High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

[[email protected]]

The Navy has awarded LockMart a contract to demonstrate the release
of Mk-54 torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy_Selects_LockMart_For_MK_54_Torpedoes_High_Alt itude_Launch_Capability.html

The article mentions the possible future use of Mk-54 against surface
targets with this system, but would the Mk-54 (which has the Mk-46's
96lb warhead, and no under-the-keel detonation capability) really be
useful in that role?

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

[[email protected]]

On 14 Jun 2006 14:06:20 -0700, wrote:

>The Navy has awarded LockMart a contract to demonstrate the release
>of Mk-54 torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. See:
>
>http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy_Selects_LockMart_For_MK_54_Torpedoes_High_Alt itude_Launch_Capability.html
>
>The article mentions the possible future use of Mk-54 against surface
>targets with this system, but would the Mk-54 (which has the Mk-46's
>96lb warhead, and no under-the-keel detonation capability) really be
>useful in that role?
>
>Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Kronoman]

wrote:
> The Navy has awarded LockMart a contract to demonstrate the release
> of Mk-54 torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. See:
>
> http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy_Selects_LockMart_For_MK_54_Torpedoes_High_Alt itude_Launch_Capability.html
>
> The article mentions the possible future use of Mk-54 against surface
> targets with this system, but would the Mk-54 (which has the Mk-46's
> 96lb warhead, and no under-the-keel detonation capability) really be
> useful in that role?
>
> Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

Just picking nits here, but I thought that Mk. 54 had the Mk. 50's
100lb shaped-charge warhead on the Mk. 46 propulsion system, not just
the Mk. 50 seeker. I could be wrong, though.

In any case, the question of how useful it would be against surface
targets is still valid. It'd wreck an FAC, and probably glug most
corvettes, too. Against anything much bigger, though, I'm somewhat
skeptical. Better than nothing, sure, but not as good as Harpoon or
Penguin. The advantage might be reduced chances of intercept (UDAV-1 is
the only deployed active anti-torpedo system that I know of, and it's
pretty suspect), and possibly the ability to attack surface targets
from platforms that can't fire Harpoon or Penguin. I suppose this might
give VLASROC a surface mode, too, but that's not too useful in any
case, since all the VLASROC platforms carry SM-2 anyway.

[[email protected]]

On 15 Jun 2006 09:47:26 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?
>>
>> The answer to both questions is probably "yes."
>
>Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
>difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
>example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
>future.

The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.

Not only in the possible ability of the sub to engage an air target
but also in the P-3's ability to engage a submarine target without
resorting to low level tactics.

This means that the main reason might be quite mundane: safety of
flight. Operations at low altitude are a "thrill." The old S-2 was a
rather manueverable old bird, but horsing one around at 100' day (300'
night) was not for the faint of heart. That was particularly true on
a datum with a couple of other Stoofs and a Whistling **** Can or two.

The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
is not so manueverable.

I've never flown a Viking, so I can't comment on its low level
handling.

Sometimes the ability to do something from a distance is a Good Thing
for multiple reasons.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article . com>,
"Kronoman" > wrote:

....
>
> Just picking nits here, but I thought that Mk. 54 had the Mk. 50's
> 100lb shaped-charge warhead on the Mk. 46 propulsion system, not just
> the Mk. 50 seeker. I could be wrong, though.
>
That's both my recall and what Wikipedia says

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Charlie Wolf]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:21:39 -0400, wrote:

>On 15 Jun 2006 09:47:26 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>>Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?
>>>
>>> The answer to both questions is probably "yes."
>>
>>Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
>>difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
>>example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
>>future.
>
>The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.
>
>Not only in the possible ability of the sub to engage an air target
>but also in the P-3's ability to engage a submarine target without
>resorting to low level tactics.
>
>This means that the main reason might be quite mundane: safety of
>flight. Operations at low altitude are a "thrill." The old S-2 was a
>rather manueverable old bird, but horsing one around at 100' day (300'
>night) was not for the faint of heart. That was particularly true on
>a datum with a couple of other Stoofs and a Whistling **** Can or two.
>
>The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
>is not so manueverable.
>
>I've never flown a Viking, so I can't comment on its low level
>handling.
S-3 had a "loiter" capablility that gave it a 450 knot "dash" speed
(in theory), and then could loiter on-station at around 150kts
comfortably. It was capable of slower speeds. I want to say approach
speed was around 110 to 112 KIAS. I was a back seater so my memory
isn't the best on this. With "barndoor" flaps, it was a good
low-level onstation platform.
Regards,

>
>Sometimes the ability to do something from a distance is a Good Thing
>for multiple reasons.
>
>Bill Kambic
>Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
>Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Kronoman]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >>Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?
> >
> > The answer to both questions is probably "yes."
>
> Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
> difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
> example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
> future.

