Quote:
Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)
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.
|
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.