AviationBanter - View Single Post - High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

Charlie Wolf · June 15th 06, 02:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:21:39 -0400, wrote:

On 15 Jun 2006 09:47:26 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

wrote:

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
future.

The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.

Not only in the possible ability of the sub to engage an air target
but also in the P-3's ability to engage a submarine target without
resorting to low level tactics.

This means that the main reason might be quite mundane: safety of
flight. Operations at low altitude are a "thrill." The old S-2 was a
rather manueverable old bird, but horsing one around at 100' day (300'
night) was not for the faint of heart. That was particularly true on
a datum with a couple of other Stoofs and a Whistling **** Can or two.

The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
is not so manueverable.

I've never flown a Viking, so I can't comment on its low level
handling.
S-3 had a "loiter" capablility that gave it a 450 knot "dash" speed
(in theory), and then could loiter on-station at around 150kts
comfortably. It was capable of slower speeds. I want to say approach
speed was around 110 to 112 KIAS. I was a back seater so my memory
isn't the best on this. With "barndoor" flaps, it was a good
low-level onstation platform.
Regards,

Sometimes the ability to do something from a distance is a Good Thing
for multiple reasons.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão