kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) (03/30/91)
From: kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) Regarding Charles Bergman's post about subs and mines, I contend that submarines and mines are highly overrated. Re: German conventional subs quieter that nuke boats: Conventional subs generally *are* quieter that nuke boats anyway. Conventional subs (CS herein) can turn the engine off and sit there waiting for targets, while the nuke boats (NB) have to keep the reactor running. Incidentally, a friend of mine thinks that the Komsomolets accident was the result of an attemped reactor shutoff by the Soviets (I think he's out of it in this case). At any rate, CS's pay for their quiet by having to spend extended periods on the surface to recharge batteries, while NB's can stay down indefinitely. Re: Subs in general: The carrier defense plan accounts for subs. Coordinated action with aircraft using MAD's and dipping sonars or sonobuoys can find the subs in many cases, and anti-sub aircraft can be deployed to the area (or may already be there) or a nearby destroyer can fire a standoff torpedo such as ASROC at the contact. In some cases, nearby friendly submarines can be directed against the threat. It's also worth noting that the German submarine campaigns in the World Wars didn't stop supplies from reaching England/Europe. Sure, lots of ships were lost I'm sure, but stuff still got there. Finally, most subs available to third world nations are ancient Soviet subs or derivatives thereof, usually D-E. The more recent Foxtrot/Tango class subs hadn't gone out for export yet last time I checked. At any rate, when they're still, they're quiet. Everything I've seen indicates that one can hear the bulkheads opening, so unless you sit there with loaded, flooded torpedo tubes with the bulkheads open and wait for something to go by, they can hear you (espacially with the older Soviet boats, but that's another story). Re: Mines: Mines are nice, but have this annoying bug, in that they attack *everything*. So you have your beaches mined? Great, but if you aren't organized about it, what happens when you have to send ships through your own minefield. And it you are that organized, what happens when enemy intelligence obtains the outlays of your minefields? Clearing mines can be a pain. If the above scenario happens, though, it'll be *you* clearing *your* mines to either move your ships or rearrainge the minefield respectively. And this leads to a feasability question: In a world conquest game a friend of mine ran once, the following scenario happened: Country X needed to move stuff through the Red Sea. Country Y mined the Red Sea. Country X proceded to fill several supertankers with styrofoam and send them into the Red Sea before his fleet. The theory was that the styrofoam would keep the ship afloat despite mine detonations, and would clear corridors for the fleet. Possible or not? Mark Kinney kinney@wku.edu
hon@scs.carleton.ca (Edmund Hon) (03/31/91)
From: hon@scs.carleton.ca (Edmund Hon) In article <1991Mar30.020556.28498@amd.com> kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) writes: >(NB) have to keep the reactor running. Incidentally, a friend of mine thinks >that the Komsomolets accident was the result of an attemped reactor shutoff by >the Soviets (I think he's out of it in this case). At any rate, CS's pay for Is this the same incident where a Mike class SSN went down off Norway? >Re: Subs in general: The carrier defense plan accounts for subs. Coordinated >action with aircraft using MAD's and dipping sonars or sonobuoys can find the ^^^ I don't know if I'm being picky here, but I thought MADs are used for localizing the contact only, because they have a detection range measured in hundreds of yards? So normal search for SS/SSNs has to be conducted by acoustic means? >or a nearby destroyer can fire a standoff torpedo such as >ASROC at the contact. In some cases, nearby friendly submarines can be directed >against the threat. Related question here: Is the Mk50 torp (a Mk 46 replacement) in service now? What about the future replacement for SUBROC? (The sea lance?) Also, is the British Spearfish in service now? >Re: Mines: Mines are nice, but have this annoying bug, in that they attack >*everything*. So you have your beaches mined? Great, but if you aren't >organized about it, what happens when you have to send ships through your own First of all, I want to ask if anybody has heard of something called CAPTOR (CAPsuled TORpedo). It is a container with a torpedo inside, chained to the bottom of the sea. A very simple passive sonar was included. When the acoustic signal of an enemy vessel (surface ship or sub) is detected, the torp will be released. I saw this on a magazine article almost 10 years ago, and I wonder if such a thing actually exsists. Now, assuming CAPTOR does exsist, then you can "mine" your beach/port with these babies without worrying about the safty of your own ships.
t-scotta@uunet.uu.net (04/02/91)
From: microsoft!t-scotta@uunet.uu.net With regard to the encapsulated torpedo. The book "Modern Submarine Warfare" by David Miller & John Jordan and published in 1987, it indicated that the US does have an encapsulated torpedo system and that it is effective but it gives no other details. Other than this one shortcoming, this book has been very good. Scott Avery My opinions are completely my own
t-scotta@uunet.uu.net (04/02/91)
From: microsoft!t-scotta@uunet.uu.net With regard to the question of encapsulated torpedos, the book, "Modern Submarine Warfare" by David Miller and John Jordan published in 1987 states, that the US Navy does have an encapsulated torpedo. It is basically a Mk.46. It however has no IFF capability. PS: Good Book Scott Avery My opinions are my own.
phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (04/02/91)
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) writes: > In a world conquest game a friend of mine ran once, the following >scenario happened: Country X needed to move stuff through the Red Sea. Country >Y mined the Red Sea. Country X proceded to fill several supertankers with >styrofoam and send them into the Red Sea before his fleet. The theory was that >the styrofoam would keep the ship afloat despite mine detonations, and would And the propellor and rudder are unprotected.
lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) (04/04/91)
From: lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang)
/ hpfcso:sci.military / hon@scs.carleton.ca (Edmund Hon) / 7:43 pm Mar 30, 1991 /
> What about the future replacement for SUBROC? (The sea lance?)
Last I heard, the Sea Lance was canceled.
John Langbudden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (04/04/91)
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Mk50 torpedo is in limited rate production. 46s will be in the inventory for some time. CAPTOR is a Mk46 moored in a capsule. So it's called a mine. The seeker for the torpedo has the same limitations as the actuating mechanisms for mines -- they may or may not be able to tell friend from foe. Rex Buddenberg
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (04/05/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
I would like to point out that, during the Kuwaiti reflagging operation in
mid-80s, there were several TELEVISED instances of supertankers taking lead in
front of U.S. warships, due to the mine threats posed by Iraq.
An empty supertanker, with lots of sealed compartments, is pretty tough to
sink.
Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
-- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --black@cfm.brown.edu (Joseph Kelly Black Gotlieb's student) (04/05/91)
From: black@cfm.brown.edu (Joseph Kelly Black Gotlieb's student) >kinney@wku.edu (Mark Kinney) writes: >>Y mined the Red Sea. Country X proceded to fill several supertankers with >>styrofoam and send them into the Red Sea before his fleet. The theory was that >>the styrofoam would keep the ship afloat despite mine detonations, Wow! This sounds really expensive (as well as flammable)! Imagine all those styrofoam peanuts in the Red Sea :-) How much petrol does it take to make styrofoam? Could cost more than it's worth. [Styrofoam's cheaper per cubic meter than oil, I'm pretty sure! --CDR] Kel