Sub-Launched SAMs

In message
,
BlackBeard writes
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.

The only live-fire test I know about is for the US SIAM (Self Initiated
Antiaircraft Missile) which in 1981 shot down a QH-50 drone at a range
of two miles and altitude of 1500' (Friedman, "US Naval Weapons"). That
seems to have been purely a missile test, not an all-up system
evaluation. SIAM was - as far as I can tell - intended to be launched in
a capsule that contained a search radar which would hand off target data
to the missile, which would then use IR homing to acquire and intercept.

The missile got as far as test firings but it seems the rest of the
system never got beyond concept phase.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message
,
BlackBeard writes
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.

The only live-fire test I know about is for the US SIAM (Self Initiated
Antiaircraft Missile) which in 1981 shot down a QH-50 drone at a range
of two miles and altitude of 1500' (Friedman, "US Naval Weapons"). That
seems to have been purely a missile test, not an all-up system
evaluation. SIAM was - as far as I can tell - intended to be launched in
a capsule that contained a search radar which would hand off target data
to the missile, which would then use IR homing to acquire and intercept.

The missile got as far as test firings but it seems the rest of the
system never got beyond concept phase.


Wasn't there talk of some sort of floating raft that could be released
from the submarine that had some sort of SAM installation mounted on it?

I'm remembering all this from two or three decades ago and I do remember
quite a lot of pretty fevered talk at the time, articles in the IISS
'informal' magazine and lots of rather silly stuff about submarines
engaging helicopters in what passed for the 'informed press', which in
those days was mainly journalists who been conscripts in the army twenty
years earlier...


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Sep 18, 1:47*am, BlackBeard wrote:
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...

True - YYMV. It's what we _thought_, because that is what the intel
was telling us. In the Craig Peyer / Walker era, we were all chasing
our tails over bogus intel and things that went bump in the night.

G

BlackBeard wrote:

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.

The same is true of many combat systems afloat across the world,
combat whose [likely] performance is otherwise accepted uncritically
here and elsewhere.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Sep 18, 11:20*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
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.

The same is true of many combat systems afloat across the world,
combat whose [likely] performance is otherwise accepted uncritically
here and elsewhere.

Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
torpedoes?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

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