Sub-Launched SAMs

On Sep 17, 11:07*am, wrote:

I always thought sub-launched SAM's were a bad idea, since they
give away the position of the launching sub. *But the idea refuses
to die.

Why?

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.

v/r Gordon

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

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...

BB

In message
,
BlackBeard writes
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.

The only live-fire test I know about is for the US SIAM (Self Initiated
Antiaircraft Missile) which in 1981 shot down a QH-50 drone at a range
of two miles and altitude of 1500' (Friedman, "US Naval Weapons"). That
seems to have been purely a missile test, not an all-up system
evaluation. SIAM was - as far as I can tell - intended to be launched in
a capsule that contained a search radar which would hand off target data
to the missile, which would then use IR homing to acquire and intercept.

The missile got as far as test firings but it seems the rest of the
system never got beyond concept phase.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message
,
BlackBeard writes
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.

The only live-fire test I know about is for the US SIAM (Self Initiated
Antiaircraft Missile) which in 1981 shot down a QH-50 drone at a range
of two miles and altitude of 1500' (Friedman, "US Naval Weapons"). That
seems to have been purely a missile test, not an all-up system
evaluation. SIAM was - as far as I can tell - intended to be launched in
a capsule that contained a search radar which would hand off target data
to the missile, which would then use IR homing to acquire and intercept.

The missile got as far as test firings but it seems the rest of the
system never got beyond concept phase.


Wasn't there talk of some sort of floating raft that could be released
from the submarine that had some sort of SAM installation mounted on it?

I'm remembering all this from two or three decades ago and I do remember
quite a lot of pretty fevered talk at the time, articles in the IISS
'informal' magazine and lots of rather silly stuff about submarines
engaging helicopters in what passed for the 'informed press', which in
those days was mainly journalists who been conscripts in the army twenty
years earlier...


--
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.

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

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.

The same is true of many combat systems afloat across the world,
combat whose [likely] performance is otherwise accepted uncritically
here and elsewhere.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Sep 18, 11:20*am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
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.

The same is true of many combat systems afloat across the world,
combat whose [likely] performance is otherwise accepted uncritically
here and elsewhere.

Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
torpedoes?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In message
,
David E. Powell writes
Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
torpedoes?

Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
back onto the real target).

Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam

On Sep 18, 5:15*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
In message
,
David E. Powell writes

Such as lightweight torpedoes on destroyers and frigates, where the
ship would already be in rane for a Submarine with heavyweight
torpedoes?

Detection ranges can be unpredictable; the submarine may be trying to
sneak past the escort to get a shot at the HVU it's protecting; and, if
the escort's attacked or it detects a submarine torpedo firing, an
immediate countershot may discompose the submarine, which will reduce
the effectiveness of a wire-guided torpedo (a lively torpedo
countermeasure manoeuvre is likely to break the guidance wire, so when
the torpedo goes for the "ooh, shiny!" acoustic decoy it can't be nudged
back onto the real target).

True. I should have considered modern carrier groups or convoys could
spread out over quite a bit of distance. If the sub fires at a
destroyer or frigate, they maybe targeting themselves and losing the
chance at the main target.

Again, the DD/FF is an obstacle in the submarine's path, rather than a
primary target: since it's likely to be carrying lightweight torpedoes
in its air weapons store, why not give it the option to launch them? (On
a Type 23 they're fired straight from the magazine: the torpedo room has
two tubes either beam plus a door to the hangar)

That's a good argument too. It reminds me of a book I read about the
PQ 17 convoy of WW2, where the crew of a freighter cut off from a
dispersed convoy, having been warned not to tamper with the cargo,
broke out all manner of weaponry anyway because they figured they had
it anyway and were on their own, so why let it just sit? I recall they
used machine guns mounted on tanks, along with some other weapons, to
deefnd against air attacks.

--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

Paul J. Adam