USN ASuW Doctrin

[Pillar]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

Our subs would be tasked to screen CVBGs from enemy subs, to hunt boomers, and to perform ASW barrier patrols around the GIUK gap.

I have a question - what is the particular advantage of using submarines for ASW?

As far as I can tell, surface frigates are just as quiet as a submarine and even more well equipped than a submarine to deal with ASW jobs. The problem is the visual signature, which means any submarine can see you before any acoustic contact is made. Aircraft are also really good at ASW if generously stored with buoys, because no matter how quiet a sub is, a multi-layered active buoy grid will turn up Kilo's in the middle of a convoy if need be. In shallow waters, I'm not sure. Lack of air superiority maybe means ASW by air is not an option. For subs, the limitation to passive sonar (to stay undetected) coupled with slow speed and hence limited area of coverage strike me as the two biggest limitations they have in this regard. The other problem is that they can't attack without becoming "spent", in that they are detected and offer the option of their own destruction to the enemy every time they are used. I know that it is well established that submarines make the best anti-submarine forces, I'm just not clear why really. I have heard it for a long time and never really thought too much to question it. It seems like the only thing weaker in aircraft/frigates for ASW is their vulnerability to *other* platforms than subs, like fighter aircraft or missiles.

So what are the relationships and why do they make good ASW platforms?

[SandyCaesar]

Actually, surface ships are too easily detected. While a frigate at 5kts might be as quiet as a sub, at 15kts it's far noisier, and at 29kts everyone in the area knows he's there. Plus, surface ships have less sensor capability than subs: their towed arrays aren't as good as submarines, and their bow array...let's just say that it isn't nicknamed the "Helen Keller" for no reason. Then there's the question of RORSATs and air recon: unless you're in completely friendly waters with total, 24/7 air cover, surface ships are vulnerable to other forms of attack. Their only real advantage over subs lies in their helicopters, but in many cases a submarine can whistle up an Orion or a Nimrod if it has to.

As for aircraft, their biggest problem is endurance. While an Orion might be able to loiter on-station for 14 hours, subs can sit and wait for weeks on end. Buoys, too, are not as capable as a 688/T-Boat/Akula's towed array, and they have a relatively short lifespan.

So it all boils down to stealth, endurance, and sensor capability. In the first and the last subs have air and surface platforms beat; as for endurance, a surface ship might be able to match a submarine, but it isn't nearly as stealthy. Nuclear subs are quite fast, and diesels can get to place to place without too many problems in a given patrol area, so speed isn't really an issue. Plus, surface ships also have the same "spent" issue as submarines. The enemy sub can't do more than snapshot and hope to hit if he's fired upon early enough, and if he dies it could be a while before his government knows. In the end, subs are the best ASW solution, mainly because of their stealth.

[Dr.Sid]

Also surface ships are plainly visible for satellites. All what sub commander needs to do to find frigate in reasonable small area is to go to communication depth.
I think this is quite underestimated part in DW.
IIRC Russians even had radar satellites.

[Pillar]

Given these vulnerabilities what was the expected lifespan of surface fleets in a conflict between NATO and WP? Would it come to a point in any reasonable amount of time where existing assets were destroying ships faster than they could be produced?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by SandyCaesar

Actually, surface ships are too easily detected...

Don't forget that surface shps are forever stuck in the surface layer, while some can "Run Silent" they cannot "Run Deep".

Based on this thread I made a "little" mission:
http://www.commanders-academy.com/fo...9960#post29960

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Pillar

I have a question - what is the particular advantage of using submarines for ASW?

As far as I can tell, surface frigates are just as quiet as a submarine and even more well equipped than a submarine to deal with ASW jobs. The problem is the visual signature, which means any submarine can see you before any acoustic contact is made. Aircraft are also really good at ASW if generously stored with buoys, because no matter how quiet a sub is, a multi-layered active buoy grid will turn up Kilo's in the middle of a convoy if need be. In shallow waters, I'm not sure. Lack of air superiority maybe means ASW by air is not an option. For subs, the limitation to passive sonar (to stay undetected) coupled with slow speed and hence limited area of coverage strike me as the two biggest limitations they have in this regard. The other problem is that they can't attack without becoming "spent", in that they are detected and offer the option of their own destruction to the enemy every time they are used. I know that it is well established that submarines make the best anti-submarine forces, I'm just not clear why really. I have heard it for a long time and never really thought too much to question it. It seems like the only thing weaker in aircraft/frigates for ASW is their vulnerability to *other* platforms than subs, like fighter aircraft or missiles.

So what are the relationships and why do they make good ASW platforms?

Subs can hear much better passivly than a surface craft and can traverse thermal layers more readily to detect an enemy sub lurking beneath one.

[SandyCaesar]

Originally Posted by Pillar

Given these vulnerabilities what was the expected lifespan of surface fleets in a conflict between NATO and WP? Would it come to a point in any reasonable amount of time where existing assets were destroying ships faster than they could be produced?

Well, in the most likely scenario--NATO Atlantic convoys vs. Soviet interdiction units--the NATO forces would've tried to blockade the GIUK gap and use carrier task forces and F-15s in Iceland to harass bombers. The Sovs would've tried to run subs and bombers through the gap in order to hit the convoys; any surface force that tried to shoulder through would've been spotted early by satellites and then handled roughly by aircraft, and it wasn't part of Soviet naval doctrine anyway.

Surface-to-surface action would've likely taken place in the North Sea and the Barents, wherein NATO SAGs and CVBGs would square off against Soviet fleets. Here, the underwater theater would be quite crowded: lots of Soviet boats vs. lots of NATO boats (it's within SSK range). Since CVBGs have a larger combat radius than Soviet cruise missiles (the Soviet Forger was considered pretty unimpressive for a fighter), Soviet doctrine was to try to use SSGNs and Backfire/Badger/Bear bombers to attack the carriers and follow up with missile-armed cruisers. Whether or not this would be effective is debatable; ditto NATO submarine and carrier attacks on suface groups. It would boil down to the skill of the men involved, since both sets of doctrines and equipment were keyed to oppose each other.

For a nice study of naval forces in a Cold-War-turned-hot scenario, I recommend reading Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising; subguru Mr. Bill Nichols has a nice campaign based on it.

[Pillar]

My own tests showed that the OHP FFG could detect a transiting 688i (9 kts) better than the 688i could detect the FFG traveling at the same speed. The distance used was ~7nmi. Both disappeared from one another's tracks at 2 kts or less, but the FFG could travel up to 5 kts before being detected while the 688i was limited to 2 kts. This is towed array vs all the 688 sensors - I think the sphere was picking up broadband and the towed was getting tonals from 60hz while the ffg was transiting.

Just fyi. This is for ffg vs sub and sub vs ffg obviously, and may not be applicable to subs finding subs. I also wasn't playing around with layers much, but from experience I've not found a layer in Dangerous Waters which the FFG couldn't get the towed array below. Is that just lack of experience?

[pSipi]

Originally Posted by SandyCaesar

...home-on-jam. I know that SM-1/SM-2s and Phoenixes have them, so it's reasonable to assume that Russian SAM systems would, too;

They do. SA-6 KUB does have it. S300 PMU has alot more than that . Consider this as first hand info.