Sub-Launched SAMs

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

On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
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.


Sheesh... Boomer sailor right?

(relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)

BB

On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard wrote:
On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:





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.

Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *

(relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)

BB

Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.

David

On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard wrote:





On Sep 18, 9:22*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

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.

Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *

(relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)

BB

Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.

David

Sheesh... I think I made this mistake before. I'll blame the
meds* I took before I posted this time
I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list
of the bubbleheads posting here. I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
claim the fish. Just can't keep the rest in memory.
Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine
book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an
authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth
charges.
My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the
Deep... I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. However you should
not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful,
demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called
a Submariner...

BB

"BlackBeard" wrote in message
...
I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
claim the fish.

start flashback

Got them fair and square too. Caught them in my teeth in a bar in Dunoon
Scotland, where they had been dropped into a beer mug full of assorted
shots. Heaving one's guts out afterwards was considered part of the game.
When I came out of the pub's smelly head, I was still wearing that nasty
toilet seat. My shipmates called me "horsecollar" from that day on.

The next day, the XO reclaimed them so that a visiting assistant SecDef (the
Mr. Packard from HP) would have a ceremony to perform. The SOB was late, so
I had to shiver on deck for an hour while I waited to get my dolphins back.

end flashback

Vaughn

BlackBeard wrote:

Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
fish

If your work ever brings you up this way, we'll have to hit the local
brewpub... (Ralph L, occasional poster here in SMN, also lives in the
vicinity.)

Can't quite put it away with the same enthusiasm/volume as I did in
the old days though.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:27:45 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote:

On Sep 18, 10:17*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:38*am, BlackBeard wrote:

Sheesh... Boomer sailor right? *

(relax David, it was all in love- fellow Dolphin wearer...)

Sir, you have given me a great honor, but I have never been a
submariner. I tip my hat to you guys.

Sheesh... I think I made this mistake before. I'll blame the
meds* I took before I posted this time
I'm just going to have to start another thread and generate a list
of the bubbleheads posting here. I know Derek, Vaughn, and Max all
claim the fish. Just can't keep the rest in memory.

USS Michigan SBBN-727 Blue - 1982-88.

In fact, Derek can vouch for me as authentic (he knows someone who
served in RC Division on Michigan with me - Matt Henson).

Actually have met and drank with Max with his port and starboard
fish- in a historic Submariners bar, at a book signing for a Submarine
book, sitting across from the ****ter off the USS Dolphin as an
authentic klaxon sounded and required us to drink nuclear depth
charges.
My apologies for including you among the unwashed Denizens of the
Deep... I respect you, your posts, and demeanor. However you should
not be accused of having participated in the terribly painful,
demeaning, degrading, raw sexual process that is required to be called
a Submariner...
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose