THE UNITED STATE

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE

VIR

A

IBUS M RI VICTORIA

S

NAVAL WAR COL
The Third Battle

Innovation in the U.S. Navy’s Silent Cold War Struggle

with Soviet Submarines

Newport, Rhode Island

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE

Owen R. Cote, Jr.

Associate Director, MIT Security Studies Program
Naval War College

Newport, Rhode Island

Center for Naval Warfare Studies

Newport Paper Number Sixteen

2003

President, Naval War College

Rear Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, U.S. Navy

Provost, Naval War College

Professor James F. Giblin

Dean of Naval Warfare Studies

Professor Alberto R. Coll

Naval War College Press

Editor: Professor Catherine McArdle Kelleher

Managing Editor: Pelham G. Boyer

Associate Editor: Patricia A. Goodrich

Telephone: 401.841.2236

Fax: 401.841.3579

DSN exchange: 948

E-mail: press@nwc.navy.mil

Web: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press

Printed in the United States of America

The Newport Papers are extended research projects that the

Editor, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the

President of the Naval War College consider of particular

interest to policy makers, scholars, and analysts. Candidates

for publication are considered by an editorial board under

the auspices of the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies.

Published papers are those approved by the Editor of the

Press, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the President

of the Naval War College.

The views expressed in The Newport Papers are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the

Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.

Correspondence concerning The Newport Papers may be

addressed to the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. To request

additional copies or subscription consideration, please direct

inquiries to the President, Code 32A, Naval War College,

686 Cushing Road, Newport, RI 02841-1207.

The Newport Papers are edited and prepared by Patricia A.

Goodrich, Associate Editor, Naval War College Press.

ISSN Pending
Contents iii

Foreword v

Acknowledgments vi

Introduction 1

CHAPTER ONE From Holland to the Second Battle:

The First Fifty Years 5

CHAPTER TWO Phase I of the Third Battle: The German

Type XXI and the Early Cold War,

1945–1950 13

CHAPTER THREE Phase II of the Third Battle: ASW

and the Two Nuclear Revolutions,

1950–1960 19

CHAPTER FOUR Phase III of the Third Battle: ASW

and the Happy Time, 1960–1980 41

CHAPTER FIVE Phase IV of the Third Battle:

ASW and Acoustic Parity, 1980–1990 69

CHAPTER SIX The Fourth Battle? Submarines

and ASW After the Cold War 79

Conclusions 89

Notes 93

Abbreviations 101

About the Author 105

Titles in the Series 107

Foreword

We are pleased to launch the newly designed Newport Papers series with an intriguing

case study, The Third Battle, by Owen Cote. In a manuscript developed under the editorial leadership of Dr. Thomas B. Grassey, then Press editor, Dr. Cote argues that the U.S.

Navy’s innovative response to the Soviet submarine fleet during the Cold War represents

the third great battle for control of the seas in the 20th century. Technology was always

the key factor in the continuing seesaw peacetime race between the two superpowers.

Dr. Cote, Associate Director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, provides a critical groundbreaking perspective on this battle—quite

different from the two that preceded it. During the two world wars, the then new and

revolutionary submarine threatened the ability of the major naval powers to gain decisive control of the sea. In peacetime, the Allied powers were unable, or perhaps ultimately basically reluctant, to prepare innovative and effective measures to counter

submarine use. In war, they then faced unrestricted submarine warfare and the attending significant losses. Those antisubmarine measures that were eventually developed

were short-lived because of the close technological arms race between the combatants.

It was only with the development in the mid-1980s of truly quiet Soviet nuclear submarines that the U.S. Navy decisively confronted the antisubmarine warfare challenge.

Cote details the events leading to that point and presents a critical study of technological innovation with clear implications for challenges in the 21st century.

This latest Newport Paper, the sixteenth in the generic series established in 1991, reflects the talents of the many who worked toward its production. David Chapman of

Chapman and Partners, Warren, Rhode Island, is responsible for the overall design; the

creative searching of Elizabeth Davis led to the discovery of the Newport map that will

be the series’ signature cover. Patricia Goodrich edited the manuscript with grace and

style, under the thoughtful eye of Pelham Boyer, Managing Editor.

In the next several months, two additional Newport papers will be published. We welcome comments, suggestions, and proposals for this relaunched series

CATHERINE MC ARDLE KELLEHER

Editor, Naval War College Press

Newport, Rhode Island
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Vice Admiral John Grossenbacher for sponsoring this project and

Admiral Richard Mies, Vice Admiral Ed Giambastiani, John Schuster, and Captain Karl

Hasslinger for their support in getting it started. The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics

Laboratory provided the administrative home for the project, and I thank Ernie

Holmboe, Bill LaPlante, and Geoff Wilson of that organization for their support. I

would also like to thank Admiral Henry Chiles (retired), Vice Admiral James Fitzgerald

(retired), Rear Admiral Dan Wolkensdorfer (retired), Rear Admiral Jerry Holland (retired), and Commander Michael Poirier for reading and providing extensive comments

on drafts of this paper. I am also indebted to the following for providing interviews or

valuable source material: Harvey Sapolsky, Tim Wolters, Greg Koblentz, Ande Smith,

Admiral Frank Bowman, Admiral Bruce Demars (retired), Admiral Carlisle Trost

(retired), Vice Admiral Albert Baciocco (retired), Rear Admiral Richard Pittenger

(retired), Rear Admiral John Morgan, Captain Jerry Ferguson, Paris Genalis, Commander Jamie Foggo, Frank Andrews, Ed Dalrymple, Fred Milford, Thaddeus Bell,

Thomas Maloney, Juergen Keil, Dick Nadolink, Jeff Cohen, Bernie Myer, Hal

Hultgreen, Dick Bonin, Colleen Leonardo, Bruce Rule, John Hanley, Dick Chapman,

Greg Duckworth, Ted Wile, Captain Dave Schubert, Jan Breemer, John Brandes, Robert

Frosch, and Commander Randy Craig. Finally, I thank my two assistants, Kristen

Cashin and Harlene Miller.
Introduction

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, submarines have been the weapon of

choice for weaker naval powers that wish to contest a dominant power’s control of the

seas or its ability to project power ashore from the sea. This is because submarines have

been and are likely to remain the weapon system with the highest leverage in a battle

for control of the ocean surface. Hence, antisubmarine warfare (ASW) will always remain the most important element of the U.S. Navy’s core mission—sea control.

Since the middle of the twentieth century, submarines have also become a weapon of

the strong, both because they became a major if not the dominant platform for performing ASW, and because they also became a dominant means of projecting power

from the sea, first as a nuclear delivery platform, and now, at the end of the century, as

a conventional precision strike platform.

For the U.S. Navy, maintaining superiority in ASW and maximizing its ability to project power from the sea will require innovative contributions by each of its platform

communities in new mission areas, as it did during the Cold War. It is likely that the

sources of victory in these future endeavors will be similar to those that gave the Navy a

great victory in the Third Battle.

This paper seeks to establish the record of naval innovation in ASW during the Cold

War so that an analysis of the sources of that innovation can proceed. It looks specifically at how ASW was conducted over time and at how the roles of the Navy’s different

platform communities changed over time. At the heart of this story is the transformation of the U.S. submarine force into the main ASW weapon in the struggle against

Soviet submarines. The lessons of this transformation should be relevant to the task of

meeting future ASW challenges, and they can serve as a guide to the submarine force and

the Navy’s other platform communities as they face demands to adopt new missions.

In two world wars, control of the sea by the major naval powers was threatened by the

submarine. This resulted both from the inherent capabilities of a revolutionary new

weapon of war, the submarine, and the inability or the reluctance of the major naval

powers to anticipate this threat and prepare innovative and effective antisubmarine
measures during peacetime to counter it. When first faced with unrestricted submarine

warfare, Britain in World War I, and Britain, the United States, and Japan in World War

II all suffered grievous losses, especially to their merchant marines, which were to varying degrees their economic lifelines as well as their means of deploying military forces

to distant shores. In two successive battles of the Atlantic against German submarines,

the Allies eventually reestablished sea control after enormous effort, while in the Pacific

during World War II, the Japanese never effectively countered American submarines,

lost control of vital sea lines of communication, and were economically and strategically strangled as a result. Furthermore, the victory of antisubmarine over submarine

forces in the Second Battle of the Atlantic proved short-lived, as the end of World War

II saw the deployment of new German U-boats which largely returned to the submarine its recently lost advantages over antisubmarine forces. As the Cold War began, the

Soviet Navy adopted these new submarine technologies and the U.S. Navy faced the

task of developing an effective response to a new submarine challenge in peacetime.

The U.S. Navy’s global Cold War ASW effort therefore constituted the third great battle

for control of the seas against the submarine, albeit one that remained a peacetime

effort. Prior experience predicted that this battle would not go well for the United

States. For example, Great Britain’s record of peacetime preparation and innovation in

ASW before the two World Wars had not been a good one. Moreover, other new technologies spawned by the World War II mobilization, such as missiles and nuclear energy, promised both to tilt the balance between the submarine and ASW forces further

in favor of the former and to increase the vulnerabilities that would result from ASW

failure. For example, nuclear-powered submarines would be much more difficult to

counter by ASW forces, and ballistic and cruise missiles would give submarines potent

new offensive capabilities, allowing them to expand beyond commerce raiding into

new mission areas.

This paper shows that the U.S. Navy’s response over time to the threat posed by the

Soviet submarine fleet during the Cold War was extremely innovative. The Navy kept

its ASW posture responsive during the Third Battle to a series of peacetime challenges

by the Soviet submarine force, including their first deployments of diesel submarines

based on the German Type XXI, the first ballistic and cruise missile submarines, and

then several generations of nuclear-powered submarines of all types. This edge remained largely intact through the mid-1980s, when the first truly quiet Soviet nuclear

submarines were finally deployed, giving the end of the Third Battle the same “saved by

the bell” character as the end of the Second Battle of the Atlantic. In its aftermath, the

Navy once again found itself facing serious new ASW challenges, and the submarine

force found itself looking for new missions.

2 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
In sketching an outline of the course of the Third Battle, this paper focuses on the technical and doctrinal innovations whose exploitation allowed the Navy to deal with successive generations of the Soviet undersea threat. It is part of a larger project that seeks

the best explanation for why and how the Navy was able to maintain this record of innovation in a specific warfare area over so long a period in peacetime.1

Better knowledge of the sources of innovation in peacetime is important in today’s security

environment. In some respects, this security environment resembles that which the

Navy as well as the other services faced after World War II and before Korea, and it was

in this period that the seeds of victory in the Third Battle were sown. A formidable foe

had been defeated and a new peer competitor against which to plan had yet to clearly

emerge. There are both interservice and intraservice debates about which missions to

emphasize and about which platforms can best perform them. The pace of development in certain commercial technologies relevant to the military is accelerating with

largely unpredictable consequences. And though the war on terrorism has led to increases in the defense budget, the long-term prospects for high levels of defense spending remain uncertain. Under these circumstances, many elements of the U.S. military’s

Cold War structure appear threatened with obsolescence and are struggling to adapt to

the demands of the new security environment, and in many cases, success in this struggle will demand fairly radical innovation.

This paper is organized into six sections corresponding to distinct phases in the centurylong battle between the submarine and its opponents. The first section provides a historical overview from the initial development of the modern submarine in 1900

through to the end of World War II. This is followed by a section on each of four

phases of the Third Battle: meeting the challenge posed by Soviet adaptation of German Type XXI diesel submarines immediately after World War II; meeting the challenge posed by nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons; meeting the challenge of

preserving an ASW barrier strategy based on a passive acoustic advantage; and meeting

the challenge of passive acoustic parity. For each stage in this forty-year Cold War

struggle, the paper describes the new demands placed by the Soviet submarine fleet on

the U.S. Navy’s ASW posture and the steps taken or not taken to meet those demands.

Finally, the paper closes with a discussion of the current situation in ASW, with a focus

on the dual challenge posed by the end of the Cold War and the wide availability of

modern, non-nuclear submarines. Inevitably, this structure will give the reader a sense

of cause and effect, with a Soviet challenge seeming to directly cause an American response; but the intent of the paper is only to describe what happened when, not to explain the sources of the behavior being discussed. Only when the record of the Third

Battle is established with some clarity can the task of explaining it begin.

THE THIRD BATTLE 3
The rationale used for distinguishing successive phases of the submarine threat combines two elements. One is the evolution of submarine design, and the other is the evolution of its weapons and missions. The first element is what largely determines the

operational and technical demands on antisubmarine forces, while the second largely

determines the importance of ASW as a mission. Together with the maritime geography in which conflict occurs or is contemplated, they determine the ebb and flow of

the balance between the submarine and its foes, and particularly those points in time

when it is both most important and most difficult for a maritime power to gain and

maintain control of the undersea battle space.

4 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
From Holland to the Second Battle

The First Fifty Years

The first modern submarine was the Holland, which the U.S. Navy adopted in 1900,

and the design for which was sold to other naval powers of the day. It was the harbinger of one of the two great naval innovations of the first half of the twentieth century,

the other being the aircraft. In reference to this revolution, Bernard Brodie wrote in 1941:

The torpedo, the mine, and the submarine may be considered together because they have had a common origin and a closely associated development. . . . Closely related in function, these instruments

comprise a distinct kind of naval warfare, one in which the attack, during some phase of its delivery,

takes place beneath the surface of the sea. . . . By adopting these instruments, naval warfare entered

a new dimension measured in fathoms of depth. The water which had previously only supported the

vessels engaged in battle now became a medium for their concealment and for the transmission of

their most powerful thrusts.2

By submerging, submarines became invisible, allowing them to approach the most

powerful surface ship and deliver a torpedo, a weapon which outflanked the armor

provided as protection against gunfire, striking a ship below its waterline where it was

most vulnerable, allowing the smallest submarine to sink the largest battleship. This

combination of stealth and offensive punch has from the beginning been the defining

characteristic of the submarine.

The Holland is usually described as the first modern submarine because it was the first

design in which an internal combustion engine for surfaced operation was combined

with a battery-powered electric motor for submerged operation. Prior to this development, submarines either combined steam plants with batteries or relied on batteries

alone. The former suffered from the tremendous heat generated by a steam plant in a

small platform like a submarine, while the latter provided only very limited range and

endurance. Submarines like the Holland were deployed by the major powers in the

years before World War I with an eye toward two missions: coastal defense and fleet cooperation. As a coastal defense asset, submarines would greatly extend heretofore

gun-based coastal defenses that were centered on major ports. Together with mines,

submarines would therefore make close blockade of an enemy coast impossible,

CHAPTER ONE
regardless of the imbalance in traditional naval forces. By forcing the dominant navy

away from the weaker adversary’s coast, the submarine helped create a sanctuary for

coastwise shipping and, more important in contemporary minds, the opportunity for

blockade running by both merchant shipping and commerce-raiding cruisers.

World War I and the First Battle

Submarines were also conceived as a new arm of the battle fleet, an instrument that

would operate in reasonably close concert with battleships. Again, in most schemes, the

submarine would aid the lesser battle line, which in fleeing from its stronger opponent

might lure the latter over a squadron of waiting submarines. Neither mission had the

effect anticipated for it in World War I. Submarines and mines did succeed in making

close blockade impossible, but distant blockade, depending increasingly on airborne

scouting platforms and communications intelligence, proved almost equally effective.

Thus, the Royal Navy was still able to effectively bottle up the German High Seas Fleet

throughout World War I. Battle fleet cooperation also proved difficult because submarines had trouble keeping up with the battle line, and even when they did, coordination

in battle was impossible to ensure with any certainty. Instead, the major role played by

the submarine in World War I was as an independent commerce raider, a role which no

major naval power had seriously anticipated.

The Germans started World War I with only twenty-four U-boats. Their campaign

against Allied shipping did not begin until early 1915, and after several starts and stops,

unrestricted submarine warfare did not begin until February 1917. Over the next year,

the Allies lost more than 5.5 million tons of merchant shipping, a loss rate that substantially exceeded new construction.3

The U-boat threat was brought under control

during the last year of the war, primarily through the implementation by the Royal

Navy of escorted convoys, a measure that it had initially resisted. Convoying greatly

complicated the open-ocean search problem for German submarines, because a group

of ships was not much more likely to be found than a single ship, while escorts reduced

the damage that submarines could cause when they did succeed in finding ships to attack. It is important to note that escorts were much less effective at actually destroying

submarines than they were at limiting their effectiveness by forcing them to submerge

after their initial attack, which generally allowed the rest of the convoy to escape.

The Allies, and particularly the Royal Navy, were unprepared for unrestricted submarine warfare by German U-boats for three reasons. First, submarines did not become

capable of truly independent, long-range ocean patrols until their gasoline engines

were replaced by diesels, which gave them much longer range and the ability to keep up

with merchant ships while operating on the surface. Diesels were adopted by the major

6 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
navies only in the years between 1907 and 1912 and were not widely deployed until the

war had already started.4

Second, international law barred unrestricted attacks in wartime against merchant

ships that were not carrying war-related cargoes. In order to comply with the law, all

warships, including submarines, had to first board and search a vessel and determine

its cargo, and then allow its crew to safely disembark before attacking. Clearly these

rules greatly hampered the submarine, and they were routinely violated by the Germans in operations near British waters aimed specifically at British ships even before

unrestricted operations came into full swing. But these so-called “prize rules” remained

largely in effect in operations against neutral shipping between 1914 and 1917, which

gave the British access to the merchant fleets of powerful maritime countries like the

United States. As long as these rules remained intact, it would be impossible for the

Germans to blockade Britain, but their abandonment would bring the United States

and other powers into the war. Thus, it was not unreasonable to expect the prize rules

to remain in effect, as indeed they did for more than half the war.

Third, once unrestricted submarine warfare was instituted, the British were initially

unprepared to take the steps necessary to counter it. An ASW strategy based on escorted convoys was a brute force method that reduced the efficiency of already strained

merchant fleets by keeping them idle until convoys could be formed, and which produced demands for escorts out of all proportion to the growing number of enemy submarines. In the latter respect, the demand for convoy escorts competed with the

demand for fleet escorts, which were still needed by the British Grand Fleet because the

German High Seas Fleet remained in being.

In practice, the British were able to counter Germany’s resort to unrestricted submarine warfare only with the help of the Americans, who provided them with additional

convoy escorts and merchant shipping, and who, with Britain, successfully pressured

the large merchant fleets of countries that remained neutral to continue operation even

after the prize rules were abandoned. Thus, Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare

campaign failed both because it brought the Americans into the war and because it

failed to knock other neutral merchant fleets out of the war. Therefore, in an important

sense, the political effects of the campaign negated its military effects, because Britain

probably would not have survived the First Battle of the Atlantic if the Royal Navy and

the British merchant marine had continued to face the U-boats on their own. As Arthur Hezlet has noted, “The defeat of the U-boats was not because the guerre de course

(independent commerce raiding) could not by its nature be decisive: it was because the

Allies were able to be strong everywhere and make a gigantic effort.”

5

THE THIRD BATTLE 7
ASW in the Interwar Period

The submarines that fought World War I were surface ships which were expected to

submerge only in order to attack and escape better-armed surface targets, but which

also lost a considerable portion of their mobility and situational awareness when submerged and, therefore, much of their potential offensive power. This characteristic was

of course based largely on technical constraints, but it was also a function of expectations about their primary mission, which was assumed in most cases to be coastal defense or fleet cooperation, both of which contemplated attacks against major naval

assets, against which surface engagements were suicidal.

The German campaign against Allied merchant shipping demonstrated instead that attacks against merchant ships could be most effectively prosecuted at night, on the surface, at relatively close range, even in the face of escorts. The challenge was to maximize

the effects of these attacks, escape the escorts alerted by these attacks, and reengage.

Defined in this way, the operational demands placed on the “submersible” submarine

were less in conflict with its basic technical limitations than when the challenge was to

attack powerful naval vessels, as in the coastal defense or fleet cooperation missions.

This lesson drove the German submarine force toward the operational and tactical

methods it employed in its World War II guerre de course, which emphasized night

surface attacks by groups of submarines which would pursue individual convoys and

repeatedly attack them over a period of a week or two.

These “wolf pack” tactics were pioneered by German Nazi Admiral Karl Doenitz during the interwar years. Wolf pack tactics did not demand a radically new type of submarine, and German interwar submarine designs were evolutionary, emphasizing

longer range and endurance and larger torpedo salvos and magazines. The most important technical development that made wolf packs possible was the maturation of

high frequency (HF) radio as a command and control mechanism. HF radio provided

over-the-horizon performance from a relatively small, low-powered transmitter, and

allowed deployed submarines to report convoy sightings to a central command post,

which could then broadcast this information to all other submarines in that broad

ocean area, allowing them to marshal for a concentrated attack by a dozen or so submarines. Using night surface attacks, these wolf packs would strike the convoy simultaneously, from multiple azimuths, with multiple torpedo salvos, and then slip away.

Many such attacks would be conducted over the course of several days, with the wolf

pack using the daylight hours to separate from the convoy and race ahead of it on the

surface to get into firing position for the following night.

The Royal Navy focused its interwar ASW development efforts on solving the World

War I problem, which was to protect convoys from lone German U-boats. The heart of

8 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
the solution embraced was the first active sonar, originally called ASDIC after Allied

Submarine Detection Investigation Committee. During World War I, hydrophones had

been used by escorts to listen for submerged submarines. Sound traveled well underwater, and submarines could often be heard at ranges of several miles, but in order to

use such passive sonar, escorts had to come to a complete stop to prevent their own

noise from drowning out the submarine signal. Furthermore, under even the best of

circumstances, passive sonar gave only a bearing to the target, not the range. Active sonar addressed both these problems and, combined with depth charges, appeared to give

the convoy escort a killing capability against submerged submarines that it had lacked

during World War I.

ASDIC produced confidence in the Royal Navy that it would be able to find submerged

submarines and either prevent them from attacking convoys or, at a minimum, kill

them after they did. This was ironic given that the German U-boat arm was preparing

for a second battle of the Atlantic that would largely occur on the surface, where ASDIC would be irrelevant. The two opponents were preparing for quite different battles,

but the consequences for the Royal Navy did not become immediately apparent until a

year or two into World War II.

World War II and the Second Battle

The war began as World War I had ended, with the Germans waging essentially unrestricted submarine warfare, and the British convoying in response. But the intensity of

the Second Battle was mitigated by the relatively low numbers of combatants available

to both sides and by the competing operational demands placed on these forces.

The German U-boat arm began the war with fifty-seven submarines, only twentyseven of which were oceangoing Type VIIs or IXs. With such a small force, wolf pack

tactics were impractical, and their full implementation awaited delivery of the large

number of submarines begun immediately before the war. Likewise, the Royal Navy

again began the war with a shortage of escorts, and these shortages were exacerbated by

losses in the Norwegian campaign and off Dunkirk in the spring and summer of 1940

as well as by the need to retain an anti-invasion force in being on the Channel Coast.

This initially limited the area of convoy coverage to waters east of 15 degrees W.

Between June and October 1940, in the first real battles with German U-boats, the British lost 1.4 million tons of merchant shipping. These losses were alarming for several

reasons, the most important being the fact that 30 percent of these losses were incurred

by ships in convoy. With a still small force, the Germans were demonstrating that ASDIC-equipped convoys were not effective, even against individual submarines attacking

on the surface at night. Matters quickly got much worse, as the U-boat force increased

THE THIRD BATTLE 9
in numbers, allowing it to implement its wolf pack tactics in 1941, and as it gained access in 1940 to French and Norwegian bases much closer to Allied shipping lanes.

Moreover, the expedient of simply increasing production of escorts so that all merchant ships could be convoyed would no longer serve as a counter to German U-boats

as it had in World War I. Thus, even though Canadian participation gave convoys continuous surface escorts all the way across the Atlantic starting in May 1941, losses continued at a rate sufficient to exceed new merchant ship production.

The outcome of these initial battles between ASDIC-equipped convoy escorts and

U-boat wolf packs demonstrated that the Kriegsmarine had “won” the peacetime battle

over doctrine for the Second Battle of the Atlantic during the interwar period. Fortunately, German submarines were not available in sufficient numbers at the outset of the

war to execute their doctrine. The wartime victory of the Allies in the Second Battle resulted from ASW measures taken to counter the wolf packs after the war began. These

measures turned the tide in the spring and summer of 1943, and the U-boat menace

remained under control until the end of the war. The key to victory in the Second Battle was the introduction, beginning in 1942, of the radar-equipped ASW patrol aircraft.

Just as in World War I, where shipping losses plummeted once all merchant shipping was

organized into convoys with effective surface escorts, Allied shipping losses in World

War II declined sharply once all convoys were provided effective surface and air escorts.

The necessity for effective air escorts became clear soon after the war began, when it

became apparent that the German U-boat arm had adopted anti-convoy tactics that

emphasized surface operations. Meeting this demand required both technical innovation and, perhaps more important, a commitment by political leaders to a strategy that

emphasized both the European theater and the primacy of the battle for control of the

Atlantic within that theater.

Technically, the success of air ASW in the Second Battle resulted from the marriage of

microwave radar with very long-range bombardment aircraft. Radar allowed aircraft to

detect surfaced submarines at ranges of twenty to thirty miles, and very long-range aircraft eliminated the gaps in air coverage over the Atlantic that existed during the first

three years of the war. Air ASW patrols greatly expanded the radius around a convoy in

which it was dangerous for a U-boat to surface, and it was the ability of U-boats to operate on the surface near convoys that was the basis for the wolf pack tactic. Forced to

submerge, the U-boat lost much of its tactical mobility as well as its ability to communicate, and therefore lost much of its offensive punch as well.

Despite these advantages, it was still a struggle to close the air ASW gaps over the Atlantic because radar-equipped, long-range aircraft were also the means of prosecuting

the strategic bombardment campaign, which was the core mission of both the Royal

10 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Air Force and the U.S. Army Air Forces, the services which owned the very long-range

aircraft in question, and because strategic bombardment was viewed by American,

British, and Soviet political leaders as the only significant means of engaging in offensive operations against Germany in the West prior to the planned invasion of France.

By the spring of 1943 the main Atlantic air gap was finally closed, primarily by radarequipped B-24 Liberators flying out of Newfoundland, Iceland, and Northern Ireland.6

The central importance of closing the air gap should not be allowed to obscure the

other almost equally important factors which influenced the outcome of the Second

Battle. These can be broadly lumped into two general categories: the development of

ocean-wide operational intelligence systems for ASW and the mobilization of civilian

scientific and technical expertise in support of the overall ASW effort. The first development encompasses the broad area of electronic and communications intelligence

(HF/DF and Ultra), its fusion ashore with other information in order to produce an

up-to-date, ocean-wide picture of German U-boat operations, and the timely use of

this information both as a means to redirect convoys away from wolf packs, and later as

a mechanism for cueing offensive ASW assets against U-boats.

Wolf pack tactics depended on the central coordination of U-boat operations from a

shore-based command center, and therefore entailed extensive two-way radio communications between deployed U-boats and headquarters. These transmissions could be

located using shore and later sea-based direction-finding nets, thereby providing the

rough locations of deployed U-boats, and the messages could themselves be decrypted

using Ultra, intermittently, for the first three and a half years of the war and continuously thereafter. During the first three years of the war, the Germans were also intermittently reading messages concerning Allied convoy operations, but the British

discovered this weakness at about the same point when it permanently solved the problem of decrypting German naval Enigma transmissions. By contrast, the Germans never

accepted that their codes had been broken and never fully comprehended the degree to

which radio transmissions by their submarines were exploited by Allied HF/DF nets.7

In addition to playing an important role in the establishment and operation of this operational intelligence system, mobilized civilian scientific and technological expertise

also made two additional contributions to the Second Battle. It led to the panoply of

increasingly sophisticated ASW weapons and tactical sensors that were developed and

deployed after the war began, and the use of operations analysis as a tool for optimizing tactics and operations and for anticipating the effects of countermeasures.

Regarding weapon and sensor development, many of the tools of the Third Battle were

born or first exploited by the Allies in the crucible of the early years of World War II,

including obviously microwave radar, but also acoustic homing torpedoes such as the

THE THIRD BATTLE 11
air-delivered Mk. 24 “Mine,” magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD), sonobuoys, and

ship-board HF/DF antennas. Operations analysis was a potent tool for combining and

optimizing the effects of the complex combinations of platforms, sensors, and weapons

at both the tactical and operational levels made possible by this technological cornucopia. In both cases, new weapons and new, more rigorous ways of analyzing their effects

were key instruments in the prosecution of high technology warfare of which the Second Battle of the Atlantic was one of the harbingers, along with the strategic air war

over Europe.

But victory by Allied ASW forces in the Second Battle masked the growing imbalance

favoring the submarine over ASW forces that hunted it. In World War II, the Allied

ASW effort necessary to defeat the U-boat was even more disproportionate to the size

of the submarine threat than it was in World War I. At its peak in 1917, the German

U-boat arm had 140 submarines in service, and they faced almost 200 operational

Allied surface convoy escorts. In World War II, the peak number of U-boats operational was 240 in March 1943, and this force faced in the Royal Navy alone approximately 875 ASDIC-equipped escorts, 41 escort carriers, and 300 Coastal Command

patrol aircraft.8

The price of sea control was growing substantially faster than the price

of contesting it, and the growing asymmetry manifest in the aforementioned numbers

ignored the fact that in technical terms a great leap forward in German submarine capabilities came just too late to affect the Second Battle.

12 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Phase I of the Third Battle

The German Type XXI and the Early Cold War, 1945–1950

The Cold War ASW battle between the United States and the Soviet Union can be divided for our purposes into four stages, corresponding roughly to four major steps forward in Soviet submarine design. These major steps were their adaptation of the

German Type XXI diesel-electric, their first nuclear-powered submarine, their first

high-performance nuclear submarine, and their first very quiet nuclear submarine.

Concurrent with these submarine design developments were a series of both real and

anticipated submarine weapon developments, including the first introduction of nuclear weapons, their deployment on submarine-launched ballistic and cruise missiles

for land attack, the development of first nuclear and then conventional antishipping

missiles, and the development of long-range nuclear ballistic missiles. Finally, the Third

Battle was constrained by a relatively constant maritime and political geography that

also played an important role.

Each phase in the evolution of Soviet submarine capabilities created a new challenge

for American ASW forces, and the next four sections briefly assess how well each such

challenge was met, focusing on identifying innovations in technology and doctrine for

ASW when they occurred.

The Second Battle ended as the Germans were deploying a new type of submarine designed to counter the ASW techniques used by the Allies to defeat their wolf packs operating on the surface. Known as the Type XXI, it combined three design changes to

enable a radically new operational approach focused on submerged operations. These

changes were greater battery capacity, a hull form more hydrodynamically suited to

high underwater speed, and a snorkel allowing the main diesel engine to breathe from

periscope depth.

The Type XXI undermined each element of the Allied ASW posture that won the Second Battle. The snorkel, which had a much lower radar cross section than a surfaced

submarine, gave the submarine back its tactical mobility. That is, it could once again

CHAPTER TWO
move at speed on its main engine for great distances without molestation by air ASW

forces. A more hydrodynamic hull and greater battery power allowed a completely submerged submarine to go faster for longer than before, allowing it to escape prosecution

by sonar-equipped convoy escorts once it had revealed its position by attacking.

At the operational level, Type XXIs deployed in sufficient numbers to blanket the North

Atlantic shipping lanes would minimize the need for shore-based command and control,

and, to the extent that two-way communications between deployed submarines and

headquarters remained necessary, they could be executed using the new “kurier” burst

transmission technology introduced by the Germans at the end of World War II. Burst

transmissions compress HF signals enough to make it difficult to DF them. Combined

with the likely absence of a code-breaking triumph, such as Ultra, a future battle of the

Atlantic would therefore be prosecuted without much of the operational intelligence of

opposing submarine operations that the Allies enjoyed in the Second Battle.

Type XXIs had fallen into American, British, and Soviet hands after World War II, and

the U.S. Navy rapidly discovered that it would face a major ASW challenge were the

Soviet Navy to build large numbers of ocean-going Type XXIs. In anticipation of this

threat, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Chester W. Nimitz identified ASW as equal

in importance to dealing with the threat of atomic attack.9

The resulting ASW response

to the fast snorkel threat initially unfolded in two basic directions: an evolutionary

path that sought to repair the ASW team that won the Second Battle and a more revolutionary path that aspired to replace it.

The evolutionary response to the fast snorkel boat emphasized at the technical level

better radars for air ASW assets, better active sonars for surface escorts, and better

weapons for both, along with a tightly integrated tactical approach that sought to exploit the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses of each ASW platform. This approach took advantage of the fact that a snorkel boat still was not a true submarine in

that it remained at least partially wedded to the surface, albeit in a fashion that greatly

reduced its vulnerability.

The more revolutionary response introduced both a new sensor and a new platform

into the ASW equation. The new sensor was the passive acoustic array, and the new

platform was the ASW submarine, or SSK. American passive acoustic array development grew out of earlier German developments, in this case the GHG array first used

on a limited basis as a torpedo-self-defense sensor on German surface ships, and later

adapted for use by Type XXIs as a means of tracking and targeting surface ships for

torpedo attack while submerged. Fortuitously, the U.S. Navy discovered in early postwar exercises that submarines were quite loud when snorkeling. Compared to a surface

ship, a snorkeling sub put all of its machinery noise into the water because it was

14 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
submerged, and if it was to make best progress during transits to and from its operating areas or keep up with a fast convoy, it needed to operate at speeds well past the onset of propeller cavitation at such shallow depths. For both reasons, it was an excellent

target for a quiet platform deploying a large, low-frequency passive array.

The submarine, in turn, was ideal as such a platform for two reasons, one technical and

one strategic. On battery, essentially hovering in place, a submarine introduced the

least possible self-noise into the passive array, thereby maximizing the signal-to-noise

ratio and therefore the detection range. Direct path detection ranges against snorkelers

of 10–15 miles were achieved in this manner in exercises by essentially unmodified

World War II fleet boats in the late 1940s. Equally important, the submarine’s inherent

stealth, combined with the maritime geography of the emerging Cold War, made it

particularly suited for forward operations in the somewhat constricted waters through

which Soviet submarines had to proceed with some dispatch in order both to gain access to the North Atlantic and to do so with transit times short enough to give reasonable endurance in the patrol area.

Both the evolutionary and revolutionary responses to the Type XXI threat began soon

after World War II, when little was known about the nature of the Soviet submarine

threat. It was simply expected that the Soviets, a continental power like Germany with

both limited access to and dependence upon the sea, would focus their maritime efforts

on interdicting Allied sea lines of communication by deploying a large force of modern

submarines. Combined with this relative vacuum of intelligence was a period in the

five years between World War II and Korea of very low defense spending in the United

States. Despite the lack of intelligence and the extreme scarcity of resources, the Navy

placed substantial emphasis on ASW and made significant progress.

The Evolutionary Response to the Type XXI

The evolutionary response focused on two technical challenges: the need to improve

snorkel detection by airborne radar and the need to improve the performance of surface ship sonars against faster, deeper diving targets. Snorkels presented a much smaller

radar cross section to a searching radar and were also harder to detect amongst sea

clutter, while the fixed “searchlight” sonars of World War II could not be trained fast

enough to keep up with a submarine moving at ten or fifteen knots. By 1950, the

APS-20 radar had recovered much of the detection range lost when snorkels first arrived, and the QHB scanning sonar had improved the ability of a surface ship to hold a

submerged contact, but the ASW situation remained troublesome, according to several

contemporary analyses of the problem.

THE THIRD BATTLE 15
For example, the Hartwell report noted that despite its success, the performance of the

APS-20 needed continued improvement because “we have no assurance that the ranges

we are now obtaining against our own snorkels and copies of the German snorkel can

be duplicated against the Soviet snorkel. Evidence regarding the efficacy of snorkel

camouflage is still fragmentary, but we feel that a moderately vigorous Russian effort to

exploit geometrical camouflage could probably reduce our range seriously. In the long

run, then, we see the radar-vs.-submarine contest as an unequal one, with the submarine eventually the winner.”

10 Similar pessimism attached to the active sonar-versussubmarine contest as well as to the equally important area of ASW weapons, where the

capabilities of the Soviet systems produced by the imaginations of American engineers

always exceeded the American systems actually available to counter them.

This pessimism helped leave the door ajar for other approaches to the ASW problem.

Thus, one of the major conclusions of the Hartwell report was that small, tactical nuclear weapons should be developed so that carrier aircraft could strike Soviet submarines in port at the source, a strategy which had failed in World War II because of the

fortifications produced by the Germans at their U-boat ports, which survived repeated

and massive attacks by even the largest conventional bombs. It also discussed the possibility of ASW submarines and fixed surveillance systems utilizing passive acoustics to

detect snorkeling submarines at long ranges of as much as 100 miles.

A More Radical Response to the Type XXI

Passive acoustic-based ASW methods grew out of discoveries about low-frequency

sound propagation in the sea made during and immediately after World War II. One

key discovery, made by Maurice Ewing and J. Lamar Worzel, was of a deep sound channel that trapped and focused low-frequency sound, allowing it to propagate over great

distances. It was abstracted as follows when first discussed in the open literature in 1948:

Experiments are described to demonstrate a new method of sonic signaling at extremely long ranges

in the oceans, utilizing the natural sound channel. Signals were made by causing a 4-lb. charge of TNT

to explode at about 4000-foot depth. These signals have the following qualities:

1) Extremely long-range transmission (probably 10,000 miles).

2) Signal is positively identifiable.

3) Abrupt termination of the signal allows the arrival time to be read with an accuracy better than

0.05 second. This permits location of the source to within a mile, if the signal is received at three

suitably located stations.

4) The relation of signal duration to distance is such that the distance may be estimated to 30 miles in

1000 from reception at a single station

The limitations are:

1. The great-circle path which the sound follows between source and receiver must lie entirely in

deep water (probably at least 1000 fathoms).

16 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
2. Sound travels in water at about 1 mile per second, so that the interval between the origin of the

signal and its reception becomes sufficiently great to be a handicap for some uses. . . .11

The so-called SOFAR (SOund Fixing And Ranging) channel was first used as a means

of locating downed aviators at sea,12 then as a missile impact location system,13 but its

most important application came in the form of SOSUS (SOund SUrveillance System),

the network of seabed listening arrays deployed by the Navy to listen for submarines in

the deep, SOFAR channel. SOSUS began as a crash program by Bell Labs in October

1950 under the direction of the Navy’s Office of Naval Research.

14

But even before SOSUS was developed, the submarine force had begun looking explicitly at the utility of ASW submarines, or SSKs, using passive, low-frequency acoustic

arrays. This effort began soon after World War II as part of a general search by the submarine force for new missions and was formalized under Project Kayo in 1949. Kayo

included the establishment of Submarine Development Group 2 (SubDevGru 2),

which was tasked with “solving the problem of using submarines to detect and destroy

enemy submarines.”

15 In 1952, the first submarines explicitly designed for that mission—SSKs 1-3—became available. Their key attribute was a big, low-frequency bow

array, the BQR-4. The first use of the BQR-4 in exercises produced stunning results. In

the words of K-1’s first skipper:

USS K-1, off Bermuda in 1952, picked up a snorkeling exercise submarine at 30 miles, a range previously unknown to me, its CO, and my fire control party. The K-1 stayed at battle stations for five

hours expecting every minute, after the first 15 minutes of tracking, for the bearing-rate to break and

the target to go by. Can you imagine it? JT ranges from 4000 to 10,000 yards until 1952: and then in

one Fleet exercise period, BQR-4 ranges out to 30 miles.16

This was the convergence zone phenomenon, another characteristic of low-frequency

sound propagation which led to concentric rings of increased sound pressure levels at

25 to 30-mile intervals around a sound source. With the ability to detect snorkelers at

one or even two convergence zones, SSKs could be used to form barriers off enemy

ports and across geographic choke points such as the Bear Island-Norway gap or the

Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap. Still, even with such long detection ranges, a barrier strategy would demand large numbers of submarines, and the K-1 and its two sisters were designed as mobilization ships to be produced in operationally significant

numbers only in war. Meanwhile, existing fleet boats were given SSK conversions, using

the somewhat less effective BQR-2.

The SSK led also to collaborative experiments with the maritime patrol VP community.

This in turn led to the formation of VP/SSK barriers where a line of SSKs made the initial detection and cued the faster VP aircraft for the actual prosecution and kill of the

contact. Such VP/SSK barriers were adopted in actual war plans during the early 1950s

and were still part of CINCLANT’s operational repertoire in October 1962, when a

THE THIRD BATTLE 17
sub-air barrier containing ten SSKs was established off Argentia, Newfoundland, during the Cuban Missile Crisis.17

The Lag in Soviet Submarine Development

Viewed over the same five-year period between the end of World War II and Korea, the

Soviet Navy’s exploitation of the Type XXI lagged significantly behind U.S. Navy intelligence forecasts, which initially foresaw in 1946 a force of 300 Soviet Type XXI equivalents by 1950.18 It was not until 1949 that the first postwar Soviet submarine designs

went to sea. Two classes were deployed, the Whiskey and the Zulu. The Zulu was a true

Type XXI, equipped with a snorkel, capable of 16 knots submerged, and possessing the

size, habitability, and range necessary for long-range, blue-water interdiction operations. But only 21 Zulus were commissioned between 1949 and 1958. During the same

period, 236 Whiskeys were commissioned, but the Whiskey was a smaller, less capable,

shorter-range boat, designed more with an eye toward coastal defense and European littoral operations. Furthermore, it was not until the mid-1950s that Whiskeys were even

given snorkels. Certainly the Soviet Navy was showing an emphasis on submarines during this period, but it deployed them neither in the numbers nor the quality expected.

This disconnect between the U.S. Navy’s expectations and actual Soviet naval behavior

helps to highlight several unexpected characteristics of the Navy’s ASW response to the

Soviet Type XXI threat during the first five years of the Third Battle. First, the fact that

there was a response at all is somewhat of a puzzle, given the prior record of interwar

ASW activity by the major Western navies. In a time of great budgetary scarcity and

with a relative lack of hard intelligence about the threat, the U.S. Navy had identified

ASW as one of its two most important missions and had taken steps in peacetime to

counter a new challenge in that mission area. Second, the nature of the first steps taken

to counter the new ASW challenge is also interesting in that those steps contained both

evolutionary and more innovative elements. The U.S. Navy did not simply attempt to

repair the damage done to its traditional air-surface ASW team by the Type XXI, but it

also explored new ASW techniques and new ASW platforms, prominent among these

being passive acoustics and the ASW submarine, or SSK. Third, by 1950 when the first

Soviet Type XXIs were being deployed, both the traditional and the more innovative

ASW approaches to this threat had already demonstrated considerable success. Thus,

even as traditional air-surface hunter killer groups and convoy escorts began to recover

some if not all of their capabilities against the snorkel boat, the submarine force was

leading in the development of another set of passive acoustic-based methods that

added a new tool to the ASW arsenal. This new tool grew dramatically in importance

during the next phase of the Third Battle.

18 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Phase II of the Third Battle

ASW and the Two Nuclear Revolutions, 1950–1960

The 1949–1950 time frame was arguably the most important period during the Third

Battle for three reasons. First, it was in 1949 that the Soviets exploded their first nuclear

weapon, well in advance of many American estimates of when that ominous event

would occur. This was the first nuclear revolution. The significance of this event for

ASW was that the submarine was an obvious delivery vehicle for nuclear weapons,

which made ASW even more important than Admiral Nimitz had said in 1946, because

ASW was now also an important element in the defense of the United States against

nuclear attack. Second, it was also in 1949 that the U.S. Navy decided to go ahead with

a project to develop the nuclear-powered submarine. This second nuclear revolution,

when adopted by the Soviet Navy, would pose an even more daunting ASW challenge

than had the Type XXI, making ASW much more difficult just as the first nuclear revolution was making ASW much more important. Third, it was in 1950 with the outbreak

of the Korean War that the U.S.-Soviet Cold War truly began. One consequence was a

permanent, fourfold increase in the steady-state level of defense spending that the United

States would maintain throughout the Cold War, a necessary but by no means sufficient

step towards toward fashioning a new ASW response to a much greater threat.

The body of this chapter will be devoted to a discussion of the significance for ASW of

the second revolution, the nuclear submarine. Before turning to that discussion, it is

important to explain the context established by the first Soviet nuclear detonation and

the Korean War.

The Submarine as a Nuclear Weapons Carrier

The first nuclear revolution subsumed ASW in the larger problem of protecting the

continental United States from nuclear attack. Strange as it may sound to a generation

of Americans used to concepts such as nuclear deterrence and mutual assured destruction, the early Cold War years were witness to many attempts to preserve the societal

invulnerability which geography and political isolation had bestowed on the United

CHAPTER THREE
States before the arrival of nuclear weapons. These attempts drew on national resources controlled by the highest political and military leaders, and when ASW became

associated with that effort, it also became a national mission.

Once again, the relative lack of intelligence about Soviet efforts to make submarines

into nuclear delivery vehicles did not prevent speculation that they were doing so.

Thus, in 1950, the CIA noted an unconfirmed report “that the only atomic bomb the

Soviets have been able to produce would have to be delivered by submarine.”

19 Indeed,

the U.S. Navy had already experimented successfully in 1947 with launching a V-1-type

cruise missile from the Cusk, a converted Gato-class diesel submarine. The success of

this experiment led to Regulus, a 400-mile, submarine-launched, nuclear cruise missile

that began flight tests in 1951. Similar experiments by the Soviets were reported by the

Office of Naval Intelligence during the 1950s, including conversions of Whiskeys into

cruise missile submarines (SSGs) and Zulus into ballistic missile submarines (SSBs).20

In the words of Project Nobska, a mid–1950s successor to the Project Hartwell study,

“Confronted with quiet submarines of long endurance, a sufficiently accurate means of

navigation, and suitable weapons, a defense against shore bombardment by submarines

becomes a huge problem. Even the partial defense of a long coastline requires a very

large effort.”

21

In the event, the first Soviet missile submarine deployments by Hotels (SSBNs) and

Golfs (SSBs) did not occur until the early 1960s, but it had already become U.S. national policy to counter such systems before they were deployed. For example, in discussions of whether it was necessary to speed up research and development on

strategic ASW at the outset of the Kennedy administration, existing national policy was

quoted as follows:

Until technology permits the deployment of an effective active defense against submarine-launched

ballistic missiles, the principal measures of protection should be provided by the capability to attack

prior to launch. . . . [Accordingly,] the United States should strive to achieve and maintain an effective

and integrated sea surveillance system that permits detection and tracking of surface ships and submarines operating within missile-launching range of the North American continent; and should improve

its related anti-submarine capability.22

Thus, the prospect of Soviet nuclear-armed SSGs and SSBs arose in American minds

soon after the first Soviet nuclear detonation, and this prospect elevated ASW to a mission of truly national importance during the 1950s. Because of Korea and the resources

it made available, the DOD-wide budgetary penury that had characterized the previous

five years also ended, and the services were able to fund projects which would have

been impossible otherwise.

20 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
The True Submarine

Yet the growing importance of ASW and the resources now available to invest in it do

not explain the roughly contemporary decision by the U.S. Navy to begin the naval reactor program. The decision in 1949, before Korea, to develop naval nuclear reactors

had multiple, independent origins, some of which are of no concern to this story. But

one important element in this decision concerned the obvious utility of a nuclear

power plant for the achievement of a true submarine. The pursuit of the true submarine, one that needed no umbilical to the surface and could remain completely submerged while on patrol, had been a dream of submarine designers from the days of the

Holland. On the other hand, the attraction of such a submarine to the U.S. submarine

force lay not in its utility for ASW but in the immunity it would grant that force to opposing ASW forces. USS Nautilus was certainly not conceived by the U.S. Navy as a

counter to the nuclear submarine. Instead, as its capabilities first became apparent,

Nautilus provided an indication of how difficult ASW would soon become when the

Soviets deployed their own nuclear submarines.

These fears were confirmed in 1955 when the U.S. Navy’s ASW forces first encountered

Nautilus in her initial post-commissioning exercises. In one such exercise her performance was described as follows:

Running at 24 knots and reattacking surface ships at will, she made simulated attacks on 16

ships. . . . On one occasion, she detected a carrier and her escorts steaming almost directly away at 20

knots. To reach an attacking position she steamed 219 nautical miles in 10.25 hours; 16 hours after

this attack, she struck a lone destroyer 240 nautical miles away.23

She was hard to find because she never had to snorkel and so fast that active sonars

could not keep their beams focused on her. Her speed and three dimensional maneuverability also allowed her to simply outrun existing homing torpedoes, the design basis threat for which was a snorkeling diesel traveling at no more than 8 knots and

maneuvering in only two dimensions. In short, she completely undermined almost all

the ASW progress made in the previous ten years to counter the Type XXI snorkel

boat. Key to this effort would be the more innovative approaches to ASW based on

passive acoustics.

Passive acoustics became so important because Nautilus was loud, and unlike dieselelectrics, which were only intermittently loud because of their periodic need to snorkel,

early nuclear submarines like Nautilus were loud all the time, particularly in the

low-frequency part of the sound spectrum, because of items like reactor coolant

pumps which operated continuously whenever the reactor was providing power, and

reduction gears, which were needed to reduce steam turbine shaft output revolutions.

This was a potential chink in the nuclear submarine’s armor, and it would quickly become the key to a completely revamped U.S. Navy ASW posture in which nuclear

THE THIRD BATTLE 21
submarines, long-range patrol aircraft, and SOSUS arrays would be the dominant

tools. Before describing the evolution of this posture, it is important to pause here for a

brief general description of passive acoustics and its role in ASW. Following that will be

sections devoted to the development during the mid and late 1950s of SOSUS, nuclear

submarines optimized for ASW, and long-range maritime patrol aircraft (VP) optimized for prosecuting SOSUS contacts. The last section will discuss the surface community’s ambivalent attitude toward the ASW challenge posed by nuclear submarines.

Passive Acoustics in ASW

Like radio and radar, sound occurs on a spectrum of frequencies.24 High-frequency,

short wavelength signals attenuate more quickly but can be detected with good angular

resolution by small antennas, while low-frequency, long wavelength signals propagate

further but require antennas with much larger apertures in order to achieve directional

reception. To detect a signal, it must be distinguishable from any background noise,

whether in the propagation medium, i.e., the ocean or in the receiver itself. The key

variable that determines whether detection occurs is the signal-to-noise ratio. There

are two basic approaches to maximizing the signal-to-noise ratios achieved by a

sonar—antenna gain and processing gain.

Because the optimum diameter or aperture of an antenna varies directly with wavelength, very low-frequency sound reception is maximized by antennas with very wide

apertures, which means that sonars designed to detect low frequency sound must be

large. This explains the big bow arrays on the early SSKs, and it also explains the use of

long line arrays for SOSUS. In the former case, the “gain” of the array was limited by

the need to fit it on the bow of a submarine, whereas in the latter case, fixed, ocean

floor arrays 1,000 feet in length were used, which maximized the antenna gain possible

against even the lowest frequency signals.

High gain antennas increase the signal-to-noise ratio by nulling out reception of noise

from all directions except that of the main beam of the antenna, but noise within the

main beam remains. Thus, even when the main beam of such an array is pointing directly

at a submarine, there is noise that competes with the submarine’s acoustic signature, and

at long ranges this noise can still mask the submarine signal and prevent detection. Further filtering of this noise depends on signal processing within the sonar itself.

This processing usually exploits the fact that a submarine’s signature contains both a

continuous, broadband spectrum of sound as well as discrete narrowband tonals at

specific frequencies along that spectrum that rise above it.25 These tonals are caused by

specific pieces of rotating machinery within the submarine, such as pumps, generators,

and gears, whereas the continuous broadband spectrum is caused primarily by flow

22 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
noise over the hull surface or by propeller cavitation. A submarine’s broadband signature resembles background noise in that it contains a continuous spectrum of frequencies within which sound source levels at particular frequencies rise and fall in random

fashion around a mean, over time. By contrast, the narrowband component of a submarine’s signature generates sound at several specific frequencies continuously. Thus,

compared to the background noise generated at these specific frequencies, which will

average out over time to x, the signal plus noise received at the tonal frequency will average out over time to x + y, with y being the source level of the signal. In order to listen for these specific tonals, a sonar is given a spectrum analyzer that passes an

incoming broadband signal through a set of narrowband filters tuned to the frequencies of interest. Narrowband processing will detect signal y as long as it remains high

enough to be reliably distinguished from the background noise x.26 When first used in

the early 1950s, it was given the name LOFAR (LOw Frequency Analysis and Ranging).

The significance of LOFAR was that it provided an additional, very powerful tool for

increasing acoustic signal-to-noise ratios. For example, at close range, a simple sonar

will detect a submarine’s broadband signal simply by pointing the main beam of its antenna at the submarine. The sonar is measuring all the sound it receives in a given direction, including both signal and background noise, and as it points in the direction

of the target, the signal increases. As the range to the opposing submarine is increased,

the relative strength of this broadband signature compared to the broadband background noise declines until it is drowned out and the signal-to-noise ratio drops below

the detection threshold.

Using LOFAR, the same sonar would filter out most of the sound received by its main

beam and focus only on those low-frequency tonals where the submarine’s source levels were highest. In those narrow frequency bins, the part of the submarine’s sound signature that propagates furthest is competing only with the background noise that

exists at that frequency rather than the entire broadband noise spectrum, and the sonar

can therefore detect that narrow component of the submarine’s overall sound spectrum at much greater ranges before noise drowns it out.

The effectiveness of passive sonars depends also on the relative position of the sound

source and the sonar, and on the self-noise generated by the sonar platform. In the first

case, the important variable is the existence of layers in the ocean which both reflect

and absorb sound that strikes them at any but the steepest angles. In particular, there is

normally a so-called surface layer ranging from several tens to several hundred feet

deep, depending on location and seasonal variations. Most sound generated above this

layer stays trapped above it and rapidly attenuates as it bounces back and forth between

the surface and the layer itself. Only the sound that strikes the layer at a steep angle

THE THIRD BATTLE 23
penetrates it. In deep water, this sound is then captured and focused by the SOFAR

channel. A passive sonar below the layer is therefore far more effective than one that is

above the layer, because the signal it seeks to detect will travel much further. Convergence zones, where sound from the SOFAR channel returns and is focused at the surface at approximately 25-mile intervals, are an important exception to this rule, and it

is also possible to cover the area between the limit of direct path propagation and the

first convergence zone using bottom bounce techniques.27

Self-noise is also an important issue for sonar effectiveness for obvious reasons. Any

sonar attached to a loud platform will perform less well than the same sonar attached

to a quiet one. This is true regardless of whether one is seeking broadband or

narrowband detections. Self-noise can be minimized both by reducing speed and

through explicit attempts to design a more quiet platform. The methods used to quiet

sonar platforms become more elaborate later in this story, but low speed was a factor

from the beginning. Furthermore, speed and depth variations between target and

source can reinforce each other.

Thus, one key to the passive acoustic approach to ASW at the outset of the Third Battle

was the fact that Soviet diesel subs snorkeled on their diesels at 8 knots during long

transits to and from ocean patrol areas. At speeds lower than 8 knots, the time spent in

transit would simply grow too long, but while traveling near the surface at 8 knots and

above, submarine propellers cavitate. By contrast, an SSK patrolling on battery at depth

in the path of the snorkeler would neither be cavitating nor putting diesel machinery

noise into the water, which would both maximize its detection range and minimize its

counter-detection range. Under that particular set of circumstances, the SSK would

have a formidable acoustic advantage.

To return to the ASW challenge posed by nuclear weapons and the nuclear submarine,

passive acoustics, both broadband and narrowband, became an important element of

the response in three areas—ocean surveillance, submarine versus submarine operations, and maritime patrol (VP) operations. Ocean surveillance for ASW was revolutionized by the development and deployment of SOSUS. Submarine versus submarine

ASW underwent a similar revolution as a result of the rapid development and deployment of the Thresher, the first quiet nuclear submarine. And finally, the VP community

underwent a revolution when it shifted from operations cued by HF/DF that used

radar to search for surfaced or snorkeling submarines, to operations in which SOSUS

provided the cueing data and acoustic sonobuoys were used to search the datum for

submerged submarines.

24 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Ocean Surveillance

SOSUS was initially developed to provide warning of Soviet submarines approaching

the continental United States. Two groups led the initial developments: Project Jezebel

at Bell Labs, and Project Michael at Columbia University’s Hudson Lab.

28 The first test

SOSUS array was installed by Western Electric at Eleuthera in the Bahamas in 1951. Its

success led to a decision in 1952 to install arrays along the entire eastern seaboard, followed by a decision in 1954 to do the same along the Pacific coast and off Hawaii. By

1958, these efforts were completed, and in 1959, an array was installed off Argentia,

Newfoundland.

SOSUS arrays consisted of hydrophones spaced along undersea cables laid at the axis of

the deep sound channel roughly normal to the direction that the array was to listen.

The cables were brought ashore at Naval Facilities (or NavFacs), where the signals they

received were processed. Evaluation centers were established to assess the processed

data from the NavFacs and combine it with other surveillance information, such as

from HF/DF nets.

SOSUS was designed to maximize detection ranges of the low-frequency part of a submarine’s spectrum. Deployed at the axis of the SOFAR channel, the arrays were optimally located to exploit its focusing effects. Their 1,000-foot apertures maximized array

gain against even the lowest frequencies. And finally, SOSUS was the first ASW system to

fully exploit narrowband signal analysis in order to maximize processing gain.

Initially, SOSUS was begun on the basis of experiments against surface ships in which

broadband, low-frequency cavitation was detected at ranges of roughly 100 miles.29 The

introduction of narrowband signal processing gave the same arrays detection ranges

that could extend clear across entire ocean basins under some circumstances. LOFAR

also allowed for more sophisticated tracking techniques. For example, two of the most

important tonals in a submarine’s signature were those modulated by the propeller at

the rate at which its blades turned and those associated with particular items of rotating machinery. Blade rate tonals were usually slightly lower in frequency than machinery tonals, and both were usually aspect dependent and speed dependent. Taken

together, these gave SOSUS the ability to detect and classify targets at extreme ranges

and to track them over time. SOSUS’ ability to locate targets depended on a variety of

factors, including the range of the detection, the number of separate arrays providing a

bearing to the same target, and the length of the baseline separating them. Under the

best of circumstances, SOSUS cued operational forces to probability areas, or SPAs, in

which the tactical ASW asset then had to search for and reacquire the contact. SPAs

could be very large, particularly when they were relatively distant from the nearest

array, meaning that successful SOSUS cueing was not automatic. In addition, there was

THE THIRD BATTLE 25
a fairly high false alarm rate, meaning that ASW assets often spent considerable time

“prosecuting” merchant ships and marine life.

SOSUS became a part of a larger ocean surveillance system, and inputs from other elements of this system remained important to the ASW problem. Certainly, HF/DF remained an important component of the ocean surveillance system, though unlike

SOSUS, details about HF/DF and other forms of signals intelligence (SIGINT) during

the Cold War remain classified.30 The timely fusion of all of these inputs and diffusion

of the resulting operation intelligence to the operating forces remained as important in

the Third Battle as it had been in the Second Battle, where success had ultimately depended on organizations like the U.S. Navy’s Tenth Fleet.31 Yet, as in the Second Battle,

effective ocean surveillance systems did not guarantee tactical success.

The Submarine as an ASW Platform

At the tactical level, as was discussed in the previous section, the submarine force was

the first community to fully embrace the passive acoustic approach to ASW. The development of this approach during the 1950s culminated in the deployment in 1960 of

the Thresher/Permits, the first quiet nuclear submarines. The Permits brought together

in one platform what had initially been three largely independent strands of development in the submarine force.

First, the submarine force had emerged from World War II victorious but without a

new enemy. The Soviet Union was a continental power which did not rely on the sea,

and it lacked both a large surface navy and an oceangoing merchant marine. Therefore,

the beginning of the Third Battle saw the U.S. submarine force searching for new missions, including troop carriers, radar pickets, SSGs, and SSBs. By 1949, with the formal

establishment of Project Kayo, ASW was included among the potential new missions,

and SSKs became a part of the initial response to the Type XXI threat.

The idea behind an SSK was to put the biggest, low-frequency array on the bow of the

smallest, simplest submarine and send it forward to form barriers at choke points

across the transit routes of Soviet XXIs leaving and returning from Murmansk and

Vladivostok. The concept of operation was for the barrier to have SSKs spaced one or

two convergence zones apart, such that each could cover its assigned station while essentially hovering on battery, providing the optimum conditions for maximum passive

array performance. This generated a requirement for an enormous number of submarines, which explained the desire for a simple design that could be mass produced, the

idea being that there would still be a mobilization approach to achieving the necessary

number of ASW assets, as there had been in the past.

26 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
The first nuclear revolution helped to bury this concept, since countering nucleararmed Soviet submarines would clearly require an adequate ASW capability when war

began. But the potential value of the submarine as an ASW platform remained, and

SubDevGru 2 retained its mission of fulfilling this promise.

The second axis of submarine development focused on the search for new power plant

technologies that would enable the true submarine—one that was completely independent from the surface. The desire for a true submarine grew at least partly out of

the submarine force’s reaction to what had occurred during the Second Battle in the

Atlantic. There, the Allies had marshaled ASW forces far in excess of both the numbers

and the capabilities the Japanese had deployed during the war in the Pacific. Likewise,

in response, the Germans had developed new technologies which resulted in submarines far superior to all those that had preceded them, primarily by approaching closer

to the ideal of the true submarine. This included both the Type XXI and the more exotic Type XXVI Walther boat, which introduced the first truly air-independent propulsion (AIP) plant using hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer. The U.S. submarine force was

therefore quite interested in giving its own forces capabilities like these, even though

their purpose was not always clear, except as a target against which friendly ASW forces

could exercise. At any rate, one key to a true submarine was AIP, and the submarine

force experimented with both Walther plants and, more importantly, nuclear power.

The second key was a hull form designed for high-speed, submerged operation in three

dimensions, rather than surfaced or near-surface operations in two.

Nuclear power was rapidly chosen as the optimum propulsion plant for a true submarine, and its first deployment on Nautilus helped spur a new phase of the Third Battle.

But nuclear power did not begin life as an ideal power plant for an ASW submarine.

Certainly, Nautilus was much louder than an SSK on its battery under all circumstances, and this asymmetry appeared at least initially to be inherent to the technology,

given the need for reactor coolant pumps and other such machinery to be kept running

at all times. Here, for example, is Project Nobska’s view of this question in December 1956:

The reactor art is also likely to continue to move ahead rapidly, but it should be emphasized that until

nuclear plants can be made quiet, they are not necessarily the optimum propulsion system for the true

submarine. Any system of reasonable endurance that does not require air and that is really quiet could

be a strong competitor.32

Or later in the same report, with specific reference to the ASW mission:

Since the submarine is an excellent mobile sonar platform, maximum advantage should be taken of it

as an ASW vehicle. We feel that the effectiveness of the submarine in this mission will be limited

largely by the noise which it produces. Therefore, our first suggested pre-prototype is a submarine in

which quietness of operation is made an over-riding consideration. As a point of departure this might

be considered as a pre-prototype embodying size, speed, and equipment suitable for an SSK mission.33

THE THIRD BATTLE 27
As with the earlier SSKs, another emphasis beyond quieting was on cost and ease of

production in order to achieve sufficient numbers in peacetime, and nuclear power

complicated that objective as well.

The point in these examples is that nuclear power began as a means of achieving the

true submarine, a basic technological objective that transcended the requirements of

any particular mission and which almost constituted an end in itself. Ironically, given

what lay in the future, the fit between nuclear power and ASW was not a natural one.

More advanced underwater hull forms were the subject of the Albacore experiment, an

FY 50 initiative designed to look at the control problems that would arise if submarines

adopted hydrodynamically efficient, single-body-of-revolution hulls. So-called teardrop hulls with single screws were clearly the way toward maximum submerged speed,

but designers had no way of knowing how to control them. Albacore was an experiment designed to answer this question and to determine whether teardrop hulls could

be adopted for submarines with AIP plants—whether nuclear or closed cycle. Albacore

was also the first U.S. submarine to use high yield (HY80) steel in her hull.

The third axis of submarine development during the first years of the Third Battle was

less ambitious technically than the previous two, and sought simply to integrate Type

XXI technology into a multipurpose diesel submarine that would constitute the near

term backbone of the U.S. submarine force. The main challenge here was budgets. Even

after Korea, the submarine force did not immediately benefit from the resulting surge

in defense spending, as was demonstrated by the relatively small building program for

new diesel attack boats begun in the first decade of the Third Battle. Only ten new

diesel attack boats were purchased by the U.S. Navy through fiscal year 1956, six Tangs,

one Darter, and three Barbels. The Tang class was an explicit attempt to improve on the

Type XXI, and they were funded with high priority in FY48–49 with the support of the

rest of the Navy, due to the need for modern ASW targets.

The main element of the force structure consisted of conversions. The GUPPY (greater

underwater propulsion power) was an extensive conversion that gave fleet boats a snorkel, a more streamlined hull, much greater battery capacity, and a BQR-2. There were a

total of fifty GUPPY conversions made between 1946 and 1960. The GUPPY SSKs were

the best that the submarine force could do and still maintain a reasonable force structure. As late as 1965, there were still forty-eight SSKs in the force structure compared to

twenty-four SSNs.34 Compared to the BQR-4 SSK conversions, the GUPPYs traded

some long-range detection capability for a greater probability of closing and attacking

the targets they did detect, due to their greater underwater speed and endurance.35

The SSKs can be considered the submarine force’s response to the Soviet Type XXI

threat, designed as they were to counter a snorkeling sub on a long-range transit. As

28 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
such, they constituted a major innovation in their own right. But the main point of describing diesel boat development in the submarine force is to establish a baseline to

compare developments before and after the two nuclear revolutions. After 1955, there

was an explosion of development in the submarine force, leading to the combination

of the ASW submarine, the true submarine, and the multipurpose submarine into one

dominant platform, the quiet, multipurpose SSN. During the same period, albeit as a

result of pressure from outside the submarine force, Polaris ballistic missiles were developed for deployment on SSBNs based on modified SSN designs. Finally, with the focus on SSNs and SSBNs, the submarine force dropped its experimentation with other

missions, including using the submarine as a radar picket for carrier battle groups and

as launchers for the already developed Regulus cruise missile, which, in addition to several SSRs and SSGs, resulted in only one SSRN and one SSGN ever being deployed,

USS Triton and USS Halibut.

36 Because of the national priority behind the Polaris program, nuclear submarine production initially focused on SSBNs, but a class of quiet,

multipurpose SSNs still began deployment in 1960.

The initially independent steps toward this grand synthesis were the Tang (SS), the Albacore, the Nautilus, and the three SSKs, all of which were funded by FY52, before

Korea, in a time of great budgetary scarcity. Seawolf was funded a year after Nautilus in

FY53 as the platform to test a liquid metal-cooled reactor, which promised higher

power densities than pressurized water. No submarines were authorized in FY54, and

then four Skates (SSN) were authorized in FY55–56. The Skate class was a modest evolution on the basic Nautilus design. FY56 also saw three Barbels (SS) authorized. The

Barbels combined the multipurpose orientation of the Tang with the first operational

use of the Albacore teardrop hull form. In September 1955, after Nautilus’s initial exercises, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke declared that all further American submarines would be nuclear submarines, and the FY57 program contained five

SSNs. These became the Skipjacks which first combined the Albacore hull with nuclear

power and are reputed to be the first submarines to exceed 30 knots. In FY58, the USS

Tullibee (SSKN) was funded along with three other SSNs, which originally were to be

modified Skipjacks but which eventually became the all new Thresher class.

Tullibee combined the ASW focus of the SSKs with the smallest nuclear reactor then

feasible, with an eye toward a relatively cheap, dedicated ASW asset that could be deployed in the numbers still considered necessary to fully populate the forward barriers.

Compared to the 15,000 SHP S5W type reactor of a Skipjack, Tullibee had a 2,500 SHP

reactor and turbo-electric drive.37 She could barely make 20 knots, but she lacked the

reduction gears whose loud tonals made prior SSNs so easy for SOSUS to detect at extreme range. She also continued the tradition established by the BQR-4 equipped SSKs

THE THIRD BATTLE 29
by mounting a large, bow-mounted, passive, low-frequency array, the BQR-7. On

Tullibee, the BQR-7 was wrapped around the first spherical active sonar, the BQS-6,

and together they formed the first integrated sonar system, the BQQ-1. As an ASW

platform, her performance was unmatched, but almost as soon as the decision to deploy Tullibee was made, a further decision was made to avoid specialized platforms and

pursue instead a multipurpose SSN that best combined the speed of Skipjack and the

ASW capability of Tullibee into one platform. This became the USS Thresher.

All subsequent U.S. submarine classes derive from the Thresher class, sometimes referred to as the Permit class after the lead ship was lost in 1963. Both Tullibee and the

Threshers were also the first submarines designed explicitly for ASW against nuclear

submarines. The key was quieting. Tullibee represented an attempt to eliminate the

sources of noise in the submarine, while Thresher represented an effort to insulate that

noise from the hull and the water beyond. The basic solution adopted in the latter case

was rafting, whereby the engineering plant of the submarine, containing all or most of

its rotating machinery, was placed on a flexible mount or raft within the submarine.

This dramatically reduced the amplitude of the mechanical vibrations coupling to the

hull, and therefore the sound that was put into the water. It also drove up the size of

the hull and, as a consequence, propelled by the same S5W as the Skipjack, Thresher

lost a few knots of top end speed. Rafting and other quieting technologies also drove

up the cost of the submarine, partly due to the increase in size, but also due to the

fiendish engineering problems associated with requirements like circulating water at

great pressure from outside the hull into the ship through flexible piping.

The benefit was a dramatic acoustic advantage over the prior Skipjacks and the Skates,

and more to the point, the Soviet HENS—the Hotels (SSBN), Echos (SSGN), and

Novembers (SSN) which began deploying alongside the Threshers in the early 1960s.

Furthermore, this was a broadband acoustic advantage, which is to say that LOFAR remained a non-standard element of the U.S. submarine fleet’s sonar suites until much

later in the 1960s.38 With the BQQ-1, which was designed in 1958, initial detections at

the convergence zones were possible either with the BQR-7 using low frequency broadband starting at 150 Hz, or with the BQS-6. The higher frequency BQS-6 would then

track the target through bottom bounce range into direct path, where a fire control solution could be made.

Torpedoes were the big remaining question mark in submarine versus submarine ASW

for the U.S. submarine force. When the threat had been a snorkeling diesel, the ASW

torpedo problem was not severe in that it was slow and two dimensional, akin to attacking a very loud surface ship moving at 8–12 knots. Thus, the first submarinelaunched, passive homing torpedo, the 16-knot Mk. 27-4, deployed in 1949, was

30 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
effective in exercises both against snorkelers and fully submerged subs on battery as

long as they did not exceed 10 knots.39 In 1956, the 26-knot Mk. 37 followed. In general, a torpedo needs to be 1.5 times faster than its prey to assure that the latter will not

have the ability to outrun it under some circumstances, which means that Whiskeys and

Zulus surprised by a Mk. 27 while snorkeling would have been fair game and would have

been vulnerable to a Mk. 37 under all circumstances. A 25–30 knot nuclear submarine

was a different proposition. It would ideally require a high speed homing torpedo capable of 45 knots, something which was not provided until the Mk. 48’s deployment in

1972. In the interim, two alternatives were pursued, one tactical and one technical.

The technical solution was to use nuclear torpedoes (Mk. 45) and later rocket-propelled

nuclear depth charges (SUBROC). This was one of the major recommendations of the

1956 Nobska report, but it was never the optimal solution for the Navy, which preferred a conventional solution. This led to the tactical solution, which was to use the

formidable acoustic advantage to obtain firing positions for the Mk. 37, whose geometry both minimized the chances of detection of the torpedo launch by the target, and

the chances that the target could escape, even if it did detect the torpedo in the water.

Innovations in Air ASW

The VP community was a close second behind the submarine force in embracing the

passive acoustic approach to ASW. Unlike the submarine force, the VP community was

a major member of the ASW team that fought the Second Battle. After the war, it was

part of the traditional response to the Type XXI threat mounted by that team. Thus, for

the first five years after the war, the VP community continued its focus on the concept

of operations in which SIGINT cueing was used to vector radar-equipped aircraft to

surfaced or snorkeling submarines, where they would be attacked by acoustic homing

torpedoes derived from the World War II Mk. 24. The main challenge to this approach

posed by the Type XXI was its snorkel, which reduced radar detection ranges, so the

major technical effort mounted by the air ASW community during this period was the

large APS-20 radar, which by 1950 had recovered much of the detection range originally lost to the snorkel, but was not too big to be carried by long-range VP aircraft.

The embrace of passive acoustics by the VP community grew in stages and is largely a

story of sonobuoy development. The first attempt to use sonobuoys came early in

World War II and saw them as a ship-launched device to warn of U-boats closing a

convoy from the rear. Developed by RCA (Radio Corporation of America) at the direction of the National Defense Research Council (NDRC), they were not adopted, but the

technology was then used to solve another problem, the high false alarm rate experienced by blimps used in coastal ASW patrols using MADs as their primary search sensor. Again, sonobuoys were never actually adopted for this purpose, but were then used

THE THIRD BATTLE 31
by the Army in experiments where they were dropped by aircraft into the wakes of recently submerged submarines. These experiments were successful enough to cause the

Army Air Forces to order 6,410 sonobuoys in 1942. These became the AN/CRT-1, and

this interest by the Army caused the Navy to reconsider its position on sonobuoys, and

by 1944 the Navy had ordered 59,700 of them.

After the war, sonobuoy development was largely put on the shelf with the exception of

the omnidirectional SSQ-2, which first deployed in 1950, but which suffered through

serious reliability problems for several years. In the years when the submarine force

was first experimenting with SSKs carrying large, bow-mounted, low-frequency arrays,

the potential role of passive acoustics in VP operations was less clear. Omnidirectional

buoys like the SSQ-2 could detect targets at reasonable range but without the bearing

resolution necessary for localization and attack, and the development of directional

buoys had proven quite problematic. Thus, sonobuoys remained useful as a tool for classification, but were not yet ready to replace radar as the primary air ASW search sensor.

This began to change with the development of SOSUS, for several reasons. SOSUS and

the low-frequency detection and signal-processing advances associated with it led both

to a demand for better air ASW capabilities and the means to achieve them. The demand was for a means of quickly prosecuting a SOSUS detection before the contact

grew stale, and the solution was to give VP aircraft the ability to search SOSUS probability areas and localize submarines within them using passive acoustics. The first answer to this tactical challenge was Jezebel/Codar/Julie, which were different signal

processing techniques used with the same low-frequency sonobuoys for search and localization respectively. The first LF sonobuoy was the omnidirectional SSQ-23 deployed in 1957. Jezebel applied LOFAR processing to the output of an SSQ-23, which

suddenly gave buoys extraordinary initial detection ranges, albeit with little or no bearing or range resolution. Codar was a means of passive localization of the LOFAR contact, while Julie was active.

Codar used two precisely spaced SSQ-23s to detect and correlate broadband LF signals

using the time difference of arrival method. When successful, the first Codar pair gave

an ambiguous bearing, and at least one other pair of buoys was necessary to resolve the

bearing ambiguity. Julie used explosive sound sources called practice depth charges

(PDCs). After planting an array of SSQ-23s, the aircraft would “bomb” each buoy with a

PDC until it received an echo return. After localization using either or both methods, the

aircraft would seek MAD contact as the final step before release of a homing torpedo.

The weak link in this chain was localization. As a broadband system, Codar lacked

Jezebel’s range and often failed to detect the target that Jezebel had initially acquired.

Even when it did, it took time for the four buoys to be placed, and against diesels, this

32 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
time often exceeded the snorkel period. Once the target was on battery, Codar became

much less effective and the target would often be lost. As an active system, Julie was

equally effective against snorkelers and subs on battery, but it had even less range than

Codar, which made Julie localizations of Jezebel detections equally difficult.

Jezebel, Codar, and Julie demanded great skill of their operators, and normal personnel

rotation policies therefore made it difficult for the average crew to gain and retain these

skills. This was one of the impetuses behind the establishment of Task Force Delta in

1961, which sought to do for the VP/SOSUS ASW team what Project Kayo and

SubDevGru 2 had done for submarine versus submarine ASW. Select crews in TF Delta

would be immersed in the challenge of coordinating VP operations with SOSUS and

mastering Jezebel/Codar/Julie. They would then be spread amongst the various fleet

VP squadrons. TF Delta would also experiment with new tactics and new technologies.

Jezebel/Codar/Julie was useful in other air ASW missions as well, and it played a role

both in the VP-SSK forward barriers as well as in coordinated air-surface,

Hunter-Killer (HUK) group operations. Thus, carrier-based VS squadrons flying the

S-2 also adopted these techniques.

The deployment of the Thresher and the establishment of Task Force Delta in 1961

were the culmination of a decade of experimentation and development of passive

acoustic ASW methods. At the same time, the evolution of the more traditional radar

and active sonar-based methods used during the Second Battle continued. This line of

development was centered in the destroyer and carrier-based air ASW communities,

commonly organized for ASW purposes into a Hunter-Killer (HUK) group consisting

of an aircraft carrier, its air wing, and a destroyer squadron.

The Evolution of Traditional ASW Methods

HUK groups had first been used in World War II, both as a means of closing the North

Atlantic air gap and as a means of attacking U-boat concentrations revealed by Ultra

decryptions and HF/DF. Special escort carriers (CVEs) were developed to support

these groups, whose air wings consisted of naval attack aircraft converted to the ASW

role. After the war, the Navy retained HUK groups in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Their operational focus lay in three distinct ASW tasks: offensive area search based on

offboard cueing, screening for carrier battle groups or amphibious task forces, and

convoy escort. In 1958, the Navy took the additional step of permanently assigning one

HUK group the task of accelerating tactical development and increasing readiness in

each of these three ASW mission areas. These groups were named Task Force Alfa,

Bravo, and Charlie respectively.

THE THIRD BATTLE 33
There are three strands to the story of the World War II ASW team which continued

from the first phase of the Third Battle into the second one. The first two involve the

evolution of the two platform communities, air and surface, while the third involves

the evolution of their operation together as a team in the HUKs.

The evolution of the carrier-based, fixed-wing air ASW community (VS) during the

first two phases of the Third Battle is the shortest story, because it merges beginning in

the late 1950s with the developments in the VP community described in the previous

section. Prior to that point, the developments unique to the VS community had been

dominated by the pursuit of a better snorkel detection radar. This search was complicated by the need to mate that radar with an aircraft compatible with the relatively

small and slow World War II ASW carriers.

The first solution to this tradeoff was the AF-2W (with radar) and the AF-2S (with

weapons) hunter-killer team in which the hunter aircraft carried an APS-20, while the

killer carried everything else, including a smaller radar, ECM, sonobuoys, and torpedoes. The team tactics generated by this pairing could be effective but demanded high

crew skills and became difficult under many weather conditions, particularly for the

killer aircraft. A presentation at the May 1952 undersea warfare symposium describes

these tactics:

(1) The search plane obtains radar contact (2) It gives the attack plane a vector (3) The attack plane

steers the heading (4) It descends to attack altitude of about 300 feet (5) Attack radar is energized

when target is at 5 or 6 miles (6) Circuits energized for weapon release—bomb bay doors open (7)

Sonobuoy circuit energized (8) At one mile, searchlight on—pilot still flying on instruments at 300

feet (9) Target detected by searchlight operator/bombardier (10) Target identified (11) Torpedo away

(12) Pilot drops buoys and sea markers over submarine position—listens for explosion/cavitation

sounds (13) Wire recorder turned on to record sounds (14) Pilot completes sonobuoy pattern in case

it becomes necessary to track submerged submarine.40

Though the team approach had advantages, including the fact that it allowed a more

effective search radar, the disadvantages in terms of cost, all-weather capability, and dependence on radio led to a “single package” aircraft, the S-2F.

The S-2F was the first purpose-designed VS aircraft. It had a crew of four, an APS-33

X-band radar, and a smaller but similar payload as compared to its VP contemporary,

the P-2V. It sacrificed some snorkel detection capability in higher sea states for the advantages described above. In addition, since the APS-20 was also used by air defense

early warning aircraft, which a larger CVS would also normally deploy, the single package aircraft might still benefit from APS-20 cueing.

The APS-20 versus “single package” debate was rendered somewhat moot by the development in the mid-1950s of Jezebel/Julie, which promised a strong complement to the

34 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
radar for search. Thus, S-2Fs began adopting Jezebel/Julie alongside the VP community, and the sensor/weapon development paths of those two communities began to

merge by the end of the 1950s.

The air ASW picture described above was far from sufficient to address even the Type

XXI threat by itself much less the nuclear threat. At every stage of the generic air ASW

engagement described above, the submarine might take countermeasures that would

be effective in ending the engagement, or at least in forcing its repetition over many iterations. At the very outset, a submarine’s ECM receiver was likely to detect the APS-20

at least one and a half times the range that the latter was likely to detect the submarine’s snorkel. Given such warning, it would submerge, and the engagement would be

returned to the search phase. In general, at any point in the engagement right up until

just before weapon release, the submarine could submerge and usually get away. This

was due to the almost complete inability of the air ASW community to detect a fully

submerged submarine on battery. This was a tactical situation that demanded an active

sonar, but fixed-wing ASW aircraft were not effective active ASW platforms, and even

with Jezebel/Codar/Julie, which could detect a nuclear submarine, the tactical problem

of the very quiet battery boat remained unsolved.

This is the all-important role that the destroyer (DD) community had played during

the latter years of World War II and would continue to play most prominently as the

other half of the HUKs, which each contained a destroyer squadron as well as a CVS.

The key to this air-surface team approach was that a properly designed destroyer would

be able to hold and track a submerged submarine on battery with its active sonar if it

could be brought within the detection range of that sonar. Thus, the tactic that evolved

was for the VS community to respond to all radar or ECM contacts and attempt at a

minimum to classify them and, if they were submarines, stop them from snorkeling.

This limited the submarine’s rate of advance and kept it from fully recharging its battery. Most important though were two other results of such a classification. It would allow the protected asset, a carrier battle group for example, to take evasive action, and it

would also constitute a datum toward which destroyers might converge. Over time, after several snorkel periods in succession in which such a datum was refreshed from the

air, a track would develop and sufficient time would pass for the destroyers to close the

target, at which point it might be attacked immediately or held down and trailed continuously until its battery was exhausted.

The other role for destroyers was to form active sonar screens around task forces or

convoys. These inner screens relied on active sonar because passive sonar would be

swamped by all the noise generated near a group of surface ships, and because the

screen had to move at the speed of advance of the protected asset, which in the case of

THE THIRD BATTLE 35
a carrier would usually be above 20 knots, exceeding the tactical speed of any passive sonar platform. In both roles, the destroyer would benefit from longer range active sonar

and, as with the submarine force, this drove the surface community toward larger, lowfrequency arrays, but it proved more difficult for the surface force to get long-range active

sonar than it was for the submarine force to get long-range passive sonar.

As with radar, active sonar depends on receiving an echo from the target, which means

that the signal travels twice as far as with a passive system, which in turn means that

there are greater propagation losses and therefore inherently shorter detection ranges

for any active system compared to a passive system, all other things being equal. Furthermore, all other things were not equal, and the DD community faced four other obstacles in its quest for better sonar.

First, destroyers operated above the isothermal surface layer, and much of the energy

from their active sonar remained trapped in that layer where propagation losses were

high and detection ranges were limited to the direct path. Second, the hull-mounted

active sonar arrays were exposed both to the turbulent flow of the hull and to machinery noise within the hull. Third, and perhaps most important, low-frequency, active

sonar arrays were large enough and required enough power that they established a

lower bound on the size of the ship that could carry them. For example, World War II

fleet boats could be converted into SSKs with a convergence zone detection capability

with the addition of a passive BQR-2 array, but as it would turn out, World War II destroyers could not be given an active sonar with a convergence zone range because the

first system with that capability, the SQS-26, was too large.

Four generations of active sonar were developed for the DD community between the

late 1940s and 1960. The QHB was the first scanning sonar, operating at 25 kHz using a

19-inch diameter transducer and giving a range of about 1,800 yards at 20 knots in

1950.41 By 1959, the SQS-4 operating at 15 kHz needed an array 4 to 5 feet in diameter,

but was achieving maximum detection ranges of 8,000 yards. The SQS-23, first deployed in 1958 and operating at 5 kHz, required a transducer 8 feet in diameter. The

expected payoff for such a large array was direct path detection ranges of no more than

10,000 yards and the possibility of bottom bounce detections that would finally eliminate the constraint of operating within the surface layer.

The SQS-23 encountered serious problems during its first decade in operational use

and was never able to reliably achieve bottom bounce detection ranges, though it did

extend direct path ranges out to the point where the destroyer once again became

weapon limited rather than sensor limited in a tactical engagement against a submerged diesel on battery.

42 The SQS-23 was also too large to be fitted to all but the largest fleet destroyers of World War II, and the anticipated follow-on to the SQS-23, the

36 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
3.5 kHz SQS-26, made matters even worse with an even larger transducer and greater

power requirements. This demonstrated that new construction was going to be necessary to create an adequate surface ASW platform. Starting in 1960, seventy-five SQS-26

ships were authorized of the Bronstein (2), Brooke (10), Garcia (10), and Knox (46)

classes, as well as eleven cruisers, including the nine Belknaps, but the SQS-26 also experienced problems similar to the SQS-23 and was not fully accepted for service use by

the Navy until 1968.43

Limited through the 1960s to the direct path detection ranges of the SQS-23 and the

SQS-26 before its bugs were worked out, the destroyer community still had trouble developing weapons and fire control systems that could track and attack high speed contacts at the ranges that SQS-23/26 detected them. ASROC and DASH were alternative

solutions to this problem. ASROC was a rocket that carried either a nuclear depth

charge or a homing torpedo, while DASH was a small, unmanned helicopter. ASROC

proved more reliable in operational use than DASH, but was limited to direct path

ranges and would not be adequate when bottom-bounce (BB) and convergence-zone

(CZ) sonars became available. DASH was designed with an eye toward these latter capabilities, but when they finally became available in the late 1960s, a manned helicopter

proved a more reliable solution. Backing up ASROC and DASH, destroyers also deployed launchers for homing torpedoes to be used only at very close range in

self-defense.

In order to achieve the minimum numbers believed necessary for its surface ASW

force, the Navy chose in 1958 to modernize existing World War II destroyers by giving

them the maximum ASW suite that would fit in their hulls. Known as the Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) program, FRAM I saw seventy-nine Gearing

class DDs given SQS-23, ASROC/DASH, and Mk. 111 digital fire control, while FRAM

II saw fifty-two Sumner/Fletchers given a more austere suite including SQS-4, DASH,

and an SQS-9 variable depth sonar (VDS).

This represented an evolutionary development path focused on an active acoustic approach to the ASW problem. This path began when the threat was a Type XXI. Against

that threat, the active acoustic approach complemented other techniques. For example,

active acoustics was not the best way to detect snorkelers, but it was the only way to detect a Type XXI once it was on battery. This was the rationale behind the hold-down

tactics pursued by the HUK groups, where aircraft detected snorkelers and surface

ships held them down once they had submerged and tracked them until they exhausted

their batteries. But hold-down tactics based on active sonar did not work against

nuclear submarines. Because of their speed in all three dimensions and their underwater endurance, nuclear submarines could usually either outrun a surface ship if they

THE THIRD BATTLE 37
wanted to escape or outmaneuver its active sonar beam if it wanted to attack it or the

platform it was screening.

This produced a great paradox in the development of U.S. ASW capabilities at the end

of the second phase of the Third Battle. Passive acoustics became the key to dealing

with almost all aspects of ASW against nuclear submarines; ASW against nuclear submarines, including especially nuclear missile submarines, was a mission whose difficulty and national importance justified the great expenditures on ASW that began in

the 1950s. Active acoustics in this realm remained important as the last of several barriers that the nuclear submarine had to penetrate in order to attack high value surface

targets, but was much less useful against nuclear submarines in open ocean search and

forward barrier operations.

By contrast, active acoustics never ceased to play a large role in ASW against dieselelectric submarines, but the rise of the nuclear submarine eclipsed the threat posed by

the Type XXI and its successors. The U.S. Navy focused on the high-end nuclear submarine threat, while its allies tended to focus on the diesel sub threat. Thus, as the U.S.

Navy’s ASW posture was optimized after 1960 for the nuclear submarine threat, resources flowed toward the platforms most suited to adopting the passive acoustic approach that had been chosen to counter it.

For surface ships, there were many obstacles in the path of exploiting passive acoustics,

prime among them being the need for more quiet ships, both to increase their sensitivity as listening platforms and to decrease the prospect of counter-detection, and the

need to find a way of putting a large listening array below the surface layer. As we shall

see in the next section, it would not be until the late 1970s that the surface community

would begin to take these steps, though attempts were made to do this sooner, the

abortive, mid-1960s Project Sea Hawk being the main example. The result was that the

destroyer community retained its exclusive focus on active acoustics during the period

when the submarine and air communities were embracing passive acoustics.

American ASW and the First Soviet Nuclear Submarines

As ASW developments in the intelligence (SOSUS), submarine, air, and surface communities became focused to varying degrees during the 1950s on the threat of nuclear

submarines, and particularly nuclear missile submarines, Soviet nuclear submarine

development lagged behind American expectations, though not as much as it had in the

years between World War II and Korea, when a large Soviet Type XXI force was the threat.

The first Soviet nuclear submarine was the November SSN, launched in 1958. Using

basically the same propulsion system, Hotel SSBNs and Echo SSGNs were deployed

soon after. Together, these were known in the West as the HENs, and between 1958 and

38 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
1968, a total of 55 were deployed, 13 Novembers, 8 Hotels, and 34 Echos. They all had

two reactors, two fast-turning screws, and a double hull.

From an ASW perspective, the HENs were contemporaries of Nautilus and the Skates,

which is to say that they could defeat traditional ASW measures based on radar and active sonar, but were extremely vulnerable to the new passive acoustic approach already

being adopted by the U.S. Navy. At speed, their double hulls generated considerable

flow noise and their two fast-turning screws cavitated loudly. Alongside this broadband

signature was a pronounced LOFAR signature useful for both long-range detection and

classification.

LOFAR detection ranges against both American and Soviet first generation nuclear

submarines were astounding. For example, SSBN 598, USS George Washington, which

was actually a lengthened Skipjack, on one of her first deterrent patrols in 1961, was

tracked continuously across the Atlantic all the way to the United Kingdom by SOSUS

arrays deployed along the East Coast of the United States. In July 1962, a SOSUS array

off Barbados detected a Soviet HEN class submarine as it crossed the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, the first detection of a Soviet nuclear submarine by SOSUS.44 In both

cases, SOSUS was able to exploit the fact that both propellers and rotating machinery

mounted directly to a submarine’s hull generated clear, predictable narrowband tonals

at source levels high enough for large LOFAR arrays to detect and track them on an

ocean-wide basis.

These surveillance capabilities were complemented by the new tactical ASW prosecution capabilities of the VP and submarine communities. In the VP community, in

which LOFAR was first introduced during 1956–1957, there were initially troublesome

tactical problems generated by the extreme detection ranges possible with

omnidirectional LOFAR sonobuoys when they were first used against snorkeling submarines. Here is a description of some of those problems by Russ Mason, a key member of the technical community responsible for sonobuoy development:

(LOFAR) turned out to be so good under certain conditions in certain areas that it caused airborne

ASW a major problem. Instead of detecting submarines only a few thousand yards away, Jezebel was

consistently making detections in the tens or even occasionally hundreds of miles. The sensitivity of

the system was not really recognized, known, or believed for years. . . . A LOFAR detection could not

necessarily, as planned or hoped for, be turned into a CODAR bearing and fix because CODAR, being

broadband, did not approach the sensitivity of narrowband Jezebel ranges.45

This was a particular problem against diesel electric boats, which became vulnerable to

LOFAR only when they snorkeled, which put an upper bound on the time the ASW

aircraft had to accomplish a CODAR localization before the target went back on battery. But against nuclear submarines, whose LOFAR signatures were essentially

THE THIRD BATTLE 39
continuous, the problems associated with localizing long-range Jezebel contacts eased

considerably because they were no longer intermittent.

In the submarine community, and particularly with quiet, second generation subs like

Tullibee and the Threshers, because of the wide apertures of their low-frequency arrays, it was possible to get long-range detection of the broadband signature of first generation nuclear submarines like Nautilus or, more importantly, the Soviet HENs. The

following is a now-declassified, contemporary description of this capability as it was

first emerging:

The past year (7/60-6/61) has seen the introduction and the commencement of the evaluation of

Tullibee (SSN-597) as a vehicle constructed specifically for anti-submarine warfare. Installed equipment and characteristics of this ship represent the most impressive advance in submarine ASW capability to date. Passive detection to over 100 miles and active ranging to the first convergence zone

coupled with extremely low self and propagation noise bring us to a new era of submarine participation in the antisubmarine effort. These improvements are also characteristic of Thresher (SSN-593)

and the follow-on ships of her class.46

Unlike in the VP community, LOFAR was first used in the submarine force only as a

classification tool because broadband sonar was sufficient for long-range detection and

easier to use tactically.

To conclude discussion of the second phase of the Third Battle in the period between

1950 and 1960, two points stand out. First, as with the first phase of the Third Battle

against the Type XXI, the U.S. Navy ended up nearly preempting the ASW challenge

posed by the Soviet submarine force’s anticipated exploitation of the two nuclear revolutions. In other words, by the time the HENs actually began going to sea, all the elements of an effective ASW response to them had already been demonstrated and were

being deployed by the U.S. Navy. Second, once implemented, this ASW response was

clearly going to necessitate a dramatic shift in the resources available to and the status

of the Navy’s different platform communities, and yet the specific programs that would

cause this shift were not suppressed by those with the most to lose. Thus, the Navy continued to keep pace at the technical and tactical levels with the peacetime evolution of

the Soviet submarine threat, even as that threat began to grow in a qualitative sense by

leaps and bounds. The Navy was able to do this at least in part through the kind of

technical and doctrinal innovation which is normally considered rare in military organizations in peacetime.

40 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Phase III of the Third Battle

ASW and the Happy Time, 1960–1980

SOSUS, the quiet, ASW-optimized SSN, and Jezebel/Codar/Julie for VP and VS aircraft

were all developed by the end of the 1950s. These were the key elements of a new approach to ASW emphasizing passive acoustics, and it was this approach which became

central in the ASW battle against Soviet nuclear submarines. But to be fully exploited,

these new tools needed to be integrated into a combined arms team that still included

more traditional tools. Furthermore, once a new concept of operations was established,

sufficient numbers of platforms needed to be deployed to support it in peacetime.

Thus, where the 1950s was a period of radical technological ferment in the ASW mission area, the 1960s saw a series of doctrinal debates over how best to exploit the technological bonanza that resulted. As always, the chief protagonists in these debates

tended to be the individual ASW platform communities.

The Barrier Strategy Embraced

The core of the new concept of operation was to place barriers between Soviet

homeports and open-ocean patrol areas wherever maritime geography made them possible. Barriers were feasible in deep water wherever SOSUS arrays could be emplaced in

such a way as to cover a choke point, and given SOSUS’ range, these choke points could

be quite wide. For example, the waters separating Greenland, Iceland, and the United

Kingdom (GIUK) became a key choke point, and the 1965 decision to emplace SOSUS

arrays and create a barrier there was part of a general strategy that sought to push

SOSUS barriers as far forward as possible. NavFac Keflavik was established in 1966, and

by 1974 a total of twenty-two SOSUS installations existed along the East and West

coasts of the United States and at various forward choke points.47 Another key expansion of the SOSUS network came with the establishment in 1964 of an array off

Andoya, covering the entrance to the Norwegian Sea between Norway, Bear Island, and

Spitsbergen.48 By 1981, unclassified depictions of SOSUS described it as having thirtysix installations, including facilities located in the United States, the United Kingdom,

CHAPTER FOUR
Turkey, Japan, the Aleutians, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Bermuda, Barbados, Canada, Norway, Iceland, the Azores, Italy, Denmark, Gibraltar, the Ryukyus, Panama, the Philippines, Guam, and Diego Garcia.49

Within such a choke point or barrier, submarines and/or VP could be cued by

long-range SOSUS detections. In the earlier sub-air barriers, submarines spaced at

twice the average range of their bow sonar provided the initial detections. This produced requirements for more submarines than could be afforded in peacetime, hence

the interest in experimental designs like K-1 and, later, Tullibee, which could hopefully

be produced in numbers large enough to man these barriers. Furthermore, even with

the peacetime submarine force that could be afforded, forward barriers could not be

maintained in peacetime because of the normal requirements for training, upkeep, and

crew rotation. Therefore, warning was needed in advance to create a barrier, and the

degree of warning received determined how far forward these barriers could be established. But this had always implied a certain circularity of logic, because forward barriers

were one of the primary means of confirming a large Soviet submarine deployment. For

example, five Soviet submarines deployed from the Kola peninsula area in early October to support Soviet naval operations in late October 1962, in the Caribbean during

the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were not detected until they encountered American

quarantine forces in the region; therefore, the sub-air barrier off Argentia that was established after the quarantine began missed them.50

SOSUS directly addressed both of these problems. Because SOSUS made the initial detections, barriers now needed to be manned by platforms sufficient only to prosecute

contacts, which was a much smaller number than that required to make the initial detections. Furthermore, SOSUS was a permanent peacetime installation that could and

was in fact designed to provide advance warning of Soviet submarine movements.

Thus, far forward arrays might give warning sufficient for barriers further back to be

manned in time to interdict a deployment. For SOSUS-VP barriers, basing rights in the

region would allow permanent detachments of air ASW aircraft to man barriers in

peacetime.

The new concept of operations also envisioned independent, far forward operations by

SSNs. In peacetime, these would provide intelligence and warning, and in wartime

would constitute the first barrier that Soviet submarines would encounter when they

left their bases. Even within the deep-water SOSUS barriers further back, SSNs would

operate largely independent of VP forces. Sub-air tactics had always been hampered by

communication and IFF problems. Because SOSUS eliminated the need for close cooperation between the two communities, both were happy to go off on their own. Thus,

main barriers like the GIUK consisted of alternating layers in which VP and submarines

42 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
conducted the prosecutions. In the forward areas, submarines operated alone, and in

the rear areas, along friendly coastlines, VP dominated and submarines were largely absent. These independent operations contrasted with the cooperative tactics that were

central to the effectiveness of a HUK group’s air-DD team.

The big doctrinal question created by the new barrier concept revolved around what

was needed, if anything, in addition to the barriers. One view was that ASW strategy

had fundamentally changed in such a way as to make those additional requirements

much smaller than in the past:

Advanced nuclear attack submarines in barriers could exact considerable attrition as Soviet submarines surged into the North Atlantic shipping lanes, and as they attempted to return to their bases

for replenishment. The evolving SOSUS network could direct long-range ASW aircraft and destroyercarrier-hunter-killer (HUK) forces against submarines at sea in the North Atlantic; as shore-based aircraft performance improved, even the HUK units became less important.... Thus, the balance of the ASW

effort would shift from escort operations to offensive patrol, with escort ships employed as a backup.

51

In some eyes, this was fortunate, because, as the Chief of the Bureau of Ships, Rear Admiral R. K. James, argued in 1961:

. . . the time has come when we should seriously question the wisdom of continuing to emphasize the

surface ship as our primary ASW vehicle. . . . [W]e are trying to accomplish the job the hard way, expending tremendous effort to get our sonars deep in the water where the acoustic problems will disappear. . . . [T]here is no question but that a surface platform is not a good sonar platform, nor, indeed,

is it likely that we will ever succeed in making it anything more than marginal. A submarine, on the

other hand, represents a near-optimum sonar platform.52

For those who accepted this position, the consequence was a diminution in the importance of surface ship ASW programs and an overall reduction in the size of the destroyer force. In a war there would be some leakage of Soviet submarines through the

barriers, and destroyers would be needed to protect those forces so valuable that even

limited losses needed to be avoided, such as carrier battle groups. But early losses to

merchant shipping would be accepted on the assumption that the submarine threat

would soon become manageable due to steady attrition by the barriers.

By the mid-1960s, a consensus developed which embraced the passive acoustics-based

barrier strategy, while also supporting investment in a two-tiered ASW escort force,

with small numbers of multipurpose destroyers assigned to battle groups and other

high-value units, and larger numbers of single-purpose destroyer escorts devoted

largely to ASW for use in screening mid-ocean convoys. One cause of this consensus

being reached was the establishment of Op-95 in 1964 as both the CNO’s and the Secretary of the Navy’s chief adviser for ASW. The first occupant of this office was Vice

Admiral Charles Martell.

This office was formed in the midst of a Navy-wide review of ASW programs and of

future Soviet submarine developments. At the most general level, this review led to

THE THIRD BATTLE 43
some relaxation in the near term concern over the Soviet submarine threat but continued anxiety about the more distant future. The following exchange in a 1964 congressional hearing on Navy research and development is illustrative. The main participants

in the exchange are Congressman Robert Sikes and Rear Admiral E.B. Hooper, Director

of ASW Research and Development.

Mr. Sikes. Do you think that defenses against submarines will ever catch up with submarine offensive

capability?

Admiral Hooper. The question as to whether or not a submarine or antisubmarine force is ahead is a

rather difficult one to evaluate. It is not a symmetrical situation. We certainly have a very good capability to counter submarines at the present time but it is a touch and go situation.

Mr. Sikes. Surely you would not indicate that submarine defenses can effectively cope with the offensive capability of submarines?

Admiral Hooper. Yes I would in a certain context. I believe right now we have good antisubmarine

warfare.

Mr. Sikes. If that were true, our Polaris submarine would be jeopardized.

Admiral Hooper. That is why I say this is not a symmetrical situation. The capabilities we have developed help make this give us [sic] these capabilities. Geography is greatly in our favor.

(Discussion off the record)

Admiral Hooper. When one projects this very serious competition well into the future and sees the

number of nuclear submarines the Soviet Union will probably build, one notes the improvements that

he can make, although some of these improvements are going to cost him a lot of resources he has to

pull away from something else. Then the situation is a very serious one. . . .

Mr. Sikes. Let me rephrase my question. If the Soviet defensive or offensive capability were as great as

ours, would your ASW capability be sufficient to cope with it?

Admiral Hooper. I would prefer to say we are able to stay ahead of the submarine menace. I personally believe that if we can make the fullest use of the information we are gaining of the environment, if

we pursue an aggressive and imaginative program with enough emphasis on the basic things, I personally believe that we can and will stay ahead.53

The motivation behind the aggressive program Admiral Hooper referred to in this extended colloquy seems to have been based on a tendency to base future ASW requirements on what would be needed to counter submarines of the quality the United States

was currently building deployed in the numbers that the Soviets were capable of producing in the future.

Already, it was becoming clear that this approach could lead to great success when

Soviet efforts did not live up to this expectation. For example, Secretary of the Navy

Paul Nitze testified in 1965 that “our antisubmarine warfare effort of past years has

been more effective than we have sometimes realized. We have had the advantage of

training against our own submarine forces, which, as you know, have been in the forefront of both development and operational know-how since World War II. Thus, our own

peacetime opposition has perhaps been more effective than a real enemy would be.”

54

44 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
The same dynamic at a more technical level was described by Assistant Secretary of the

Navy for Research and Development Robert Morse in an effort to explain the source of

the tremendous acoustic advantage American submarines enjoyed in 1965 over their

Soviet counterparts. He noted that:

It came about, I think, by just a general overall attention to sound reduction, in every possible way,

looking at every piece of machinery, how it was mounted, looking at the connections to the outside,

that is of cooling pumps and so on which can then pump noise out along with the water, looking at

the sources or the ways in which sound is generated and is transmitted from the submarine. . . . One

of the reasons that we have been benefited so much is that we had made great progress in antisubmarine warfare. I think that without the ability to make good measurements on our own submarines and

without having the stimulation to do it by knowing that that was an Achilles’ heel to the submarine,

that we would not have made that progress. That is, the quieting of your own submarines comes in

many ways from a consciousness of the antisubmarine problem.55

But would not the Soviets take the same steps sometime in the future, Morse was asked?

Oh, yes; yes sir. There are no secrets or no real magic in the technology that we have used. The translation of this into engineering practice, though, is not necessarily easy. That is, one has to go through

many evolutionary steps. We have gone through them and if you looked at our own quieting program, I think you will see that it rarely took big jumps. That is, it tended to be an evolutionary thing.

That isn’t to say theirs won’t be.56

Thus, if the United States continued to solve the ASW problem against its own submarines and continued to push the development of its submarines past those “solutions,”

it would always stay just ahead of the Soviets, whose submarines would always lag in

capability because their development was not informed by the same consciousness of

the ASW problem but rather was driven only by a focus on the prosubmarine problem.

But if the United States relaxed in its efforts to solve the ASW problem against its own

submarines, the Soviets would quickly catch up because the American lead in quieting

and other prosubmarine technologies was evanescent, in that it was based mostly on

dogged attention to engineering detail rather than any fundamental technical

breakthrough.

This approach to consolidating and preserving the passive acoustics-based approach to

ASW was relatively successful for almost twenty years, from 1960 to 1980. During this

period, mostly evolutionary improvements in passive acoustic capabilities were pursued, and until near the end of this period these efforts remained confined largely to

the SOSUS, SSN, and VP communities. Their success was based at least partly on the

fact that the Soviets did not focus on quieting as much as planners had expected they

would in the early 1960s. Thus the second generation Charlie/Victor/Yankee (CVY)

classes, which began deploying in 1968, remained quite vulnerable to a passive acoustic

approach. In fact, by some measures, the American acoustic advantage against the

CVYs had actually deepened by the early 1970s.

THE THIRD BATTLE 45
More turmoil attended the evolution of the carrier-based air and surface ASW communities during this period. By the late 1960s, the HUKs had lost their open ocean search

role to the VP community, and were focused on screening for carrier battle groups. By

the early 1970s, the expense of providing dedicated CVS groups for this purpose led to

the multimission CV concept, which eliminated the CVS, and assigned half of its VS

and HS aircraft to the attack carrier wing. The surface community focused during the

1960s on making the SQS-26 work. When by the end of the decade it finally had a true

bottom-bounce and convergence zone sonar, it finally abandoned DASH and embraced

the manned helicopter as the main destroyer-based ASW weapon.

The main challenges to the U.S. Navy’s ASW posture during this third and longest

phase of the Third Battle turned out not to be the one that was most feared—the truly

quiet nuclear submarine. Instead, the Navy was surprised to varying degrees during

this period by fast, deep-diving submarines (Alfa and Papa); submerged launch,

antiship missile submarines (Charlie I and II SSGNs); and the long-range, ballistic missile submarines (Delta SSBNs). In each of these three cases, a major element of the passive acoustic barrier strategy was threatened, and therefore a major response was

perceived to be necessary, even though in the first two cases, the threat that was initially

imagined never fully materialized, or came much later than anticipated. The fast,

deep-diving submarine threat provoked a major ASW torpedo improvement program.

The Charlie SSGN, with its submerged launch SS-N-7s and 9s, was one of several catalysts leading the surface force to embrace ship quieting and passive acoustics. And the

Delta SSBN with its circa 4,000-mile range SS-N-8s caused a fundamental shift in the

U.S. Navy’s approach to strategic ASW, one that involved a major expansion in the role

of its SSN force.

The rest of this chapter is divided into three parts. First is a discussion of developments

in passive acoustics in the SOSUS, SSN, and VP communities. Second is a discussion of

developments in the ship-based air and surface ASW communities. Third is a discussion of the three Soviet challenges to the passive acoustic barrier strategy and the U.S.

Navy’s responses. The last section will be brought through to the late 1970s, when the

very quiet Soviet nuclear submarine threat did finally begin to appear.

Protecting the Passive Acoustic Advantage

Having embraced the passive acoustic approach to ASW, the SOSUS, submarine, and

VP communities set about improving it in anticipation of much quieter Soviet submarines. A simple way of describing this evolution is to think in terms of array gain and

processing gain. The ideal detection system combines these two techniques to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio. From the beginning, the SOSUS system employed both

techniques. Its seabed arrays were not limited in aperture and could achieve the

46 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
maximum array gain possible for even the lowest frequencies. Likewise, its shore-based

processing facilities had access to computational capacity unlimited by volume constraints, and were able to perform the computationally-intensive fourier transforms

needed for spectral analysis at a time when computers were quite large and user

unfriendly.

Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, upgrades to the SOSUS system focused on

evolutionary improvements in array gain, processing gain, and timeliness. The original

arrays had 40 elements spaced equally along 1,000 feet of cable (1x40). No more than

40 elements could be supported by a single cable, and it turned out that acceptable performance could be achieved under many circumstances using fewer elements. To extract more value from each cable, 2x20 and 3x16 arrays were deployed in which the

elements on one cable were divided into two or three separate arrays looking in different directions. This allowed one cable to focus along two or three separate acoustic

paths where surveys had demonstrated optimal deep sound channel propagation.

These arrays also reduced the bearing ambiguity that could exist when using only a single array. During the same period, improvements in computer processing allowed for

more processing gain by integrating over smaller and smaller frequency bins.57

As the geographic reach of SOSUS expanded into forward areas, there were also debates about its purpose. Originally conceived as an intelligence asset, SOSUS first

gained support as a means of warning national political authorities of the approach of

Soviet submarines. This was important information in its own right, as Soviet submarines were themselves considered nuclear delivery vehicles. But it was important as well

on a larger level, as such a submarine deployment was also considered a reliable source

of warning of a larger, general attack. For these reasons, like all other intelligence assets,

SOSUS information was always closely held by the intelligence community, and there

was considerable reluctance to release it to tactical ASW forces.

This instinct to protect intelligence sources and methods clashed with the need for

large area undersea surveillance for ASW. The barrier strategy was premised on the

availability of SOSUS cueing for SSNs and VP, and these techniques needed to be practiced in peacetime, but unrestricted use of SOSUS in peacetime would in all likelihood

reveal its capabilities to the Soviets. Thus, for many years, as with Ultra during World

War II, the exploitation of SOSUS data was done in such a way as to mask the exact location of its arrays and their capabilities. For example, tactical forces used only passive

techniques when they prosecuted SOSUS contacts of Soviet submarines, and many

training exercises were conducted against either friendly or neutral targets. One common SOSUS/VP exercise was to train against diesel trawlers, which had signatures similar to a snorkeling submarine.

THE THIRD BATTLE 47
From the beginning, the technical community that supported SOSUS understood that

it could be rendered largely ineffective by quieting. In fact, SOSUS played a major role

in the accelerated quieting program adopted by the American submarine force. This

contribution had both an engineering and an operational aspect to it.

From an engineering perspective, American submarine designers sought to build submarines that could not be detected by SOSUS. This resulted in a technical competition

between listeners and hiders in which both sides benefited. The submarine quieting

program was centered at the David Taylor Model Ship basin (now known as the Naval

Surface Warfare Center, at Carderock, Maryland), while the research and technical support for SOSUS was done at Bell Labs, Columbia’s Hudson Lab, Scripps, and Woods

Hole. One example of this interaction was the discovery of mechanical, blade rate

tonals on Thresher during her early trials.58 The benefits of this internal competition

extended to the operational realm as well. SOSUS often detected unwanted spikes in

the signatures of American submarines, due in some cases to wear and tear in a particular piece of machinery.

But these experiences also made the U.S. Navy sensitive to SOSUS’ vulnerability to

Soviet quieting. One consequence was an attempt from almost the very beginning to

incorporate active echo-ranging into ocean-wide undersea surveillance. Project Artemis of the early and mid-1960s was such an attempt. As with all attempts to develop

low-frequency, active sonar, the main obstacles encountered in Artemis were in designing a powerful enough transducer and in countering reverberation, the phenomenon

of receiving multiple echoes, both from the initial signal returning over multiple paths,

and from spurious echoes caused by other objects and variations in the sea bottom.

The submarine community emphasized improvements in quieting, both array and

processing gain, better sonar system integration, and formal tactical and operational

analysis. Beginning with the Thresher/Permits, American SSN design demonstrated a

continuing willingness to emphasize quieting over other valuable operational capabilities such as speed and diving performance. Therefore, in the progression from Skipjack

to Thresher to the Sturgeon class in 1967, one sees significant improvements in quieting

with each generation, and a loss in several knots of top speed. Fourteen Permits (plus

Tullibee) were built between 1961 and 1967 and thirty-seven Sturgeons between 1967

and 1975. In the latter period, USS Narwhal and USS Lipscomb were also built as experimental platforms for, respectively, natural circulation reactors and electric drive.

USS Sturgeon (SSN 637) was originally conceived as a modest upgrade to the Permits.

She was larger, both because quieting and size tend to accompany each other, and because she was given more space to accommodate a more advanced acoustic and

SIGINT sensor suite. With the 637s, the submarine force began to embrace LOFAR

48 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
signal processing as a tool for both detection and classification. Experimental spectrum

analyzers like the BQQ-3 were replaced in the early 1970s by digital systems and were

deployed on all submarines rather than only those engaged in special missions.59 The

637s were also the vehicle for early experiments with towed arrays. Towed arrays were

line arrays of omnidirectional hydrophones much like SOSUS arrays that used electronic beamformers to achieve array gain. Long, towed arrays could provide more aperture than could bow or hull-mounted arrays, and also suffered less from self noise

and flow noise.

The first towed array used by the submarine force was the Submarine Tactical Array

Sonar System (STASS), which was used experimentally in the mid-1960s and began deployment on a regular basis in the late 1960s. STASS could not be reeled in and out of

the submarine, so it was employed as a clip-on array, meaning that the array was attached to the submarine at the beginning of a deployment and towed for the duration

of that deployment. Later, so-called “thin line” arrays were developed which could be

reeled in and out. The first such was the TB-16, which in turn was followed by the

TB-23 and 29; the increasing numbers representing the increase in acoustic aperture

provided by each succeeding generation.60

One of the first and most important uses for both LOFAR and the towed array in the

submarine force was the creation and maintenance of a library of Soviet submarine

signatures. Each class of submarine, and indeed each submarine, generated its own

unique blend of narrow and broadband sound at varying levels. Knowledge of these

signatures was fundamental to the effective use of LOFAR and to predicting the performance of passive sonars.61 Even the most advanced computers of the day were limited

in the number of spectral lines that they could process, meaning that prior knowledge

of the frequency of those lines was necessary in order to maximize LOFAR capabilities.62 Likewise, predicting the performance of passive sonars demanded knowledge of

the strength of the target signal.63 Knowledge of sonar performance was fundamental

to the barrier strategy because expected detection range was the key variable in determining the number of platforms needed to man a given barrier. Submarines were

uniquely able to collect and maintain this database of opposing submarine signatures,

which served both their own operations as well as the other ASW communities.64

Another unique capability provided for the first time on a large scale by the 637s was

an enhanced ability to covertly track an opponent.65 Prior SSNs could certainly track

their Soviet counterparts, but the tactical challenges involved were high. Tracking operations demanded the ability to approach the target covertly and establish and maintain

a position to its rear in its so-called “sound baffles.” The situational awareness required

to do this was high, because the distance from which the track was maintained was at

THE THIRD BATTLE 49
relatively short, direct path ranges where counter detection was most likely. Alongside

the fact that it was quiet, a 637’s large, spherical, bow sonar array gave its crew a wider

angle view in both azimuth and elevation of its target than did a Skipjack or a Skate.

The analogy in visual terms would be to removing a set of blinders which constrained

one’s field of regard to a narrow cone looking forward.66 The 637s made it feasible to

develop tactics for routine, covert tracking operations that could be implemented on a

force-wide basis.

Many of these operational and analytical activities continued to be centered in Submarine Development Squadron 12 (SubDevRon 12), formerly known as Submarine Development Group 2 (SubDevGru 2). DevRon 12 was the home of the Tactical Analysis

Group (TAG), which played a major role in the “Big Daddy” exercise series; its submarines were also assigned many forward intelligence missions.

The TAG was set up to develop analytical techniques for examining exercise results and

to use them to predict operational performance. Big Daddy was an annual SSN versus

SSN ASW exercise which the submarine force used in part to develop and validate the

models developed by the TAG. These models could then be used in war planning, in

setting force requirements, and in assisting in the design of new systems. Big Daddy

and TAG were key tools for the Navy to use in convincing both itself and the national

leadership of the viability of its ASW posture. The TAG also developed into a formidable tool for justifying new submarine development to the civilian leadership, particularly in the years the Office of the Secretary of Defense was infected with enthusiasm

for the quantitative methods first introduced by Robert McNamara in the early 1960s.

In this capacity, the TAG played a major role in the justification for the Sturgeon, the

first SSN class produced in large numbers.

DevRon 12 also played a major role in the introduction of new sensor technology. Part

of its charter was to test new equipment, but because it also had an operational role,

these tests often occurred in real world operations. Once the value of an experimental

system was established in this way, it tended to be retained for further use in the

DevRon, rather than returned to its manufacturer for further development. This

low-level melding of the technical and operational communities provided an informal

path for new technology like LOFAR and the towed array to be inserted into the submarine force.

The last major submarine community activity was the development of a new, heavyweight ASW torpedo designed for use against nuclear submarines—the Mk. 48. This

story merges with the story of the Navy’s response to the Alfa/Papa threat, which will

be discussed below.

50 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
The VP community focused on solving the localization problem created by initial,

long-range, LOFAR detections by Jezebel omnidirectional buoys and on deploying and

modernizing Lockheed’s P-3 Orion. The key to solving the localization problem was

DIFAR, a directional LOFAR buoy. DIFAR was not a new concept, but its development

had been postponed in the years after Jezebel’s introduction on the assumption that

CODAR and Julie would suffice. The latter two had the advantage of using existing,

omnidirectional, broadband buoys, whereas DIFAR required a new, more advanced

buoy. One of the first steps taken by Admiral Martell when he became OP-95 was to direct that DIFAR buoys be developed on a priority basis.67

DIFAR replaced CODAR as the means of localizing a Jezebel contact. Unlike CODAR,

which used broadband processing, DIFAR used narrowband processing and could easily match the detection of omnidirectional Jezebel buoys. A plant of several DIFAR

buoys with a long enough baseline provided several bearings to the target that could be

used to triangulate the range. Flying that distance down the target bearing would usually bring the P-3 within range to achieve a fire control solution.

The deployment of the P-3, beginning in the early 1960s, gave the VP community a

faster aircraft than the P-2 it replaced and one that was capable of carrying a much

larger suite of equipment and crew. P-3 operating bases were established at locations

that allowed them timely access to SOSUS barriers, and as those barriers expanded

during the 1960s, the SOSUS/VP team developed an ocean-wide reach in the Atlantic

and the Pacific. It was this development that led to the demise of the mid-ocean,

hunter-killer role for CVS task forces, relegating them to the battle group and convoy

escort roles. The P-3C, originally known as the A-New project, was an explicit attempt

to modernize the avionics in the P-3, integrating their various functions and making

them more user friendly through automation. This was considered necessary against

faster nuclear submarines, which imposed a much faster decision cycle on system operators, who on the P-3A performed the integration function themselves and had already

reached task saturation when faced with slower diesel-electric boats.

One role for which the SOSUS/VP team developed a unique aptitude was to stay on

top of forward deployed Soviet SSBNs. This contributed to the strategic ASW role that

had played such an important part in the rise of ASW to the status of a national mission. According to Admiral Hooper, Director of ASW Research and Development, one

of the principles underlying the strategic ASW mission was:

. . . that one would like to destroy these missiles (Soviet SLBMs) or the means of launching them before they are launched, if possible, and if so launched we would like to destroy the missiles immediately and then get those which have not been launched. In other words, missile destruction is

considered as associated with the anti-submarine warfare program.68

THE THIRD BATTLE 51
In application, this principle argued for a means of holding forward-deployed SSBNs

at risk of prompt destruction, and the SOSUS/VP team was already prepared to adopt

this mission when the first Yankee deployments occurred in the late 1960s.69

The submarine community was also prepared for strategic ASW against forwarddeployed Soviet SSBNs because of its capability to track them covertly in their deployment areas. Because Soviet SSBNs of the Hotel and Yankee classes had to pass through

Allied barriers before getting within range of their targets, American SSNs could be

vectored by SOSUS to intercept them as they passed through those barriers. The SSN

would then maintain continuous contact with its quarry, in some cases for the entire

duration of the SSBN’s forward patrol. Also, a powerful synergy existed between SSN

tracking operations and the SOSUS/VP team. In those cases, when the former lost contact with its target, the latter was often able to quickly reacquire it and hand it back off

to the SSN, which could then resume tracking.

70

This was a significant capability because the assumption on both sides appears to have

been that Soviet SSBNs not already forward deployed on the far side of NATO’s ASW

barriers when a war started would never even get into position to deliver their missiles

against the United States, either because they would come under immediate nuclear attack if still in their ports or be destroyed at NATO ASW barriers before they got within

missile range of their targets. This is one reason why the Soviets may have considered

their non-deployed SSBNs as theater nuclear assets for use against European and/or

Asian targets.

Traditional ASW Communities and the Barrier Strategy

As the SOSUS, submarine, and VP communities consolidated the passive acoustic approach to ASW during the 1960s and early 1970s, the carrier-based air and surface

ASW communities struggled with the technical challenge of making themselves relevant to the problem of ASW against nuclear submarines. This technical challenge was

combined with the political challenge of justifying investments in ASW in communities where other mission priorities were higher. As noted, this period saw the demise

first of the open-ocean, hunter-killer role for combined, CVS-destroyer ASW groups

and then the elimination of those groups altogether and the adoption of the allpurpose CV air wing. It also saw great turmoil in destroyer ASW programs, including

technical problems with active sonar and long-range ASW weapons, and doctrinal debates over the future role of the surface combatant force.

The HUK mission for CVS groups died because the land-based P-3 could do it more

cheaply once SOSUS arrays and VP bases were forward deployed. VS and VP aircraft

used essentially the same sonobuoy systems to detect and localize nuclear submarines,

52 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
and by the mid to late 1960s, a land-based P-3 could go almost anywhere a sea-based

S-2 could. CVS groups certainly had the ability to more densely cover a given area with

air ASW assets than did more distant VP bases, and their destroyers provided an active

sonar platform with more endurance than a P-3, but these capabilities were more relevant to the radar flooding and hold-down tactics used against diesel-electric boats, and

ASW against diesel boats was increasingly becoming the responsibility of Allied navies.

The CVS groups also died because after Vietnam the cost of maintaining separate CVA

and CVS groups was deemed unaffordable given that the latter now existed primarily

to screen the former. This resulted in the multipurpose CV concept which saw half of a

CVS wing—one VS and one HS squadron—added to each existing attack carrier wing,

replacing a dozen fighter, attack, and reconnaissance aircraft, and requiring ship alterations by installation of ASW facilities and equipment.

Amidst these major doctrinal changes, technical developments in the VS and HS communities continued. The highlights here were the transition from the S-2 to the S-3,

and the development of the SH-3. The S-3 was an ambitious attempt to integrate a

new, carrier-compatible, jet platform with an avionics suite that included a very powerful new periscope detection radar, onboard acoustic sonobuoy processing, MAD, ESM,

and homing torpedoes. First deployed in 1974, the S-3A’s autonomous onboard

sonobuoy processing capability was one of its key attributes, giving it the ability to operate beyond the range of line-of-sight data links back to the carrier. But this highly automated and sophisticated avionics suite shared the major reliability problems that

other contemporary systems had in the period during the early 1970s when advanced

digital electronic systems were first introduced into the U.S. military. As a result of

these problems, the VS community was hampered in its operations until the development in the 1980s of the S-3B.

Fewer problems attended the evolution of carrier-based, helicopter ASW platforms. Interestingly, this was one of the first areas where the ASW communities using the radar

and active sonar ASW methods, which won the Second Battle, were responsible for a

major technical innovation in Cold War ASW—the introduction of the ASW helicopter with an active, dipping sonar. Beginning in the 1950s, the carrier-based air ASW

community was one of the driving forces behind helicopter development, and within

the HUK groups, HS squadrons deploying active, dipping sonars became a key addition to the combined arms ASW team.

HS squadrons gave the HUK group an active sonar platform with the speed and mobility of an aircraft. The original attraction of helicopters with an airborne dipping sonar

was to cooperate with radar-equipped aircraft in operations against snorkelers. The latter would often detect a snorkel, but the submarine would submerge and be lost when

THE THIRD BATTLE 53
it went on battery because no destroyers were within range to hold the contact with active sonar. The ASW helicopter, with a dipping sonar, filled this gap by holding contacts

until destroyers, with the endurance to hold the submarine down until its batteries

were exhausted, arrived. As ASW against nuclear submarines became more important,

HS squadrons also were useful because they could operate in noisy environments

where passive acoustics were much less effective, but where screening forces were still

necessary, as in the inner screen of a carrier battle group or within a convoy.

The culmination of this first phase of the helicopter’s use as an ASW platform was the

SH-3 Sea King. The Sea King was too big to be deployed on all but the largest surface

combatants of its time, which limited the ASW helicopter to being a carrier-based platform. This would change in the early 1970s with the development of LAMPS (Light

Airborne Multipurpose System) ASW helicopters, which leads into a discussion of the

surface ASW community.

The key technical issue that dominated surface ASW during the 1960s was to get the

SQS-26 to achieve its full potential as a bottom bounce and convergence zone active

sonar. As long as the surface community was limited to direct path, above-the-layer

submarine detections with its active sonar, it was going to have limited utility as an

ASW platform against any modern submarine, whether conventional or nuclear. With

a fully capable SQS-26, it would become a more formidable anti-diesel ASW asset, but

against a nuclear submarine it would still suffer from the lack of a weapon to match the

range of its main sensor.

By the close of the 1960s, as the SQS-26 finally emerged from its extended development

phase, the weapon issue became acute. During that decade, long-range, surface ship

ASW armament development had focused on ASROC and DASH. ASROC was fairly

effective out to the 10,000-yard, direct-path ranges achievable by the SQS-4 and

SQS-23, but large range extensions for such a rocket-propelled weapon were difficult to

implement because of the “time late” (i.e., how long after the last contact it was fired)

of the weapon and the speed of the target.

In theory, DASH solved both the range and the time late problems, but in practice

never achieved the operational reliability needed for effective operation. Often described as a technical failure, DASH’s problems were almost certainly of a more organizational nature.71

The eventual success of the SQS-26 get-well program led the surface community to finally abandon DASH in 1968 and embrace a manned helicopter option. This led to the

LAMPS I program, a conversion of a lightweight, commercial utility helicopter, which

first deployed in 1972. LAMPS I was small enough to operate from many DASH ships

and it gave SQS-26 ships a reliable, first convergence zone weapon. In the words of Bob

54 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Frosch, “(LAMPS) finally gave surface ships a final location and detection system to go

with its convergence zone sonar so that we could finally use SQS-26 and towed arrays

for purposes other than deciding when to pray.”

72

The LAMPS/SQS-26 combination was widely deployed in the Garcia, Brooke, and Knox

class destroyer escorts (later redesignated FFs and FFGs), sixty-two of which were deployed between 1960–1967. These were arguably the first truly successful, postwar

ASW ships, and at the same time, certainly the least popular members of the destroyer

community. This inverse relationship between ASW effectiveness and acceptance in the

destroyer community highlights the fundamental doctrinal turmoil that community

was experiencing during this period.

As was true in the particular case of DASH, where inherent technical problems were often used to explain what were really organizational weaknesses, it was generally believed during the 1960s and much of the 1970s that surface ships were incapable of

being effective ASW platforms against nuclear submarines. In most cases, it was more

accurate to say that given the multimission demands facing the surface community and

its own doctrinal priorities, ASW was always going to be a lower priority compared to

antisurface (ASUW) and antiair (AAW) warfare. Destroyer officers wanted fast, seaworthy ships armed with guns and, later, antiship missiles, able to defeat their like in

direct combat.73 This internal doctrinal proclivity was leavened by the powerful carrier

aviation community’s need for surface-to-air missile-armed, antiair escorts for carrier

battle groups.

Juxtaposed alongside these powerful pressures was the need for large numbers of

ocean-going ASW escorts for battle groups, underway replenishment groups, amphibious groups, and merchant convoys. Truly multipurpose destroyers combining all three

capabilities were too expensive to build in the numbers necessary for all ASW missions,

and single purpose destroyer escorts like the Knox class were therefore built to provide

the numbers needed for the ASW missions like amphibious group and convoy escort,

where the submarine threat was potentially high, but the air and surface threat was reduced or being handled by other platforms.

These ships were heroically unpopular in much of the destroyer community because of

their explicit design emphasis on ASW at the expense of AAW and especially ASUW.

74

Given the attitude of the destroyer community toward dedicated ASW escorts, it is not

surprising that ASW advocates within that community had difficulty obtaining the resources needed either to solve existing technical problems in ASW or to fund new,

more innovative approaches.

Another problem was that the ASW R&D and acquisition community was increasingly

dominated by practitioners of the passive acoustic approach, and particularly by the

THE THIRD BATTLE 55
submarine community. Members of this community tended to view surface combatants as poor passive sonar platforms, which they were initially. On the other hand,

efforts to make surface combatants better passive sonar platforms could be viewed by

the same community as unnecessary and even competitive with other ASW platforms

like the submarine, and therefore to be opposed. Indeed, this is how some explain the

demise of Project Sea Hawk in the mid 1960s, a program that had been designed to produce an advanced ASW escort combining quiet gas turbine propulsion with an advanced,

integrated sonar suite that included a new VDS capable of independent operation.75

After Sea Hawk was canceled, development of its key components continued, and indeed most elements of Sea Hawk were later included in what became the Spruance,

which began deploying in 1975. The later success of Spruance as a passive acoustic platform, which will be discussed below, demonstrated that it was probably organizational

and funding issues more than technical constraints which prevented the surface force

from expanding its role in ASW sooner. Certainly it was not technical constraints

which prevented the Navy from developing a destroyer that combined a towed array

like STASS, Sea King, and a rafted propulsion plant, whether using the new gas turbines

or not. Such a platform could have provided a passive, two convergence zone, submarine detection and prosecution capability to the surface force, and the technology to do

so had already been demonstrated by the mid-1960s.

Thus, by the mid-1970s, the surface force had finally succeeded in deploying a force capable of providing a reasonably effective active screen out to one convergence zone

around high value assets, but it had yet to embrace the passive acoustic approach necessary to extend its reach out to two or three convergence zones.

On the other hand, beginning in the early 1970s, the passive acoustic-based, barrier

ASW strategy began to encounter unexpected challenges. The great fear and anticipation of Soviet development of quiet nuclear submarines remained largely unrealized in

practice. Thus, continuing efforts to counter this expected challenge tended to further

reinforce the American acoustic advantage when they met with a mostly static threat

measured in acoustic terms. This was a reassuring development, but it was accompanied by the three other challenges described earlier that will be referred to below as the

Alfa, Charlie, and Delta threats, after the eponymous Soviet submarine classes. The Alfa

threat was primarily a challenge to American ASW weapons, while the Charlie threat

challenged the surface ASW community, and the Delta threat challenged the SOSUS,

submarine, and VP communities.

56 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
The Alfa Threat

ASW weapon development after World War II largely focused on acoustic homing torpedo development, building on the success achieved by the air-launched Mk. 24 “mine”

and the submarine-launched Mk. 27 anti-escort torpedo in the Second Battle. Quickly,

a distinction developed between light and heavyweight torpedoes:

Although modern lightweight and heavyweight torpedoes had their respective origins in the very similar Mk. 24 and Mk. 27 torpedoes of World War II, they have become very different not only in size

and weight, but also in their attack paradigm. A heavyweight torpedo is launched thousands of yards

from its target, well beyond the acquisition range of the homing system. . . . A lightweight torpedo is

normally delivered to the near vicinity of its target by the launch platform.76

Lightweight torpedoes became the weapon of choice for the air ASW community, while

heavyweight torpedoes were developed for submarines. Surface ships initially carried

both, but came to rely mostly on “thrown” (ASROC) or air-delivered (DASH, LAMPS)

lightweight torpedoes.

The first postwar lightweight torpedo was the Mk. 43. It was the first active homing

torpedo (Mks. 24 and 27 had been passive), and originally was capable of 15-knot

speed and 650-foot depth when first deployed in 1951. Later versions were able to

reach 20 knots and 1,000 feet. The Mk. 44, which entered production in 1956, was designed to counter Type XXIs with submerged speeds of up to 20 knots. It had a range

of 6,000 yards and a speed of 30 knots. Over 10,000 were produced and some remain in

service with foreign navies.

Even as the Mk. 44 entered production, it was clear that it would be inadequate against

the faster nuclear submarines which were already on the horizon. The basic problem

was that an ASW torpedo needs a 50 percent margin of superiority in speed over its

target in order to assure that the target does not escape once alerted to the attack.

Nuclear submarines were expected to achieve 30-knot speeds at 1,000 foot depths,

creating the need for a 45-knot torpedo. A development program to achieve this for

both light and heavyweight torpedoes was begun in 1956. In the first case, this resulted

in the Mk. 46, which began deploying in 1965.

The same size as a Mk. 43, the Mk. 46 apparently met its performance goals.77 Dropped

from an aircraft, it created against a submerged submarine a no-escape zone shaped

like a cylinder several thousand yards in diameter and roughly 1,500 feet deep. The cue

for dropping the torpedo was usually the aircraft’s magnetic anomaly detection MAD

gear, whose range was often less than the search volume of the torpedo itself. During

the mid and late 1960s, the Mk. 46 was deployed widely in the VP community and on

ASROCs deployed on surface ships.

THE THIRD BATTLE 57
Heavyweight torpedo development followed a similar path. The first submarinelaunched ASW torpedo was the Mk. 27–4, a 1948 modification to the World War

II anti-escort weapon. It had a speed of 16 knots and a range of 6,200 yards, and was an

interim weapon designed primarily for attacking snorkelers. The more permanent solution was the Mk. 37, begun at roughly the same time, but with more ambitious requirements. When first deployed in 1957, the Mk. 37 was a 26-knot weapon with a

10,000-yard range. As with the Mk. 27, when launched the Mk. 37 would run out for a

set distance along a fixed bearing and then begin a passive circular search, but terminal

homing was active. The 1960 Mk. 37–1 added wire guidance, which allowed the submarine to control the torpedo during the run out, making it more effective against

faster, more maneuverable targets. The 37–1 was effective against targets with speeds

up to 20 knots and down to depths of 1,000 feet, which was only minimally satisfactory

against first generation Soviet nuclear submarines which could exceed 20 knots.

Therefore, the same 1956 torpedo development program provoked by the nuclear submarine threat that produced the Mk. 46 also included a heavyweight torpedo program.

Formal requirements for this latter program were established in 1960, aiming at a

55-knot speed, 35,000-yard range, and 2,500-foot depth.78 In 1967, it was decided to

make this an antisurface weapon as well, which mandated a larger warhead. In 1971,

production of what had become the Mk. 48 started, and the first torpedoes were delivered in 1972, some seven years after the lightweight Mk. 46 was delivered.

The extended gestation experienced by the Mk. 48 and, to a lesser extent, the Mk. 46 is

a reflection of two factors. First, these were very advanced weapons designed to very

ambitious requirements. Second, these requirements were clearly designed to drive

conventional torpedo technology as much as they were designed to meet a particular,

near-term Soviet submarine threat. Thus, in both areas, nuclear alternatives existed and

were deployed, using lethal radius to substitute for weapon performance. This second

factor was particularly apparent in the Mk. 48 program, which included the development of a massive, instrumented torpedo testing facility and firing range off Andros Island in the Caribbean—and which was not conducted on a crash basis.79

These two factors led to a mixed picture in the years from the mid-1950s through the

end of the 1960s. American ASW torpedo development had certainly kept up with the

Type XXI threat during the early part of this period, but by at least some measures, primarily speed, it appears to have fallen behind the nuclear submarine threat, particularly in the submarine force, where 25-knot Mk. 37s were used through 1972 against a

threat that approached 30 knots. Certainly stealthy tactics designed to minimize warning of attack could go a long way toward easing these concerns, and given the enormous acoustic advantage that had emerged by the 1960s, it was not hard to design such

58 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
tactics for American SSNs using Mk. 37s. Meanwhile, the disparity in speed between the

Mk. 46 and its prey was less troublesome, which made sense because the Mk. 46 used

active search and was therefore bound to alert its opponent as soon as it hit the water.

This reasonably happy state of affairs was upset in 1970 with the deployment of the

Alfa SSN, whose estimated 45-knot speed and 2,000–2,500 foot operating depth surprised the U.S. Navy. Alfa used a high-power-density, liquid metal reactor plant to increase the power-to-weight and volume ratios of her propulsion plant, while

simultaneously reducing the hull weight needed for extreme operating depths by using

a titanium pressure hull. Alfa had a sister, the Papa SSGN, which appeared to employ

these same submarine design technologies for the antiship mission. These submarines,

assuming they were the lead boats of new submarine classes, threatened American

ASW weapons with obsolescence.

Any assessment of the American response to this Soviet challenge is complicated by the

fact that the fast, deep-diving nuclear submarine threat proved in many ways to be a

false alarm. Certainly Alfa was fast, demonstrating a 41-knot speed, but her titanium

hull had actually been used to decrease displacement rather than increase operating

depth, which was more like 1,100 feet. Finally, Alfa’s liquid metal reactors used molten

lead-bismuth as its primary coolant, which generated formidable maintenance requirements, including the need for a continuous stream of superheated steam from shore

when the submarine was in port to keep the metal coolant from “freezing.”

80 Thus, Alfa

did not enter serial production until later in the 1970s, and a total of only six were deployed before the program was canceled. Likewise, only one Papa was ever deployed.

Instead, the Soviets focused on building the more traditional CVYs, which were

30-knot submarines, with the exception of Charlie, of which more is offered in the next

section. Nevertheless, Alfa and Papa were viewed as impressive achievements that

might return in more reliable and cost-effective form at a later date, and weapon development programs were begun in 1972 in anticipation of that event.

The result of these programs reversed in some ways the experience of the earlier effort

to preempt the Soviet nuclear submarine threat begun in 1956. In the later case, steady

improvements in the Mk. 48 were made, first with the Mk. 48–3 in the late 1970s,

which gave the submarine a track-via-torpedo capability through the guidance wire,

and then with the envelope extension program deployed in the early 1980s with a deeper

operating depth, and finally with a series of ADCAP (Advanced Capability) modifications beginning in the late 1980s that apparently culminated in a 63-knot torpedo.

81

ADCAPs were bought in significant numbers and deployed by the submarine force.

Lightweight torpedo developments designed to counter the Alfa threat appear to have

gone more slowly in that the Mk. 50 replacement to the Mk. 46 did not finally deploy

THE THIRD BATTLE 59
until the late 1980s, and was never produced in great numbers. On the other hand,

many interim modifications to the Mk. 46 were implemented, including the 46–5

NEARTIP (Near Term Improvement Program), which deployed in the late 1970s.

Lightweight torpedo development was complicated by multiple concerns beyond speed

and depth performance, including warhead lethality, shallow water performance, and

vulnerability of the active seeker to stealthy anechoic tiles, all of which were also addressed to varying degrees by NEARTIP and the Mk. 50.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Alfa did more for the U.S. Navy’s ASW posture than it did for the Soviet Navy’s prosubmarine posture. The Alfas were clearly a

programmatic failure, whether for technical or budgetary reasons, or some combination thereof. Yet they provoked massive investments in ASW weapons by the U.S. Navy,

and these investments resulted in dramatic improvements in the Mk. 46 and Mk. 48,

improvements which helped ensure their continuing effectiveness against the much

more widely deployed CVYs. In some ways, this experience would be repeated with the

Charlie threat.

The Charlie Threat

The Charlie SSGN was the first Soviet submarine to deploy submerged launch, antiship missiles. Twelve Charlie Is were deployed beginning in 1969, each carrying eight

SS-N-7s of approximately 30-mile range. Six Charlie IIs followed, beginning in 1973,

each with eight SS-N-8s of 60-mile range. The total of eighteen Charlie SSGNs eventually deployed constituted by far the smallest class of the second generation of Soviet

nuclear submarines which, depending on one’s definition, also included forty-nine

Victor SSNs and seventy-six Yankee/Delta SSBNs.82 In order to understand the effect

the Charlie had on the U.S. Navy, one needs to look at the capabilities of its predecessor

in the HEN class, the Echo.

The Echo SSGN, along with its non-nuclear contemporary, the Juliett SSG, deployed in

its antiship version 400-mile-range SS-N-3 cruise missiles designed originally for the

land attack role. SS-N-3s were like the U.S. Navy’s Regulus in that they demanded that

the submarine platform surface for launch, deploy and activate a tracking radar, and

remain on the surface linked to the high altitude cruise missile in flight via datalink,

providing guidance commands based on the submarine radar’s tracking data. In its

antiship version, the Echo depended on prior cueing by a radar-equipped maritime

patrol aircraft and terminal homing by a radar seeker on the SS-N-3 itself.

Echo antiship SSGNs were primarily anti-carrier weapons, intended originally as a response to the threat of nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union by carrier-based aircraft

like the A-3 Skywarrior. As such, their SS-N-3s came in both nuclear and conventional

60 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
versions. Outside of this nuclear, homeland defense mission, the Echo’s concept of operation had many problems. In blue water, anti-carrier operations using conventional

warheads, the Echos were vulnerable to long-range tracking by SOSUS; the maritime

patrol aircraft that cued them were limited in endurance and range and vulnerable to

the carrier’s air defenses; the submarine itself was vulnerable while on the surface operating its radar; the high altitude, relatively slow SS-N-3 was vulnerable to air defenses

in flight; and its radar seeker was vulnerable to jamming and deception measures.

Thus, in many respects, the Echo was an ASW challenge that could also be countered

using ASUW and AAW methods, which is largely what happened.83

Charlie seemed to eliminate many of these vulnerabilities. Though it still relied on

offboard cueing, it was deployed along with the first Soviet ocean surveillance satellites,

which were designed to replace the vulnerable and range-limited maritime patrol aircraft force with a space-based system, and whose limitations were not yet fully apparent in the early 1970s.84 The shorter range of the SS-N-7, and later the SS-N-9,

compared to the SS-N-3 reduced the flight time of the missile and eliminated the need

for mid-course guidance, thereby eliminating the need for a radar on the launcher and

in turn allowing a submerged fire-and-forget launch. Finally, the missiles were faster

and flew at low altitude, complicating the air defense problem.

Of course, Charlie was still vulnerable to passive acoustic barriers; but unlike Echo, it

appeared that even in mid-ocean, blue-water operations carrier battle groups would

not be able to defend themselves against Charlies that leaked through the barriers, as

some inevitably would in wartime, or which had predeployed in peacetime. Finally, Charlie appeared clearly more effective than Echo in the homeland defense mission in which

it would operate against American carriers deploying forward of the fixed ASW barriers.

Much of this promise was not realized in practice for several reasons. The Soviet

space-based, ocean surveillance system never fully achieved its original promise for reasons that go beyond the scope of this discussion, which kept Soviet antiship SSGNs dependent on maritime patrol aircraft cueing, which remained a major weakness in

blue-water operations. Another option was to create a more autonomous concept of

operations in which SS-N-7s and 9s were cued by the SSGN’s own passive sonar, which

certainly could detect, localize, and classify fast surface ships at 30 or even 60 miles distance, as indeed Western submarine forces later did with Sub-Harpoon.85 More important, the Charlie was apparently the victim of a bottleneck in Soviet reactor production

during the busy years of CVY construction. Unique among Soviet combatant submarines, Charlies had only one reactor driving a single screw; their top speed was limited to

24 knots, which was not sufficient to keep up with a carrier battle group in blue water.

THE THIRD BATTLE 61
These weaknesses help explain the limited Charlie production run, but they were not

entirely apparent to the U.S. Navy when the Charlie first appeared. One element of the

Navy’s response to the Charlie threat was the long-postponed embrace by the American surface ASW community of the passive acoustic approach to ASW.

The rationale for this was that submerged-launch, sea-skimming, antiship cruise missiles were much less vulnerable to ASUW or AAW countermeasures by a carrier battle

group, and that the ASW screen therefore needed to be expanded in both scope and capability. SSGNs would not suffer from limiting lines of approach against fast carrier

battle groups in the same way that torpedo-armed SSNs did, and they could therefore

attack from all azimuths. Furthermore, their weapons would allow them to stand off

beyond the range of a destroyer screen using active sonar and also eliminate the need

for exposing a periscope within the carrier’s screen, as Soviet SSNs were wont to do

during high-speed approach runs despite the threat of detection by airborne radars. In

order to defend itself, the battle group would need to be able to quickly detect and

prosecute submerged targets at greater ranges and over wider azimuths. Because a carrier’s sound signature propagates through water to the first and second convergence

zones—hence the ranges of SS-N-7s and SS-N-9s—the only answer was for surface escorts to expand the reach of both their sensors and their weapons out to multiple

rather than single convergence zones.

The result was that the surface force slowly evolved from a sensor/weapon suite based

on the SQS-26, ASROC, and LAMPS I to one that included by the late 1980s a passive

towed array and the longer range LAMPS III. The LAMPS/towed array combination

revolutionized surface ship ASW capabilities by combining the detection ranges heretofore only achieved at the tactical level by submarines deploying large, below layer,

passive arrays with the rapid, long-range prosecution capabilities provided only by air

ASW assets.

Waypoints in this transformation included: first experiments and initial deployments

with a towed array surveillance system (TASS) surveillance array (SQR-14/15) towed

from the variable depth sonar (VDS) fish on USS Patterson (DE-1061) in the early

1970s; the deployment of four TASS-equipped Knox class frigates in 1973, primarily to

the Mediterranean for acoustic surveillance because of that sea’s lack of a deep sound

channel for use by SOSUS; first experiments and deployments with an interim tactical

towed array sonar system (ITASS) array (SQR-18) on USS Joseph Hewes (FF 1078) in

1978; and first experiments and deployments of a higher speed tactical array (SQR-19)

on USS Moosbrugger (DD 980) in 1982. By 1987, there were some forty SQR-18s deployed, with SQR-19 about to deploy on Spruances.86 These critical tests repeated the

earlier experience of the submarine force as it progressed through various experiments

62 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
like the SSKs, Albacore, and Tullibee. Another analogy was the assignment of a special

unit to the task of conducting at-sea evaluation of laboratory concepts: SubDevGru 2

in the case of the submarine force, and in 1984 the San Diego-based Destroyer

Squadron 31 for the surface ASW force.87 Unlike the submarine force though, surface

ships remained multimission platforms, and the surface community retained its instinct to focus on ASUW and AAW, never committing as aggressively to exploiting the

ASW potential of its assets as the submarine force had.

For example, funding constraints forced Spruance’s developers to use a “build it and

they will come” strategy, with “it” being the ship and “they” being the bulk of its combat systems. In the ASW mission area, the first Spruances deployed in 1975, with only

SQS-53, a digital, solid state version of the SQS-26, and ASROC. In the early 1980s,

these ships were upgraded with LAMPS I, a digital spectrum analyzer, and torpedo decoys, which added a passive, single convergence zone capability. Only in the late 1980s

did the fully integrated SQQ-89 ASW suite arrive, including LAMPS III and the

SQR-19 towed array, which gave a passive, two to three convergence zone capability.

88

Certainly other pressures besides the Charlie SSGN threat were responsible for this

evolution. But the SSGN threat did play an important role, and it is hard not to see

analogies in this process to the contemporary story of the rise of the Alfa threat and the

Navy’s response to it. Unlike the Alfas and the lone Papa, Charlies were deployed in

meaningful numbers, but they did not decisively threaten U.S. carrier formations; yet

the U.S. Navy responded to the Charlie threat with, among other measures, a vigorous

program to improve the ASW capabilities of its surface escorts. By the mid 1980s, the

surface community was finally demonstrating in practice the ASW potential which it

had always possessed. On the other hand, unlike in the case of the fast, deep-diving

nuclear submarine threat, the Soviet antiship SSGN threat did eventually materialize,

albeit a decade after it was originally identified with the 1981 deployment of Oscar,

armed with twenty-four autonomous, 300-mile-range, submerged launch SS-N-19s.

The improvements in the intervening period in American surface ASW capabilities

therefore proved fortuitous, although, as with the original Echo SSGN threat, the answer to the Oscar transcended ASW alone and demanded a multifaceted approach that

included counter-surveillance and AAW as well.

The Delta Threat

The third challenge to the Navy’s passive acoustic barrier strategy was the deployment

of long-range Soviet SLBMs on the Delta SSBN, a modification of the Yankee. A total

of forty-two Deltas deployed in four classes, beginning in 1973, with missiles that had

ranges of 3,500 to (in the case of the SS-N-8 Mod 2) nearly 5,000 miles. These ranges

were sufficient to allow SSBN alert patrols in the marginal ice seas of the Soviet Arctic

THE THIRD BATTLE 63
littoral, including the Norwegian and Barents Seas, and later, under the permanent ice

of the Arctic Ocean. This had two dramatic effects. First, Soviet SSBNs no longer

needed to pass through SOSUS barriers in order to get within range of their targets.

Second, deployed close to home, they could now be protected in so-called bastions by

the rest of the Soviet Navy.

The one element of the U.S. Navy’s strategic ASW posture, in its original formulation,

that demanded explicit attention was the need to threaten with prompt destruction

forward-deployed SSBNs that menaced the United States with surprise, short-warning

attacks against its nuclear forces and national command authorities. Otherwise, at a

tactical and operational level, strategic ASW was a lesser included case of the overall

ASW posture. This was so because the range of first and second generation Soviet

SLBMs was insufficient to allow attacks against the continental United States without

prior passage by the launch platform through at least one and sometimes several ASW

barriers. These barriers were established to keep all Soviet submarine forces from deploying into mid-ocean areas in a war, and they did not discriminate among platforms.

Thus, assuming that forward deployed SSBNs could be held at risk, the rest of the task

of protecting the United States from Soviet SLBMs was performed by the barriers.

Delta eliminated this natural convergence of ASW tasks, forcing the Navy and higher

political authorities to consider whether a new strategic ASW posture needed to be

fashioned in which explicit steps would be taken to counter Soviet SSBNs able to strike

American targets from the far side of Western ASW barriers. One position in the ensuing debate, first associated with the Nixon doctrine and the tenure of Admiral Elmo

Zumwalt as Chief of Naval Operations, emphasized the U.S. Navy’s sea control mission

and its role in assuring the reinforcement of conventional forces assigned the defense

of Western Europe. Focusing on sea control would mean the abandonment of any

thoughts of trying to place at risk Delta SSBNs withheld in Soviet littoral waters. As

one naval historian has written, “Zumwalt consciously chose to avoid offensive operations in strategically sensitive regions where the enemy ballistic missile submarines

were on patrol. On one occasion, the State Department even announced that this was

declared U.S. strategy.”

89

An alternative view, and the one eventually adopted, was that an explicit attempt

should be made to go forward and hold Soviet SSBNs at risk. This would be done by

surging American SSNs into Soviet SSBN patrol areas in a crisis or at the outset of a

war. Over the thirty to sixty days that such a war could be surmised to last in its conventional phase, American SSNs would search Soviet submarine operating areas and

attack those Soviet submarines, especially SSBNs, which they might find. The rationale

for this approach was twofold. First, it would steadily change the strategic nuclear

64 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
balance in the United States’ favor over the course of a conventional war in Europe.

This might simultaneously reduce the Soviets’ incentives for continuing to fight conventionally if they had met stalemate, reduce their incentives to escalate in order to

break that stalemate, and increase the credibility of Western escalation in the alternative case, where the Soviet conventional attack seemed on the brink of success.

Second, and perhaps more important from the Navy’s point of view, a forward strategic

ASW campaign would actually serve American sea control efforts by forcing the Soviet

Navy to divert many of its sea denial assets to the SSBN bastion defense mission. Here,

the approach was an inversion of the normal relationship between the dominant and

weaker naval powers regarding the submarine, with the U.S. Navy exploiting the fact

that its submarines could also divert Soviet naval assets to the ASW mission in disproportionate numbers.

Evidence that such a diversion would be possible already existed by the mid-1970s.

From the beginning, forward deployments of Yankee SSBNs by the Soviets had put

them in the teeth of a formidable array of U.S. Navy and other Western ASW assets.

Aware of this vulnerability, analogous in the words of one U.S. Navy admiral as that

of a “tethered goat,” the Soviet Navy “pulled some of its best torpedo-armed nuclearpowered submarines out of the Mediterranean and deployed them to the western Atlantic, perhaps in an effort to provide protection for patrolling missile subs which until

now have operated alone.”

90 Both rationales for the forward strategic ASW mission

were described publicly by Admiral James Watkins, the Chief of Naval Operations, in

1986, although most if not all elements of this strategy were in place by the late 1970s.91

Forward strategic ASW could only be performed by SSNs, especially when it involved

under-ice operations.92 Therefore, as the mission grew in importance, this fact was reflected in both force structure and platform design decisions, including a steady rise in

SSN force levels, culminating in the hundred-SSN-force requirement of the 600-ship

navy and the design of USS Seawolf. The cost of growing SSN force levels and the focus

on far forward operations contributed to a relative decline in the share of investments

in other ASW communities.93 It also led to Seawolf, whose emphasis on fast tactical

search speeds and a massive torpedo magazine were reflections of its design mission,

which was to independently search for and kill Soviet submarines in the relatively confined and target rich northern waters of the Soviet Arctic littoral.

There are several differences in the story of the U.S. Navy’s response to the Delta threat

compared to the Alfa and Charlie threats. First, the Soviet long-range SSBN threat actually developed as expected. It did not turn out to be an experiment that failed or was

dramatically delayed in its execution, but instead was implemented rapidly and on a

large scale. Second, there was some degree of open political controversy over whether a

THE THIRD BATTLE 65
response to this Soviet challenge was even needed, whereas in the previous cases any

controversy that occurred was largely internal to the Navy and the Department of Defense, focused on finding the best technical and operational means of responding to a

challenge that all agreed had to be met. Third, it is also more difficult to assess how effective the Navy’s response was to the Delta challenge.

It is difficult to determine whether the Navy’s SSN-based, forward strategic ASW posture would have been effective at the tactical and operational levels or whether it would

have had its anticipated political effects. The uncertainties here are basic, given both

the large scale of the anticipated strategic ASW campaign and the lack of documentation for the sources of Soviet behavior.

Unclassified tactical and operational assessments of the Navy’s forward strategic ASW

campaign were and remain almost universally pessimistic concerning the Navy’s capabilities in this mission.94 The main reasons given for this skepticism are the dual effects

of shallow water and quieter submarines on acoustic search rates. Shallow water eliminates the deep sound channel and convergence zone propagation paths that minimize

sound absorption over long distances; it limits detection ranges to the direct path, and

quiet submarines amplify this effect by reducing the source level of the original signal.

Forward strategic ASW would therefore be conducted in an environment that reduced

the effect of the acoustic advantage that American SSNs had traditionally enjoyed versus Soviet submarines, and more important, quiet Soviet SSBNs would begin to eliminate that acoustic advantage.

The assumption in these analyses that Soviet SSBNs were becoming quieter and would

achieve further reductions in source levels in the future reflected the fact that a serious

and unambiguous Soviet submarine quieting effort had finally become manifest by the

early 1980s. Such an effort had been anticipated for twenty years.95 Even as late as 1976,

the Navy was still being surprised at how loud successive generations of Soviet submarines remained. For example:

Those of us who are in the technical community had staked our reputations on the fact that when

the Delta-class submarine(s) went to sea in 1976 they were going to demonstrate a fundamental quieting program, and we said that to the rest of the world and they did not do it and we lost a lot of

credibility.96

This turned out to be the last of many such pleasant surprises, because soon after

Delta’s deployment came the Victor III in the late 1970s. Regarding the Victor III, Admiral Watkins testified that “we had misjudged the absolute sound and pressure levels

of the Soviet Victor III. We had made an estimating error and found that they were

quieter than we thought.... We learned that they are very hard to find.”

97 The Victor

III was the first Soviet submarine that surprised the Navy with its acoustic stealth, and

66 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
its deployment was a harbinger of worse to come. Thus ended the Navy’s two-decade

long “happy time,” and began the fourth and final phase of the Third Battle—the

struggle against the very quiet nuclear submarine.

THE THIRD BATTLE 67

Phase IV of the Third Battle

ASW and Acoustic Parity, 1980–1990

The Victor III was a harbinger of the Akula, the first Soviet submarine that approached

or achieved acoustic parity with its American contemporaries. Though first deployed

in 1978, it was in 1981 that the full significance of the Victor III’s quieting sank in.98

From public testimony, it is possible to describe broadly the quieting steps finally taken

in this class. In a 1984 reference to operations against Victor IIIs, Chief of Naval

Operations Admiral Watkins testified:

What we also learned was that where we had the towed array that covers the low frequency band it

was effective every time. The lesson is . . . we need to get the low frequency end developed and accelerate its introduction into the fleet. Now we are working on that. We have put extra dollars into the low

frequency end so that we can go after the propeller blade rates and the other things we have to get on a

quiet submarine.99

The significance of this statement is in its reference to the importance of propeller

blade rate tonals for detecting Victor IIIs, which indicates that other, higher frequency, narrowband tonals like those generated by a ship’s service turbo-generators

had been reduced.

This in turn indicates that rafting and other, more advanced quieting techniques first

adopted by Thresher in the United States were probably adopted by the Soviets only

with Victor III. It also demonstrates the significance of the Toshiba nine-axes milling

machinery obtained by the Soviet Union, which gave them the ability to make the kind

of skewback propellers that reduce blade rate tonals.100 This technology, combined on

Akula with the quieting technologies already demonstrated on Victor III, gave the

Soviets by the mid-1980s a nuclear submarine that could elude SOSUS and frustrate efforts by tactical ASW platforms using passive sonar to establish and maintain contact

with it.101 Akula’s narrowband, low-frequency tonals had been reduced below the

source level of its continuous broadband signature, and the source level of that broadband signature was close or equal to that of American Sturgeons and early 688s.102 Absent a strong narrowband tonal structure, and with low broadband source levels,

CHAPTER FIVE
passive acoustic detection, classification, and localization of submarines becomes quite

difficult at long range, and counter-detection becomes more likely at shorter ranges.

In time-honored fashion, the threat of the truly quiet Soviet nuclear submarine really

registered in the larger political environment only when it was associated with an accompanying nuclear weapon threat. In this case, the combination of these two threats

occurred in the “Analogous Response” deployments of Akulas armed with nuclear

land-attack variants of the SS-N-21 sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM).103 Like the

U.S. Navy’s TLAM-N version of the Tomahawk SLCM, SS-N-21 could not be detected

reliably by existing early warning systems, which raised the specter of “no warning”

nuclear attacks against important time-urgent targets like national command centers

and bomber bases.104 At the same time, American ASW forces found it quite difficult to

detect and maintain continuous contact on forward deployed Akulas in the way that

they had with prior generations of louder submarines.105 This resulted in several incidents in which, as one participant put it, “the entire Navy had to deploy in order to

find and maintain contact on one submarine.”

106

Two responses to the quiet submarine threat emerged during the 1980s. Both were

driven by the fear that very long-range, passive acoustic detection of Soviet submarines

would soon be a thing of the past. The first response increased the emphasis on the diversion strategy that had first developed in response to the Delta threat, by increasing

the U.S. Navy’s wartime emphasis on forward SSN operations. The second response

sought to prepare the Navy’s ASW posture for a world in which barriers, open ocean

search, and diversion were all less effective. In this world, the only answer was a return

to the cooperative ASW tactics that had been largely abandoned after the passive

acoustic revolution of the early 1960s.

The Diversion Strategy

The diversion strategy sought to use submarines offensively in forward operations in

such a way as to divert the Soviet Navy, and particularly its best SSNs, away from other,

more offensive missions. It was classically associated in the Navy’s Maritime Strategy of

the 1980s with forward SSN operations in Soviet SSBN bastions, but the decision to deploy TLAM-N on American SSNs may also have been motivated in part by the diversion strategy. In the first and most important case, the argument was that the Soviets

would be forced to protect their SSBNs with their best SSNs.

This strategy relied on the unique diversionary effects of forward SSN operations. It

was based on the view that the Navy could best exploit its dwindling acoustic superiority through offensive operations, but that eventually, when true acoustic parity arrived,

ASW would become essentially impossible. This view was most clearly expressed in

70 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
1986 by Admiral Kinnard McKee, then Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion, when he

opined that:

Eventually, U.S. and Soviet submarine capabilities will converge. Then we will have to think about different applications for submarines because ASW is only going to become a defensive business for submarines in my judgment. It will be blind man’s bluff with other submarines. . . . Many of the other

roles for submarines will become more predominant as we go further into the future, because at some

point, nobody will be able to find a submarine with anything.107

In order to avoid acoustic parity for as long as possible, it was important to wring out

the last improvements in passive acoustics and deploy them on a new submarine optimized to exploit them. This would be Seawolf. In order to best exploit the acoustic superiority that remained, submarines like Seawolf and improved Los Angeles-class 688s

should be used offensively.

As noted, Seawolf was designed with forward operations in mind.108 Its three key characteristics were a much faster tactical speed than the 688, a much larger weapon load,

and eight rather than four torpedo tubes. Tactical speed is the maximum speed at

which a submarine can operate and still detect and classify an opposing submarine

without being counter-detected. High tactical speeds give high search rates, and high

search rates are necessary for independent, forward ASW operations. A larger weapon

load gave Seawolf more endurance in its operating area by reducing the need to return

to port for replenishment. Finally, eight torpedo tubes gave Seawolf a larger Mk. 48

multishot capability. Forward ASW operations in the relatively narrow seas of the

Soviet Arctic littoral were expected to produce a target rich environment, and in such

an environment, torpedo load-outs rather than crew endurance were likely to be the

limiting factor on patrol length. Also, the distance back to port or to a submarine tender was longer the further forward were American submarine patrol areas, increasing

the base-loss factors involved with multiple sorties.

The benefits in terms of diversion of these forward ASW operations were described by

Admiral McKee as follows:

We build a submarine that can stay ahead of the threat and can operate alone and unsupported wherever it wants to go. It provides the fleet commander significantly improved offensive and defensive leverage. . . . It gives him the ability to dictate where the opposition must commit forces to protect

themselves. . . . When they have to deal with submarines they cannot handle, it gives them an increased ASW force level requirement, forces them to commit resources to ASW forces that they would

rather put in other places, and reduces their tactical flexibility because the amount of forces required

to meet a competent submarine threat increases his risk dramatically. . . . Finally, an attack submarine

can modify the entire strategic posture and it has. The Soviet strategic sea-based deployment posture

is based on his concern for the opposition of U.S. submarines. . . . We would like them to continue to

have to deal with that. The bottom line is leverage.109

The resulting leverage imposed on the Soviets was the asymmetric price paid by any

force that must exercise sea control against submarines, diverting the best Soviet SSNs

THE THIRD BATTLE 71
away from offensive missions where they could otherwise extract the same price from

U.S. and Allied ASW forces.

One key to the success of this diversion strategy was a certain minimum level of acoustic superiority. In the long run, Admiral McKee himself had expressed pessimism about

whether such an advantage could be maintained. In the near term, even with Akula,

forward ASW operations by SSNs might remain effective for several reasons.

First, the levels of quieting achieved by Akula would not be representative of the overall

Soviet force for some time. In the meantime, American SSNs could exploit the fact that

they retained an acoustic advantage over earlier Soviet submarines, including their

SSBNs. That such an advantage still existed is clear from statements that Akula was

both quieter than Delta and louder than the latest 688s, giving the latter a still significant acoustic advantage over the bulk of the Soviet SSBN force.110

Second, there is some evidence that the cost of achieving and maintaining acoustic parity for the bulk of its submarine forces might exceed what the Soviets were willing to

pay, both financially and politically. In the latter case, the Soviet Navy had to convince

Soviet shipyards to incur the costs involved with a serious quieting program. The U.S.

Navy discovered those costs in the 1960s, when it was forced to institute a serious quality control program. One catalyst was the USS Gurnard:

USS Gurnard, the first (Sturgeon) built at Mare Island, was surprisingly noisy. It was determined that

no particular flaw existed in the design. Instead, the ship’s relatively high noise level was traced to a

large number of minor imperfections in equipment supplied by contractors and insufficiently checked

by the yard. Silencing had to be a combination of very careful design and very tough—and

costly—quality control at the subcontractor and shipyard levels.111

The Soviet Navy clearly had more trouble than did the U.S. Navy in winning similar

battles with its own shipyards, which in the Soviet system were part of other independent and powerful central ministries. Another problem was the historic Soviet emphasis

on land-based nuclear forces, which had a particular impact on investments in Soviet

SSBNs. Whatever the reasons, it remained the case in the 1980s, and still does today,

that Soviet SSBNs are louder than the quietest Soviet SSNs.112

More important in judging the effectiveness of the diversion strategy, there is considerable evidence that the Soviets themselves believed it would be effective. Beginning in

the mid 1970s, some American analysts of the Soviet Navy had already begun arguing

that its contemporary naval buildup was largely defensive, and that the Soviet Navy saw

“Sea Control on behalf of missile submarines [as] not a secondary but, along with strategic strike, a main goal, to be carried out using surface ships, aviation, and generalpurpose submarines as the first and main task from the very beginning of the war.”

113

In the face of worldwide Soviet naval power projection exercises like Okean 75, many

in and out of the Navy disputed this argument about Soviet intentions. But it gained

72 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
great credibility by the mid 1980s after Soviet exercises during the intervening period

had clearly demonstrated a focus on pro-SSBN operations.

In contrast to the major 1975 worldwide Soviet naval maneuvers called Okean 75, when Soviet tactics

emphasized projecting power into distant waters and cutting Western sea lanes, more recent maneuvers

have focused on finding and destroying enemy submarines and protecting their own missile subs... .

114

This radical change in Soviet behavior was a mystery to U.S. naval intelligence analysts

when it first began to occur in the mid and late 1970s, but the mystery was resolved in

1985 when the Navy first broke the Walker espionage ring, whose information had

shown the Soviets how vulnerable their SSBNs were.115

As noted earlier, the Navy’s forward ASW strategy attracted considerable skepticism

when it was declared publicly in 1986. The contrast between this skepticism and actual

Soviet behavior is striking, in that the latter clearly behaved as if the skeptics were

wrong. Classification still prevents a detailed discussion and assessment of forward

SSN operations in Soviet SSBN bastions during the last decade of the Cold War, but

certain observations can be made with confidence based on the discussion to this

point. These suggest possible explanations for Soviet fears regarding American strategic

ASW capabilities.

First, though the relatively shallow Barents Sea foreclosed convergence zone detection

ranges, it had a relatively smooth bottom which produced superb bottom bounce

propagation and a sound-velocity profile almost uniformly favorable to surface

ducting. This provided for fairly long propagation paths for low-frequency signals often far exceeding normal direct path ranges, even if these paths were still much shorter

than the convergence zone or deep-sound channel propagation paths available in deeper

water. Thus, one finds those who have actually conducted submarine operations in these

waters often speaking of the excellent sonar conditions they experience there.116

Second, given the lingering acoustic advantage that American SSNs retained over

Soviet SSBNs (as opposed to Akula), logic would certainly argue that peacetime tracking operations remained viable. Though there was no substitute for the cueing function provided by the passive acoustic barriers through which older Soviet SSBNs had to

deploy to reach targets in the United States, tracking operations in forward areas might

nevertheless remain viable if SSNs could pick up their prey soon enough after they left

port. In this case, geography provided a focal point that offered the cueing function

formerly delivered by SOSUS. Because 80–90 percent of the total fleet of about sixtyfive Soviet SSBNs continued to remain in port in peacetime, the peacetime requirements for forward deployed American SSNs would remain manageable, especially as

their force structure grew toward a goal of one hundred beginning in the early 1980s,

and their forward-deployed operations tempo remained equal to or even a little higher

than, at 20 percent, Soviet SSBNs.

THE THIRD BATTLE 73
But third, the assumption that Soviet SSBNs not already forward deployed at the outset

of a war would not survive in significant numbers to deliver their missiles against U.S.

targets would no longer be viable. Commensurate with the Soviet development of longer range SLBMs and the establishment of their SSBN bastions was a renewed emphasis by NATO on raising the nuclear threshold on the central front of Europe. A direct

goal of these efforts was to extend the duration of the conventional phase of a

NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict from days to weeks or even months. In this scenario,

Soviet SSBNs in port at the outset of a NATO-Pact conflict would not be exposed to

immediate nuclear attack when the war started. Furthermore, if and when they surged

into their operating areas soon after the war started, there would not necessarily be any

NATO ASW barriers to penetrate before they were in range of their targets. The key determinant of American strategic ASW effectiveness would therefore no longer be only

peacetime tracking operations but also wartime operations. These would aim either to

pick off Soviet SSBNs as they surged from port or for those SSBNs that escaped port

safely, to search for, find, and attack those SSBNs in their patrol areas.

The more pessimistic analyses of American strategic ASW capabilities emphasized the

problem of finding a Soviet SSBN force that had successfully surged into its patrol

areas without being tracked or attacked as it exited port. Here, one is looking at a

search problem over an area spanning, at a minimum, the Barents, the Sea of Okhotsk,

and under the permanent ice in the Arctic. The searchers would be American SSNs

which had surged forward after the Soviet deployment. The important independent

variables other than the search area and the number of searchers were the search rate

of individual SSNs and the tactics of their prey, and the important dependent variable

was time. How many Soviet SSBNs could American SSNs kill during the conventional

phase of a war whose length could not be foretold?

The other side of the equation concerned the vulnerability of American SSNs to counterattack. Here it is important to note the tactical constraints associated with a

long-range, wire-guided torpedo like the Mk. 48. When a wire-guided torpedo is

launched, it is under the control of the launching submarine via the wire, which requires that the launching submarine stay slow and remain pointed toward the target.

The torpedo remains wire-guided until it reaches the acquisition range of its own active

sonar. When the weapon operators determine that the torpedo has acquired the target

submarine, they cut the wire and the weapon becomes autonomous, freeing the launching submarine to maneuver without constraint. Assuming for the sake of argument that

the Mk. 48 had a ten-mile range, a two-mile active acquisition range, and a maximum

speed of 60 knots, certain parameters of the resulting engagement become clear.

74 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
First, an engagement begun at ten nautical miles will take roughly ten minutes to complete, and because a fast torpedo like the Mk. 48 is quite loud, the target submarine will

know that it is under attack essentially as soon as the torpedo is launched. Second, for

the first eight minutes, the control of the torpedo will remain with the launching submarine. A standard Soviet tactic would be for the target submarine to launch an active

homing torpedo down the bearing of the incoming Mk. 48 in the hope that it might

cause the American submarine to cut the Mk. 48 wire and run, or that it might kill the

American submarine if it stayed to complete the engagement, albeit in the latter case,

probably too late to prevent the incoming Mk. 48 from going active and killing the

Soviet submarine first.

The nature of such an engagement provides one explanation of why the Soviets might

have begun escorting their SSBNs with SSNs on a routine basis once they established

their barrier strategy, as they are alleged to have done. In this scenario, an attacking

American submarine might not detect the escort when it attacked, or would be faced

with the need to launch multiple Mk. 48s simultaneously, either case representing less

encouraging odds of survival for the attacking submarine. It also explains the Soviet

interest in rocket-propelled torpedoes, whose speed would allow a counterattack to

strike home before the “go active” range of the Mk. 48 had been reached, assuming of

course that some form of guidance and fuzing could be arranged for a super-cavitating

torpedo. On the American side, this tactical scenario demonstrates the logic behind

Seawolf, especially her eight-tube multishot capability and large magazine, and it also

demonstrates the great tactical value of a quiet torpedo, and indeed the submarine

force was pursuing a quieter Mk. 48 as the Cold War came to an end.117

A more positive assessment of American strategic ASW capabilities would start with

more optimistic assumptions about the respective timing of the surge deployments of

the two forces and whether they occurred prior to or after the start of the war. For example, American SSNs might win a race to the Barents and the Sea of Okhotsk such

that numbers of them were in place off Soviet ports before Soviet SSBNs had surged.

This might occur in a case where the Soviets had withheld their SSBNs in port until after the war started so as not to provide NATO strategic warning of its imminence. Under these circumstances, strategic ASW would be less of a wide area search problem

and more of a barrier problem in a target rich environment, where the two most important independent variables were the exchange rate in engagements between Soviet

and American submarines, and the latter’s supply of torpedoes.

The important question concerns Soviet perceptions about American strategic ASW capabilities. There is considerable evidence that American political and military leaders understood this. In fact, some of them speak in retrospect of the mission of “perception

THE THIRD BATTLE 75
management” regarding the Soviet Navy and its political leadership. For example, on at

least three occasions during the 1980s, the entire American attack submarine force was

flushed out of port and sent to sea in a matter of days. These demonstrations of the

U.S. submarine force’s ability to surge forward quickly on a moment’s notice were

designed in part as a perception management device, and one message that was

probably received by the Soviets concerned the possibility that their SSBNs would

lose a race to the Barents with American SSNs.118 This would certainly be one explanation for the disparity between most outside analyses of American strategic

ASW capabilities and Soviet behavior.

Even to its supporters, the seeming success of this strategy at diverting the best Soviet

SSNs to pro-SSBN missions was not a long term source of comfort, because acoustic

parity at very low source levels between all American and Soviet submarines appeared

inevitable in the long term. This led to a resurgence of interest in coordinated ASW

employing multiple sensors and multiple platforms.

The Return of Coordinated ASW

When the passive acoustic barrier strategy was embraced during the 1960s, the need for

coordinated ASW declined, the final death knell sounding with the elimination of the

HUKs after Vietnam. Relatively loud nuclear submarines could be continuously

tracked on an ocean-wide basis, while diesel-electric submarines could be interdicted

at forward barriers, through which they needed to move at reasonable speed in order to

reduce base-loss factors, and where they therefore needed to snorkel to keep their batteries charged, exposing themselves to long-range passive detection.119 Diesels that

leaked through the barriers could be countered by battle groups with speed and an inner ASW screen, but the problem of protecting slower merchant shipping in the open

ocean and in focal areas near allied ports remained. Merchant convoys would be escorted by ASW frigates in the open ocean, and these retained the kernel of a coordinated ASW approach in their use of organic helicopters and supporting VP. But this

mission and the more ambitious mission of protecting shipping in focal areas near debarkation ports were largely delegated to Allied navies, the clearest example being the

Royal Navy, which retained HUK groups organized around their small deck carriers.

Because it largely delegated this part of the ASW problem to its allies, the U.S. Navy let

its ability to find and maintain contact with truly quiet submarines atrophy.

Thus, when Analogous Response brought this problem back to the fore, the Navy made

an effort to reacquire this expertise. One center of this activity was in Destroyer Squadron 31, which experimented with more coordinated approaches to finding and maintaining contact with Akulas on Analogous Response patrols in the Pacific.120 These

exercises relied on much greater coordination at both the operational and tactical levels

76 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
between the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System, submarine, VP, and DesRon assets involved.

For example, much more vigorous interaction between the IUSS community and the

operating forces was instituted, both in advance of and during an exercise. In the former case, operators were given a much fuller picture of what the intelligence community knew about its target, including the history of its past deployments, and its

expected movements. During the exercise, more communication occurred between the

shore-based and at-sea assets, allowing, among other innovations, the reverse cueing of

SOSUS by operating forces. This required much greater access to crowded ultra high

frequency satellite communications circuits and highlighted the importance of real

time connectivity in coordinated ASW.

This innovation was enabled by an organizational change in the management of the

IUSS community. Historically, the IUSS community had been managed by the intelligence community and therefore had shared the intelligence community’s bias towards

protecting its sources and methods. This reduced its tactical utility to the operating

forces, and real improvements in that utility only occurred in the 1980s because the operating forces gained greater managerial control over IUSS.121

Another innovation which gained momentum during these exercises was the use of

negative search information to better assign search patterns for scarce, relatively

short-ranged sensors. Using statistical models, the absence of detection by a given sensor or sensors over time could be used to build up a wide area picture of those areas

where the probability was highest that a real target lurked, allowing the concentration

of available sensors there. This method was initially developed in support of the first

battle group deployments to the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea in the late 1970s,

where it was the hostility of the acoustic conditions rather than the quietness of the

targets which drove this development.122

Because the Akulas did not produce powerful, continuous, narrowband tonals, transient tonals often provided the best initial detection opportunities at long range. Prosecution of these contacts required quick closure of the datum by air ASW assets, because

only they could reduce the time lag enough to bring broadband sensors within detection range of the Akula’s continuous sound spectrum. Also, air ASW assets provided

the only means of quickly classifying these contacts, thereby reducing the time wasted

prosecuting false contacts. These tactics were platform intensive, and one result was the

first operational use of two-helicopter LAMPs III detachments on DDs and FFGs. This

allowed the DesRon to maintain contact on an Akula over extended periods. These exercises also saw the surface ASW community finally in its element, in that it combined

THE THIRD BATTLE 77
the endurance and long-range passive acoustic towed arrays of the SSN with the ability

to coordinate with or organically deploy a high-density air ASW capability.

Contemporary with exercises like those conducted by DesRon 31 were other efforts to

repair or replace damaged elements of the Navy’s passive barrier strategy. The technical

side of this effort included systems such as the Fixed Deployable System (FDS), the

Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System (SURTASS), and various efforts to use explosive sound sources with existing passive sensors in a repeat of the earlier Julie system.

SURTASS was conceived as a kind of mobile SOSUS array. It employs a very long,

very wide aperture array towed by a civilian-crewed ship. The ship, designated

T-AGOS, utilizes the high bandwidths available through super high frequency satellite communications to uplink its data back to shore, where increasingly complicated signal processing is conducted with essentially unlimited computing assets.

SURTASS, and particularly its active version know as Low Frequency/Active (LFA),

was an attempt to recover some open ocean search capability and constituted the

renaissance of work begun and then abandoned with Project Artemis. In many

respects, SURTASS was and remains the cutting edge of the traditional long-range,

passive acoustic approach to ASW.

123

FDS was an attempt to repair the barrier strategy by using many simple passive sensors

in an upward looking array that used the reliable acoustic path (essentially the direct

path) rather than the deep-sound channel. Each sensor would cover a small cone of the

ocean column, and fiber optic cable provided the bandwidth to network a vast array of

these small sensors and bring their output ashore for processing. But neither the diversion strategy, nor the reembrace of operational and tactical coordination in ASW, nor

the prospect of new sensor and signal processing technologies came close to promising

a return to the happy time of Cold War ASW when the U.S. Navy enjoyed a major passive acoustic advantage over its opponent. Instead, the Navy again faced a future in

which the balance between pro and antisubmarine efforts would once again shift decisively in favor of the former. It is for this reason that the demise of the Soviet Union

and the end of the Third Battle seems highly reminiscent of the “saved by the bell” end

of the Second Battle of the Atlantic. And these similarities carry forward into the

post-Cold War era, the first decade of which makes clear that a Fourth Battle for control of the seas against modern, non-nuclear submarines looms.

78 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
The Fourth Battle?

Submarines and ASW After the Cold War

Current trends in America’s external security environment may confront the U.S. Navy

with new ASW challenges not unlike those it avoided when the Soviet Union collapsed,

albeit in a radically changed security environment. This environment may also demand

that the U.S. Navy’s submarine force adopt additional missions beyond its traditional

focus on ASW. In both respects, the future security environment is likely to challenge

the Navy much as did the one it faced at the outset of the Cold War.

Antisubmarine Warfare after the Cold War

Three specific aspects of this future environment create problems for the Navy’s ASW

posture: the capabilities and relatively wide availability of modern non-nuclear submarines; the United States’ extreme aversion to casualties in post-Cold War conflicts over

less than vital interests; and the U.S. Navy’s doctrinal focus on power projection from

the sea at the expense of sea control.124

First, a technical challenge to the Navy’s ASW posture analogous to that resulting from

the first Soviet deployments of the Akula in the mid 1980s may recur in today’s security environment with the increasingly wide proliferation of modern non-nuclear submarines.125 Deployed relatively close to their homes, in or near littoral waters through

which the United States may need to project power from the sea, these submarines

pose a potentially formidable threat. With a competent crew and the kind of advanced

weapons that are now widely available in global arms markets, a modern non-nuclear

submarine deployed in its own backyard might become a poor man’s Akula. Of even

more concern is the fact that modern weapons—wake homing torpedoes, for example—tend to reduce the demands on submarine crews, making even less competent

crews too dangerous to ignore.

Modern non-nuclear submarines are both better than those deployed by the Soviets

during the Cold War and more widely available as defense industries that served their

CHAPTER SIX
home markets during the Cold War now struggle to use exports to stay alive. One reason that the submarines are better is because many decades of continual investment by

countries like Germany and Sweden have finally paid off in the form of non-nuclear

submarines with air independent propulsion (AIP) systems that make them true submarines rather than mere submersibles. These submarines still do not provide the mobility and endurance of a nuclear submarine, but they greatly reduce the “indiscretion

rate” of a traditional diesel-electric submarine, which must expose a snorkeling mast to

recharge its batteries every few days at a minimum, and much more frequently if forced

to operate at high speed.

Modern submarines are also armed with better weapons and fire control systems. One

particularly alarming development is the marriage made possible by the end of the

Cold War of the air independent, non-nuclear submarine with the submarinelaunched antiship missile. Armed with sophisticated antiship weapons available from

several Western and Russian suppliers, these platforms can launch fire-and-forget missiles from over the radar horizon without the need for the noisy and battery-draining

approach run necessary for a traditional, torpedo-armed, diesel-electric boat. This threat

circumvents the time-honored ASW approach to dealing with very quiet diesel-electrics,

i.e., to flood the ocean surface with radar and use speed to force the submarine to either

run down its battery and expose itself in an attack run or stay quiet and defensive.

The primary ASW challenge has always been wide-area surveillance, and the main

challenge initially posed by the new security environment in this mission area is a wide

area search problem. Sound propagates better in deep water than in shallow water, and

non-nuclear submarines can remain silent for extended periods when allowed to patrol

small areas near their home ports at low speed. Using passive acoustics to search for

such submarines is much more difficult than it was to search for relatively loud Soviet

submarines operating in deep water during the Cold War. On the other hand, active

sonars encounter serious problems with clutter in shallow water, much as early radars

did when forced to look down at targets flying over land. And even in shallow water,

the water column still remains relatively opaque to non-acoustic energy, limiting the

role of RF and laser radars as long-range sensors.

Two new systems stand out as first steps toward gaining a wide area search capability in

the littorals. The first is called the Advanced Deployable System (ADS), and the second

is called Distant Thunder. ADS is a passive ocean bottom array that can be deployed by

a surface ship and whose output is currently collected and processed ashore via

fiber-optic cable. Distant Thunder is primarily a signal processing adjunct to existing

ASW combat systems, combined with legacy, air-droppable, active sound sources and a

relatively simple data link that uses existing UHF radios on participating platforms.

80 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Unlike the Cold War Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) arrays, which listened for

low-frequency, narrowband tonals propagating outward horizontally along the

deep-sound channel, nodes in an ADS array look upward along what is called the reliable acoustic path. ADS is a derivative of the Cold War Fixed Distributed System (FDS)

program, which was an attempt to repair the ASW barrier strategy by using many simple passive sensors in an upward-looking array that used the reliable acoustic path

rather than the deep-sound channel. Each sensor in the ADS would cover a small cone

of the ocean column.

Distant Thunder adds commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) processing to existing towed

arrays on ships (and potentially, submarines) and air-deployed sonobuoys, and links

the processors together using legacy radios with modems to form a network that can

do bistatic or multistatic processing of the echoes from the air-dropped sound source.

The essence of Distant Thunder is that it uses both spatial and temporal processing to

extract a submarine’s echo from the clutter and reverberation of a specific explosion deliberately introduced in the water. Long wavelength towed arrays allow spatial processing

that can eliminate clutter and reverberation entering the array’s sidelobes, and temporal

processing allows reverberating echoes from the same object to be compared over time,

thereby exploiting the fact that a submarine’s echo loses less of its higher frequency spectrum in that time than do objects sitting on the bottom or floating on the surface.

One of the original concerns about Distant Thunder was that variations in bottom topography and content would interfere with its temporal processing capability, but

worldwide experiments have demonstrated excellent performance over a wide range of

environments. Like all acoustic sensors, performance will vary in practice, depending

on many circumstances, yet Distant Thunder promises to return a substantial portion

of the detection ranges initially lost when the Navy first shifted its focus to shallow

water ASW. Another benefit of Distant Thunder is that it demonstrates long-range performance under a wide variety of acoustic conditions, including the very common case

in the littoral where sound is refracted away from the surface, a condition which drastically reduces the performance of a traditional, hull-mounted sonar.

Distant Thunder is also a great example of the incredible power of networked sensors,

and the relative ease of backfitting such a capability onto legacy platforms once the

substantial initial challenge of developing the necessary signal processing algorithms is

completed. Distant Thunder can be backfitted onto any towed-array ship or submarine

and onto LAMPs helos and P-3s. For example, on surface ships with the SQQ-89 ASW

system, the physical footprint of a Distant Thunder backfit consists of one server and

two laptops.

THE THIRD BATTLE 81
Specialized periscope or mast detection radars can also play an important role in the

ASW search problem. Even during the Cold War, Soviet nuclear submarines regularly

exposed a periscope when seeking a torpedo fire control solution against the fast ships

of a battle group. And, of course, radar has an important role to play in preventing diesel submarines from snorkeling to recharge their batteries. Thus, a combination of

speed and radar deployed to search within the limiting lines of approach created by

that speed have always been an important ASW tactic against all submarines. Likewise,

radar flooding—in which a large area is continuously illuminated with RF energy so as

to set off a submarine’s radar warning alarm whenever it exposes a periscope with a radar warning receiver on an ECM mast designed to detect and warn of an enemy’s

search radars—is also a traditional tactic against diesel submarines. But specialized

mast detection radars like the APS-137 used on the S-3 and the P-3 experience tremendous false alarm rates caused by both sea state and other floating objects and debris

when their detection threshold is set low to maximize range or sensitivity.

The Automatic Radar Periscope Detection and Discrimination (ARPDD) program is

developing the capability to process the S-3B’s APS-137 returns in such a way as to allow very low detection thresholds (i.e., long range and high sensitivity) and very low

false alarm rates. Very impressive results have already been demonstrated in shipboard

experiments, but unlike Distant Thunder, ARPDD needs further development time to

simplify the massive processing capability it now requires before it can be backfitted

onto legacy P-3 and LAMPs platforms.

Second, consideration must be given to a political challenge associated with conflicts in

which the United States is fighting over less than all-out stakes. In such conflicts, there

will be a very low tolerance for shipping losses, but the presence of even a small opposing submarine force will make it extremely difficult for the Navy to quickly eliminate

the possibility of such losses.

Regarding casualties, even in a major regional contingency the stakes for the United

States are limited, while those of its opponents are very high indeed. The opponent

may be willing to run great risks and sustain high losses, while the United States will

not. Faced with the possibility or the reality of losses at sea, the Navy will be forced to

stop and eliminate that threat before proceeding, and when that threat is submarinebased, its elimination will not be immediate and may take weeks.

A good analogy is to the great Scud hunt of Desert Storm. Thousands of sorties were

diverted over several weeks from the air war during Desert Storm to hunt for Scud missiles to little or no effect. From an ASW perspective, this experience is illuminating for

both operational and political reasons.

82 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Operationally, Scud hunting was like ASW against a quiet target. A large area needed to

be searched for objects that easily blended into the background and only intermittently

exposed themselves. Thus radar was used to flood Scud operating areas, unattended

field sensors were also deployed, and aircraft were used to pounce on potential contacts. This was a protracted, extremely asset-intensive endeavor, characterized by false

alarms, high weapon expenditures, and low success rates. In short, a Scud launcher was

most likely to reveal itself by successfully launching its weapon, just as sinking ships are

often the only reliable indication that there is a submarine in the neighborhood.

The political lessons of the Scud hunt also apply to ASW. Before the war, the Scud had

rightly been dismissed as a serious military threat, but once they began landing in Israel, the political imperative to allocate scarce resources to at least appear to counter

this threat rapidly overwhelmed these narrow military calculations. The same political

pressures would be brought to bear on ASW forces facing active enemy submarines,

but unlike Scud missiles, which remain terror weapons without much military utility,

submarines are a deadly serious military threat as well a political one. Therefore, it will

not do to simply appear to be addressing the ASW problem with a major allocation of

resources. Real results will have to be forthcoming before political and military leaders

will be willing to risk valuable seaborne assets, be they Navy aircraft carriers, amphibious force ships carrying Marines, or Army sealift ships.

A delay of several weeks during the halting phase of a major regional conflict might

not be a war stopper all by itself, but it is important to understand the consequences

for current time-phased force deployment list timelines, which assume the arrival of

millions of square feet of pre-positioned sealift within the first two weeks of the commencement of hostilities. This would transform a rapid deployment into a slow one,

throw the deployment timelines of all the services askew, and open a window of indeterminate size at the outset of a conflict in which the enemy can operate unmolested

except by those opposing forces already in theater, assuming they do not need an open

sea line of communication to sustain themselves.

Third, the Navy confronts a doctrinal challenge as it attempts to increase its ability to

project power from the sea. The Navy faces a new operating environment in which it is

increasingly relevant and therefore in demand. Unlike in the post World War II era when

the Navy was searching for a mission, the Navy has been inundated with new missions in

the post-Cold War era, and these new missions compete with ASW for resources.

This has serious consequences for ASW because, as noted above, ASW is a multiplatform mission area performed by multi-mission platforms. As the Navy’s strike warfare, anti-air warfare, missile defense, and amphibious warfare capabilities have grown

in importance in the nation’s military strategy, the Navy has shifted its focus away from

THE THIRD BATTLE 83
an emphasis on blue water sea control toward power projection and land control in the

littorals. Yet these missions must be performed by the same platforms that perform

ASW—the air, surface, and submarine communities, all supported by the ocean surveillance community. It is natural that the Navy’s platform communities should shift

their focus; but in a time of declining resources, this shift inevitably comes at the expense of other missions performed by those platforms.

This “multi-mission pull” increasingly makes ASW compete with strike warfare and

theater air and missile defense for the same resources and training opportunities. The

other mission areas are winning these battles and pulling the Navy’s major platform communities away from ASW, particularly in the aviation and surface warfare branches.

This shift in orientation is occurring at a time when technology increasingly demands

that ASW be a coordinated, “combined arms” exercise if it is to succeed. All elements of

the Navy’s ASW posture must be maintained to succeed in the fight against quiet submarines, but all three of the Navy’s major platform communities perceive that their

survival in the new security environment depends to some extent on their success in

performing other missions.

New Missions for Submarines after the Cold War

The U.S. Navy’s submarines have not been immune to the pressure to look at new missions, and this pressure has arguably been greatest in the area of strike warfare. One

manifestation of this pressure is the Trident SSBN to SSGN program, which, when

completed, will dramatically increase the submarine force’s capabilities in this mission

area.126 A Trident SSGN program will also demonstrate a repeat of the submarine

force’s post World War II experience, when radical innovation made it a key player in a

new mission, assuring its continued relevance in a new security environment.

Trident SSGNs are being converted because new precision weapons, new platforms for

launching them, and new concepts for using them are needed to help the U.S. Navy

meet the demands created by new geopolitical and technological trends in America’s

external security environment. Geopolitics and technology are conspiring to pull the

Navy ashore from the sea, without eliminating the traditional and irreducible need for

a navy that is capable of controlling the sea. The tension between “From the Sea” and

controlling the sea is real, but a wholehearted embrace by the Navy of one orientation

to the exclusion of the other is neither desirable nor necessary. New ways of performing precision strike from the sea, if vigorously exploited, will reduce the need for tradeoffs between sea control and power projection.

84 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Long-range precision weapons can dramatically reduce the mass that must be projected from the sea in order to produce a given effect ashore, while at the same time expanding the power that can be projected by a given naval force. They reduce the

requirements for mass by making target destruction possible with one or two precision

weapons rather than ten or a hundred unguided bombs; in addition, by allowing long

standoff ranges from the target, they increase the number of platforms that can serve as

precision weapon launchers. This means that both surface ships and submarines can

join aircraft carriers to form a triad of naval strike warfare assets. It also means that

each weapon launcher, whether it be an aircraft or a ship’s vertical launch system for

missiles, is capable of achieving much greater and more precise effects. Future improvements in long-range precision weapons will occur at the steep rate characteristic

of technologies still in their infancy, as compared to the more sedate rate at which

more mature systems improve.

In principle, these new capabilities can be used in one of two ways. At one extreme

would be an effort to maximize the Navy’s overall contribution to the precision strike

from the sea mission area. This is tempting, because it gives each of the Navy’s major

platform communities a role in a mission that is clearly of central national importance

in the new security environment and which, therefore, is easier to fund in a time of declining or steady budgets. At the other extreme, the Navy could aim only to meet the

minimum demands for precision strike from the sea, and exploit new precision weapons to minimize the investment in this mission area rather than maximize capabilities.

The advantage of this approach would be that it would allow the Navy to focus more

on sea control, as well as other missions which only it can perform, leaving greatly increased precision strike largely to the other services.

It is impossible today to predict with certainty where on this continuum the Navy will

be tomorrow, but there are two variables which will largely determine the need. First is

the question of access to overseas bases, and second is the evolution of future threats to

American sea control. Assuming continued access to a robust overseas base structure in

both crisis and war, the other services (notably, the Air Force) will continue to be able

to provide the bulk of the required precision strike assets in a future contingency. If, on

the other hand, that assured access ashore is denied or sharply limited, the Navy will be

forced to fill the void from the sea.127 At the same time, future adversaries may continue

to cede the United States control of the seas, as Iraq did during Desert Shield/Desert

Storm, which in turn would allow the U.S. Navy to continue its current deemphasis on

sea control. Alternatively, these adversaries might discover that the best way to blunt

American power projection capabilities is at sea, and that the highest leverage sea denial capabilities are provided by modern, undersea warfare weapons, as both the

THE THIRD BATTLE 85
Iranians and the Chinese may have already decided, as suggested by their recent purchases of Russian Kilo-class submarines.

The most challenging scenario for the Navy is one where U.S. access to overseas bases is

greatly reduced, and where the proliferation of relatively low cost and easy to use access

denial weapons—such as modern diesel-electric submarines, anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, and naval mines—continues to grow. This is a world in which the Navy

will have to provide a larger portion of national power projection capabilities, while

also placing much more emphasis on sea control than it does now. Indeed, it is arguable that this is the security environment the United States is already beginning to face

along the great arc of the Indian and Pacific Ocean littorals. In it, the U.S. Navy’s relevance is likely to exceed its currently projected capabilities by a wide margin, and dealing with this “crisis of relevance” will demand innovation, particularly in precision

strike from the sea.128

This has led the Navy to explore how best to improve its submarine force’s capabilities

in precision strike from the sea; deepen its commitment to developing improved precision weapons for use on all naval platforms—and notably its submarines and surface

combatants; and ensure that all naval platforms enjoy connectivity sufficient to link

into future intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance nets. The combination of submarines and long-range precision weapons is particularly relevant to this problem, because it links a weapons platform whose inherent stealth makes it easy to defend and a

weapon against which defense is extremely difficult. It is this combination of inherent

survivability and lethality which the SSBN force brought to the nuclear deterrence mission; given the rapidly growing lethality of modern precision weapons, this is what

makes a conventional SSGN force such an important opportunity.

The size of this opportunity can be measured directly in terms of the added strike warfare and special operations capabilities it provides, and indirectly in terms of the capabilities it liberates in the other platforms with which it shares missions, since they are

normally multimission platforms as well. In the first case, an SSGN assigned to a battle

group would double or triple its strike assets and give the battle group commander a means

of suppressing opposing air defenses and shore-based sea denial forces from a stealthy,

secure, forward-based platform. Used in this way, an SSGN would increase the effectiveness

of and reduce the danger to other battle group strike assets early in a conflict.

Less obviously, by improving the submarine force’s contribution to precision strike

from the sea, an SSGN would also help create additional ASW, air, and tactical ballistic

missile defense capabilities in the air and surface forces by giving the Navy more flexibility to focus on those mission areas should the need arise. This could be reflected

physically in terms of finite magazine space allocations, by allowing other platforms to

86 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
carry fewer strike weapons, or tactically and operationally, by giving other platforms

more freedom of maneuver in space and time early in a contingency when multimission pull is highest.

THE THIRD BATTLE 87

Conclusions

During two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, submarines were the

weapon of choice for naval powers needing to contest the control of seas dominated

by stronger navies. In their peacetime preparations for these conflicts, the stronger

navies tended to underestimate this threat to their sea lines of communication. In both

world wars, submarines therefore tended to win the first battles between pro and

anti-submarine forces. ASW success for the major naval powers depended upon urgent

wartime adaptation at the technical, operational, and tactical levels. Even for those

powers that were relatively quick to adapt, as were the British in World War I and both

the British and the United States in World War II, their eventual ASW success was tempered by the radically asymmetric levels of effort by the contestants in favor of the submarine. The one major naval power that failed to adapt to a wartime submarine

challenge, the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War II, lost control of its oceanic supply lines to American submarines with catastrophic consequences.

The Third Battle, beginning roughly in the middle of the century, had a different pattern. First, the U.S. Navy was much more aggressive in its Cold War efforts to counter

Soviet submarines than any of the major naval powers were before the two world wars.

It developed innovative new ASW techniques based on passive acoustics which reduced

the historic disparity in investment favoring the submarine over ASW forces. This

happy state of affairs lasted until the Soviet Union finally deployed truly quiet nuclear

submarines in the early 1980s, but the Cold War was already on its last legs by then.

Thus, in many respects, the U.S. Navy was the first great power navy to win a peacetime

battle for ASW supremacy with the submarine force of a major competitor.

On the other hand, the post-Cold War security environment presents some of the operational and technical challenges in ASW that the unanticipated end of the Third Battle allowed the Navy to avoid. This security environment is also placing pressure on the

submarine force to adopt new missions, particularly in the area of precision strike. In
both cases, innovation will be necessary by both the U.S. Navy and its submarine force

if the demands of this new security environment are to be met.

In describing the innovations underlying the U.S. Navy’s Cold War ASW effort, this

paper has also sought to lay the groundwork for further research and writing along

two additional paths. First, as an unclassified discussion, it has by necessity left out

much that is relevant to the Cold War ASW story. That story does need to be fully

developed in all its breadth and detail. For example, non-acoustic means of ocean

surveillance, particularly those based on signals intelligence, undoubtedly played a

major role in the Third Battle, as they did in the Second Battle, but remain classified because of the continuing relevance of the sources and methods involved. The

same constraints apply to details about tactical, operational, and technical developments in the undersea surveillance, submarine, surface, and air ASW communities.

The Navy should have a great interest in sponsoring rigorous historical studies of

these areas at whatever classification level is necessary in order to preserve its institutional memory of events now often residing only in the individual minds of a

shrinking cadre of actual participants.

Second, this paper seeks only to establish the record of innovation in the Cold War

ASW battle and does not attempt to explain its causes. The motivation for this effort

was to develop an important series of case studies of successful, peacetime innovation

by a major military organization. The case studies here described are important for academic researchers for two reasons: cases of rapid, peacetime innovation in military

doctrine are rare, and the Navy’s success in the Third Battle was largely untold. This paper, therefore, provides additional case material for research on the sources of peacetime military innovation.

In addition, the particular case of the U.S. Navy’s submarine force’s role in the

Third Battle, especially in the early years from the late 1940s to 1960, constitutes a

puzzle for existing theories of the sources of peacetime innovation. These theories

explain innovation as the result either of outside intervention by high-level political leaders, protracted struggles for control within a service among its branches, or

interservice competition between independent military services in areas of mission

overlap. It is difficult to explain the post World War II evolution of the submarine

force in any of these terms—high-level political leaders seem largely absent from

the story at the outset; the changes appear too quickly and decisively to be the result of the normal pulling and hauling on a generational timescale between internal Navy platform communities; and ASW was a mission area that the Navy had

largely to itself, unlike carrier aviation and missiles, which did become major bones

of interservice contention. Identifying the factors which caused both the submarine

90 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
community and the Navy as a whole to so quickly recast their entire mode of ASW

operation in peacetime and in the immediate aftermath of a great victory will help to

develop better theories about the sources of military innovation. Such theories, in

turn, can help U.S. political and military leaders with the practical task of adjusting

to the demands of a radically new, post-Cold War security environment.

THE THIRD BATTLE 91

Notes

1. For a summary of this larger project, see

Owen Cote and Harvey Sapolsky, “The Navy

and the Third Battle of the Atlantic,” Submarine Review, July 1997, pp. 40–2.

2. Bernard Brodie, Sea Power in the Machine Age

(New York: Greenwood Press, 1969), p. 261.

3. George R. Lindsey, “Tactical Anti-submarine

Warfare: The Past and the Future,” Adelphi

Paper No. 122, p. 30.

4. On the significance of the adoption of diesel

propulsion see Captain Harry A. Jackson,

USN (Ret.), Commander William D.

Needham, USN, and Lieutenant Dale E.

Sigman, USN, “ASW: Revolution or Evolution,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (hereafter Proceedings), September 1986, pp. 64–5.

5. Vice Admiral Sir Arthur Hezlet, The Submarine and Sea Power (New York: Stein and Day,

1967), p. 106.

6. Very Long Range (VLR) B-24s were first deployed to Iceland in late 1942, but only in

small numbers. The decisive step came in

March 1943 when two VLR squadrons—one

American and one Canadian—were deployed

to Newfoundland. March 1943 also saw the

first use of small escort carriers (CVEs) as

ASW escorts in the air gap. CVEs later played

a larger role when German submarines fled

the North Atlantic and shifted their attention

to the sea lanes linking the United States and

North Africa. See Henry Probert, “Allied

Land-Based Antisubmarine Warfare,”

pp. 378–9, and David Hobbs, “Ship-borne Air

Anti-submarine Warfare,” pp. 392–5, in

Stephen Howarth and Derek Law (eds.), The

Battle of the Atlantic 1939–1945 (London:

Greenhill Books, 1994). See also, Alfred Price,

Aircraft Versus Submarine (London: Jane’s

Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 127–53.

7. On American use of HF/DF, see Kathleen

Broome Williams, Secret Weapon: U.S.

High-Frequency Direction Finding in the Battle

of the Atlantic (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 1996).

8. Lindsey, “Tactical Anti-submarine Warfare,”

pp. 30–1.

9. Michael A. Palmer, Origins of the Maritime

Strategy: American Naval Strategy in the First

Postwar Decade, Contributions to Naval History, No. 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office [hereafter GPO], 1988),

pp. 24–5.

10. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Project Hartwell, A Report on Security of Overseas

Transport, 21 September 1950, Volume I, Appendix D, p. D–55.

11. Maurice Ewing and J. Lamar Worzel, “LongRange Sound Transmission,” Geological Society

of America Memoir 27, 15 October 1948, p. 1.

12. See, for example, W. W. Stifler and W. F.

Saars, “SOFAR,” Electron, 21:98, 1948.

13. H. H. Baker, “Missile Impact Locating System,” Bell Telephone Laboratory Record,

39:195, 1961.

14. Chief of Naval Research to Assistant Chief of

Naval Operations for Undersea Warfare, “Bell

Telephone Laboratories’ Contracts - Low Frequency Detection,” 4 May 1951, J15-11, U.S.

Navy Operational Archives.

15. Frank Andrews, “The Evolution of

SubDevGru 12,” Submarine Review, April

1983, p. 4.

16. Ibid., p. 9. One of the members of the fire

control party on this historic occasion was

K-1’s chief engineer—Lt. Jimmy Carter. Interview by the author with Frank Andrews, 16

July 1998. In 1955, K-1, K-2, and K-3 were

named Bass, Barracuda, and Bonita. Each displaced less than half the tonnage of a World

War II fleet boat.

17. Joseph F. Bouchard, Command in Crisis: Four

Case Studies (New York: Columbia University

Press, 1991), p. 117.

18. On this point, see Jan S. Breemer, “The Submarine Gap: Intelligence Estimates

1945–1955,” Navy International, February

1986, pp. 100–5.

19. U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, “Bacteriological Warfare and Radioactive Material”

(Information Report), 30 December 1950, p. 1

(Top Secret), as cited in Norman Polmar and

Jurrien Noot, Submarines of the Russian and
Soviet Navies, 1718–1990 (Annapolis, Md.:

U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1991), p. 149.

20. On this reporting by ONI, see Jan Breemer,

“Submarine Missile Developments,

1947–1962,” Navy International, March 1985,

pp. 171–9.

21. Committee on Undersea Warfare, National

Academy of Sciences, Project Nobska: The Implications of Advanced Design on Undersea

Warfare, Final Report, Volume 1: Assumptions, Conclusions, and Recommendations,

p. 34.

22. Memorandum to McGeorge Bundy from

Robert Johnson, “The FY 1962 Budget –

Issues Relating to the U.S. Military Program,”

30 January 1961 (Second Draft), pp. 2, 3, and

6, John F. Kennedy Library, National Security

Files, Box 273, Folder: Department of Defense, General, 1/61. I am indebted to Greg

Koblentz for this document.

23. Norman Friedman, U.S. Submarines Since

1945: An Illustrated Design History

(Annapolis, Md.: U.S. Naval Institute Press,

1994), p. 109.

24. A good textbook on the subject of the following discussion is Albert W. Cox, Sonar and

Underwater Sound (Lexington, Mass.:

Lexington Books, 1974).

25. On tonals and other aspects of a submarine’s

acoustic signature, see William S. Burdic, Underwater Acoustic System Analysis (Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1991), pp. 339–45.

26. For a detailed, quantitative discussion of

narrowband signal processing, see Tom

Stefanick, Strategic Antisubmarine Warfare

and Naval Strategy (Lexington, Mass.:

Lexington Books, 1987), pp. 293–306.

27. On layers, convergence zones, and sound

channels, and their effects on sound propagation, see Robert J. Urick, Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers (New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 122–59.

28. Two authoritative unclassified sources on the

history of SOSUS are available online at http://

www.spawar.navy.mil/commands/

comunderseasurv/pages/SOSUS.htm and

http://c4iweb.spawar.navy.mil/pd18/

pd18hist.htm. The latter was authored by Ed

Dalrymple and I am indebted to Captain

Gerry Nifontoff for alerting me to it.

29. Interview by the author with Robert Frosch of

Project Michael.

30. For the reader who wishes to pursue further

research on the role of signals intelligence

(SIGINT) in the Third Battle, the best place to

start is pp. 25–52 of Appendix D in Volume I

of the Project Hartwell report, referenced

above in note 10. This is a discussion of the

design of an HF/DF network able to intercept

very short “burst” or “flash” communications.

The Germans had developed a burst transmission system named Kurier for use by their

submarine force near the end of World War

II. Kurier compressed a standard operational

message down to a half-second HF transmission, defeating traditional DF techniques

which relied on multiple stations tuning to a

signal and gaining a bearing on it after the

transmission had commenced. The Hartwell

Team expected that the Soviets would adopt

this technology for their submarine force, and

therefore designed a system to counter it. For

an account of when the Soviets did adopt

burst transmissions and what the U.S. response was, see W. Craig Reed with William

Reed, Crazy Ivan (Lincoln, Neb.:

iUniverse.Com, Inc., 2000), pp. 185–208.

31. On the Tenth Fleet, see Ladislas Farago, The

Tenth Fleet (New York: Paperback Library,

1962).

32. Nobska, p. 6.

33. Ibid., p. 29.

34. I am indebted to Fred Milford for this point.

One of the reasons for the relatively low number of SSNs was of course the Polaris program, which essentially consumed all nuclear

submarine production during the first half of

the 1960s.

35. For a discussion of Navy ASW capabilities

during the SSK era, see Frank Andrews, “Submarine Against Submarine,” Proceedings, May

1966, pp. 43–57.

36. Triton was the first nuclear submarine to be

retired, while Halibut was converted into a

special mission submarine.

94 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
37. On reactor shaft horsepower figures, see

Friedman, U.S. Submarines, p. 142.

38. Until the late 1960s, LOFAR was normally

used only as an adjunct to a submarine’s sonar suite when it was assigned to special missions. Later, LOFAR became an integral part

of the digital sonar suites that came into the

force in the early 1970s.

39. Frederick J. Milford, “U.S. Navy Torpedoes:

Part Eight, Torpedoes in the Cold War,” Submarine Review, April 1998, p. 81.

40. Commander T.F. Schneider, “The Role of

Carrier Aircraft in Anti-Submarine Warfare,”

in Air Aspects of Antisubmarine Warfare, presented at Seventh Undersea Symposium, May

1952, DTIC # AD 5088, p. 9.

41. Norman Friedman, U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History (Annapolis, Md.: Naval

Institute Press, 1982), p. 279.

42. Interview by the author with Rear Admiral

Richard F. Pittenger, 10 December 1996. See

also Frank Massa, “Sonar Transducers: A History,” Sea Technology, Vol. 30, No. 11 (November 1989), pp. 46–7.

43. On the SQS-26, I am indebted to Thaddeus

Bell for providing me a copy of his unpublished manuscript, Probing the Oceans: A

History of the AN/SQS-26 Long-Range EchoRanging Sonar Development, Revision 4, 29

March 2001. See also, Norman Friedman, U.S.

Naval Weapons (London: Conway Maritime

Press, 1983), p. 264.

44. Both of these vignettes are described in the

SOSUS program history cited in note 28.

45. Russ Mason, “The Evolution of Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare,” p. 47, an unpublished

manuscript provided the author by Rear Admiral Dan Wolkensdorfer, USN (Ret.).

46. Commander in Chief U.S. Atlantic Fleet, “Annual Report of the Commander in Chief U.S.

Atlantic Fleet, 1 July 1960—30 June 1961,” 16

January 1962, p. 37, CINCLANTFLT command files, Navy Operational Archives, Washington Navy Yard.

47. U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of Defense Appropriations,

Fiscal Year 1975, Part 3 (Washington, D.C.:

GPO, 1974), p. 444.

48. On the cooperation between the United

States, Great Britain, and Norway in developing, deploying, and exploiting SOSUS, see

Olav Riste, The Norwegian Intelligence Service,

1945–1970 (London: Frank Cass, 1999), pp.

164–90.

49. Joel S. Wit, “Advances in Antisubmarine

Warfare,” Scientific American (February

1981), pp. 36–7; Jeffrey Richelson, The U.S.

Intelligence Community (Cambridge, Mass.:

Ballinger, 1985), pp. 148–9.

50. See letter from Fred Korth to John Stennis on

the subject of ASW operations during the Cuban Missile Crisis, 29 November 1962, Navy

Operational Archives, 00-Box 11-1962, Folder

S.F. #5.

51. Norman Friedman, U.S. Destroyers, pp.

363–4.

52. Ibid., p. 363.

53. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee

of the Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1965, Part

5, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 16 March 1964, pp. 275–6.

54. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee

of the Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1966, Part

3, 11 March 1965, p. 674.

55. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on

Armed Services, Hearings on Military Posture

and H.R. 4016, to Authorize Appropriations

during Fiscal Year 1966, 2 February 1965,

pp. 1079–80.

56. Ibid., p. 1080.

57. Interview with Ed Dalrymple, 13 July 1998.

58. Mechanical blade rate tonals occur at very low

frequencies. Provided an array with sufficient

aperture and narrowband signal processing,

they can be detected at great distances. The

Soviet Navy did not eliminate these tonals

from their submarines until Akula deployed

in the early 1980s. For an early technical description of the source of these tonals, see

Donald Ross, Mechanics Of Underwater Noise

THE THIRD BATTLE 95
(New York: Pergamon Press, 1976), pp. 101,

293–5, 297–8.

59. Thus eliminating the burning smell so familiar to a generation of American submariners,

caused by the BQQ-3’s use of a heat stylus to

literally burn narrowband tonals onto a moving sheet of paper.

60. Friedman, U.S. Submarines, pp. 67–8.

61. An example of the importance of these signatures to sonar performance prediction was

provided by then CNO Admiral Watkins in

1984, when he noted less than predicted ASW

performance in exercises involving Victor IIIs

because “we had misjudged the absolute

sound and pressure levels of the Victor III.

We had made an estimating error, and found

that they were quieter than we had thought.”

See testimony of Admiral James D. Watkins,

Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,

Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1985, Part 8, 14

March 1984, p. 3889.

62. A window into the importance of individual

submarine fingerprints for SOSUS performance is provided in: Memorandum, Rear

Admiral Richard G. Colbert and W. E.

Gathright, Policy Planning Council, to Walt

W. Rostow, Director, Policy Planning Council, “The ChiCom ‘G’ Class (MissileLaunching Submarine),” 4 May 1965,

enclosing U.S. Naval Intelligence Paper,

“ChiCom ‘G’ Class,” 11 April 1965, Top

Secret, National Archives, RG 59, Policy

Planning Council Subject and Country Files,

1965–1969, box 328, Misc. folder. The problem outlined in this memo is the imminent

deployment of a Soviet Golf Class SSB by the

Chinese, and the question of whether SOSUS

would be able to distinguish this submarine

from its Soviet cousins.

63. On the value of knowledge of the strength of

the target signal, see Frank Andrew’s comments in William Browning, “Submarine

Warfare and Tactical Development: A Look –

Past, Present, and Future,” Proceedings of the

Submarine Development Group TWO & Submarine Development Squadron TWELVE 50th

Anniversary Symposium 1949–1999, U.S.

Naval Submarine Base New London, 20–22

May 1999, pp. 35–6.

64. Later, the VP community developed its own

capability to obtain opposing submarine signatures. Interview by the author with Rear

Admiral Dan Wolkensdorfer, USN (Ret.),

17 November 1998.

65. I am indebted to Thomas Maloney for a discussion of the relative merits of the 594s and

especially the 637s in tracking operations

compared to their predecessors. Interview, 18

November 1997.

66. The flip side of this enhanced field of view was

a more complex set of propagation paths between the target submarine and its hunter.

Broadband sound from a Soviet sub could

take the direct path to the spherical array in

the bow of a trailing American submarine, or

it could first bounce off the surface or, in shallow water, the bottom. The direct path signal

might not always be the most powerful, which

could sometimes confuse the automatic

tracker in the bow sonar into thinking that the

submarine being trailed was shallower or

deeper than it actually was. This is just one example of how trailing operations could go

awry even when the U.S. sub had a tremendous acoustic advantage over its prey. See

“Synopsis of Interview With Donald Ross, San

Diego, California, 1998” in Reed, Crazy Ivan,

pp. 209–20.

67. Russ Mason manuscript.

68. U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee

of the Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1965, Part

5, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 16 March 1964, p. 279.

69. On the calm official reaction to the first Yankee deployments, see William Beecher, “Soviet Missile Submarines on Patrol off U.S.

Coasts: But Pentagon Aides See Deployment

as Only Defensive,” New York Times, 10 May

1968, p. 3.

70. Two submarine patrol reports, recently declassified by N77, the Undersea Warfare Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval

Operations, describe trail operations during

the “Happy Time”: Commanding Officer,

96 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
USS Guardfish (SSN 612) to Commander in

Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, “Trail of Soviet Echo

II nuclear submarine (case PAPA 07) during

the period 12 May 1972 – 6 June 1972”; Commanding Officer, USS Batfish (SSN 681) to

Chief of Naval Operations (OP-95), “Report

of Mission LS-26, 2 March 1978 – 17 May

1978.” The first describes a trail of an Echo by

a Permit in the Pacific in 1972. The second describes a trail of a Yankee by a Sturgeon in the

Atlantic in 1978. For a recent description of

the later operation, see Thomas B. Allen,

“Run Silent, Run Deep,” Smithsonian, March

2001, pp. 50–61.

71. Interview with Rear Admiral Richard

Pittenger, USN (Ret.), 12 December 1996.

72. R. F. Cross Associates, Sea-Based Airborne Antisubmarine Warfare, 1940–1977, Volume II

1960–1977, Prepared for Op-095 Under ONR

Contract N00014–77–C–0338, Second Edition, 28 April 1978, p. 173.

73. Thus, mainstream surface warfare officers

were fondly referred to as “cannon cockers”

by those in the surface community who had

developed expertise in ASW. Pittenger

interview.

74. A widely noted, contemporary expression of

this unpopularity was Captain Robert H.

Smith, “A United States Navy for the Future,”

Proceedings, March 1971, pp. 18–25.

75. On Sea Hawk’s cancellation see Michael Potter, Electronic Greyhounds: The Spruance Class

Destroyers (Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute

Press, 1995), p.21; Friedman, U.S. Destroyers,

pp. 366–9; and Vice Admiral John Hayward

(Ret.), “Comment and Discussion,” Proceedings, August 1976, p. 71.

76. Dr. Fred Milford, “U.S. Navy Torpedoes: Part

Six,” Submarine Review, October 1997, p. 42.

77. Ibid., p. 46.

78. For all torpedoes the U.S. Navy attests only to

speeds in excess of 28 knots, depths to 1,000

feet and range to 10,000 yards. The requirements described here are from Milford, “U.S.

Navy Torpedoes: Part Five, “ Submarine Review, July 1997, pp. 78–9.

79. Known as the Tongue of the Ocean because of

its unique underwater canyon configuration,

the Andros range was chosen for Mk. 48

development largely in order to hide that development from prying Soviet ears. Interview

at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center with

Dick Nadolink, Jeff Cohen, Bernie Myer, Hal

Hultgreen, Dick Bonin, and Colleen Leonardo, 13 March 1998. For more on what

came to be known as the Atlantic Undersea

Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC), see

John Merrill and Lionel D. Wyld, Meeting the

Submarine Challenge: A Short History of the

Naval Underwater Systems Center (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1997), pp. 250–60.

80. On Alfa and Papa, I am indebted to Bruce

Rule for providing me a translated synopsis of

R. Shmakov, “Ahead of Their Time (Design

Projects 705 and 705K SSNs),” Morskoy

Sbornik, 7 November 1996.

81. Mk. 48 performance specifications remain

classified. The reference to a 63-knot speed for

ADCAP is from Milford, “U.S. Navy Torpedoes: Part Five,” Submarine Review, July

1997, p. 81.

82. The twenty-six Victor IIIs and later versions

of the Delta are sometimes treated as a separate, third generation of Soviet submarines

because of their quieting. One Charlie I sank

in the Bering Sea off Kamchatka in 1983;

though raised, it was not returned to service.

83. Indeed, Harpoon began life as an anti-SSGN

weapon. See Malcolm Muir, Jr., Black Shoes

and Blue Water: Surface Warfare in the United

States Navy, 1945–1975, Contributions to Naval History No. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Naval

Historical Center, 1996), pp. 184–5.

84. On the Soviet space-based ocean surveillance

system, see Norman Friedman, Seapower and

Space (Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press,

2000), pp. 155–72.

85. John E. Moore and Richard Compton-Hall,

Submarine Warfare Today and Tomorrow

(Bethesda, Md.: Adler & Adler, 1987),

pp. 88–9.

86. On this evolution, see Merrill and Wyld,

Meeting the Submarine Challenge, pp. 78–80,

and Bell, Probing the Oceans, pp. 143–4, 194.

THE THIRD BATTLE 97
87. See Merrill and Wyld, Meeting the Submarine

Challenge, pp. 74–85 for a longer discussion of

these developments in surface ASW.

88. Potter, Electronic Greyhounds, p. 146.

89. Robert W. Love, Jr., History of the U.S. Navy,

Volume Two, 1942–1991 (Harrisburg, Pa.:

Stackpole Books, 1992), p. 612.

90. The tethered goat analogy was attributed to

Vice Admiral Lee Baggett by several interviewees. The quote concerning Soviet SSNs

being diverted to protect SSBNs was attributed to knowledgeable sources in William

Beecher, “The Submarine Game,” Boston

Globe, 19 December 1975, p. 2. Before becoming the Globe’s defense correspondent,

Beecher had been an Assistant Secretary of

Defense in the Nixon and Ford

administrations.

91. Admiral James D. Watkins, “The Maritime

Strategy,” Proceedings, January 1986, pp. 11–4.

On the origins of the Maritime Strategy in the

late 1970s, see Michael Palmer, Origins of the

Maritime Strategy: American Naval Strategy in

the First Postwar Decade, Contributions to

Naval History No. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Naval Historical Center, 1988); Admiral Thomas

B. Hayward, “The Future of U.S. Sea Power,”

Proceedings, May 1979, pp. 66–71; and John B.

Hattendorf, “The Evolution of the Maritime

Strategy: 1977–1987,” Naval War College Review, Summer 1988, pp. 7–38.

92. On under-ice operations, see Captain T. M.

Le Marchand, “Under Ice Operations,” Naval

War College Review, May–June 1985,

pp.19–27.

93. Interview by the author with Rear Admiral

Dan Wolkensdorfer, USN (Ret.), 14 July 1998.

94. The best examples of this genre are: Donald C.

Daniel, Anti-Submarine Warfare and Superpower Strategic Stability (Urbana, Il.: University of Illinois Press, 1986); Tom Stefanick,

Strategic Antisubmarine Warfare and Naval

Strategy (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books,

1987); Mark Sakitt, Submarine Warfare in the

Arctic: Option or Illusion? An Occasional Paper of the Center for International Security

and Arms Control, Stanford University, May

1988; and E. V. Miasnikov, The Future of

Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces: Discussions

and Arguments, Center for Arms Control, Energy, and Environmental Studies, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, 1996.

95. See note 50 for example.

96. Gerald A. Cann, Assistant Secretary of the

Navy for Research and Development, in testimony before U.S. House of Representatives,

Appropriations Committee, Hearings on the

FY 1985 Defense Budget, Part 5, p. 204.

97. U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, Hearings on the FY 1985 Defense Budget, Part 8,

p. 3889.

98. Ibid., p. 4169.

99. Ibid., p. 3889.

100. On Toshiba, skewback propellers, and blade

rate tonals, see Norman Friedman, “Technology and the New Attack Submarine,” Critical

Issues Paper, Center for Security Strategies

and Operations, Techmatics, Inc., Arlington,

Va., p. 31.

101. On Akula and SOSUS see “In the News,” Submarine Review, January 1987, pp. 79–80.

102. On the high degree of acoustic parity in the

mid-1980s between Akula and all but the improved 688s in the American submarine force,

see testimony of Vice Admiral Lee Baggett, Jr.,

in Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,

Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1986, Part 8, 26

February 1985, p. 4373.

103. Analogous response began with an “interim”

forward deployment of Deltas and Echo IIs in

early 1984, but even then the Navy was anticipating the later deployment of SS-N-21s on

more quiet SSNs. See the prepared statement

of Rear Admiral John Butts in Committee on

Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Department of

Defense Authorization for Appropriations for

Fiscal Year 1986, Part 8, 26 February 1985,

pp. 4364–5.

104. On the threat of no warning SLCM attacks,

see George N. Lewis and Theodore E. Postol,

“Long-Range Nuclear Cruise Missiles and Stability,” Science & Global Security, Vol. 3, Nos.

1–2 (1992), pp. 49–99.

98 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
105. Vice Admiral James Fitzgerald, “About

ASW,” Submarine Review, April 1997, p. 6.

106. Interview with Thomas Maloney, 18 November 1997.

107. Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1987,

Part 4, 24 April 1986, p. 456.

108. On Seawolf, see testimony by Vice Admiral

Nils Thunman in Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year

1986, Part 8, 15 March 1985, p. 4590.

109. House Subcommittee on Appropriations,

DOD Appropriations for 1987, pp. 447–8.

110. On Akula compared to Delta, see the statement by Admiral Butts, referenced in note

103, where he stated that the Navy anticipated

the Soviets would replace Deltas on interim

analogous response patrols “with quieter,

SS-N-21 equipped submarines,” p. 4365. On

submarines like Akula and Sierra compared to

older 688s, see Admiral Baggett’s testimony

later in the same hearing, p. 4373.

111. Friedman, U.S. Submarines, pp. 146–7.

112. See Miasnikov, The Future of Russia’s Strategic

Nuclear Forces, especially pp. 16, 17 (note 17),

and 35.

113. James M. McConnell, “Strategy and Missions

of the Soviet Navy in the Year 2000,” in James

L. George, ed., Problems of Sea Power As We

Approach the Twenty-First Century (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute,

1978), p. 47.

114. Robert C. Toth, “Change in Soviets’ Sub Tactics Tied to Spy Case,” Los Angeles Times, 17

June 1985, p. 3.

115. Comments by Rich Haver at DevRon 12 symposium, 20–22 May 1999.

116. I am particularly indebted to written comments provided me by Rear Admiral W. J.

Holland, Jr., USN (Ret.), on this point, dated

10 October 1999.

117. On the requirement for a quieter Mk. 48, see

U.S. General Accounting Office, Navy Torpedo Programs: MK-48 ADCAP Upgrades Not

Adequately Justified, Letter Report, 12 June

1995, GAO/NSIAD–95–104.

118. On perception management, I am indebted to

an interview with Admiral Bruce Demars,

USN (Ret.), 19 June 1999.

119. During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy never

chose to raft the engineering and propulsion

spaces of their diesel subs, guaranteeing loud

narrow-band tonals when they snorkeled.

This is unfortunately no longer true of modern nonnuclear submarines, of which more

below.

120. My discussion of DesRon 31 is based on a 24

November 1998 interview with Vice Admiral

James Fitzgerald, USN (Ret.), who was in

command during much of this period.

121. Interview with Ed Dalrymple, 13 July 1998

and comments provided to the author by Rear

Admiral W. J. Holland.

122. Interview with Admiral Carlisle Trost, USN

(Ret.), 15 June 1999, who was then Pacific

Fleet commander. These negative search

methods were supported by the Center for

Naval Analyses, continuing the tradition begun by the Operations Evaluation Group during World War II of using sophisticated

operations analysis methods in support of the

ASW effort. These Indian Ocean deployments

also saw the first routine direct support operations by SSNs in the battle group, again because of the atrocious acoustic conditions.

123. On future developments in SURTASS and in

passive acoustics in general, see Naval Studies

Board, National Research Council, Technology

for the United States Navy and Marine Corps,

2000-2035, Volume 7, Undersea Warfare

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,

1997), pp. 12–21.

124. For a longer discussion of antisubmarine warfare after the Cold War, see Owen Cote, Antisubmarine Warfare after the Cold War, An

MIT Security Studies Program Conference

Report, June 1997. A text only version of the

report is available at http://web.mit.edu/ssp/.

125. One of the first references to this challenge is

in “Report of the Advisory Panel on Submarine and Antisubmarine Warfare,” House

THE THIRD BATTLE 99
Armed Services Committee, 21 March

1989, p.4.

126. On the Trident SSGN conversion, see Owen

Cote, Precision Strike from the Sea: New Missions for a New Navy, An MIT Security Studies

Conference Report, December 1997. See also,

Owen Cote, Mobile Targets from Under the

Sea: New Submarine Missions for a New Security Environment, An MIT Security Studies

Conference Report, December 1999. A text

only version of both reports is available at

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/.

127. On the consequences of such limited access

ashore, particularly for the Army and the Air

Force, see Owen R. Cote, Jr., “Buying ‘. . . From

the Sea’: A Defense Budget For a Maritime Strategy,” in Cindy Williams (ed.), Holding the Line:

U.S. Defense Alternatives for the Early 21st Century (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 2000).

128. On the required innovations, see Owen R.

Cote, Jr., Assuring Access and Projecting Power,

An MIT Security Studies Program Conference

Report, April 2001; text only version is available

at http://web.mit.edu/ssp/.

100 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
Abbreviations

A AAW antiair warfare

ADCAP advanced capability Mk. 48 torpedo

ADS advanced deployable system

AIP air independent propulsion

ARPDD automatic radar periscope detection and discrimination

ASDIC Allied Submarine Detection Investigation Committee

ASROC antisubmarine rocket

ASUW antisurface warfare

ASW antisubmarine warfare

AUTEC Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center

B BB bottom bounce

C CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CNO Chief of Naval Operations

CODAR correlation detection and ranging

CONUS continental United States

COTS commercial off-the-shelf

CV aircraft carrier

CVA attack aircraft carrier

CVE escort aircraft carrier

CVS antisubmarine aircraft carrier

CVY Charlie/Victor/Yankee

CZ convergence zone

D DASH drone anti-submarine helicopter

DD destroyer
DESRON destroyer squadron

DIFAR directional LOFAR

E ECM electronic countermeasures

ESM electronic support measures

F FDS Fixed Distributed System

FF frigate

FFG guided missile frigate

FRAM fleet rehabilitation and modernization

G GIUK Greenland-Iceland-UK

GUPPY greater underwater propulsion power

H HEN Hotel/Echo/November

HF high frequency

HF/DF high frequency direction finding

HS carrier-based, rotary wing ASW aircraft

HUK hunter-killer

I IFF identification friend or foe

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

ITASS interim tactical towed array sonar system

IUSS integrated undersea surveillance system

L LAMPS Light Airborne Multipurpose System

LF low frequency

LFA low frequency/active

LOFAR low frequency analysis and ranging

M MAD magnetic anomaly detection

MPA maritime patrol aircraft

102 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
N NavFacs naval facilities

NDRC National Defense Research Council

NEARTIP Near Term Improvement Program

NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Center

P PDC practice depth charge

R R&D research and development

RCA Radio Corporation of America

RF radio frequency

S SIGINT signals intelligence

SLBM submarine launched ballistic missile

SLCM submarine launched cruise missile

SLOC sea line of communication

SOFAR sound fixing and ranging

SOSUS sound surveillance system

SS submarine

SSB ballistic missile submarine

SSBN nuclear ballistic missile submarine

SSG cruise missile submarine

SSGN nuclear cruise missile submarine

SSK hunter-killer submarine

SSN nuclear submarine

SSR radar picket submarine

SSRN nuclear radar picket submarine

STASS submarine tactical array sonar system

SubDevGru Submarine Development Group

SubDevRon Submarine Development Squadron

THE THIRD BATTLE 103
SUBROC submarine launched rocket

SURTASS surveillance towed array sonar system

T TAG Tactical Analysis Group

TASS towed array surveillance system

TF task force

TLAM-N tactical land attack missile-nuclear

V VDS variable depth sonar

VP land-based patrol aircraft

VP/SSK patrol aircraft/hunter killer submarine

VS carrier-based, fixed wing, ASW aircraft

104 THE NEWPORT PAPERS
About the Author

OWEN R. COTE JR. is Associate Director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). From 1993 to 1997, he was Assistant Director

of the International Security Program at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science

and International Affairs. He is a co-editor of the journal International Security.

Dr. Cote received his Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT, where he specialized in U.S.

defense policy and international security affairs. His dissertation, which is being prepared for publication, analyzes the sources of innovation in military doctrine, using

cases that compare U.S. responses to various Cold War nuclear vulnerability crises. Additionally, he is working on a book that analyzes and seeks to explain the success of the

U.S. Navy’s Cold War antisubmarine warfare effort. He has written widely, addressing

military, naval, and nuclear doctrine and force structure issues, as well as the problem

of securing nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union. In general, his

current research and writing concentrates on the politics of innovation in U.S. military

and naval doctrine in the new post-Cold War security environment. He has served as a

consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Navy, various defense laboratories, and industry. Dr. Cote graduated from Harvard College in 1982 and worked

for three years at the Hudson Institute and the Center for Naval Analyses before returning to graduate school.

Titles in the Series

“Are We Beasts?” Churchill and the Moral Question of World War II “Area Bombing,” by

Christopher C. Harmon (December 1991).

Toward a Pax Universalis: A Historical Critique of the National Military Strategy for the

1990s, by Lieutenant Colonel Gary W. Anderson, U.S. Marine Corps (April 1992).

The “New” Law of the Sea and the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea, by Horace B. Robertson, Jr. (October 1992).

Global War Game: The First Five Years, by Bud Hay and Bob Gile (June 1993).

Beyond Mahan: A Proposal for a U.S. Naval Strategy in the Twenty-First Century, by Colonel Gary W. Anderson, U.S. Marine Corps (August 1993).

The Burden of Trafalgar: Decisive Battle and Naval Strategic Expectations on the Eve of

the First World War, by Jan S. Breemer (October 1993).

Mission in the East: The Building of an Army in a Democracy in the New German States,

by Colonel Mark E. Victorson, U.S. Army (June 1994).

Physics and Metaphysics of Deterrence: The British Approach, by Myron A. Greenberg

(December 1994).

A Doctrine Reader: The Navies of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and

Spain, by James J. Tritten and Vice Admiral Luigi Donolo, Italian Navy (Retired) (December 1995).

Chaos Theory: The Essentials for Military Applications, by Major Glenn E. James, U.S.

Air Force (October 1996).

The International Legal Ramifications of United States Counter-Proliferation Strategy:

Problems and Prospects, by Frank Gibson Goldman (April 1997).

What Color Helmet? Reforming Security Council Peacekeeping Mandates, by Myron H.

Nordquist (August 1997).

Sailing New Seas, by Admiral J. Paul Reason, U.S. Navy, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, with David G. Freymann (March 1998).

Theater Ballistic Missile Defense from the Sea: Issues for the Maritime Component Commander, by Commander Charles C. Swicker, U.S. Navy (August 1998).

International Environmental Law and Naval War: The Effect of Marine Safety and Pollution Conventions during International Armed Conflict, by Dr. Sonja Ann Jozef

Boelaert-Suominen (December 2000).
Forthcoming in 2003

The Limits of Transformation: Officer Attitudes toward the Revolution in Military Affairs,

by Thomas G. Mahnken and James R. FitzSimonds.

Global War Game: Second Series, 1984–1988, by Bob Gile