It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Subs vs Carriers, a warning.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
nixie are decoys - not like the nets designed to stop torp hits

also most USN ships carry limited nixie`s anyway - working along side the prarie/masker system




posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
nixie are decoys - not like the nets designed to stop torp hits

also most USN ships carry limited nixie`s anyway - working along side the prarie/masker system


I apologise but the sole purpose of the Nixie system is to stream it behind the naval vessel to try and decoy the torp/s into "leading" them away or leading them into hitting the nixie rather than the expensive vessel.

If that in itself isn't a means to prevent a torp scoring hits, I don't know what is?

- Phil



AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE

The Torpedo Countermeasures Transmitting Set AN/SLQ-25A, commonly referred to as Nixie, is a passive, electro-acoustic decoy system used to provide deceptive countermeasures against acoustic homing torpedoes. The AN/SLQ-25A employs an underwater acoustic projector housed in a streamlined body which is towed astern on a combination tow/signal-transfer coaxial cable. An onboard generated signal is used by the towed body to produce an acoustic signal to decoy the hostile torpedo away from the ship. The AN/SLQ-25A includes improved deceptive countermeasures capabilities. The AN/SLQ-25B includes improved deceptive countermeasures capabilities, a fiber optic display LAN, a torpedo alertment capability and a towed array sensor.

Modern acoustic towed decoys, such as the AN/SLQ-25 NIXIE and the older T-MK6 FANFAIR, employ electronic or electromechanical means to produce the required signals. The system provides an alternate target diversion for an enemy acoustic homing torpedo by stringing on cable a "noise maker", aft of the ship, which has the capability of producing a greater noise than the ship; thereby diverting the incoming torpedo from the ship to the "fish". The towed device receives the torpedoes ping frequency, amplifies it 2 to 3 times and sends it back to lure the torpedo away from the ship. They may be used in pairs or singularly.

Operators are cautioned not to attempt MC transmission with less then 1000 feet of fiber optic tow cable (fotc) deployed, and MC transmission should be terminated before retrieval of FOTC commences. On below deck installations, the cable guide doors, if installed, must be closed whenever more than 50 feet of cable is paid out. Open doors mat cause the FOTC to ride out of the sheave and become caught between the sheave and keeper roller, seriously damaging the FOTC. Although the tech manual states the launch/retrieval speeds for the system are between 10-25 knots, it is strongly suggested not to exceed 15 knots. At speeds in excess of 15 knots damage to tow cable can occur on some platforms. (DD, DDG 994 class and CG 47 class). The emergency non-powered payout procedure should only be used when power is lost to the winch and the tactical situation dictates deployment of the torpedo countermeasures system. Winch speed must be carefully controlled by braking during non-powered payout operations. If not monitored the winch will rotate at an extremely dangerous rate.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
Pyros

I would have to say that you are a fool and so are the captains you speak of, that float around the oceans, the British Navy understand the threat from those boats and just how dangerous those craft can be when they are operated with even the most limited of skills.

Any military person that say they are not afraid of a possible enemy that in some cases can attack from no where are lairs, the US navy are investing in these loaned craft because they know just how much of a threat these craft are to their surface combatants, I can not be sure of the subs but diesel subs can be just as effective with subs as are with surface combatants.

I honestly can't believe the ignorance or the arrogance of some people or their idea of what their Military can do.

- Phil


OK Phil, let me put a few things into perspective, since you imply that I am ignorant. Have you ever stepped foot on board a submarine? Any submarine? I have. I have been aboard both DE boats and SSNs while serving in the US Navy. BTW, have you ever served in any navy? Do you have any actual experience, or are you just using Janes Fighting Ships as your source of knowledge? Inquiring minds want to know.

Today, I work on real ASW technology programs. My company researches and develops quieting technology, torpedo technology, and long range acoustic systems. I have access to the most up-to-date threat data and technical performance specs for foreign boats available. I work on real ASW programs with names like Distant Thunder, Electric Curtain, CAVES, and many others that I don't care to reveal. Not 50 yards from my office is a 500K gallon indoor test tank where we test submersible vehicles and models of new submarines for acoustic control. So please don't tell me I don't have a clue about what is what in ASW. It's keyboard cowboys like you who happen to be hobbyists in military warfare that constantly dilute the truth, for whatever reason.

