" Meanwhile, the nuclear submarine community has done the math and found that their greatest contribution these days is not attacking enemy warships, but land bombardment with cruise missiles and intelligence collecting."
 

Nuclear submarines are a hideously expensive way of launching cruise missiles.  Yes an Ohio cleaned out it's aging inventory on Lybia recently, but we used this capability only because it was there and we had already paid for it, not because of any unique capability.  A dozen B-52s could have launched the same number of missiles far more efficiently and effectively, same with our DDGs.

 

Back to the PAcific:  The vastness of the area amplifies the dominant role of air power:  even a nuke running at 30 knots submerged can manage less than 800 miles a day, a P-8 will do this in less than 2 hours.  And in the near future extended range/extended loiter large UAVs will be able to patrol and loiter for days on end with aerial refueling (a job which will also be carried out by UAVs).  

 

THe vast distances of the Pacific also amplify the US' airspace dominance:  none of our potential adversaries has any meaningful capability to conduct air operations (especially air-to-air) more than a few hundred miles from it's home bases.  The US has carriers as well as a network of bases (or access to them) across the entire pacific, certainly enough to operate longer-range aircraft with impunity. 

 

The final nail in the coffin for the 50 SSN fleet, if it is hanging it's hat on being a cruise missile platform is the increasing range of cruise missiles.  SSNs were quite useful to get the launch point close enough to the target when missiles had limited range, but now that we are developing cruise missiles with 1500 - 2000 mile ranges (and with stealth technologies) we no longer need to be right off the coast to hit a target 750 miles inland.

 

Sorry, submariners, y'all are gonna get squeezed.  We will always have SSNs, but the above exercise just gutted much of your raison detre.  

Altough  expensive  but as  a mobile  launcher submarines are  perfect .

 Think  that  Frencs  deployed all their  nucleer arsenal  in submarines.

Seriously who writes this stuff?  The notion that trying to get insurance removed from Chinese shipping during wartime and announcing a blockade will keep Chinese ships in port is simply ridiculous.

 

Furthermore the notion that submarines wouldn't be critical for mine laying is absurd given Chinese air defenses.  We're simply not going to rerun the last year of WWII and drop most of the mines with large aircraft.  The situations are not remotely analogous.

 

Either the USN has the ability to sink large numbers of Chinese ships, including both merchant and naval vessels, or it doesn't.  Insurance and propaganda is not going to keep the PRC from sailing it's ships, especially during wartime.

Ridiculous to think SSN's are obsolete in a modern naval campaign. The Falklands War showed the value of all assets, but it was the Brits who brought subs to bear. If you recall they bluffed that their subs were already down there and the Argentines froze. The subs got there, sank a ship, and the Arg navy left the scene leaving it up to their air force(which was very capable-brits got lucky) to prosecute the attack.

 

To say air power will win the day in a naval campaign is akin to saying air power will win a land war by itself aka Desert Storm. 

 

There's nothing in modern warfare/strategy which has diminished the SSN forces importance in dealing a foe's naval forces. They're the first modern stealth war machine and they are getting stealthier. How can that be marginalized? How long as you have surface assets, you'll have SSN's to kill them.

Sorry HeavyD, but I wholeheartedly disagree. A modern SSN is among the most versatile and cost effective weapons platforms in the US arsenal. They don't just "hang their hat" on TLAM Strike, as you assert, that would indeed be a colossal waste of money. The SSN is the only weapons system that can routinely and successfully perform ASW, SUW, ISR, land/maritime strike, and Spec Ops support. Yes, they are expensive, but that expense is money well-spent in my opinion. Unfortunately, the general public would probably agree with you, only because the vast capabilities of submarines are largely unadvertised, even these days. I think the decision makers who know what SSNs routinely do understand that, and for this reason they won't "get squeezed" any time soon. But if they do, then someone made a supremely bad decision.

 

As for the SSGNs, how many B-52s or P-8As would it take to successfully shoot 154 Tomahawks? Neither of those aircraft are stealthy by any stretch of the imagination. How many B-52s or P-8As could actually get within range to shoot before they are destroyed? One Ohio SSGN can do it quite handily. Submarines are called the "ultimate stealth weapon" for a very good reason.Yes the oceans are vast and submarines are relatively slow, but that is why the SSGNs (and a lot of SSNs) are forward deployed, or even already there, undetected and just waiting for the launch order.

 

Just my opinion... 

Not obsolete, just not as useful at sinking ships as some may think.  Especially in the modern age - a prop-driven P-3 with SLAM-ER missiles and JDAMS can patrol a vastly larger area or can be dispatched to dispatch shipping detected via satellites or drones far more efficiently than subs.

