High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

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?

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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