Sub-Launched SAMs

"Once more, developers are working on weapons that
enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.

Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
(U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
(Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."

See:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20090917.aspx

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?

On Sep 17, 12:07*pm, wrote:
"Once more, developers are working on weapons that
enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.

Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
(U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
(Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."

See:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20090917.aspx

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?

Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

Andre

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:38:41 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
wrote:

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

If US health care isn't #1, why have you run away from the discussion in
rasff, Andre?
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot

Andre Lieven wrote:

Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away.

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

Like the proverbial bad penney! What about pennies, for that matter?

Dennis

On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, Dennis wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

* * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away. * *

Well, they're 18 years gone now...

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

* * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, for that matter?

They make sense/cents ?

Andre

Andre Lieven wrote:

* * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away.

Well, they're 18 years gone now...

True. But the discussion here and elsewhere goes on.

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

* * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, fo
r that matter?

They make sense/cents ?

LOL! If we didn't have them, we'd have to round off to something
else. The nearest $0.05, nickel?

Dennis

On 17 Sep, 21:29, Dennis wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

* * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away. * *

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

* * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, for that matter?

Dennis

What? in 1880?

Guy

dumpsey wrote:

"Once more, developers are working on weapons that
enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.

Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
(U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
(Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."

See:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20090917.aspx

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?

As they said on NL's "Animal House," why not?

Like nuclear grenades.

Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in
which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare.
Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of
the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile
defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He
encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a
small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read,
"Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch
diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the
bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24&notFound=true

On Sep 17, 12:40*pm, Dennis wrote:
dumpsey wrote:
"Once more, developers are working on weapons that
enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.

Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
(U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
(Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."

See:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20090917.aspx

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?

* * * * As they said on NL's "Animal House," why not?

* * * * Like nuclear grenades.

* * * * Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in
which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare.
Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of
the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile
defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He
encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a
small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read,
"Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch
diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the
bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24&notFound=true

I'm surprised the 9/11 conspiracy folks haven't connected with the
hafnium/nuclear grenade folks.

Dean wrote:

I'm surprised the 9/11 conspiracy folks haven't connected with the
hafnium/nuclear grenade folks.

Shhhhhhhhh... not so loud!

Dennis