How close does a sub get to shore?

[Deathblow]

I keep seeing missions where subs are in water with less than 10ft of water under their keel.... and to me this just don't seem realistic. Anyone know how "shallow" subs really get? I know that littoral warfare is the thing of the future but come on....

[TLAM Strike]

There is a mission that shipped with DW where a PLAN Kilo is lurking around a Japanese navy base to send in some special forces. In WWII a Japanese Carrier was nearly sunk near that spot! So oh yea they operate in water that shallow. ;)

"Any water that is too deep to drink is hostile!" <From 'Hostile Waters' :D

[Oberon]

They get shallower than you think!
http://www.newt.com/wohler/events/us-2002/nova-scotia/halifax/sub-big.jpg

[OneShot]

Well, that depends on the sub ... most nukes wouldn't go near shallow waters if they can avoid it. Other types like the 206A of the german navy sometimes dive right when they have left the pier. For example take the Baltic sea, which by all means is not very deep. There have been a lot of subs operating there.

[SeaQueen]

I keep seeing missions where subs are in water with less than 10ft of water under their keel.... and to me this just don't seem realistic. Anyone know how "shallow" subs really get? I know that littoral warfare is the thing of the future but come on....

I've had this conversation with a former submarine officer. He said that the issue was safety of navigation. If you figure that most large ships draw about 50 feet of water, then a submarine wants to be able to stay sufficiently deep that the top of the sail is more than 50 feet below the water. That way they won't get hit.

Depending on the size of the submarine that should tell you what the shallowest they'd go is. An SSN is about 50' tall, so... 150 feet maybe. Any shallower and you'd start having to worry about someone running you over.

[Kapitan]

yep certainly true i got run over by a nimitz class carrier in one of my missions, only cause i fluffed up mind you i was in the middle of the mediteranean so erm kinda deep there

[Sub Sailor]

Subs including nukes do shallow water ops, some times a heck of a lot shallower than we would like.
Here are the considerations that has dictated the US Navy shallow water ops. Bottom type, rocky bottom can spring surprises, manuvering room, can you get out of the road, type of ship traffic, Super tankers and other large ships, because of the bow wave they push, will suck a sub up from 300 feet to putting it in real danger of getting run over. That I experinced when we tried to use a Super Tanker to sneak into the Med in 1972. The theory was good but the phyics was crappy. It was like being in one of those elevators in a big building. There are other things that are considered before they order an expensive nuke sub in to shallow water.
Nukes, like me, don't like really shallow ops, because of silt, but no ones really likes them for any reason. Lots of water over you and under you is better.
I have seen 18 feet under the keel, and that was about as close as we dared go because of danger of hitting the screw. I don't know about the shrouded screws as I was never on a boat that had them.
Some of the missions that are designed for SC and DW are not realistic. I don't know if AI sees them but real aircews in daylight and decent water can see a sub running at 200 feet. There are pictues they have taken, one was the Swordfish SSN-579 of Hawaii in 1966. I hate to admit it but aircarft are the next best weapon for asw, especially the damm helicopters, nasty little rascals.


Deeper is better,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[XabbaRus]

Yea taking out transparent water is a pain.

I wonder if someone can fix a texture to allow it.

[Deathblow]

Hm... yeah I always thought that that Russian Rebellion mission when the 688 is spying on a the Chinese is shallow water with *2ft* under the keel was a bit much.....

I've remember hearing that SC modeled water so that visible detection was possible is that true?

[Apocal]

Hm... yeah I always thought that that Russian Rebellion mission when the 688 is spying on a the Chinese is shallow water with *2ft* under the keel was a bit much...

For the entire time my belly was scraping the bottom, I was thinking that there was going to be a scripted event where my sub sucked up some slit and the entire plant died, leaving me to run on batteries and diesels while escaping from the enemy.

I've remember hearing that SC modeled water so that visible detection was possible is that true?

If it is, I've never seen it. Most indication I've gotten that a sub was breaking the surface was the wake sometimes appearing before the bow had actually broken. Other than that, just a solid sea of nothing but water.

[Deathblow]

You know..... on a semi-related note, sometimes it doesn't seem like "llittoral warfare" is modeled properly. The AI subs behave very poorly in shallow water and almost always bottom out (without damage, but still bottom out) and get stuck. And I'm not sure that the littoral sonar environment is representing all that is said about shallow water sound challenges.

[LuftWolf]

I think the next evolution of the DW series will feature more detailed modelling of littoral warfare and perhaps even detailed modelling of land platforms.

The successful integration of the battlespace to accommodate playable subs, air, and surface platforms is quite encouraging for what is possible for the future.

[SeaQueen]

You know..... on a semi-related note, sometimes it doesn't seem like "littoral warfare" is modeled properly.

It depends on what you mean by "littoral warfare." DW is also better than a lot of sims but I agree, there's also lot to be done in this department. It's been a pet peeve of mine for some time now. Some of these things can be fixed simply by being smart about the missions you create. Other things are more technical.

The SSP for a bottom limited environment, for example, is wrong. There's no over-the-horizon radars or satellites. Aircraft get a little over-enthusiastic while conducting strike ops and frequently fly into the ground. Their loadouts are usually wrong too. I wish there were ballistic missiles, and more varieties of land-based antiship cruise missiles. It shouldn't be too difficult because most of the missiles are already in the database.

It's be nice if you could land SOF/Marines with a helo. LCACS just sort of drive around. There's almost no land forces at all.

In fairness, though, I think it's hard to really build a good naval simulator that fully takes into account events on shore because you essentially end up building a sort of universal simulator for all arms. Harpoon comes closest to this, but it's land combat model leaves a lot to be desired. It's best doing sea, air and space stuff. It's also not particularly good for doing things like MIO, NSW and NEO ops. This is a hole I see DW could fill.

I always find myself wishing DW was more like Harpoon and Harpoon was more like DW, if that makes any sense at all.

[Deathblow]

Well, I was really just considering littoral ASW/mine warfare. I'ld be happy with more challenging littoral sonar envrionment and an AI doctrine that doesn't run aground...

... then again, whats the old saying... be careful what you wish for :hmm: