Register here

Author Topic: Big Gun submarines  (Read 21108 times)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2017, 12:14:35 pm »
On a related note I've just been reading Antony Wells's book 'A Tale Of Two Navies: Geopolitics, Technology, and Strategy in the United States Navy and the Royal Navy, 1960-2015.' For something written by a long serving former RN officer it has a lot of significant flaws. Not least this assertion regarding RN SSNs during the Falklands War. For him the weaknesses of the RN's SSNs lay
"in the lack of two alternative weapons... [Tomahawk and moreover] the lack of a fifty plus nautical mile range precision gun system."
I take his point on Tomahawk, but as far as I'm aware, no one gave serious thought to fitting long range gun systems on RN SSNs so they could act as NGS vessels. Unless I'm missing something here, I'm assuming this is the talk of an armchair admiral?

No one has given serious thought to equipping anyone's SSNs with long-range gun systems for NGFS.  And certainly not in the 1980s.

In 1982, not even the USN had deployed submarines with Tomahawk (first SSN with Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile was 1983, first SSN with Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile wasn't until at least 1984). 

Offline covert_shores

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • Research + illustration
    • COVERT SHORES
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2017, 01:07:02 am »
I haven't read the book but I would caution against dismissing such opinions. Clearly the RN would have been privy to the inside view on USN plans for cruise missiles on subs, and also he is writing with the benefit of hindsight.

One RN boat did go south with sub-harpoon I think but arrived too late. Aside from that the SSNs were toothless beyond torpedo range. They made great use of them, in ways not anticipated, but I think that we can agree with him that an absence of land attack capability was a major limitation.

Btw, lots of similar observations re RN surface fleet.
COVERT SHORES: www.hisutton.com

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2017, 03:00:50 am »
It seems unfair to complain about the RN not having Tomahawk in the Falklands, though, since no one else did either. 


Offline H_K

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2017, 10:52:37 am »
Guns on submarines for NFS made no sense back then. We're talking about an area suppression weapon with large ammo storage requirements on a very space-constrained platform... two things that don't mix well.

The concept of "precision fires" is a 21st century concept now that we have GPS guided munitions. Maybe worth revisiting guns or more likely VLS launched rockets aboard submarines with today's technology,  but not something that would have been on anyone's wishlist back in the 70s/80s. And not even feasible even with 20/20 hindsight.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 10:54:30 am by H_K »

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2017, 01:54:03 am »
Uh, what about all that vertical gun launch system work done for fitting a gun to Trident tubes for SSGN's, using effectively excalibur rounds? Sure, it went to hell after the mostly same vertical launch gun system which was slated for the Zumwalts got canned because somebody wanted a turret capable of firing dumb rounds (theoretically cheaper training, which never materialized), so no common supply base to stretch the dev costs. One of  the NSSN/Forward-Pass design had vertical tube inserts for a gun (with some barrel azimuth) and a laser beam director as well.

Offline carvalho2008

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Naval alternative projects
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2017, 05:40:07 am »
The ideal would be to build submarines that could simulate the old lsmr ships









Offline carvalho2008

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Naval alternative projects
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2017, 05:50:15 am »















Offline carvalho2008

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Naval alternative projects
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2017, 05:57:12 am »

4 x 533mm torpedos
1 Exocet
1 cartridge Idas

112 GLSDB bombs







Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2017, 09:43:56 am »
Seems a bit muddled.  If you can't control the battlespace enough to defend surface ships for bombardment, you can't put troops ashore for the bombardment to support.

Offline carvalho2008

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Naval alternative projects
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2017, 08:06:20 pm »
First, you need destroy enemy defenses

In this case, you can implement stealth atack

The submarine is the best form to aproach for surprise

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #40 on: August 08, 2018, 09:02:30 pm »
HMS X-1 (not an X-Craft!!!) built in 1920s. The guns were only 5.2" but mounted in twin enclosed turrets. For a time she was the largest submarine in the world. Very cool boat.

The British K-Class is also worth a look in, definitely cruiser submarines although the guns are less big.

Here is almost nine minutes of British Pathe newsreel footage of the Royal Navy's "submarine cruiser" HMS X.1 at sea, circa 1925.

YouTube: British Pathé - "The Undersea Battleship Arrives (1925)" - FILM ID:372.09

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2018, 01:03:17 pm »
K class were 'fleet' boats, not cruiser submarines.  Their task was screening the surface ships.  Stick to 'M' class.

Not having a go at anyone, pointing out an error is all.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 01:34:48 pm by Foo Fighter »

Offline Kevin Renner

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 82
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2018, 04:27:46 pm »
I've wondered if it would of been possible to mount a self contained rocket launch system using the shore bombardment rockets employed in WWII amphibious landings on a Gato Class and use them for attacking Japanese held islands with the object of targeting airfields. If possible it would be a lot cheaper than employing a carrier with it's surface group. Fire off the rockets. Submerge, cast off the rocket pod and let it sink. The sub then goes off to do what subs do.

Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • Tailless Kitsunemimi
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2018, 03:41:16 pm »
I've wondered if it would of been possible to mount a self contained rocket launch system using the shore bombardment rockets employed in WWII amphibious landings on a Gato Class and use them for attacking Japanese held islands with the object of targeting airfields. If possible it would be a lot cheaper than employing a carrier with it's surface group. Fire off the rockets. Submerge, cast off the rocket pod and let it sink. The sub then goes off to do what subs do.

Didn't that one Soviet amphibious assault submarine have a bunch of rocket tubes for shore bombardment?

I forget the source that said that, though. GlobalSecurity maybe?

EDIT: Think it was Project 621 - the first well-known amphibious assault submarine proposal.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 10:16:32 am by GWrecks »
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA

Offline carvalho2008

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Naval alternative projects
Re: Big Gun submarines
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2018, 04:13:03 am »