Military buildup

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I didn't know she had Mk37s, I thought most of her gear was German. I wonder what the contact was...could have been Onyx with her duff bow tube.

Probably from the kit we sold them for the GUPPIES. Most likely it was a whale, but who knows. Both sides are still very 'hush hush' about the sub ops down there.

[TLAM Strike]

H.M.S. Spartan and H.M.S. Splendid Operations.
6
The Spartan and the Splendid sailed for the
South Atlantic on 1 April and arrived ten days later. To enforce the Maritime Exclusion Zone the
11 Spartan patrolled near Port Stanley to watch for reinforcements. In the period from 12 April to 30 April
on four consecutive days, she observed the Argentine Landing Ship, Tank AR.A Cabo San Antonio
conducting mine laying operations. The Splendid was assigned to patrol between the coast of
Argentina and the Falkland Islands.
When the naval task force arrived, the Spartan and Splendid moved to new patrol areas; to the
northeast and northwest of the Falkland Islands, respectively. On 29 April the Spartan gained visual
contact with three Argentine Type 42 destroyers* and reported this to Northwood.

From a US Navy War College Paper. Looks like if the RN wanted the war to be bloodier they could have easily succeeded.

*I assume the author means one or more Type 42 plus one or more warships for a total of three as the ARA only had 2 Type 42s.

From the ARA perspective:

AR.A San Luis Operations.
2
The San Luis departed for patrol during the second week of April
and conducted one continuous patrol during the war. She was to patrol north of the Falkland Islands
and attack British ships as her rules of engagement permitted. She claims a total of three attacks, two
of which used the German-made SST-4 anti-surface ship torpedo and the other used an American-
made Mark 37 antisubmarine torpedo. The first approach, on 1 May, was on medium sized warships
with helicopters as identified by sonar only. These warships were the H.M.S. Brilliant and the H.M.S.
Yarmouth. The attack was unsuccessful and the San Luis was counterattacked for 20 hours with
depth charges and at least one torpedo.
3
10The second approach, on 8 May, was against a submarine. Twelve minutes after firing the
Mark 37 torpedo an explosion was heard from the bearing of the target The British report no losses of
submarines and thus the torpedo may have impacted against the bottom.
The final approach, on 10 May, also done without the periscope, was on a pair of destroyers:
the H.M.S. Arrow and H.M.S. Alacrty. One torpedo was fired at the ships. This attack was
unsuccessful, but a small explosion was heard on the correct bearing 6 minutes after firing the torpedo.
Later, when the Arrow was retrieving her towed countermeasure *it was damaged - conclusive proof
that British electronic countermeasures had outwitted the SST-4's homing device.'
4
An attack on the
second ship was not conducted since the distance had opened too quickly and the ship was now out of
range.
Problems with the torpedoes and shipboard torpedo systems contributed to the three misses.
The fire control computer on San Luis was out of service and the fire control solution had to be
calculated manually. Additionally, the wires broke on all the weapons shortly after firing which took
away the ability to steer the weapon after the time of fire. These problems and the opinion that the
torpedoes were fired with the submarine too deep, had direct influence on the outcome of each shot.
5
There is also evidence that the SST-4 torpedoes were not properly prepared in the torpedo room
before loading the weapons in the torpedo tubes. This error did not allow the torpedoes to arm
themselves after time of fire. If this is the case then all shots with these weapons would only be able to
damage a target with the kinetic force of the torpedo ramming the target There would be no explosion,
just a strike like that of a battering ram. The reports of a torpedo bouncing off the hull of a British ship
and the damage, but not total destruction, to Arrow's countermeasure sled are consistent with this
thesis. In both cases, if the torpedo had exploded the damage would have been much more severe;
the sled would have been totally destroyed and the ships sunk. The small explosions heard by the
Argentines may have just been the noise of the collision between the torpedoes and their targets.

Link

[Marcantilan]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Probably from the kit we sold them for the GUPPIES. Most likely it was a whale, but who knows. Both sides are still very 'hush hush' about the sub ops down there.

Along with Fatty, we wrote an essay about ARA San Luis war patrol, which Neal published in 2008 Submarine Almanac.

We pointed there that problems with SST-4s are not related with backward wiring or such (in fact, Telefunken repaired ALL Argentine torpedoes FOR FREE after the war). Also, that a Mk.37 were fired to an unknown contact, on May 8 1982, that was most probably a school of fish.