Well, this is mostly unconfirmed, but there were rumors to the effect
that Russian Kilo-class boats (but only the actual Russian ones, not
the ones sold to India, China and Iran) have a few SA-N-8 Gremlin
(Strela) or SA-N-9 Gauntlet (Kinzhal/Klinok) missiles mounted in the
sail, for defense when they're forced to surface. This probably makes
more sense for diesel boats than nuclear ones, though. More likely they
carry Gremlin than Gauntlet, if anything at all - Gauntlet isn't a huge
missile, but it's not tiny either - see the size of the SA-N-9 VLS on
Udaloy, Neustrashimy or Kuznetsov. On the other hand, it does have the
advantage of being designed for vertical launch. Strela is normally a
MANPADS.

> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Don't hit me, Mr. Moderator... I'll go back on topic... I swear!

[Kronoman]

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.
>
> Not really. You have to target the SAM prior to launch, that means AT
> LEAST getting one mast up (which can be detected), or you might even
> have to use radar. That's not going to change, regardless of
> technological advances.

Well, it is at least in theory possible to launch an IR-guided or
active-radar missile with no assistance from the launch platform. Look
at RAM, AMRAAM, Sidewinder and Penguin for examples.

> Submarine skippers prefer not to be detected in the first place. In
> WW2, german submarines sometimes bristled with AA guns - which were
> totally and utterly useless, however...
<snip>

AA missiles on a sub aren't completely pointless. If you're stuck on
the surface for some reason (recovering/deploying SEALs, repairing,
etc), they might make a good 'oh crap' defense. Also, a canister that
could be quietly plopped out to bob to the surface, then launch a RAM
or Stinger or something similar might be somewhat useful for popping
helos. Probably only good in the hot-war scenario where your opponent
would risk dropping a weapon on a probsub contact, but not /entirely/
useless. Only worth anything if it's cheap, though (RAM? Stinger?
Strela?)

[Gordon]

> >>Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?
> >
> > The answer to both questions is probably "yes."
>
> Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
> difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
> example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
> future.

There used to be a photo of a purported SUBSAM in the sail of a Kilo.
Other units were rumored to have it. I doubt it would be all that
useful, but I wouldn't want to be two MAD runs into my attack and find
out we were wrong about whether or not the system exists.

The "mine"-type SAM as described by another poster is, in my opinion, a
viable alternative that fits neatly with a suite of other
countermeasures. While the helo is stuck in a dip, their acoustic
signatures are detectible for miles and this could be exploited. I
like the idea of a high-alt drop on an unalerted sub, but I cringe to
think of the IFF issues. A torp can't tell a cowboy from an indian.

v/r
Gordon
VS-31, HS-5, HSL-33, CTG 72.8 (Diego Garcia ASWOC), COMASWWINGPAC plus
a couple other ASW units

[[email protected]]

Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Kronoman" > wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > Just picking nits here, but I thought that Mk. 54 had the Mk. 50's
> > 100lb shaped-charge warhead on the Mk. 46 propulsion system, not just
> > the Mk. 50 seeker. I could be wrong, though.
> >
> That's both my recall and what Wikipedia says
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
> This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
> RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
> http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

If you go to:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/106thcongress/99-02-24buchanon-amerault.htm

and scroll down to the "Mine and Undersea Warfare" section, you'll get
to this part:

"The MK54 torpedo integrates the proven technologies of the MK46
propulsion system and warhead with the MK50 sonar. State-of-the-art
digital signal processing based on COTS technology will improve
effectiveness and maintainability, and reduce costs. Due to arrive to
the fleet in 2003, the MK54 will replace the older MK46 torpedo with a
far superior, upgradable ASW weapon capable of countering all threats. "

[[email protected]]

Gordon wrote:

[SNIP]

> There used to be a photo of a purported SUBSAM in the sail of a Kilo.
> Other units were rumored to have it. I doubt it would be all that
> useful, but I wouldn't want to be two MAD runs into my attack and find
> out we were wrong about whether or not the system exists.

[SNIP]

> v/r
> Gordon
> VS-31, HS-5, HSL-33, CTG 72.8 (Diego Garcia ASWOC), COMASWWINGPAC plus
> a couple other ASW units

That brings up an interesting question; how effective is an ASW
aircraft's
MAD gear when the aircraft is at 20,000 feet?

