Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <5952@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 15:35:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5952
Posted: Thu Sep 12 15:35:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 15:35:59 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 64

> ... I
> can see no way of arming an icebreaker (and a civilian one at that) to take
> on subs under the ice that would not be hopelessly high-tech.

In fact, there is no way, high-tech or not.

The fact is that the nuclear submarine is the only viable antisubmarine
weapon in the Arctic, and even it is less effective there than elsewhere.
Aircraft cannot get sensors or weapons through the ice.  Surface ships
face severe limitations on mobility and sensor/weapon effectiveness.  And
diesel/electric subs... that deserves a longer discussion.

For operation under the ice, the key fact is that surfacing is difficult
and must be infrequent, and surface movement is impossible.  Unfortunately,
diesel/electric subs necessarily spend most of their time at the surface,
either surfaced or snorkelling.  Their underwater cruising speed is a slow
walk, and their underwater range is extremely short.  This is not just
a matter of propulsion, although that problem is bad enough; the long-term
life-support systems used by nuclear subs rely heavily on ample electric
power, and diesel/electric subs cannot afford them.  Diesel/electric subs
are utterly tied to the surface, and that means that they are virtually
immobile in the Arctic, especially in winter.  It won't work, John.

Also, existing diesel/electric subs are small and cheap largely because
they are designed as "offensive" subs, primarily charged with attacking
surface ships.  Surface ships are vastly easier to find and attack than
submarines.  Giving a diesel/electric sub the long-range sensors and
weapons needed for antisubmarine combat drastically increases its size
and cost.  It's still cheaper than a nuclear sub, but the difference is
more like a factor of 2 than an order of magnitude.  Small, low-tech
subs are simply ineffective as antisubmarine forces.

Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are
not more widespread.  Another reason is that the few nations which build
them have shown no inclination whatever to export them.  Maybe we could
convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US.

Note that we'd need a number of them.  The rule of thumb for missile subs
is that you need *five* of them to keep *one* continuously on patrol,
because the others are in port or in transit to/from the patrol areas.
(The British Polaris fleet only has four, thanks to an economy drive late
in its construction, and has real problems maintaining continuous patrol.)
It wouldn't be as bad in this case, since geography is on our side, but
having a sub in the right place to respond to a contact report would
still require a substantial fleet.

Submarines are, in any case, dubious as a way of responding to listening-
post reports.  A listening post is unlikely to have continuous contact with
a presumed-hostile submarine; not even the huge hydrophone networks the
US has build in the Atlantic can do that.  The most that can be managed is
brief contacts sufficient to point to the right area... *if* you can get
antisubmarine forces there *quickly*.  The standard approach to this in
more normal environments is aircraft, not submarines.  Even nuclear subs,
whose underwater cruising speed is (literally) an order of magnitude higher
than that of diesel/electric subs, are not really fast enough for this.

My conclusion is that we basically cannot afford an antisubmarine force
that would be effective in the Arctic, and we should not waste money
building an ineffective one.  We should concentrate on *monitoring* subs
in the Arctic, and doing something about them once they either surface or
leave the icecap area.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry