ASuW tactics

[Dave Anderer]

I'm curious about the US doctrine for anti-shipping attacks 25 years ago -
say, the late 70's/early 80's?

What were the weapons to be employed to lower the target below sea level?
(I'm not so much interested in the use of ARMs, but rather the
larger-explosives designed to let water in or start toasty fires.)

For example: In the Falklands, the Argies used gravity bombs, delivered
from low-level in daylight. Would the USN have employed the same weapons
and in the same way?

[Yes, there were a couple of Exocets too.]

[Elmshoot]

>
>I'm curious about the US doctrine for anti-shipping attacks 25 years ago -
>say, the late 70's/early 80's?
>

>What were the weapons to be employed to lower the target below sea level?
>(I'm not so much interested in the use of ARMs, but rather the
>larger-explosives designed to let water in or start toasty fires.)
>

Anti surface warefare is a interesting mission. It all depends is the best
answer. For instance were is the tgt? Do you have to find it? What is the tgt
capibilities for self protection? how soon do you need to sink it? do you have
time to generate a strike package or is it some guys flying around that get
shot at by a tramp steamer? What is the ROE for the area?
So there are a lot of questions to be answered before I can answer your
questions.
The long range stand off weapon is the Harpoon real neat system but maybe
overkill for the Tramp steamer. the next stand off wepon that was the bread and
butter of the A-6 was the skipper. It was a pieced together weapon consisting
of a MK -80 series bomb body with a LGB guidance package in the nose than a
shrike rocket motor shoved up the ass. It is a really neat weapon that I shot
several times it requires training and crew cooridanation but is pretty useful
for folks that don't need to get into the small arms/ point defense weapons
envelope. I don't know if the FAG can employ it. Then high altitude LGB will be
very effective for a permissive tgt. Then Iron bombs. I don't know if the air
deliverd torps could be used against surface tgts. I understand they were for
anti sub stuff.
Sparky

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Elmshoot
> wrote:

> >
> >I'm curious about the US doctrine for anti-shipping attacks 25 years ago -
> >say, the late 70's/early 80's?
> >
>
> >What were the weapons to be employed to lower the target below sea level?
> >(I'm not so much interested in the use of ARMs, but rather the
> >larger-explosives designed to let water in or start toasty fires.)
> >
>
> Anti surface warefare is a interesting mission. It all depends is the best
> answer. For instance were is the tgt? Do you have to find it? What is the tgt
> capibilities for self protection? how soon do you need to sink it? do you have
> time to generate a strike package or is it some guys flying around that get
> shot at by a tramp steamer? What is the ROE for the area?
> So there are a lot of questions to be answered before I can answer your
> questions.
> The long range stand off weapon is the Harpoon real neat system but maybe
> overkill for the Tramp steamer. the next stand off wepon that was the bread
> and
> butter of the A-6 was the skipper. It was a pieced together weapon consisting
> of a MK -80 series bomb body with a LGB guidance package in the nose than a
> shrike rocket motor shoved up the ass. It is a really neat weapon that I shot
> several times it requires training and crew cooridanation but is pretty useful
> for folks that don't need to get into the small arms/ point defense weapons
> envelope. I don't know if the FAG can employ it. Then high altitude LGB will
> be
> very effective for a permissive tgt. Then Iron bombs. I don't know if the air
> deliverd torps could be used against surface tgts. I understand they were for
> anti sub stuff.
> Sparky

About half the Skippers our guys dropped/shot during ODS at Iraqi boats
turned into immediate Tuna Seekers as the old Zuni motors apparently
had a bunch of cracks and often failed. Made a nice mess of a
hovercraft when they hit though.

Pugs

[Paul Michael Brown]

> I'm curious about the US doctrine for anti-shipping attacks 25 years ago -
> say, the late 70's/early 80's?

This topic is covered (fictionally of course) in Stephen Coonts novel "The
Intruders," which is set in the mid-70s. The protagonist is assigned to
study how best to attack a Soviet surface combatant (cruiser? destroyer?).
In the novel, no precision ordnance is available and the attack plan
requires flying into the evelope of both SAMs and AAA. When queried by his
skipper as to his conclusions, the protagonist says "I've become a big fan
of attack submarines lately."

[Elmshoot]

>In the novel, no precision ordnance is available and the attack plan
>requires flying into the evelope of both SAMs and AAA. When queried by his
>skipper as to his conclusions, the protagonist says "I've become a big fan
>of attack submarines lately."

Against a Soviet SAG of the 80's with gravity weapons would likley end up with
all the ships still floating and whats left of the strike group floating as
well. Not a good idea at all.
Sparky

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 9/4/04 11:52 AM, in article ,
"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote:

>> I'm curious about the US doctrine for anti-shipping attacks 25 years ago -
>> say, the late 70's/early 80's?
>
> This topic is covered (fictionally of course) in Stephen Coonts novel "The
> Intruders," which is set in the mid-70s. The protagonist is assigned to
> study how best to attack a Soviet surface combatant (cruiser? destroyer?).
> In the novel, no precision ordnance is available and the attack plan
> requires flying into the evelope of both SAMs and AAA. When queried by his
> skipper as to his conclusions, the protagonist says "I've become a big fan
> of attack submarines lately."

