Sub-Launched SAMs

On Sep 17, 11:07*am, wrote:

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?

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.

v/r Gordon

On Sep 18, 2:07*am, 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?

The German system, IDAS is inusual from several angles:
1 It is not based on a AAM and is launched directly from a standard
tube with motor ignition occuring immediatly. This makes the missile
much faster in getting to target than capsule launched SAM based on
say sidewinder-X, AMRAAM or MICA. It also makes it much noisier ie it
has a much larger launch signature due to the motor igniting under
water. (This suggests it is a last minute weapon to be used when
alreaqdy discovered). Having said that is a capsule launched that
much quieter?
2 The German IDAS system uses a high resolution infrared imaging
system, inertial guidance and remains connected to the submarine with
fiber optic cables: it provides a TV picture to the opperator, motor
gives adaquet time for lotire and target selection. It has auto-
homming to both air, land and sea targets but the opperator retains
control.

Submarine detection has improved dramatically in recent years to the
point that some are saying the've lost most if not all their stealth
in open ocean. Littoral subs like the German type 212 designed for
shallow waters with the x-fin configuration and to avoid MAD with a
stainless steel hull and a Hydrogen Metal Hydride fuel cell however
retail stealth due to their abillity to opperate in the shallows.

If say a 212 can hear the rotors of a helicopter, if it can then hear
tracking pings from its sonar (time to launch may be then) and if it
then hears the 'plonk' of a ASW torpedo, its motor and its seeker
going active the response of the sub would be to release effectors,
decoys and jammers. Now it can destroy the sub and ward of subsequent
attacks as well.

One reason these systems may be making a rear-apperance (eg Sidewinder-
X based capsule launched) is that is simply easily possible to adapt
these missiles with little R+D. These AAM have inertial guidance,
focal plane array 'robot vision infrared' and thrust vectoring
suitable for vertical launch.

On Sep 17, 4:22*pm, wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:07*am, 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?

The German system, IDAS is inusual from several angles:
1 It is not based on a AAM and is launched directly from a standard
tube with motor ignition occuring immediatly. *This makes the missile
much faster in getting to target than capsule launched SAM based on
say sidewinder-X, AMRAAM or MICA. *It also makes it much noisier ie it
has a much larger launch signature due to the motor igniting under
water. *(This suggests it is a last minute weapon to be used when
alreaqdy discovered). *Having said that is a capsule launched that
much quieter?
2 *The German IDAS system uses a high resolution infrared imaging
system, inertial guidance and remains connected to the submarine with
fiber optic cables: it provides a TV picture to the opperator, motor
gives adaquet time for lotire and target selection. *It has auto-
homming to both air, land and sea targets but the opperator retains
control.

Submarine detection has improved dramatically in recent years to the
point that some are saying the've lost most if not all their stealth
in open ocean. * Littoral subs like the German type 212 designed for
shallow waters with the x-fin configuration and to avoid MAD with a
stainless steel hull and a Hydrogen Metal Hydride fuel cell however
retail stealth due to their abillity to opperate in the shallows.

If say a 212 can hear the rotors of a helicopter, if it can then hear
tracking pings from its sonar (time to launch may be then) and if it
then hears the 'plonk' of a ASW torpedo, its motor and its seeker
going active the response of the sub would be to release effectors,
decoys and jammers. *Now it can destroy the sub and ward of subsequent
attacks as well.

One reason these systems may be making a rear-apperance (eg Sidewinder-
X based capsule launched) is that is simply easily possible to adapt
these missiles with little R+D. *These AAM have inertial guidance,
focal plane array 'robot vision infrared' and thrust vectoring
suitable for vertical launch.

Paul Adam never served on Subs, but he should have aspired to higher
things than the Territorials
He is consistently spot-on regarding this subject. IMHO.

BB

On Sep 17, 4:29*pm, Dennis wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

* * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away. * *

Well, they're 18 years gone now...

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

* * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, for that matter?

They make sense/cents ?

Andre

Andre Lieven wrote:

* * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away.

Well, they're 18 years gone now...

True. But the discussion here and elsewhere goes on.

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

* * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, fo
r that matter?

They make sense/cents ?

LOL! If we didn't have them, we'd have to round off to something
else. The nearest $0.05, nickel?

Dennis

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

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

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.
I've known Gordon for a long time and respect the hell out of him.
But their concern about an unproven system is not proof of concept for
the one this thread addresses.
As I said earlier, Paul is the Man...

BB

On 17 Sep, 21:29, Dennis wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
Probably for the same reason that the idea of merging battleships
and aircraft carriers in one hull refused to die, too, yet almost
never
actually saw the light of day in terms of a ship such as that being
*built*.

Ise & Hyuga were conversions, of course.

* * * * Battleships themselves are a bad idea that won't go away. * *

There are plenty of bad ideas that just hang around almost forever:
"reality shows", "US health care is #1!", and so on. That doesn't
mean that they are either 1) good or 2) true.

* * * * Like the proverbial bad penney! *What about pennies, for that matter?

Dennis

What? in 1880?

Guy

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.



Part of the problem is giving away your position. How about deploying
the SAM in a specially designed torpedo, so that it swims away from you
a significant distance before surfacing and letting fly? Formidable
problems of targetting the SAM, of course, and you've still told the
world that there is a hostile sub in the vicinity.