[Gordon]

wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > There used to be a photo of a purported SUBSAM in the sail of a Kilo.
> > Other units were rumored to have it. I doubt it would be all that
> > useful, but I wouldn't want to be two MAD runs into my attack and find
> > out we were wrong about whether or not the system exists.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> That brings up an interesting question; how effective is an ASW
> aircraft's
> MAD gear when the aircraft is at 20,000 feet?

Oh, you might detect a Typhoon, but not much else! Actually, as you
undoubtedly know, MAD slant range is far less than a mile so these
launches would have to be basically wishful thinking, or against a
visually sighted target such as a sinker or a shallow runner. I can't
think of any other situation that would allow an attack, unless the
attacking aircraft watched a submarine launch a weapon.

v/r
Gordon

[[email protected]]

On 15 Jun 2006 09:20:55 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote:


>There used to be a photo of a purported SUBSAM in the sail of a Kilo.
>Other units were rumored to have it. I doubt it would be all that
>useful, but I wouldn't want to be two MAD runs into my attack and find
>out we were wrong about whether or not the system exists.

I remember. Not a "happy thought"!!! ;-)

>The "mine"-type SAM as described by another poster is, in my opinion, a
>viable alternative that fits neatly with a suite of other
>countermeasures. While the helo is stuck in a dip, their acoustic
>signatures are detectible for miles and this could be exploited. I
>like the idea of a high-alt drop on an unalerted sub, but I cringe to
>think of the IFF issues. A torp can't tell a cowboy from an indian.

Without going into details, even 30 years ago we could do some pretty
good passive tracking and develop attack criteria that did not require
active confirmation. MAD is about as non-selective as the seeker on a
MK46. So's a "pinger." You do your ID from the passive data and, if
cleared by higher authority, nail the SOB before he even knows you're
in the area.

Something I've often seen claimed (and seen depicted in Hollyweird
epics) but never confirmed by someone in a postion to know, was
whether or not a really noisy aircraft (like a P-3 or a HS-3) could
actually be detected by a sub's passive arrays. I've always had my
doubts (that air/water interface is tough to penetrate) but I really
don't know. I guess I really don't want to know (given that I've just
gotten my first Reserve retirement check :-) ).

Still, if accoustic detection by the sub of an aircraft is practical,
then a system to attack the aircraft becomes a viable option. If the
first time you know an aircraft is around is when you hear an
air-launched homing topedo "light off" then there's no sense in
wasting the space and other assets to support such a system.

I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Gordon]

>
> Something I've often seen claimed (and seen depicted in Hollyweird
> epics) but never confirmed by someone in a postion to know, was
> whether or not a really noisy aircraft (like a P-3 or a HS-3) could
> actually be detected by a sub's passive arrays. I've always had my
> doubts (that air/water interface is tough to penetrate) but I really
> don't know.

Bill, I had a 5 day trip on the USS Boston as a 'field trip' to answer
that question for our staff - even at a fairly good SOA, the crew of
the SSN could plot and avoid sonobuoy splashdowns, to the point that
they aimed their boat between passive buoys or steered completely
around them. The sonargirls could also hear each 'mark on top',
whether it was a fixed wing or helo, but I didn't hear them call S-3
passes and I gathered they were harder to detect. There was no problem
at all hearing the H-3, and it showed up on their sonar displays so it
wasn't just a matter of "Sparks" squeezing his headphones together and
yelling, "Cap'n! We got company!" A helo in a dip was easy to hear -
at least as easy as surface craft. I never felt comfortable in a dip
after that excursion.

When you were VS, were you in Stoofs? If so, I'd love to hear how
'sniffer' worked.

v/r
Gordon

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:
cut
>
>The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
>is not so manueverable.
>

Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:02 GMT, Gord Beaman >
wrote:

wrote:
>cut
>>
>>The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
>>is not so manueverable.
>>
>
>Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
>was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...

I dunno. IIRC it was 200' day and 300' night. It might be that the
Argus was more manueverable or that Candians had more balls! ;-)

Even so, low altitude ops, even out out "opposition" was a challenging
environment. If you can engage a target without going down with
little penalty in weapons performance then it seems to me to be a "no
brainer."


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[[email protected]]

On 15 Jun 2006 10:24:43 -0700, "Gordon" > wrote:

>Bill, I had a 5 day trip on the USS Boston as a 'field trip' to answer
>that question for our staff - even at a fairly good SOA, the crew of
>the SSN could plot and avoid sonobuoy splashdowns, to the point that
>they aimed their boat between passive buoys or steered completely
>around them.

