Questions about Submarine abilities

[My2Cents]

would have to be very shallow (<100 ft water depth)

IDAS can effectively be launched as long as the water pressure doesn't crush it. This is presumably a bit more than 3 bar. At least in theory it also doesn't have to break surface right above the sub.

3 bar = 100 ft water depth. Look it up. :flame

Erm, look up how a Mk46 et al works. It needs to find a target to home in on first once it's in the water. Itself, not preprogrammed by the carrier system. Start Sea Siren once you suspect a torpedo will be dropped at you, and the torpedo may have a problem there.

Also, let's not forget common sense. Pair of ASW helos on patrol, certain distance, when one of them is suddenly hit by an IDAS? Assuming the other is within combat distance (<10 km), it will drop its torpedoes as soon as possible to combat the sub and bail to a safe range/height envelope while calling in the attack. Because the crew knows there's at least three more missiles waiting

At that depth aircraft bombs with delay impact fuses could also be deployed with considerable effect as depth charges.

Except it's rather unlikely nowadays that a MPA or ASW helo would carry these.

[sarc]Silly of me, of course I forgot that ASW helicopters are the only aircraft that can engage a submarine submerged at a shallow depth or drop torpedoes.[/sarc]

You start using submarines for AAM batteries shooting at the fighters and bombers and they will find a way to shoot back.

As such it would not pose a major threat against fixed wing aircraft, which may well be faster.

Exactly how many supersonic ASW aircraft are there? High subsonic? The only ASW aircraft that can even approach 75% of the speed of sound (and won't do that on patrol) is the P-8.

Is the IDAS high subsonic? I don’t know, but given the fact that IDAS uses fiber optic guidance that does not seem likely.

You are assuming that with modern networked systems that dedicated ASW craft are the still the only things that can that can track and engage a submerged submarine. Sure, dedicated ASW craft are more effective on a craft by craft basis, but others can be effective in a pinch, even if it is just to drive the sub below the depth it can engage aircraft from until the dedicated ASW arrives to sink the sub.

 

[kato]

3 bar = 100 ft water depth. Look it up. :flame

Guess why i said "this is likely more than 3 bar"

You start using submarines for AAM batteries shooting at the fighters and bombers and they will find a way to shoot back.

They're unlikely to find such a way before the submarine runs away though.

You are assuming that with modern networked systems that dedicated ASW craft are the still the only things that can that can track and engage a submerged submarine.

By the time other assets arrive at the site of a downed ASW helo, such as the flotilla that helo launched from or other helos from the carrier ship, the sub will be hugging a thermocline at the edge of LF sonar range and slowly creeping away.

 

[My2Cents]

They're unlikely to find such a way before the submarine runs away though.

By the time other assets arrive at the site of a downed ASW helo, such as the flotilla that helo launched from or other helos from the carrier ship, the sub will be hugging a thermocline at the edge of LF sonar range and slowly creeping away.

Would you please explain why nothing except an ASW helicopter can spot a sub running shallow, spot a submarine missile launch, deploy sonar buoys, or drop torpedoes? I really need to understand what makes them so unique that these capabilities are incompatible with any other form of aircraft.

 

[SASWanabe]

Would you please explain why nothing except an ASW helicopter can spot a sub running shallow, spot a submarine missile launch, deploy sonar buoys, or drop torpedoes? I really need to understand what makes them so unique that these capabilities are incompatible with any other form of aircraft.

you just answered your own question, transport helicopters are unarmed, attack helicopters arnt armed to fight a targe below water. and the moment you arm either with a Sonar Buoy/Torpedo it becomes an ASW helicopter. fixed wing can spot and attack a submerged sub but arnt preffered. as they cant deploy Sonar Buoys if the sub slips away.

 

[RubiconNZ]

you just answered your own question, transport helicopters are unarmed, attack helicopters arnt armed to fight a targe below water. and the moment you arm either with a Sonar Buoy/Torpedo it becomes an ASW helicopter. fixed wing can spot and attack a submerged sub but arnt preffered. as they cant deploy Sonar Buoys if the sub slips away.

Are you talking Carrier fixed wing? Because maybe now with no Vikings there would be no carrier based fixed wing.

But Orion's at the very least can drop sonar buoys, I would not be suprised if it was a pretty standard feature on a MPA. A little off the mark there.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you talking Carrier fixed wing? Because maybe now with no Vikings there would be no carrier based fixed wing.

correct, the USN has no carrier fixed wing deployed that can discharge sonarbuoys

But Orion's at the very least can drop sonar buoys, I would not be suprised if it was a pretty standard feature on a MPA. A little off the mark there.

all of the large land based ASW/MPA carry and lob sonarbuoys

 

[gf0012-aust]

you just answered your own question, transport helicopters are unarmed, attack helicopters arnt armed to fight a targe below water. and the moment you arm either with a Sonar Buoy/Torpedo it becomes an ASW helicopter. fixed wing can spot and attack a submerged sub but arnt preffered. as they cant deploy Sonar Buoys if the sub slips away.

