Are they phasing out the S-3 too?

In article ,
Jim Carriere wrote:


I can understand why someone steeped in active sonar tactics might be
skeptical of passive capability. But that skepticism should be a
challenge to reconsider. The physics is pretty basic and has not
changed, no matter what the personal experience.

Heh... you really do learn something new every day... thanks.

BTW I've never flown anything with a dipping sonar, just eyeball,
radar, buoys, and MAD only (roughly in that order). And there's a
strange appeal to a "passive attack" (that's a funny phrase).


Passive detection offers the satisfaction of knowing you have an
excellent chance of detecting him without him knowing it and documenting
your own classified info at the same time. It seems more academically
rewarding.


I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo.

And certainly a lot more fun for the crewmen!


Most of the time
you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look.


This is true in the mid and outer zones, but with inner zone carrier
ASW...that guy ain't going be showing his face much and we no longer
care about stealth. It becomes a question of who can get in position to
launch first, because he's not going to avoid 2-3 60F's going hammer. Of
course, we pretty much figured the enemy would come in numbers...so it
would really matter if we sunk 4 out of 5 or 7 out of nine. It just
takes one.



The
gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
and even then it still might miss.


B57 away!



--Mike

Per Nordenberg wrote:

"Guy Alcala" skrev i meddelandet
. ..

For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...propulsion.htm

Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989.

http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html

Yes I know, but they've only recently started to proliferate to countries
outside Europe. Last time I checked the US didn't consider a war with Sweden
very likely;-).

Guy

In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote:


Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.



As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
that argument.

I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.


Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.


Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...



One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
against eight torps.


--Mike

Guy Alcala wrote:

Per Nordenberg wrote:

Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989.

http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html

Yes I know, but they've only recently started to proliferate to countries
outside Europe. Last time I checked the US didn't consider a war with Sweden
very likely;-).

Which is not to say that there isn't a contingency plan for one
tucked away deep in the bowels of Fort Fumble. Brought out every
five or ten years for update if required.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

----------
In article ,
isme (NimBill) wrote:

China being so close to Taiwan could launch Diesl subs carrying ground troops
all the way across the straights in numbers large enough to take over Taiwan
with few being detected.

According to this:

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/default.asp

China currently has about 50 diesel submarines. Now assuming that they
could fit 1000 ground troops in each of those submarines, they might be able
to land 50,000 troops on Taiwan. Does that sound reasonable?

Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30
troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600
ground troops last?

Actually, if you are at all interested in the subject of Chinese submarine
capabilities and the ability of the US Navy to break a Chinese blockade of
Taiwan, you can check out a series of recent interesting articles on this
subject appearing in the journal International Security:

Lyle Goldstein and William Murray, "Undersea Dragons: China's Maturing
Submarine Force," International Security, Vol. 28, No. 4, Spring 2004, pp.
161-196.

Michael A. Glosny, "Strangulation from the Sea: A PRC Submarine Blockade of
Taiwan," (same issue of IS), pp. 125-160.

Also see the correspondence by Michael O'Hanlon, and Goldstein and Murray in
the current issue, pp. 202-206.

The authors differ on a number of things, but they all generally agree that
a Chinese submarine blockade of Taiwan would ultimately fail. The big
question is how many ships the US Navy might lose trying to break the
blockade.



D

Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote:


Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.



As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception
that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting
that argument.

I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.


Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.


Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...



One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
against eight torps.


--Mike

Mk 54's are depth charges...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote:

Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.



As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the
exception
that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics
supporting
that argument.

I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.


Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.


Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...



One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
against eight torps.


Mk 54's are depth charges...


Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big
fixed-wing thing, as I never heard of them in the HS community. Our ASW
weapons consisted of four stations in which to amount any combination of
MK-46 torpedo and B57 depth charges only (at least as I recollect).


I know the answer is probably easily Googleable, but what sort of depth
charge (conventional or nuke) is the Mk-54?



--Mike

Gord Beaman wrote:

Jim Carriere wrote:


I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is
a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time
you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The
gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him
with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare,
and even then it still might miss.


Would a fifty be of much concern to a sub?...I know that we had a
pair of .303's on Lancasters and they told us that it's value was
in keeping the sub's crew from manning their deck gun...do subs
even have a deck gun now? I doubt it.

I think it would make the periscope AFU, and before you think that's
too hard a target, aircrewmen occasionally hit smoke floats in
practice gunshoots. Not really sure about penetrating the pressure
hull, but API ammunition is pretty impressive stuff.

My point is a partial mission kill is possible (of course sinking is
impossible).

Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote:


Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.



As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the
exception
that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics
supporting
that argument.

I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.


Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.


Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...



One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
against eight torps.



Mk 54's are depth charges...



Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big

You were both right, there is a Mk 54 lightweight torpedo coming...
someday. More or less the brains of the Mk 50 and the body of the Mk 46.

I did not know (or forgot) there was such a thing as a Mk 54 depth
charge. I've heard of the B57, you really only have to be close with
that one, like horseshoes and hand grenades, but no need for a
followup

Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30
troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600
ground troops last?

My goof--30 times 50 is 1500, not 600. Never post after midnight. Brain
don't work.

The main point is still valid--you cannot invade Taiwan by submarine.




D