Why we don't have SSBN subs deployed in inland seas and lakes?

Sorry i just was performing my first thread resurrection :D…..no seriously, just happens that i was looking for a info about something in the naval section, and this thread just popped out 🙂

Fair enough, I just felt that the question had been pretty thoroughly answered.

why drag this back up?

Sorry i just was performing my first thread resurrection :D…..no seriously, just happens that i was looking for a info about something in the naval section, and this thread just popped out 🙂

why drag this back up?

And obvious question, if you’re going to the expense of building an SSBN/these fancy and I presume expensive, underwater silos, why would you then be stupid enough to limit them to areas of operation that are tiny?

Why hide behind a box when you can hide in a warehouse full of boxes? The oceans are huge compared to even the biggest inland seas. There is no cost benefit or actually any other kind of benefit.

Because is bad idea to put a nuclear submarine in a strategic source of freshwater?

Re: Why we don’t have SSBN subs deployed in inland seas and lakes?

As far as using some inland waterways, I have heard in the past the USN sent a few boomers into the Gulf of Mexico!
I also know the USN has pressured the Canadian Navy to do more patrolling in Hudson Bay! The southern tip of the Hudson Bay is within a couple hundred miles of Canadian and US northern and northeastern cities. (In fact most all cities west of the Appalachia Mountain Range.) A launch of sub-launched cruise missiles in the southern part of Hudson Bay is a nightmare scenario for NORAD.

The reason for the deterrent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wltv12Hx9Bo

😀

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

The reason for the deterrent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wltv12Hx9Bo

Actually i agree that SSBNs make very little sense considering your ICBMS can be concealed protected and hidden very effectively.

No, they can’t. Even “hidden” Chinese DF-5A silos can be located with relative ease. China at least appears to be doing the nuke thing sensibly and relying a lot on underground facilities.

Which is irrelevant because strategic weapons usually launch on warning anyway.

SSBNs make perfect sense. They can perform as depressed angle or short TOF launchers to allow minimum warning time to an adversary, or they can serve as your second wave. They’re also stupid hard to locate at sea, making them the real MAD element you have to worry about.

That is pretyy silly treaty to ban it. It is like 2 guys try to kill each other, but they agreed to to hit each other on the faces.

Its called Boxing 😀

That is pretyy silly treaty to ban it. It is like 2 guys try to kill each other, but they agreed to to hit each other on the faces.

Like I said there are few inland lakes which are big enough for large submersible … Caspian being the most obvious one, US northern lakes as well, but somebody has stated that its banned by international treaties. Though i would like to see wording of the clause dealing with subs and large inland lakes. 😀

Sorry, last night I thought I read he was also puttingout the idea of basing them in rivers, I guess some inland lakes and seas are huge, but most aren’t.

Shift key broken? And full stop & apostrophe keys?

plus im sure the idea of the subs i no 1 knows were they are! and i would imagen that some countries that you would lauch nukes against would notice if you were building underwater silos and wud be watching were u place them and therefor i assume they wouldnt be to hard to take out with torps. but then again if you could build them without any 1 noticing it would be a good idea, id say the best thing for britain to do is make dummy nukes to save money because lets face it if we need to use them were prob screwed anway!

To finally answer the topic question:
Because international treaties ban it.
You’re not the first person to have thought about placing ICBMs on merchant vessels, lake subs, internal water assets… 😀

Who bans what? And even if – that’s only between the U.S. and Russia. If Russia would define, say, Lake Baikal as their staging area they could float around whatever they want.

To finally answer the topic question:
Because international treaties ban it.
You’re not the first person to have thought about placing ICBMs on merchant vessels, lake subs, internal water assets… 😀

Environmental concerns.

Putting toys into a lake – even if it’s Lake Baikal – wouldn’t really do any good. Too small to offer benefits over silos.

Lake Baikal is by far the largest freshwater lake in the world. Floating nukes is not a good idea….

Actually i agree that SSBNs make very little sense considering your ICBMS can be concealed protected and hidden very effectively.

However it an interesting question.. say Russia deploying an older SSBN into Caspian sea.. nothing there to hunt it, and its a sizable body of water to hide, and not be “boiled” in.

One of the major ideas of the SSBN is to have multiple attack vectors and make early warning much harder. You can come from all directions, which is not possible with a silo based ICBM, and still limited with a road/rail-based ICBM (here Russia has an advantage, since it’s pretty wide). Of course you could potentially add attack vectors if you’d make the missile launcher air transportable – think wing of An-124 lifting SS-20 into Cuba.

Putting toys into a lake – even if it’s Lake Baikal – wouldn’t really do any good. Too small to offer benefits over silos.

Extreme conclusion of the bastion theory I guess!. Put the missiles where they are mobile and concealed – to an extent – so avoiding the problems with fixed silo’s but where it would be very hard to get at them.

You’d need some kind of lake to do this sort of thing with and you wouldnt build an SSBN. Perhaps something more like a UUV sled with AIP-fed steerable propulsors. Imagine the LR5 design writ large etc. Mobile submerged silo’s then more than SSBN’s…an idea to send in to someone maybe!;)

A question of some potential interest for the U.K. Put Tridents on unmanned submergible platforms and let them float around Scotland and the northern islands. Cheaper than a SSBN, survivability should also be adequate. Beware of French subs, though!