surface to air

[Carthaginian]

Yeah... the Sovs have never been known for making the brightest decisions regarding "teh missulz fur e'rytingz."
Project 877 and 636.3 boats are among the most respected boats under the waves... but surfacing one to fire a MANPAD? If I was on that boat, the captain would be bleeding out of a .357" hole in the back of his head and our XO would have a very informal promotion ceremony. That is risking your boat and your crews' lives on a VERY small chance of success.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Carthaginian

Yeah... the Sovs have never been known for making the brightest decisions regarding "teh missulz fur e'rytingz."
Project 877 and 636.3 boats are among the most respected boats under the waves... but surfacing one to fire a MANPAD? If I was on that boat, the captain would be bleeding out of a .357" hole in the back of his head and our XO would have a very informal promotion ceremony. That is risking your boat and your crews' lives on a VERY small chance of success.

MANPADS in this context have the same role as side arms for the crew.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

MANPADS in this context have the same role as side arms for the crew.

As in, you were forced to surface and it's a defensive weapon? That would make more sense I would think.

[Kat Tsun]

MANPADS on submarines are intended to protect them when they're doing this: http://www.ship-technology.com/uploa...z-convoy-l.jpg

They are not serious anti-helicopter weapons. They're more like anti-crop duster.

A contemporary anti-helicopter weapon for submarines (Ford SIAM) existed and was used to shoot down DASH drones in 1980-81 in captive launch tests. It would have been fired similar to a Harpoon or Tomahawk cruise missile, using a canister to reach the surface, and search for a target with an infrared seeker. It worked quite well, but the U.S. Navy didn't have the money for it at the time, so it sort of languished for a couple years until it died sometime in the mid '80s. This is the only practical anti-helicopter missile for submarines that could be in the game.

Another contemporary system would be the aforementioned periscope mounted missiles, which were carried by Soviet diesels for purposes of killing overly curious LAMPS. Periscope mounted missiles are slightly more serious than MANPADS, but only through the 1980s or so about, but the Soviets still made them for SSKs. The better solution would be an encapsulated missile like SIAM, since this wouldn't require the submarine to expose its periscope, but I guess the USSR really was a decade behind the West. Or maybe it was just contemporary with the Amphion's Blowpipe mast [i.e. from the 1970s]. India still has them on their Kilos and Russia probably does too.

Everything else was either dead as disco (SLAM) or not serious (MANPADS in the armory).

[Gardiner.b]

DCNS has made a system for taking out ASW helos well submerged under water its attached to the mast

http://www.indiastrategic.in/image/DCNS2.jpg

[edjcox]

There is an experimental tow pack that can be deployed that sets behind about 2500 yds that allows remoted fiber link periscope views, infrasound sonar and passive RX, ESM and AA launch. The array is useable to 12 knots max. The onboard noisemaker if activated can serve as decoy for 30 minutes autonomously. Beats using the Sail sensor systems and in conjunction provides highly accurate ranging using infrared lasers.

If cut loose the tow pack is recoverable within a limited time but will self sink and destruct vital items after a set time.

The game has all manner of innovations, yet to fielded.

[Spartaner251]

So one has to cross a SM2, a Tomahawk and an alarm missile from the brits to have a working/useful system?

Problem is, everytime you launch something to the surface, everyone has an easy time finding your submarine

[Delgard]

I forget who, but someone just got another nickel.

😀

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Delgard

I forget who, but someone just got another nickel.

😀

Probably me.

[Delgard]

Someone mentioned, "If I had a nickel for every time someone mentioned surface to air capabilities..."

I just forgot who.

[shipkiller1]

These are my thoughts as one who did this for 24 years active duty and still designs, installs and repairs the Fire Control and Weapon Launching Systems.

There are always people who have never been on a submarine, know almost nothing about them except what they read in books or in there own imaginations, ask 'why can't we do this?'...

A couple of reasons.

Helos are just not that real of a threat in the real world. The capabilities of the airborn assets in the game are much too overstated.

Would an anti-air missile be nice? Sure.
But saying this and doing this are WAY too different things.

1. How do you keep the missile dry? This is much harder than it sounds.

2. How do you aim and launch it? This too is harder than is sounds.

3. Where do you put it? This is even harder than 1 and 2.

4. How many do you have? This goes along with no. 3.

5. Do you really need one?

I do not mean to be snarky but this thread is sterile conjecture.

