Sub-Launched SAMs

[[email protected]]

"Once more, developers are working on weapons that
enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.

Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
(U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
(Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."

See:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx

I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
give away the position of the launching sub. But the idea refuses
to die.

Why?

[Andre Lieven]

On Sep 17, 12:07*pm, wrote:
> "Once more, developers are working on weapons that
> enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
> There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
> Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
> Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
> of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
> non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
> Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.
>
> Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
> launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
> (U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
> The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
> Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
> and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
> range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
> (Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx
>
> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> give away the position of the launching sub. *But the idea refuses
> to die.
>
> Why?

Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

Andre

[Dennis[_6_]]

dumpsey wrote:

> "Once more, developers are working on weapons that
> enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
> There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
> Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
> Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
> of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
> non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
> Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.
>
> Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
> launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
> (U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
> The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
> Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
> and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
> range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
> (Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx
>
> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> give away the position of the launching sub. But the idea refuses
> to die.
>
> Why?

As they said on NL's "Animal House," why not?

Like nuclear grenades.

Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in
which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare.
Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of
the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile
defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He
encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a
small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read,
"Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch
diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the
bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24&notFound=true

[Dean]

On Sep 17, 12:40*pm, Dennis > wrote:
> dumpsey wrote:
> > "Once more, developers are working on weapons that
> > enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
> > There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
> > Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
> > Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
> > of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
> > non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
> > Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.
>
> > Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
> > launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
> > (U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
> > The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
> > Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
> > and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
> > range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
> > (Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."
>
> > See:
>
> >http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx
>
> > I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> > give away the position of the launching sub. *But the idea refuses
> > to die.
>
> > Why?
>
> * * * * As they said on NL's "Animal House," why not?
>
> * * * * Like nuclear grenades.
>
> * * * * Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in
> which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare.
> Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of
> the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile
> defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He
> encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a
> small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read,
> "Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch
> diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the
> bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
> pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24&notFound=true

I'm surprised the 9/11 conspiracy folks haven't connected with the
hafnium/nuclear grenade folks.

[vaughn[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> give away the position of the launching sub. But the idea refuses
> to die.

The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW aircraft
might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off contact.

Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated if the
ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.

Vaughn

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
> wrote:

>There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
>"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
>mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

If US health care isn't #1, why have you run away from the discussion in
rasff, Andre?
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, vaughn
> writes
>The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
>you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW aircraft
>might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off contact.

The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you
launch a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely
hostile (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you
can clear datum very far).

There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
the greatest of Pk - it's being launched on "aircraft somewhere up
there, probably" which isn't the best way to ensure a
heart-of-the-envelope shot against a target that may have a decent DAS.

>Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated if the
>ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.

Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
SAMs.

It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to
be less attractive when worked through in detail.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[Dennis[_6_]]

Dean wrote:

> I'm surprised the 9/11 conspiracy folks haven't connected with the
> hafnium/nuclear grenade folks.

Shhhhhhhhh... not so loud!

Dennis

[Dennis[_6_]]

Andre Lieven wrote:

> Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
> and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
> never
> actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
> *built*.
>
> Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away.

> There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
> "reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
> mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

Like the proverbial bad penney! What about pennies, for that matter?

Dennis

[William Black[_1_]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, vaughn
> > writes
>> The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
>> you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW
>> aircraft
>> might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off
>> contact.
>
> The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
> completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you
> launch a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely
> hostile (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you
> can clear datum very far).
>
> There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
> the greatest of Pk - it's being launched on "aircraft somewhere up
> there, probably" which isn't the best way to ensure a
> heart-of-the-envelope shot against a target that may have a decent DAS.
>
>> Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated
>> if the
>> ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.
>
> Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
> SAMs.
>
> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to
> be less attractive when worked through in detail.
>
>

Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?



--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, William Black
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out
>>to be less attractive when worked through in detail.
>
>Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
>of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?

SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:17:27 -0400, "vaughn"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
>> give away the position of the launching sub. But the idea refuses
>> to die.
>
>The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
>you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW aircraft
>might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off contact.

Before any target can be engaged at sea it must be:

Detected
Localized
Weapon placed within engagement envelope.

The submarine must be able to detect the aircraft. This is an area of
some dispute, with submariners often claiming detection capabilities
that are less than easily understood. To put it mildly. :-)

But assuming a detection capability then the aircraft must be
localized. This generally means establishing a series of positions so
a track and speed can be established.

Then the weapon must be placed so that the aircraft is within the
engagement envelope of the weapon.

Unless the aircraft communicates to the sub that it has been deteted
then the sub has no way of know whether or not it's been detected.
Passive tracking can be done from significant distances. There's no
need to get down to wavetop height and run MAD traps.

Active tracking, of course, is a different story and any sub commander
worth his salt could likely get a decent target solution on a dipping
helo. But if a P-3 is dropping active sensors the best the sub
skipper can do is target the sensor.

>Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated if the
>ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.

This is correct. But it's not a complication that can't be addressed.

This type of system might be a "security blanket" for sub skippers as
a "last ditch" weapon to enage an aircraft inbound on a weapons drop.
As a routine weapon it's a bad idea.

[David E. Powell]

On Sep 17, 4:39*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message >, William Black
> > writes
>
> >Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >> *It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out
> >>to *be less attractive when worked through in detail.
>
> >Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
> >of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?
>
> SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
> to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
> periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
> when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

Just give the blowpipes hafnium warheads and that will fix the aiming
problem.

(Well the Sub will be underwater....)

I agree with the poster that said the idea keeps coming back and keeps
going away for the same reasons. Since the end of WW2, submarines as
antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving
often works better.

> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

[Daniel[_3_]]

> >Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
> >of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?
>
> SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
> to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
> periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
> when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

It's often reported Kilo class subs have similar capabilities built
around Strellas and Iglas.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, vaughn
> > writes
>>The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
>>you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW
>>aircraft
>>might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off
>>contact.
>
> The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
> completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you launch
> a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely hostile
> (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you can clear
> datum very far).

Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the sub's CO,
rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time.
>
> There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
> the greatest of Pk -

Also a valid point, but I am willing to leave that problem up to the
engineers. If they don't solve it, there obviously will be no system.

>>Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated if
the
>>ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.
>
> Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
> SAMs.

Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone,
isolated sub to dispute air superiority. Just the threat that a sub MAY
have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for any ASW
forces.

> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be
> less attractive when worked through in detail.

Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular thread
to convince me.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

On Sep 17, 1:46*pm, wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:17:27 -0400, "vaughn"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...

<SNIP>


> Before any target can be engaged at sea it must be:
>
> Detected
> Localized
> Weapon placed within engagement envelope.
>
> The submarine must be able to detect the aircraft. *This is an area of
> some dispute, with submariners often claiming detection capabilities
> that are less than easily understood. *To put it mildly. *:-)


<SNIP>

Would this be useful for detecting the aircraft?:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20070107.aspx

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>,
Daniel > writes
>> SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
>> to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
>> periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
>> when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.
>
>It's often reported Kilo class subs have similar capabilities built
>around Strellas and Iglas.

Not quite: some apparently have a gripstock and several rounds of
MANPADS stored in a pressure-tight container in the top of the fin, for
use if the sub is damaged and forced to fight it out on the surface with
ASW helos in a scenario like the ARA Santa Fe in 1982.

Not totally implausible, given the Kilo's compartmentalisation and large
reserve of buoyancy, but nobody's ever shown a credible submerged-launch
capability for said missiles. It seems to be a tale that's grown in the
telling: Larry Bond was running with it for his "Harpoon" rules in 1987
and had it in his book "Red Phoenix" a year or three later.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[Alan Lothian]

On Sep 17, 9:54*pm, "David E. Powell" >
wrote:

<snippaggio>

> Since the end of WW2, submarines as
> antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving
> often works better.

These days, not diving, just dived. V. bad idea, as Paul has pointed
out, to give away your greatest asset: stealth. Grumpy MPA or
helicopter isn't entirely sure where you are: it's only got a sniff.
Take v. risky shot at nasty flying thing, give away your real
location. Sinketty submarin-io. Even if you hit nasty flying thing --
most unlikely -- other nasty flying things or their friends in nasty
floating things are likely to be within earshot, and they've got your
datum and are very seriously evilly intentioned. Due to cruel
upbringing, they really don't like sweet little subbie-wubs and are
well provided with nasty homing bang-bang things or even worse.
Sinketty sinketty. Crunchity crunch. I am not now, nor ever have been,
a sub CO, but if I were you wouldn't get me anywhere near one of those
loonie missile kits. Me, deep and silent. Torpedo Bad Persons as God
intended and run like buggery only without the noise. As it were. BB
and others would know for sure.

>
> > --
> > He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> > Paul J. Adam

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, vaughn
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
>> completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you launch
>> a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely hostile
>> (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you can clear
>> datum very far).
>
> Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the sub's CO,
>rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time.

I think you'll find the various development efforts (SLAM in the UK,
SIAM in the US, the Franco-German Polyphem) have gone rather further
than Internet debate - some even to prototype testing, even to deployed
status and operational evaluation - and all have fallen over because the
sub COs all end up preferring stealth, then evasion, over trying to
fight it out with aircraft overhead.

Yes, ideally you kill the annoying ASW asset. But when you don't (and
SAM combat Pks run from about 40% for best-case Sea Dart downwards)
you've given away your location and your hostile intent and you've made
the enemy angry. Even if you get the kill, if your location is flagged
then everything you were sent to hunt is likely to be routed away from
you while assorted hostile assets come for vengeance, and you can't run
too far or fast without losing the stealth you depend on.

It's a bad trade for a submarine for the benefit of - maybe - shooting
down a helicopter.

>> Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
>> SAMs.
>
> Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone,
>isolated sub to dispute air superiority.

You're not going to "dispute air superiority" with short-range,
blind-fired SAMs.

>Just the threat that a sub MAY
>have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for any ASW
>forces.

Ships' helicopters get tasked widely these days. When they do a Thunder
Valley run to check an oil pipeline ashore, there's a risk of insurgents
with MANPADS. When they prosecute fast inshore attack craft, again
there's a SAM threat. Once you've trained and equipped for those, the
risk of a semi-blind SAM shot from a submerged submarine isn't a serious
extra problem: either the countermeasures are effective against that
seeker or they aren't, and you go in on the basis that the DAS will
protect you enough to let you do your job.

MPA may not have the same degree of protection (though with their
increasing overland employment that's much less true) but they can
generate a lot more standoff (in three dimensions), again seriously
compromising the effectiveness of a subSAM.

>> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be
>> less attractive when worked through in detail.
>
> Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular thread
>to convince me.

Usenet isn't where the decisions get made.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


>Would this be useful for detecting the aircraft?:
>
>http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20070107.aspx

Maybe. An aircraft at altitude is a very small visual target (and
also a very small acoustic target).

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Sep 17, 11:07*am, wrote:

> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> give away the position of the launching sub. *But the idea refuses
> to die.
>
> Why?

My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
assets work alone. I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
submarines, we were the only thing local. Blow us out of the sky and
you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. For sub
hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
for concern.

v/r Gordon

[[email protected]]

On Sep 18, 2:07*am, wrote:
> "Once more, developers are working on weapons that
> enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
> There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
> Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
> Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
> of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
> non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
> Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.
>
> Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
> launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
> (U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
> The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
> Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
> and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
> range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
> (Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."
>
> See:
>
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx
>
> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> give away the position of the launching sub. *But the idea refuses
> to die.
>
> Why?

The German system, IDAS is inusual from several angles:
1 It is not based on a AAM and is launched directly from a standard
tube with motor ignition occuring immediatly. This makes the missile
much faster in getting to target than capsule launched SAM based on
say sidewinder-X, AMRAAM or MICA. It also makes it much noisier ie it
has a much larger launch signature due to the motor igniting under
water. (This suggests it is a last minute weapon to be used when
alreaqdy discovered). Having said that is a capsule launched that
much quieter?
2 The German IDAS system uses a high resolution infrared imaging
system, inertial guidance and remains connected to the submarine with
fiber optic cables: it provides a TV picture to the opperator, motor
gives adaquet time for lotire and target selection. It has auto-
homming to both air, land and sea targets but the opperator retains
control.

Submarine detection has improved dramatically in recent years to the
point that some are saying the've lost most if not all their stealth
in open ocean. Littoral subs like the German type 212 designed for
shallow waters with the x-fin configuration and to avoid MAD with a
stainless steel hull and a Hydrogen Metal Hydride fuel cell however
retail stealth due to their abillity to opperate in the shallows.

If say a 212 can hear the rotors of a helicopter, if it can then hear
tracking pings from its sonar (time to launch may be then) and if it
then hears the 'plonk' of a ASW torpedo, its motor and its seeker
going active the response of the sub would be to release effectors,
decoys and jammers. Now it can destroy the sub and ward of subsequent
attacks as well.

One reason these systems may be making a rear-apperance (eg Sidewinder-
X based capsule launched) is that is simply easily possible to adapt
these missiles with little R+D. These AAM have inertial guidance,
focal plane array 'robot vision infrared' and thrust vectoring
suitable for vertical launch.

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 17, 4:22*pm, wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2:07*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Once more, developers are working on weapons that
> > enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
> > There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
> > Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
> > Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
> > of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
> > non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
> > Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.
>
> > Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
> > launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
> > (U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
> > The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
> > Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
> > and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
> > range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
> > (Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."
>
> > See:
>
> >http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx
>
> > I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
> > give away the position of the launching sub. *But the idea refuses
> > to die.
>
> > Why?
>
> The German system, IDAS is inusual from several angles:
> 1 It is not based on a AAM and is launched directly from a standard
> tube with motor ignition occuring immediatly. *This makes the missile
> much faster in getting to target than capsule launched SAM based on
> say sidewinder-X, AMRAAM or MICA. *It also makes it much noisier ie it
> has a much larger launch signature due to the motor igniting under
> water. *(This suggests it is a last minute weapon to be used when
> alreaqdy discovered). *Having said that is a capsule launched that
> much quieter?
> 2 *The German IDAS system uses a high resolution infrared imaging
> system, inertial guidance and remains connected to the submarine with
> fiber optic cables: it provides a TV picture to the opperator, motor
> gives adaquet time for lotire and target selection. *It has auto-
> homming to both air, land and sea targets but the opperator retains
> control.
>
> Submarine detection has improved dramatically in recent years to the
> point that some are saying the've lost most if not all their stealth
> in open ocean. * Littoral subs like the German type 212 designed for
> shallow waters with the x-fin configuration and to avoid MAD with a
> stainless steel hull and a Hydrogen Metal Hydride fuel cell however
> retail stealth due to their abillity to opperate in the shallows.
>
> If say a 212 can hear the rotors of a helicopter, if it can then hear
> tracking pings from its sonar (time to launch may be then) and if it
> then hears the 'plonk' of a ASW torpedo, its motor and its seeker
> going active the response of the sub would be to release effectors,
> decoys and jammers. *Now it can destroy the sub and ward of subsequent
> attacks as well.
>
> One reason these systems may be making a rear-apperance (eg Sidewinder-
> X based capsule launched) is that is simply easily possible to adapt
> these missiles with little R+D. *These AAM have inertial guidance,
> focal plane array 'robot vision infrared' and thrust vectoring
> suitable for vertical launch.

Paul Adam never served on Subs, but he should have aspired to higher
things than the Territorials ;)
He is consistently spot-on regarding this subject. IMHO.

BB

[Andre Lieven]

On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, Dennis > wrote:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
> > and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
> > never
> > actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
> > *built*.
>
> > Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.
>
> * * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away. * *

Well, they're 18 years gone now...

> > There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
> > "reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
> > mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.
>
> * * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, for that matter?

They make sense/cents ?

Andre

[Dennis[_6_]]

Andre Lieven wrote:

>> * * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away.
>
> Well, they're 18 years gone now...

True. But the discussion here and elsewhere goes on.

>> > There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
>> > "reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
>> > mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.
>>
>> * * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, fo
> r that matter?
>
> They make sense/cents ?

LOL! If we didn't have them, we'd have to round off to something
else. The nearest $0.05, nickel?

Dennis

[Dennis[_6_]]

Gordon wrote:

> My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
> assets work alone. I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
> type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
> submarines, we were the only thing local. Blow us out of the sky and
> you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. For sub
> hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
> probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
> for concern.

The voice of experience! There you have it.

Dennis

[American Eagle]

Dennis wrote:
> dumpsey wrote:
>
>> "Once more, developers are working on weapons that
>> enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
>> There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
>> Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
>> Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
>> of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
>> non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
>> Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.
>>
>> Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
>> launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
>> (U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
>> The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
>> Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
>> and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
>> range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
>> (Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090917.aspx
>>
>> I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
>> give away the position of the launching sub. But the idea refuses
>> to die.
>>
>> Why?
>
> As they said on NL's "Animal House," why not?
>
> Like nuclear grenades.
>
> Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in
> which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare.
> Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of
> the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile
> defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He
> encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a
> small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read,
> "Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch
> diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the
> bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.

Now that would encourage a soldier to practice his fast pitch and faster
ashaulen in der udder vay!
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
> pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24&notFound=true

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 17, 10:03*pm, Dennis > wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
> > My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
> > assets work alone. *I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
> > type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
> > submarines, we were the only thing local. *Blow us out of the sky and
> > you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. *For sub
> > hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
> > probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
> > for concern.
>
> * * * * The voice of experience! *There you have it.
>
> Dennis

Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
they _thought_ might happen.
I've known Gordon for a long time and respect the hell out of him.
But their concern about an unproven system is not proof of concept for
the one this thread addresses.
As I said earlier, Paul is the Man...

BB

[guy]

On 17 Sep, 21:29, Dennis > wrote:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
> > and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
> > never
> > actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
> > *built*.
>
> > Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.
>
> * * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away. * *
>
> > There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
> > "reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
> > mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.
>
> * * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, for that matter?
>
> Dennis

What? in 1880?

Guy

[Alan Dicey]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, vaughn
> > writes
>> The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
>> you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW
>> aircraft
>> might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off
>> contact.
>
> The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
> completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you
> launch a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely
> hostile (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you
> can clear datum very far).
>
> There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
> the greatest of Pk - it's being launched on "aircraft somewhere up
> there, probably" which isn't the best way to ensure a
> heart-of-the-envelope shot against a target that may have a decent DAS.
>
>> Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated
>> if the
>> ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.
>
> Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
> SAMs.
>
> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to
> be less attractive when worked through in detail.
>
>

Part of the problem is giving away your position. How about deploying
the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from you
a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly? Formidable
problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still told the
world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>,
BlackBeard > writes
>Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
>shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
>even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
>they _thought_ might happen.

The only live-fire test I know about is for the US SIAM (Self Initiated
Antiaircraft Missile) which in 1981 shot down a QH-50 drone at a range
of two miles and altitude of 1500' (Friedman, "US Naval Weapons"). That
seems to have been purely a missile test, not an all-up system
evaluation. SIAM was - as far as I can tell - intended to be launched in
a capsule that contained a search radar which would hand off target data
to the missile, which would then use IR homing to acquire and intercept.

The missile got as far as test firings but it seems the rest of the
system never got beyond concept phase.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, vaughn
> > writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>>> The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
>>> completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you
>>> launch a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and
>>> definitely hostile (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be
>>> on-scene before you can clear datum very far).
>>
>> Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the
>> sub's CO,
>>rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time.
>
> I think you'll find the various development efforts (SLAM in the UK,
> SIAM in the US, the Franco-German Polyphem) have gone rather further
> than Internet debate - some even to prototype testing, even to
> deployed status and operational evaluation - and all have fallen over
> because the sub COs all end up preferring stealth, then evasion, over
> trying to fight it out with aircraft overhead.
>
> Yes, ideally you kill the annoying ASW asset. But when you don't (and
> SAM combat Pks run from about 40% for best-case Sea Dart downwards)
> you've given away your location and your hostile intent and you've
> made the enemy angry. Even if you get the kill, if your location is
> flagged then everything you were sent to hunt is likely to be routed
> away from you while assorted hostile assets come for vengeance, and
> you can't run too far or fast without losing the stealth you depend
> on.
>
> It's a bad trade for a submarine for the benefit of - maybe - shooting
> down a helicopter.
>
>>> Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than
>>> sub-launched SAMs.
>>
>> Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone,
>>isolated sub to dispute air superiority.
>
> You're not going to "dispute air superiority" with short-range,
> blind-fired SAMs.
>
>>Just the threat that a sub MAY
>>have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for
>>any ASW forces.
>
> Ships' helicopters get tasked widely these days. When they do a
> Thunder Valley run to check an oil pipeline ashore, there's a risk of
> insurgents with MANPADS. When they prosecute fast inshore attack
> craft, again there's a SAM threat. Once you've trained and equipped
> for those, the risk of a semi-blind SAM shot from a submerged
> submarine isn't a serious extra problem: either the countermeasures
> are effective against that seeker or they aren't, and you go in on the
> basis that the DAS will protect you enough to let you do your job.
>
> MPA may not have the same degree of protection (though with their
> increasing overland employment that's much less true) but they can
> generate a lot more standoff (in three dimensions), again seriously
> compromising the effectiveness of a subSAM.
>
>>> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out
>>> to be less attractive when worked through in detail.
>>
>> Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular
>> thread
>>to convince me.
>
> Usenet isn't where the decisions get made.

Good thing too.

Having been a Blowpipe driver back in the '70s, and having worked with
Javelin in the '90s, SLAM always looked pretty rediculous to me. Lines of
weapon release for helicopter-borne ASW weapons I suspect would have been
well outside the -- at best -- 3.5 Km range of Blowpipe.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[William Black[_1_]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message
> >,
> BlackBeard > writes
>> Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
>> shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
>> even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
>> they _thought_ might happen.
>
> The only live-fire test I know about is for the US SIAM (Self Initiated
> Antiaircraft Missile) which in 1981 shot down a QH-50 drone at a range
> of two miles and altitude of 1500' (Friedman, "US Naval Weapons"). That
> seems to have been purely a missile test, not an all-up system
> evaluation. SIAM was - as far as I can tell - intended to be launched in
> a capsule that contained a search radar which would hand off target data
> to the missile, which would then use IR homing to acquire and intercept.
>
> The missile got as far as test firings but it seems the rest of the
> system never got beyond concept phase.
>

Wasn't there talk of some sort of floating raft that could be released
from the submarine that had some sort of SAM installation mounted on it?

I'm remembering all this from two or three decades ago and I do remember
quite a lot of pretty fevered talk at the time, articles in the IISS
'informal' magazine and lots of rather silly stuff about submarines
engaging helicopters in what passed for the 'informed press', which in
those days was mainly journalists who been conscripts in the army twenty
years earlier...


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Sep 18, 1:47*am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Sep 17, 10:03*pm, Dennis > wrote:
>
> > Gordon wrote:
> > > My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
> > > assets work alone. *I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
> > > type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
> > > submarines, we were the only thing local. *Blow us out of the sky and
> > > you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. *For sub
> > > hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
> > > probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
> > > for concern.
>
> > * * * * The voice of experience! *There you have it.
>
> > Dennis
>
> Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
> shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
> even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
> they _thought_ might happen.
> I've known Gordon for a long time and respect the hell out of him.
> But their concern about an unproven system is not proof of concept for
> the one this thread addresses.
> * As I said earlier, Paul is the Man...

True - YYMV. It's what we _thought_, because that is what the intel
was telling us. In the Craig Peyer / Walker era, we were all chasing
our tails over bogus intel and things that went bump in the night.

