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


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

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

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

Detected
Localized
Weapon placed within engagement envelope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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