I have been inside of a 500 yds. of hovering helos who were pinging away, and a helos who were passive (US, Soviet, UK, German etc...). We could see them but they had no contact... This was the norm.

The helos biggest asset is not detecting you and dropping a weapon. It just the threat of this action and maybe disrupting your approach. A mission kill is almost as good as a real kill.

The solution refinement of all the airborne assets in the game is just freaking amazing.. NEVER on their best day could they ever do that in real life.

Hell, the Soviet surface ships acoustic capabilities are WAYYYY to good also in the game.

But, at the end of the day, it is still just a freaking game.

[Delgard]

(Someone got another nickel)

[foz]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

These are my thoughts as one who did this for 24 years active duty and still designs, installs and repairs the Fire Control and Weapon Launching Systems.

There are always people who have never been on a submarine, know almost nothing about them except what they read in books or in there own imaginations, ask 'why can't we do this?'...

A couple of reasons.

Helos are just not that real of a threat in the real world. The capabilities of the airborn assets in the game are much too overstated.

Would an anti-air missile be nice? Sure.
But saying this and doing this are WAY too different things.

1. How do you keep the missile dry? This is much harder than it sounds.

2. How do you aim and launch it? This too is harder than is sounds.

3. Where do you put it? This is even harder than 1 and 2.

4. How many do you have? This goes along with no. 3.

5. Do you really need one?

I do not mean to be snarky but this thread is sterile conjecture.

I have been inside of a 500 yds. of hovering helos who were pinging away, and a helos who were passive (US, Soviet, UK, German etc...). We could see them but they had no contact... This was the norm.

The helos biggest asset is not detecting you and dropping a weapon. It just the threat of this action and maybe disrupting your approach. A mission kill is almost as good as a real kill.

The solution refinement of all the airborne assets in the game is just freaking amazing.. NEVER on their best day could they ever do that in real life.

Hell, the Soviet surface ships acoustic capabilities are WAYYYY to good also in the game.

But, at the end of the day, it is still just a freaking game.

Like shipkiller1 , said the airborne assets & surface ship capabilities are way too high .
Is there anyway to back this off , and yes it is just a game .
O and merry Christmas & a happy new year to one & all .

[XenonSurf]

Originally Posted by shipkiller1

These are my thoughts as one who did this for 24 years active duty and still designs, installs and repairs the Fire Control and Weapon Launching Systems.

There are always people who have never been on a submarine, know almost nothing about them except what they read in books or in there own imaginations, ask 'why can't we do this?'...

A couple of reasons.

Helos are just not that real of a threat in the real world. The capabilities of the airborn assets in the game are much too overstated.

Would an anti-air missile be nice? Sure.
But saying this and doing this are WAY too different things.

1. How do you keep the missile dry? This is much harder than it sounds.

2. How do you aim and launch it? This too is harder than is sounds.

3. Where do you put it? This is even harder than 1 and 2.

4. How many do you have? This goes along with no. 3.

5. Do you really need one?

I do not mean to be snarky but this thread is sterile conjecture.

I have been inside of a 500 yds. of hovering helos who were pinging away, and a helos who were passive (US, Soviet, UK, German etc...). We could see them but they had no contact... This was the norm.

The helos biggest asset is not detecting you and dropping a weapon. It just the threat of this action and maybe disrupting your approach. A mission kill is almost as good as a real kill.

The solution refinement of all the airborne assets in the game is just freaking amazing.. NEVER on their best day could they ever do that in real life.

Hell, the Soviet surface ships acoustic capabilities are WAYYYY to good also in the game.

But, at the end of the day, it is still just a freaking game.

You sound convincing with your 5 points, I too am thinking that AA weapons on a stealth asset like a submarine are out-of-place, for only one: They take considerable weight to lower the sub performance, but what do you do with the pictures in the posts above, do you simply ignore them for the sake of your arguments? Fact is at least Russian military found it smart enough to install SAMs on their subs. I highly doubt they do it today, the problems - if so - haven't changed. The solution to this problem is called 'Joint Operations' involving different army assets.


As for the overwhelming asset powers in the game, well, it has to be so to give entertainment to the player...The real thing would be boring 99% of the time with 1% action only.





XS