Are they phasing out the S-3 too?

[Prowlus]

Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired? According to this article here
they want to axe it asap

http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/1204527.html

Wouldn't this make the F-18 the only fast jet asset the navy can field
until the f-35 becomes available? Thank god theres no "F/C-18" .
Whatever happened to the navy that field 4 different types of strike
aircraft per deployment?

[Thomas Schoene]

Prowlus wrote:
> Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired?

Yes. This was announced years ago. IIRC, as soon as there are two
squadrons of Super Hornets in each carrier airwing, the Vikings are gone.

According to this article here
> they want to axe it asap
>
> http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/1204527.html
>
> Wouldn't this make the F-18 the only fast jet asset the navy can field
> until the f-35 becomes available?

Well, most people would not consider the Hornet and Super Hornet to be the
same type, so make that two fast jets.

Thank god theres no "F/C-18" .
> Whatever happened to the navy that field 4 different types of strike
> aircraft per deployment?

The last time a single carrier had four types of tactical aircraft (i.e.,
fighter or attack types) was probably the 1970s. For the 1980s, it was
usually F-14s, A-6s, and either A-7s or F/A-18Cs. Since the mid-1990s, it's
been just F-14s and F/A-18Cs. Over the next few years, it's going to
become F/A-18Cs and F/A-18Es and Fs. When the Joint Strike Fighter hits the
fleet, the air wings' tactical component will be F/A-18E/Fs and F-35s.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[MICHAEL OLEARY]

Does your question imply that the S-3 was fast?
-Moe
"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Prowlus wrote:
>> Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired?
>
> Yes. This was announced years ago. IIRC, as soon as there are two
> squadrons of Super Hornets in each carrier airwing, the Vikings are gone.
>
> According to this article here
>> they want to axe it asap
>>
>> http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/1204527.html
>>
>> Wouldn't this make the F-18 the only fast jet asset the navy can field
>> until the f-35 becomes available?
>
> Well, most people would not consider the Hornet and Super Hornet to be the
> same type, so make that two fast jets.
>
> Thank god theres no "F/C-18" .
>> Whatever happened to the navy that field 4 different types of strike
>> aircraft per deployment?
>
> The last time a single carrier had four types of tactical aircraft (i.e.,
> fighter or attack types) was probably the 1970s. For the 1980s, it was
> usually F-14s, A-6s, and either A-7s or F/A-18Cs. Since the mid-1990s,
> it's been just F-14s and F/A-18Cs. Over the next few years, it's going
> to become F/A-18Cs and F/A-18Es and Fs. When the Joint Strike Fighter
> hits the fleet, the air wings' tactical component will be F/A-18E/Fs and
> F-35s.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
> wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872
>
>
>
>

[Tiger]

Prowlus wrote:

>Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired? According to this article here
>they want to axe it asap
>
>http://www.wtok.com/news/headlines/1204527.html
>
>Wouldn't this make the F-18 the only fast jet asset the navy can field
>until the f-35 becomes available? Thank god theres no "F/C-18" .
>Whatever happened to the navy that field 4 different types of strike
>aircraft per deployment?
>
>
Don't you know The F/A 18 is the Swiss Army Knife of Naval Aviation.
Even has a toothpick! ;-)

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On 24 Jan 2005 15:57:21 -0800, (Prowlus) wrote:

>Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired?

Yes. This has been known for years.

>Wouldn't this make the F-18 the only fast jet asset the navy can field

The S-3 is not a "fast jet", unless you consider ALL jets to be
"fast".

>Whatever happened to the navy that field 4 different types of strike
>aircraft per deployment?

That Navy's been gone for 30 years or more.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Jan 2005 15:57:21 -0800, (Prowlus) wrote:
>
> >Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired?
>
> Yes. This has been known for years.
>
with of course no replacement, leaving the carrier force wide open to
submarine attack...

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Jeroen Wenting" > wrote:


> > >Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired?
> >
> > Yes. This has been known for years.
> >
> with of course no replacement, leaving the carrier force wide open to
> submarine attack...


I think the HS squadrons might take issue with that statement. ; )


--Mike

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:33:26 +0100, "Jeroen Wenting"
> wrote:

>with of course no replacement, leaving the carrier force wide open to
>submarine attack...

(1) S-3s do NOT do anti-submarine warfare at all.This mission was
eliminated some years ago.

(2) Carriers embark SH-60Fs (later MH-60Rs) and are escorted by FFGs,
DDGs, CGs, and SSNs, all of which are excellent ASW platforms. They
are not "wide open".

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Joe Delphi]

> >
> with of course no replacement, leaving the carrier force wide open to
> submarine attack...
>
>
>
What submarines? Most of the ex-Soviet Union's subs are rusting away at
their docks. The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
therefore not all that much of a threat.


JD

[Vaughn]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
ink.net...


> The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
> therefore not all that much of a threat.

Yes, but when they shut down those diesels and lurk, they get very quiet
indeed! Their small size makes them even harder to find. The last I heard, the
US Navy considers conventional submarines to be a significant threat.

Vaughn

[Michael Wise]

In article et>,
"Joe Delphi" > wrote:

> > with of course no replacement, leaving the carrier force wide open to
> > submarine attack...
> >
> >
> >
> What submarines? Most of the ex-Soviet Union's subs are rusting away at
> their docks. The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
> therefore not all that much of a threat.


A diesel sub on battery power is much quieter than a nuclear sub. They
are and always have been a challenging threat.


--Mike

[rob]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>> The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
>> therefore not all that much of a threat.
>
> Yes, but when they shut down those diesels and lurk, they get very
> quiet indeed! Their small size makes them even harder to find. The last
> I heard, the US Navy considers conventional submarines to be a significant
> threat.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>

I have read that Australian and NATO diesel subs have 'sunk' US carriers in
exercises.

[Pechs1]

<< The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
therefore not all that much of a threat. >><BR><BR>

Not a bubblehead but the biggest threat today is from Chinese diesels, running
on battery power, in the Tiawan straights, waiting for a CV..
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Tiger]

Jeroen Wenting wrote:

>"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>On 24 Jan 2005 15:57:21 -0800, (Prowlus) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Is the S-3 Viking going to be retired?
>>>
>>>
>>Yes. This has been known for years.
>>
>>
>>
>with of course no replacement, leaving the carrier force wide open to
>submarine attack...
>
>
>
>
>
All battle groups have attack subs attached...

[Tiger]

Vaughn wrote:

>"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
>
>
>>The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
>>therefore not all that much of a threat.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, but when they shut down those diesels and lurk, they get very quiet
>indeed! Their small size makes them even harder to find. The last I heard, the
>US Navy considers conventional submarines to be a significant threat.
>
>Vaughn
>
>
>
>
>
>
Which is why CVN's tend to stay in deep water far offshore.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:07:45 GMT, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

>What submarines? Most of the ex-Soviet Union's subs are rusting away at
>their docks. The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
>therefore not all that much of a threat.

You know nothing of submarines. Diesel submarines are quite often
more quiet than nukes.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:16:50 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

>
>"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
>> The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
>> therefore not all that much of a threat.
>
> Yes, but when they shut down those diesels and lurk, they get very quiet
>indeed! Their small size makes them even harder to find. The last I heard, the
>US Navy considers conventional submarines to be a significant threat.

Ayup. Was certainly true during my time (70s-80s) and I don't think
much has changed.

A nuke, lurking, can be damn near as quiet as a diesel on batteries.
Not as, but damn near. A sub who wants to "lurk" will be found more
by accident than design. The problem for the sub is that if he lurks
in the wrong place then he has to move and when he moves he is
vulnerable. Nukes because they make much more noise, conventionals
because any kind of speed rapidly drains battery capacity, requiring a
charge and once the diesels start to fire it's "whoa Nelly"
accousticly-wise speaking! ;-)

Put an sub-surface to surface missle on a conventional sub and put him
on the track of a battle group and you can give an admiral a real bad
day.

Bill Kambic

Veteran, VS/VP

[NimBill]

>From: (Pechs1)

><< The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
>therefore not all that much of a threat. >>
>
>Not a bubblehead but the biggest threat today is from Chinese diesels,
>runningon battery power, in the Tiawan straights, waiting for a CV..P. C.
>ChisholmCDR, USN(ret.)Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and
>Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Whoever wrote what you replied to is an idiot. Diesel subs are noisy only while
surfaced to recharge batteries but once submerged are extremely difficult to
detect.

China being so close to Taiwan could launch Diesl subs carrying ground troops
all the way across the straights in numbers large enough to take over Taiwan
with few being detected.

As a former member of VS-29 I can assure you submarines are hard to find and
submerged diesels are very hard to find.

[[email protected]]

On 29 Jan 2005 02:15:00 GMT, (NimBill) wrote:

>>From: (Pechs1)
>
>><< The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
>>therefore not all that much of a threat. >>
>>
>>Not a bubblehead but the biggest threat today is from Chinese diesels,
>>runningon battery power, in the Tiawan straights, waiting for a CV..P. C.
>>ChisholmCDR, USN(ret.)Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and
>>Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>
>Whoever wrote what you replied to is an idiot. Diesel subs are noisy only while
>surfaced to recharge batteries but once submerged are extremely difficult to
>detect.

I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.

>China being so close to Taiwan could launch Diesl subs carrying ground troops
>all the way across the straights in numbers large enough to take over Taiwan
>with few being detected.

How about the number we would detect in port loading out? Then
there's the problem of getting them ashore without their rubber boats
being sunk by guys on the beach with rifles.

Or, put another way, I hope this is some sort of exercise of poetic
license.

>As a former member of VS-29 I can assure you submarines are hard to find and
>submerged diesels are very hard to find.

As a former member of VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93, and a couple of
FASODETs I agree with you. But a diesel on batteries is also slow
and, consequently, limited in mobility. Armed with long range
torpedos or missles they are a real threat. But it is not an
insurmountable threat.

Bill Kambic

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:16:14 -0500, wrote:

>>Whoever wrote what you replied to is an idiot. Diesel subs are noisy only while
>>surfaced to recharge batteries but once submerged are extremely difficult to
>>detect.
>
>I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.

"surfaced to recharge" and "snorting" are pretty much the same thing
in terms of noise - the diesel is running. Once you turn off the
diesel, they can be very, very quiet indeed.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Pechs1]

Lana-<< Which is why CVN's tend to stay in deep water far offshore.
>><BR><BR>

A CVN, is far more 'protected' in noisy shallow water than deep water, with
regards to a diesel sitting there, sonar recieve open.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

When the balloon goes up with China, hopefully we will destroy the diesels in
port before they end up in the straights.

If anybody thinks China is our best buddy, needs to get a clue.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[D]

----------
In article >,
(NimBill) wrote:

> Whoever wrote what you replied to is an idiot. Diesel subs are noisy only
while
> surfaced to recharge batteries but once submerged are extremely difficult to
> detect.

Well, to split hairs, _some_ diesel subs are noisy even submerged on
batteries. Keep in mind that a lot of diesel subs operating today are very
old. However, it is safe to say that the most modern diesels are
essentially silent while on batteries.


> China being so close to Taiwan could launch Diesl subs carrying ground troops
> all the way across the straights in numbers large enough to take over Taiwan
> with few being detected.

This is nonsense. Have you bothered to actually _count_ the number of subs
that China has?

How about you go and do some research and get back to us when you've done
that?




D

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:33:47 -0500, Andrew C. Toppan
> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:16:14 -0500, wrote:
>
>>>Whoever wrote what you replied to is an idiot. Diesel subs are noisy only while
>>>surfaced to recharge batteries but once submerged are extremely difficult to
>>>detect.
>>
>>I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.
>
>"surfaced to recharge" and "snorting" are pretty much the same thing
>in terms of noise - the diesel is running.

Actually, they are not. One is dramatically more noisy than the
other.

Once you turn off the
>diesel, they can be very, very quiet indeed.

Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock.

Bill Kambic

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:47:35 -0500, wrote:

>Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock

Slow is a relative thing; if one doesn't need to go far, speed is not
a problem. Time is not as much an issue as it once was; modern diesel
boats can stay under for quite a long time. This ain't WWII anymore.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[[email protected]]

On 29 Jan 2005 14:44:12 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

>Lana-<< Which is why CVN's tend to stay in deep water far offshore.
> >><BR><BR>
>
>A CVN, is far more 'protected' in noisy shallow water than deep water, with
>regards to a diesel sitting there, sonar recieve open.

Well, yes and no. In noisy, target infested shallow water the sub has
a much harder time identifying a target. If the CV is using any
"deception tactics" the problem is magnified for the sub skipper.

On the other hand, in shallow, restricted waters the sub hunters have
a similar problem. The CV may also have significant navigation
problems. If the sub is lucky and can get himself within range of one
of his weapons then he might get a "free shot."

In deep water you have more quiet (beneficial to hunter and hunted)
but gives the target more room to manuever and, if the sub is not
lucky, will probably never reach a firing position.

The diesel sub is not an empty threat, but neither is it a seven foot
giant.

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:57:31 -0500, Andrew C. Toppan
> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:47:35 -0500, wrote:
>
>>Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock
>
>Slow is a relative thing; if one doesn't need to go far, speed is not
>a problem. Time is not as much an issue as it once was; modern diesel
>boats can stay under for quite a long time. This ain't WWII anymore.

Indeed. But once you go to battery you are working against a finite
limit. In WWII that limit may be been in the 24-36 hour range and by
'62 had progressed to the 96 hour range. I have no idea what it is
today. But that finite limit is still there.

If the sub is just trying to hide then the time can be long. If he
has to move that time dramatically shrinks.

Bill Kambic

[Guy Alcala]

wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:57:31 -0500, Andrew C. Toppan
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:47:35 -0500, wrote:
> >
> >>Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock
> >
> >Slow is a relative thing; if one doesn't need to go far, speed is not
> >a problem. Time is not as much an issue as it once was; modern diesel
> >boats can stay under for quite a long time. This ain't WWII anymore.
>
> Indeed. But once you go to battery you are working against a finite
> limit. In WWII that limit may be been in the 24-36 hour range and by
> '62 had progressed to the 96 hour range. I have no idea what it is
> today. But that finite limit is still there.

For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm

OTOH, I don't know how noisy they might be.

Guy

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:47:16 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:57:31 -0500, Andrew C. Toppan
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:47:35 -0500, wrote:
>> >
>> >>Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock
>> >
>> >Slow is a relative thing; if one doesn't need to go far, speed is not
>> >a problem. Time is not as much an issue as it once was; modern diesel
>> >boats can stay under for quite a long time. This ain't WWII anymore.
>>
>> Indeed. But once you go to battery you are working against a finite
>> limit. In WWII that limit may be been in the 24-36 hour range and by
>> '62 had progressed to the 96 hour range. I have no idea what it is
>> today. But that finite limit is still there.
>
>For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See
>
>http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm
>
>OTOH, I don't know how noisy they might be.

And therein lay an interesting question. :-)

I have some suspicians, but don't have any insider info.

If you are running on batteries then you are very quiet if you stay
slow. If you go fast you drain your batteries AND you cavitate.
Cavitation gives the hunder a detection opportunity.

Like I say, non-nuke subs are a real and substantial threat. They
are not, however, an ultimate threat.

Bill Kambic

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >><< The submarines from other countries are diesel and noisy and
> >>therefore not all that much of a threat. >>
> >>
> >>Not a bubblehead but the biggest threat today is from Chinese diesels,
> >>runningon battery power, in the Tiawan straights, waiting for a CV..P. C.
> >>ChisholmCDR, USN(ret.)Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter
> >>and
> >>Combat Buckeye Phlyer
> >
> >Whoever wrote what you replied to is an idiot. Diesel subs are noisy only
> >while
> >surfaced to recharge batteries but once submerged are extremely difficult to
> >detect.
>
> I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.

The term is "snorkeling," and yes, from a passive acoustical standpoint,
when running their engines, they are just as detectable on the surface
as when snorkeling.



