smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) (01/18/91)
From: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) (for sci.military) Is there any word (speculation, rumor) about the deployment of U.S. SSN's in the Persian Gulf. What is SOP for a task force in this tactical situation? -Bill
gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) (01/19/91)
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) In article <1991Jan18.004731.9410@cbnews.att.com>, smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) writes: |> |> |> From: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) |> (for sci.military) |> Is there any word (speculation, rumor) about the deployment of |> U.S. SSN's in the Persian Gulf. What is SOP for a task force |> in this tactical situation? |> -Bill While it is normally accepted that an SSN or two would accompany a CBG, I doubt that any are in the Gulf in that capacity. First, the Iraqi's do not have enough of a navy to justify the SSNs presence and my guess is the Gulf is too shallow to ensure the sub's safety. The only purpose for their presence would be as a (covert?) cruise missle platform (the LA class normally carries 12 missles). We don't really need a covert launch platform since the Iraqi's probably can't do anything about our overt platforms. So that leaves us with just a cruise missle platform (i.e. if SSNs are in the Gulf, we needed to launch a hell-of-alot more missles that could be carried by our surface ships. This is only a guess. -- Gordon (gordon@meaddata.com)
drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) (01/19/91)
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (donald_newcomb) >From: smithw@hamblin.math.byu.edu (Dr. William V. Smith) >(for sci.military) >Is there any word (speculation, rumor) about the deployment of >U.S. SSN's in the Persian Gulf. What is SOP for a task force >in this tactical situation? >-Bill A cursory glance at any chart of the Persian (Arabian) Gulf will reveil that the maximum depth is about 80m. The average depth is about 50m. The Arabian (west) half is mostly less than 25m. The whole place is littered with oil platforms, well heads and pipe lines. With surface trafic taking up the first 20m, or so, _I_ wouldn't want to be in a sub in the Gulf. ========================================================================== | Donald R. Newcomb | Disclaimer: Disclaimer? I don' | | (601) 863-2235 | need no stinking disclaimer. I | | drn@pinet.aip.org (new) | pay for this mailbox. | ==========================================================================
aoki@hermes.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) (01/22/91)
From: aoki@hermes.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >While it's true that a SSN only carries 12 VLS Tomahawks, remember that >a BB only carries 32 (8 x 4 missile ABL's). Those box launchers take a >long time to reload. When you've got about a half-dozen VLS DD963's with 61 VLS cells and no SM-2s, three or four CG-47/52's, a bunch of twin ABL shooters, and two BB61's, subs become a real poor cruise missile delivery asset by comparison. Plus, someone has to keep an eye on Vlad and Petr while the SWO's play in the Gulf. Loading a round onto an ABL ship isn't as easy as craning a box into a cell, but then reloading VLS isn't quite that trivial either. A good handling team with well-maintained ABLs doesn't take very long at all to put eight birds away. ABLs take all-up-rounds (AURs) like everyone else. -- Paul M. Aoki | aoki@postgres.Berkeley.EDU | ...!ucbvax!aoki
eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) (01/24/91)
From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
The tube says, "Tomahawks were recently launched from an SSN."
They did not specific the Gulf (mostly probably) or Red Sea
(why fly of S.A. and malfunction there?).
--e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
AMERICA: CHANGE IT OR LOSE IT.smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (01/25/91)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) In article <1991Jan24.034059.20462@cbnews.att.com>, eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes: > From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) > The tube says, "Tomahawks were recently launched from an SSN." > They did not specific the Gulf (mostly probably) or Red Sea > (why fly of S.A. and malfunction there?). Recent news reports speak of Tomahawks launched from the Mediterranean, and overflying Turkey to reach Iraq. Some reports claim that these have been launched from subs; the Pentagon refuses to say anything about submarine operations.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/04/91)
From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu writes: From <PAISLEY%auvm.auvm.edu@VM1.gatech.edu> > I am not sure about this, but it was my understanding that the water > in the Gulf was too shallow for Submarines, which usually like 400+ > feet of water in which to operate. My common sense says they were > probably outside the Gulf itself. While a submarine is giving away its primary defense, going deep and quiet, by operating in shallow water, and one has to be a little chary about sliding the cooling water intakes into the mud, it is possible to fight a submarine on the surface in well under fifty feet of water, and submerged (with inconvenience) in under a hundred. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- Former MT1(SS), USN.