I just read that book recently. Not the best of Coonts' books. Jake
Grafton just gets more and more spec ops, and frankly, even though , many of
the Intruder pilots I have known might *think* they could pull off the crap
that Grafton does, they couldn't. (Just my editorial opinion...)

The book is a compilation of a bunch of A-6E (and at least one Prowler)
mishaps. I was surprised to have met or known several of the folks who were
at the controls of many of them--kind of a rush for me.

I vote for more sea stories and less "Jake gets shot down and kills bad guys
with M-60's."

--Woody

[Mike Kanze]

Woody,

>The book is a compilation of a bunch of A-6E (and at least one Prowler)
>mishaps. I was surprised to have met or known several of the folks who
>were at the controls of many of them--kind of a rush for me.

Get ready for another rush, small as it likely will be. The cockpit
security "malfunction" in THE INTRUDERS - in which the VDI comes shooting
into the pilot's face during the cat stroke - was a KA-6D mishap from
VA-95's 1973 cruise. (I've posted the story on this previously to RAMN.)

Difference here is that both Dave Cohen and I survived. IIRC, one or both
of Coonts' fictitious aircrew buy it.

Agree that THE INTRUDERS is not one of Coonts' better oeuvres. My guess is
that he wrote it after writing several of the other Grafton books, to make
use of the leftover notes, etc. he compiled for FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER. If
so, good business decision to turn these otherwise unused materials into a
cash stream.

Coonts was based at Whidbey almost contemporaneously with me, except that he
was invariably deployed while I was ashore, and got out sometime during our
cruise. So I never met him, although I did my share of drinking with his
squadron bubbas after we returned to the Rock.

--
Mike Kanze

"If history repeats itself, I should think we can expect the same thing
again."

- NBC softball analyst at the 2004 Summer Olympics (This one earned the Yogi
Berra Award.)


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/4/04 11:52 AM, in article ,
> "Paul Michael Brown" > wrote:
>
>>> I'm curious about the US doctrine for anti-shipping attacks 25 years
>>> ago -
>>> say, the late 70's/early 80's?
>>
>> This topic is covered (fictionally of course) in Stephen Coonts novel
>> "The
>> Intruders," which is set in the mid-70s. The protagonist is assigned to
>> study how best to attack a Soviet surface combatant (cruiser?
>> destroyer?).
>> In the novel, no precision ordnance is available and the attack plan
>> requires flying into the evelope of both SAMs and AAA. When queried by
>> his
>> skipper as to his conclusions, the protagonist says "I've become a big
>> fan
>> of attack submarines lately."
>
> I just read that book recently. Not the best of Coonts' books. Jake
> Grafton just gets more and more spec ops, and frankly, even though , many
> of
> the Intruder pilots I have known might *think* they could pull off the
> crap
> that Grafton does, they couldn't. (Just my editorial opinion...)
>
> The book is a compilation of a bunch of A-6E (and at least one Prowler)
> mishaps. I was surprised to have met or known several of the folks who
> were
> at the controls of many of them--kind of a rush for me.
>
> I vote for more sea stories and less "Jake gets shot down and kills bad
> guys
> with M-60's."
>
> --Woody
>

[Paul Michael Brown]

> The book is a compilation of a bunch of A-6E (and at least one Prowler)
> mishaps. I was surprised to have met or known several of the folks who were
> at the controls of many of them--kind of a rush for me.

I'm just an armchair wannabe, but even *I* recognized quite a few of the
mishaps from reading Approach and other published works. IIRC (been awhile
since I read "The Intruders") Coonts also manages to sneak in the story
about an F-8 mishap that occurred during refueling in the middle of a
Transpac and ended with the pilot punching out. I seem to recall that one
from Approach as well. Am I correct on this?

> I vote for more sea stories and less "Jake gets shot down and kills bad guys
> with M-60's."

Heartily concur. "Flight of the Intruder" made the New York Times best
seller list because (IMHO) it was a small-but-well-told story that didn't
range much beyond the squadron. Granted, there was enough aviation-related
technospeak to make the wannabes like me happy. But it also contained the
classic elements of a good novel such as characterization and an
interesting subplot.

As Woody noted, in Coonts' later work he can't resist having his
protagonist running around the jungle with a K-Bar in his teeth. Nor can
he resist complicated, global plots that extend from the E Ring at the
Pentagon, to the offices of CINPAC in Hawaii, to the battle group underway
in the Indian Ocean to . . . you get the idea. (As you read, you can
almost hear the cheesy electronic noise they use in movies as the
characters on the screen spell out "U.S.S. Boat, Northern Pacific." I
think this is the military fiction version of "mission creep." The authors
may start out with modest and carefully-crafted novels based upon their
personal experiences (or upon good research). But when they get
successful, they often start cranking out flabby books loaded up with
filler in the form of technobabble or dialog featuring either the Secdef
and the President, or the requisite terrorist and his henchmen.