Ship-based nuclear deterrence

[Mister Mister]

So, how viable is surface ship- based ICBM force, on large lakes, like Caspian Sea or Great Lakes?

Probably cheaper than SSBNs, more protected from enemy attack subs, way easier communication.
On the other hand, easier to track them down from space?

 

[Mister Mister]

Per example, large ships like landing platform docks could have at least the same number of ICBMs like submarines, with the cost of LPD much smaller than submarine. Or even, you can use cargo ships, they are even cheaper than LPDs. Now, the price of missiles and warheads is the same, but maybe even thay could be cheaper, because there's no need for underwater launch.

 

[pjmidd]

Italians proposed to do it in the 1950's, the Giuseppe Garibaldi was rebuilt with 4 Polaris missile launch tubes. Missiles were never delivered and the idea dropped but she had the silos till she was decommissioned.

 

[CV12Hornet]

So, how viable is surface ship- based ICBM force, on large lakes, like Caspian Sea or Great Lakes?

Probably cheaper than SSBNs, more protected from enemy attack subs, way easier communication.
On the other hand, easier to track them down from space?

Not very. The point of sea-based deterrence is to have a second-strike capability in the event enemy counterforce strikes take out your ICBMs. Surface ships are a lot less suitable for the task, especially when confined to a lake. Too easy to track down and destroy with counterforce strikes.

A submarine, by comparison, is basically immune to counterforce strikes while at sea and is damnably hard to get at with ASW forces.

You also have range limits imposed by the size of the missiles - even Trident and R-29 don’t have the range to hit targets from the Caspian or Great Lakes.

 

[RandomChance]

Italians proposed to do it in the 1950's, the Giuseppe Garibaldi was rebuilt with 4 Polaris missile launch tubes. Missiles were never delivered and the idea dropped but she had the silos till she was decommissioned.

When the Polaris missiles weren’t deployed, they were tested. The Italians then developed their own Alfa missile (related to Polaris), though this too never entered service.

 

[jlckansas]

You don't need a nuclear missile to take out a ship based ICBM. All you need is a simple anti shipping missile, unless you built it like a Battleship you are going to have it be mission killed because of shock damage with even one hitting the ship. Caspian sea maybe for a base, but too much international traffic is in the Great Lakes for you to have any one based there. You would literally have to stop and search every ship on the Great Lakes after they enter from the St Lawrence Seaway. Even then the Caspian is well within NATO based aircraft able to launch within the national borders with an anti shipping missile strike.

 

[Workable Goblin]

You also have range limits imposed by the size of the missiles - even Trident and R-29 don’t have the range to hit targets from the Caspian or Great Lakes.

The Trident seems to have a range comparable to the Minuteman III...?

 

[Garrison]

So, how viable is surface ship- based ICBM force, on large lakes, like Caspian Sea or Great Lakes?

Probably cheaper than SSBNs, more protected from enemy attack subs, way easier communication.
On the other hand, easier to track them down from space?

The point of the SSBNs was that they were hard to find and target in the first place, a weapon system you couldn't count on neutralizing with a first strike however massive. Surface ships are sitting ducks, far more vulnerable than submarines.

 

[Riain]

The answer of course is 'it depends'.

IOTL the Tommohawk SLCM was a real problem for the Soviets because it made dozens of surface ships into long-range nuclear strike assets, and the same would apply to ballistic missiles deployed on surface ships if they were prolific enough. However this was never gong to be the case, the Polaris plan was going to be limited to a handful of cruiser size ships including the Italian Giuseppe Garibaldi, USS Long Beach at least something in the RN (planned, or existing like the Tiger/Blake). Such ships become priceless assets and are too vulnerable, unlike SSBNs which are similarly limited in numbers but are extremely difficult to detect and destroy.

 

[gatordad699]

I was wondering how they would accomplish the actual launch. SLBMs have water to block the exhaust, ships wouldn’t have that. Found this article about the first ship to launch a Polaris missile. They ejected it with an air system and had nothing on the rear deck for the exhaust to melt. Very interesting.

Polaris Test Ship

A converted freighter was the first ship in history to launch a Polaris missile.

www.usni.org

 

[jsb]

What about a force in Hudson Bay on large icebreaker ships with ICBMs? With say the Bay being effectively sealed by a SOSUS system and command mines/frigates/helicopters covering the entrance, but you are getting to the cost of SSBMs...?

 

[aaronupright]

Surface ships in the Caspian/Great Lakes have some survivability.
On the other hand, trucks launched missiles have greater survivability and are much cheaper.

 

[Workable Goblin]

The point of the SSBNs was that they were hard to find and target in the first place, a weapon system you couldn't count on neutralizing with a first strike however massive. Surface ships are sitting ducks, far more vulnerable than submarines.

I wonder how true that really is. By all accounts the Soviets really struggled to find even large Navy surface groups--the infamous Kuril demonstration springs to mind. Even with the US-A radar satellites, they had real issues keeping tabs on the Navy. I'm inclined to think that their demonstrated performance (or lack thereof) suggests that surface ships actually could have been quite troublesome for the Soviets to keep track of if they didn't do stupid stuff like sailing right along the Soviet coast. Of course, the NATO navies couldn't have known that in the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[Mister Mister]

About SSBNs, both sides were at least attempting to track the boats of the other side, from the moment they sailed from their homeport, with their own attack boats, with more or less sucess.

 

[Mister Mister]

I was wondering how they would accomplish the actual launch. SLBMs have water to block the exhaust, ships wouldn’t have that. Found this article about the first ship to launch a Polaris missile. They ejected it with an air system and had nothing on the rear deck for the exhaust to melt. Very interesting.

Polaris Test Ship

A converted freighter was the first ship in history to launch a Polaris missile.

www.usni.org

Considering that the Italians and US planned to do that, they obviously solved that problem.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Considering that the Italians and US planned to do that, they obviously solved that problem.

It's really no different from launching any other missile from a ship.

One fairly plausible way to get this is to have the NATO Multilateral Force successfully deployed, which was conceived by the US as involving Polaris missiles on 25 adapted Mariner cargo ships, jointly crewed and under NATO command.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Italians proposed to do it in the 1950's, the Giuseppe Garibaldi was rebuilt with 4 Polaris missile launch tubes. Missiles were never delivered and the idea dropped but she had the silos till she was decommissioned.

The USS Long Beach was also designed with Polaris tubes. I'm not sure if they were actually installed or if it was just space that was dedicated. I will have to pull out Friedman's 'Cruisers: an Illustrated Design History' and see if it says what was done after the design phase.

 

[Maniakes]

Historically, the US did use surface ships as a platform for nuclear forces, albeit in the form of bombs dropped from carrier-launched planes instead of ship-launched ballistic missiles. This was a major part of the US strategic nuclear force from the 1950s through the early 70s, with the capability being reduced to a reserve role in 1976 and eliminated completely in the early 90s. Submarine pens were one of the major targets for carrier-based nukes.

Later in the cold war, there were also nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. These were mostly to be launched from submarines and heavy bombers, but they could also be launched from surface ships. Part of the mission for taking the Iowa battleships out of mothballs in the 1980s and refitting them was for them to serve as a platform for cruise missile launches.

 

[gatordad699]

About SSBNs, both sides were at least attempting to track the boats of the other side, from the moment they sailed from their homeport, with their own attack boats, with more or less sucess.

The Soviets had much more of the less success and the USN had a lot of success. A USN 594 trailed a early Soviet SSBN for its entire patrol.

 

[Blue cat]

What about a force in Hudson Bay on large icebreaker ships with ICBMs? With say the Bay being effectively sealed by a SOSUS system and command mines/frigates/helicopters covering the entrance, but you are getting to the cost of SSBMs...?

I seem to recall the desirability to secure (presumably to a level beyond what Canada and perhaps the US were able (or perhaps willing ?) to do IOTL) Hudson Bay came up in the Cold War vis a vis other issues.

Perhaps there might have been some synergies to be had if Hudson Bay was very well defended for other reasons but I suspect getting the Canadians on board with basing other nations long range nuclear weapons in Hudson Bay might have been challenging but probably not impossible depending on a bunch of stuff.

On the other hand it might have made more sense if Canada wanted a bastion to base their own long range nuclear weapons in ? (Perhaps surface ships to begin with, followed later by SSBN’s) but that would require significant POD’s in my view.

I suppose if in an alternate time line , the US had wanted Hudson Bay to be better defended by Canada, and Canada had wanted their own long range nuclear weapons, it is possible some form of deal might have been worked out where Canada would focus more on defending Hudson Bay, and the US would supply Canada with long range missiles that Canada would then base in Hudson Bay.
It might be a win win for both parties ?