Can A Ballistic Missile Be Used As A Conventional Weapon On A Platform Such As A Submarine

Why did the Soviet Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine carry so few missiles compared to the US Ohio class that weighs only one third as much?

The Typhoon was designed quite differently from the Ohio class. Part of this was due to the missiles themselves, which were huge and carried more warheads, but a lot was due to operational requirements.First, it had two main pressure hulls side by side. Each hull had it’s own propulsion and living spaces. In an emergency, the sub could close the hatches between the hulls and continue even if one side was lost.Aside from these two main hulls, there were additional pressure hulls for weapons and control. The launch tubes themselves were housed outside of the pressure hulls.All in all, it was a very robust and survivable design, able to absorb a large amount of battle damage.The Soviets designed them this way for a few reasons:The bigger subs tended to be easier to isolate for sound, making them quieterIt was much more likely that a Typhoon would be detected and attacked by a NATO sub than a Soviet sub detecting an OhioThe Soviet ballistic missile subs were designed to operate in a “Bastion”. That is, a limited area of the ocean where the full might of the Soviet navy and air force could patrol, keeping the boomers safe. The area they chose was the Barents sea for the Red Banner Northern Fleet and the Sea of Okhotsk for the Pacific Fleet. These two seas are quite northern and subject to ice pack. For this reason, the Typhoons were strongly reinforced to break through the pack to launch their weapons. Bastion (naval) - WikipediaSo basically, the subs were roughly equivalent in terms of missile capacity, but the Typhoon was so much larger because it was optimized for operating in a limited space where it was quite likely to be damaged.

Why do we need nuclear submarines to launch nuclear missiles? Why can't we launch the same in diesel electric?

The Soviets carried strategic nuclear missiles on diesel-electric boats: the Golf-class SSBs carried three SS-N-1 or SS-N-4 ballistic missiles, and the Juliet-class SSGs four SS-N-3 cruise missiles (originally for nuclear strikes on coastal land targets, later adapted to anti-ship weapons).However, the endurance and stealth of a nuclear submarine - especially when these early sub-launched weapons had short ranges, meaning the submarines had to operate close to the US coast, not where you want to be sticking up a snorkel mast every day or three - meant that if you were going to invest in a strategic nuclear weapon system and nuclear-powered submarines, saving a little money by using diesel-electric propulsion on your strategic weapons platforms was false economy.Hence, when the Soviets fielded the November-class attack submarine, the same basic hull was adapted to produce the Hotel-class SSBN with ballistic missiles and the Echo-class SSGN with cruise missiles, and they stopped producing conventional SSG and SSB. (The SSGN role then evolved into an anti-shipping task with the Charlies and Oscars.There’s no strict reason why a conventionally-powered submarine couldn’t launch a land-attack cruise missile like SS-N-21 or Tomahawk (both capable of being fired through 21″ torpedo tubes) that had a nuclear warhead, it’s just that - as far is known - nobody’s actually set up to do so at the moment.

Can a United States Navy submarine be sunk by anything less than nuclear weapons?

Possibly.We tried to sink a retired carrier with a nuclear bomb. It bent the superstructure but it stayed afloat. Now radioactive, they towed it to a final testing place off the Farallon islands. It took a couple torpex “bombs” inside the hull to sink it.But it did not have a damage control team working to keep her afloat.Carriers are very tough by design even without DC people. You need a lot of holes below the waterline, an aircraft conflagration or a ammo detonation to bring her down. The safety regs are pretty clear and it is hard to get the ammo vault hit.No main carrier has ever been hit by a torpedo of any sort except perhaps the America in tests, and it was stationary. A moving carrier is harder to hit.Subs are a great platform for carrier hunting. In WWII, subs sank a total of 8 fleet carriers from Japan, the USA and UK. Subs are the main threat to carriers, and quiet ones are even more of a threat. Carriers rely on their speed and escorts, and their countermeasures, to make the threat smaller.Cruise missiles are the next threat. They are carried by platforms like ships and planes, or are land based. The way to avoid them is to put distance between platforms and the carrier, and to have a combat air patrol always ready.Most cruise missiles are about 1000 lbs of explosive. They make a good dent in a cruiser, but carriers are tough. It might take several to take a carrier down.A supersonic missile can take 20 minutes to reach its target; a carrier is 10 miles from where it was in the same time. Speed is helpful to hide.But you don't need to sink a carrier. Just damage its flight deck and it is a mission kill. It cant launch or recover planes and therefore it is neutralized. Good enough!Our kill chain transfers info in real time. It relies on multiple redundant systems including satellites, subs, drones, and patrol aircraft. Our missiles have to be smart and know the difference between the intended target and a fishing trawler. Russia has yet to show this sophisticationUSS AmericaEdit: I either misread this question or it was changed. Of course a sub can be sunk by lots of weapons. Torpedos are the first choice and they are very effective. Nuclear weapons are not necessary. The rest of the question I answered is about carriers, not subs, because 1) I initially read it that way, and 2) it does not make sense due to the relative fragility of the sub vs carrier.

Is the typical response/counter-strike against an adversary SSBN ballistic missile submarine that is launching SLBMs to launch an ICBM toward its location or to use conventional strikes?

This is very much a case for using conventional munitions.First, because the explosion of a nuclear warhead anywhere is closely monitored by quite a few countries and would heighten tensions throughout the World.Second, various conventions, most notably the Geneva Conventions, prohibit the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, chemical - or NBC) in response to a conventional attack.Third, nuclear weapons are expensive, both in terms of replacement cost, and because of widespread radioactive contamination of unintended people, places, and things, commonly called collateral damage.Notwithstanding the above, if the SLBMs are targeted toward high population areas like NYC, major centers of government like Washington, D.C., or high potentially dangerous areas like a nuclear powerplant which would flood the local area with radiation, and the most effective way to neutralize the adversary SSBN is by use of a nuclear weapon then that’s what will happen. It won’t be an ICBM, though. There are much more accurate, less explosive, and faster in terms time on target munitions to use that ICBMs.

Could the crew of a nuclear submarine re-program or re-wire the launch computer so they could launch a nuclear missile without authorization codes?

I was on a 640 class boomer. With the right three people, you could launch one missile with a little luck. It is unlikely that you would be able to get even a second one off without a lot more people involved.You would need an FT from the missile fire control division, and two MT’s in the missile compartment. The trickiest part would be getting the launcher key and the key for the launcher control panel. With a little planning it could have been done. The CO’s key could be bypassed with a simple wire with alligator clips on the ends.The FT could let control know that they were conducting a training with guidance exercise. Since the proper launch sequence started with a training with guidance command and only switched to tactical second before launch, no one would realize anything was wrong. The programming of the warheads was normally done during refit. It could be done while underway. Nearly every FT had the required knowledge.Once everything was in place, just wait for the right depth. That right depth is what would prevent a second launch. A missile tube full of water is three times as heavy as a tube full of missile. In addition, the diving officer of the watch or the OOD would give an immediate order to take the boat below launch capable depth.