Slashdot Mirror
Will Submarines Soon Become As Obsolete As the Battleship?
An anonymous reader writes: The United States spends $1.8 billion to build a brand new, state of the art, Virginia-class nuclear powered attack submarine. They are the backbone of the U.S. Navy and the ultimate threat to those nations who are building massive amounts of missiles to keep U.S. naval forces like aircraft carriers away from their shores — think China, Russia, Iran and various others. Sadly, the era of the submarine could be coming to an end. New types of detection technology could make the stealth capabilities of subs obsolete, just like the age of flight made the battleship into a floating museum:
"The ability of submarines to hide through quieting alone will decrease as each successive decibel of noise reduction becomes more expensive and as new detection methods mature that rely on phenomena other than sounds emanating from a submarine. These techniques include lower frequency active sonar and non-acoustic methods that detect submarine wakes or (at short ranges) bounce laser or light-emitting diode (LED) light off a submarine hull. The physics behind most of these alternative techniques has been known for decades, but was not exploited because computer processors were too slow to run the detailed models needed to see small changes in the environment caused by a quiet submarine. Today, "big data" processing enables advanced navies to run sophisticated oceanographic models in real time to exploit these detection techniques. As they become more prevalent, they could make some coastal areas too hazardous for manned submarines."
This could force submarines to stay far away from areas where they could be found. Alternately, they could evolve into something different: underwater aircraft carriers hosting drones that could strike below the surface.
"The ability of submarines to hide through quieting alone will decrease as each successive decibel of noise reduction becomes more expensive and as new detection methods mature that rely on phenomena other than sounds emanating from a submarine. These techniques include lower frequency active sonar and non-acoustic methods that detect submarine wakes or (at short ranges) bounce laser or light-emitting diode (LED) light off a submarine hull. The physics behind most of these alternative techniques has been known for decades, but was not exploited because computer processors were too slow to run the detailed models needed to see small changes in the environment caused by a quiet submarine. Today, "big data" processing enables advanced navies to run sophisticated oceanographic models in real time to exploit these detection techniques. As they become more prevalent, they could make some coastal areas too hazardous for manned submarines."
This could force submarines to stay far away from areas where they could be found. Alternately, they could evolve into something different: underwater aircraft carriers hosting drones that could strike below the surface.
Most of the biggest potential war zones involving China are on the coast. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Koreas, and the many disputed islands out there. So I doubt they will become obsolete.
Also, Bertridge's law says no.
How much credibility does this article lose once you put "Big Data" in there?
Why the hate on battleships? Why are they out of favor?
And just what vessels will deploy such sensors, and how many decades will it take to fully deploy such networks?
The Virginia class will be in use for many decades. Navy generally plans ship hulls for 30-50 years of active use. The enterprise cvn was in service for 50 years.
While such sensors may limit future sub combat options it is decades away. For one simple fact you still have to move attack assets into positions. Battleships disappeared due to two separate but equal reasons. The armor effectiveness/ weight versus gun size and firepower was drastically shifting in favor of the guns. And airplanes made those big honking guns worthless for antiship combat. As one or two bombs could still sink that battleship.
Sensors alone arent useful. You need weapons following those sensors. Those weapons can come from many sources but I bet sub's will be one of them.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Betteridge says the likely answer is no. Looking at the article, there's a whole lot of predictions and guesses in there. LEDs and lasers? Water is very good at attenuating light, and even a ship directly on top of a submersed vessel wouldn't be able to detect anything using light... and coastal water attenuates light MUCH faster than open ocean, due to all the extra stuff in the water...
As long as they can remain undetectable from beyond the range of their nuclear warheads*, they will be indispensible. You should even be glad your enemies have them, as they are one of the most stabilizing technologies because they discourage first strikes (by guaranteeing a second strike).
* I know the Virginia-class subs don't have nukes yet.
I thought the whole point of submarines these days was as mobile launchers for nuclear weapons.. Launchers that could be anywhere (not necessarily close to the coast), and therefore harder to eliminate in a first strike.
While each DB of quieting maybe more expensive it's also more effective.
Attack submarines, like the Virginia class, are not the backbone of the US Navy. The aircraft carrier battle group, typically including one or two attack submarines attached, is still the main battle group of the US navy. The other type of submarine is the SSBN ballistic missile submarine which always deploys alone and spends its entire patrol hiding from anything and everything, its sole purpose being to guarantee a nuclear 2nd strike capability for the United States as part of our nuclear triad. The Ohio class submarines serve in this capacity for the United States and even then they aren't the "bakbone" of the US Navy, but rather a specialized asset with a singular purpose. The US doesn't show the colors around the world with submarines, it's the carrier battle group that commands respect, even from our enemies.
little subs might be more effective (and tasty).
Not only is there a whole lot of requirements to make them obsolete, the most obvious reasons will still keep subs working.
Long ago Submarines were ship killers. That is what their job was, and they did it very well. Over time that role changed, primarily due to the advent of nuclear missiles being tucked inside. Submarines are the single best deterrent anyone has for nuclear war. New sensor technology won't change that, because a sub does not have to be close to another ship to launch, does not have to be close to a shore to launch. That is a role the sub will remain for, no matter how good the detection gets.
Attack subs won't go away either. They are still very effective ship killers. In order for a detection ship to catch a sub, it has to get close. A sub can kill a ship from a hefty distance. It gives away their position, but multiple torpedoes can take out multiple ships.
I read this article like I read the old "fighter jets don't need guns argument" which was also proven wrong.
Battle ships were a pretty special beast, they didn't go away due to effectiveness but cost. 21" guns are amazingly expensive to fire.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We can't find MH370. If we can't find a missing plane in the ocean, then the tech for finding subs has a ways to go before it makes submarines obsolete. Plus, I bet all these detection techniques only work over a short distance. You'd need a lot of detectors to get good coverage. The ocean is large. Plus, anything active (sound, lasers, etc) can be detected by the sub and avoided.
Plus, for non-ship based sensors, you try covering the ocean with highly sensitive detectors. Things that are highly sensitive and the ocean don't mix - unless you are going to pull each detector up on a regular basis for maintenance. Plus, detectors require power. Getting power 50-200 km offshore isn't all that easy. Surface ships pinging away in shallow waters pose the greatest danger. But for every threat, there is a way to counter it. Satellite tracking of enemy ships so subs have some warning of what's coming. Special coatings to reflect lasers. Active cancellation of the acoustic waves.
A submarine without stealth is an expensive missile boat.
It was Mr. Obama who offered the snark about "horses and bayonets."
At the outset of the Afghan War, our Special Forces learned to ride horses so they could cover terrain to designate targets for PGMs. The bayonet or knife or some form of edged weapon is the last-ditch defense when the enemy appears within arm's length. Which is not an unusual tactic for enemies our forces have faced, given our ability to pound them from the air when they separated from us by rifle distance.
The Commander-and-Chief was showing his usual ignorance of military affairs, and Mr. Romney was showing his awkward inexperience for letting this remark ride.
hunter killers of naval warfare. You think you can find them? Best of luck. Lasers don't go far under water and they diffract all over the place in the water column. US Submarines have some of the most sensitive acoustic detection equipment designed. They can hang suspended in the ocean, listening. They can silently go shallow or deep in the water column. Just stick the nose above the main thermocline, or tilt down to just penetrate into the deep sound channel.
If you are a surface ship, and a submarine wants you you are just dead. By the time you hear a MK-48 torpedo, it is too late. You don't even want to be in the same ocean with one those because it will kill you. By the time you detect that harpoon missile you might get the first one but the second one will get you. Your a surface ship, you can't hide, but that submarine can and you cant hear it over the background noise of the ocean.
Look up how many weapons a Virginia class submarine can carry. If you are a surface group dumb enough to be cruising in proximity of each other, they can put a shit load of torpedoes on your ass, turn around, go deep and haul ass while you are still trying to rescue your sinking ship mates.
5 US Nuclear Submarines can deny ANY fleet the Straits of Gibraltar, The Straits of Hormuz. There is not a Navy in the world that can challenge the US Navy at sea. If the Chinese tried to cross Taiwan Strait it would just be a shooting gallery.
Lest anyone think I know not from whence I speak, I spent 10 years in two classes of fast attack submarines in the US Navy. Are motto was then and still is now, "There are two kinds of ships, Submarines and Targets."
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Ah, here it is:
A submarine without stealth is an expensive missile boat.
"His name was James Damore."
Betteridge's law of headlines at play! There's no faster way to deliver a nuke than a SLBM on a depressed trajectory. Until this is not the case, nuclear-powered attack submarines (which can stay submerged for months at a time) will be indispensable to a nuclear-armed nation.
Depth charges dropped from a plane seem a hell of a lot cheaper than missiles that there are defences for on an Aegis destroyer.
Depth charges dropped from a plane
"His name was James Damore."
Sorry, but yes.