Interesting. Was this at all sea-state dependant? Did a choppy
surface make it tougher?

The sonargirls could also hear each 'mark on top',
>whether it was a fixed wing or helo, but I didn't hear them call S-3
>passes and I gathered they were harder to detect.

Big props flailing the air do create vibrations! ;-)

There was no problem
>at all hearing the H-3, and it showed up on their sonar displays so it
>wasn't just a matter of "Sparks" squeezing his headphones together and
>yelling, "Cap'n! We got company!" A helo in a dip was easy to hear -
>at least as easy as surface craft. I never felt comfortable in a dip
>after that excursion.

I'm not so surprised about a helo. I am surprised about a standard
sonobouy. Of course when helo lights-off it's got to be pretty
noticeable!!!!!!!!! :-)

>When you were VS, were you in Stoofs?

Ayup.

If so, I'd love to hear how
>'sniffer' worked.

Well, to get the "real" scoop on how Sniffer works you'd have to ask
Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From my trusty NATOPS the AN/ASR-3 detected particulate matter from
diesel exhaust. It took in an air sample, analyzed it (I don't
remember how), and gave a visual and aural indication. It could be
set for sensitivity. It would give an "in trail" and "out of trail"
mark that the crew would plot, then reverse course to re-enter the
trail gaining additional "marks." Eventually you had a rough course
for the target.

Not only would it detect a snorting pig boat, it would also detect
destroyers, merchant ships, fishing boats, and the entire East Coast
of the U.S.!!!!! In other words, whatever value it had in open ocean
conditions was quickly lost as you approached crowded waters or
polution filled urban areas.

Of course, if the sub can hear a 'bouy splashing down that gives the
aircraft a deception opportunity by "shotgunning" an area with a
'bouys and decoys. That could be an effective tactic in some
circumstances.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Bob Moore]

Gord Beaman wrote
> Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
> was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...

I did 3 years in the P-2 and 2 years in the P-3, VP-21 and VP-46.
We were always at 100' or lower during the day and 200' at night.
Not a problem! :-)

Bob Moore

[Andrew Swallow]

Kronoman wrote:
[snip]

>
> AA missiles on a sub aren't completely pointless. If you're stuck on
> the surface for some reason (recovering/deploying SEALs, repairing,
> etc), they might make a good 'oh crap' defense. Also, a canister that
> could be quietly plopped out to bob to the surface, then launch a RAM
> or Stinger or something similar might be somewhat useful for popping
> helos. Probably only good in the hot-war scenario where your opponent
> would risk dropping a weapon on a probsub contact, but not /entirely/
> useless. Only worth anything if it's cheap, though (RAM? Stinger?
> Strela?)
>

Submarines are normally on the surface when they are in port and can
only do shallow dives in rivers. Its home port is also the easiest
place to find a submarine. AS Pearl Harbour showed the best place to
attack any warship is when it is tied up.

Andrew Swallow

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
Andrew Swallow > wrote:

> Kronoman wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > AA missiles on a sub aren't completely pointless. If you're stuck on
> > the surface for some reason (recovering/deploying SEALs, repairing,
> > etc), they might make a good 'oh crap' defense. Also, a canister that
> > could be quietly plopped out to bob to the surface, then launch a RAM
> > or Stinger or something similar might be somewhat useful for popping
> > helos. Probably only good in the hot-war scenario where your opponent
> > would risk dropping a weapon on a probsub contact, but not /entirely/
> > useless. Only worth anything if it's cheap, though (RAM? Stinger?
> > Strela?)
> >
>
> Submarines are normally on the surface when they are in port and can
> only do shallow dives in rivers. Its home port is also the easiest
> place to find a submarine. AS Pearl Harbour showed the best place to
> attack any warship is when it is tied up.


Great, so the next time we're in active maritime combat, we'll just ask
the enemy to return their subs to port (and we'll do same), to
facilitate sinking them.


--Mike

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
wrote:


> >Bill, I had a 5 day trip on the USS Boston as a 'field trip' to answer
> >that question for our staff - even at a fairly good SOA, the crew of
> >the SSN could plot and avoid sonobuoy splashdowns, to the point that
> >they aimed their boat between passive buoys or steered completely
> >around them.
>
> Interesting. Was this at all sea-state dependant? Did a choppy
> surface make it tougher?
>
> The sonargirls could also hear each 'mark on top',
> >whether it was a fixed wing or helo, but I didn't hear them call S-3
> >passes and I gathered they were harder to detect.
>
> Big props flailing the air do create vibrations! ;-)
>
> There was no problem
> >at all hearing the H-3, and it showed up on their sonar displays so it
> >wasn't just a matter of "Sparks" squeezing his headphones together and
> >yelling, "Cap'n! We got company!" A helo in a dip was easy to hear -
> >at least as easy as surface craft. I never felt comfortable in a dip
> >after that excursion.
>
> I'm not so surprised about a helo. I am surprised about a standard
> sonobouy.

I can vouch for Gordon's experiences, as I have heard to buoy splashes
listening to acoustical tapes from subs.



> Of course, if the sub can hear a 'bouy splashing down that gives the
> aircraft a deception opportunity by "shotgunning" an area with a
> 'bouys and decoys. That could be an effective tactic in some
> circumstances.


Yes, them hearing a buoy splash is helpful to them but not necessarily a
pass from destruction. They can't be sure of the splashes they may nhot
have heard...and when the helo goes into dip, the crew in the helo
already knows the sub knows we're there. At that point, we do not so
much care. They can run all they like, but two or more leap-frogging
helos with active sonar (and a good crew of AW's) will very likely be
some of the last sounds they hear (next to the torps).



--Mike

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:02 GMT, Gord Beaman >
>wrote:
>
wrote:
>>cut
>>>
>>>The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
>>>is not so manueverable.
>>>
>>
>>Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
>>was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...
>
>I dunno. IIRC it was 200' day and 300' night. It might be that the
>Argus was more manueverable or that Candians had more balls! ;-)
>

Dunno! :) ...we sure didn't do much maneuvering there I assure
you!...BTW, we think that that's what happened to the one we lost
off Puerto Rico...he might have dipped a wingtip...we'll never
know, they're at the bottom of the Mariannas(?) Trench now.

>Even so, low altitude ops, even out out "opposition" was a challenging
>environment. If you can engage a target without going down with
>little penalty in weapons performance then it seems to me to be a "no
>brainer."
>

Absolutely!...no sense in endangering tender pink bodies unless
there's some gain to be had.

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>
>Well, to get the "real" scoop on how Sniffer works you'd have to ask
>Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Except that -she- wouldn't 'kiss and tell' :)


>From my trusty NATOPS the AN/ASR-3 detected particulate matter from
>diesel exhaust. It took in an air sample, analyzed it (I don't
>remember how), and gave a visual and aural indication. It could be
>set for sensitivity. It would give an "in trail" and "out of trail"
>mark that the crew would plot, then reverse course to re-enter the
>trail gaining additional "marks." Eventually you had a rough course
>for the target.
>
>Not only would it detect a snorting pig boat, it would also detect
>destroyers, merchant ships, fishing boats, and the entire East Coast
>of the U.S.!!!!! In other words, whatever value it had in open ocean
>conditions was quickly lost as you approached crowded waters or
>polution filled urban areas.
>
>Of course, if the sub can hear a 'bouy splashing down that gives the
>aircraft a deception opportunity by "shotgunning" an area with a
>'bouys and decoys. That could be an effective tactic in some
>circumstances.
>

Yes, I remember those, we didn't use it much, pretty imprecise as
you indicate...perhaps it worked sort of like a household smoke
detector?...we used to call it "Ash in" and "Ash out" as the
detector gained and lost the 'scent'...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Paul J. Adam]

In message om>,
Kronoman > writes
>Well, this is mostly unconfirmed, but there were rumors to the effect
>that Russian Kilo-class boats (but only the actual Russian ones, not
>the ones sold to India, China and Iran) have a few SA-N-8 Gremlin
>(Strela) or SA-N-9 Gauntlet (Kinzhal/Klinok) missiles mounted in the
>sail, for defense when they're forced to surface.

Pressure-tight canister with a SA-14/16/18 gripstock and a few rounds
inside, according to some sketches. Nothing more dramatic (and that
assumes it's actually present, I've not seen anything conclusive one way
or another)

>This probably makes
>more sense for diesel boats than nuclear ones, though. More likely they
>carry Gremlin than Gauntlet, if anything at all - Gauntlet isn't a huge
>missile, but it's not tiny either - see the size of the SA-N-9 VLS on
>Udaloy, Neustrashimy or Kuznetsov.

Never mind the VLS, where do you put the Cross Swords director and the
surveillance/target acquisition to cue it? Like Sea Wolf, that's not a
compact system by the time you've brought all the required elements
along.

>On the other hand, it does have the
>advantage of being designed for vertical launch. Strela is normally a
>MANPADS.

The Kilos apparently have good compartmentalisation and lots of reserve
buoyancy, so a lightweight torpedo hit might force one to the surface
but not sink it.

At that point, having a couple of SAMs immediately to hand might keep
MPA or helicopters at a respectful distance, enough that their torpedo
drops are done from a long way out if at all; this might be worthless
(if enemy surface units are to hand) or quite handy (if dealing with a
single helicopter or MPA, with its backup some way away). Wouldn't let
the Kilo do much more than limp away, but that might be enough to get it
and its crew home.

Some say that the Santa Fe incident had an influence, others say there's
no such canister of missiles anyway :)

--
Paul J. Adam

[Andrew Swallow]

Michael Wise wrote:
> In article >,
> Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
>> Kronoman wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> AA missiles on a sub aren't completely pointless. If you're stuck on
>>> the surface for some reason (recovering/deploying SEALs, repairing,
>>> etc), they might make a good 'oh crap' defense. Also, a canister that
>>> could be quietly plopped out to bob to the surface, then launch a RAM
>>> or Stinger or something similar might be somewhat useful for popping
>>> helos. Probably only good in the hot-war scenario where your opponent
>>> would risk dropping a weapon on a probsub contact, but not /entirely/
>>> useless. Only worth anything if it's cheap, though (RAM? Stinger?
>>> Strela?)
>>>
>> Submarines are normally on the surface when they are in port and can
>> only do shallow dives in rivers. Its home port is also the easiest
>> place to find a submarine. AS Pearl Harbour showed the best place to
>> attack any warship is when it is tied up.
>
>
> Great, so the next time we're in active maritime combat, we'll just ask
> the enemy to return their subs to port (and we'll do same), to
> facilitate sinking them.
>
>
> --Mike

Fully consistent with the Royal Navies traditional strategy of first
giving the enemy sailors a bloody nose and then a choice between dyeing
a cold, wet nasty death or spending the rest of the war in their home
port's brothels. (Except the UK closes its brothels and keeps its
warship at sea.)

Andrew Swallow

[[email protected]]

Gordon wrote:


> > [SNIP]

> > That brings up an interesting question; how effective is an ASW
> > aircraft's
> > MAD gear when the aircraft is at 20,000 feet?
>
> Oh, you might detect a Typhoon, but not much else! Actually, as you
> undoubtedly know, MAD slant range is far less than a mile so these
> launches would have to be basically wishful thinking, or against a
> visually sighted target such as a sinker or a shallow runner. I can't
> think of any other situation that would allow an attack, unless the
> attacking aircraft watched a submarine launch a weapon.
>
> v/r
> Gordon

Would systems like Blue-Green Laser Radars or Hyperspectral sensors

http://www.answers.com/topic/littoral-airborne-sensor-hyperspectral

be more useful than MAD in situations like this?

[weasel]

> I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.
>
> Bill Kambic
> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

I'm going to have to start working "fasotragrulant" into
conversations...

"The wife's feeling a bit fasotragrulant, so we going to stay home
tonight."

Cheers,
Wes

PS- worked a bit on the early stages of MMA (P-8), and discovered that
the reason for the internal weapons bay was the inadvisability of
freezing your torps at altitude.
Wanted to invent a VLTC (Very Large Tea Cozy) to allow external
carriage, but management wouldn't buy it...

[Dave Kearton]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> wrote:
> cut
>>
>> The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
>> is not so manueverable.
>>
>
> Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
> was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...


I remember the Argus at an airshow in '70 or '71 when the Fincastle was at
RAAF Edinburgh. Very impressive low level show - weather was fine
for the practice day, overcast on show-day.

4 big radials still have an appeal of their own ....


The Orions do a fairly blistering routine when the air is clear, but they
still smell like a kero heater.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Dave Kearton]

weasel wrote:
>> I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.
>>
>> Bill Kambic
>> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
>> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão
>
> I'm going to have to start working "fasotragrulant" into
> conversations...
>
> "The wife's feeling a bit fasotragrulant, so we going to stay home
> tonight."
>
> Cheers,
> Wes




Sounds like a dietary issue ...




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:11:49 +0930, "Dave Kearton"
> wrote:

>Sounds like a dietary issue ...

"Beans for power...onions for aroma!" ;-)


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Dave Kearton]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:11:49 +0930, "Dave Kearton"
> > wrote:
>
>>Sounds like a dietary issue ...
>
> "Beans for power...onions for aroma!" ;-)
>
>
> Bill Kambic
> Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
> Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão



....broccoli for pitch




My wife doesn't understand why I hang around the Internet .....



"..but honey, we just did a fart joke half way around the planet ..."



