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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 18, 2:07*am, 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? The German system, IDAS is inusual from several angles: 1 It is not based on a AAM and is launched directly from a standard tube with motor ignition occuring immediatly. This makes the missile much faster in getting to target than capsule launched SAM based on say sidewinder-X, AMRAAM or MICA. It also makes it much noisier ie it has a much larger launch signature due to the motor igniting under water. (This suggests it is a last minute weapon to be used when alreaqdy discovered). Having said that is a capsule launched that much quieter? 2 The German IDAS system uses a high resolution infrared imaging system, inertial guidance and remains connected to the submarine with fiber optic cables: it provides a TV picture to the opperator, motor gives adaquet time for lotire and target selection. It has auto- homming to both air, land and sea targets but the opperator retains control. Submarine detection has improved dramatically in recent years to the point that some are saying the've lost most if not all their stealth in open ocean. Littoral subs like the German type 212 designed for shallow waters with the x-fin configuration and to avoid MAD with a stainless steel hull and a Hydrogen Metal Hydride fuel cell however retail stealth due to their abillity to opperate in the shallows. If say a 212 can hear the rotors of a helicopter, if it can then hear tracking pings from its sonar (time to launch may be then) and if it then hears the 'plonk' of a ASW torpedo, its motor and its seeker going active the response of the sub would be to release effectors, decoys and jammers. Now it can destroy the sub and ward of subsequent attacks as well. One reason these systems may be making a rear-apperance (eg Sidewinder- X based capsule launched) is that is simply easily possible to adapt these missiles with little R+D. These AAM have inertial guidance, focal plane array 'robot vision infrared' and thrust vectoring suitable for vertical launch. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
On Sep 17, 4:22*pm, wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:07*am, 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? The German system, IDAS is inusual from several angles: 1 It is not based on a AAM and is launched directly from a standard tube with motor ignition occuring immediatly. *This makes the missile much faster in getting to target than capsule launched SAM based on say sidewinder-X, AMRAAM or MICA. *It also makes it much noisier ie it has a much larger launch signature due to the motor igniting under water. *(This suggests it is a last minute weapon to be used when alreaqdy discovered). *Having said that is a capsule launched that much quieter? 2 *The German IDAS system uses a high resolution infrared imaging system, inertial guidance and remains connected to the submarine with fiber optic cables: it provides a TV picture to the opperator, motor gives adaquet time for lotire and target selection. *It has auto- homming to both air, land and sea targets but the opperator retains control. Submarine detection has improved dramatically in recent years to the point that some are saying the've lost most if not all their stealth in open ocean. * Littoral subs like the German type 212 designed for shallow waters with the x-fin configuration and to avoid MAD with a stainless steel hull and a Hydrogen Metal Hydride fuel cell however retail stealth due to their abillity to opperate in the shallows. If say a 212 can hear the rotors of a helicopter, if it can then hear tracking pings from its sonar (time to launch may be then) and if it then hears the 'plonk' of a ASW torpedo, its motor and its seeker going active the response of the sub would be to release effectors, decoys and jammers. *Now it can destroy the sub and ward of subsequent attacks as well. One reason these systems may be making a rear-apperance (eg Sidewinder- X based capsule launched) is that is simply easily possible to adapt these missiles with little R+D. *These AAM have inertial guidance, focal plane array 'robot vision infrared' and thrust vectoring suitable for vertical launch. Paul Adam never served on Subs, but he should have aspired to higher things than the Territorials He is consistently spot-on regarding this subject. IMHO. BB |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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. Now that would encourage a soldier to practice his fast pitch and faster ashaulen in der udder vay! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24¬Found=true |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Sub-Launched SAMs
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
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 |