The weapon to counter, is a missile coming at mach 20 that can be placed on a postage stamp.
Or rather, a dozen of them at once. Shoot that down.
If I'm not mistaken, most aircraft drones are piloted by someone a long ways away, using radio. Radio doesn't work underwater (extremely low frequency does to a certain depth, but the bit rate is miniscule); the only effective way to communicate underwater is sound (like sonar). And since drone control needs to be bidirectional, that immediately gives away the position of both the controller and the drone. So I don't think remote control drones are practical underwater.
Of course there have been non-remote control underwater drones for a century. They're called torpedoes.
Of course there have been non-remote control underwater drones for a century. They're called torpedoes.
They're called drug smuggling submarines
We can expect remotely positionable minefields to become a thing soon, if they haven't already
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you can detect all my subs with your fancy sensors and "Big Data". So how are you enjoying the cyber attack/EMP burst/barrage of cruise missiles targeting your power grid?
Can you hear me now? Didn't think so.
Why is a American submarine shooting an Russian torpedo will be the last thing said after the new sub with speakers that can play sounds of other subs seeks it's way pass the monitoring stations
There are notions being turned into reality of vessels that allow waves to slide over flat decks such that the above water profile is close to zero. These barge like platforms have some ability to propel and steer into the action zones much like the very first iron sides in the Civil War. They are automated and unmanned and carry drones or highly automated missiles. They are towed by a tug into the region near the conflict and the tether is released sending the attack platform the last several hundred miles. Once in position they use their weapons and then try to retreat and escape and get back to the tug or if need be scuttle themselves. Only the tiny crew on the tug boat ever suffers any risk at all. Obviously these attack barges can be built in a variety of sizes carrying a few drones or perhaps thousands of drones. And if these barges get into the throat of a harbor and scuttle they could seal off that harbor for years. Such barges could be made to submerge and wait on an ocean bottom until activated at a later date allowing the tug to be thousands of miles and days away before striking their targets. Really the Air Force is shrinking as drones become better and better and the US Navy could also shrink down in size to a small organization as well. It seems that the Air force and Navy are far easier to automate than the Army or Marine Corp as land is a greater challenge than air or sea to drones and robots.
The answer is "no". People who say submarines are obsolete are the same people who say "stealth doesn't work". They're missing the point. The point is not to be able to sidle up to your enemies without detection and tag their ships with slogans. The point is to gain a tactical advantage by detecting the enemy before he detects you. Detection isn't a yes/no thing - it's all about range.
I'm sure he learned his lesson.
lucm, indeed.
It's not well known, in fact actively hidden. A friend of mine was disciplined for taking a photo of an unladen donkey in Afganistan because that could provide a leak of information about keeping long range patrols supplied. There was nothing on the donkey to indicate it was a military pack animal, but taking a photo of a donkey on the base was still seen as potentially revealing secret information to the enemy.
Um, no. The defining characteristics of a battleship are its high calibre naval artillery and heavy armour, guided missile frigates have neither of those.
A Ticonderoga class cruise carries an assortment of about 140 missiles of various design and purpose. An Iowa class battleship carried over 1,200 16 inch shells alone.
Simply being detectable doesn't make the sub as exposed as a surface ship.
First it is literally below the surface of the sea. A weapon has to be specifically designed to target them down there. And it is generally a lot harder to kill things down there then it is on the surface of the sea.
Simply being down there is a strong defensive positive.
Second, these detection systems are going to be the first elements of an enemy's defensive grid to get trashed. Just as the airforce makes a point of trashing enemy radar before they send in heavy bombers, these detection systems are going to be the first causalities of any engagement. At which point, the subs are going to be hard to detect again.
Third, arms races are all about the race between offensive and defensive technologies. So you've got some new detection gear? Okay. But have we heard from the engineers about how they'll mitigate it? Nope. That's silly. They could jam enemy detection, change the shape of hulls so they don't reflect strong sonar returns, etc.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Not even the US can maintain air superiority over the entire ocean.
With all the talk of "big data" and simulations, eventually there will be no more war because we will anticipate and detect anything the "enemy" may do and have programmed countermeasures in place, lending a deterrent to doing anything in the first place. If any skirmishes do occur, they will be far away from both parties and consist of autonomous or remote controlled drones firing at each other. Perhaps war is becoming more humane?
BB's were used as ground fire support in Nam (a co-worker once told me an apocryphal story about a call for fire that got routed to a BB), but other than showing the colors, they really haven't done anything else since.