 

To say air power will win the day in a naval campaign is akin to saying air power will win a land war by itself aka Desert Storm. 

 Not a valid comparison since territory on land must be held whereas the oceans can be continually swept clean of enemy warship and merchant shipping by air power alone.  Let's take Indonesia as an example:  Sure our air power could decimate their armor and strongpoints, but we'd still face a bloody slog to capture the country and all of it's islands.  Air power alone, on the other hand, could sink every ship over 500 tons within a couple of weeks and could effectively blockade the country rendering them impotent from engaging in offensive military action.

 

There's nothing in modern warfare/strategy which has diminished the SSN forces importance in dealing a foe's naval forces.

Dead wrong:  Stealth aircraft (F-22, F-35) have stand-off cruise missiles, the SLAM-ER gives incredible capabilities to pedestrian aircraft like P-3s and P-8s, JDAMS give F/A 18s the ability to 'Toss and Turn', UAVs have increasing offensive capability, and UAVs and satellites allow us to track every ship 24/7 if we need to.  THis ain't the COld War 600 ship navy days anymore, kemosabe.

 

They're the first modern stealth war machine and they are getting stealthier. How can that be marginalized? How long as you have surface assets, you'll have SSN's to kill them.

Did you even read the article?

the intresting thing i found was that AIP (air independent propulsion) is likely a cheaper, quiteer alternative to the Nukes. of course the tech wan't inveted in the USA so dosn't exist, and of course the Nukes are the baby of the navy.

 

the range on AIP is lower but thats increasing and they are smaller. but everything i have read suggest that AIP is far better suited to ship attack roles and the Nukes for the long range long haul trips and patrols

Madcowe hit the nail on the head really, there's no other weapon system out there that so effectively denies the adversary use of the ocean, there's nothing as capable in terms of intelligence gathering or ASW. Persistence being a trait LEO or Elliptical Orbit satellites lack.

 

Also, with the newer Russian SAM and AMM systems and powerful radar nets to be deployed in abundance can you really be sure that TLAM's launched from 000's of miles away will really be as survivable as those launched from 10's of K's or even less? I think in some ways you have to take a wider view and look 20-30 years to the future where in all probability the gulf between the US air capability and that of adversaries may well be narrower, technologically speaking as the US economy and attendant military industry makes up a smaller proportion of global GDP.

 

Think of the Falklands, as an example, even if Argentina's Navy was in a far better state of repair I would wager it would be the SSN threat that kept them from sending combatants on another expedition. To forward deploy in unknown numbers with effective anti-shipping, land attack and intelligence harvesting capabilities is surely more useful than maintaining a fully-stocked airbase or a patrol of surface combatants. Given a lot of the world's disputes are essentially territorial I would argue that the SSN is the ultimate area-denial system, it may not win an air war but it does put any seaborne expeditions at enormous risk.

 

R 

 

Just so we're clear, we're talking about China here.  There are no other threats in the Pacific that would be any real test for even a depleted US military, right?

 

So let's talk capability:  The article states that a high-intensity conflict against merchant shipping is unlikely, but if it did occur, submarines would not be the primary weapon platform.  Given the slow speed and absolute vulnerability against air attack, plus the technological advances in the past 70 years, this makes absolute sense.  Even if a satellite passes only every 12 hours there ain't much hope for a 12 - 20 knot merchant ship to escape a JASSM-ER with it's 950 kilometer range and 450kg warhead.  And there's not much risk to the launching aircraft given the huge stand-off range.  In fact it's better for us if the merchant was in blue waters, far away from land-based SAM protection.  Then we can hit it with JDAMs (after radioing in and giving the crew 10 minutes to abandon ship)

 

 

The think that many fans of subs forget is that they no longer have the monopoly on stealth they enjoyed in the 20th century.  A B2 can mine a harbor or waterway with dozens of Mk-65s in a single pass, with complete impunity.  F-22s launched from Japan along with B2s can sink/render inoperable any Chinese naval surface vessel anywhere, any time.  Even in port, which is a capability that subs lack.

 

Clearly subs have a place, and we will always have more than everyone else.  But this is the 21st century and even the Navy is recognizing the situation for what it is.

 

 

The think that many fans of subs forget is that they no longer have the monopoly on stealth they enjoyed in the 20th century.  A B2 can mine a harbor or waterway with dozens of Mk-65s in a single pass, with complete impunity.  F-22s launched from Japan along with B2s can sink/render inoperable any Chinese naval surface vessel anywhere, any time.  Even in port, which is a capability that subs lack.

Is that before or after China conducts its saturation missile attacks on our air bases in Japan (And possible sabotage missions)?