Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bill Nichols
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WargamerScott
The only thing I found questionable was the mention of using aircraft to protect submarines from NATO air attack. That's a pointless exercise.
|
In fact, the Russian Navy places great importance on defending their subs against aircraft (Gorshkov learned that lesson from the WW2 U-boat war). A major point of the Soviet (now, Russian) SSBN bastion concept is to put their high-value subs (SSBNs) in areas that can be defended against Western ASW assets. The Soviets learned (thanks to Johnny Walker  ) how easy it was for our ASW aircraft to snap-up their Yankee and early Delta boomers in mid-ocean, given a cue from SOSUS. The Delta IV and Typhoons were designed with very-long-range missiles, able to hit US targets from launch points just off their homeports. No P-3 or Nimrod pilot would dare go subhunting within range of Russian Fulcrums or Flankers!  |
How do you guys know all this stuff (if you guys answer USNI PROCEEDINGS, I'm re-subscribing tomorrow!)??
Fascinating discussion so far!
I stand corrected then. But doesn't the Russian strategy of using aircraft to protect subs really limit their usefulness? It's sort of like putting a leash on an attack dog, no? Why even invest in SSBNs if they are going to be kept close to home waters? Wouldn't mobile land launchers be more cost effective and easier to hide?