They were used in the 1980s to shell various hostile positions in Lebanon after the Marine barracks was attacked. This included killing a Syrian general in his command post.
They were also used in the 1991 Gulf War to shell various Iraqi positions.
The issue isn't "The End of War" or even MAD. The issue is that we are very quickly approaching the technological threshold where unmanned vehicles will outperform all manned vehicles at a fraction of the cost. (And needless to say, reduced risk to our military personnel).
To put a finer point on it: How well will the latest Virginia-class sub fare in a combat scenario against 150 different 2-meter long drone vessels?
Want to bet that the 150 drones can be produced for less than $1.8 billion?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
There's no good way to match the rate of high explosive delivery a battleship could implement in support of an amphibious attack.
Two 2,000 pound shells every minute from each of 9 guns is throughput an F-35 just can't touch.
(If the headline is sensational and a question, the answer is always 'no'.)
TFA is saying that, in the future, submarines may go from "operat(ing) largely with impunity" to actually being detectable in coastal areas. So (obsolete) carrier battle groups can't count 100% on submarines to protect them. It's carriers that are obsolete, not submarines. TFA itself says a solution to the problem is building submarines to do the job of carrier battle groups. Submarines are not obsolete.
Advances in passive detection have gained ground as the limits of quieting are reached, but submarines remain hard to hear in a really big ocean. Wake detection from the air and active sonar may detect a submarine in a sneaking war, but once you get into a shooting war, those detection assets will get destroyed.
Submarines kick ass and will continue to do so, maybe not with "impunity", but with something close to it.
If you have air superiority, the submarine is redundant.
And yes, i used some measurement techniques which required a lot of computational power (fitting procedures which ran over days).
And no: if your signal is too weak, no computation in the world can bring back the lost information. If i know that you will try to detect me optically, i paint the ship using another colour.
As far as i understand submarines are anyway not meant t o go close to any coastline.
In stand-off areas such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and other areas that China has ambitions to control submarines are exactly the weapon system you want to have. In my opinion Aircraft Carriers are the Battle Ships of WWII. They are sitting ducks with nowhere to hide. They would have to stay so far away from the area that launching their aircraft would be impracticable. Yes they could launch stand-off weapons too but would be of no value other than that. That's why we need these upgraded subs. They need to stay on the cutting edge of stealth are are being outfitted with new types of weapons and drones.
The sub contains a nuclear reactor. There's a minimum size that you can make one of those, and you really don't want to put one in a disposable vehicle that you're going to use anywhere vaguely near your own (or your allies') coastline. Without that, the drones are limited to chemical power.
One of the emerging roles for aircraft carriers is effectively big portable charging stations that the drones come back to when their batteries are empty.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It's people using "cloud" for just about anything that creates confusion. That cloud gaming you describe is closer to "gaming as a service" rather than it is to cloud computing.
A SaaS offering, like your gaming example, may or may not be based on cloud computing; but that distinction is not something the end user can see.
Cloud computing is pay-per-use and elastic, just like electricity. Cloud gaming is neither - you pay for a service, it's SaaS; maybe you can have in-game purchase, but from a resource perspective you don't pay more or less based on what you do, and you can't get things like burstable performance.
Time-sharing on a mainframe can be pay-per-use, it depends on the service provider, but it's not elastic, you can't get more resources on demand. And from an architecture perspective, it's not cloud computing because it's not distributed and resource allocation is not automated.
When you say that dumb terminals and mainframe computers in the 50s were cloud computing, not only are you wrong, you are also insulting the incredible work that took place at Amazon and other companies to make computing a convenient commodity. Next time you sit in your sofa to watch a movie on Netflix remember that this type of service at that price would have never been possible with a mainframe architecture. Your Netflix subscription is SaaS - but Netflix's infrastructure is running on Amazon EC2 and that's pure cloud computing.
lucm, indeed.
I would willing to bet against that theory.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Want to bet that the 150 drones can be produced for less than $1.8 billion?
And this is the crux of it.
War on an industrial scale depends on how much you can produce and how quickly. This is the lesson learned between the Sherman and the Tiger. The Tiger tank was superior in almost every way, it could destroy 5 Shermans, the problem it had is that there were always 10 Shermans for every 1 tiger. Big ships are expensive and vulnerable but in previous wars (as in WWII) we had no choice as few other options were available for projecting power across the ocean.
If we have another total war in the near future and somehow avoid nuclear Armageddon, the weapons we produce now will be nothing like the ones made for war. The Jets and ships we make now are ideal peace time weapons but are too expensive and too complex for wartime application. Going back to WWII, in 1945 a Supermarine Spitfire cost GBP 12500 and a P51 Mustang cost US$51,000.... Adjusting for inflation they're both under US$1,000,000 of todays money (GBP 490,000 and US$670,000 respectively). A FA18 F costs 66 million USD and a Eurofighter Typhoon costs 125 million pounds (sterling), we will need to produce something cheaper and more reliable en masse. Even the Chinese J10 will be way too expensive to keep making (US$27 million).
The traditional submarine isn't the only weapon we'll see obsolete in the next war, the heavy bomber will go, unmanned patrol craft will take the place of attack helicopters and other CAS aircraft. In the same way WWI saw the end of carefully lined up infantry regiments and WWII saw the end of the big gun battleship.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not sure why it was modded down to zero. Very insightful. For all we know, there are many ancient communities on Earth and elsewhere living that way already. Even though I have written in the past about "refugia" for humans (see my website and grad student plans from the 1980s) I agree that swarms of AI probes could scour Earth (even underground eventually) and most things in space would be visible and approachable (including by high velocity kinetic weapons). So, I've come around to thinking the the best way to have a happy singularity is for humans to get our social house in order before then, because the direction we take coming out of a singularity may have a lot to do with out path into it. Thus I'm for a basic income, an expanded gift economy, increased subsistence, internet-enhanced democratic planning, and so on.
I grew up as a kid watching Sealab 2020 which I loved. Somewhere in the late 1980s I sent a letter to a Navy Admiral about making self-reliant undersea bases, but never heard back. I won a Navy Science Award for a high school robot project and had sent it to the admiral who had signed the letter. An interesting related book about the reality of living underwater (although personally I feel both in the ocean and space humans will just stay in structures or work pods and rarely try to go out in special protective clothing): ..."
http://benhellwarth.com/
"SEALAB is like the underwater Right Stuff: The story of how a gutsy group of U.S. Navy divers and scientists set out to develop the marine equivalent of space stations -- and forever changed manâ(TM)s relationship to the sub-aquatic world.
BTW, on evading "detection" -- there are layers there. If you think about the human immune system, things can be "detected" but they may only be acted on if they seem like a threat (especially given limited resources and multiple real pressing threats including internal issues).
Read the first prologue part of Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon The Deep" for some related thoughts on resisting powerful growing AIs. I quote from that here: ... "
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-d...
""Of course [the humans] suspect. But what can they do? It's an old evil they've awakened. Till it's ready, it will feed them lies, on every camera, in every message from home."
Thought ceased for a moment as a shadow passed across the nodes they used. The overness was already greater than anything human, greater than anything humans could imagine. Even its shadow was something more than human, a god trolling for nuisance wildlife. The the ghosts were back, looking out upon the school yard underground. So confident the humans, a little village they had made there.
"Still," though the hopeful one, the one who had always looked for the craziest outs, "we should not be. The evil should long ago have found us."
"The evil is young, barely three days old."
"Still. We exist. It proves something. The humans found more than a great evil in this archive."
"Perhaps they found *two*."
"Or an antidote." Whatever else, the overness was missing some things, and misinterpreting others. "While we exist, when we exist, we should do what we can."
But perhaps the deepest wrongness these days is what I mention in my sig -- the ironic perils of the tools of abundance (like nuclear energy, AI, robotics, nanotech, biotech, bureaucracy, etc.) in the hands of those still fighting over perceived scarcity). Think of all those Navy subs, powered by relatively clean safe nuclear reactors, ready on political command to use other arrangements of nuclear energy to destroy all of human life as we know it on Planet Earth for petty and short-sighted conflicts over oil profits... It would be hilarious if it was not so deadly serious.
See also my "OSCMOAK: ideas (going back to the 1980s) for a better way -- although the Maker movement is busy working towards surpassing thos
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Nuclear missile subs are second strike tools. The point is that supposing by some chance the enemy launches a surprise attack, knocking out all of your fixed land based silos. Then the subs will still be out there, ready to exact revenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
the mighty airship, hovering silently among the clouds under its vast bag of helium, its deadly cargo of bombs poised to drop on any nation which dares to threaten our island democracy.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The issue isn't "The End of War" or even MAD. The issue is that we are very quickly approaching the technological threshold where unmanned vehicles will outperform all manned vehicles at a fraction of the cost. (And needless to say, reduced risk to our military personnel).
To put a finer point on it: How well will the latest Virginia-class sub fare in a combat scenario against 150 different 2-meter long drone vessels?