Santa Fe might object to that theory.....

any aircraft can cash and carry sonarbuoys, hell a cessna 172 could lob them out the windows, its the signal feedback that changes what a dedicated ASW can do.

the hive concept has looked at BAMS combinations of manned and unmanned where one feeds the other with the numbers allowing it to attack.

the other issue is that the old tried and true method of using as many aircraft (rotors and fixed wing) to saturate an area is starting to come front and centre again as all the large countries that prev had extensive ASW experience (USN, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada etc...) suddenly realise that the con job about 1 helo being able to do the job is exactly that.

if you want to kill a sub you're going to need more than 1-2 aircraft to increase your confidence in getting it.

track management, targetting, pursuing, termination of the event.

1 helo will struggle

 

[My2Cents]

any aircraft can cash and carry sonarbuoys, hell a cessna 172 could lob them out the windows, its the signal feedback that changes what a dedicated ASW can do.

the hive concept has looked at BAMS combinations of manned and unmanned where one feeds the other with the numbers allowing it to attack.

the other issue is that the old tried and true method of using as many aircraft (rotors and fixed wing) to saturate an area is starting to come front and centre again as all the large countries that prev had extensive ASW experience (USN, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada etc...) suddenly realise that the con job about 1 helo being able to do the job is exactly that.

if you want to kill a sub you're going to need more than 1-2 aircraft to increase your confidence in getting it.

track management, targetting, pursuing, termination of the event.

1 helo will struggle

The key to prosecuting a dedicated anti-aircraft submarine (other than getting your own sub in close undetected) is to get a set of sonar buoys near it. With modern communications location of the person(s) who perform the track management, targeting, pursuing, termination is not important unless you need to operate under total EMCON.

The next step would be to force the submarine below the depth where it can launch missiles are receive 3rd party aircraft targeting data. Only then could ASW helicopters safely enter the area to continue prosecuting the target.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The key to prosecuting a dedicated anti-aircraft submarine (other than getting your own sub in close undetected) is to get a set of sonar buoys near it. With modern communications location of the person(s) who perform the track management, targeting, pursuing, termination is not important unless you need to operate under total EMCON.

there's more than enough evidence available to show that a decent driver will be more than able to handle one helo. one of the lessons learnt now being lazarused is that all the skills for ASW honed during the cold war are still relevant today - despite improvements in electronics. one helo dropping sonarbuoys is going to run out of said sonarbuoys fairly quickly trying to get the pattern tight.

The next step would be to force the submarine below the depth where it can launch missiles are receive 3rd party aircraft targeting data. Only then could ASW helicopters safely enter the area to continue prosecuting the target.

its not as easy said than done. to do it you need to cause pressure on the sub driver. during the cold war multiple helos was effective and is still how you tip the balance today in exercises.


eg 1 dunks, 2 listen and lurk, one of which will bounce to the next likely spot and dunk ahead on an anticipated pattern. its akin to an ASW version of leapfrog

there are probably 4-6 people in here who are either active or ex submariners, I seriously doubt that they will expand upon the topic beyond already familiar theoreticals. without a doubt I would bet that everyone in the sub community in this forum is less twitchy about being hunted by one ASW asset upstairs than being systematically peeled back by a hunting trio where they take turns in listening, dunking, expanding the grid, replacing each other when operators are fatigued.

modern systems are way way more sophisticated than before, but they haven't changed the outcome on how basic numbers will change the tipping points

 

[STURM]

during the cold war multiple helos was effective and is still how you tip the balance today in exercises.

eg 1 dunks, 2 listen and lurk, one of which will bounce to the next likely spot and dunk ahead on an anticipated pattern. its akin to an ASW version of leapfrog

So would it be accurate to say that unless acoustic conditions were perfect or the sub skipper wasn't very skilled, a single surface vessel relying on a single helicopter to succesfully locate and destroy a sub would have an extremely hard time doing so? In a perfect world, MPA's or helos on ASW taskings would work in pairs or more but unfortunatly this option, for many non navies, isn't always available.

For most non-NATO navies who's ASW gear in most cases would be limited to a surface vessel fitted with bow mounted active/passive sonar, 2 triple torp tubes and if lucky, a helicopter equipped with torpedoes but no dipping sonar, ASW would be an almost impossible job. Like other military related skills and perhaps more so for ASW, a huge investment is needed to develop ASW skills and mantain them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So would it be accurate to say that unless acoustic conditions were perfect or the sub skipper wasn't very skilled, a single surface vessel relying on a single helicopter to succesfully locate and destroy a sub would have an extremely hard time doing so? In a perfect world, MPA's or helos on ASW taskings would work in pairs or more but unfortunatly this option, for many non navies, isn't always available.