G

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Sep 18, 4:35*am, Andrew Chaplin >
wrote:
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message >, vaughn
> > > writes
> >>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
> >>> completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you
> >>> launch a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and
> >>> definitely hostile (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be
> >>> on-scene before you can clear datum very far).
>
> >> * Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the
> >> * sub's CO,
> >>rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time.
>
> > I think you'll find the various development efforts (SLAM in the UK,
> > SIAM in the US, the Franco-German Polyphem) have gone rather further
> > than Internet debate - some even to prototype testing, even to
> > deployed status and operational evaluation - and all have fallen over
> > because the sub COs all end up preferring stealth, then evasion, over
> > trying to fight it out with aircraft overhead.
>
> > Yes, ideally you kill the annoying ASW asset. But when you don't (and
> > SAM combat Pks run from about 40% for best-case Sea Dart downwards)
> > you've given away your location and your hostile intent and you've
> > made the enemy angry. Even if you get the kill, if your location is
> > flagged then everything you were sent to hunt is likely to be routed
> > away from you while assorted hostile assets come for vengeance, and
> > you can't run too far or fast without losing the stealth you depend
> > on.
>
> > It's a bad trade for a submarine for the benefit of - maybe - shooting
> > down a helicopter.
>
> >>> Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than
> >>> sub-launched SAMs.
>
> >> * Here I greatly disagree. *Their may be no other options for a lone,
> >>isolated sub to dispute air superiority.
>
> > You're not going to "dispute air superiority" with short-range,
> > blind-fired SAMs.
>
> >>Just the threat that a sub MAY
> >>have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for
> >>any ASW forces.
>
> > Ships' helicopters get tasked widely these days. When they do a
> > Thunder Valley run to check an oil pipeline ashore, there's a risk of
> > insurgents with MANPADS. When they prosecute fast inshore attack
> > craft, again there's a SAM threat. Once you've trained and equipped
> > for those, the risk of a semi-blind SAM shot from a submerged
> > submarine isn't a serious extra problem: either the countermeasures
> > are effective against that seeker or they aren't, and you go in on the
> > basis that the DAS will protect you enough to let you do your job.
>
> > MPA may not have the same degree of protection (though with their
> > increasing overland employment that's much less true) but they can
> > generate a lot more standoff (in three dimensions), again seriously
> > compromising the effectiveness of a subSAM.
>
> >>> It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out
> >>> to be less attractive when worked through in detail.
>
> >> * Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular
> >> * thread
> >>to convince me.
>
> > Usenet isn't where the decisions get made.
>
> Good thing too.
>
> Having been a Blowpipe driver back in the '70s, and having worked with
> Javelin in the '90s, SLAM always looked pretty rediculous to me. Lines of
> weapon release for helicopter-borne ASW weapons I suspect would have been
> well outside the -- at best -- 3.5 Km range of Blowpipe.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, here is a little additional information - anecdotal, I know, but
perhaps still relevent. Back then, we had a hard and fast rule that
unless we were watching a submarine in the process of a launch (say,
we find an on the surface with its Front Door spun around and the
tubes elevated), we had to make three runs over the target before we
dropped our Mark 46 Mod Os into the water. That means that unless we
marked on top of the submarine three times, they would know that we
were out of our ROE for weapons release. If the baddie realized there
was a helo (pretty easy to do), then its only a step or two away from
knowing what kind: Is it an SH-3, meaning there is a carrier and
probably other assets on the way? Or is it a P-3 or SH-2F, two
aircraft that were typically lone hunters? With a rotor rate of 77
hz, it was easy to tell if that buzz in the distance was an SH-2F.
Anyways, so now the sneaky little ******* under the waves knows he's
likely dealing with a loner sniffing along in his wake. So the H-2,
which hasn't called contact yet but is investigating, suddenly
disappears from radar while on a MAD run. It was not an improbable
scenario, given the photos that P-3s brought home of the pop-up
launcher in the sail of that Kilo. Also, there was a "Lessons
Learned" from back then that the Commies were interested in the idea
of leaving SA-7 "mines" in the wake of their subs - vertically
floating mini-launchers activated by the CPA of a loud acoustic source
(at, say, 77 hz). Now, that likely WAS a pipe dream, but it fit in
with the other intel we were getting at the time.

v/r Gordon

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Sep 18, 9:23*am, Gordon > wrote:

> Well, here is a little additional information - anecdotal, I know, but
> perhaps still relevent. *Back then, we had a hard and fast rule that
> unless we were watching a submarine in the process of a launch (say,
> we find an ___________ on the surface with its Front Door spun around and the
> tubes elevated),


Insert "Echo II" or "Juliett" in the space...

[Derek Lyons]

Alan Lothian > wrote:

>On Sep 17, 9:54*pm, "David E. Powell" >
>wrote:
>
><snippaggio>
>
>> Since the end of WW2, submarines as
>> antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving
>> often works better.
>
>These days, not diving, just dived. V. bad idea, as Paul has pointed
>out, to give away your greatest asset: stealth. Grumpy MPA or
>helicopter isn't entirely sure where you are: it's only got a sniff.

Everybody keeps adressing the situation where the ASW asset 'only has
a sniff'. Yeah, it's madness to launch then and give yourself way...

But that ignores the rest of the situation - like when they have more
than a sniff and are actively attempting localization.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:23:34 -0700 (PDT), Gordon
> wrote:

<snipped for brevity>


>Well, here is a little additional information - anecdotal, I know, but
>perhaps still relevent. Back then, we had a hard and fast rule that
>unless we were watching a submarine in the process of a launch (say,
>we find an on the surface with its Front Door spun around and the
>tubes elevated), we had to make three runs over the target before we
>dropped our Mark 46 Mod Os into the water. That means that unless we
>marked on top of the submarine three times, they would know that we
>were out of our ROE for weapons release. If the baddie realized there
>was a helo (pretty easy to do), then its only a step or two away from
>knowing what kind: Is it an SH-3, meaning there is a carrier and
>probably other assets on the way? Or is it a P-3 or SH-2F, two
>aircraft that were typically lone hunters? With a rotor rate of 77
>hz, it was easy to tell if that buzz in the distance was an SH-2F.
>Anyways, so now the sneaky little ******* under the waves knows he's
>likely dealing with a loner sniffing along in his wake. So the H-2,
>which hasn't called contact yet but is investigating, suddenly
>disappears from radar while on a MAD run. It was not an improbable
>scenario, given the photos that P-3s brought home of the pop-up
>launcher in the sail of that Kilo. Also, there was a "Lessons
>Learned" from back then that the Commies were interested in the idea
>of leaving SA-7 "mines" in the wake of their subs - vertically
>floating mini-launchers activated by the CPA of a loud acoustic source
>(at, say, 77 hz). Now, that likely WAS a pipe dream, but it fit in
>with the other intel we were getting at the time.
>
>v/r Gordon

I used to teach VS tactics. What you describe are proper attack
criteria for a MAD based attack run. However, not all runs were based
upon MAD detection.

