High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

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.

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

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

wrote:
cut

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


Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:02 GMT, Gord Beaman
wrote:

wrote:
cut

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


Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...

I dunno. IIRC it was 200' day and 300' night. It might be that the
Argus was more manueverable or that Candians had more balls! ;-)

Even so, low altitude ops, even out out "opposition" was a challenging
environment. If you can engage a target without going down with
little penalty in weapons performance then it seems to me to be a "no
brainer."


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

wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:02 GMT, Gord Beaman
wrote:

wrote:
cut

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


Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...

I dunno. IIRC it was 200' day and 300' night. It might be that the
Argus was more manueverable or that Candians had more balls! ;-)


Dunno! ...we sure didn't do much maneuvering there I assure
you!...BTW, we think that that's what happened to the one we lost
off Puerto Rico...he might have dipped a wingtip...we'll never
know, they're at the bottom of the Mariannas(?) Trench now.

Even so, low altitude ops, even out out "opposition" was a challenging
environment. If you can engage a target without going down with
little penalty in weapons performance then it seems to me to be a "no
brainer."


Absolutely!...no sense in endangering tender pink bodies unless
there's some gain to be had.

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:02 GMT, Gord Beaman
wrote:

wrote:
cut

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


Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...

I dunno. IIRC it was 200' day and 300' night. It might be that the
Argus was more manueverable or that Candians had more balls! ;-)


Dunno! ...we sure didn't do much maneuvering there I assure
you!...BTW, we think that that's what happened to the one we lost
off Puerto Rico...he might have dipped a wingtip...we'll never
know, they're at the bottom of the Mariannas(?) Trench now.

Dipped a wingtip in the Caribbean, and ended up in the western Pacific? Wow
must have been a spectacular crash.

The Puerto Rico Trench (and Milwaukee Deep) is just north of Puerto Rico.
The Marianna Trench goes from Guam to Japan.


Matt.

Since the Mk-54 was designed for anti-sub work, would it require any
modifications for anti-ship usage?

Gord Beaman wrote
Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...

I did 3 years in the P-2 and 2 years in the P-3, VP-21 and VP-46.
We were always at 100' or lower during the day and 200' at night.
Not a problem! :-)

Bob Moore

Gord Beaman wrote:
wrote:
cut

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


Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...


I remember the Argus at an airshow in '70 or '71 when the Fincastle was at
RAAF Edinburgh. Very impressive low level show - weather was fine
for the practice day, overcast on show-day.

4 big radials still have an appeal of their own ....


The Orions do a fairly blistering routine when the air is clear, but they
still smell like a kero heater.




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

"Dave Kearton" wrote:

Gord Beaman wrote:
wrote:
cut

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


Gee...the Argus was a much larger a/c than the P-3 and our limit
was 100 feet...why have they limited the P-3 to 200?...


I remember the Argus at an airshow in '70 or '71 when the Fincastle was at
RAAF Edinburgh. Very impressive low level show - weather was fine
for the practice day, overcast on show-day.

4 big radials still have an appeal of their own ....


The Orions do a fairly blistering routine when the air is clear, but they
still smell like a kero heater.

Yes the Orion/Aurora indeed is a performer, more total HP than
the Argus and a smaller/lighter airframe...I still think that the
Argus could make a better airshow performer...low and slow with
everything hanging and high power on, the deafening noise
produced made little kids cry in fear!...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)