From:	JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject:	the value of education
Date:	Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:11:12 EDT

"Paul J. Adam" <Paul@********.demon.co.uk> wrote,

> >(2) SSVN: Aircraft-carrying submarines, particularly unmanned combat
> >drones (called UCAVs in RL military lingo). This is a concept I had
> >tossed around with K and AirWasp. An interesting idea, though I'll admit
> >it shows limited tactical or strategic potential.
>
> There was a 1960s design study for a submersible aircraft carrier. On
> 40,000 tons (twice the size of an Ohio-class SSBN) it could carry six
> aircraft at most, while a conventional surface carrier of similar size could
> carry thirty to forty aircraft.
>
> Submarines don't do aviation very well: aircraft are bulky and subs are
> volume-critical, plus conducting flight operations traps you on the surface.

True, an SSVN wouldn't be very effective, if you use it to project power
like a regular carrier. Subs really aren't about projecting power,
they're about denying sea control to the enemy. I think SSVNs could work
somewhat effectively by extending that denial to the air. We're not
talking about rattling sabers, we're talking about plunging a dagger
into the back.

Load up an SSVN with a few "stealth" fighter-bombers and use it as a
pre-emptive strike at targets a cruise missile couldn't hit, or couldn't
hit very well. (Clinton's little escapades in Iraq and the Balkans seem
to prove to me that cruise missiles have their limits.)

An SSVN could also make a pretty decent AWACS hunter. If you sneak an
SSVN close enough "under" an AWACS, you could send a fighter or UCAV up,
shoot that AWACS down, and recover the plane before a CAP could get on
the scene. (Okay, maybe you couldn't recover the plane, but at least
you'd shoot down that AWACS. That would make it preferable to use a
UCAV.)

The same thing could apply to other slow-moving, high-value targets (C-
5s, KC-135s, diplomatic charters, and so on). If you're really
ambitious, you could even go after an orbital, semiballistic, or
suborbital during the initial launch or final re-entry stages, when it's
the least maneuverable and most vulnerable. Combined with an SSGN, an
SSVN could be a decent strategic weapon, attacking at a nation's
transportation lanes, thus crippling its logistic operations, not to
mention its trade economy.

Again, the keyword here is using surprise to beat the response time of a
carrier- or ground-launched fighter. At the very least, you'd force the
enemy to divert fighter assets as escort, fighters that won't be used to
attack your own aircraft.

IMHO.

-- Jon