Re: Sub-launched UAVs...
Jack Linthicum
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Just found this one in the news:http://tinyurl.com/5r6td2
>
> Neat idea, IMHO, a mast-launched UAV (even if it's non-reusable).
>
> I wonder if it would be possible to add a small explosive charge...
> launch the drone before attacking a heavily defended target, then use
> the drone to discourage ASW helos from hovering ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence
"At periscope depth" ?
deem...@aol.com
I would think a sub-launched SAM would be a
better deterrent.
Jack Linthicum
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder if it would be possible to add a small explosive charge...
> >> launch the drone before attacking a heavily defended target, then use
> >> the drone to discourage ASW helos from hovering ;-)
>
>
> advance and keep circling, you's merely have to establish radio contact.
>
> No smoke trail to show where you are, either.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Is "puppy love" bestiality?
Maybe my terse comment didn't register. What fool would operate a
submarine at periscope depth with ASW elements in the area close
enough to be the targets of a UAV? For most subs as targets in a
hostile environment, one helicopter is a an excellent trade off.
Fred J. McCall
:"deem...@aol.com" <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
:
:>> I wonder if it would be possible to add a small explosive charge...
:>> launch the drone before attacking a heavily defended target, then use
:>> the drone to discourage ASW helos from hovering ;-)
:>>
:> I would think a sub-launched SAM would be a better deterrent.
:
:But you have to be at launch depth for that. The UAV can be launched in
:advance and keep circling, you's merely have to establish radio contact.
:
Which means you have to have an antenna up, since radio waves don't
penetrate water very well.
:
:No smoke trail to show where you are, either.
:
Folks keep missing the main element in the effectiveness of
submarines: "We Hide With Pride".
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
deem...@aol.com
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder if it would be possible to add a small explosive charge...
> >> launch the drone before attacking a heavily defended target, then use
> >> the drone to discourage ASW helos from hovering ;-)
>
>
> advance and keep circling, you's merely have to establish radio contact.
>
>
>
I'd rather be deep when there's any ASW around, but maybe
that's just me......
Jack Linthicum
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Maybe my terse comment didn't register. What fool would operate a
> > submarine at periscope depth with ASW elements in the area close
> > enough to be the targets of a UAV? For most subs as targets in a
> > hostile environment, one helicopter is a an excellent trade off.
>
> it can stay airborne for a time... and you'd only need a radio
> connection to control it, which may or may not be possible from
> greather depth (can a floating wire antenna achieve enough bandwidth?).
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> I don't have time to wait for instant gratification
Exactly, the entire idea of a sub-marine is to not show any sign on
the surface. Those ASW people train on that idea, why give them a free
target?
deem...@aol.com
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Maybe my terse comment didn't register. What fool would operate a
> > submarine at periscope depth with ASW elements in the area close
> > enough to be the targets of a UAV? For most subs as targets in a
> > hostile environment, one helicopter is a an excellent trade off.
>
> it can stay airborne for a time... and you'd only need a radio
> connection to control it, which may or may not be possible from
> greather depth (can a floating wire antenna achieve enough bandwidth?).
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
>
But if the helo detects the UAV....even right before the
collision...it might still have time to drop a couple homing
torpedos......
Jack Linthicum
Or launch from mother ship position to datum. Undoubtedly the elint
people on the mother ship have picked up the sub's signal even if its
spread spectrum and has alerted the helo to drop or launch on the
target's datum.
irond...@gmail.com
based operator via satlink, as I think is being done in Afghanistan
now with Predators and Reapers. Meanwhile, the sub departs the area,
or goes deep to hide. Granted, it means keeping a 'pilot' on 24/7
alert, but if the UAV can achieve something useful, I suppose it'd be
worthwhile. Eventually, maybe we'll develop good enough AI for the
UAV to be able to complete simple missions like attacking an ASW helo
or ship on its own (?).
Jim
Fred J. McCall
:Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Maybe my terse comment didn't register. What fool would operate a
:> submarine at periscope depth with ASW elements in the area close
:> enough to be the targets of a UAV? For most subs as targets in a
:> hostile environment, one helicopter is a an excellent trade off.
:
:You only need to be at periscope depth to LAUNCH the UAV. Unlike a SAM,
:it can stay airborne for a time... and you'd only need a radio
:connection to control it, which may or may not be possible from
:greather depth (can a floating wire antenna achieve enough bandwidth?).
:
Ok, feature this. You have your UAV up and buzzing around under your
control. Meanwhile, the guys hunting for you have a direct bearing to
you because they can detect your radio signals to the drone. They
just scan down that bearing, see your wire, and proceed to blow a big
hole in the people pipe.
If you're a submarine you want to stay stealthy right up to the point
where you launch weapons. You then want to go back to being stealthy
immediately after that. Sticking things up in the air, whether
shooting at aircraft with SAMs or having drones buzzing around
overhead (which you have to transmit to control), is a BAD IDEA.
--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."
-- Confucius
Jack Linthicum
And the UAV does what? Dies when it is shot down at longer range than
it can close on the now-alerted helo
Fred J. McCall
:
:So the sub deploys the UAV, then quickly hands over control to a US-
Any time you find yourself having to 'patch the patches' it's obvious
you started with a bad idea.
You're now assuming a much larger and more sophisticated drone. If
you're going to all that trouble, what's the point of the submarine in
the system, again?
Why risk an expensive submarine as the launch system for the drone?
Fly it in under its own power, launch it from a long range patrol
aircraft, etc. Let the sub do what it does best; strike from hiding.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Mark Borgerson
@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, irond...@gmail.com says...
A satellite link requires much more power, size and weight than
this small UAV has available.
Mark Borgerson
deem...@aol.com
> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> :
> :> Maybe my terse comment didn't register. What fool would operate a
> :> submarine at periscope depth with ASW elements in the area close
> :> enough to be the targets of a UAV? For most subs as targets in a
> :> hostile environment, one helicopter is a an excellent trade off.
> :
> :You only need to be at periscope depth to LAUNCH the UAV. Unlike a SAM,
> :it can stay airborne for a time... and you'd only need a radio
> :connection to control it, which may or may not be possible from
> :greather depth (can a floating wire antenna achieve enough bandwidth?).
> :
>
> Ok, feature this. You have your UAV up and buzzing around under your
> control. Meanwhile, the guys hunting for you have a direct bearing to
> you because they can detect your radio signals to the drone. They
> just scan down that bearing, see your wire, and proceed to blow a big
> hole in the people pipe.
>
> If you're a submarine you want to stay stealthy right up to the point
> where you launch weapons. You then want to go back to being stealthy
> immediately after that. Sticking things up in the air, whether
> shooting at aircraft with SAMs or having drones buzzing around
> overhead (which you have to transmit to control), is a BAD IDEA.
>
Aren't submarine launched SAMs supposed to be kind of last
ditch "sh*t, he's found us" weapons?
Jack Linthicum
> a bit away. Maybe they'll notice the UAV, but even then they only know
> you're around SOMEWHERE.
>
> The only problem would be to get decent bandwidth from the sub to the
> surface either directly via an antenna, or via other means that then
> communicate with a radio buoy.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> "Mit dem ersten Glied wird die Kette geschmiedet. Wenn die erste Rede
> zensiert, der erste Gedanke verboten, die erste Freiheit verweigert wird,
> sind wir alle unwideruflich gefesselt."
> - Cpt. Jean Luc Picard zitiert Richter Aron Satie
So far this has been a pointless discussion about purchasing a
worthless piece of equipment and trying to find some way it would work.
Jack Linthicum
> > Those predators and Reapers are much larger than this proposed UAV.
> > A satellite link requires much more power, size and weight than
> > this small UAV has available.
>
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> famous last words: .....no, it's interrupt 5!
You sure this isn't a Japanese device? Complication beyond usefulness.
Fred J. McCall
:
That was the thinking, but it just doesn't work out very well.
Think about it. You're sure he's localized you (which usually means
he's dropped a weapon on you), so you want to come shallow to launch a
'low percentage' shot at him?
Fred J. McCall
:Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
:
:> Those predators and Reapers are much larger than this proposed UAV.
:> A satellite link requires much more power, size and weight than
:> this small UAV has available.
:
:A Globalhawk at high altitude could act as a radio relay, though.
:
Then why is the submarine involved again? Just launch from the Global
Hawk...
deem...@aol.com
> :>
> :
> : Aren't submarine launched SAMs supposed to be kind of last
> :ditch "sh*t, he's found us" weapons?
> :
>
> That was the thinking, but it just doesn't work out very well.
>
> Think about it. You're sure he's localized you (which usually means
> he's dropped a weapon on you), so you want to come shallow to launch a
> 'low percentage' shot at him?
>
>
Maybe it gives the bubbleheads something else to do
rather than just lubing for the depth charges........
Fred J. McCall
:
:> :>
:> :
:> : Aren't submarine launched SAMs supposed to be kind of last
:
The problem is, what it would generally give them to do is 'drown'.
Think about it some more. The aircraft is practically on top of you
(which he has to be for your weapon to work, anyway) and you're going
to come up and make it EASY for him to kill you?
deem...@aol.com
> "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> : Aren't submarine launched SAMs supposed to be kind of last
> :> :ditch "sh*t, he's found us" weapons?
> :> :
> :>
> :> That was the thinking, but it just doesn't work out very well.
> :>
> :> Think about it. You're sure he's localized you (which usually means
> :> he's dropped a weapon on you), so you want to come shallow to launch a
> :> 'low percentage' shot at him?
> :>
> :
> : Maybe it gives the bubbleheads something else to do
> :rather than just lubing for the depth charges........
> :
>
> The problem is, what it would generally give them to do is 'drown'.
>
> Think about it some more. The aircraft is practically on top of you
> (which he has to be for your weapon to work, anyway) and you're going
> to come up and make it EASY for him to kill you?
>
>
They probably wouldn't drown.....a hull collapse precludes
that. I agree with you, I just think the SAM gives the illusion of
being able to fight back.
Rich Johnson
> That WOULD be a problem, though - AFAIK the best achieved so far was was
> 300baud or so via a modem slaved into the sonar...
>
It's improved
--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
Andrew Swallow
> Rich Johnson <rwh.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That WOULD be a problem, though - AFAIK the best achieved so far was
>>> was 300baud or so via a modem slaved into the sonar...
>>>
>> It's improved
>
> downlink... you'd need at least 64kbit for that with a good compression
> codec.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Put the radio in the buoy, use DC to pass the current and fibre optics
to pass the signal between the buoy and submarine. Now you can
go as fast as you want.
Andrew Swallow
Jack Linthicum
And the fiber does what? Signal where you are in relation to the buoy?
Jim Yanik
DKIIfurVnZ2d...@bt.com:
now you have a nice wake and RF source for tracking the sub.
Plus sound-noise generated by the setup.
How deep can the sub be when using this? it may now be visible from an
aircraft,too.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Andrew Swallow
Cost of using radio communications whilst under water.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Winch it back in when you are not using it.
Andrew Swallow
Roger Conroy
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:DZidnY1J1cOVmeXV...@bt.com...
I'd like to see the sub that would survive long enough under these condition
to even have a need to winch anything back.
In this scenario we have:
1. A sub running shallow
2. trailing a buoy on the surface,
3. the bouy has a radio transmitter,
and just in case that is still not enough of a hint to the sub hunters,
4. there is a UAV doodling around above the sub.
All this is screaming "Insert torpedo here!"
The person who's brainfart started this topic should be keelhauled for gross
stupidity and extreme uselessness.
Andre Ilausky
> If you're a submarine you want to stay stealthy right up to the point
> where you launch weapons. You then want to go back to being stealthy
> immediately after that. Sticking things up in the air, whether
> shooting at aircraft with SAMs or having drones buzzing around
> overhead (which you have to transmit to control), is a BAD IDEA.
The German taxpayer is funding it anyway ;)
<http://www.bwb.org/01DB022000000001/vwContentByKey/W27FBDE7016INFOEN>
First Launch of the IDAS Missile System from a Submerged Submarine
On 29 May 2008, the fiber optic IDAS guided missile (IDAS = Interactive
Defence and Attack System for Submarines) was launched for the first
time from a submerged submarine. The missile was successfully launched
by U33, a class U212A submarine for a test flight over the Western
Baltic Sea.
After a boresight of the inertial system of the missile by the
navigation system of the submarine, the IDAS system was ejected from a
torpedo tube. While still under water, IDAS unfolded its wings and fins
and ignited its motor. After several seconds of submerged travel, IDAS
broke through the water surface and began a controlled flight. Contrary
to normal operation, the test did not involve a flight motor and was,
therefore, completed in a controlled glide. During the entire flight
duration, data and images of the integrated video camera were
transmitted to the submarine using an optical fiber.
The IDAS guided missile has been designed primarily to provide a
submerged submarine with the means to engage antisubmarine warfare
helicopters. In a typical scenario, the helicopter uses a dipping sonar
to search the submarine and antisubmarine torpedoes to engage it. In the
past, the submarine had to stay passive, but now the IDAS system
provides the option of active defense.
Other targets of the IDAS missile could be low-flying aircraft, vessels
and littoral targets. Since there is a permanent data link between
submarine and missile in the form of the optical fiber, it is now
possible to transmit current target data. The operator on board of the
submarine can thus influence missile trajectory and target selection at
any time. [...]
Jack Linthicum
Could we translate the German word for "passive" as "don't tell where
you are"?
Note the comments
Mark Borgerson
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Hmmm, so now you've got a tether strong enough to winch back in
and thick enough to carry DC plus and optical fiber. How
thick will that tether be? How fast can the sub move without
drag from the tether breaking it? How do you arrange your winch
to spool out without drag, but pull in the buoy?
IIRC, the basic idea for sub to torpedo tethers is that you
have a spool on the torpedo and another on the sub. They
can both spool out so that you don't have to pull the
tether through the water. Anyone who's gone trolling with
line thicker than 20# monofilament knows how much drag
there is when you have to pull your line in any direction
except directly along the axis.
So how big a spool do you need on the sub and how much
on the buoy? Sounds like a tough problem to me.
Mark Borgerson
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall schrieb:
:
:> If you're a submarine you want to stay stealthy right up to the point
:> where you launch weapons. You then want to go back to being stealthy
:> immediately after that. Sticking things up in the air, whether
:> shooting at aircraft with SAMs or having drones buzzing around
:> overhead (which you have to transmit to control), is a BAD IDEA.
:
:The German taxpayer is funding it anyway ;)
:
That doesn't make it a good idea, although this one is at least
SOMEWHAT better than long-duration control of a UAV (what was
originally proposed).
You need to remember where German subs are generally tasked to operate
these days. If you have to be shallow because the water just isn't
that deep and the exposure is of short duration, this might make some
small amount of sense. But even then, if the helo you shoot at has a
friend you're going to get some high explosive in return.
I'm not convinced the tactical utility of such a system is worth the
money.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Richard Casady
<mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>So how big a spool do you need on the sub and how much
>on the buoy? Sounds like a tough problem to me.
Longliners carry 50 miles of 700 pound mono on a reel about two feet
in diameter and three long. Line is about like the stuff used in a
weedeater. They are not trolling, the line just lies there in the
water, unlessl a ship hits it and it breaks.
Casady
Michael Shirley
wrote:
For once I agree with you. I remember reading about a proposal
like that for the SSGN conversions of Ohio Class SSBNs, but somebody
had a sudden case of sanity and killed the idea.
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.
"Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the
army." Lao Tsu.
Keith Willshaw
"Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>
> For once I agree with you. I remember reading about a proposal
> like that for the SSGN conversions of Ohio Class SSBNs, but somebody
> had a sudden case of sanity and killed the idea.
>
>
Reality check
In November 2002 Ohio entered drydockto be converted to an SSGN and
rejoined the fleet in February 2006, followed by Florida in April 2006,
USS Michigan in November 2006 and USS Georgiai n October 2007.
Keith
Andrew Swallow
We are talking about the hypotenuse of a triangle one side of which is
the depth of the sub. The surface side can be longer if the captain wants
to separate the sub from the buoy but needs to account for the speed of
the sub, speed of the tides plus wave speed.
Andrew Swallow
Paul J. Adam
<keith...@demon.co.uk> writes
I think he's talking about a UAV proposal for the TLAMed Ohios, not the
conversion itself.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Raymond O'Hara
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p5ed745pssn6ohs8j...@4ax.com...
> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> :Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :
> :> Those predators and Reapers are much larger than this proposed UAV.
> :> A satellite link requires much more power, size and weight than
> :> this small UAV has available.
> :
> :A Globalhawk at high altitude could act as a radio relay, though.
> :
>
> Then why is the submarine involved again? Just launch from the Global
> Hawk...
i hate to agree with you fred. but it is a waste of assets to involve/risk a
sub.
Raymond O'Hara
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b0e4edb7-3b56-4278...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
=================================================
if your found and being attacked there in no reason not to shoot.
with todays homing weapons if you're found you're dead anyway.
Andre Ilausky
> :> If you're a submarine you want to stay stealthy right up to the point
> :> where you launch weapons. You then want to go back to being stealthy
> :> immediately after that. Sticking things up in the air, whether
> :> shooting at aircraft with SAMs or having drones buzzing around
> :> overhead (which you have to transmit to control), is a BAD IDEA.
> :
> :The German taxpayer is funding it anyway ;)
> :
>
> That doesn't make it a good idea,
Indeed.
> although this one is at least
> SOMEWHAT better than long-duration control of a UAV (what was
> originally proposed).
Do you mean as a suicide unit or the proposal in the AW-article?
<http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A22aabd45-aa6d-486e-b897-89123c6a4f56>
"One operational scenario for which the concept can be used is to
acquire real-time imagery of a coastal target for the benefit of a
special forces team on board the submarine, prior to their insertion
ashore."
> You need to remember where German subs are generally tasked to operate
> these days. If you have to be shallow because the water just isn't
> that deep and the exposure is of short duration, this might make some
> small amount of sense. But even then, if the helo you shoot at has a
> friend you're going to get some high explosive in return.
Or the friend is taken out on the helo-deck at 20 klicks ;)
> I'm not convinced the tactical utility of such a system is worth the
> money.
I like it. It's versatile (anti-air, ship, land), light (four in a
torpedo tube), discriminating (fiber-optically-guided) and hopefully
cheaper than a "real" weapon like Seehecht/Harpoon/TLAM.
Especially the land-attack capability shouldn't be overlooked. The only
way Germany is getting it is as "by-product", like RBS-15 Mk. III.
deem...@aol.com
So, the chopper hears the launch and drops homing
torpedos? I also wonder how big the warhead is if there are plans to
use it against "vessels and littoral targets"?
deem...@aol.com
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> > So, the chopper hears the launch and drops homing
> > torpedos? I also wonder how big the warhead is if there are plans to
> > use it against "vessels and littoral targets"?
>
>
> Still, should be big enough to destroy a truck-sized target, or
> seriously inconvenience small boats.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
>
I can see blasting an "inconveniently placed" small
boat.....I guess the sub could spot a vehicle with its periscope and
then launch at it? I'm just not sold on anything that compromises the
sub's location without the possibility of a pretty large payoff (like
sinking a ship, etc).
Michael Shirley
I was talking about the sub launched UAV proposal, not the
conversion. SSGNs are a good idea, but cluttering em up with things like
that UAV probably aren't. And they were talking about actually recovering
the thing which is bloody insane in the bargain.
The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
--
Michael Shirley
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <g5d9mr$9t1$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Keith Willshaw
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> writes
>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>> For once I agree with you. I remember reading about a proposal
>>> like that for the SSGN conversions of Ohio Class SSBNs, but somebody
>>> had a sudden case of sanity and killed the idea.
>>
>> Reality check
>>
>> In November 2002 Ohio entered drydockto be converted to an SSGN and
>> rejoined the fleet in February 2006, followed by Florida in April 2006,
>> USS Michigan in November 2006 and USS Georgiai n October 2007.
>
> I think he's talking about a UAV proposal for the TLAMed Ohios, not the
> conversion itself.
Exactly. Shooting Tomahawks off of em ain't a bad idea, because they
don't have to stick around after they launch. Screwing around with UAVs is
asking for it.
>
--
Tiger
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:15:22 -0700, Keith Willshaw
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>
>>>
> I was talking about the sub launched UAV proposal, not the
> conversion. SSGNs are a good idea, but cluttering em up with things like
> that UAV probably aren't. And they were talking about actually recovering
> the thing which is bloody insane in the bargain.
>
> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>
On the other hand... THat same sub can pop up in places others can't go.
The ability to launch a UAV from any place on earth makes this a idea
worth pursuing.
Roger Conroy
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:15:22 -0700, Keith Willshaw
> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>
>>>
>>> For once I agree with you. I remember reading about a proposal
>>> like that for the SSGN conversions of Ohio Class SSBNs, but somebody
>>> had a sudden case of sanity and killed the idea.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Reality check
>>
>> In November 2002 Ohio entered drydockto be converted to an SSGN and
>> rejoined the fleet in February 2006, followed by Florida in April 2006,
>> USS Michigan in November 2006 and USS Georgiai n October 2007.
>
> I was talking about the sub launched UAV proposal, not the
> conversion. SSGNs are a good idea, but cluttering em up with things like
> that UAV probably aren't. And they were talking about actually recovering
> the thing which is bloody insane in the bargain.
>
> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>
Where no more than a handfull of people know its position - and they are all
on board.
Roger Conroy
"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:487C7B7A...@hotmail.com...
It strikes me that a Tomahawk is a UAV - with a bomb as payload.
So if a sub has be a UAV launcher it should leave the area immediately after
launch and not hang around to communicate with it.
Get someone back home to drive the drone - that is what satellite links are
for.
Fred J. McCall
:Michael Shirley wrote:
:> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:15:22 -0700, Keith Willshaw
:> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:>>
:>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
:>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
:>>
:>>>
:
:> I was talking about the sub launched UAV proposal, not the
:> conversion. SSGNs are a good idea, but cluttering em up with things like
:> that UAV probably aren't. And they were talking about actually recovering
:> the thing which is bloody insane in the bargain.
:>
:> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
:>
:
:On the other hand... THat same sub can pop up in places others can't go.
:
Not if it's going to call attention to itself by launching shit out of
the water, it can't.
:
: The ability to launch a UAV from any place on earth makes this a idea
:worth pursuing.
:
The ability to lose a multi-billion dollar submarine in order to
launce a $200 UAV makes this an idea worth ridiculing.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:
But that's a much bigger, much more expensive UAV than is being
discussed. That sort of thing is perhaps worth doing, but in that
case why not just update a Tomahawk so that when your UAV sees
something it can be directed to attack it?
We're now out of the realm of 'UAV' and into the realm of 'loitering
attack weapon'.
For the initial recce with the smaller, cheaper UAV, it still makes
more sense to launch the thing from something like a Global Hawk.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> For the initial recce with the smaller, cheaper UAV, it still makes
:> more sense to launch the thing from something like a Global Hawk.
:
:But then you're talking about overflight rights, radar detection etc...
:all sorts of stuff that can be avoided if you launch from a sub.
:
Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
limit.
As for radar, why is that a big deal? We've been building low
observable airframes for a while now and presumably you'd want this
UAV to be LO as well.
What's the point of the submarine in the system, again?
Tiger
We may go the next step and give the thing AI. Let the UAV do it's own
thing. Hopfully it works better than in the Movie Stealth and goes nuts.
Tiger
> Tiger <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :Michael Shirley wrote:
> :> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:15:22 -0700, Keith Willshaw
> :> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :>>
> :>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
> :>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
> :>>
> :>>>
> :
>
> launce a $200 UAV makes this an idea worth ridiculing.
>
But your Global Hawk has to fly from some place like Nellis AFB in the
US. The sub has 75% of the earth to roam in and is 20 miles off shore.
Also where is the great ASw threat? Most of the capable Navies are
Friends already.
Derek Lyons
>The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
In some fantasy world where the sub isn't actually required to be
doing something. In the real world, being really deep and really
quiet conflicts with actually accomplishing any missions.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> It strikes me that a Tomahawk is a UAV - with a bomb as payload.
> So if a sub has be a UAV launcher it should leave the area immediately after
> launch and not hang around to communicate with it.
> Get someone back home to drive the drone - that is what satellite links are
> for.
>
When the UAV has found the target the folks back home need a way to inform
the sub. Although that may already exist.
Andrew Swallow
Fred J. McCall
:
But your submarine has to cruise at a much slower speed from someplace
like San Diego in the US. The sub has less of the earth to roam in
than the aircraft launcher and isn't 20 miles off shore until you send
it there. Sending it there takes longer than sending an airplane.
Also where is the great AAW threat? Most of the capable Militaries
are Friends already.
Keith Willshaw
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2mdq74h6vaa1jue5i...@4ax.com...
> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :
> :> For the initial recce with the smaller, cheaper UAV, it still makes
> :> more sense to launch the thing from something like a Global Hawk.
> :
> :But then you're talking about overflight rights, radar detection etc...
> :all sorts of stuff that can be avoided if you launch from a sub.
> :
>
> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
> limit.
>
Unless of course your target lies inland of another country
as happened with Afghanistan when missiles had to overfly
Pakistan or Iraq when missiles flew through Jordanian
and Saudi airspace.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
The Russian, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian navys all have sizable
coastal forces with some degree of ASW capability. Great powers
dont have friends, only interests.
Keith
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:
Yes, and if that's the case just how do you get the submarine there?
Trucks?
Those are targets that a submarine can't even get near, which makes
the aircraft launcher make even more sense (which has been one of my
points).
--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
:> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
:> limit.
:
:Submarines tend to have a somewhat bigger range than planes... sure,
:you can get from the US to, say, Somalia flying over the ocean all the
:time, but that will take a lot more effort than asking for overflight
:rights in some countries.
:
There isn't anyplace on the planet you can get a submarine to that you
cannot get an airplane to.
:
:Sure, Globalhawk and suchlike are nice tools, but they might simply be
:overkill for some missions.
:
So you use a multi-billion dollar submarine instead? Talk about
overkill!
:
:Oh, and ARE there any air-droppable small UAVs?
:
It's a much easier technical problem than launching them from
underwater.
:
:> As for radar, why is that a big deal? We've been building low
:> observable airframes for a while now and presumably you'd want this
:> UAV to be LO as well.
:>
:> What's the point of the submarine in the system, again?
:
:Let's see... the team of SEALs that uses the imagery generated by the
:UAV for last-minute recon updates is dropped from a Globalhawk, too? ;-)
:
No, and they don't come from the submarine whose position is blown by
launching the UAV, either, unless your plan is to get them all back in
body bags.
Richard Casady
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Yes, and if that's the case just how do you get the submarine there?
>Trucks?
Not lately, but its been done. Germans wanted to get at the Russians
in the Black Sea. They took the subs apart, to a certain degree. These
were smaller coastal boats, not the oceanic jobs.
Casady
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:23:36 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>
> >Yes, and if that's the case just how do you get the submarine there?
> >Trucks?
>
> Not lately, but its been done. Germans wanted to get at the Russians
> in the Black Sea. They took the subs apart, to a certain degree. These
> were smaller coastal boats, not the oceanic jobs.
>
> Casady
Check "1944"
Keith Willshaw
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:2mdq74h6vaa1jue5i...@4ax.com...
> :> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :> For the initial recce with the smaller, cheaper UAV, it still makes
> :> :> more sense to launch the thing from something like a Global Hawk.
> :> :
> :> :But then you're talking about overflight rights, radar detection
> etc...
> :> :all sorts of stuff that can be avoided if you launch from a sub.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
> :> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
> :> limit.
> :>
> :
> :Unless of course your target lies inland of another country
> :as happened with Afghanistan when missiles had to overfly
> :Pakistan or Iraq when missiles flew through Jordanian
> :and Saudi airspace.
> :
>
> Yes, and if that's the case just how do you get the submarine there?
> Trucks?
>
Let me draw you a diagram
AFGHANISTAN
--------------- Mountains -----------------
PAKISTAN
--------------- Coastline -------------------
Submarine
Get the idea
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> :> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
> :> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
> :> limit.
> :>
> :
> :Unless of course your target lies inland of another country
> :as happened with Afghanistan when missiles had to overfly
> :Pakistan or Iraq when missiles flew through Jordanian
> :and Saudi airspace.
> :
>
> Yes, and if that's the case just how do you get the submarine there?
> Trucks?
>
> Those are targets that a submarine can't even get near, which makes
> the aircraft launcher make even more sense (which has been one of my
> points).
>
I tend to agree , my point was that using a submarine doesnt
remove the overflight problem at all.
Keith
Michael Shirley
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>
> They're a tad bit useless then, though...
Not at all! First off, that sub's got the finest sonar ever built. Those
sets
can hear quite a lot. Secondly, the sub doesn't just have it's own
sensors. It's got
data from satellite that can be sent to it giving course & position via
VLF. The
scope dopes see it, they tell their bosses, their bosses transmit and the
subs here
and go hunting. And then there's data from the old P-3s and the new P-8s,
both of which
are capable of doing considerably more than merely hunting subs.
An SSN, SSGN, ect, isn't something that operates in a vaccum. There are
plenty
of assets out there working hard to make their job easier. Making a sub do
all of it's
own target acquisition is a good way to lose a valuable asset.
Michael Shirley
I'd experiment, but I don't think that the idea's as good as quick
look satellites launched from Pegasus air launched SLVs, which were
originally developed to replace the wing of Titan II's that were tasked
with
Secure Post Strike Military Space Launch.
And we've got some really long range UAVs like Global Hawk that have
some really intriguing capabilities.
Michael Shirley
<rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It strikes me that a Tomahawk is a UAV - with a bomb as payload.
> So if a sub has be a UAV launcher it should leave the area immediately
> after
> launch and not hang around to communicate with it.
> Get someone back home to drive the drone - that is what satellite links
> are
> for.
I tend to agree here. Launch and scoot. Let the scope dopes from long
range screw with it.
Michael Shirley
wrote:
> :It strikes me that a Tomahawk is a UAV - with a bomb as payload.
> :So if a sub has be a UAV launcher it should leave the area immediately
> after
> :launch and not hang around to communicate with it.
> :Get someone back home to drive the drone - that is what satellite links
> are
> :for.
> :
>
> But that's a much bigger, much more expensive UAV than is being
> discussed. That sort of thing is perhaps worth doing, but in that
> case why not just update a Tomahawk so that when your UAV sees
> something it can be directed to attack it?
That's actually a good idea.
>
> We're now out of the realm of 'UAV' and into the realm of 'loitering
> attack weapon'.
>
> For the initial recce with the smaller, cheaper UAV, it still makes
> more sense to launch the thing from something like a Global Hawk.
Or just use the long range sensor suite on the Global Hawk itself.
It can see a long way.
Michael Shirley
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> For the initial recce with the smaller, cheaper UAV, it still makes
>> more sense to launch the thing from something like a Global Hawk.
>
> But then you're talking about overflight rights, radar detection etc...
> all sorts of stuff that can be avoided if you launch from a sub.
A Global Hawk ain't the easiest thing in the world to see. That's
why it's shaped the way that it is.
Michael Shirley
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
>> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
>> limit.
>
> Submarines tend to have a somewhat bigger range than planes... sure,
> you can get from the US to, say, Somalia flying over the ocean all the
> time, but that will take a lot more effort than asking for overflight
> rights in some countries.
>
> Sure, Globalhawk and suchlike are nice tools, but they might simply be
> overkill for some missions.
>
> Oh, and ARE there any air-droppable small UAVs?
Yes. If memory serves, Northrop had a variant of the MQM-74C
that had a camera installation instead of scoring equipment.
That's smaller and lighter than the AQM-34 Firebee variants
like the Ryan Model 147T, which also were air launched. And the Chinese
copied the Model 147SC variant and used a modified TU-4 Bull as a
launch plane.
>
>> As for radar, why is that a big deal? We've been building low
>> observable airframes for a while now and presumably you'd want this
>> UAV to be LO as well.
>>
>> What's the point of the submarine in the system, again?
>
> Let's see... the team of SEALs that uses the imagery generated by the
> UAV for last-minute recon updates is dropped from a Globalhawk, too? ;-)
Or a Quick Look RECONSAT lofted by a Pegasus SLV.
--
Michael Shirley
<rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:op.uea16zy0ra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:15:22 -0700, Keith Willshaw
>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For once I agree with you. I remember reading about a proposal
>>>> like that for the SSGN conversions of Ohio Class SSBNs, but somebody
>>>> had a sudden case of sanity and killed the idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reality check
>>>
>>> In November 2002 Ohio entered drydockto be converted to an SSGN and
>>> rejoined the fleet in February 2006, followed by Florida in April
>>> 2006,
>>> USS Michigan in November 2006 and USS Georgiai n October 2007.
>>
>> I was talking about the sub launched UAV proposal, not the
>> conversion. SSGNs are a good idea, but cluttering em up with things like
>> that UAV probably aren't. And they were talking about actually
>> recovering
>> the thing which is bloody insane in the bargain.
>>
>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>>
>
> Where no more than a handfull of people know its position - and they are
> all
> on board.
AMEN.
Michael Shirley
wrote:
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>
> In some fantasy world where the sub isn't actually required to be
> doing something. In the real world, being really deep and really
> quiet conflicts with actually accomplishing any missions.
Derek, those subs are capable of doing quite a lot. And there
are plenty of people out working really hard to make that boat's job
as easy as possible. If there's something beyond it's sensor range,
the Navy can send course, position, ect, via VLF.
And you can have RECONSATS, P3s, the new P-8 and Globalhawk,
all out looking for things for that boat to attack. Those subs may
be out in the water, but where it counts they're not really alone.
BlackBeard
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:28:48 -0700, Derek Lyons <fairwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
Preaching to the choir... Derek earned his Fish.
BB
I guess everybody has some mountain to climb in their life.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet.
Tiger
> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :
> :> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
> :> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
> :> limit.
> :
> :Submarines tend to have a somewhat bigger range than planes... sure,
> :you can get from the US to, say, Somalia flying over the ocean all the
> :time, but that will take a lot more effort than asking for overflight
> :rights in some countries.
> :
>
> There isn't anyplace on the planet you can get a submarine to that you
> cannot get an airplane to.
Not without pissing off somebodies airspace rights. You airplane will
take hours to get on scene. The Sub is there already........
>
> :
> :Sure, Globalhawk and suchlike are nice tools, but they might simply be
> :overkill for some missions.
> :
>
> So you use a multi-billion dollar submarine instead? Talk about
> overkill!
>
> :
> :Oh, and ARE there any air-droppable small UAVs?
> :
>
> It's a much easier technical problem than launching them from
> underwater.
It not like we are buliding a transporter from Star Trek. Is Underwater
launch a Absolute part?
Tiger
We are not fighting Russia, China, PaKistian or India. No more than we
are the French or the UK.
Tiger
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:27:06 -0700, Tiger <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Shirley wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:15:22 -0700, Keith Willshaw
>>> <keith...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.ud8lvoqrra3qj7@schooner-blue...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>> I was talking about the sub launched UAV proposal, not the
>>> conversion. SSGNs are a good idea, but cluttering em up with things like
>>> that UAV probably aren't. And they were talking about actually
>>> recovering
>>> the thing which is bloody insane in the bargain.
>>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>>>
>>
>> On the other hand... THat same sub can pop up in places others can't
>> go. The ability to launch a UAV from any place on earth makes this
>> a idea worth pursuing.
>
>
> I'd experiment, but I don't think that the idea's as good as quick
> look satellites launched from Pegasus air launched SLVs, which were
> originally developed to replace the wing of Titan II's that were tasked
> with
> Secure Post Strike Military Space Launch.
>
> And we've got some really long range UAVs like Global Hawk that have
> some really intriguing capabilities.
>
>>
>
>
>
What is you want to do more than take picures?
Derek Lyons
>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:42:06 -0700, Juergen Nieveler
><juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>>
>> They're a tad bit useless then, though...
>
> Not at all! First off, that sub's got the finest sonar ever built. Those
>sets can hear quite a lot. Secondly, the sub doesn't just have it's own
>sensors. It's got data from satellite that can be sent to it giving course & position via
>VLF. The scope dopes see it, they tell their bosses, their bosses transmit and the
>subs here and go hunting.
And when the sub goes a' hunting - it is no longer really deep or
really quiet you ignorant dipshit.
Derek Lyons
>On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:28:48 -0700, Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>>
>> In some fantasy world where the sub isn't actually required to be
>> doing something. In the real world, being really deep and really
>> quiet conflicts with actually accomplishing any missions.
>
> Derek, those subs are capable of doing quite a lot. And there
>are plenty of people out working really hard to make that boat's job
>as easy as possible. If there's something beyond it's sensor range,
>the Navy can send course, position, ect, via VLF.
So the fuck what? The submarine still has to move into range and then
conduct the attack - meanwhile it is neither really deep or really
quiet.
Michael Shirley
wrote:
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:42:06 -0700, Juergen Nieveler
>> <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>>>
>>> They're a tad bit useless then, though...
>>
>> Not at all! First off, that sub's got the finest sonar ever built.
>> Those
>> sets can hear quite a lot. Secondly, the sub doesn't just have it's own
>> sensors. It's got data from satellite that can be sent to it giving
>> course & position via
>> VLF. The scope dopes see it, they tell their bosses, their bosses
>> transmit and the
>> subs here and go hunting.
>
> And when the sub goes a' hunting - it is no longer really deep or
> really quiet you ignorant dipshit.
It's still pretty quiet and I'm far from ignorant Derek. A 688
doesn't give off much noise. And they've only got to go shallow for
target acquisition and launch of whatever weapon they're gonna use. And
the new West Virginia's are quieter.
And that doesn't change the fact that the hardest part of the boat's
hunting gets done by sensors on other platforms.
Michael Shirley
>> I'd experiment, but I don't think that the idea's as good as quick
>> look satellites launched from Pegasus air launched SLVs, which were
>> originally developed to replace the wing of Titan II's that were
>> tasked with
>> Secure Post Strike Military Space Launch.
>> And we've got some really long range UAVs like Global Hawk that
>> have
>> some really intriguing capabilities.
>>
>>>
>>
>
> What is you want to do more than take picures?
Then either the sub or some other platform shoots. But you don't
want to waste a lot of limited space with simple target acquisition
systems.
If you haul a Tomahawk out of a vertical launch cell or a torpedo out of
the torpedo room to make space for that thing, that's one less piece of
actual ordinance you carry. And that's not gonna make that thing popular
with the sub skippers who have to haul it around.
Michael Shirley
If that's true, why does he think that a 688 is noisy?
Michael Shirley
wrote:
> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:28:48 -0700, Derek Lyons <fair...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Shirley" <mi5k...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The best place for a sub is really deep while being really quiet.
>>>
>>> In some fantasy world where the sub isn't actually required to be
>>> doing something. In the real world, being really deep and really
>>> quiet conflicts with actually accomplishing any missions.
>>
>> Derek, those subs are capable of doing quite a lot. And there
>> are plenty of people out working really hard to make that boat's job
>> as easy as possible. If there's something beyond it's sensor range,
>> the Navy can send course, position, ect, via VLF.
>
> So the fuck what? The submarine still has to move into range and then
> conduct the attack - meanwhile it is neither really deep or really
> quiet.
So you're figuring that the boat's moving fast enough to cavitate?
Would you do that if it were you? Or are you figuring launching noise from
the torpedo tube, the fish or the Harpoon?
And does the loiter time doing that match the loiter time and exposure
for launching and controlling a UAV?
I don't know about you but I don't think that I'd want to be hanging
around where patrol planes and similar stuff can see me any longer than is
absolutely necessary.
And given the choice, I think that I'd rather trust the patrol planes
or the RECONSATS than I would some widget that requires that I hang around.
Michael Shirley
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> :
>> :> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
>> :> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
>> :> limit.
>> :
>> :Submarines tend to have a somewhat bigger range than planes... sure,
>> :you can get from the US to, say, Somalia flying over the ocean all the
>> :time, but that will take a lot more effort than asking for overflight
>> :rights in some countries.
>> :
>> There isn't anyplace on the planet you can get a submarine to that you
>> cannot get an airplane to.
>
> Not without pissing off somebodies airspace rights. You airplane will
> take hours to get on scene. The Sub is there already........
Which brings you to another problem. If it's a period of international
tension, what happens when the Paranoid Pakistanis see what looks like a
Cruise
Missile coming out of the ocean at em? Keep in mind that the Indians have
that
with Brahmos and possibly with other systems now. Absent a compliant
environment
where you already have permission, there's a chance that you're going to
cause
an escalation since the Pakistanis sensors probably aren't good enough to
tell
the difference between our UAV and an Indian Cruise Missile.
And if it is a compliant environment, why waste a specialist system
when you can use other means to get an UAV in the neighborhood for either
an overflight or peripheral reconnissance? If you've got permission, send a
Global Hawk. If you don't, by all means don't use a system that might
trigger
a response that you can't predict.
>> :Sure, Globalhawk and suchlike are nice tools, but they might simply be
>> :overkill for some missions.
>> :
>> So you use a multi-billion dollar submarine instead? Talk about
>> overkill!
>> :
>> :Oh, and ARE there any air-droppable small UAVs?
>> :
>> It's a much easier technical problem than launching them from
>> underwater.
>
> It not like we are buliding a transporter from Star Trek. Is Underwater
> launch a Absolute part?
If you surface, you're vulnerable to radar and other sensors. The
whole big thing about submarines is that they're supposed to be stealthy.
>
>
>
>
--
Keith Willshaw
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>
>> :Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> :
>> :> Uh, what 'overflight rights'? If a sub can get there, you're over
>> :> WATER. No overflight rights required. Just launch from outside the
>> :> limit.
>> :
>> :Submarines tend to have a somewhat bigger range than planes... sure,
>> :you can get from the US to, say, Somalia flying over the ocean all the
>> :time, but that will take a lot more effort than asking for overflight
>> :rights in some countries.
>> :
>>
>> There isn't anyplace on the planet you can get a submarine to that you
>> cannot get an airplane to.
>
> Not without pissing off somebodies airspace rights. You airplane will take
> hours to get on scene. The Sub is there already........
>
>
So explain again who you are going to get to dig the canal
to allow a submarine to reach Afghanistan.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Russian, Chinese, Pakistani and Indian navys all have sizable
>> coastal forces with some degree of ASW capability. Great powers
>> dont have friends, only interests.
>>
>> Keith
>
> We are not fighting Russia, China, PaKistian or India. No more than we are
> the French or the UK.
>
Military planners base their options on capabilities not intentions.
A radical Islamist takeover in Pakistan is scarcely impossible and
a resurgence of Russian nationalism is hardly impossible either.
Keith