View Single Post
  #6  
Old September 18th 09, 03:10 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Sub-Launched SAMs

On Sep 18, 1:47*am, BlackBeard wrote:
On Sep 17, 10:03*pm, Dennis wrote:

Gordon wrote:
My theory is because they know that in general, P-3s and other ASW air
assets work alone. *I know, I know, we practice all sorts of combiney
type ops, but in the real world, the only times I ran into Soviet
submarines, we were the only thing local. *Blow us out of the sky and
you'd have at least an hour or so to deep and go hide. *For sub
hunters of my era (1970s-1990), the Kilo with its SUBSAM and the
probable fitting to the later Victor IIIs and Akulas were a real cause
for concern.


* * * * The voice of experience! *There you have it.


Dennis


Not quite. Considering that no known manned aircraft has ever been
shot down buy a sub-launched SAM in a real situation, (does anyone
even know of a successful test?) it is just an anecdote about what
they _thought_ might happen.
I've known Gordon for a long time and respect the hell out of him.
But their concern about an unproven system is not proof of concept for
the one this thread addresses.
* As I said earlier, Paul is the Man...


True - YYMV. It's what we _thought_, because that is what the intel
was telling us. In the Craig Peyer / Walker era, we were all chasing
our tails over bogus intel and things that went bump in the night.

G