How would you go about hunting today's modern & super quiet submarines? Especially for smaller navy's who don't have large numbers of escorts or maritime patrol aircraft. In the world's oceans there is plenty of places for submarines to hide and snorkel to recharge there batteries. Personally I think radar and satellites will play the biggest roles in detecting diesel electric subs but AIP subs will be very tricky to detect. Sending maritime patrol aircraft and helicopters and SSN's will be more important then ever before and eventually UUV.
Hunting a SSK
- Thread starter kilo
- Start date
Very interesting thread really, although I think you're missing it by a few miles when you suggest satellites for small navies. A number of middle-class OTS MPAs still would be cheaper to buy and operate than satellites.
Interesting question though if there is a way for small and underfinanced navies to detect submarines. Even more interesting as only a few even of the bigger navies worldwide have the ability today.
Could it be there is some kind of "guerilla"-low-tech approach to that like e.g. equipping a number of fishing boats with COTS equipment to drive them out of your country's EEC?
For sure a fleet of autonomously operating UUVs patrolling around will play a role in the future, but at this point there are still some technical difficulties, and even if you manage to build one in the near future, they will be very expensive.
So how could you manage to find a SSK without proper equipment? As an engineer I tend to say: Not at all. But I'd like to hear the pros on that
Interesting question though if there is a way for small and underfinanced navies to detect submarines. Even more interesting as only a few even of the bigger navies worldwide have the ability today.
Could it be there is some kind of "guerilla"-low-tech approach to that like e.g. equipping a number of fishing boats with COTS equipment to drive them out of your country's EEC?
For sure a fleet of autonomously operating UUVs patrolling around will play a role in the future, but at this point there are still some technical difficulties, and even if you manage to build one in the near future, they will be very expensive.
So how could you manage to find a SSK without proper equipment? As an engineer I tend to say: Not at all. But I'd like to hear the pros on that
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Sorry if I made it seem like thats what I meant. I wasn't saying that specifically for small navies. But most navies do have radar which is good for detecting periscopes. One way would be to limit the safe area an SSK could operate by using both the geography of the sea floor and and mines. Other areas could be patrolled a single ASW ship in conjunction with 1-2 MPA.
I think that surface escorts are unnecessary in hunting submarines in littoral and near littoral water, and to some extent defending a coastline. A networked system of OTH radar and sonobuoys and 10 or so MPA and 20-30 maritime strike fighters with large stockpile of advanced mines and ASMs. would be pretty successful in defending the coastline of a small country from a minor regional power.
Looking at a more realistic scenario, how does NATO today compare with say Russia, China, India when it comes to sub-hunting. The former (NATO) still has a coordinated response using upgraded legacy assets designed specifically for the role during the cold war (ASW helo carriers and frigates). Russia, China and India who are determined to build blue-water navies still, in my opinion, lack sophisticated sub-hunting technology capable of seeking out the latest Western designs, particualry in deep-water.........correct me if I'm wrong!!!
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
As far as I know (which is not very far at all) your right about the deep water part especially for china and India. But in coastal and near coastal waters advanced ASW mines and kilos armed with SS-N-15s, VA-111s, and TEST-71MKEs ought to pose a problem. Russians however might have a shot; the akula is pretty good except I don't know mush about it's passive arrays though I've heard Russian passive wasn't great.
One interesting thing is that all the countries you mentioned opereate large numbers of type 877m and type 636 boats. A good tactic for these subs would be to launch skhval, and a TEST-71 set for low speed and passive search mode simultaneously. The skhval will force the enemy to full speed to avoid and blind him. Then as soon as he goes to full speed increase the speed of the TEST-71 to full and set it to active search because he is blind he won't drop decoys. I would probably launch two skhvals and four TEST-71's just to make sure. You would also have to be undetected at close range which throws a wrench in actually using this while aggressively searching for another sub.
One interesting thing is that all the countries you mentioned opereate large numbers of type 877m and type 636 boats. A good tactic for these subs would be to launch skhval, and a TEST-71 set for low speed and passive search mode simultaneously. The skhval will force the enemy to full speed to avoid and blind him. Then as soon as he goes to full speed increase the speed of the TEST-71 to full and set it to active search because he is blind he won't drop decoys. I would probably launch two skhvals and four TEST-71's just to make sure. You would also have to be undetected at close range which throws a wrench in actually using this while aggressively searching for another sub.
Hunting for SSKs is a more realistic scenario than hunting for SSNs. SSK's far outnumber SSNs worldwide and are more difficult to find as they are quieter on batteries especially in shallow water.
It's not impossible to find a SSK as their speeds are slower than a SSN and SSKs must come up for air to go on diesels to recharge their batteries periodically. Searches can be planned accordingly.
Passive sonobuoy fields laid and monitored by MPAs are probably easiest to employ and if you are fortunate, you can put in a semi fixed underwater passive field (much like the SOSUS network).