--Mike

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >> >>Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock
> >> >
> >> >Slow is a relative thing; if one doesn't need to go far, speed is not
> >> >a problem. Time is not as much an issue as it once was; modern diesel
> >> >boats can stay under for quite a long time. This ain't WWII anymore.
> >>
> >> Indeed. But once you go to battery you are working against a finite
> >> limit. In WWII that limit may be been in the 24-36 hour range and by
> >> '62 had progressed to the 96 hour range. I have no idea what it is
> >> today. But that finite limit is still there.
> >
> >For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See
> >
> >http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm
> >
> >OTOH, I don't know how noisy they might be.
>
> And therein lay an interesting question. :-)
>
> I have some suspicians, but don't have any insider info.
>
> If you are running on batteries then you are very quiet if you stay
> slow. If you go fast you drain your batteries AND you cavitate.
> Cavitation gives the hunder a detection opportunity.
>
> Like I say, non-nuke subs are a real and substantial threat. They
> are not, however, an ultimate threat.


Not an ultimate threat know...but if you are relying on passive
detection and/or low-power active buoys...you're not likely to hit pay
dirt, and it's time to call the HS folks with their 2000 watts of active
pinging power.


--Mike

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:10:11 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>Not an ultimate threat know...but if you are relying on passive
>detection and/or low-power active buoys...you're not likely to hit pay
>dirt, and it's time to call the HS folks with their 2000 watts of active
>pinging power.

A diesel is going to make a bunch of noise, whether it's breathing air
or running "closed cycle." Turbines make noise even if they are
closed cycle. ANY mechanical power source is going to make noise.
Only on batteries are these subs the Steath Champs we think of. And
then only if they're not cavitating.

And then, yes, a helo in a dip is a very nice sight!!! :-)

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:08:59 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>> I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.
>
>The term is "snorkeling,"

I guess I'm showing my age, here! :-)

and yes, from a passive acoustical standpoint,
>when running their engines, they are just as detectable on the surface
>as when snorkeling.

On the surface you get a radar detection opportunity. You get one on
a snorkle mast, too, but it takes a well tuned set with a good
operator to hold one at any range. I was blessed with such a No. 3
back in the Old Days; his record was 28 nm.

Actually, a sub snorkling is MORE detectable passively than when he is
on the surface. Care to go for the extra points and tell us why? ;-)

Bill Kambic

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >> I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.
> >
> >The term is "snorkeling,"
>
> I guess I'm showing my age, here! :-)


Is that a WWII term?

> and yes, from a passive acoustical standpoint,
> >when running their engines, they are just as detectable on the surface
> >as when snorkeling.
>
> On the surface you get a radar detection opportunity.

Hence, why I specified from a "passive acoustical" standpoint.


> You get one on
> a snorkle mast, too, but it takes a well tuned set with a good
> operator to hold one at any range. I was blessed with such a No. 3
> back in the Old Days; his record was 28 nm.
>
> Actually, a sub snorkling is MORE detectable passively than when he is
> on the surface. Care to go for the extra points and tell us why? ;-)


I can't tell you why, because I don't agree with that statement. They
are both easy passive pick-offs with their own weaknesses, however a
running (on engines) surfaced sub makes a lot of both engine and
cavitation noise.


--Mike

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:10:11 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
> >Not an ultimate threat know...but if you are relying on passive
> >detection and/or low-power active buoys...you're not likely to hit pay
> >dirt, and it's time to call the HS folks with their 2000 watts of active
> >pinging power.
>
> A diesel is going to make a bunch of noise, whether it's breathing air
> or running "closed cycle." Turbines make noise even if they are
> closed cycle. ANY mechanical power source is going to make noise.

> Only on batteries are these subs the Steath Champs we think of.


I think most of us here agree with that.


> And
> then only if they're not cavitating.


Or returning a 2000 watt echo pulse. ; )


>
> And then, yes, a helo in a dip is a very nice sight!!! :-)


And a darn site more effective then a Hoover. ; )



--Mike

[Guy Alcala]

wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:08:59 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
> >> I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.
> >
> >The term is "snorkeling,"
>
> I guess I'm showing my age, here! :-)

<snip>

Or if you ever did an exchange tour with the RN. They call it snorting.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:47:16 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:57:31 -0500, Andrew C. Toppan
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:47:35 -0500, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Yup. And they are also slow and working against the clock
> >> >
> >> >Slow is a relative thing; if one doesn't need to go far, speed is not
> >> >a problem. Time is not as much an issue as it once was; modern diesel
> >> >boats can stay under for quite a long time. This ain't WWII anymore.
> >>
> >> Indeed. But once you go to battery you are working against a finite
> >> limit. In WWII that limit may be been in the 24-36 hour range and by
> >> '62 had progressed to the 96 hour range. I have no idea what it is
> >> today. But that finite limit is still there.
> >
> >For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See
> >
> >http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm
> >
> >OTOH, I don't know how noisy they might be.
>
> And therein lay an interesting question. :-)
>
> I have some suspicians, but don't have any insider info.

The unique source of the noise in an AIP boat would appear to be the need to
expel the exhaust byproducts underwater.

Guy

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:07:54 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>Is that a WWII term?

No, early '70s.

>>
>> Actually, a sub snorkling is MORE detectable passively than when he is
>> on the surface. Care to go for the extra points and tell us why? ;-)
>
>
>I can't tell you why, because I don't agree with that statement.

They don't teach passive accoustic theory anymore?

The reason is that when a sub is surfaced part of the accoustic energy
developed by machinery is radiated into the air. Thus it is not
available to accoustic devices in water. In modern terms, the total
sound energy is reduced.

Submerge the hull and now ALL the sound energy develped is radiated
into the water.

You may not agree, but it's pretty simple physics and what we used to
teach AWANs in basic passive tracking theory.

They
>are both easy passive pick-offs with their own weaknesses, however a
>running (on engines) surfaced sub makes a lot of both engine and
>cavitation noise.

Indeed. But sound energy radiated into the air is no help with
passive tracking.

As to the superiority of the helo over the fixed wing aircraft it very
much depends on the tactical situation. The helo can get up close and
personal, which the fixed wing cannot. The fixed wing has speed that
the helo does not. The large active sonar of the helo is nice, but
DICASS can work, too. Whether or not an SH-60 (or an SH-3, for that
matter) is the better platform is very situation dependant. It has
been my experience (and that of not a few others) that when you mix
them you can turn a sub every which way but loose.

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:10:50 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>
>Or if you ever did an exchange tour with the RN. They call it snorting.

I've exchanged information with RN types, but never had the pleasure
of an exchange tour. Surely would have been nice to have a glass of
wine with dinner or a cold beer after a warm flight!!!!! :-)

Bill Kambic

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >Is that a WWII term?
>
> No, early '70s.


Hmmm, well at least starting in the early 80s, they must have changed
the terminology.


> >> Actually, a sub snorkling is MORE detectable passively than when he is
> >> on the surface. Care to go for the extra points and tell us why? ;-)
> >
> >
> >I can't tell you why, because I don't agree with that statement.
>
> They don't teach passive accoustic theory anymore?

Sure they do.

>
> The reason is that when a sub is surfaced part of the accoustic energy
> developed by machinery is radiated into the air. Thus it is not
> available to accoustic devices in water. In modern terms, the total
> sound energy is reduced.

No argument there. But when its running surfaced, it's also cavitating
much more which makes up the machinery noise reduction.

>
> Submerge the hull and now ALL the sound energy develped is radiated
> into the water.

No argument there. The blade cavitation will also be much less.
>
> You may not agree, but it's pretty simple physics and what we used to
> teach AWANs in basic passive tracking theory.
>

I wasn't taught that as an AW, and it doesn't jibe with my real-world
experiences either.



> They
> >are both easy passive pick-offs with their own weaknesses, however a
> >running (on engines) surfaced sub makes a lot of both engine and
> >cavitation noise.
>
> Indeed. But sound energy radiated into the air is no help with
> passive tracking.


What makes you think the blade cavitation noise from a sub running on
the surface isn't clear and easily electronically identifiable?


> As to the superiority of the helo over the fixed wing aircraft it very
> much depends on the tactical situation. The helo can get up close and
> personal, which the fixed wing cannot. The fixed wing has speed that
> the helo does not.

Speed means nothing when ones tactical avionics package cannot be relied
on.



>The large active sonar of the helo is nice, but
> DICASS can work, too.


I'll stick with the 2000 watts of power.


> Whether or not an SH-60 (or an SH-3, for that
> matter) is the better platform is very situation dependant.

Obviously.


> It has
> been my experience (and that of not a few others) that when you mix
> them you can turn a sub every which way but loose.