The S2E/G could develop a track from DICASS, DIFAR, or information
from other platforms (radar vectors from a DD based upon sonar; range
and bearing run from an HS dipping sonar; range and bearing run from a
sensor laid by a VP; or other relevant attack criteria, active or
passive). As long as we could put the weapon within its aquisition
envelope we were good to go.

We were concerned about the possibility of an offensive anti-aircraft
system on a sub, but it never did develop during my time (I was out of
the business in '78). The sub's problems of developing attack
criteria against an aircraft are a major issue. Still, by using any
such weapon the sub CO gives up his greatest advantage (stealth).

Like I say, as a "weapon of last restort" it might make some sense. As
a routine weapon it's a good way for the sub to get dead.

[Derek Lyons]

BlackBeard > wrote:

>On Sep 17, 10:03*pm, Dennis > wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>> > My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
>> > assets work alone. *I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
>> > type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
>> > submarines, we were the only thing local. *Blow us out of the sky and
>> > you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. *For sub
>> > hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
>> > probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
>> > for concern.
>>
>> * * * * The voice of experience! *There you have it.
>>
>> Dennis
>
>Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
>shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
>even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
>they _thought_ might happen.

The same is true of many combat systems afloat across the world,
combat whose [likely] performance is otherwise accepted uncritically
here and elsewhere.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[David E. Powell]

On Sep 18, 11:20*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> BlackBeard > wrote:
> >On Sep 17, 10:03*pm, Dennis > wrote:
> >> Gordon wrote:
> >> > My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
> >> > assets work alone. *I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
> >> > type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
> >> > submarines, we were the only thing local. *Blow us out of the sky and
> >> > you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. *For sub
> >> > hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
> >> > probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
> >> > for concern.
>
> >> * * * * The voice of experience! *There you have it.
>
> >> Dennis
>
> >Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
> >shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
> >even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
> >they _thought_ might happen.
>
> The same is true of many combat systems afloat across the world,
> combat whose [likely] performance is otherwise accepted uncritically
> here and elsewhere.

Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
torpedoes?

> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alan Lothian]

On Sep 18, 4:15*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

>
> Everybody keeps adressing the situation where the ASW asset 'only has
> a sniff'. *Yeah, it's madness to launch then and give yourself way...
>
> But that ignores the rest of the situation - like when they have more
> than a sniff and are actively attempting localization.

Fair point. I'm happy to sit back and read posts from people who know
more than I do.

And isn't it a joy when the group does what it's supposed to do?

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 18, 12:04*pm, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:
> Alan Dicey > wrote:
> > Part of the problem is giving away your position. *How about deploying
> > the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from
> > you a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly?
> > Formidable problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still
> > told the world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.
>
> As I understand it, Polyphem at least IS launched via the torpedo tube,
> and aimed by FO line...
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> "Hello", lied the politician

When all the problems with detection and targeting are all talked our
here then we can move into missile flight dynamics-- and why when the
ASW platform is close (as is being suggested) it is so much harder to
hit. ;)

BB

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message
>,
David E. Powell > writes
>Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
>ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
>torpedoes?

Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
back onto the real target).

Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[David E. Powell]

On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
> In message
> >,
> David E. Powell > writes
>
> >Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
> >ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
> >torpedoes?
>
> Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
> sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
> the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
> immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
> the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
> countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
> the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
> back onto the real target).

True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could
spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a
destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the
chance at the main target.

> Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
> primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
> in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
> a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
> two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)

That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the
PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a
dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo,
broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had
it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they
used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to
deefnd against air attacks.

> --
> He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
>
> Paul J. Adam

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell" >
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > In message
> > >,
> > David E. Powell > writes
>
> > >Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
> > >ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
> > >torpedoes?
>
> > Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
> > sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
> > the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
> > immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
> > the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
> > countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
> > the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
> > back onto the real target).
>
> True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could
> spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a
> destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the
> chance at the main target.
>
> > Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
> > primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
> > in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
> > a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
> > two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)
>
> That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the
> PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a
> dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo,
> broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had
> it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they
> used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to
> deefnd against air attacks.
>

Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? ;)

(relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)

BB

[David E. Powell]

On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > In message
> > > >,
> > > David E. Powell > writes
>
> > > >Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
> > > >ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
> > > >torpedoes?
>
> > > Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
> > > sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
> > > the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
> > > immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
> > > the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
> > > countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
> > > the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
> > > back onto the real target).
>
> > True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could
> > spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a
> > destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the
> > chance at the main target.
>
> > > Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
> > > primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
> > > in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
> > > a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
> > > two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)
>
> > That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the
> > PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a
> > dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo,
> > broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had
> > it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they
> > used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to
> > deefnd against air attacks.
>
> Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *;)
>
> (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)
>
> BB

Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.

David

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell" >
wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > In message
> > > > >,
> > > > David E. Powell > writes
>
> > > > >Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
> > > > >ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
> > > > >torpedoes?
>
> > > > Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
> > > > sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
> > > > the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
> > > > immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
> > > > the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
> > > > countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
> > > > the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
> > > > back onto the real target).
>
> > > True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could
> > > spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a
> > > destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the
> > > chance at the main target.
>
> > > > Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
> > > > primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
> > > > in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
> > > > a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
> > > > two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)
>
> > > That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the
> > > PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a
> > > dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo,
> > > broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had
> > > it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they
> > > used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to
> > > deefnd against air attacks.
>
> > Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *;)
>
> > (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)
>
> > BB
>
> Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
> submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.
>
> David

Sheesh... I think I made this mistake before. I'll blame the
meds* I took before I posted this time ;)
I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list
of the bubbleheads posting here. I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
claim the fish. Just can't keep the rest in memory.
Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine
book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an
authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth
charges.
My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the
Deep... I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. However you should
not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful,
demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called
a Submariner... ;)

BB

[Alan Dicey]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> Alan Dicey > wrote:
>
>> Part of the problem is giving away your position. How about deploying
>> the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from
>> you a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly?
>> Formidable problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still
>> told the world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.
>
> As I understand it, Polyphem at least IS launched via the torpedo tube,
> and aimed by FO line...
>

Reading up on Polyphem, it appears to be a 60kM range cruise missile,
land attack or anti-ship. Mind-bogglingly, it is fibre-optic guided
right onto the target, so takes off with 60kM of fibre on a bobbin.