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton (beware the 'own goal')

[Gord Beaman]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> wrote:
>> cut
>>>
>>> The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
>>> is not so manueverable.
>>>
>>
>> Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
>> was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...
>
>
>I remember the Argus at an airshow in '70 or '71 when the Fincastle was at
>RAAF Edinburgh. Very impressive low level show - weather was fine
>for the practice day, overcast on show-day.
>
>4 big radials still have an appeal of their own ....
>
>
>The Orions do a fairly blistering routine when the air is clear, but they
>still smell like a kero heater.

Yes the Orion/Aurora indeed is a performer, more total HP than
the Argus and a smaller/lighter airframe...I still think that the
Argus could make a better airshow performer...low and slow with
everything hanging and high power on, the deafening noise
produced made little kids cry in fear!...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:

>>
>>I remember the Argus at an airshow in '70 or '71 when the Fincastle was at
>>RAAF Edinburgh. Very impressive low level show - weather was fine
>>for the practice day, overcast on show-day.
>>
>>4 big radials still have an appeal of their own ....
>>
>>
>>The Orions do a fairly blistering routine when the air is clear, but they
>>still smell like a kero heater.
>
> Yes the Orion/Aurora indeed is a performer, more total HP than
> the Argus and a smaller/lighter airframe...I still think that the
> Argus could make a better airshow performer...low and slow with
> everything hanging and high power on, the deafening noise
> produced made little kids cry in fear!...
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)



Absolutely.


35 years later, there are only 2 displays that I really remember of that
weekend, the Argus and a couple of EE Lightnings trying their best to
impress with a low cloud ceiling.



--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Gordon]

> > Oh, you might detect a Typhoon, but not much else! Actually, as you
> > undoubtedly know, MAD slant range is far less than a mile so these
> > launches would have to be basically wishful thinking, or against a
> > visually sighted target such as a sinker or a shallow runner. I can't
> > think of any other situation that would allow an attack, unless the
> > attacking aircraft watched a submarine launch a weapon.
> >
> > v/r
> > Gordon
>
> Would systems like Blue-Green Laser Radars or Hyperspectral sensors
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/littoral-airborne-sensor-hyperspectral
>
> be more useful than MAD in situations like this?

Dunno - the Navy slicked the rest of my brain when I got out.

<blank stare>

G

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:Something I've often seen claimed (and seen depicted in Hollyweird
:epics) but never confirmed by someone in a postion to know, was
:whether or not a really noisy aircraft (like a P-3 or a HS-3) could
:actually be detected by a sub's passive arrays. I've always had my
:doubts (that air/water interface is tough to penetrate) but I really
:don't know. I guess I really don't want to know (given that I've just
:gotten my first Reserve retirement check :-) ).
:
:Still, if accoustic detection by the sub of an aircraft is practical,
:then a system to attack the aircraft becomes a viable option. If the
:first time you know an aircraft is around is when you hear an
:air-launched homing topedo "light off" then there's no sense in
:wasting the space and other assets to support such a system.
:
:I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.

Hint: Ask your AW if he can ever see airplanes on a sonobuoy. If the
answer is yes, consider that the submarine has a lot more hydrophones
than the buoy does.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:16:40 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>:Something I've often seen claimed (and seen depicted in Hollyweird
>:epics) but never confirmed by someone in a postion to know, was
>:whether or not a really noisy aircraft (like a P-3 or a HS-3) could
>:actually be detected by a sub's passive arrays. I've always had my
>:doubts (that air/water interface is tough to penetrate) but I really
>:don't know. I guess I really don't want to know (given that I've just
>:gotten my first Reserve retirement check :-) ).
>:
>:Still, if accoustic detection by the sub of an aircraft is practical,
>:then a system to attack the aircraft becomes a viable option. If the
>:first time you know an aircraft is around is when you hear an
>:air-launched homing topedo "light off" then there's no sense in
>:wasting the space and other assets to support such a system.
>:
>:I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.
>
>Hint: Ask your AW if he can ever see airplanes on a sonobuoy. If the
>answer is yes, consider that the submarine has a lot more hydrophones
>than the buoy does.

Tough to do since I've not seen an AW in about 25 years! :-)

Still, I never saw a trace of a Stoof, nor did I ever hear us passing
over our own bouys. Never tried in the P-3.


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Gordon]

> >Hint: Ask your AW if he can ever see airplanes on a sonobuoy. If the
> >answer is yes, consider that the submarine has a lot more hydrophones
> >than the buoy does.
>
> Tough to do since I've not seen an AW in about 25 years! :-)
>
> Still, I never saw a trace of a Stoof, nor did I ever hear us passing
> over our own bouys. Never tried in the P-3.