Want to bet that the 150 drones can be produced for less than $1.8 billion?
the next step of course being that the majority of combat will be conducted automatically, computer reflexes being so much faster than human. For instance firing one of those super duper gun things at an incoming missile. which for all i know is already automated.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Your response leads totally into something I have been thinking. If I were President, I would immediately launch a program dedicated to reducing the cost of cruise missiles by 10-50x, based on the idea we would buy 1000x more of them. This way, anywhere on the globe, if there is a problem we need to intervene about, just push a button, and a solution of cruise missiles will be delivered in 30 minutes or less, with enough numbers that we could overwhelm any sort of ground defenses the enemy may have. If we had enough numbers that could continually deliver cruise missiles to a target, they would have no opportunity to regroup, and we simply continue until they collapse or surrender.
That's why I think just do away with everything except cruise missiles. If we could get the cost of those down 10x-50x, we could just buy an endless supply of them and just fire them at will at anywhere on the globe continually until an area is quelled.
It seems they were talking about hunter killer subs only.
Large ballistic subs have no interest in hanging out in shallow waters. Their job is to hide, and nothing like the deep, vast oceans to do that.
They can cruise at 600-900 meters depth for their entire mission life, except for launching missiles and replenishing.
Hunter killer subs can launch torpedoes that can hunt their targets for 100Km.
The reality is subs are of limited usefulness in today's hush hush war times, they make a lot of noise moving above 1/3rd their speeds, which means that in order to be quiet, they need to go very slow (like 10 knots or lower).
Subs also have zero means to attack their most deadly prey, sub hunting helicopters and long range aircraft (like the new Poseidon).
Being able to drop active sonar buoys is a significant threat to subs, but there are thermoclines to hide under (very hard to listen through thermal layers, specially through double thermal layers).
Except the USA has used their hunter killer subs to strike their enemies with tomahawks again and again.
Subs have very high strategic value.
They offer an ideal means to block an incoming enemy armada at long range. They can launch dozens of anti surface missiles from medium range, before they can be detected. And then screen for enemies that survived that first strike.
The real problem is cost. The true powers that decide on NATO strategic investments have no interest in forcing their military industrial complexes to get to affordable price points. That is the real threat to all high cost weapons, not just subs.
Its not by chance that all top NATO weapons are unaffordable to richer developing countries. Their prices isn't based on real cost, but rather on how much they can gouge their local governments for. Pure corruption.
You really should read up on hydrogen fuel cells.
Germany has a substantial line of ultra quiet hydrogen fuel cell subs, with significant range. Deadly. Type 212 class.
In fact to deadly they only offer third parties a watered down version of their subs.
They can't go many times around the world, but they have enough autonomy to go for a month with surfacing, without the heat signature, radiation signature, and noise a nuclear reactor generates.
The ultimate defensive weapon for the seas, and deadly enough an enemy would think many times over to launch an armada against a country with a few dozens of fuel cell subs.
With the ability to perform some deadly offensive strikes (specially when loitering close to enemy shore isn't needed).
I've talked to men who were the captain of an aircraft carrier, battleship and submarine. A battleship isn't obsolete, only stupid people think that. Why? because a battleship can do things nothing else can. Like pound a position for weeks or months using cheap shells. Also, nothing intimidates like a battleship. They are also a lot more versatile than a carrier. The captain of a battleship said we're fools for removing them from the inventory.
Subs likewise aren't obsolete. It's a race to be sure. They build detectors, we find countermeasures. Guess wrong and you die. It isn't worth it.
Here's a thought - stop being dumbasses and try to get along with other people. American, Iranian, Chinese, Russian, we're all the same when you get down to it. We all put our pants on the same way, grow up in a very similiar manner. Why try to kill each other? Just a thought.
You are an irredeemable bottom burp!
Just so we are clear: do you refer to some kind of fart, or to the lowest item in a stack of burps? Because if it's the later, I think a more sophisticated term would be "mezzanine burp".
lucm, indeed.
The assumption is WW-3 between major technological players. Might as well restart SDI and Brilliant Pebbles if that's really the future battle.
The next 20-30 years will likely be continued, isolated regional spats over religion and politics.
Battleships have been used to resolve diplomatic impasses just by parking off the cost of a selfish nation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
aircraft carriers are already obsolete. You just can't hide from satellites. In the first major war they are going to be the first things sunk. Their carrier group isn't going to be able to stop 2000 guided missiles shot from 1000s of miles away. And if that doesn't work, they will just shoot a nuke into the middle of the group. Or under the group.