Launch warning times.

[SongofWar]

I seem to recall one of the modules mentioned an SLBM strike from a missile boat off the eastern seaboard, which would cut the warning time way down. That said, its right around half an hour for a land based launch as the others have said.

[Legbreaker]

SLBMs can be as little as a few minutes. Barely enough time to make a phone call.

[Matt Wiser]

From the patrol areas south or north of Bermuda to hit the East Coast: Six minutes for a SLBM. However, there'd be a SSN following the boomer, and you can bet in the T2K situation, the ROE would be very simple-if you're not killing missile boats whenever possible: If a missile boat begins flooding tubes and moving to launch depth, that missile boat dies. Cut and dry, that is it. As soon as sonar reports multiple missile tubes being flooded, and missile doors opening, there'd be a pair of Mark-48s in the water as soon as a snapshot solution could be generated. Or, if the fast-attack is too far away for a Mark-48, Sea Lance (cancelled OTL but available in T2K) is available. The SUBROC replacement with a Mark-90 Nuclear Depth Bomb or a Mark-50 torpedo. If you're killing a boomer, the Mark-90 is the weapon of choice-since it's likely that by Nov 97, SSN skippers would have authority to use their Sea Lances with the Mark-90.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

However, there'd be a SSN following the boomer, and you can bet in the T2K situation, the ROE would be very simple...

That assumes the SSN found the Soviet sub in the first place. Sure some may be lost, but enough would survive to give the US a good pasting.
And the same can be said for Nato SLBM attacks against Pact.

[Matt Wiser]

Oh, there'd be enough SSNs around to trail any boomers headed to their East Coast or West Coast patrol stations. And kill them.

Not to mention that the USN and RN boomers were never tracked, according to both navies. The first sign of a USN or RN boomer's location is when the missile-warning radars pick up the missiles coming from mid-ocean.

[Benjamin]

Boomers were generally seen as second strike platforms...designed to survive the initial exchange so that when the silo and airborne systems are either depleted or destroyed there remained a further way to retaliate. Perhaps the Soviets would modify this if they believed the safety of their SSBNs was in doubt. If they knew they were being followed by US SSNs than their utility as second strike weapons would be extremely limited. This might prompt them to use them as first strike weapons to decrease warning times, especially if they felt that any US efforts at retaliation would be hindered by the successful destruction of US command and control.

Soviet policy was to keep its Boomers in safe havens north of the GIUK Gap as they were well aware that they would be relatively easy targets for US SSNs. This is why the Soviets put so much effort into under ice / ice breaking abilities for their boats. Thus, I can't see any of them launching from near Bermuda or the Pacific equivalent. That being said, I'm guessing the US would have had about 15-20 minutes of warning given a first strike conducted by Soviet SSBNs. But again it is almost certain that the first strike would have been by silo based ICBMs and perhaps a few aircraft (UK targets I would guess).

Conversely, US and UK boats were always seen as second strike weapons. and after the TDM they almost certainly would have been used in the counterattack.

While it possible that some of these doctrines would have been modified during the course of the conflict, I think the general rules pertaining to strategic nuclear warfare would have held true. The real question is...would either side risked going after these nuclear assets during the conventional phase of the fighting. I willing to bet that as attrition rates grew during the air war both sides would have been tempted to make use of aircraft original slated for strategic strike. Also, it seems highly unlikely that an SSN captain would pass up sinking an enemy boomer if given the chance. Thus by late 1997 it may be very likely that the Soviets find themselves with limited strategic nuclear strike capability beyond their silo based weapons. And once the Soviet first strike hits the US will find itself relying on its SSBNs to return the favor.

Benjamin

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Oh, there'd be enough SSNs around to trail any boomers headed to their East Coast or West Coast patrol stations. And kill them.

I hate to say it, but that sounds like US arrogance and solid belief in their own invincibility. Overconfidence, as has been proven over and over again in history, can get people killed, loose battles and entire wars.

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Not to mention that the USN and RN boomers were never tracked, according to both navies.

While that may have been the case during the Cold War up until the end of the 1980's, the situation we're presented with in T2K is a bit different. We already know that there's no significant fleets left in the world and that this massive destruction occurred not just on the surface, but to subs as well. Nato subs of all types weren't excluded from that devastation.

Given that, and the number of warheads just one Soviet sub carries, the US isn't going to escape a sudden strike from the sea, no matter how great they may think their attack subs are.

[Matt Wiser]

The Soviet boomers off the East and West Coasts were assumed to have a first-strike role, as they were well within range of SAC bases from the coast to the Mississippi for the East Coast, and to the Rocky Mountains for the West Coast. In the book Hostile Waters, the K-219's skipper mentioned having King's Bay, Groton, Norfolk, Charleston, and Washington, D.C. as his targets. (three missiles per target) Other boats probably had the SAC bases (Loring, Pease, Plattsburgh, Griffiss, Warner Robins, Grisssom, among others) in the cross-hairs.

SOSUS is that good. And they practiced vectoring SSNs onto contacts. There was a covenant of death beneath the waves between SSNs and boomers. The boomer crews knew their job was to launch if so directed. The attack boats' job was to prevent that. And those on the Yankees knew that in a real war, their lives would be very short. Just long enough maybe to get one or two missiles off, before that Mark-48 or SUBROC arrived....Now, boomers in the Barents or White Seas, now, those were probably the missile subs mentioned as participating in TDM. For those boats, it's a fifteen to twenty minute time frame from turning the launch-enable key to impact. And once the missiles are detected, there's going to be one or two SSNs headed that way to kill them and prevent more launches.

It's not hubris: it's fact. Thanks to SOSUS and other means, we knew not just the class of boat, but the individual hull numbers, where they were headed, and where they patrolled. Even in T2K prior to Nov 1997, the ASW forces would still be on the job, looking for boomers-and killing them. And the USN and RN boomers would be out, waiting for their own launch orders, with no communications going out, and staying out probably longer than their usual patrols (70 days). They can stretch it out to 120 if needed.

[schnickelfritz]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I hate to say it, but that sounds like US arrogance and solid belief in their own invincibility. Overconfidence, as has been proven over and over again in history, can get people killed, loose battles and entire wars.

While that may have been the case during the Cold War up until the end of the 1980's, the situation we're presented with in T2K is a bit different. We already know that there's no significant fleets left in the world and that this massive destruction occurred not just on the surface, but to subs as well. Nato subs of all types weren't excluded from that devastation.

Given that, and the number of warheads just one Soviet sub carries, the US isn't going to escape a sudden strike from the sea, no matter how great they may think their attack subs are.

Leg-
I've read this post repeatedly and tried really hard not to comment. I suppose the best way that I could put this is that I think you could have worded your argument well enough to not make this particular post seem like a personal attack on those who weer/are members or supporters of of the UK and USN SSN forces.

I have a hard time not looking your words as written and thinking it wasn't.

I believe that some evidence appears in canon material that SSBN strikes did appear on US targets from USSR SLBM's but it would seem that the US/UK ASW forces were more effective than you seem to give credit for.

I myself would chalk up leadership targets in the DC area to a SLBM that managed to get a few missiles off before she was sunk or had to flee for her life.

-Dave