One would hope so, but I have to say I was never impressed with the
S-3's ASW capabilities (the same goes for the Hooky 2....with no offense
to the talented AW's who flew in both). I flew many an ASW exercises
(aboard SH-3H and SH-60F's) in open ocean as well as semi-controlled
(SOAR range) environments, and it always seemed the VS ASW avionics
systems frequently malfunctioned. I never flew any exercise where they
acquired the target first...although I have flown more than a few where
they lost it after being passed on to them.


--Mike

[Gord Beaman]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:08:59 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>>
>> >> I seem to recall that they are rather loud when snorting, too.
>> >
>> >The term is "snorkeling,"
>>
>> I guess I'm showing my age, here! :-)
>
><snip>
>
>Or if you ever did an exchange tour with the RN. They call it snorting.
>
>Guy

Same with Canadian ASW troops...I've been following this thread
with interest but with no opinions, my association with the ASW
world (for 10 years) was getting the experts and their equip
onsite and home again safely.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Allen Epps]

In article >,
> wrote:


>snipped

> On the surface you get a radar detection opportunity. You get one on
> a snorkle mast, too, but it takes a well tuned set with a good
> operator to hold one at any range. I was blessed with such a No. 3
> back in the Old Days; his record was 28 nm.
>
Acoustic stuff of which I know nothing snipped

> Bill Kambic

I only had one flight in an S-3B and was amazed at how good the ISAR
radar was. It picked up things like trash bags and coffee can sized
fishing floats at pretty amazing ranges, I'm hesitant to say how far as
I have no idsea what's classifed about it. I was very impressed given I
was used to the Prowlers APS-130 with which,on a good day, you could
find the carrier.

Pugs

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:20:38 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>>
>> The reason is that when a sub is surfaced part of the accoustic energy
>> developed by machinery is radiated into the air. Thus it is not
>> available to accoustic devices in water. In modern terms, the total
>> sound energy is reduced.
>
>No argument there. But when its running surfaced, it's also cavitating
>much more which makes up the machinery noise reduction.

No, not really.

Cavitation is a function of speed, prop design, and pressure. When a
sub is deep they have the advantage of pressure that will help reduce
cavitation. The difference in pressure between a sub on the surface
and one at snorkel depth is de mininimis.

>> Submerge the hull and now ALL the sound energy develped is radiated
>> into the water.
>
>No argument there. The blade cavitation will also be much less.

No, it won't. The pressure gradient is way too small to make a
difference. And the addition of the machinery noise is not.

>> You may not agree, but it's pretty simple physics and what we used to
>> teach AWANs in basic passive tracking theory.
>>
>
>I wasn't taught that as an AW, and it doesn't jibe with my real-world
>experiences either.

Talk to an accoustic AW and they will confirm what I say.

>> They
>> >are both easy passive pick-offs with their own weaknesses, however a
>> >running (on engines) surfaced sub makes a lot of both engine and
>> >cavitation noise.
>>
>> Indeed. But sound energy radiated into the air is no help with
>> passive tracking.
>
>
>What makes you think the blade cavitation noise from a sub running on
>the surface isn't clear and easily electronically identifiable?

It is. We could track lots of vessels (including Mother) using
passive accoustics. If you wanted a steer home during EMCON ops just
pick up a DIFAR bouy, isolate Mother, and take a bearing.

BUT, the sub at snort depth and the sub on the surface will not have
any detectable difference in cavitation. They will have a dramatic
difference in total noise energy radiated. A good No. 4 can tell if
the sub is surfaced or snorting based upon the total presentation.

>> As to the superiority of the helo over the fixed wing aircraft it very
>> much depends on the tactical situation. The helo can get up close and
>> personal, which the fixed wing cannot. The fixed wing has speed that
>> the helo does not.
>
>Speed means nothing when ones tactical avionics package cannot be relied
>on.

Indeed. Never flew a Hoover so I don't know how reliable the package
was.

>>The large active sonar of the helo is nice, but
>> DICASS can work, too.
>
>
>I'll stick with the 2000 watts of power.

Depends. If you are outside the operating range of the helo then you
might not have many options.

>> Whether or not an SH-60 (or an SH-3, for that
>> matter) is the better platform is very situation dependant.
>
>Obviously.
>
>
>> It has
>> been my experience (and that of not a few others) that when you mix
>> them you can turn a sub every which way but loose.

>One would hope so, but I have to say I was never impressed with the
>S-3's ASW capabilities (the same goes for the Hooky 2....with no offense
>to the talented AW's who flew in both). I flew many an ASW exercises
>(aboard SH-3H and SH-60F's) in open ocean as well as semi-controlled
>(SOAR range) environments, and it always seemed the VS ASW avionics
>systems frequently malfunctioned. I never flew any exercise where they
>acquired the target first...although I have flown more than a few where
>they lost it after being passed on to them.

Again, never having flown the Hoover I can't comment.

Bill Kambic

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >> The reason is that when a sub is surfaced part of the accoustic energy
> >> developed by machinery is radiated into the air. Thus it is not
> >> available to accoustic devices in water. In modern terms, the total
> >> sound energy is reduced.
> >
> >No argument there. But when its running surfaced, it's also cavitating
> >much more which makes up the machinery noise reduction.
>
> No, not really.

Which is contrary to my experience.

>
> Cavitation is a function of speed, prop design, and pressure. When a
> sub is deep they have the advantage of pressure that will help reduce
> cavitation.

Indeed


> The difference in pressure between a sub on the surface
> and one at snorkel depth is de mininimis.
>
> >> Submerge the hull and now ALL the sound energy develped is radiated
> >> into the water.
> >
> >No argument there. The blade cavitation will also be much less.
>
> No, it won't. The pressure gradient is way too small to make a
> difference. And the addition of the machinery noise is not.


Again, this is contrary to my experience.

>
> >> You may not agree, but it's pretty simple physics and what we used to
> >> teach AWANs in basic passive tracking theory.
> >>
> >
> >I wasn't taught that as an AW, and it doesn't jibe with my real-world
> >experiences either.
>
> Talk to an accoustic AW and they will confirm what I say.

What exactly is an "accoustic AW"? When I was in, all AW's received
acoustical training in A school and advanced acoustics in Common Core.
Once in the fleet, such training is ongoing.


> >> They
> >> >are both easy passive pick-offs with their own weaknesses, however a
> >> >running (on engines) surfaced sub makes a lot of both engine and
> >> >cavitation noise.
> >>
> >> Indeed. But sound energy radiated into the air is no help with
> >> passive tracking.
> >
> >
> >What makes you think the blade cavitation noise from a sub running on
> >the surface isn't clear and easily electronically identifiable?
>
> It is. We could track lots of vessels (including Mother) using
> passive accoustics. If you wanted a steer home during EMCON ops just
> pick up a DIFAR bouy, isolate Mother, and take a bearing.
>
> BUT, the sub at snort depth and the sub on the surface will not have
> any detectable difference in cavitation. They will have a dramatic
> difference in total noise energy radiated. A good No. 4 can tell if
> the sub is surfaced or snorting based upon the total presentation.


What CV aviation ASW refers to its AW's as number 4 and such?



> >>The large active sonar of the helo is nice, but
> >> DICASS can work, too.
> >
> >
> >I'll stick with the 2000 watts of power.
>
> Depends. If you are outside the operating range of the helo then you
> might not have many options.


No argument there either.


--Mike

[Jim Carriere]

Allen Epps wrote:
> I only had one flight in an S-3B and was amazed at how good the ISAR
> radar was. It picked up things like trash bags and coffee can sized
> fishing floats at pretty amazing ranges, I'm hesitant to say how far as
> I have no idsea what's classifed about it. I was very impressed given I
> was used to the Prowlers APS-130 with which,on a good day, you could
> find the carrier.

Pugs, everything I've heard about ISAR is impressive, and the newest
stuff out there supposedly puts even the gear in the S-3 to shame.