For blue water ASW the best ASW weapon for a SSBN/SSN is another SSN. Low frequency towed arrays are also very useful.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Gripenator
Banned Member
Which explains why there have been so many reports of PLAN 'survey' vessels charting around Asian waters.
The best SSK/SSN hunter is another SSN.
Of course, they tend to lurk outside harbors monitoring enemy fleet activity.
In the littorals passive sensors tend to be severely degraded due to marine life and other noise but from what I have heard, in the open ocean the SSN can 'go active' and use its superior speed and passive detection range to 'kill' the SSK from range.
The problem with launching any torpedo (much less a Skhval!) from a sub is that you give away your own position. Standard submarine doctrine is to launch a torpedo down the vector of the incoming torpedo. The sub which first launched the torpedo would then be too busy (and creating too much flow noise) to make effective detection possible.
Is this speculation on your part or actual doctrine? Why six torps? What is your definition of close range?
Last edited:
I'd suggest its speculation as it ignores a whole lot of fundamental realities on how torpedo avoidance measures actually work.
ironman5001
New Member
Let's get back to basics , the only sure way to detect SSK's in difficult water conditions at depth or PD is with active Low Frequency Variable Depth Sonar. There are some low cost solutions coming on to the market place.
Passive sonobuoys are a waste of time
Why do you think the Chinese Song Class got so close to the US Carrier ?
Because they don't use LF active , they are behind the curve
Passive sonobuoys are a waste of time
Why do you think the Chinese Song Class got so close to the US Carrier ?
Because they don't use LF active , they are behind the curve
I recall active low frequency sonars such as the AN/SQS-53 require large hull mounted sonar domes.
I also recall active VDS gave way to passive towed arrays.
Could you please provide example(s) of the "low cost" active low frequency VDS.
Why not use active sonobuoys?
Sonobuoy systems of the 80's/90's are a bit different to current capability.
also, a fleet travelling in benign space, with no latent history between the two sides and thus no escalation in fleet defences (because a fleet at a war footing is very different to one trawling around at a benign peacetime status) is very different.
for those who would argue that CTF's are always on high readiness, then just look at how the readiness and deployment status has changed in the last 18 years. They are very different beast of burden.
sub detection technology btw is probably the least talked about in the public domain. I've been to a number of UDT Conferences and I'd argue that over 95% of whats discussed (esp in Sessions) never hits the public media.
so, in real terms I'd argue that some of the chatter about ASW tech (esp new tech developments) is a little off the mark.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Yes and no.
The current emergent sonobuoy tech is disposable anyway. They're not intended to be recovered. The US learnt that lesson when Soviet AGI boats used to hack the shad and engage in situational kleptomany.
Sonobuoys are recoverable and do get recovered. I think that the last expense that any nation worries about is whether looking for subs is cost ineffective. A $1m (warshot) torpedo is a single use item, but thats irrelevant.
Sonobuoys as part of a sensing grid are worth the expense of finding the enemy - and in wartime thats the last thing that will be quibbled about. Try explaining that you lost 150+ sailors just because the sonobuoys were too expensive to deploy and you'll see a government in its last days.....
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Yes and no.
The current emergent sonobuoy tech is disposable anyway. They're not intended to be recovered. The US learnt that lesson when Soviet AGI boats used to hack the shad and engage in situational kleptomany.
Sonobuoys are recoverable and do get recovered. I think that the last expense that any nation worries about is whether looking for subs is cost ineffective. A $1m (warshot) torpedo is a single use item, but thats irrelevant.
Sonobuoys as part of a sensing grid are worth the expense of finding the enemy - and in wartime thats the last thing that will be quibbled about. Try explaining that you lost 150+ sailors just because the sonobuoys were too expensive to deploy and you'll see a government in its last days.....
But what about in peacetime? This would be significant in explaining why that sub got so close (for those who bevlieve this somehow show the vulnerablility of a CBG to chinese SSN's). The grid was not up and running becasue the USN was not going to expend $4500 for a 10 boey patern in peace time.
We already pay more in recovery costs than the item is intrinsically worth. eg, there's some cute australian tech developed which we've also onsold to some allies. That tech is designed to go and either mark or assist in recovery of an item that is cheaper than the tool itself.
I'm not mentioning and have not mentioned arrays of any type in this discussion.
Current array technology is very very different from the cold war.
The rapid changes in new tech is being driven by the fact that as much as pollies might waffle on, everyone else is realising that the PLAN construction rates and types are not benign assets that should just be dismissed.
From my dealings with tech, and I stress my dealings, the trend in the last 4 years is significant, people and engineers are getting ready to fight the next war even if its not PC to talk about it....
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Spread over 100 or so boeys i could imagine the cost.
Do you mean towed arrays? Sorry ASW is not my strong point (my limited knowlage is Cold War vinatage) how have they chanegd?
Thats what i thought (& hoped to an extent)....