nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) (06/02/89)
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
As I was playing 688 at lunch the other day, and I had an idea that
I want a reality check for.
Here's the situation: I'm at scope depth. Some clown in a helo is
dipping and pinging me with his active sonar. There isn't a thing that
I can do to this damn helo. Or is there?
What would a Tomahawk cruise missile do to a helo or an Orion? Or
a Harpoon for that matter?
Can anybody comment on the possibility of Anti-air capabilities on
subs?
While the 1,000 pound warhead might be considered insufficent to
take out heavy cruisers, I'd think that it would do a real number on a
helo or a P3 Orion or a Bear. The Harpoon has a top speed of .9
mach, it's certainly fast enough to catch any helo, a Bear, and after a
short chase even the Orion. The Tomahawk at 475kt is faster than the
Orion at 415kt, but that would be a long chase.
Since one of the methods for dealing with ASW protected convoys is
to go after the protection first, why not go after the most mobile arm
of the ASW group, its air units. They shoot frigates, don't they, why
not helos? How many helo losses would it take to screw up the ASW
efforts of a convoy? I doubt that the frigates carry many spare helos!
(Whatcha think, frigate guys?)
This tactic would fail in the face of friendly aircraft, since the
missiles might go after friends, but how often do attack subs have air
support?
This one also has the problem of exposure, you have to be close to
the surface to do it. But as a contingency measure, I find it
appealing.
Neil Kirby
...cbsck!nakbrianb@cs.purdue.edu (Brian Bresnahan) (06/03/89)
From: bucsb!brianb@cs.purdue.edu (Brian Bresnahan) In article <7065@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > > >From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) > As I was playing 688 at lunch the other day, and I had an idea that > I want a reality check for. > Here's the situation: I'm at scope depth. Some clown in a helo is > dipping and pinging me with his active sonar. There isn't a thing that > I can do to this damn helo. Or is there? In reality, the only thing you can do is call for support. US attack subs(Los Angeles, improved Los Angeles, Sturgeon etc.) have no anti-air ability. They have no air capable missiles, they have no guidance radar. > > What would a Tomahawk cruise missile do to a helo or an Orion? Or > a Harpoon for that matter? Not much, those missiles were not designed attack air targets, and to the best of my knowledge have no real chance of enagaging air targets. They are self guided cruise missiles designed to attack surface ships or land targets. They operate at an altitude lower than most helos fly. They are also impact weapons, not airburst, which means only a direct hit is a kill. > > Can anybody comment on the possibility of Anti-air capabilities on > subs? > None currently. > This one also has the problem of exposure, you have to be close to > the surface to do it. But as a contingency measure, I find it > appealing. Apparently the naval designers of the US and USSR do not. There are lot of problems involved, the biggest of which is the space required for an air defense system, which requires tracking radars, weapons directors, fire control systems and the SAMs themselves. This would detract from the primary mission of sinking ships/launching ballistic missiles. I have heardd of experiments of trying to equip subs, with simple IR SAMs, but I have no heard of any results. > Neil Kirby > ...cbsck!nak +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsf.bu.edu engf0ic@BUACCA.bitnet
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (06/03/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) In article <7065@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > > > What would a Tomahawk cruise missile do to a helo or an Orion? Or > a Harpoon for that matter? As others have pointed out, these are surface-to-surface missiles, lacking the guidance to hit an evading helicopter. Your best best would be to get directly underneath the helo and hope for a lucky hit with a vertically-launched SSM 8-) > Can anybody comment on the possibility of Anti-air capabilities on > subs? In the October '87 issue of USNI "Proceedings" there's an article titled "Keeping the Orion a Hunter", which discusses the various threats to that ASW aircraft. Among them are sub-launched AA weapons. They claim that the British have developed a sub-launched antiaircraft missile (SLAM) using their Blowpipe missile and a television sighting system in their attack periscope. Sea trials were conducted in 1972 (!) aboard a RN Oberon-class sub. The Swedes and Germans have also proposed SAM's for their diesel boats; the Swedes are looking at a modified AIM-9L Sidewinder, which is ejected from the sub in a buoyant capsule and launched from the surface. Mid-course guidance is provided by the sub's original targetting data, with terminal heat-seeking guidance internal to the missile. The article comments, though, that it is difficult for a sub to accurately gage the altitude of a high-flying aircraft, making the mid-course guidance data tenuous; by flying above 10,000 feet, the P-3 could make targetting difficult, and completely evade shorter-range SAM's; of course, flying at this altitude makes it very difficult to drop a homing torpedo within its 2500-yard search radius of the sub. The article references Bill Gunston's _The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Rockets and Missiles_ (1979) for other SLAM systems. > They shoot frigates, don't they, Um, that's "canoes." "They Shoot Canoes, Don't They ?" 8-) (inside joke for Pat McMannis fans) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (06/03/89)
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) Re: Subs fighting back against aircraft and helicopters using Harpoon etc. Missiles such as Harpoon have hardly got the right guidance system to lock onto a small, fast moving target such as an aircraft. I do seem to remember that Short's were trying to sell a submarine version of their hand-launched "Blowpipe" anti-aircraft missile some years ago. The idea was to vertically cluster several such launchers in a pressure-tight container positioned in the top of the "sail", so that the sub would only have to expose the top of the sail to fire the missile. I haven't read anything about that idea since then; perhaps the consensus was that it was safer to stay below the surface rather than try and fight back. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------
budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (06/03/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Neil Kirby asks about AAW defenses for submarines. We have anecdotal photographs (look at Naval Institute Proceedings issues) of Soviet SSNs with purported AAW missiles sitting in the conning tower. Most commentators think they used balsa rather than some other wood... Sub has to sacrifice its covertness in order to nail the aircraft. Further, by the time the sub is aware of the aircraft, it's too late. So nobody has gotten terribly serious although the Brits toyed around with a small missile called Blowpipe. Neither Harpoon nor Tomahawk are very good choices -- they are anti-surface weapons, not AAW. If you wanted a tube-launched one, build a smaller one from existing components and carry a bigger loadout. On the other hand...SubRoc with its nuclear warhead was an ASW weapon -- said to have a Pk of 2.0 -- it effectively got the toher guy and you didn't have to have a very good fire control solution. And it also got you. Certainly nail any aircraft in the neighborhood if it vented to the sruface... b
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (06/03/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) In article <7065@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > ... > Here's the situation: I'm at scope depth. Some clown in a helo is > dipping and pinging me with his active sonar. There isn't a thing that > I can do to this damn helo. Or is there? > ... > Can anybody comment on the possibility of Anti-air capabilities on > subs? > ... There have been some rumors about some Soviet submarines being fitted with small SAMs on their periscope masts. Most often the rumors have to do with the Akula (SSN) and Kilo (SS) classes. Mast space is quite limited. Therefore, it is likely that the SAM will be small and short range. A small missile probably rules out an active radar homing missile. There probably is not enough mast room for a weapon director illuminator. Nor is it likely that a reasonable air-search or height-finding radar can be installed. Thus, it seems that semi-active radar homing is out too. Anyway, stealthy submariners would probably not be happy with too many radar emissions or having to hang around to guide the missile. So, it is probably likely that some sort of infra-red missile would be used. It would be optically sighted. Perhaps, the missile system would be converted from an existing SAM, like Stinger or Gremlin. If we were talking about a non-superpower, a Javelin or RBS-70 conversion might be possible. But these systems have the disadvantage of having to guide the missile through it's entire flight. Ideally, submariners would like to shoot out an encapsulated missile and not have to use the periscope. But there are problems with target acquisition. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (06/05/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >They claim that the British have developed a sub-launched antiaircraft >missile (SLAM) using their Blowpipe missile and a television sighting >system in their attack periscope. Sea trials were conducted in 1972 (!) >aboard a RN Oberon-class sub. Although the RN hasn't installed this, interestingly enough it is quite persistently reported that Shorts (the company involved) *did* sell some of these to undisclosed customers. Speculation points at the Israelis, who do have a few diesel subs. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (06/05/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) >Sub has to sacrifice its covertness in order to nail the aircraft. >Further, by the time the sub is aware of the aircraft, it's >too late... As I've mentioned before in other contexts, the peacetime emphasis on stealthiness in submarine training has to go out the window in a real war: a submarine cannot accomplish much that's useful without revealing itself. Boldness is required. Also, again as mentioned in other contexts, the biggest effects of subs with AA armament would be psychological rather than material. Even an occasional aircraft kill -- or near-miss -- by a sub will make the ASW aircraft much more cautious, which will considerably reduce their combat effectiveness. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (06/06/89)
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) In article <7132@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes: > > >From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) >>Sub has to sacrifice its covertness in order to nail the aircraft. > >As I've mentioned before in other contexts, the peacetime emphasis on >stealthiness in submarine training has to go out the window in a real >war: a submarine cannot accomplish much that's useful without revealing >itself. Boldness is required. > >Also, again as mentioned in other contexts, the biggest effects of subs >with AA armament would be psychological rather than material. While there is a shadow of truth in what Henry says, ASW helicopters are generally expendable compared to subs. Taking the argument to the logical extreme all military aircraft should be armed. The argument is very similar to one which took place some months back about the fighting ability of certain special force units. Good ones know when NOT to fight. So it goes with subs. That's their special place and benefit. Nothing better than a near miss on the ASW, even a hit, then the rest of the ASW forces could try and pound the hell out of the now exposed sub. Care to think how helpless the sub crew would feel? Better to not give one's position away. It amazes me that number of people who would want to get into an engagement. I would hope most of these types get weeded out during the selection process. But I would also hope that small handheld Stringer type be available internally. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die.
ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) (06/07/89)
From: hplabs!ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) Re: Fighting back from below Actually if *I* had a helo on my back, I might consider launching a Harpoon. The tradeoff is that for all the fright you put into the helo driver, he gets back a beautiful smoke trail marking datum on the sub. (There *is* a Fire Control Solution that can be useful for getting someone off your back.) But! A Harpoon might look at a hovering, dipping helo as if it were a ship. After all, the helo is slow and close to the surface of the water. And, Harpoon is an equal-opportunity missile. When I was active duty, my CO's frequently wished for AA capability. I don't think it would be all that hard. After all, if a man can launch one, why not a sub? All it takes is money :-)))) Just my opinion, Ron Miller ex-OOD USS Cinncinnatti (SSN-693)
nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) (06/07/89)
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) In article <7159@cbnews.ATT.COM> eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) writes: [various parts deleted, including Henry's reply..] >The argument is very similar to one which took place some months back about >the fighting ability of certain special force units. Good ones >know when NOT to fight. So it goes with subs. That's their special >place and benefit. My context in the original posting was that the location of the sub has already been blown. I was at scope depth, and the dipping helo found me. In reality, the helo would be getting ready to drop Mk46's on me. I wanted something to mess him up while he was trying to get me. He already knew I was there. But I was where I wanted to be, and I wanted to get my cruise missiles off before I ran. I needed to buy time by splashing the helo. >Nothing better than a near miss on the ASW, even a hit, then the rest of >the ASW forces could try and pound the hell out of the now exposed sub. Why does the near miss make the ASW guys do anything different? (other than morale effects). If they were going to prosecute the sub, they'd do it if it fired or not. >Care to think how helpless the sub crew would feel? Better to not >give one's position away. It amazes me that number of people who would >want to get into an engagement. I would hope most of these types get For subs, running now if you haven't been discovered makes the best sense. I was after a desparation/backup measure in case the other side was having a lucky day. >weeded out during the selection process. But I would also hope that >small handheld Stringer type be available internally. > >Another gross generalization from > >--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov In summary: 1) This type of response may have such limited application that it's not worth the cost and space required. 2) If a sub commander needs this, he's already in serious trouble. 3) It's technically feasible. 4) The US and perhaps NATO and the Warsaw Pact don't have it in standard service. 5) It would certainly reduce the efficiency of the ASW air arm after a few successful uses. Missing from this was any comment on how many 'spare' helos there are for ASW work in a convoy situation. Is this a weak link or are the helos rarely threatened? Thanks for all of the responses. Neil Kirby ...cbsck!nak
jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) (06/07/89)
From: Jeff K Medcalf <sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET> The Royal Navy developed a system several years ago called SLAM (Submarine Launched Antiaircraft Missile). It was fitted to several vessels, and consisted of mounting a 4-tube retractable launcher for Blowpipe infrared missiles in the sail. Apparently, there were problems with leakage, noise, and target ident. which combined with a poor kill percentage and limited engagement envelope to kill the system. Sorry not to have more numbers and names, but my reference is at home. -- I dream I'm safe jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP Soft and so nice Jeff Medcalf Soft and so nice It's a wonderful womb <-The Church, "Hotel Womb"
eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) (06/08/89)
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) In article <7209@cbnews.ATT.COM> nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: > My context in the original posting was that the location of the sub > has already been blown. This was not clear, you just mentioned dipping. Not location. Last evening at a book store I just chanced upon a book on ASW. It had a diagram of the English Blowpipe set up. If necessary, I can be coaxed to get a reference. Send mail. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die.
esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) (06/08/89)
From: "ross paul weiner" <esco@tank.uchicago.edu>
In article <7199@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write:
:From: hplabs!ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller)
:Re: Fighting back from below
:Actually if *I* had a helo on my back, I might consider launching a Harpoon.
:The tradeoff is that for all the fright you put into the helo driver, he
:gets back a beautiful smoke trail marking datum on the sub. (There *is* a
:Fire Control Solution that can be useful for getting someone off your back.)
:But! A Harpoon might look at a hovering, dipping helo as if it were a ship.
:After all, the helo is slow and close to the surface of the water. And,
:Harpoon is an equal-opportunity missile.
:When I was active duty, my CO's frequently wished for AA capability. I don't
:think it would be all that hard. After all, if a man can launch one, why
:not a sub? All it takes is money :-))))
:
:Just my opinion,
:Ron Miller
:ex-OOD USS Cinncinnatti (SSN-693)
I remember hearing a rumour that the torpedoes on a sub can get enthusiastic
and home in on the helo's downwash. Should make a heck of a photo.
--
Ross P. Weiner Dandy Dirks Discount Disclaimers
esco@tank.uchicago.edu "You can't sue me, I'm broke!"brianb@husc6.harvard.edu (Brian Bresnahan) (06/09/89)
From: bucsb!brianb@husc6.harvard.edu (Brian Bresnahan) >From: hplabs!ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) > >Re: Fighting back from below > > >Actually if *I* had a helo on my back, I might consider launching a Harpoon. >The tradeoff is that for all the fright you put into the helo driver, he >gets back a beautiful smoke trail marking datum on the sub. (There *is* a >Fire Control Solution that can be useful for getting someone off your back.) Not to mention any surface ships in the area, if they are in range. >But! A Harpoon might look at a hovering, dipping helo as if it were a ship. >After all, the helo is slow and close to the surface of the water. And, >Harpoon is an equal-opportunity missile. I doubt that the Harpoon would even be able to acquire a Helocopter as a target. It is much smaller than any ships and does no have much of a radar image near the surface.(Which is where the missile is looking). As soon a the pilot sees the launch of the missile he climbs for a higher altitude. He does have a brief moment to react, and it is probably enough when trying to avoid a missile looking for a surface ship. Surface ships use helocopters with blip-enhancers as decoys for missiles, and these are not expected to be hit so why should a helocopter without its blip-enhancer expect to be hit. > >When I was active duty, my CO's frequently wished for AA capability. I don't >think it would be all that hard. After all, if a man can launch one, why >not a sub? All it takes is money :-)))) > AA capability is not impossible on submarines, just not currently installed. ==================================== Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsb.bu.edu engf0ic@BUACCA.bitnet
scameron@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Cameron) (06/09/89)
From: scameron@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Cameron) In article <7209@cbnews.ATT.COM>, nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) writes: [much deleted] > Missing from this was any comment on how many 'spare' helos there are > for ASW work in a convoy situation. Had an opportunity to tour (general public "where your money goes Mr. Tax Payer type tour) some units of the USS Constellation's escort force that put into Seattle over Memorial Day. Most of these ships are fairly old, (CV-64 being pre-nuc), with the exception of the Valley Forge. While several of the ships were not open to public tours (Constellation, USS California, USS Henry B. Wilson (DDG-7) ) I did get a chance to tour three of the escorts: USS Marvin Shields (FF-1044? Knox class). Carries one very tiny helo, intended primarily for plane-guard/rescue duty I think (according to the left-seater who was "explaining" it). The rather clever hangar design, which telescopes to allow the same deck space to serve as both landing pad and hangar, is a retrofit just large enough for the single bird. USS Valley Forge (CG-50, Aegis ship). 2 LAMPS helos. USS Fox ["tour" consisted of crossing over to Valley Forge] - Saw one LAMPS helo on deck, hangar didn't look big enough for two, but perhaps would be if the second were creatively stowed. Of the ships not open for tour, the Wilson doesn't have a helo deck, and while the Constellation does carry a number of helos, I don't know what fraction have an ASW mission.
hwh%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Howard Hughes) (06/10/89)
From: Howard Hughes <hwh%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> >From article <7209@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby): > > > My context in the original posting was that the location of the sub > has already been blown. I was at scope depth, and the dipping helo > found me. In reality, the helo would be getting ready to drop Mk46's > on me. I wanted something to mess him up while he was trying to get > me. He already knew I was there. But I was where I wanted to be, and > I wanted to get my cruise missiles off before I ran. I needed to buy > time by splashing the helo. > You might like to read the account of the attack on the Argentinian submarine caught on the surface by British Royal Navy helicopters off St Georgia in the early days of the Falklands campaign. The submarine (a conventional - whose name I forget) was caught on the surface by an ASW Lynx helicopter. A homing torpedo was dropped but the Argentinian commander managed to evade it by remaining on the surface (apparently it wasn't able to acquire a surface target). The Lynx was carrying no other weapons and the crew eventually resorted to using their personal firearms with an Argentinian crew member in the conning tower shooting back with a rifle. Other helicopters eventually arrived, a Wasp fired a wire-guided missile at it and a couple of depth charges were dropped by a Wessex but the sub. while damaged made it into St. Georgia harbour. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. ************************************************************************** * Howard Hughes * Dept. of Artificial Intelligence * * * Edinburgh * **************************************************************************
ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) (06/12/89)
From: hplabs!ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) > I remember hearing a rumour that the torpedoes on a sub can get enthusiastic > and home in on the helo's downwash. Should make a heck of a photo. > > -- > > Ross P. Weiner Dandy Dirks Discount Disclaimers > esco@tank.uchicago.edu "You can't sue me, I'm broke!" I heard the stories too. Usually followed by, "But they fixed that with X feature." Helo has to be at a *low* hover to splash him that way :-)))) Ron
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (06/13/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <7260@cbnews.ATT.COM> esco@tank.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) writes: >I remember hearing a rumour that the torpedoes on a sub can get enthusiastic >and home in on the helo's downwash. Should make a heck of a photo. A couple of years back, when I took the Tactical Warfare Overview course at the Fleet Combat Training Center, Pacific for background on a project I was working on, one of the attendees had a series of photographs like that. The ship he was assigned to was conducting torpedo exercises; they had a helo out monitoring the torpedo run. When the torpedo launched, the gyros failed, and the torpedo kept trying to turn nose up. The series of pictures showed the torpedo leaving the tube, then leaping out of the water at the helo (the first leap only missed by about five feet); more pictures showed the torpedo making five more attempts to catch the helo, but since each time it hit the water tailfirst it lost some velocity, it didn't leap as high next time. Eventually, it couldn't make it back out of the water and went spastic. They recovered it after it ran down and took it apart to find out what the problem was, which is when they found out about the gyro problem. Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
livesey@Apple.COM (John Livesey) (06/14/89)
From: livesey@Apple.COM (John Livesey) In article <7199@cbnews.ATT.COM> hplabs!ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) writes: > >Re: Fighting back from below > This month Aerospatial and MBB announced that they were working on a submarine-launched anti-helicopter missile called Polypheme. Its weight is about 100kb and range around 10km, and it will be launched using a cannister system similar to that used by the submarine-launched Exocet. This implies that it can be fired from underwater, as opposed to the British blowpipe system previously mentioned. jon.
cameron@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Charles Cameron) (06/17/89)
From: cameron@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Charles Cameron)
:From article <7159@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya):
:
: From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)
:
: In article <7132@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
:>
:>
:>From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
:>>Sub has to sacrifice its covertness in order to nail the aircraft.
:>
:>As I've mentioned before in other contexts, the peacetime emphasis on
:>stealthiness in submarine training has to go out the window in a real
:>war: a submarine cannot accomplish much that's useful without revealing
:>itself. Boldness is required.
:>
:
: While there is a shadow of truth in what Henry says, ASW helicopters
: are generally expendable compared to subs. Taking the argument to
: the logical extreme all military aircraft should be armed.
:
: Nothing better than a near miss on the ASW, even a hit, then the rest of
: the ASW forces could try and pound the hell out of the now exposed sub.
: Care to think how helpless the sub crew would feel? Better to not
: give one's position away. It amazes me that number of people who would
: want to get into an engagement. I would hope most of these types get
: weeded out during the selection process. But I would also hope that
: small handheld Stringer type be available internally.
:
In some of the first MK48 Torpedo test shots, the unit came upto 50 feet out
of the water and scored hits or near mises on the helicopters towing the noise
makers. This made pilots hard to find that would fly these type of flights!!!
Being able to shoot something at planes that are dropping bouys on you would
make the men of the sub feel alot better after many hours of listening to their
pinging. I say this after 6yrs on 688 class subs.
Also any one who believes that a sub firing anything does not make lots of
noise has no first hand knowledge of weapons leaving the tube.
cameron@sun.soe.clarkson.edu