Talk:Attack submarine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

Military history: Maritime

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Attack vs. Hunter-Killer

At present 'attack' and 'hunter-killer' have roughly the same meaning, however, prior to the 1960s they were not the same. I'd like to add a small paragraph to the intro explaining how they were different and why they were merged. I would not change the opening sentence. Thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you cite reliable, published sources, there shouldn't be a problem. BilCat (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, like many of the changes I've been making, the main citation is already in the article, in this case current footnote #12. BTW, the more I look at this article the more I think the change can be rather deft. By putting the main text of the change in with the description of the USS Tullibee not much need be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. While you're at it, if you can make sure each paragraph that is covered by the existing source has a citation, that would be very helpful. BilCat (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my changes are mostly done. I do think that the Origins section is too heavily skewed to the SSK role, and needs an intro that emphasizes the surface attack role. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added text to the Origins section to emphasize the surface attack role. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate text for deletion

This sentence has text not pertinent to this article:

The first fully streamlined Soviet submarines were the Project 667A "Navaga" class (NATO Yankee class), Project 670 "Skat" class (NATO Charlie I class), and Project 671 "Yorsh" class (NATO Victor I class), all of which first entered service in 1967.

The Yankee and Charlie class subs were missile boats, not attack boats. While this info is interesting it is outside the scope of this article. Should we delete?

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

The sentence Since a nuclear submarine could maintain a high speed at a deep depth indefinitely, conventional SSKs would be useless against them except in shallow water was flagged in June 2022 with a 'Why?' flag. After months of thinking over possible revisions I removed the flag, since I concluded no revision was possible that was not redundant. The sentence is quite clear: conventional SSKs were incapable of the indefinite deep high speed operations that were necessary to engage an SSN, and only shallow water mitigated the SSN's advantages.

Indefinite + deep + high speed = great advantage.

Great advantage - deep (i.e., + shallow) = less advantage.

How much more info is needed? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I know of a quote from Friedman's book that would serve as a supportive example. Will get around to it in 2-3 days. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sooner that I thought I could. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for update

This needs to be discussed. There are several issues with this request.

First, vertical launch tubes date to an initial order in 1977 and first commissioning in 1985. This is not a recent development.

Second, the function of these tubes is no different than that of the external torpedo tubes of pre-WW2 submarines, especially given that the current cruise missiles can be fired from current torpedo tubes.

Third, the new Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) add no new cruise missile capability to attack submarines.

Fourth, prior to 2002 all dedicated cruise missile submarines carried missiles which could not be launched from torpedo tubes, and which therefore were not compatible with attack submarines.

Given all this, it seems that we have a nearly 50 year history in which the addition of cruise missiles to attack submarines has been seen as merely an incremental enhancement. Yes, during this time far more cruise missiles have been launched from attack submarines than torpedoes, but there has been almost no discussion that the term attack submarine be revised. So, I would propose adding a cruise missile paragraph to the Later Developments section. The recent addition of the South Korean subs with VLS capabilities should be moved there.

Thanks. @Nafis Fuad Ayon: Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk · contribs) I agree with you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Please allow me a crack at it in a few hours. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Later developments section applies to nuclear, so I moved the Chinese, Pakistani, and South Korean subs to the Modern conventional section. I also moved the cited sources to the Sources section to give them greater visibility and to make their references less obtrusive while editing text. Please make any improvements you think necessary. Best wishes. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]