Radar can do amazing things sometimes. With the radar in the SH-60B
(basically an old fashioned 360 degree nav radar with some electronic
processing), we found some dolphins one night. It was ridiculously
calm out, so there wasn't much in the way of returns (normally the
waves in the ocean and dense rain clouds make random clutter). There
was some faint intermittent returns in one area for several minutes.
With nothing better to do, we went over to have a look with FLIR,
and there was a pod of dolphins hopping out of the water as they swam
along. I suppose there's the off chance they could have been
following a surfaced sub that subsequently dived before we came over.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:03:48 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>> >No argument there. But when its running surfaced, it's also cavitating
>> >much more which makes up the machinery noise reduction.
>>
>> No, not really.
>
>Which is contrary to my experience.

It's not contrary to mine. It's also what they teach in the accoustic
AW portion at the FASO det. Or at least they used to.

>>
>> Talk to an accoustic AW and they will confirm what I say.
>
>What exactly is an "accoustic AW"? When I was in, all AW's received
>acoustical training in A school and advanced acoustics in Common Core.
>Once in the fleet, such training is ongoing.

Well, maybe training has changed. The AW rate used to have
subspecialties of accoustic and non-accoustic (radar, MAD, etc.). I
sat through both parts many moons ago when I was a FASO instructor.
Maybe I'm really out of date or maybe you are relying much to heavily
on personal experience.

Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.

>> >What makes you think the blade cavitation noise from a sub running on
>> >the surface isn't clear and easily electronically identifiable?
>>
>> It is. We could track lots of vessels (including Mother) using
>> passive accoustics. If you wanted a steer home during EMCON ops just
>> pick up a DIFAR bouy, isolate Mother, and take a bearing.
>>
>> BUT, the sub at snort depth and the sub on the surface will not have
>> any detectable difference in cavitation. They will have a dramatic
>> difference in total noise energy radiated. A good No. 4 can tell if
>> the sub is surfaced or snorting based upon the total presentation.
>
>What CV aviation ASW refers to its AW's as number 4 and such?

That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.

The ASW world IS a bit wider than helo ASW.

Bill Kambic

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >> >No argument there. But when its running surfaced, it's also cavitating
> >> >much more which makes up the machinery noise reduction.
> >>
> >> No, not really.
> >
> >Which is contrary to my experience.
>
> It's not contrary to mine. It's also what they teach in the accoustic
> AW portion at the FASO det. Or at least they used to.

Perhaps they stopped teaching it for a reason. ; )


> >> Talk to an accoustic AW and they will confirm what I say.
> >
> >What exactly is an "accoustic AW"? When I was in, all AW's received
> >acoustical training in A school and advanced acoustics in Common Core.
> >Once in the fleet, such training is ongoing.
>
> Well, maybe training has changed. The AW rate used to have
> subspecialties of accoustic and non-accoustic (radar, MAD, etc.).


That may have been true in your day, and it still may be true in the VP
community. However, it wasn't the case in the HS, HSL, and VS community
when I was in. All AW's in the pipeline for those communities go through
FASO Common Core. Once in the fleet, acoustics training is ongoing.


> Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
> presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.


As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
that argument.


>
> >> >What makes you think the blade cavitation noise from a sub running on
> >> >the surface isn't clear and easily electronically identifiable?
> >>
> >> It is. We could track lots of vessels (including Mother) using
> >> passive accoustics. If you wanted a steer home during EMCON ops just
> >> pick up a DIFAR bouy, isolate Mother, and take a bearing.
> >>
> >> BUT, the sub at snort depth and the sub on the surface will not have
> >> any detectable difference in cavitation. They will have a dramatic
> >> difference in total noise energy radiated. A good No. 4 can tell if
> >> the sub is surfaced or snorting based upon the total presentation.
> >
> >What CV aviation ASW refers to its AW's as number 4 and such?
>
> That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
> the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.

So you were an S-2 AW? By the time I got in, S-2's were pretty much
limited to COD duty.


> The ASW world IS a bit wider than helo ASW.


No argument there...although when it comes to active acoustical
detection...no other aviation assets can touch an HS asset.


--Mike

[Jim Carriere]

Michael Wise wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
>>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
>
>
>
> As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
> that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
> when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
> that argument.

I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Jim Carriere > wrote:

> >>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
> >>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
> > that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
> > when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
> > that argument.
>
> I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
> water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
> noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.
>
> I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
> overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
> air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
> transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.


Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.



--Mike

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:59:07 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>> That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
>> the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.
>
>So you were an S-2 AW? By the time I got in, S-2's were pretty much
>limited to COD duty.

No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
capabilities of the equipment.
>
>
>> The ASW world IS a bit wider than helo ASW.
>
>
>No argument there...although when it comes to active acoustical
>detection...no other aviation assets can touch an HS asset.

Well, mabe so and maybe not. :-)

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:34:03 -0600, Jim Carriere
> wrote:

>Michael Wise wrote:
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
>>>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
>> that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
>> when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
>> that argument.
>
>I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
>water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
>noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!

>I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
>overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
>air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
>transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.

No, Sir, you have backwards. :-)

Water is a most excellent transmitter of sound, while air is the Great
Absorber. The speed of sound in water at 15C is 4814 ft/sec. In air
at 15C is 752 ft/sec. This is the major reason why all that sound
radiated by a submerged hull is so detectable.

This is also why the SOSUS network, one of the really Big Secrets of
the ASW world, works so well.

For a practical application, pick up a piece of accoustic tile. I'll
bet you see a lot of air and no water!!!!! ;-)

I can understand why someone steeped in active sonar tactics might be
skeptical of passive capability. But that skepticism should be a
challenge to reconsider. The physics is pretty basic and has not
changed, no matter what the personal experience.

Bill Kambic

[Per Nordenberg]

"Guy Alcala" > skrev i meddelandet
. ..
>
> For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See
>
> http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm


Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989.

http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html


Regards,

Per Nordenberg

[Tiger]

Pechs1 wrote:

>When the balloon goes up with China, hopefully we will destroy the diesels in
>port before they end up in the straights.
>
>If anybody thinks China is our best buddy, needs to get a clue.
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>
>
Well until the sweet & sour chicken embargo starts, I will consider them
competitors. Not quite "buddies." :-\ China wants to be a bigger player
in the Pacific, but I doubt they are ready to get nasty. Besides, we
need them to keep a rein on North Korea & to keep making Winchester '97
clones.

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:59:07 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
> >> That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
> >> the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.
> >
> >So you were an S-2 AW? By the time I got in, S-2's were pretty much
> >limited to COD duty.
>
> No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
> portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
> capabilities of the equipment.

Does that mean you have not actually operated ASW avionic to detect,
localize, and track a sub, but are speaking based on classes you sat in
on?


--Mike

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:19:56 GMT, Tiger >
wrote:

Besides, we
>need them to keep a rein on North Korea & to keep making Winchester '97
>clones.

And, soon Winchester 1887 clones!!!!! :-)

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:39:20 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:

>> No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
>> portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
>> capabilities of the equipment.
>
>Does that mean you have not actually operated ASW avionic to detect,
>localize, and track a sub, but are speaking based on classes you sat in
>on?

You have asked two questions. So you get two answers! :-)

I have never flown an operational or training mission in the No. 4
seat. Nor, in the P-3, did I ever sit in either of the acoustic seats
and analyze grams.

I am not, however, speaking solely from classroom knowledge (although
in this case classroom knowledge would be sufficient). The S-2 and
(IIRC, the P-3) permitted the aircraft commander to listen to any bouy
that was up. We would routinely discuss contacts and their
characteristics. And educated CAPC (carrier air place commander) was
considered a Good Thing.

On multiple occasions we tracked U.S., Allied, and Soviet/Block subs
both active and passive (although going active on a Soviet/Block sub
required specific clearance from the Flag). I would NEVER claim that
I tracked or localized anything. My crew and I did.

Bill Kambic

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
<good explanation>
> I can understand why someone steeped in active sonar tactics might be
> skeptical of passive capability. But that skepticism should be a
> challenge to reconsider. The physics is pretty basic and has not
> changed, no matter what the personal experience.

Heh... you really do learn something new every day... thanks.

BTW I've never flown anything with a dipping sonar, just eyeball,
radar, buoys, and MAD only (roughly in that order). And there's a
strange appeal to a "passive attack" (that's a funny phrase).

I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time
you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The
gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
and even then it still might miss.

[Gord Beaman]

Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Jim Carriere > wrote:
>
>> >>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
>> >>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
>> > that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
>> > when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
>> > that argument.
>>
>> I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
>> water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
>> noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.
>>
>> I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
>> overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
>> air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
>> transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.
>
>
>Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.
>
>
>
>--Mike

Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

Jim Carriere > wrote:

>I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
>a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time
>you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The
>gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
>with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
>and even then it still might miss.

Would a fifty be of much concern to a sub?...I know that we had a
pair of .303's on Lancasters and they told us that it's value was
in keeping the sub's crew from manning their deck gun...do subs
even have a deck gun now? I doubt it.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:59:07 GMT, Michael Wise > wrote:
>
>>> That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
>>> the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.
>>
>>So you were an S-2 AW? By the time I got in, S-2's were pretty much
>>limited to COD duty.
>
>No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
>portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
>capabilities of the equipment.
>>
>>
>>> The ASW world IS a bit wider than helo ASW.
>>
>>
>>No argument there...although when it comes to active acoustical
>>detection...no other aviation assets can touch an HS asset.
>
>Well, mabe so and maybe not. :-)
>
>Bill Kambic

I think we used to do well on the Argus with active pinger buoys
and echo ranging, an almost unlimited supply of buoys and fuel
enough to stay on task for 25 - 30 hours
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Jim Carriere > wrote:


> > I can understand why someone steeped in active sonar tactics might be
> > skeptical of passive capability. But that skepticism should be a
> > challenge to reconsider. The physics is pretty basic and has not
> > changed, no matter what the personal experience.
>
> Heh... you really do learn something new every day... thanks.
>
> BTW I've never flown anything with a dipping sonar, just eyeball,
> radar, buoys, and MAD only (roughly in that order). And there's a
> strange appeal to a "passive attack" (that's a funny phrase).


Passive detection offers the satisfaction of knowing you have an
excellent chance of detecting him without him knowing it and documenting
your own classified info at the same time. It seems more academically
rewarding.


> I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
> a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo.

And certainly a lot more fun for the crewmen!


> Most of the time
> you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look.


This is true in the mid and outer zones, but with inner zone carrier
ASW...that guy ain't going be showing his face much and we no longer
care about stealth. It becomes a question of who can get in position to
launch first, because he's not going to avoid 2-3 60F's going hammer. Of
course, we pretty much figured the enemy would come in numbers...so it
would really matter if we sunk 4 out of 5 or 7 out of nine. It just
takes one.



> The
> gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
> with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
> and even then it still might miss.


B57 away!



--Mike

[Guy Alcala]

Per Nordenberg wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > skrev i meddelandet
> . ..
> >
> > For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See
> >
> > http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/propulsion.htm
>
> Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989.
>
> http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html

Yes I know, but they've only recently started to proliferate to countries
outside Europe. Last time I checked the US didn't consider a war with Sweden
very likely;-).

Guy

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Gord Beaman > wrote:


> >> >>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
> >> >>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
> >> > that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
> >> > when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
> >> > that argument.
> >>
> >> I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
> >> water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
> >> noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.
> >>
> >> I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
> >> overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
> >> air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
> >> transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.
> >
> >
> >Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.


> Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...



One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
against eight torps.


--Mike

[Ogden Johnson III]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Per Nordenberg wrote:

>> Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989.
>>
>> http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html

>Yes I know, but they've only recently started to proliferate to countries
>outside Europe. Last time I checked the US didn't consider a war with Sweden
>very likely;-).

Which is not to say that there isn't a contingency plan for one
tucked away deep in the bowels of Fort Fumble. Brought out every
five or ten years for update if required.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[D]

----------
In article >,
(NimBill) wrote:

> China being so close to Taiwan could launch Diesl subs carrying ground troops
> all the way across the straights in numbers large enough to take over Taiwan
> with few being detected.

According to this:

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/default.asp

China currently has about 50 diesel submarines. Now assuming that they
could fit 1000 ground troops in each of those submarines, they might be able
to land 50,000 troops on Taiwan. Does that sound reasonable?

Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30
troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600
ground troops last?

Actually, if you are at all interested in the subject of Chinese submarine
capabilities and the ability of the US Navy to break a Chinese blockade of
Taiwan, you can check out a series of recent interesting articles on this
subject appearing in the journal International Security:

Lyle Goldstein and William Murray, "Undersea Dragons: China's Maturing
Submarine Force," International Security, Vol. 28, No. 4, Spring 2004, pp.
161-196.

Michael A. Glosny, "Strangulation from the Sea: A PRC Submarine Blockade of
Taiwan," (same issue of IS), pp. 125-160.

Also see the correspondence by Michael O'Hanlon, and Goldstein and Murray in
the current issue, pp. 202-206.

The authors differ on a number of things, but they all generally agree that
a Chinese submarine blockade of Taiwan would ultimately fail. The big
question is how many ships the US Navy might lose trying to break the
blockade.



D

[Gord Beaman]

Michael Wise > wrote:

>In article >,
> Gord Beaman > wrote:
>
>
>> >> >>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
>> >> >>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
>> >> > that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
>> >> > when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
>> >> > that argument.
>> >>
>> >> I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
>> >> water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
>> >> noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
>> >> overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
>> >> air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
>> >> transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.
>> >
>> >
>> >Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.
>
>
>> Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...
>
>
>
>One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
>against eight torps.
>
>
>--Mike

Mk 54's are depth charges...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Gord Beaman > wrote:

> >> >> >>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
> >> >> >>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the
> >> >> > exception
> >> >> > that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
> >> >> > when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics
> >> >> > supporting
> >> >> > that argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
> >> >> water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
> >> >> noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
> >> >> overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
> >> >> air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
> >> >> transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.
> >
> >
> >> Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...
> >
> >
> >
> >One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
> >against eight torps.


> Mk 54's are depth charges...


Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big
fixed-wing thing, as I never heard of them in the HS community. Our ASW
weapons consisted of four stations in which to amount any combination of
MK-46 torpedo and B57 depth charges only (at least as I recollect).


I know the answer is probably easily Googleable, but what sort of depth
charge (conventional or nuke) is the Mk-54?



--Mike

[Jim Carriere]

Gord Beaman wrote:

> Jim Carriere > wrote:
>
>
>>I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
>>a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time
>>you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The
>>gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
>>with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
>>and even then it still might miss.
>
>
> Would a fifty be of much concern to a sub?...I know that we had a
> pair of .303's on Lancasters and they told us that it's value was
> in keeping the sub's crew from manning their deck gun...do subs
> even have a deck gun now? I doubt it.

I think it would make the periscope AFU, and before you think that's
too hard a target, aircrewmen occasionally hit smoke floats in
practice gunshoots. Not really sure about penetrating the pressure
hull, but API ammunition is pretty impressive stuff.

My point is a partial mission kill is possible (of course sinking is
impossible).

[Jim Carriere]

Michael Wise wrote:

> In article >,
> Gord Beaman > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
>>>>>>>>presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the
>>>>>>>exception
>>>>>>>that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
>>>>>>>when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics
>>>>>>>supporting
>>>>>>>that argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
>>>>>>water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
>>>>>>noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
>>>>>>overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
>>>>>>air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
>>>>>>transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
>>>against eight torps.
>
>
>
>>Mk 54's are depth charges...
>
>
>
> Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big

You were both right, there is a Mk 54 lightweight torpedo coming...
someday. More or less the brains of the Mk 50 and the body of the Mk 46.

I did not know (or forgot) there was such a thing as a Mk 54 depth
charge. I've heard of the B57, you really only have to be close with
that one, like horseshoes and hand grenades, but no need for a
followup :)

[D]

> Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30
> troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600
> ground troops last?

My goof--30 times 50 is 1500, not 600. Never post after midnight. Brain
don't work.

The main point is still valid--you cannot invade Taiwan by submarine.




D

[Gord Beaman]

Jim Carriere > wrote:
snip
>>
>>
>>>Mk 54's are depth charges...
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big
>
>You were both right, there is a Mk 54 lightweight torpedo coming...
>someday. More or less the brains of the Mk 50 and the body of the Mk 46.
>
>I did not know (or forgot) there was such a thing as a Mk 54 depth
>charge. I've heard of the B57, you really only have to be close with
>that one, like horseshoes and hand grenades, but no need for a
>followup :)

Yes, I see that, called a 'hybrid' torpedo. Guess the Mk54 DC is
so old that it's not spoken of now...or at least predates google
so far that it doesn't list it, might very well do too, we used
them on Lancasters in the mid fifties, pretty damned impressive
explosion they produced too. I don't really know much about them
(it was 50 years ago) except that they weighed 450 pounds and
that they helped the Argus CG a lot because we carried them in
the forward bomb bay.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

Jim Carriere > wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> Jim Carriere > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
>>>a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time
>>>you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The
>>>gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
>>>with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
>>>and even then it still might miss.
>>
>>
>> Would a fifty be of much concern to a sub?...I know that we had a
>> pair of .303's on Lancasters and they told us that it's value was
>> in keeping the sub's crew from manning their deck gun...do subs
>> even have a deck gun now? I doubt it.
>
>I think it would make the periscope AFU, and before you think that's
>too hard a target, aircrewmen occasionally hit smoke floats in
>practice gunshoots. Not really sure about penetrating the pressure
>hull, but API ammunition is pretty impressive stuff.
>
>My point is a partial mission kill is possible (of course sinking is
>impossible).

I agree, and as to hitting smoke floats (SDN's we called them)
I've done that myself, the F/E on Lancasters manned the front
turret (twin Browning .303) and I've put several out..fun....
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Mike Kanze]

Gord,

Your several recent references to the Argus reminded me of a visit by a
number of we NAS Whidbey junior officers to CFB Comox one winter weekend in
1972. The purpose, of course, was some trans-national goodwill and
celebration at the Comox Officers Mess with our hosts and several lovely
ladies. All had the proverbial good time.

(For those unfamiliar with the geography of the Pacific Northwest, CFB Comox
is located on the east (inland) side of Vancouver Island. It's about a 3 - 4
hour drive from Whidbey, depending upon how long you must wait for the
Vancouver - Nanaimo ferry.)

In the course of the evening, one of our folks managed to big-deal a hop in
one of Comox's Argus fleet the following flying day. He suffered a short
rug dance before COMFAIR WHIDBEY upon his return (not s'posed to do such
things unless all the bureaucrats sign off beforehand) but all was forgiven
quickly.

Our guy reported back that the Argus was quite a capable platform, disguised
in a rather homely airframe. Homeliness was not a problem to any of us who
flew the Ugly for our paychecks, though.

Have you any Argus stories to share with us?
--
Mike Kanze

"We all know the modern American campus, or think we do: concentration
camps of the mind where students are tortured by baby-boom professors whose
speech codes, leftist politics and unseemly obsession with race, sex and
gender have distorted the ideal of higher education."

- Philip Terzian


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Carriere > wrote:
> snip
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mk 54's are depth charges...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big
>>
>>You were both right, there is a Mk 54 lightweight torpedo coming...
>>someday. More or less the brains of the Mk 50 and the body of the Mk 46.
>>
>>I did not know (or forgot) there was such a thing as a Mk 54 depth
>>charge. I've heard of the B57, you really only have to be close with
>>that one, like horseshoes and hand grenades, but no need for a
>>followup :)
>
> Yes, I see that, called a 'hybrid' torpedo. Guess the Mk54 DC is
> so old that it's not spoken of now...or at least predates google
> so far that it doesn't list it, might very well do too, we used
> them on Lancasters in the mid fifties, pretty damned impressive
> explosion they produced too. I don't really know much about them
> (it was 50 years ago) except that they weighed 450 pounds and
> that they helped the Argus CG a lot because we carried them in
> the forward bomb bay.
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

>Gord,
>
>Your several recent references to the Argus reminded me of a visit by a
>number of we NAS Whidbey junior officers to CFB Comox one winter weekend in
>1972. The purpose, of course, was some trans-national goodwill and
>celebration at the Comox Officers Mess with our hosts and several lovely
>ladies. All had the proverbial good time.
>
>(For those unfamiliar with the geography of the Pacific Northwest, CFB Comox
>is located on the east (inland) side of Vancouver Island. It's about a 3 - 4
>hour drive from Whidbey, depending upon how long you must wait for the
>Vancouver - Nanaimo ferry.)
>
>In the course of the evening, one of our folks managed to big-deal a hop in
>one of Comox's Argus fleet the following flying day. He suffered a short
>rug dance before COMFAIR WHIDBEY upon his return (not s'posed to do such
>things unless all the bureaucrats sign off beforehand) but all was forgiven
>quickly.
>
>Our guy reported back that the Argus was quite a capable platform, disguised
>in a rather homely airframe. Homeliness was not a problem to any of us who
>flew the Ugly for our paychecks, though.
>
>Have you any Argus stories to share with us?

Yes, we used to do the same 'mini exchange tour' here also. We'd
usually exchange visits with NAS Brunswick in Maine, but we
usually took their crew flying (and they took us when it was
their turn) I know that they were equipped with the P-3. Then, of
course, we'd need to uphold our honour as big time drinkers as
they did their damnedest to out drink us...god, those were
hellish times.

We were stationed at Summerside on Prince Edward Island, one
hellish spot for weather in the winter. I've spent many stressful
minutes on the button with full fuel, full crew, full armament at
0400L standing up through the cockpit upper hatch to my waist
with an Aldis lamp trying to see if the driving snow was sticking
to the wings and hoping to make a good assessment so as to avoid
giving poor advice to the VPCC and ending up in a flaming ball
somewhere in the over-run. I think we paid for all the fun times
with those minutes.

I believe that I'm near the end of a near thirty year search
here...we had the second of our Argus go in here in 1977 (three
of the 16 man crew were killed) and the Control Tower taped the
happening. I've just now got a handle on a copy and it should be
here Thursday or Friday. (yippee)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Guy Alcala]

Jim Carriere wrote:

> Gord Beaman wrote:
>
> > Jim Carriere > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
> >>a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time
> >>you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The
> >>gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
> >>with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
> >>and even then it still might miss.
> >
> >
> > Would a fifty be of much concern to a sub?...I know that we had a
> > pair of .303's on Lancasters and they told us that it's value was
> > in keeping the sub's crew from manning their deck gun...do subs
> > even have a deck gun now? I doubt it.
>
> I think it would make the periscope AFU, and before you think that's
> too hard a target, aircrewmen occasionally hit smoke floats in
> practice gunshoots. Not really sure about penetrating the pressure
> hull, but API ammunition is pretty impressive stuff.

Considering that US 3" cannon rounds on DEs had a reputation for bouncing
off U-boat pressure hulls in WW2, I think we can safely assume that a
..50cal AP or API isn't going to hurt a more modern one. OTOH, rockets with
25 lb. solid steel heads would punch U-boat pressure hulls easily. The .50
cal along with the 20mm and even 40mm was useful for keeping the U-boat
crew from using their own guns, but nothing more.

Guy

[Mike Kanze]

Gord,

Thanks for the share. Sounds like the winter wx on P.E.I. is much nastier
than that afflicting the Puget Sound / Georgia Straits corner of the world.
Then, too, both Comox and Whidbey are in the lee of mountains that block
much of the really bad stuff, leaving both fields usually with nothing worse
than a duty 2K foot clag layer.

Unfortunately, our generation never got a regular exchange going with the
Comox folks. I suppose this was due to a lack of common community interest
(Comox - VP, Whidbey - VA & VAQ). Now that Whidbey is much more a VP base,
I wonder if this has changed.

Is Comox still active, and if so, in what capacity?

One thing's for sure - no more Argus.

--
Mike Kanze

"We all know the modern American campus, or think we do: concentration
camps of the mind where students are tortured by baby-boom professors whose
speech codes, leftist politics and unseemly obsession with race, sex and
gender have distorted the ideal of higher education."

- Philip Terzian


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Kanze" > wrote:
>
[snippage]
>
> Yes, we used to do the same 'mini exchange tour' here also. We'd
> usually exchange visits with NAS Brunswick in Maine, but we
> usually took their crew flying (and they took us when it was
> their turn) I know that they were equipped with the P-3. Then, of
> course, we'd need to uphold our honour as big time drinkers as
> they did their damnedest to out drink us...god, those were
> hellish times.
>
> We were stationed at Summerside on Prince Edward Island, one
> hellish spot for weather in the winter. I've spent many stressful
> minutes on the button with full fuel, full crew, full armament at
> 0400L standing up through the cockpit upper hatch to my waist
> with an Aldis lamp trying to see if the driving snow was sticking
> to the wings and hoping to make a good assessment so as to avoid
> giving poor advice to the VPCC and ending up in a flaming ball
> somewhere in the over-run. I think we paid for all the fun times
> with those minutes.
>
> I believe that I'm near the end of a near thirty year search
> here...we had the second of our Argus go in here in 1977 (three
> of the 16 man crew were killed) and the Control Tower taped the
> happening. I've just now got a handle on a copy and it should be
> here Thursday or Friday. (yippee)
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)

[Dave Holford]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Gord,
>
> Your several recent references to the Argus reminded me of a visit by a
> number of we NAS Whidbey junior officers to CFB Comox one winter weekend in
> 1972. The purpose, of course, was some trans-national goodwill and
> celebration at the Comox Officers Mess with our hosts and several lovely
> ladies. All had the proverbial good time.
>
> (For those unfamiliar with the geography of the Pacific Northwest, CFB Comox
> is located on the east (inland) side of Vancouver Island. It's about a 3 - 4
> hour drive from Whidbey, depending upon how long you must wait for the
> Vancouver - Nanaimo ferry.)
>
> In the course of the evening, one of our folks managed to big-deal a hop in
> one of Comox's Argus fleet the following flying day. He suffered a short
> rug dance before COMFAIR WHIDBEY upon his return (not s'posed to do such
> things unless all the bureaucrats sign off beforehand) but all was forgiven
> quickly.
>
> Our guy reported back that the Argus was quite a capable platform, disguised
> in a rather homely airframe. Homeliness was not a problem to any of us who
> flew the Ugly for our paychecks, though.
>
> Have you any Argus stories to share with us?


As you probably know the Argus was based on the Bristol Britannia
airframe (as the P3 is based on the Electra and the Nimrod on the
Comet). In 1959 my crew from 405 Sqn in Greenwood N.S. was one of 3
crews from the east coast attending a Joint Anti-Submarine School course
in Ireland.

As is usual with these things the course included a fairly realistic
exercise involving aircraft, surface vessels and submarines.

My most vivid memory of the course (other than the heavily armed local
constabulary in Londonderry) was the presentation/explanation at the
exercise debriefing by the skipper of an RN submarine - he had been
performing a periscope sweep when he spotted a 'Bristol Britannia',
which he assumed was an aircraft of British Airways (in those days
BOAC), about to ditch in the ocean. He ordered his vessel to surface.

According to his presentation; he was more than a little upset when he
observed the "Britannia" opening its weapons-bay doors and did not seem
to feel it was 'cricket' to deem his vessel destroyed while he was in
the process of preparing to rescue passengers from a civilian aircraft.

Dave

[RENABORNEY]

Could I post your story over on Rec.Aviation. Military - it's too good not
share!

[Gord Beaman]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote:

>Gord,
>
>Thanks for the share. Sounds like the winter wx on P.E.I. is much nastier
>than that afflicting the Puget Sound / Georgia Straits corner of the world.
>Then, too, both Comox and Whidbey are in the lee of mountains that block
>much of the really bad stuff, leaving both fields usually with nothing worse
>than a duty 2K foot clag layer.
>
Well, it can get disagreeable at times for sure...the systems
spawn off the East coast of Fla then track up the East coast and
veer East out over the North Atlantic after giving us a little
love tap. Had a great winter last year, very little snow, can't
say the same for this one.

>Unfortunately, our generation never got a regular exchange going with the
>Comox folks. I suppose this was due to a lack of common community interest
>(Comox - VP, Whidbey - VA & VAQ). Now that Whidbey is much more a VP base,
>I wonder if this has changed.
>

Yes, hopefully, those exchanges can certainly be fun, and
educational too.

>Is Comox still active, and if so, in what capacity?
>

Yes it is...407 Maritime Patrol sqn is still there, the same one
that you visited...been there since the mid fifties equipped with
Lancasters then, later with P2V-7 then Argus.

>One thing's for sure - no more Argus.

Sadly true...it was by far the best aircraft ever made for the
Flight Engineer trade. Only aircraft that I know of where the
pilots never touch the throttles...engineer has full and
exclusive control of the engines and all the aircraft systems.

Makes for an ideal ASW platform. Pilots can keep their full
attention outside the a/c while the F/E looks after the
housekeeping duties
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:00:20 GMT, Gord Beaman >
wrote:

>>Thanks for the share. Sounds like the winter wx on P.E.I. is much nastier
>>than that afflicting the Puget Sound / Georgia Straits corner of the world.
>>Then, too, both Comox and Whidbey are in the lee of mountains that block
>>much of the really bad stuff, leaving both fields usually with nothing worse
>>than a duty 2K foot clag layer.
>>
>Well, it can get disagreeable at times for sure...the systems
>spawn off the East coast of Fla then track up the East coast and
>veer East out over the North Atlantic after giving us a little
>love tap. Had a great winter last year, very little snow, can't
>say the same for this one.

We got "tapped" at NAS Quonset, too. :-)

We usually got rain mixed with heavy, wet snow that washed away fairly
quickly. But sometimes we got heavy, wet snow then deep cold. Not a
good combination. :-)

>>One thing's for sure - no more Argus.
>
>Sadly true...it was by far the best aircraft ever made for the
>Flight Engineer trade. Only aircraft that I know of where the
>pilots never touch the throttles...engineer has full and
>exclusive control of the engines and all the aircraft systems.

We had a couple of Argus visit at Quonset. I watched one start up and
thought, "My God, he's on fire!" I have NEVER seen any aircraft
(including the old C-124 Globemaster) put out quite so much smoke on
start! I hope you had an oil quantity transmitter!!!!! ;-)

>Makes for an ideal ASW platform. Pilots can keep their full
>attention outside the a/c while the F/E looks after the
>housekeeping duties

Was the aircraft commander also the mission commander? Did you guys
have NFO-type ASW specialists?

Bill Kambic

[Gord Beaman]

Dave Holford > wrote:

>
>According to his presentation; he was more than a little upset when he
>observed the "Britannia" opening its weapons-bay doors and did not seem
>to feel it was 'cricket' to deem his vessel destroyed while he was in
>the process of preparing to rescue passengers from a civilian aircraft.
>
>Dave

Good one Dave, while I've been on several JASS courses I hadn't
heard that one!...reminds me of a story about some crusty old
German mine layer skipper during the war who would mine some
harbour in England every night and the next day the Brits would
sweep it clean.

This went on for several days until one smart Brit commander
decided to try something, he ordered no sweep one day and the
German got sunk with one of his own mines that night.

He was rescued and said that he thought it was a pretty
underhanded dirty trick by the Brits.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:
>
>We had a couple of Argus visit at Quonset. I watched one start up and
>thought, "My God, he's on fire!" I have NEVER seen any aircraft
>(including the old C-124 Globemaster) put out quite so much smoke on
>start! I hope you had an oil quantity transmitter!!!!! ;-)
>

Yes they did do that for sure...pretty big engine (almost as big
as the Globemaster). Yes, oil quantity indicator for each engine
and each engine's oil tank held 54 Imperial gallons.

>>Makes for an ideal ASW platform. Pilots can keep their full
>>attention outside the a/c while the F/E looks after the
>>housekeeping duties
>
>Was the aircraft commander also the mission commander? Did you guys
>have NFO-type ASW specialists?
>
>Bill Kambic

With very rare exceptions he was, yes, and our ASW specialists
were called AESOP's for Airbourne Electronic System OPerators.

Quite a long intensive course because they all need to be
qualified on all systems. Most were non-commissioned. About 10 on
a full Argus crew, plus two navigators, two pilots and two Flight
Engineers.





--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Dave Holford]

RENABORNEY wrote:
> Could I post your story over on Rec.Aviation. Military - it's too good not
> share!


Feel free.

Dave

[Tank Fixer]

In article t>,
on Tue, 01 Feb 2005 05:06:55 GMT,
D attempted to say .....

>
> Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30
> troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600
> ground troops last?
>


Better yet how long does it take to get 30 laden combat troops up on the
hull ?

And get the required number of rafts inflated, in the water and loaded.

How close did they plan on being to the coastline ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.