
Anti-submarine Warfare: Seek, but shall ye find? - prostoalex
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21703360-proliferation-quieter-submarines-pushing-navies-concoct-better-ways?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/2016084n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/NA/n
======
cameldrv
This seems like a pretty expensive solution. We're supposed to spend $20
million on every potentially hostile sub? And that's just to track them since
the ship is "for now unarmed." What if we tagged them when we started
tracking? Would attaching something to another country's sub be considered an
act of war? We could attach an acoustic transponder, maybe a very low power
spread-spectrum one that would be hard to detect, perhaps even designed to
automatically detach from the boat when the boat surfaced, with thrusters that
doubled as generators when the boat was moving. Charge the battery up while
moving, when stopped near the surface, dive to avoid detection, then reattach
when the boat starts moving again...

~~~
geezerjay
> We're supposed to spend $20 million on every potentially hostile sub?

Nowadays an M1 Abrams tank costs around $8 million. This means that for the
price of 3 tanks, they can track and ultimately destroy an enemy asset that
costs around $800 million new, can't be replaced, and can destroy an entire
fleet of billion-dollar ships.

The expense is well justified.

Now, if only the US didn't kept wasting billions of dollars in assets that can
be destroyed by any navy with a diesel electric sub.

------
ChuckMcM
I always thought Liquid Robotics wave gliders moving around with manowar type
tentacles carrying an electric field would make for a nice active/passive sort
of monitoring solution.

------
CamperBob2
These drones seem kind of pointless. Who cares where the enemy subs are during
peacetime? The drones will obviously be destroyed the moment hostilities break
out.

And even then, they will just encourage the development of countermeasures,
many of which will be quite trivial to implement. There will be no shortage of
plausibly-deniable ways to sabotage them.

If nothing else, the enemy will capture its signals for analysis and spoofing,
then board the drone and swap out its equipment to report whatever they want
us to think.

~~~
chakalakasp
Submarines are incredibly important to waging nuclear warfare. 18 US
submarines literally contain over a third of the entire active strategic
nuclear missile force. Russia has a smaller, but still very significant
nuclear force cruising under the waters. If you know where they are when
hostilities break out and can sink them before they launch, that offers a huge
strategic advantage. It's the biggest high-stakes chess game in existence and
it's being played all the time.

In a sudden nuclear conflict, there would be no time to destroy the drones. In
a long build up to a potential nuclear conflict, destroying them could, in
itself, be seen as an act of war. There could certainly be countermeasures,
but forcing the enemy to execute countermeasures usually tips the board in
your favor in some way. And strategic nuclear submarines don't really get to
use many active countermeasures. Their job is to remain hidden until they are
called upon to pop up and end the world.

~~~
CamperBob2
But all of the data you get from these drones will be bogus, even if the enemy
has to construct a fleet of Potemkin submarines to ensure it. When hostilities
break out, we will have the strategic advantage of knowing exactly where the
enemy's subs aren't.

 _If you know where they are when hostilities break out and can sink them
before they launch_

How exactly do we plan to implement that doctrine? If we strike second, it
will be too late. If we strike first, we're the bad guys.

 _In a long build up to a potential nuclear conflict, destroying them could,
in itself, be seen as an act of war._

And this is a problem in itself. What happens during the next Cuban Missile
Crisis, when some random unmanned tracking drone fails for no particular
reason?

~~~
_Tetsuo

      If we strike first, we're the bad guys.
    

Here's a terrifying thought, regarding the nature of war: Being the bad guy
doesn't really matter when you win.

