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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
In message , William Black
writes Paul J. Adam wrote: It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be less attractive when worked through in detail. Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters? SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea when armed ASW assets were buzzing around. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 17, 4:39*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In message , William Black writes Paul J. Adam wrote: *It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to *be less attractive when worked through in detail. Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters? SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea when armed ASW assets were buzzing around. Just give the blowpipes hafnium warheads and that will fix the aiming problem. (Well the Sub will be underwater....) I agree with the poster that said the idea keeps coming back and keeps going away for the same reasons. Since the end of WW2, submarines as antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving often works better. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters? SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea when armed ASW assets were buzzing around. It's often reported Kilo class subs have similar capabilities built around Strellas and Iglas. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message news 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). Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the sub's CO, rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time. There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have the greatest of Pk - Also a valid point, but I am willing to leave that problem up to the engineers. If they don't solve it, there obviously will be no system. 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. Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone, isolated sub to dispute air superiority. Just the threat that a sub MAY have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for any ASW forces. It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be less attractive when worked through in detail. Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular thread to convince me. Vaughn |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
In message
, Daniel writes SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea when armed ASW assets were buzzing around. It's often reported Kilo class subs have similar capabilities built around Strellas and Iglas. Not quite: some apparently have a gripstock and several rounds of MANPADS stored in a pressure-tight container in the top of the fin, for use if the sub is damaged and forced to fight it out on the surface with ASW helos in a scenario like the ARA Santa Fe in 1982. Not totally implausible, given the Kilo's compartmentalisation and large reserve of buoyancy, but nobody's ever shown a credible submerged-launch capability for said missiles. It seems to be a tale that's grown in the telling: Larry Bond was running with it for his "Harpoon" rules in 1987 and had it in his book "Red Phoenix" a year or three later. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 17, 9:54*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote: snippaggio Since the end of WW2, submarines as antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving often works better. These days, not diving, just dived. V. bad idea, as Paul has pointed out, to give away your greatest asset: stealth. Grumpy MPA or helicopter isn't entirely sure where you a it's only got a sniff. Take v. risky shot at nasty flying thing, give away your real location. Sinketty submarin-io. Even if you hit nasty flying thing -- most unlikely -- other nasty flying things or their friends in nasty floating things are likely to be within earshot, and they've got your datum and are very seriously evilly intentioned. Due to cruel upbringing, they really don't like sweet little subbie-wubs and are well provided with nasty homing bang-bang things or even worse. Sinketty sinketty. Crunchity crunch. I am not now, nor ever have been, a sub CO, but if I were you wouldn't get me anywhere near one of those loonie missile kits. Me, deep and silent. Torpedo Bad Persons as God intended and run like buggery only without the noise. As it were. BB and others would know for sure. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
In message , vaughn
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message news 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). Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the sub's CO, rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time. I think you'll find the various development efforts (SLAM in the UK, SIAM in the US, the Franco-German Polyphem) have gone rather further than Internet debate - some even to prototype testing, even to deployed status and operational evaluation - and all have fallen over because the sub COs all end up preferring stealth, then evasion, over trying to fight it out with aircraft overhead. Yes, ideally you kill the annoying ASW asset. But when you don't (and SAM combat Pks run from about 40% for best-case Sea Dart downwards) you've given away your location and your hostile intent and you've made the enemy angry. Even if you get the kill, if your location is flagged then everything you were sent to hunt is likely to be routed away from you while assorted hostile assets come for vengeance, and you can't run too far or fast without losing the stealth you depend on. It's a bad trade for a submarine for the benefit of - maybe - shooting down a helicopter. Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched SAMs. Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone, isolated sub to dispute air superiority. You're not going to "dispute air superiority" with short-range, blind-fired SAMs. Just the threat that a sub MAY have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for any ASW forces. Ships' helicopters get tasked widely these days. When they do a Thunder Valley run to check an oil pipeline ashore, there's a risk of insurgents with MANPADS. When they prosecute fast inshore attack craft, again there's a SAM threat. Once you've trained and equipped for those, the risk of a semi-blind SAM shot from a submerged submarine isn't a serious extra problem: either the countermeasures are effective against that seeker or they aren't, and you go in on the basis that the DAS will protect you enough to let you do your job. MPA may not have the same degree of protection (though with their increasing overland employment that's much less true) but they can generate a lot more standoff (in three dimensions), again seriously compromising the effectiveness of a subSAM. It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be less attractive when worked through in detail. Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular thread to convince me. Usenet isn't where the decisions get made. -- He thinks too much, such men are dangerous. Paul J. Adam |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
|
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 |