High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

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')

"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)

"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

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/littora...-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

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

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

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

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
ver 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

"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.

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