Are they phasing out the S-3 too?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:34:03 -0600, Jim Carriere
wrote:

Michael Wise wrote:
In article ,
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.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

No, Sir, you have backwards. :-)

Water is a most excellent transmitter of sound, while air is the Great
Absorber. The speed of sound in water at 15C is 4814 ft/sec. In air
at 15C is 752 ft/sec. This is the major reason why all that sound
radiated by a submerged hull is so detectable.

This is also why the SOSUS network, one of the really Big Secrets of
the ASW world, works so well.

For a practical application, pick up a piece of accoustic tile. I'll
bet you see a lot of air and no water!!!!! ;-)

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.

Bill Kambic

"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


Regards,

Per Nordenberg

Pechs1 wrote:

When the balloon goes up with China, hopefully we will destroy the diesels in
port before they end up in the straights.

If anybody thinks China is our best buddy, needs to get a clue.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer


Well until the sweet & sour chicken embargo starts, I will consider them
competitors. Not quite "buddies." :-\ China wants to be a bigger player
in the Pacific, but I doubt they are ready to get nasty. Besides, we
need them to keep a rein on North Korea & to keep making Winchester '97
clones.

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:59:07 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.

So you were an S-2 AW? By the time I got in, S-2's were pretty much
limited to COD duty.

No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
capabilities of the equipment.

Does that mean you have not actually operated ASW avionic to detect,
localize, and track a sub, but are speaking based on classes you sat in
on?


--Mike

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:19:56 GMT, Tiger
wrote:

Besides, we
need them to keep a rein on North Korea & to keep making Winchester '97
clones.

And, soon Winchester 1887 clones!!!!! :-)

Bill Kambic

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:39:20 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
capabilities of the equipment.

Does that mean you have not actually operated ASW avionic to detect,
localize, and track a sub, but are speaking based on classes you sat in
on?

You have asked two questions. So you get two answers! :-)

I have never flown an operational or training mission in the No. 4
seat. Nor, in the P-3, did I ever sit in either of the acoustic seats
and analyze grams.

I am not, however, speaking solely from classroom knowledge (although
in this case classroom knowledge would be sufficient). The S-2 and
(IIRC, the P-3) permitted the aircraft commander to listen to any bouy
that was up. We would routinely discuss contacts and their
characteristics. And educated CAPC (carrier air place commander) was
considered a Good Thing.

On multiple occasions we tracked U.S., Allied, and Soviet/Block subs
both active and passive (although going active on a Soviet/Block sub
required specific clearance from the Flag). I would NEVER claim that
I tracked or localized anything. My crew and I did.

Bill Kambic

wrote:
good explanation
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).

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.

Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Jim Carriere 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.



--Mike

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

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

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.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:59:07 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

That's what we used to call them in Stoofs. The equipment we used in
the S2G was a scaled down version of what is used today in the P3C.

So you were an S-2 AW? By the time I got in, S-2's were pretty much
limited to COD duty.

No, I was the S-2 tactics instructor. I saw through most of the AW
portion to find would what was taught and learn more about the
capabilities of the equipment.


The ASW world IS a bit wider than helo ASW.


No argument there...although when it comes to active acoustical
detection...no other aviation assets can touch an HS asset.

Well, mabe so and maybe not. :-)

Bill Kambic

I think we used to do well on the Argus with active pinger buoys
and echo ranging, an almost unlimited supply of buoys and fuel
enough to stay on task for 25 - 30 hours
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)