If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 18, 4:15*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
Everybody keeps adressing the situation where the ASW asset 'only has a sniff'. *Yeah, it's madness to launch then and give yourself way... But that ignores the rest of the situation - like when they have more than a sniff and are actively attempting localization. Fair point. I'm happy to sit back and read posts from people who know more than I do. And isn't it a joy when the group does what it's supposed to do? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
In message
, David E. Powell writes Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight torpedoes? Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged back onto the real target). Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar) -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In message , David E. Powell writes Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight torpedoes? Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged back onto the real target). True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the chance at the main target. Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar) That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo, broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to deefnd against air attacks. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote: On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , David E. Powell writes Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight torpedoes? Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged back onto the real target). True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the chance at the main target. Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar) That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo, broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to deefnd against air attacks. Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...) BB |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard wrote:
On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell" wrote: On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , David E. Powell writes Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight torpedoes? Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged back onto the real target). True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the chance at the main target. Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar) That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo, broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to deefnd against air attacks. Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? * (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...) BB Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a submariner. I tip my hat to you guys. David |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote: On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard wrote: On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell" wrote: On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , David E. Powell writes Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight torpedoes? Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged back onto the real target). True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the chance at the main target. Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar) That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo, broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to deefnd against air attacks. Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? * (relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...) BB Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a submariner. I tip my hat to you guys. David Sheesh... I think I made this mistake before. I'll blame the meds* I took before I posted this time I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list of the bubbleheads posting here. I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all claim the fish. Just can't keep the rest in memory. Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth charges. My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the Deep... I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. However you should not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful, demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called a Submariner... BB |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
"BlackBeard" wrote in message ... I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all claim the fish. start flashback Got them fair and square too. Caught them in my teeth in a bar in Dunoon Scotland, where they had been dropped into a beer mug full of assorted shots. Heaving one's guts out afterwards was considered part of the game. When I came out of the pub's smelly head, I was still wearing that nasty toilet seat. My shipmates called me "horsecollar" from that day on. The next day, the XO reclaimed them so that a visiting assistant SecDef (the Mr. Packard from HP) would have a ceremony to perform. The SOB was late, so I had to shiver on deck for an hour while I waited to get my dolphins back. end flashback Vaughn |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
BlackBeard wrote:
Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard fish If your work ever brings you up this way, we'll have to hit the local brewpub... (Ralph L, occasional poster here in SMN, also lives in the vicinity.) Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in the old days though. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
one of uncle sams aircraft? | John A. Weeks III | General Aviation | 1 | September 12th 06 09:18 PM |
one of uncle sams aircraft? | Eeyore | General Aviation | 1 | September 10th 06 04:19 AM |
one of uncle sams aircraft? | Stubby | General Aviation | 0 | September 9th 06 11:11 PM |
Good prices on Aeroshell oils at Sams club | Fastglasair | Home Built | 4 | October 2nd 04 11:30 PM |
Will LPI radar be used to guide SAMs? | Chad Irby | Military Aviation | 6 | January 4th 04 09:02 PM |