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

When the enemy has a near-perfect TMA solution on you, then it makes no difference if you launch missiles and go flank afterwards. A working SAM solution would be undoubtly a good military asset even in a sub.

I think the reason why such SAM systems for subs were not followed-up (to public) is because of money reasons making them less necessary after the cold war.

688: $900 million

Ka-25: $9 million (?)

FIM-92 Stinger: $38,000

Risking a $900 million platform, to take down a $9 million aircraft, is a good way to lose your $900 million platform.

Air assets do need to be reworked. The Soviets apparently have psychic pilots in their helos and MPAs.

Now if only real sub drivers could hear there's a helo nearby so they could pop up for that Igla shot before it's too late..

Anyways yes re:psychic patrol aircraft drivers. On the TLAM mission you can (will) have a bear following you dropping sonobuoys right on top of you after it runs out of ordnance.

The US military was never terribly concerned about the costs when designing and putting alive an attack or defense system.
In your post you forget to compare risks for the sub if a plane is not shotdown and facing a lot of torpedos versus the chance for the sub to shoot down the plane and evade successfully.
The question is if such a mounted or VLT SAM system is efficient enough to have any good chance to accomplish its job, also the major concern is its total weight, any weight surplus is a no-go for a sub, having negative consequences for its max speed and manoeuver capability. Probably the weight aspect leads to dismiss such a solution.

But the reason why SAM systems on subs are futile is a very simple one: The days where subs act as lone wolfes near the surface are years past. The modern warfare tactics make subs act in a group of other surface vessels or carrier groups with far better SAM capability. And for SSBNs stealth is prime instead of stupidly attacking some overflying planes.

This 'Lone Wolf' tactics do very well fit in a game (see Microprose Stealth Fighter F-117 and other series) also because there is less work to do for the devs.

don't tell russia, an S300 or S200 SAM system on a sub, just put somewhere on a coast of a nation you want to make a nonflying zone ...

Good luck fitting that on a sub. Good luck keeping that sub alive for very long too.

Occasionally I wind up having a helicopter dogging me after I've sunk everything in play and it's dropped all it's weapons, keeping me from leaving the area even though it can't actually do anything to me.

Would be nice to have someone go out on the sail with a M16 and put a few rounds into his windscreen to get him to buzz off. Or just have the AI realize he's out of weapons and start focusing on more important matters, like getting as close to land as possible before his fuel runs out.

The US Submarine force is still a 'lone wolf' force. We have just had to integrate our operations with the surface guys in the last 20 or so years. Mainly due to TLAM.

Still, better than 80% of all deployed US submarines are independent operators. It just depends on where they going to be operating.

since ESSM and SM-2/3 are VLS launched, it seems like it could be theoretically possible to retrofit onto a VLS equipped boat, but you run into problems with the guidance, both of those missiles are designed to be used with AEGIS/SPY-1 radars, which are way more sophisticated than the little surface search radar mast.

I forget who, but someone just got another nickel.

😀

Probably me. :doh:

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

I just forgot who.

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.

(Someone got another nickel) :D