Soviet SSBN strategy

[C-Wolf]

Recently declassified and released related reading:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0005512850.pdf

Parent article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...ne-sonar-soks/

[Delgard]

Should we be seeing more Yankees in 1984?

And, I gather that near-ice activity wasn't so much a capability at the time. Moving in the ice flows would take longer than simply zipping down and through the GUIK gaps to the Atlantic, but safer. Was it that sonar was just not up to the task operating in the ice flows of north end of the Denmark Strait?

I guess these are analytical questions towards the '68 to '84 timeframe scenarios.

If I was a Yankee skipper, I would have attached a fishing motor to an iceberg and let it tow me silently to the US East Coast.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Delgard

Should we be seeing more Yankees in 1984?

And, I gather that near-ice activity wasn't so much a capability at the time. Moving in the ice flows would take longer than simply zipping down and through the GUIK gaps to the Atlantic, but safer. Was it that sonar was just not up to the task operating in the ice flows of north end of the Denmark Strait?

I guess these are analytical questions towards the '68 to '84 timeframe scenarios.

If I was a Yankee skipper, I would have attached a fishing motor to an iceberg and let it tow me silently to the US East Coast.

There are obvious peacetime navigational issues (ie if you operate under the icepack and suffer a reactor failure you are in big trouble) which is why where possible other routes were used, for example for inter theatre transfer between Northern and Pacific Fleets.

[ikalugin]

With this being said your statement being that things are different when they went on those ops because they were allowed to 'use a wartime stance' is just garbage. The ONLY way they could be construed to have made a difference is if the Soviet navy was intentionally operating stupidly at other times. Hence my use of sarcasm.

Yet in case of the Soviet force this was the reality as:
- transfer routes (bases->Atlantic)
- tactics (evasion tactics)
- equipment (self propelled imitators)
were wartime restricted (with exceptions - ie Atrina).

This follows the "surge" logic Soviets in general and Soviet Navy in particular used.

While one could disagree with that logic (ie citing the possibility of a surprise attack) it nonetheless existed. If one does not understand this logic one makes the common mistakes in understanding the Soviet forces and the scenarios, under which those would be deployed and thus the the likelly outcomes of such scenarios.
The prime example (other than the nuclear forces we have discussed here already) would be the large, conventional land war in Europe post Ogarkov reforms, where many analysts assumed that, for example, NATO would be capable of conducting the lengthy (30-90 days) re-deployment of forces under REFORGER and that Soviet Navy would be attempting to deny such re-deployment and as such was built for this mission, and through that perception lense the Soviet Navy (including the Naval Aviation assets it had) was analysed.

(I applogise for not citing fully, as I am pressed for time and capability to respond adequately)

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by C-Wolf

Recently declassified and released related reading:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0005512850.pdf

Parent article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...ne-sonar-soks/

1972 dated report

From which I get the impression that the report does not account for Victor-II class, which was the first class to have specific noise reduction measures (ie rafting), which were subsequently improved on later classes (such as Victor-III). As such this report may be misguiding when considering 1980s subsurface picture.

[C-Wolf]

Subsequent noise quieting for the Victor class were inadequate. The first boat that was an acoustic challenge to the US was the NATO code-named Akula.

For the purposes of the game as the time periods are set now, the Russian submarine force was quite detectable. --As in freight train loud, and easily picked up by the Q-5.

CCC

[ikalugin]

Aport and Atrina show otherwise.

Which Akula? Which Victors (IIs and IIIs)? There are significant internal (within the same class) differences there.

p.s. there is a convenient graph here (it counts combat submarines in general):

 

Depending on the year (ie after Soviets went with noise reduction on the late 2nd and then 3rd generations of submarines) there would be different ammount of "silent" submarines in service (ie 21 Victor-IIIs by 1984, 6 more Victor-IVs by 1992, then the whole Sierra/Akula can of worms). So while there would be submarines which would be fairly loud (the whole first generation, part of the 2nd generation) for the game time line, there would also be fairly quiet ones as well.

The 1972 vintage CIA report presented here reinforces my impression that the US parties at the time (and it appears still) did not (do not) understand the nature of the Soviet ASW development (I can show the significant developments that report misses), nor are aware of Soviet experience. For example the whole Afalina shebang is missed.

p.p.s I can provide a short overview of Soviet noise reduction evolution for the relevant time period.

[C-Wolf]

Other than reading books, how much time have you spent at sea?

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by C-Wolf

Other than reading books, how much time have you spent at sea?

Should I view this as appeal to authority?

Though I guess Brakerchase already covered that point here:

Originally Posted by Breakerchase

It's very tempting to doubt a writer's credibility no naval matter for having "never served in the Navy or even held a security clearance", but to quote Fred T. Jane in Eric Grove's The Future of Sea Power: "it would be a bad day...if the principle ever gets established that unless a man is an actor he is incapable of criticising the actions of a drama...the contention world work out that 'you cannot tell whether an egg is good or bad unless you are a hen."'.

[C-Wolf]

I'll take that as a no.

I you have never participated in submarine operations or held a security clearance for such matters, you are very much in the dark, and as such your statements don't reflect reality or in-depth knowledge of the subject matter with no degree of "authority" whatsoever.

Case closed.