roeber@eeyore.caltech.edu (Frederick G.M. Roeber) (08/13/90)
From: roeber@eeyore.caltech.edu (Frederick G.M. Roeber) Recent news items have described the military forces being sent to the Mideast. Many countries are sending warships, which may be used in a blockade, and may support troops in Saudi Arabia. Among the forces contributed, the Soviet Union has sent a command ship and an anti-submarine ship. Could someone please describe to me the value of ASW in this situation? What submarine threat is there? Thank you, Frederick. -------------------------<< Frederick G.M. Roeber >>-------------------------- roeber@caltech.edu or | Bat. 864, 2-A18 | Disclaimer: Are you kidding? If roeber@vxcern.cern.ch | CERN, SL Div. | more people shared my opinions, the +41 22 767 53 73 | Geneva, Switz. | world would be a much happier place! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) (08/15/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <1990Aug12.214732.3320@cbnews.att.com> roeber@eeyore.caltech.edu (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes: > >Recent news items have described the military forces being sent to the >Mideast. Many countries are sending warships, which may be used in a >blockade, and may support troops in Saudi Arabia. Among the forces >contributed, the Soviet Union has sent a command ship and an anti-submarine >ship. > >Could someone please describe to me the value of ASW in this situation? >What submarine threat is there? > Basically there is no submarine threat. Anti-Submarine Ship is a Soviet type designation, much as Amphibious Assault ship is the designation the USN uses to distignuish helicopter carriers from REAL carriers. They have Large and Small ASW ships. They generally correspond to the Western designations of destroyer and cruiser. Of course the Soviets have their political battles also. When the Kiev class carriers were first built they were designated as some type of ASW ship. The Soviets tend to use more descriptive type designations than the traditional Western designations (which admitedly once described the function, i.e. destroyer came from torpedo boat destroyer, etc.). The current (?) designation for the Kiev's is large helicopter carrying ship. I also think the large deck carriers are not called carriers for similar political reasons. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
aoki@hermes.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) (08/22/90)
From: aoki@hermes.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) writes: >roeber@eeyore.caltech.edu (Frederick G.M. Roeber) writes: >>Among the forces >>contributed, the Soviet Union has sent a command ship and an anti-submarine >>ship. It should be noted that the Soviets, like the US and UK, keep a CruDes force in the PG/Arabian Sea region at all times. The ships were undoubtedly there to begin with. Big contribution .. >>Could someone please describe to me the value of ASW in this situation? One could equally well ask what value a SPRUANCE DD or O.H. PERRY FFG has in the Gulf. Our nominal ASW platforms have significant ASUW (e.g, Harpoon, Tomahawk anti-ship, medium-caliber naval guns) and strike warfare (Tomahawk land-attack) capabilities. I haven't looked closely at the photos of the Soviet ASW ship, but I imagine that it's a UDALOY DD or SOVREMENNY DDG, either of which would be a formidable opponent for the PG/PGM/PTG forces of the Gulf. >Anti-Submarine Ship is a Soviet type designation [...] >They have Large and Small ASW ships. They generally >correspond to the Western designations of destroyer and cruiser. Destroyer and frigate .. cruisers are AAW/ASUW platforms. (Please don't bring up the LAMPS and SQR-19 on the AEGIS cruisers.) >I also think the large deck carriers are >not called carriers for similar political reasons. "Fleet air self-defense ship" or some such. "Carriers" are offensive weapons used for the oppression of the Third World .. they've been saying so for decades .. -- Paul M. Aoki | aoki@postgres.Berkeley.EDU | "Nice girls don't explode."