Doesn't meet the requirement I had in mind, which was to separate the
apparent source of the missile from the submarine's actual location.

Mind you, if you could develop a sufficiently intelligent SAM that could
target overflying hostiles on its own, you could lay an anti-aircraft
minefield, and be miles away when the missile launched. Pretty vital to
have included foolproof IFF, though.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
...>
> I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
>claim the fish.

<start flashback>

Got them fair and square too. Caught them in my teeth in a bar in Dunoon
Scotland, where they had been dropped into a beer mug full of assorted
shots. Heaving one's guts out afterwards was considered part of the game.
When I came out of the pub's smelly head, I was still wearing that nasty
toilet seat. My shipmates called me "horsecollar" from that day on.

The next day, the XO reclaimed them so that a visiting assistant SecDef (the
Mr. Packard from HP) would have a ceremony to perform. The SOB was late, so
I had to shiver on deck for an hour while I waited to get my dolphins back.

<end flashback>

Vaughn

[Derek Lyons]

BlackBeard > wrote:

> Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
>fish

If your work ever brings you up this way, we'll have to hit the local
brewpub... (Ralph L, occasional poster here in SMN, also lives in the
vicinity.)

Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in
the old days though.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Gordon[_2_]]

On Sep 19, 2:10*pm, Alan Dicey >
wrote:
> Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> > Alan Dicey > wrote:
>
> >> Part of the problem is giving away your position. *How about deploying
> >> the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from
> >> you a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly?
> >> Formidable problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still
> >> told the world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.
>
> > As I understand it, Polyphem at least IS launched via the torpedo tube,
> > and aimed by FO line...
>
> Reading up on Polyphem, it appears to be a 60kM range cruise missile,
> land attack or anti-ship. *Mind-bogglingly, it is fibre-optic guided
> right onto the target, so takes off with 60kM of fibre on a bobbin.
>
> Doesn't meet the requirement I had in mind, which was to separate the
> apparent source of the missile from the submarine's actual location.
>
> Mind you, if you could develop a sufficiently intelligent SAM that could
> target overflying hostiles on its own, you could lay an anti-aircraft
> minefield, and be miles away when the missile launched. *Pretty vital to
> have included foolproof IFF, though.

Bingo - that was the scenario we discussed at the time. The sub
wasn't thought of as an active combatant against the helo or MPA, it
was going to sow its wake with a few of these canisters that popped
out an SA-7 at the first indication that a low flying aircraft has
overflown its position. The Kilo and the imagined SAM-packing Type
IIIs were the other possible scenario of the war-gamed sub-vs-ASW. We
were getting the impression that the old cat and mouse game (with us
being the cat) was evolving into a mongoose vs cobra situation. The
photos of the Kilo were widely distributed in our community, and the
whispers of the development of the cannisters were on our minds as at
least a possibility.

v/r Gordon

[[email protected]]

Are there any SAMs small enough to fit into a Torpedo casing?

Something like an electric torpedo with a fake extendable periscope
and a SAM, and the sensors to direct it, could swim a few miles
from the launching sub, then expose the fake periscope
periodically.

Then when an enemy aircraft comes into range... *whoosh!*

Maybe the torp/decoy could be equipped to replicate the
acoustic and magnetic signatures of a sub too.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Juergen Nieveler > wrote in
:

> wrote:
>
>> Are there any SAMs small enough to fit into a Torpedo casing?
>
> Any MANPADS will fit into a normal torpedo casing.

Most MANPADS will fit into the volume taken up by the warhead and its
associated gubbins. SHORAD missiles like Chapparal, Crotale, Rapier, Roland
and ADATS will fit into a torpedo casing, but the volume devoted to the
engine and fuel may have to be reduced. Only the IR seeking missiles seem
likely for such adaptation, the others do not have terminal homing.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
wrote:

>On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell" >
>wrote:
>> On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard > wrote:

>> > Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *;)
>>
>> > (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)

>> Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
>> submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.

> Sheesh... I think I made this mistake before. I'll blame the
>meds* I took before I posted this time ;)
> I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list
>of the bubbleheads posting here. I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
>claim the fish. Just can't keep the rest in memory.

USS Michigan SBBN-727 Blue - 1982-88.

In fact, Derek can vouch for me as authentic (he knows someone who
served in RC Division on Michigan with me - Matt Henson).

> Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
>fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine
>book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an
>authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth
>charges.
> My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the
>Deep... I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. However you should
>not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful,
>demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called
>a Submariner... ;)
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Sep 20, 4:11*pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" >
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell" >
> >wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard > wrote:
> >> > Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *;)
>
> >> > (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)
> >> Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
> >> submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.
> > * Sheesh... *I think I made this mistake before. *I'll blame the
> >meds* I took before I posted this time ;)
> > * I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list
> >of the bubbleheads posting here. *I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
> >claim the fish. *Just can't keep the rest in memory.
>
> USS Michigan SBBN-727 Blue - 1982-88.
>
> In fact, Derek can vouch for me as authentic (he knows someone who
> served in RC Division on Michigan with me - Matt Henson).
>
> > * Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
> >fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine
> >book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an
> >authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth
> >charges.
> > *My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the
> >Deep... *I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. *However you should
> >not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful,
> >demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called
> >a Submariner... *;)
>
> --
> "He either fears his fate too much,
> *Or his deserts are small,
> *Who dares not put it to the touch,
> *To win or lose it all."
> * *- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose

Good to see you posting again. (Psst....it's football season...U
$C lost to UDub...it doesn't get much better than that)

[David E. Powell]

On Sep 20, 1:27*pm, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:
> Andrew Chaplin > wrote:
> > Most MANPADS will fit into the volume taken up by the warhead and its
> > associated gubbins. SHORAD missiles like Chapparal, Crotale, Rapier,
> > Roland and ADATS will fit into a torpedo casing, but the volume
> > devoted to the engine and fuel may have to be reduced. Only the IR
> > seeking missiles seem likely for such adaptation, the others do not
> > have terminal homing.
>
> Hm... would a laser-guided system like Starstreak be able to pick up a
> targeting laser projected by the periscope even when launched some
> distance away?
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography. - Paul
> Rodriguez

That could work....

Or, how about a recoverable RPV? It can fly up, maybe come out of a
shell it rises up in, then deploy to guide or fire a MANPADS style
missile or a laser guided one like Starstreak. Then she can descend,
maybe even ballast down and descend for retrieval.

[Paul J. Adam[_3_]]

In message >, Juergen
Nieveler > writes
>Hm... would a laser-guided system like Starstreak be able to pick up a
>targeting laser projected by the periscope even when launched some
>distance away?

No. Starstreak is a beam-rider (well, for a sophisticated version of
"beam") that really needs the missile to start pretty much on boresight
for the tracker.

A semi-active laser system might be more effective for this role: for
slow MPA and helicopters, something like Hellfire might be modified to
suit. However, slow at periscope depth with a mast up is where you
*don't* want to be against any sort of capable ASW opposition.


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

[David Loewe, Jr.]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Sep 20, 4:11*pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" >
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard >
>> wrote:
>> >On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell" >
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard > wrote:

>> >> > Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *;)
>>
>> >> > (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)
>> >> Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
>> >> submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.
>> > * Sheesh... *I think I made this mistake before. *I'll blame the
>> >meds* I took before I posted this time ;)
>> > * I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list
>> >of the bubbleheads posting here. *I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
>> >claim the fish. *Just can't keep the rest in memory.
>>
>> USS Michigan SBBN-727 Blue - 1982-88.
>>
>> In fact, Derek can vouch for me as authentic (he knows someone who
>> served in RC Division on Michigan with me - Matt Henson).
>>
>> > * Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
>> >fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine
>> >book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an
>> >authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth
>> >charges.
>> > *My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the
>> >Deep... *I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. *However you should
>> >not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful,
>> >demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called
>> >a Submariner... *;)

> Good to see you posting again. (Psst....it's football season...U
>$C lost to UDub...it doesn't get much better than that)

I know. Did you see my Bow Down To Washington post over in rsfc?
--
"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root
of all evil."
-Lazarus Long

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 19, 12:45*pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "BlackBeard" > wrote in message
>
> ...>
>
> > *I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
> >claim the fish.
>
> <start flashback>
>
> Got them fair and square too. *Caught them in my teeth in a bar in Dunoon
> Scotland, where they had been dropped into a beer mug full of assorted
> shots. *Heaving one's guts out afterwards was considered part of the game.
> When I came out of the pub's smelly head, I was still wearing that nasty
> toilet seat. *My shipmates called me "horsecollar" from that day on.
>
> The next day, the XO reclaimed them so that a visiting assistant SecDef (the
> Mr. Packard from HP) would have a ceremony to perform. *The SOB was late, so
> I had to shiver on deck for an hour while I waited to get my dolphins back.
>
> <end flashback>
>
> Vaughn

I drank mine on the top deck of the Miami Superbar in Subic City.
Mojo, shots, raw eggs, hot sauce, and the contents of an ashtray I
believe. Thank god they couldn't find a balut...
;)

BB

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 19, 7:33*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> BlackBeard > wrote:
> > * Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
> >fish
>
> If your work ever brings you up this way, we'll have to hit the local
> brewpub... *(Ralph L, occasional poster here in SMN, also lives in the
> vicinity.)
>
> Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in
> the old days though.
>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

The offer is reciprocated, but I can't remember what city you are
in. ;) I'm glad I can't put it away like I used to- I'll live
longer.

BB

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Paul J. Adam ha scritto:

> A semi-active laser system might be more effective for this role: for
> slow MPA and helicopters, something like Hellfire might be modified to
> suit. However, slow at periscope depth with a mast up is where you
> *don't* want to be against any sort of capable ASW opposition.

and ASW helos is a good indicator of that "capable ASW" opposition"

I guess that doing this stunt near an Italian Frigate in the Sicilian
Canal is a sure method for starting an eternal patrol....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[vaughn[_2_]]

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in
> the old days though.

I live in South Florida and would love to share a beer with any of the gang.
That said, I never was never one of the Navy's great drinkers. Back then I
suppose I was more of a chow hound than a drinker. While on the 599 boat I
made it all the way to 260 pounds! I weigh 100 # less than that today.

At midrats (when they put the fresh-baked bread out to cool) I remember my
favorite snack was a whole loaf of fresh, hot, bread with an entire stick of
butter stuffed inside. Today I shiver at the thought.

Vaughn

[Derek Lyons]

BlackBeard > wrote:

>On Sep 19, 7:33*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>> BlackBeard > wrote:
>> > * Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
>> >fish
>>
>> If your work ever brings you up this way, we'll have to hit the local
>> brewpub... *(Ralph L, occasional poster here in SMN, also lives in the
>> vicinity.)
>>
>> Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in
>> the old days though.
>
>The offer is reciprocated, but I can't remember what city you are
>in. ;)

Good ol' Bummertown, adjacent to the shipyard and the sub base.
(Though, for god know what pencil pusher/bean counter reasons, they
are branches of the same organization now.)

I think Orange County is about as close as I ever make it to you.

>I'm glad I can't put it away like I used to- I'll live
>longer.

Aye, seconded.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[BlackBeard]

On Sep 21, 7:34*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> BlackBeard > wrote:
> >On Sep 19, 7:33*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> >> BlackBeard > wrote:
> >> > * Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
> >> >fish
>
> >> If your work ever brings you up this way, we'll have to hit the local
> >> brewpub... *(Ralph L, occasional poster here in SMN, also lives in the
> >> vicinity.)
>
> >> Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in
> >> the old days though.
>
> >The offer is reciprocated, but I can't remember what city you are
> >in. *;)
>
> Good ol' Bummertown, adjacent to the shipyard and the sub base.
> (Though, for god know what pencil pusher/bean counter reasons, they
> are branches of the same organization now.)
>
> I think Orange County is about as close as I ever make it to you.
>
> >I'm glad I can't put it away like I used to- I'll live
> >longer.
>
> Aye, seconded.
>
> D.
> --
> Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
>
> http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
>
> -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
> Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Missed opportunity. :( I was there two yearss ago. Stayed at the
Silverdale beach hotel and visited my old corpsman. He's working at
the shipyard now as a retiree in Nuc Med.
OC is 2+ hrs. south of us.

BB