Sub-Launched SAMs

In message , William Black
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out
to be less attractive when worked through in detail.

Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?

SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

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

Paul J. Adam

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:17:27 -0400, "vaughn"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
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.

The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW aircraft
might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off contact.

Before any target can be engaged at sea it must be:

Detected
Localized
Weapon placed within engagement envelope.

The submarine must be able to detect the aircraft. This is an area of
some dispute, with submariners often claiming detection capabilities
that are less than easily understood. To put it mildly. :-)

But assuming a detection capability then the aircraft must be
localized. This generally means establishing a series of positions so
a track and speed can be established.

Then the weapon must be placed so that the aircraft is within the
engagement envelope of the weapon.

Unless the aircraft communicates to the sub that it has been deteted
then the sub has no way of know whether or not it's been detected.
Passive tracking can be done from significant distances. There's no
need to get down to wavetop height and run MAD traps.

Active tracking, of course, is a different story and any sub commander
worth his salt could likely get a decent target solution on a dipping
helo. But if a P-3 is dropping active sensors the best the sub
skipper can do is target the sensor.

Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated if the
ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.

This is correct. But it's not a complication that can't be addressed.

This type of system might be a "security blanket" for sub skippers as
a "last ditch" weapon to enage an aircraft inbound on a weapons drop.
As a routine weapon it's a bad idea.

On Sep 17, 4:39*pm, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
In message , William Black
writes

Paul J. Adam wrote:
*It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out
to *be less attractive when worked through in detail.

Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?

SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

Just give the blowpipes hafnium warheads and that will fix the aiming
problem.

(Well the Sub will be underwater....)

I agree with the poster that said the idea keeps coming back and keeps
going away for the same reasons. Since the end of WW2, submarines as
antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving
often works better.

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

Paul J. Adam

Didn't someone once talk about putting something like Rapier on the top
of a submarine periscope to knock down impertinent helicopters?

SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

It's often reported Kilo class subs have similar capabilities built
around Strellas and Iglas.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
In message , vaughn
writes
The obvious first answer for that is that once an ASW aircraft has found
you, your position has already been "given away". Downing that ASW
aircraft
might be very helpful to the sub's subsequent attempts to break off
contact.

The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you launch
a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely hostile
(and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you can clear
datum very far).

Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the sub's CO,
rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time.

There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
the greatest of Pk -

Also a valid point, but I am willing to leave that problem up to the
engineers. If they don't solve it, there obviously will be no system.

Also, it seems to me that the ASW problem becomes greatly complicated if
the
ASW forces are denied safe & unopposed command of the airspace.

Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
SAMs.

Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone,
isolated sub to dispute air superiority. Just the threat that a sub MAY
have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for any ASW
forces.

It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be
less attractive when worked through in detail.

Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular thread
to convince me.

Vaughn

On Sep 17, 1:46*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:17:27 -0400, "vaughn"

wrote:

wrote in message
...

SNIP


Before any target can be engaged at sea it must be:

Detected
Localized
Weapon placed within engagement envelope.

The submarine must be able to detect the aircraft. *This is an area of
some dispute, with submariners often claiming detection capabilities
that are less than easily understood. *To put it mildly. *:-)


SNIP

Would this be useful for detecting the aircraft?:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20070107.aspx

In message
,
Daniel writes
SLAM: a cluster of Blowpipe missiles around a TV camera for aiming. Went
to sea on HMS Aeneas, trialled, and failed to proceed: having to come to
periscope depth and stick a large mast up turned out to be a bad idea
when armed ASW assets were buzzing around.

It's often reported Kilo class subs have similar capabilities built
around Strellas and Iglas.

Not quite: some apparently have a gripstock and several rounds of
MANPADS stored in a pressure-tight container in the top of the fin, for
use if the sub is damaged and forced to fight it out on the surface with
ASW helos in a scenario like the ARA Santa Fe in 1982.

