I am having an argument with someone on another forum about SSBN and if they have tactical capabilities or if SSBN's are just strategic with no other tactical advantages to help them do their operation. It is my view that SSBN's are strategic assets of limited tactical use, however to say they have no tactical capabilities seems to be wrong. They have better systems than SSN's, can dive deeper and are very quiet, they also have topedo tubes aswell. Sure they shouldn't be used in a tactical engagement but they have the capabilities to sink enemy submarines or pass them unfound to continue their mission. Also are SSBN's worth the money, given their lack of tactical capabilities? Or it is just a case of the Indians, Russians and Chinese have them so we need them?
I would say more strategic. They only have one purpose in all reality, and launching those missiles should be mission priority over conventional tactics because they cost to much and are to important because of their payload. The nuclear strategy seems to be working so far as a deterrent for those who have them and those subs are probably the most effective way to deliver them in someone backyard (even ours).
So even though the SSBN's have tactical capabilities they are really strategic because they only have one mission in mind which is a strategic one? So the person I was arguing with was correct and I was wrong. You could work on greater missile range and just have them in land bases able to hit anywhere, however the submarine is a better asset because they don't know where it is. Still though if they can't afford SSBN's, land bases missiles aren't a terrible option like strategic bombers.
The main advantage in using SSBN is about timing: if the SSBN is able to stay in stealth condition approaching to enemy coasts, when it will launch its missiles the defensive systems will have a short time to react [an ICBM takes numerous minutes to reach the target, a missile launched by a SSBN can take less than some minutes to hit, depending on how good the crew is in avoiding detecting systems and enemy patrolling units]. Regarding tactical capabilities of an SSBN, you can use all military units a tactical way, if you want or in case of necessity [once launched all the missiles the SSBN can still fight ... but its main purpose would be to find a way back to a base to collect other missiles to launch ...].
Ok because what I said in the other forum was SSBN's are strategic assets with limited tactical capabilities. Then this other person wrote back calling my names say they have no tactical capabilities their capabilities are only strategic. However I always think every asset had a strategic goal and a tactical means to reaching the goal. If being quieter than most SSN's and being able to dive deeper and having better overall system not tactical? Just so we are clear I never said SSBN's were a tactical asset. Yeah submarines are the best assets and have massive advantages over air craft and land based missiles. However it would be even better if you could have missiles on a space station moving around the world able to fire off missiles. They will likely be the next step for nuclear derrents and will make SSBN's less capable. I believe this could happen in the life span of the next generation of SSBN's planned by the US and UK. I so I think we should wait and put all out money and time into a space based system. What do you think?
That from the orbit you can use something better than the nuclear weapons ... something more clean a quite difficult to intercept: kinetic shells. Kinetic weapons promise a lot as future offensive space device. With relatively small shells, if they reach the suitable velocity, they can release a tremendous kinetic energy in the moment of the impact. This energy can generate earthquakes, but the most destructive effect would be given by a kinetic shell hitting the ocean near a coast ... a devastating giant tsunami would destroy all [cities, ports, military bases ...] for many km in the inland. Positive effect: no radiations after the annihilation of the territory of the enemy. Negative effect: no territory to conquer, but a destroyed an empty land! P.S. For accuracy there are studies about kinetic weapons since the 80's. Today the realistic possibility to use similar shells is limited to little ones able to generate the power of an explosion of 1/10 Megaton [so the eventual tsunami wouldn't be that devastating, but anyway locally tremendous].
Yeap people have been telling about kinetic energy weapons for a while now. However the technology isn't their because to be of best use they would have to be based in space. Building a manned artillery system with defensive capabilities in space would have very hard currently, but possible. Building a missile launch platform would be easier for the time being, while cutting the need for very costly SSBN's. I don't think most countries would remove their submarine launched based platforms mainly because I only see the US being about to build a space based launch platform which would have to be manned. The Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and so on don't have the capabilities and the EU is a joke when it comes to military based R&D. Just out of interest have you ever read George Friedman's book the next 100 years. The 2050 war is very interesting between the US, Poland and Britain against Japan, Turkey and Germany.
It would be really an odd war, overall because it would leave Russia and China in peace to build a new world axis ... while the other powers destroy one each other. Some free thoughts. The main trouble about space platform [but also related to all is in orbit] is vulnerability to energetic weapons. You can defend a space installation from missiles [they would take a long time to reach the target from earth or from an other orbiting platform], from shells [using a system similar to the active defenses which are now available for tanks, helicopters, vessels ...], but an orbiting object can be sent out of orbit with an energetic issue or damaged by a laser. To push a space platform out of its orbit, it's sufficient a not so great energy [it's a matter of time, more than energy, since an orbiting object is in free fall, so the inertial resistance is minimal]. So that a space platform would require also engines and fuel [not only a little nuclear plant to grant energy to the installation for years without supplies]. There is who imagines to use ionic propulsion [using the energy of the nuclear plant on board]. At the end a space platform can become a real "orbiting fortress", but really expensive. And still with the problem about energy attacks. I guess that next step will be to develop energetic shields to protect vehicles [and Star Trek will become more near ...].
I watched the audio book on youtube, but I can't find. George Friedman expects Russia to breakup and be taken over by Poland and other eastern European countries. He also expects China to breakup, but be held together by the US as a counter against Japan, with Japan expanding its economic interests in China and basically takeover huge part of China and the Russian far east. So the outside powers of Russia and China wouldn't be a factor. Turkey and Japan are obvious, however with Russia gone Poland is now the major eastern and central European power, the main block against Turkey in the Balkans. The breakup of Russia is very likely and China is starting to have internal problem. While Turkey is settling its issue with the Kurds and moving away from Russian energy, increase its interests in Iran, Iraq and Saudi. So it is happening as we speak. He didn't talk much about Italy in the book, however he did talk about the Mediterranean and how Italy could be effected by a rising Turkey. I am sure you will be thinking about it soon enough. in the war he talks about Japan setting up bases on the other side of the Moon and firing kinetic artillery at the US stations which he expects there to be 3 stations, with hundred of shells coming in from all over the place being set in motion days or weeks ealier. It sound mental when you first read it, then it sinks in. Using scam jets for strike aircraft, the sea's will be full of submarines and not very many surface ships or carrier.
SSBNs are excellent tactically because they are super-quiet, but because they carry nuclear ballistic missiles they are simply too valuable to actively risk in anything but last-ditch defensive tactical warfare. A better picture might be derived from the four Ohio-class SSBNs that were converted in SSGN. Basically they removed the Trident ballistic missile tubes and replaced them with tube that hold multiple Tomahawk missiles. Also some tubes were sacrificed to accommodate special forces operators (probably SEALS) for covert operations. Given the quality of near-term likely rivals they are credible attack boats. They are so quiet they can even sneak up on or past US Seawolf, Virginia or Los Angeles (I) boats and the best of the Royal Navy as well. they are slower and less maneuverable so you really don't want to get into a close-in "knife fight" with one of those excellent attack boats. The long range of the Mk. 48 ADCAP makes them OK for long range fighting. The ability to ripple off 128 Tomahawks is unparalleled. That many cruise missiles fired at once would probably overwhelm most nations' air defenses. If all four were in the same area and were supported by air-launched cruise missiles, even the most technologically advanced country could not defend against that many Tomahawks at once unless they were willing to detonate a nuke over their own territory.
It is all nice, but they can't fire all their missiles "at once" due to imbalance issues. It takes as long as hours to launch their allowance of ammunition.
The Outer Space Treaty, which has been ratified by every launch-capable nation, bans nuclear weapons in space. And nobody wants to change that. Nations don't want a new incredibly expensive arms race.
I agree however the US is the only rational country that has the technology and could afford the space programe. However the US could give the technology to its allies Britain mainly. People say nobody wants the treaties to change, however the true is the US doesn't want the treaties to change, but the US will likely be the one to change because of the huge cost of SSBN's they are destroying the US procurement budget because they cost to much.
The Tomahawks take longer than the Tridents. The Tomahawk tubes in a SSGN each holds seven missiles but the tubes on a SSBN hold only one. so the launch officer ripples off one per tube at a time for seven cycles. A Trident launch assume that enemy nukes are incoming so they launch as fast as possible. There they fire two missiles at a time - from the middle forward and from the aft end forward, so the pair of missiles being launched are never too close. "Hours" to launch? Are the Russian boomers that slow? They'll never get the second one off before the Mk. 48 gets them.
Would be nice if there won't be any probability of missiles collision. But it exists. Hurr durr as fast as possible. SSBN are not supposed to be under threat of nuclear attack. During "Begemot-2" operation by Soviet navy Project 667 submarine launched all it's missiles with minimal interval (approximatelly 20 seconds between launces). Taking into account conversed Ohio has 154 missiles on board it will take ~51 minutes to launch all it's missiles. Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit, but it is faaaaar from your vanila picture of "launching all missiles at once". Don't worry, all ships with Mk. 48 would be send to meeting with Davy Jones by P-700 "Granit" long before they could engage SSBN. Assuming Kh-22 would left some ships for P-700 to deal with. Eheheh.
Taxcutter says: I'm sure the US Navy is quivering in fear of a navy that rarely goes to sea, and has to take oceangoing tugs with task force to tow home the broken-down rust buckets.
Of course it does, taking into account it is humilated with airforce fly-by like every single time it passes near our coast.Those dead men walking just can do refueling&resupplying in sea properly.
To the best of my knowlege they have the ability to fire the same tactical ordnance that an SSN can in the form of tube launched conventional cruise missiles Their biggest problem is their much greater expense of course SSBNs are designed to be an invulnerable final strike weapon used to totally destroy any chance of recovery by a foe after the initial exchange of land based nuclear weaponry. The Soviet Typhoons were built with this mission in mind hence their size and increased habitability . They would loiter under the ice pack to ride out the initial bombardment. If the intel was that the West had won (?) their ordnance would then make darned sure it hadn't
