SSBN's in Dangerous Waters

[Captain Norman]

I was always wonderin if Sonalyst would ever add a playable SSBN to either Dangerous Waters or even a new sub sim. I think it would be cool to play as one, being in control of all those missiles. And with this new naval news about non-nuclear missiles for SSBNs, it could work with modern times, but a nuclear SSBN would be neat.
Id definately like to see an Ohio and a Typhoon. I could relive my Hunt for Red October fantasies.

[LoBlo]

unfortunately only the 6 current platforms are available to play. (LA, Akula, Kilo, FFG, P3 and MH60) with no current plans to expand toward new platforms in the near future. The creation of new platforms by the mod community has been refused as well.

[Wildcat]

You certainly can do that. Use SCX with sub command. You can play all kinds of boomers in sub command and SCU. There will be no such mod like SCX/SCU for dangerous waters however, sonalysts does not want that.

[LoBlo]

Hm... I'm always hearing about the amazement which is SCX. You can't tell me that SCX achieve actual missile silo launches vis the Ohio VLS did it?...

Gee, I'm thinking about going out and buying an old copy of SC to see what all the SCX mystique is about... Heck, if all that work went into the original SCX, I wouldn't want to start from scratch and do it all over again either..

[Wildcat]

Well I don't think that you can launch missiles from the subs in SCX, just torpedoes. There's not much point in launching nuclear missiles, the effects aren't modelled and it would probably break the game engine if the speeds of the missiles got up to 20,000mph or so.

It's better left to the mission designer to script 'fake' missile launches, i.e. a trigger that states you've fired your missiles if you break through ice at a certain time and location.

[LuftWolf]

Hehe...

Oh yeah, we can fake it.

I could definately make some kind of sublaunched ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. Amizaur recently showed that the DW damage model can take a 30000kt blast, fired from a 65-76 torpedo. He said it killed everything within 50nm.

I think the maxalt allowed by the sim is 100000m.

The problem is... DW is a TACTICAL simulator. We could easily put in small nuclear Stallions and Squals... but then how would that make it a better sim? Perhaps we could do a nuclear TLAM, but at the end of the day, that would only be a gee-whiz kind of thing. It would make a big boom, things would turn grey, targets would die.

Just a bit bigger version of what already happens with a TLAM.

Cheers,
David

[Wildcat]

Nuclear torpedoes would be nice to see, given that most Russian subs carried at least 2-4 of them. Would be nice for late cold war scenarios. Would probably be abused in multiplayer though :P

[Bellman]

Rather than the 'flash-bang' potential of the Boomers it is the scope for teamplay in escort
and interception scenarios which interests me.

Scenario designers can utilise existing platforms to simulate Boomers by defining performance criteria
in the descriptions and imposing scripted penalties should players exceed these
performance or weapon criteria.

WW2 Bomber and fighter combined ops were/are a lot of fun ! Some of us get our adrenalin fixes in slow release by the typical flight sim experience of long periods of alertness followed by intense periods of frenetic action. Some weirdos, like me, even postpone the experience for days in the cold bath of scenarios like Sea Queens 'Kara Sea' But thats SP and in MP we should look to a speedier workout !

Is there a demand for this type of scenario ? Is this the sort of Artic mission called for elsewhere ? How long should such a MP scenario last - potentialy 2, 2 1/2 or 3 hours ? Anyone want to pilot Boomers ?

I am a tad disenchated with 'designing' at present but this concept might just get the juices flowing again. :hmm:

[FERdeBOER]

In my opinion, the ability of launching missiles on SSBNs would be good in order to have a "time end". It will allow to create missions kind of: "find and destroy the Delta before she launches her missiles". or "protect the boomer untill she can launch".

Of course, it can be reproduced by other ways and make a "fake" launch, but if the AI could do the launch by itself, would be better and easier than forcing to.

About nuclear warheads... well, personally I'm not interested on nuclear torpedoes, while recognize it would be a great show to see a CVN sinking with only one torpedo, among with part of the escort.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Captain Norman

And with this new naval news about non-nuclear missiles for SSBNs, it could work with modern times

The tactical Tridents will probably be pretty cool if they make it past Congress, but I suspect that in all likelihood, they'll probably turn out to be used in practice as extra long ranged Tomahawks than as the sort of "Osama is hanging out in the park, he'll be there for the next hour, go get 'em" kind of things they're advertising them as.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The problem is... DW is a TACTICAL simulator. We could easily put in small nuclear Stallions and Squals... but then how would that make it a better sim? Perhaps we could do a nuclear TLAM, but at the end of the day, that would only be a gee-whiz kind of thing. It would make a big boom, things would turn grey, targets would die.

I agree. To really start playing with nuclear weapons in the context of a commerical wargame, you need to do things on at least the operational level. It's a topic much better dealt with by Harpoon than DW.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by FERdeBOER

In my opinion, the ability of launching missiles on SSBNs would be good in order to have a "time end". It will allow to create missions kind of: "find and destroy the Delta before she launches her missiles". or "protect the boomer untill she can launch".

I think this sort of thing could be fun. Imposing time limits is definitely a good way to make a tough scenario harder especially if you have a fair idea of about how long it ought to take statistically. The hard part, though is that while it makes for good drama, I'm not sure it makes good operational sense.

SSBNs big advantage is that they're survivable, unlike nuclear missile silos or bombers, which are easy to destroy. Finding an SSBN is extraordinarily time consuming. (I try to hint at that in the Kara Sea Strategic ASW scenario which I keep reworking. )

They're not really a "first strike" weapon. They're there to make sure that you don't make a first strike, because in all likelihood, you won't be able to find all of them and destroy them, so if you make a first strike, the SSBNs will always be there to blast you right back.

It's actually kind of interesting to think about. If you had the capability of destroying all the SSBNs then you might actually make the other side MORE likely to execute a first strike against you because he doesn't want to leave all his missiles sitting in their silos and bombers sitting on their runways. In the effort to undermine his nuclear arsenal, you can actually make yourself less safe. Huuum... maybe all this SSBN trailing isn't such a good idea.

The whole idea of strategic deterrence (and therefore one's ability to protect their country) depends on your enemy believing that somehow enough of his SSBNs are going to survive in a war that they can always retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack. On the other hand, in the interest of protecting one's own country, one wants to be able to destroy all of the enemy SSBNs at will. So... in order to truely defend one's nation, one must always work to make sure the enemy SSBNs FEEL safe, while in fact, they never stand a chance. One's actual capacity for destroying the SSBNs must therefore remain a secret of critical importance for if it was known that one might be able to destroy all of one's opponents SSBNs, it would threaten the peace.

[LoBlo]

Originally Posted by SeaQueen

The tactical Tridents will probably be pretty cool if they make it past Congress, but I suspect that in all likelihood, they'll probably turn out to be used in practice as extra long ranged Tomahawks than as the sort of "Osama is hanging out in the park, he'll be there for the next hour, go get 'em" kind of things they're advertising them as.

I remember reading that one of the obstacles for convientional ballistic missiles was that it looked a lot like nuclear missile launches from orbital satellite perspective... so as the missiles fly countries all over the world would be officially freaking out not knowing whether its a nuke flying or not...not a good thing. That is, of course, unless the navy were to give all other countries an advanced warning before it fired, but that's impractical and defeats the "quick strike" mentality... better to not open up that can of worms IMHO.

If quick strike is what's desired, then the RATTLERS looks pretty interesting... and appears to be working nicely, just needs to be adapted to launch from specific platforms...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...2009026&page=1
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ns/rattlrs.htm
Hystrike is along those lines as well
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...s/hystrike.htm

On a side note... :hmm: ...ge its really, really tempting to mod these missiles into the game as next generation strike missiles. Maybe a substitute for the TLAM in the LA and SW...

[LuftWolf]

It kind of looks like a Shipwreck.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LoBlo

I remember reading that one of the obstacles for convientional ballistic missiles was that it looked a lot like nuclear missile launches from orbital satellite perspective... so as the missiles fly countries all over the world would be officially freaking out not knowing whether its a nuke flying or not...not a good thing. That is, of course, unless the navy were to give all other countries an advanced warning before it fired, but that's impractical and defeats the "quick strike" mentality... better to not open up that can of worms IMHO.

True, that's possible. Hence I suspect that if they actually did come into service, they'd be used more like extra long ranged Tomahawk cruise missiles. A lot of this sort of "quick strike" discussion comes from an event that occured in the 90s, when Osama Bin Ladin's exact location was known for a short period of time. Pres. Clinton ordered a submarine to launch a TLAM strike in retaliation for the bombings of American embassies. If he'd only stayed where he was a little bit longer they'd have got him, but by the time the missiles got there, he was gone. People at the Pentagon immediately said, "We need a faster missile!" Who knows how often these kinds of opportunities pop up, though?

If quick strike is what's desired, then the RATTLERS looks pretty interesting... and appears to be working nicely, just needs to be adapted to launch from specific platforms...

It's still just a prototype. They've still got lots of bugs to work out before putting it into service. Same with the Hystrike. That's not a real weapon yet either. It's always interesting to see how so many of these future systems fare. Anyone remember the Sealance? They only built 3 Seawolf class submarines. The LCS they're building now is a far cry from the original concept of the LCS. Who knows how that will go? The DD(X) is probably going to happen. Who knows about the CG(X) and CV(X)? So many of these things depend on money. It's doubly the case when Congress seems intent on bankrupting the nation with a combination of irresponsible spending and the irrational belief that the optimal tax rate is 0.

History is filled with weapons projects that for whatever reason went *poof*. Who knows what they'll be thinking about in 10 years?

I think a "Future Systems" database might be fun. It'd be very much in the same genre as the ADB for Harpoon. The thing is, right now is sort of a strange time to be building that sort of thing because a lot of "future systems" are right around the corner. To continue with the Harpoon analogy, the ADB frequently represents systems that also ought to be in the DB2000 (which cover up to 2020). The thing is, the two are sometimes inconsistent with each other.

I like to think of it as ADB is "what might have been," and DB2000 is "what actually came about." None the less, sometimes I think it creates strange impressions of things.