Sub-Launched SAMs

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , vaughn
writes
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.

The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you
launch a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely
hostile (and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you
can clear datum very far).

There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
the greatest of Pk - it's being launched on "aircraft somewhere up
there, probably" which isn't the best way to ensure a
heart-of-the-envelope shot against a target that may have a decent DAS.

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

Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
SAMs.

It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to
be less attractive when worked through in detail.



Part of the problem is giving away your position. How about deploying
the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from you
a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly? Formidable
problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still told the
world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.

On Sep 18, 12:04*pm, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:
Alan Dicey wrote:
Part of the problem is giving away your position. *How about deploying
the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from
you a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly?
Formidable problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still
told the world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.

As I understand it, Polyphem at least IS launched via the torpedo tube,
and aimed by FO line...

Juergen Nieveler
--
"Hello", lied the politician

When all the problems with detection and targeting are all talked our
here then we can move into missile flight dynamics-- and why when the
ASW platform is close (as is being suggested) it is so much harder to
hit.

BB

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
Alan Dicey wrote:

Part of the problem is giving away your position. How about deploying
the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from
you a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly?
Formidable problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still
told the world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.

As I understand it, Polyphem at least IS launched via the torpedo tube,
and aimed by FO line...


Reading up on Polyphem, it appears to be a 60kM range cruise missile,
land attack or anti-ship. Mind-bogglingly, it is fibre-optic guided
right onto the target, so takes off with 60kM of fibre on a bobbin.

Doesn't meet the requirement I had in mind, which was to separate the
apparent source of the missile from the submarine's actual location.

Mind you, if you could develop a sufficiently intelligent SAM that could
target overflying hostiles on its own, you could lay an anti-aircraft
minefield, and be miles away when the missile launched. Pretty vital to
have included foolproof IFF, though.

On Sep 19, 2:10*pm, Alan Dicey
wrote:
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
Alan Dicey wrote:

Part of the problem is giving away your position. *How about deploying
the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from
you a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly?
Formidable problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still
told the world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.

As I understand it, Polyphem at least IS launched via the torpedo tube,
and aimed by FO line...

Reading up on Polyphem, it appears to be a 60kM range cruise missile,
land attack or anti-ship. *Mind-bogglingly, it is fibre-optic guided
right onto the target, so takes off with 60kM of fibre on a bobbin.

Doesn't meet the requirement I had in mind, which was to separate the
apparent source of the missile from the submarine's actual location.

Mind you, if you could develop a sufficiently intelligent SAM that could
target overflying hostiles on its own, you could lay an anti-aircraft
minefield, and be miles away when the missile launched. *Pretty vital to
have included foolproof IFF, though.

Bingo - that was the scenario we discussed at the time. The sub
wasn't thought of as an active combatant against the helo or MPA, it
was going to sow its wake with a few of these canisters that popped
out an SA-7 at the first indication that a low flying aircraft has
overflown its position. The Kilo and the imagined SAM-packing Type
IIIs were the other possible scenario of the war-gamed sub-vs-ASW. We
were getting the impression that the old cat and mouse game (with us
being the cat) was evolving into a mongoose vs cobra situation. The
photos of the Kilo were widely distributed in our community, and the
whispers of the development of the cannisters were on our minds as at
least a possibility.

v/r Gordon

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.

On Sep 17, 1:46*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:17:27 -0400, "vaughn"

wrote:

wrote in message
...

SNIP


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. *:-)


SNIP

Would this be useful for detecting the aircraft?:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20070107.aspx

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Would this be useful for detecting the aircraft?:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20070107.aspx

Maybe. An aircraft at altitude is a very small visual target (and
also a very small acoustic target).

On Sep 17, 11:07*am, wrote:

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.

Why?

My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
assets work alone. I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
submarines, we were the only thing local. Blow us out of the sky and
you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. For sub
hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
for concern.

v/r Gordon

Gordon wrote:

My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
assets work alone. I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
submarines, we were the only thing local. Blow us out of the sky and
you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. For sub
hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
for concern.

The voice of experience! There you have it.

Dennis

On Sep 17, 10:03*pm, Dennis wrote:
Gordon wrote:
My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
assets work alone. *I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
submarines, we were the only thing local. *Blow us out of the sky and
you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. *For sub
hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
for concern.

* * * * The voice of experience! *There you have it.

Dennis

Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
they _thought_ might happen.
I've known Gordon for a long time and respect the hell out of him.
But their concern about an unproven system is not proof of concept for
the one this thread addresses.
As I said earlier, Paul is the Man...

BB