|
Page 3
[Have an opinion on this column? Sound off in Military.com
at the Frontlines.]
New tools, new reach, new vitality: Another revolution in military affairs on the undersea front has resulted from a two-fold breakthrough in gadgetry. Some of this has to do with new (or replacement) classes of special-purpose submarines, and some of it pertains to "adjuvent vehicles" launched from any large-size sub. I'll tackle the special purpose subs first. (I consider the class of highly advanced SSNs now in series production, the Virginias, to be the latest-generation fleet of fast attacks rather than special-purpose ships.)
1. USS Jimmy Carter. The third and final Seawolf-class vessel was modified with an extra hundred-foot-long hull section, devoted to classified and experimental equipment and techniques to help achieve the missions itemized in the previous section. This includes launch and retrieval of large-size remote-controlled or robotic unmanned undersea vehicles (see below), as well as extra space to transport and deploy special operations forces with all their equipment. (This modification in no way compromises Carter's normal SSN availability.)
2. The Ohio-class SSGN conversions. The first four of the Trident ballistic missile subs are being altered to make different uses of their two-dozen very wide missile tubes. This includes putting into each tube a sleeve which can hold seven Tomahawks or other land-attack cruise missiles. Some tubes are also being tested and developed as "hangar space" for bigger adjuvent vehicles which can't fit through a regular torpedo tube. The Ohio-class SSGNs are furthermore being modified to be able to carry a large number of special ops forces (up to one hundred men in an emergency) with all their equipment and ordnance. Each SSGN will be able to carry as an external load two pressure-proof dry deck shelters with undersea scooters or inflatable rafts, or two ASDS minisubs (see below), or one of each.
3. The ASDS minisub. Battery powered, this vehicle rides on the back of a host sub until it reaches the forward operating area. With eight to sixteen passengers, depending on how they're equipped (plus a two-man minisub crew), the ASDS brings SEALs to the scene of intell-gathering or battle in a warm, dry shirtsleeves environment -- which greatly enhances their mission performance. Being only eight feet high on the outside, the ASDS can penetrate into very shallow water, aka the enemy's littorals.
|
4. Off-board mine reconnaissance systems. This series of torpedo-tube launched, recoverable and reusable probes began with the Near-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (NMRS), to be replaced by the more flexible and capable BLQ-11 Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS). An improved version of the LMRS, the Mission-Reconfigurable LMRS, will be even more task-adaptable due to easily changeable plug-in module designs. These different unmanned or autonomous undersea vehicles (UUVs and AUVs) are controlled either by wire or fiber-optic link, or by radio or covert acoustic link. They can operate for many hours, up to one hundred miles away from the host sub, roundly speaking. Their sonars, cameras, and other sensors locate mines, hydrophone grids, other waterspace threats, and gather hydrographic data.
5. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). SSNs have already demonstrated the ability to control airborne drones launched from a surface ship or a land base. UAVs and even UCAVs that submarines can launch by themselves are under development. This is particularly important in a threat-rich environment where surface ships are overly endangered, and no friendly land bases are within range.
6. Unmanned combat undersea vehicles (UCUVs). The manned ASDS minisub is unarmed. But the Navy and defense contractors are looking at concepts for an unmanned undersea vehicle equipped with weapons -- mines or small torpedoes, for instance. Were a parent SSN equipped with one or more UCUVs, it would be able to reach all the way to the enemy surf zone, and also engage a hostile diesel boat or wolf pack -- deterring or destroying it with maximum firepower and the lowest risk of counterattack.
7. Active anti-torpedo defenses. Several approaches are under investigation to allow a sub to directly attack an inbound torpedo. One method, which relies on an SSN's huge reserve of electrical power (thanks to its nuclear reactor), would use a pressure-pulse generator borne on the hull. A burst from this pulse generator would smash the torpedo at a safe stand-off distance. Another method is to "shoot down" the enemy torpedo with electromagnetic rail-gun darts. A Navy laboratory has succeeded in firing a metal dart at greater than the speed of sound in water (roughly one mile per second). An advantage of this is that the enemy can't tell the supersonic dart is coming until it's too late. A third approach is to use underwater rockets, proximity fused or command controlled to fire a "shotgun blast" of depleted uranium pellets to achieve a kinetic kill against the approaching weapon. While a great deal of money and R&D is needed before one of these systems is fielded, a new epoch is approaching in which an SSN, SSGN, or SSBN will have much more aggressive choices when it comes to defeating inbound torpedoes -- and then hunting down the vessel that fired them. (We should beware, however, that all military tech inevitably proliferates, and the same tools will eventually be available to our foes.)
Conclusion: It ought to be clear by now that evolution of submarine mission concepts and gadgetry go hand in hand; they always work best when they're needs-driven as opposed to cost-driven; and breakthroughs amounting to revolutions have been a recurring part of Silent Service history from the beginning -- and they still are today. Controversy and debate are nothing new, either, yet these versatile undersea warships remain indispensable. Anyone tempted to write an obituary for America's nuclear submarine fleet is very premature and quite misguided.
 Email
this page to friends RSS feed
© 2005 Joe Buff. All opinions expressed
in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect
those of Military.com.
|