I'd argue that unless that box is saturated, a good driver will get out of it - and even then its the driver that will make the difference. IN ASW numbers count, and trained numbers count

For most non-NATO navies who's ASW gear in most cases would be limited to a surface vessel fitted with bow mounted active/passive sonar, 2 triple torp tubes and if lucky, a helicopter equipped with torpedoes but no dipping sonar, ASW would be an almost impossible job. Like other military related skills and perhaps more so for ASW, a huge investment is needed to develop ASW skills and mantain them.

everyone is re-learning the art. those who had operational experience and history won't take as long to re-learn the skills, those who never had it will slip behind the curve.

small navies without the constant training and gear will struggle against a skilled driver.

detecting a sub is skill and maths, methodical sweeping of the grid, perception, instinct and technology etc.... IMO it is a black art as well as a craft

technology on its own can be useless - no matter how good the gear is. its the kit and the people who need to be switched on.

 

[Volkodav]

So would it be accurate to say that unless acoustic conditions were perfect or the sub skipper wasn't very skilled, a single surface vessel relying on a single helicopter to succesfully locate and destroy a sub would have an extremely hard time doing so? In a perfect world, MPA's or helos on ASW taskings would work in pairs or more but unfortunatly this option, for many non navies, isn't always available.

For most non-NATO navies who's ASW gear in most cases would be limited to a surface vessel fitted with bow mounted active/passive sonar, 2 triple torp tubes and if lucky, a helicopter equipped with torpedoes but no dipping sonar, ASW would be an almost impossible job. Like other military related skills and perhaps more so for ASW, a huge investment is needed to develop ASW skills and mantain them.

It makes you wonder how the ADF plans to hunt subs with a total force of 8 P-8 and 11 surface combatants with a single helo each around 2020. The best we could hope for is an AWD and an ANZAC or two, backed up by a P-8 (maybe).

 

[RubiconNZ]

It makes you wonder how the ADF plans to hunt subs with a total force of 8 P-8 and 11 surface combatants with a single helo each around 2020. The best we could hope for is an AWD and an ANZAC or two, backed up by a P-8 (maybe).

I have the idea when all is said and done we might end up with extra P-8s this will of course be dependent on the progress of our BAMS project, I believe given the potential environment of the late teens we will need them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have the idea when all is said and done we might end up with extra P-8s this will of course be dependent on the progress of our BAMS project, I believe given the potential environment of the late teens we will need them.

BAMs will be an enabler, but it depends on how they define and develop the conops.

eg unless it is in absolutely proscribed space and a total war environment I cannot see UAV's being shooters. I think they will be primarily tasked with supplementing the picture, confirming other data and used to keep pressure on the sub. I would think that the manned assets will be the shooters for the foreseeable future

it's not that UAV's can't be shooters in their own right, its more about the legal ramifications and implications.

I can't see any country tightly bound by rules of law, and with strong codes of military jurisprudence will rush into this without it being blessed by military lawyers, common law principles, various UN conventions etc etc.....

its bad enough tracking refugee boats let alone armed combatants.

it will be made worse once civil subs start to hit the water...

 

[Volkodav]

I have the idea when all is said and done we might end up with extra P-8s this will of course be dependent on the progress of our BAMS project, I believe given the potential environment of the late teens we will need them.

It sort of makes you wonder, assuming ASW is the primary objective, if a class of small helicopter / command ships may be the way to go. A platform able to get a minimum of 3 but more usefully 6 to 9 ASW helos to sea would be a solution, Japan certainly seems to think so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Japan certainly seems to think so.

Via their ASW destroyer that is not an ASW helo carrier....

 

[StevoJH]

We could afford the ships, ANZAC II hasn't been ordered year, or if required Canberra and Adelaide could even carry out that role with the appropriate training.

The question is, can we afford the Helicopters required? And how many would need to be purchased? What other capabilities would have to allowed to lapse?

 

[Volkodav]

We could afford the ships, ANZAC II hasn't been ordered year, or if required Canberra and Adelaide could even carry out that role with the appropriate training.

The question is, can we afford the Helicopters required? And how many would need to be purchased? What other capabilities would have to allowed to lapse?

Can we afford not to?

Looking at the capability of the current generation of maritime helos they are multi roled aircraft capable of far more than ASW, inparticular when you look at them as nodes in a networked environment. Give them a decent ASM and you extend the offensive reach of you surface group as well as the sensor range.

It needn't be a through deck design (although this would be best), it just needs to be able to be able to effectively operate a squadron of helicopters. It could be a new age Vittorio Veneto with a destroyer layout forward and a very large multi purpose deck with elevator aft.

 

[StevoJH]

Maybe I should have said "will the government decide to afford the helicopters though?".

The money is there, even if some pet project of the government of the day had to be cut. Military spending in peacetime wont win votes though, giving everyone faster pr0n might.

Personally, I very much like the idea of a modern helicopter only version of the Invincible class like the Hyuga. And you should still be able to find the room for VLS and possibly a decent gun so it can defend itself and the other ships around it if you paired it with a few of the future OPC's as a hunter-killer group.

 

[Volkodav]

Maybe I should have said "will the government decide to afford the helicopters though?".

The money is there, even if some pet project of the government of the day had to be cut. Military spending in peacetime wont win votes though, giving everyone faster pr0n might.

Highlight the multirole capabilities of the platform, i.e. 4 plus ships each able to deploy a squadron of helos (of various types) to a disaster zone.....mother ship for anti piracy operations......an effective command and control platform able to deploy and support Special Forces....