the 60's, 70's, or 80's. Ever.

SSBN surge capability? That defeats the nature of forward deterrence using SSBNs. SSBNs are safest when submerged, not tied to a pier, vulnerable to an offshore TLAM strike.

As the 80's progressed, the Soviets went broke trying to keep pace with US/NATO ASW tactics and retreated to the bastions closer to their home waters, (this is called self-preservation) with other forces to help protect them. As money got increasing tighter, deterrent patrols stopped, and their boats rotted. Eventually, there were zero Soviet SSBNs at sea! To this day, there are half-submerged Russian SSNs rusting away in Russia because the will/funding isn't available to dispose of them properly. The Russian economy is still a mess.

Are today's Russia's latest submarines better? Absolutely! While low in quantity, their quality poses a huge challenge for the USN.

But. . .

The US submarine force has never been complacent where potential adversaries are concerned. (Wish I could say that with any conviction regarding the readiness status of the surface forces.) Today's submarine force is ready tonight to perform whatever mission they're assigned, and I would not want to be on the receiving end of their skill sets.

To find us, you must be good.
To catch us, you must be fast.
To beat us, you must be kidding!

(It isn't bragging if one can do it. . . )

01-16-18, 08:46 PM	#14
C-Wolf Watch Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: New England Posts: 30 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Just as any potential 1980's-era adversary's priority naval intelligence target was the location of USN Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups, the USN's primary intel focus was focused toward Soviet's SSBN locations, --especially when they were underway. A tremendous amount of training, resources, funding, and technological effort was made to ensure: "No more Pearl Harbors." This engrained philosophy has dominated US naval planning and doctrine since 1941. SLBMs can strike the US mainland much sooner than fixed ICBMs due to their shorter range/decreased flight times, making determining their location paramount. As sonar supervisors, we were updated with the latest "hot cock" regarding potential adversary submarine movements every watch. With a variety of sophisticated techniques that have never been revealed, I can say with certainty the life expectancy of a Soviet boomer sailor would have been very brief if the US submarine force had been tasked with removing Soviet SSBNs from the playing field at any time during the 70's-80's. I never heard of a substantiated account of a Soviet SSN holding sustained trail on a US SSBN during the 60's, 70's, or 80's. Ever. SSBN surge capability? That defeats the nature of forward deterrence using SSBNs. SSBNs are safest when submerged, not tied to a pier, vulnerable to an offshore TLAM strike. As the 80's progressed, the Soviets went broke trying to keep pace with US/NATO ASW tactics and retreated to the bastions closer to their home waters, (this is called self-preservation) with other forces to help protect them. As money got increasing tighter, deterrent patrols stopped, and their boats rotted. Eventually, there were zero Soviet SSBNs at sea! To this day, there are half-submerged Russian SSNs rusting away in Russia because the will/funding isn't available to dispose of them properly. The Russian economy is still a mess. Are today's Russia's latest submarines better? Absolutely! While low in quantity, their quality poses a huge challenge for the USN. But. . . The US submarine force has never been complacent where potential adversaries are concerned. (Wish I could say that with any conviction regarding the readiness status of the surface forces.) Today's submarine force is ready tonight to perform whatever mission they're assigned, and I would not want to be on the receiving end of their skill sets. To find us, you must be good. To catch us, you must be fast. To beat us, you must be kidding! (It isn't bragging if one can do it. . . ) __________________ Sagire, Classis, Destructum! Last edited by C-Wolf; 01-16-18 at 09:16 PM.