![]() Today, given that the United States remains the leader in both submarine-quieting and -detection technologies, it is fair to suggest, as Cote Jr. Since the United States was the only one pursuing such technology, the United States exclusively reaped the benefits. When the United States deployed the Cold War-era Sound Surveillance System––an underwater system of passive acoustic surveillance systems commonly referred to as SOSUS––the oceans did become relatively “transparent,” but only for one country. Navy maintained a tremendous technological advantage over its Soviet counterpart during the Cold War by specifically working to “solve the problem against its own submarines.” This continuous game of cat and mouse between submarine-quieting and submarine-detection technologies has allowed the United States to stay ahead of its competitors, who have historically not invested in these efforts to the same extent.Īs a result, if a game-changing technological breakthrough were to occur, the United States would, in all likelihood, be the one developing it. These fears appear to be exaggerated, in several key respects.įirst, technological development is slow and does not occur in a vacuum. side, ICBM advocates often focus on an opposing kind of breakthrough: the hypothetical kind, that would allow nuclear-armed adversaries to sink or disable U.S. Electric drive systems have more built-in redundancy, CRS has noted in reports to Congress, “ making it less likely that a single weapon might disable the entire drive system.”Ī $13 Billion Contract for ICBMs: What’s the Rush?ĭespite these actual technological breakthroughs on the U.S. According to the Congressional Research Service, this will make the boats not just quieter but more survivable. Instead of using the current submarine class’ noisy mechanical gears, the new submarines will be propelled by an electric motor. SSBNs––the Columbia class––is expected to be even quieter than the Ohios. ![]() As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states, “When on patrol, SSBNs are, at present, virtually undetectable, and there are no known, near-term credible threats to the survivability of the SSBN force.” This is not the case for other nuclear-armed states’ missile submarines: Russia’s SSBN fleet is noisier than its American counterpart, and China’s Type 094 SSBNs remain noisy enough that analysts have questioned their survivability writ large. Not only are fears of a “transparent ocean” dramatically overhyped, but even if they were true, it would not affect the United States’ ability to maintain a credible second-strike capability––even without ICBMs.Īs the Pentagon itself acknowledges, the United States’ Ohio-class SSBNs are among the quietest missile submarines on the planet. submarines suddenly vulnerable to attack. Relying primarily on nuclear-armed submarines for deterrence is too risky, they say, because “new technology and enemy efforts” will likely make U.S. In recent years, as pressure has mounted against the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent-the replacement program for the United States’ intercontinental ballistic missiles-ICBM advocates have deployed a familiar refrain. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |