Sub-Launched SAMs

Dennis wrote:
dumpsey wrote:

"Once more, developers are working on weapons that
enable submerged submarines to attack aircraft overhead.
There was recent successful test of the U.S. Tomahawk
Capsule Launching System (TCLS) releasing a AIM-9X
Sidewinder air-to-air heat seeking missile. This is all part
of an effort that began during the Cold War, particularly for
non-nuclear subs. While most of this work halted when the
Cold War ended in 1991, it has since been resumed.

Last year, for example, Germany successfully tested
launching anti-aircraft missile from a submerged submarine
(U-33, a Type 212 equipped with Air Independent Propulsion).
The IDAS (Interactive Defense and Attack system for
Submarines) missile used is 7.6 feet long, 180mm in diameter
and weighs 260 pounds. It has a 29 pound warhead and a
range of at least 15 kilometers. The main targets are ASW
(Anti-Submarine) helicopters and low flying ASW aircraft."

See:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20090917.aspx

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?

As they said on NL's "Animal House," why not?

Like nuclear grenades.

Last May, Stickley gave a PowerPoint briefing to a review panel in
which he promoted the hafnium program as the next revolution in warfare.
Hafnium bombs could be loaded in artillery shells, according to a copy of
the briefing slides, or they could be used in the Pentagon's missile
defense systems to knock incoming ballistic missiles out of the air. He
encapsulated his vision of the program in a startling PowerPoint slide: a
small hafnium hand grenade with a pullout ring and a caption that read,
"Miniature bomb. Explosive yield, 2 KT [kilotons]. Size, 5-inch
diameter." That would be an explosion about one-seventh the power of the
bomb that obliterated Hiroshima in 1945.

Now that would encourage a soldier to practice his fast pitch and faster
ashaulen in der udder vay!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A22099-2004Mar24&notFound=true

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.

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

Vaughn

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).

There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
the greatest of Pk - it's being launched on "aircraft somewhere up
there, probably" which isn't the best way to ensure a
heart-of-the-envelope shot against a target that may have a decent DAS.

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.

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


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

Paul J. Adam

Paul J. Adam wrote:
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).

There's a further problem that the sub-launched SAM is not going to have
the greatest of Pk - it's being launched on "aircraft somewhere up
there, probably" which isn't the best way to ensure a
heart-of-the-envelope shot against a target that may have a decent DAS.

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.

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?



--
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.

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 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

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

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.

Good thing too.

Having been a Blowpipe driver back in the '70s, and having worked with
Javelin in the '90s, SLAM always looked pretty rediculous to me. Lines of
weapon release for helicopter-borne ASW weapons I suspect would have been
well outside the -- at best -- 3.5 Km range of Blowpipe.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)