Thread 64374333

Are SSBNs+SLBMs the best nuclear weapon delivery platform? Aside from cost, what downsides do they have?

>if you're US/US allied
yes
>if you're not
find the deepest nook in the tightest bay you have and pray, lmao

>>64374338
How far away can SSBNs be tracked by sonar? The ocean is a pretty big place, it seems easier to hide them even from the US than other options. I mean, how do you hide TELs in this day and age?

>>64374375
You just have to dive below a thermal layer that Surface sonar wont be able to track you

>>64374529
>You just have to dive below a thermal layer that Surface sonar wont be able to track you
>citation needed
I too love playing cold waters but real life is oftentimes more complicated. Generally ASW is a long, drawn out affair, and now that submarines can stay submerged for all intents and purposes indefinitely makes it much more complicated.

Navies now that actually have the capability to track and/or identify enemy nuclear submarines have many more methods to detect the submarine aswell, including by tracing radionucleotides from the reactor and/or wastewater and assorted discharge from the submerged submarine. Noise is one of the less effective ways of tracking submarines today as machinery is (generally) much quieter and simpler.

>>64374333 (OP)
Yes, it is the end all be all of strategic deterrence. Its main downside would be its value as a fighting unit, which will lead to the submarine being a priority target that the enemy will definitely spend alot of resources to find it. That makes it very wise to have both SSBN's at sea all the time and a few in refits, ready to pick up any slack if a sub runs into maintenance issues.

>>64374333 (OP)
>>64374549
Ultimately every part of the nuclear triad plays an important role. ICBM silos force your enemy to expend multiple warheads per silo, potentially eating up hundreds or thousands of warheads in a MAD scenario, SSBNs give you second strike capability and deter any thoughts of a decapitation strike for your enemy and stealth bombers potentially allow your own attempt at a decapitation strike without setting off IR satellite sensors

Is Finland still range banned?

>>64374333 (OP)
No, the better one would be AIP sub (the one that actually work like fuel cell) + SLBM.
> pic related
nuclear subs, due to cooling pumps will always be inherently less quiet than aip or diesel electric sub.
diesel electric has to surface once in a while to charge the batteries, while fuel cell, even the smaller sub-2000t boat can just stay underwater for a month. Dedicated large AIP can certainly strive for more

>>64374952
>imblying we ever were
Suck my benis anon-kun

>>64374952
>no
Ok so the answer is yes. During the Cold War SLBMs were considered the best delivery method by the Soviet Union because the largest cities in the US are located at the coast (+ London).
The US on the other hand had only Leningrad available, so they also needed stealth bombers and ICBMs.
Just looking at the technical specs of US ICBMs vs Soviet, and same for SLBMs, it's pretty clear. Soviet submarines are one of the biggest rabbit holes, once you get into it.

>>64374956
>nuclear subs, due to cooling pumps will always be inherently less quiet than aip or diesel electric sub
Very true in the 1970s

>>64374333 (OP)
Relying on sailors
>t. Ex MT
But the downsize can be something as simple what are you targeting?
There's a reason why bombers and ICBM still exist

>>64374333 (OP)
Expense. Command and control. Being a ship you can sink at the start of a war.

Depressed trajectory SLBM shots are basically unstoppable.

>>64374333 (OP)
Only if you've got naval superiority. Big nuclear subs are more vulnerable to ASuW simply because of all the mass needed to carry SLBMs. SLBMs are also shorter range than Silo ICBMs and are distinctly noisy when launching.
>>64374529
This was true before Towed Sonar Arrays. These days you can sink the array below the thermocline if it's shallow enough.

>>64375708
and it still is, kilo ssk still hold the advantage in acoustic stealth when submerged compare to even the most modern SSN in the russian fleet.
And there's also a diminishing when it come to nuclear sub stealth, seeing with seawolf and virginia, and it would likely be the same for ssn(x).
The US Navy also acknowledged the growing supplant potential of modern AIP tech
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/october/path-bigger-submarine-fleet-includes-diesels

>>64375889
shit, forgot image

>>64375889
You know that the USNI =/= USN, right?

For most countries yes, but if China and (despite frequent shitposting) the US mature real hypersonics it’ll be far more effective for first strikes. Times will be even shorter and kinetic interceptors will struggle more as well.
Another question for the thread:
>old Nike interceptors had nukes onboard that were less about yield and more about massive amounts of X-rays getting blasted out to fizzle out incoming nukes. What kind of tech do you think the national labs have cooked up with their supercomputers that provide similar neutralizing effects?

>>64377388
>hypersonics
Pic-related

>>64377576
You absolute mongrel of a human being. ICBM, SLBM, and hypersonics can all be intercepted or at least you’ll have trajectory to attempt interception. The potential for near future systems though allow for a scramjet/ramjet unit to make several maneuvers to defeat current interceptors. And I don’t mean boost glide bullshit that is just an ICBM with some fins, I mean true-blue, Chuck Yeager with a nuke screaming at you and zigzagging his way to turning you into ash.

>>64374333 (OP)
Definitely the most capable nuclear missile the US has. Minuteman 3s are shit now and hardly able to be maintained because we cared more about blowing up mud huts the past 20 years.

darpa can literally fold space if it comes down to that, but there's no reason to because both SIGINT and HUMINT are effectively omniscient so conventional precision munitions are adequate to any conceivable strategic goal. nukes are comically obsolete.

>>64374333 (OP)
>Aside from cost, what downsides do they have?
How much does one cost to acquire and maintain?

>>64378785
How much have you got?

>>64378788
$60, more in the future.

>>64378791
I wonder how many milliseconds that would pay for an SSBN for

>>64374952
What? Explain.

>>64377674
Except the Patriot did intercept Kh-47s over Ukraine.

>>64378791
>it costs 60 dollars to operate this missile for .005 seconds

>>64381427
And kinzhals is as much of a hypersonic as v2, so ?

>>64374972
> The US on the other hand had only Leningrad
Except us slbm/icbm has always been ahead in CEP since at least the 70s with trident c4, specifically for counter force purpose.
So claiming the us strategy was all about counter value is pure bs

>>64378791
Not enough, even for a fisting

>>64374333 (OP)
the best platform are satellites

>>64374333 (OP)
Yeah