Not totally implausible, given the Kilo's compartmentalisation and large
reserve of buoyancy, but nobody's ever shown a credible submerged-launch
capability for said missiles. It seems to be a tale that's grown in the
telling: Larry Bond was running with it for his "Harpoon" rules in 1987
and had it in his book "Red Phoenix" a year or three later.

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

Paul J. Adam

On Sep 17, 9:54*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

snippaggio

Since the end of WW2, submarines as
antiaircraft platforms haven't been seen as a great idea when diving
often works better.

These days, not diving, just dived. V. bad idea, as Paul has pointed
out, to give away your greatest asset: stealth. Grumpy MPA or
helicopter isn't entirely sure where you a it's only got a sniff.
Take v. risky shot at nasty flying thing, give away your real
location. Sinketty submarin-io. Even if you hit nasty flying thing --
most unlikely -- other nasty flying things or their friends in nasty
floating things are likely to be within earshot, and they've got your
datum and are very seriously evilly intentioned. Due to cruel
upbringing, they really don't like sweet little subbie-wubs and are
well provided with nasty homing bang-bang things or even worse.
Sinketty sinketty. Crunchity crunch. I am not now, nor ever have been,
a sub CO, but if I were you wouldn't get me anywhere near one of those
loonie missile kits. Me, deep and silent. Torpedo Bad Persons as God
intended and run like buggery only without the noise. As it were. BB
and others would know for sure.


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

Paul J. Adam

In message , vaughn
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
The problem is that the MPA may be simply sweeping and missed you
completely, or had a mere sniff that it can't confirm... until you launch
a SAM at him, thus going from POSSUB to CERTSUB and definitely hostile
(and the next MPA or ASW cab is likely to be on-scene before you can clear
datum very far).

Valid point, but I am willing to leave that judgement up to the sub's CO,
rather than use the Internet to make it for him ahead of time.

I think you'll find the various development efforts (SLAM in the UK,
SIAM in the US, the Franco-German Polyphem) have gone rather further
than Internet debate - some even to prototype testing, even to deployed
status and operational evaluation - and all have fallen over because the
sub COs all end up preferring stealth, then evasion, over trying to
fight it out with aircraft overhead.

Yes, ideally you kill the annoying ASW asset. But when you don't (and
SAM combat Pks run from about 40% for best-case Sea Dart downwards)
you've given away your location and your hostile intent and you've made
the enemy angry. Even if you get the kill, if your location is flagged
then everything you were sent to hunt is likely to be routed away from
you while assorted hostile assets come for vengeance, and you can't run
too far or fast without losing the stealth you depend on.

It's a bad trade for a submarine for the benefit of - maybe - shooting
down a helicopter.

Disputing air superiority is a better way to do that, than sub-launched
SAMs.

Here I greatly disagree. Their may be no other options for a lone,
isolated sub to dispute air superiority.

You're not going to "dispute air superiority" with short-range,
blind-fired SAMs.

Just the threat that a sub MAY
have a SAM and MAY use it would greatly complicate the situation for any ASW
forces.

Ships' helicopters get tasked widely these days. When they do a Thunder
Valley run to check an oil pipeline ashore, there's a risk of insurgents
with MANPADS. When they prosecute fast inshore attack craft, again
there's a SAM threat. Once you've trained and equipped for those, the
risk of a semi-blind SAM shot from a submerged submarine isn't a serious
extra problem: either the countermeasures are effective against that
seeker or they aren't, and you go in on the basis that the DAS will
protect you enough to let you do your job.

MPA may not have the same degree of protection (though with their
increasing overland employment that's much less true) but they can
generate a lot more standoff (in three dimensions), again seriously
compromising the effectiveness of a subSAM.

It's one of those ideas that keeps popping up, and keeps turning out to be
less attractive when worked through in detail.

Perhaps so, but I haven't seen anything so far in this particular thread
to convince me.

Usenet isn't where the decisions get made.

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

Paul J. Adam

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:31:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Would this be useful for detecting the aircraft?:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20070107.aspx

Maybe. An aircraft at altitude is a very small visual target (and
also a very small acoustic target).