Fred is right here, Bill. At the ASWOC on Dodge, we had to do training
("What kind of training?" "Acoooooustic Training, SIR!") and one of
our exercises was recognizing transients, including overflights of
buoys. The P-3 passes over quickly, so there was a noticeable doppler
shift and a somewhat discreet frequency that related to the [deleted]
- for heloes, it was more of a gigantic increase in broadband
background noise, until they dipped. Then you can ---

<sound of window glass breaking, flash/bang detonation, muffled
screams>

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:16:40 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
wrote:
:>
:>:Something I've often seen claimed (and seen depicted in Hollyweird
:>:epics) but never confirmed by someone in a postion to know, was
:>:whether or not a really noisy aircraft (like a P-3 or a HS-3) could
:>:actually be detected by a sub's passive arrays. I've always had my
:>:doubts (that air/water interface is tough to penetrate) but I really
:>:don't know. I guess I really don't want to know (given that I've just
:>:gotten my first Reserve retirement check :-) ).
:>:
:>:Still, if accoustic detection by the sub of an aircraft is practical,
:>:then a system to attack the aircraft becomes a viable option. If the
:>:first time you know an aircraft is around is when you hear an
:>:air-launched homing topedo "light off" then there's no sense in
:>:wasting the space and other assets to support such a system.
:>:
:>:I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.
:>
:>Hint: Ask your AW if he can ever see airplanes on a sonobuoy. If the
:>answer is yes, consider that the submarine has a lot more hydrophones
:>than the buoy does.
:
:Tough to do since I've not seen an AW in about 25 years! :-)
:
:Still, I never saw a trace of a Stoof, nor did I ever hear us passing
:over our own bouys. Never tried in the P-3.

You can see 'em on the analyzer as they go by the buoy. The range
isn't real great, but then the range of a SAM you can shoot out of a
conning tower isn't exactly long, either.

Jets don't show up the same as helos and prop jobs do.

--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Matt Richards]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:02 GMT, Gord Beaman >
> >wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>cut
> >>>
> >>>The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
> >>>is not so manueverable.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
> >>was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...
> >
> >I dunno. IIRC it was 200' day and 300' night. It might be that the
> >Argus was more manueverable or that Candians had more balls! ;-)
> >
>
> Dunno! :) ...we sure didn't do much maneuvering there I assure
> you!...BTW, we think that that's what happened to the one we lost
> off Puerto Rico...he might have dipped a wingtip...we'll never
> know, they're at the bottom of the Mariannas(?) Trench now.

Dipped a wingtip in the Caribbean, and ended up in the western Pacific? Wow
must have been a spectacular crash.

The Puerto Rico Trench (and Milwaukee Deep) is just north of Puerto Rico.
The Marianna Trench goes from Guam to Japan. :)


Matt.

[[email protected]]

Since the Mk-54 was designed for anti-sub work, would it require any
modifications for anti-ship usage?

[[email protected]]

Here's another article on the system that includes an image:

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/20/Navigation/190/207322/USAF+flies+high+to+deliver+torpedo.html

Note that similar technology might also be used to drop mines and
sonobuoys.

While a stand-off mine laying capability might be useful for avoiding
harbor defenses, how useful would
a stand-off sonobuoy dispensing system be?

[Derek Lyons]

wrote:

>Here's another article on the system that includes an image:
>
>http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/20/Navigation/190/207322/USAF+flies+high+to+deliver+torpedo.html
>
>Note that similar technology might also be used to drop mines and
>sonobuoys.
>
>While a stand-off mine laying capability might be useful for avoiding
>harbor defenses, how useful would a stand-off sonobuoy dispensing system be?

A stand off sonobouy dispenser might allow you to spread a wider
pattern faster. Or it might just the manufacturer/marketdroids
drumming up business.

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

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

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here's another article on the system that includes an image:
>
> http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/20/Navigation/190/207322/USAF+flies+high+to+deliver+torpedo.html
>
> Note that similar technology might also be used to drop mines and
> sonobuoys.
>
> While a stand-off mine laying capability might be useful for avoiding
> harbor defenses, how useful would
> a stand-off sonobuoy dispensing system be?
>

If you could use it from a warship it could be invaluable.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article >,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

....
>
> A stand off sonobouy dispenser might allow you to spread a wider
> pattern faster. Or it might just the manufacturer/marketdroids
> drumming up business.
>
Bingo, we have a winner

You will note that the firm pumping this is not Raytheon (ie the firm
that builds MK54's)

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv