High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

In article ,
wrote:


Bill, I had a 5 day trip on the USS Boston as a 'field trip' to answer
that question for our staff - even at a fairly good SOA, the crew of
the SSN could plot and avoid sonobuoy splashdowns, to the point that
they aimed their boat between passive buoys or steered completely
around them.

Interesting. Was this at all sea-state dependant? Did a choppy
surface make it tougher?

The sonargirls could also hear each 'mark on top',
whether it was a fixed wing or helo, but I didn't hear them call S-3
passes and I gathered they were harder to detect.

Big props flailing the air do create vibrations! ;-)

There was no problem
at all hearing the H-3, and it showed up on their sonar displays so it
wasn't just a matter of "Sparks" squeezing his headphones together and
yelling, "Cap'n! We got company!" A helo in a dip was easy to hear -
at least as easy as surface craft. I never felt comfortable in a dip
after that excursion.

I'm not so surprised about a helo. I am surprised about a standard
sonobouy.

I can vouch for Gordon's experiences, as I have heard to buoy splashes
listening to acoustical tapes from subs.



Of course, if the sub can hear a 'bouy splashing down that gives the
aircraft a deception opportunity by "shotgunning" an area with a
'bouys and decoys. That could be an effective tactic in some
circumstances.


Yes, them hearing a buoy splash is helpful to them but not necessarily a
pass from destruction. They can't be sure of the splashes they may nhot
have heard...and when the helo goes into dip, the crew in the helo
already knows the sub knows we're there. At that point, we do not so
much care. They can run all they like, but two or more leap-frogging
helos with active sonar (and a good crew of AW's) will very likely be
some of the last sounds they hear (next to the torps).



--Mike

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)

wrote:


Well, to get the "real" scoop on how Sniffer works you'd have to ask
Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Except that -she- wouldn't 'kiss and tell'


From my trusty NATOPS the AN/ASR-3 detected particulate matter from
diesel exhaust. It took in an air sample, analyzed it (I don't
remember how), and gave a visual and aural indication. It could be
set for sensitivity. It would give an "in trail" and "out of trail"
mark that the crew would plot, then reverse course to re-enter the
trail gaining additional "marks." Eventually you had a rough course
for the target.

Not only would it detect a snorting pig boat, it would also detect
destroyers, merchant ships, fishing boats, and the entire East Coast
of the U.S.!!!!! In other words, whatever value it had in open ocean
conditions was quickly lost as you approached crowded waters or
polution filled urban areas.

Of course, if the sub can hear a 'bouy splashing down that gives the
aircraft a deception opportunity by "shotgunning" an area with a
'bouys and decoys. That could be an effective tactic in some
circumstances.


Yes, I remember those, we didn't use it much, pretty imprecise as
you indicate...perhaps it worked sort of like a household smoke
detector?...we used to call it "Ash in" and "Ash out" as the
detector gained and lost the 'scent'...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

In message . com,
Kronoman writes
Well, this is mostly unconfirmed, but there were rumors to the effect
that Russian Kilo-class boats (but only the actual Russian ones, not
the ones sold to India, China and Iran) have a few SA-N-8 Gremlin
(Strela) or SA-N-9 Gauntlet (Kinzhal/Klinok) missiles mounted in the
sail, for defense when they're forced to surface.

Pressure-tight canister with a SA-14/16/18 gripstock and a few rounds
inside, according to some sketches. Nothing more dramatic (and that
assumes it's actually present, I've not seen anything conclusive one way
or another)

This probably makes
more sense for diesel boats than nuclear ones, though. More likely they
carry Gremlin than Gauntlet, if anything at all - Gauntlet isn't a huge
missile, but it's not tiny either - see the size of the SA-N-9 VLS on
Udaloy, Neustrashimy or Kuznetsov.

Never mind the VLS, where do you put the Cross Swords director and the
surveillance/target acquisition to cue it? Like Sea Wolf, that's not a
compact system by the time you've brought all the required elements
along.

On the other hand, it does have the
advantage of being designed for vertical launch. Strela is normally a
MANPADS.

The Kilos apparently have good compartmentalisation and lots of reserve
buoyancy, so a lightweight torpedo hit might force one to the surface
but not sink it.

At that point, having a couple of SAMs immediately to hand might keep
MPA or helicopters at a respectful distance, enough that their torpedo
drops are done from a long way out if at all; this might be worthless
(if enemy surface units are to hand) or quite handy (if dealing with a
single helicopter or MPA, with its backup some way away). Wouldn't let
the Kilo do much more than limp away, but that might be enough to get it
and its crew home.

Some say that the Santa Fe incident had an influence, others say there's
no such canister of missiles anyway

--
Paul J. Adam

Michael Wise wrote:
In article ,
Andrew Swallow wrote:

Kronoman wrote:
[snip]

AA missiles on a sub aren't completely pointless. If you're stuck on
the surface for some reason (recovering/deploying SEALs, repairing,
etc), they might make a good 'oh crap' defense. Also, a canister that
could be quietly plopped out to bob to the surface, then launch a RAM
or Stinger or something similar might be somewhat useful for popping
helos. Probably only good in the hot-war scenario where your opponent
would risk dropping a weapon on a probsub contact, but not /entirely/
useless. Only worth anything if it's cheap, though (RAM? Stinger?
Strela?)

Submarines are normally on the surface when they are in port and can
only do shallow dives in rivers. Its home port is also the easiest
place to find a submarine. AS Pearl Harbour showed the best place to
attack any warship is when it is tied up.


Great, so the next time we're in active maritime combat, we'll just ask
the enemy to return their subs to port (and we'll do same), to
facilitate sinking them.


--Mike

Fully consistent with the Royal Navies traditional strategy of first
giving the enemy sailors a bloody nose and then a choice between dyeing
a cold, wet nasty death or spending the rest of the war in their home
port's brothels. (Except the UK closes its brothels and keeps its
warship at sea.)

Andrew Swallow

Gordon wrote:


[SNIP]

That brings up an interesting question; how effective is an ASW
aircraft's
MAD gear when the aircraft is at 20,000 feet?

Oh, you might detect a Typhoon, but not much else! Actually, as you
undoubtedly know, MAD slant range is far less than a mile so these
launches would have to be basically wishful thinking, or against a
visually sighted target such as a sinker or a shallow runner. I can't
think of any other situation that would allow an attack, unless the
attacking aircraft watched a submarine launch a weapon.

v/r
Gordon

Would systems like Blue-Green Laser Radars or Hyperspectral sensors

http://www.answers.com/topic/littora...-hyperspectral

be more useful than MAD in situations like this?

I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.

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

I'm going to have to start working "fasotragrulant" into
conversations...

"The wife's feeling a bit fasotragrulant, so we going to stay home
tonight."

Cheers,
Wes

PS- worked a bit on the early stages of MMA (P-8), and discovered that
the reason for the internal weapons bay was the inadvisability of
freezing your torps at altitude.
Wanted to invent a VLTC (Very Large Tea Cozy) to allow external
carriage, but management wouldn't buy it...

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

weasel wrote:
I spent my time in VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93 and FASOTRAGRULANT.

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

I'm going to have to start working "fasotragrulant" into
conversations...

"The wife's feeling a bit fasotragrulant, so we going to stay home
tonight."

Cheers,
Wes




Sounds like a dietary issue ...




--

Cheers

Dave Kearton

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:11:49 +0930, "Dave Kearton"
wrote:

Sounds like a dietary issue ...

"Beans for power...onions for aroma!" ;-)


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