Asroc

[hyperion2206]

Does anybody know why they didn't include the ASROC in DW? Are ASROCs still being used? I just read that the German Navy gave up their ASROCs in 2003.

[Kapitan]

SS-N-16 Stallion SS-N-27 ASW are ASROC's they loaded out on the akula's my personal prefrence is i rarely if ever carry these and if i do il load out a minimal amount simply because i hate using them i hate coming to 50 meters to fire them i hate the fact i have to put myself in danger if a helo is above me.

sorry ranting.

Also AmericanASROCS so i hear are not carried on any warship or sub any more as of the 80's i think that was.

[LuftWolf]

SUBROCs were designed primarily to carry nuclear depth charges, as their accuracy is poor. In fact, few people realize that the nuclear SUBROC was the primary ASW weapon of the nuclear Navy (during the Cold War).

It's open to debate as to whether non-nuclear SUBROCs are effective weapons. It would appear from the fact that the US has largely removed them from service that at least the USN doesn't think so.

Cheers,
David

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

SUBROCs were designed primarily to carry nuclear depth charges, as their accuracy is poor. In fact, few people realize that the nuclear SUBROC was the primary ASW weapon of the nuclear Navy (during the Cold War).

It's open to debate as to whether non-nuclear SUBROCs are effective weapons. It would appear from the fact that the US has largely removed them from service that at least the USN doesn't think so.

Cheers,
David

_______________________________________________
Tactical nukes carry political baggage far above the benefit. It isn't worth the danger to sink a single sub.
In fact it is hard to believe that they would not be effective weapons-they could wreck everything in scores of miles. The biggest problem would be friendly fire.

[LuftWolf]

I think if you read more closely, I've stated that NON-nuclear SUBROC's are probably only marginally effective.

Of course a 200kt warhead would do catastrophic damage to everything within miles of the explosion underwater.

Cheers,
David

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

I think if you read more closely, I've stated that NON-nuclear SUBROC's are probably only marginally effective.

Of course a 200kt warhead would do catastrophic damage to everything within miles of the explosion underwater.

You'd be surprised how hardened submarines and warships really are. I think people sometimes imagine that it's like a nuclear weapon goes off and every sub immediately drops to the bottom, but it's not that way. Subs, in particular, are quite tough, actually.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Tactical nukes carry political baggage far above the benefit. It isn't worth the danger to sink a single sub.
In fact it is hard to believe that they would not be effective weapons-they could wreck everything in scores of miles. The biggest problem would be friendly fire.

I've had several old cold warrior ASW think-tank mathematicians verify what Lufty said. At a certain point in the Cold War, the attitude was that torpedoes were almost a weapon of last resort.

It's hard to really capture the feelings of those days. I think the critical thing to understand was the uncertainty in the enemy's intentions. Let's suppose you were commanding a US CVBG in the Norwegian sea and suddenly a bunch of Backfire bombers shot their cruise missiles at you. You don't know if they're nuclear tipped or not. The consequences, however, of leakers for the two cases (nuclear tipped versus conventional) are very different. If there's one leaker and it's conventional then you MIGHT lose one ship. More likely though, it'll just be out of action. If the cruise missiles are nuclear tipped, though, and there's one leaker, then your could lose the whole battlegroup. In light of the consequences of nuclear weapons, there's a tendancy to assume that every one of the missiles shot at you is nuclear tipped, even if they might not be.

During the Cold War, they used to plan on intercepting the Backfires with F-14s a couple hundred miles out, shooting Phoenix missiles another hundred miles or so. Many Soviet cruise missiles had ranges of a few hundred miles. If you look at them, many were as big as a fighter jet themselves!

Regarding the ASW problem, that was also an age when you could usually count on at least one convergence zone. There were real doubts as to whether the US torpedoes would be able to catch the Alfa class SSNs, and the general tendancy of ASW to be intrinisicaly a science of managing uncertainty made nuclear weapons seem very natural particularly in the ASW role.

I think what really killed tactical nukes was a combination of diplomacy and the fact that the conventional weapons capabilities improved. Even with ADCAP and Sealance (which never happened) there was still discussion of nuclear depth charges in the Sealance, and nuclear torpedoes.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by hyperion2206

Does anybody know why they didn't include the ASROC in DW? Are ASROCs still being used? I just read that the German Navy gave up their ASROCs in 2003.

ASROCs are old Cold War nuclear weapons. Nobody I know still uses the old weapons per se, but there does exist the VLA which stands for "verticle launch ASROC."

VLA is very much the same idea, but it fits into the verticle launch cells of US DDGs and CGs. Also, instead of a nuclear depth charge it carries a conventional homing torpedo. My understanding is, though, that internally it has more in common with the Sealance missile (which was never deployed) than it does with the old ASROC weapons.

[Molon Labe]

Just for the record, ASROCs ARE included in DW in the VLS cells of US surface warships.

[hyperion2206]

I was actually thinking of the ASROCs used by the Gearing class for example: http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/asroc.htm

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by hyperion2206

I was actually thinking of the ASROCs used by the Gearing class for example: http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/asroc.htm

Theres still some with the box launchers left in the Taiwanese navy, because they pick up a lot of old US warships. They still have a few of the old FRAMs (it's amazing how long lived those ships are) and Kidd class DDGs.

[LoBlo]

The ASROC is still listed in the weapons loadout of the Ticonderoga class CGNs as a possible VLS ordinance. In game they are carried by the Ticonderoga and the Arleigh Burke DDG iirc.