To stay in the case, I agree with the view that a submarine is not a power projection weapon. Is just a sea-denial assest, and thus, its use is limited to it: planes could fly above a submarine, armies could move inland near a shore where the submarine is hiding, submarines could not conduct visits to other ships and so on. Even that, the redeployment speed of a SSK is not great, this its strategic value is limited.

Yep, submarines are probably the most cost-effective assest for any navy, but have in mind that you could not have a navy only with subs.

Why china needs us:

I think this is bull, the problem is that professional USA and Europe pay themselves far to much and prop this up with borrowing.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by sidslotm

I think this is bull, the problem is that professional USA and Europe pay themselves far to much and prop this up with borrowing.

Agreed. China only needs us until they can get rid of us, which they're actively trying to do by attempting to make the dollar lose its reserve currency status.

They're also being very sneaky about buying US debt, they aren't holding it, they're using it to buy physical assets as fast as they can so they can slowly remove their vulnerability to the dollar, at which point, they won't care if the price collapses.

[mapuc]

Later on this night, the danish tv, is gonna show a interview, with the former ambassador to USA. He say that before 2020 USA have gone bankrupt and to prevent that, USA have to borrow from China.

He even say that USA have to give political confession to China.

Wonder how far USA a willing to go?

Markus

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

To stay in the case, I agree with the view that a submarine is not a power projection weapon. Is just a sea-denial assest, and thus, its use is limited to it: planes could fly above a submarine, armies could move inland near a shore where the submarine is hiding, submarines could not conduct visits to other ships and so on. Even that, the redeployment speed of a SSK is not great, this its strategic value is limited.

Yep, submarines are probably the most cost-effective assest for any navy, but have in mind that you could not have a navy only with subs.

I think that is a very common mistake. With the Ohio SSGNs we will start to see a major shift in how submarines operate. For example they can transport over sixty SEALs or Force Recon Marines. They have 154 UGM-109 missiles (about 1/2 of the number that was fired in the 1991 Gulf War) and can carry surveillance UAVs (same as the Jimmy Carter deployed over Yeonpyeong island). This is on a submarine converted from another role, not one purposely designed for it.

There really are not any major technical issues with building a submarine to carry troops or fighter aircraft. Such things were explored just after WWII, the carrying of troops was not seen as useful beyond SOF missions since any war was assumed to be a massive WWIII type scenario with tens of thousands of troops and VTOL aircraft were still mostly on the drawing board.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I think that is a very common mistake. With the Ohio SSGNs we will start to see a major shift in how submarines operate. For example they can transport over sixty SEALs or Force Recon Marines. They have 154 UGM-109 missiles (about 1/2 of the number that was fired in the 1991 Gulf War) and can carry surveillance UAVs (same as the Jimmy Carter deployed over Yeonpyeong island). This is on a submarine converted from another role, not one purposely designed for it.

There really are not any major technical issues with building a submarine to carry troops or fighter aircraft. Such things were explored just after WWII, the carrying of troops was not seen as useful beyond SOF missions since any war was assumed to be a massive WWIII type scenario with tens of thousands of troops and VTOL aircraft were still mostly on the drawing board.

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine. There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by magicstix

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine.

There was a time when submarines were designed to fight on the surface. They were quite successful. If a submarine could be equipped to defend its self from air attacks either with LR SAMs or Fighters then the submarine becomes very capable of defending its self on the surface.

There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There was a time when submarines were designed to fight on the surface. They were quite successful. If a submarine could be equipped to defend its self from air attacks either with LR SAMs or Fighters then the submarine becomes very capable of defending its self on the surface.

There will never be a *modern* submarine that carries aircraft.

Submarines today aren't designed to fight on the surface, and for very good reason. Lack of hydrodynamics kills stealth for one. For two, WW2 era submarines didn't have to deal with the kinds of threats that subs have to deal with today. In WW2, sub on ship fights were generally close range engagements where the surface ship was more or less blind. Today subs can be detected long range and attacked at stand off.

There are no aircraft that could be fielded from a submarine. Neither harriers nor F-35Bs have folding wings, and even taking an Ohio class SSGN and dumping as much as you can to put aircraft on it would give you 2 or 3 aircraft at best, with NO air defenses added, and these are the second largest subs ever built. Add in all the machinery required and crew to support the aircraft, and you very quickly have an impractical design.

If the design was practical, it would've survived beyond WW2 and we'd have sub carriers today.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by magicstix

There will never be a *modern* submarine that carries aircraft.

Submarines today aren't designed to fight on the surface, and for very good reason. Lack of hydrodynamics kills stealth for one. For two, WW2 era submarines didn't have to deal with the kinds of threats that subs have to deal with today. In WW2, sub on ship fights were generally close range engagements where the surface ship was more or less blind. Today subs can be detected long range and attacked at stand off.

There are no aircraft that could be fielded from a submarine. Neither harriers nor F-35Bs have folding wings, and even taking an Ohio class SSGN and dumping as much as you can to put aircraft on it would give you 2 or 3 aircraft at best, with NO air defenses added, and these are the second largest subs ever built. Add in all the machinery required and crew to support the aircraft, and you very quickly have an impractical design.

If the design was practical, it would've survived beyond WW2 and we'd have sub carriers today.

The Oberon class isn't modern? They were only decommissioned 11 years ago!

Survived beyond WWII? Damn the SSM-N-8 Regulus missile could be launched from a Submarine and Land ashore if it aborted its mission:


Bet'cha you never seen a nuclear missile with landing gear before!

Yes the F-35B and the Harrier don't have folding wings. Is there some fundamental law of aerodynamics that says a VTOL aircraft can't have folding wings?

Didn't think so...

Interestingly a Harrier is shorter than a trident missile, and weighs six times less, so basically an Ohio class hull could carry 24 Harriers with about five reloads of stores and fuel. OMG an Ohio SSVN is looking better than an Invincible class carrier!

As I mentioned before the USS Jimmy Carter deployed a surveillance UAV over Yeonpyeong island following the North Korean attack on the island last year. (So for those keeping score at home that is a submarine, launching an aircraft, under combat conditions). The German Type 212 U Boats are going to be outfitted with three short range Aladin UAVs and a 30MM Rheinmetall cannon on a mast.

Originally Posted by magicstix

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine. There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.

SSG's and SSGN's carry cruise missiles which meet every definition of aircraft even if they lack pilots.

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

SSG's and SSGN's carry cruise missiles which meet every definition of aircraft even if they lack pilots.

Except one definition: they can't kill other aircraft.

Originally Posted by magicstix

Except one definition: they can't kill other aircraft.

Airliners cannot kill other aircraft, neither could the Wright Flyer and they meet every definition of aircraft. As does the U-2, SR-71, B-2 and so on and so on.

For much of the 50's and 60's about half the USN carrier force lacked any offensive aircraft or organic air defence aircraft at all. These were the anti-submarine CVS and were aircraft carriers in every respect.

The ability to kill other aircraft has nothing whatsoever to do with what defines an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Found this from Wikipedia:

I'm afraid that good Lt Commander is either misinformed, exploiting the elasticity of the facts, or, more likely, being disingenuous. Either way he is talking crap. The number of ships he quotes (inaccurately as it happens) represents almost the entire Task Force, yet he clearly gives the impression that they were all dedicated to tracking down one Argentine sub.

The rest of the paper is a mess. He claims the Argentines wanted, and executed, a "bloodless" invasion, which fails to explain why they fired white phosphorous into the (empty) Moody Brook barracks in the dead of night. He naively swallows the conceit that the Argentines only invaded to force a diplomatic resolution, and only planned a temporary stay. Their various military claims are accepted uncritically, such as the bizarre idea that the Santa Fe remained on the surface while under helicopter attack because it was "safer", rather than it being due to the fact that she had been repeatedly hit by AS12 missiles, depth charges, and hundreds of rounds of 7.62mm. Moreover, he uses outdated sources from the early-mid 80s over better and more recent works whenever they support his contentions. Then there are silly little errors, torpedoes mistakenly described as "exploding under (Belgrano's) keel", etc.

For all the praise of the Argentine subs, successful ASW is determined by numbers of ships lost, not enemy submarines sunk, and by any measure it was a British success. Another reason for this might be revealed by looking at the difference between the two forces in terms of aggression and determination to prosecute the kill: San Luis fired from 10,000 and 5,500 yds in her attacks - much too far away, scoring no kills - Conqueror getting two good hits at 1,500 before escaping unmolested.