As I have previous said, the US Navy is not afriad of DE boats. That does not imply that we do not respect the threat. What is does mean is that we understand it, and although it is a problem, we are not "afraid" of it and will not let it interfere with warfare planning. What do you think the Russians were driving for the last 50 years, anyways? Victor III's? Akula's? No, it was mostly boats like Romeo's, Tango's, Echo's and Echo II's, Golf's, Hotel's, Juliets, etc, etc, etc. The DE threat is not new, and it is well understood. The fact that the DE technology has improved over time is also not a surprise, rather, it was quite expected, and has been planned for.

As I have also said, the vast majority of DE boats currently possessed by our adversaries and possible adversaries are pathetic pieces of crap. The Kilo is nothing spectacular, and the class has been around for 20 years. New European boats, especially the AIP boats, are very nice boats and are quite capable. The Russian AIP system is OK. The Pakistani AIP is crap. But until AIP systems start getting sold to Iran or China, we are not going worry too hard about it. And even if they do, their acoustic signatures will be well known before they are ever delivered.

And the US Navy leasing the services of one submarine for a few exercise does not constitute a panic or a rush to change our technology. It simply means that we are interested in practicing against a possible new threat that we haven't practiced against in about 15 years or so. Since the end of the Cold War, our submarine forces have been mostly used for delivering cruise missiles and SEAL teams. Strategic deterrance continued. However, ASW ops were strongly curtailed in the absence of a credible threat. The leasing of this Swedish sub is just athe ASW Navy expressing a desire to get back to basics.

Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, the former commander of US Submarine Force in the Atlantic and NATO Submarine Forces, earlier this year said “the decline in ASW coincided with the end of the Cold War. The greatest threat posed to the U.S. in submarine warfare was the USSR, which at its peak reached up to 300 subs, both diesel and nuclear. There was no other force that comprised a significant threat to our Navy. There are other capable forces, but they’re very small. The decline of the USSR paralleled the decline in our focus on ASW. Instead, our naval forces became more involved in strike warfare. ASW is an art that needs to be practiced.” Indeed.

By previous statements are not based on ignorance nor arrogance. Just the facts. So just deal with them.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Pyros,

As a matter of fact, I have stepped foot on a number of submarines, a soviet SSGN in New England [Non Operational] and a few DE boats in the UK, I will admit that my knowledge of those craft in their operational routines are based on second hand knowledge, from my father who was a Weapons Officer on the Earlier Guided missile Frigates with the Royal Navy and a friend currently a serving midships man with the Submarine fleet, I have never implied that my knowledge in naval warfare, was any thing more than knowledge gleaned from family and friends and the casual encounter with some colleagues in the "Senior" Service. I am more than willing to compare libaries if you wish
Jane's Fighting Ships sadly isn't included in that. Although I do have a number of titles by the fine people at janes that have importance in my part time committments.

I will first apologise for my use of the word fear, as I can now see based on your reply was not the correct word to use in this context, although, I still feel that the threat from any DE or AIP fleet submarines are being viewed as nothing more than easy to find targets, either through miss information or ignorance, I have had first hand experience of American Superman Complex and to a degree I still find there there is an element of that, the same way that the OICW is a high tech weapon system that will increase the ability of the soldier carrying it, but the good old enfield 303 can still kill, on the most part I thought that your reply was nothing more than an ignorant american response.

I still stand by the fact that I believe that the threat of DE or AIP boats are still being underated by the US Navy [and some other western navies for that matter] either through the assumption that because the vessels aren't the top of the line nor of the same standard of the latest Seawolf Class or Virgina Class, that they are not a threat, the same way I watch threads about how Russian Aircraft are no match to US technology etc. All these boats have to do is stay "quiet" just long enough to launch their weapons.

I will be the first to agree with you that US tech can surpass any thing that current DE boats and possibly some AIP boats can manage, same way that I will be the first to admit that in a head to head fight Kilo vs LA / Seawolf / Virigina Class Sub in a fair fight, the kilo would be blown to hell, but the enemy rarely fights fair.

IMHO This sudden change of naval operations is based on the fact that there very well may be a conflict in the coming years in which DE or AIP boats will be possible enemies. I find it odd that it coinsides with the issues with China and Tawian.

As for Keyboard Cowboys, if you say so, I will admit that I find Naval warfare interesting on an academic level, the same with fixed wing Avation to a lesser degree, I have never implied otherwise on both counts and yes I would list those interests are hobbies ::shrugs:: Last I heard this was a forum board, I still hold the opinion that most, americans view their armed forces with the same level of respect as, lets say... superman. As you have mentioned in your post, people who have served know their flaws.

- Phil



[edit on 26-5-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk

Originally posted by Harlequin
nixie are decoys - not like the nets designed to stop torp hits

also most USN ships carry limited nixie`s anyway - working along side the prarie/masker system


I apologise but the sole purpose of the Nixie system is to stream it behind the naval vessel to try and decoy the torp/s into "leading" them away or leading them into hitting the nixie rather than the expensive vessel.

If that in itself isn't a means to prevent a torp scoring hits, I don't know what is?

- Phil


Which is why most torpedos have multipe guidance techniques, including command guidance through wires. There is alot more room on a torpedo warhead to mount much better computers than on AAMs. At this time Active Radar AAMs are virtually unstopable from a guidance point of view. Your only chance is to decoy them away.

More to the point is that increasing these fleets of DE subs are comming equipped with supersonic AshM. If planned properly enough missiles plus decoys could be launched from afar while other sub groups dash in to torpedo ranges. Add in a sprinkling of 'civilian ' trawlers and FAC plus Cessnas' buzzing overhead and you quickly have an overwhelmed defence that can't cover all bases.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Intresting post Pyros. some of the others too.

I would like to add that some time back while riding around this shipyard on a bicycle at night ...I was priveleged to see a item sitting out back of a building called a LSV or large scale vehicle. It was aptly named the Cutthroat and can be found on the web by that name. When I first saw it ..I did a immediate about face and pedeled over to take a look. I did not at first understand what it was I was seeing until a closer look confirmed much for me. A great way to do more work in this arena.

This should also answer some of Ulshadows question on page one of this board.

I would also like to add ...that the Virginia Class submarines are being designed and built with more littorial operations in mind than was done before and with other classes of boats. These boats will undoubtedly come into contact with diesel or AIP powered boats.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Orange,

Do you know of any links to pics of Cutthroat?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Well, the subs are wery quiet and they have a nice advantage even though the carrier propably has planes made for "sub-destroying"... like the J-3...



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Greetings,

As with all combat, the tactics employed on the battlefield evolve based on what the enemy seems to be doing, how they operate their hardware and how we operate our hardware, its the same from Land warfare to Naval warfare to Air Combat.

As it has been mentioned by the other members on this thread, the US Navy and many other western navies, including the UK have had their ASW tactics based on the Soviet Bear and their noisey Nuclear Attack boats, sure they employed Diesel electrics during the cold war, but as with their nuclear brothers the build quality was poor and noisey, but they still had the ability to become marginally quiet compaired to their nuclear attack subs.

As the threat changed, the Navies of many Western Nations have been slow to identify the threat of the more modern Diesel Electric, or AIP Submarines, they are catching on to the increased threat of these subs, slowly. Lets face it, the countries that many westerners count as sub-standard [get it! SUB standard... nm
] have been operating Diesel Electric Subs from WW2, many of those Diesel subs are still in SERVICE!!! It has also been said that the chinese also have the new Russian 200 knot torpedo, not to mention some of their subs being fitted with modern AIP systems. This gives them the advantage of Experience, which in my opinion levels the playing with the more technology advanced US Navy, while training is more advanced in the US Navy, there has been very little information released on just how much training the chinese sub skippers get. I know some members will say how can that be, with the rate of accidents etc, I could easily compare that to the USAF, which have a rather high rate of losses, due to the number of aircraft and the amount of time they spend in the air, this could easily state that the chinese are working their ships rather hard to get their levels of training to a high standard.

I believe that the ability of the chinese crews are the unknown factor, not the equitment.

Western Navies beware.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Gooseuk,

The change in the world scene was one of contributing factors to the abrupt ending of the Seawolf class and the change to the Virginia class.

From the UK's point of view, the sale of the Upholder class boats to Canada was a mistake in my opinion as they were (despite the incident on the HMCS Chicoutimi) and still are very good boats.

They could have bridged a gap until the Astutes are ready to go (I am still not sure about the capabilities of these boats, I am sure Orangetom or Paperplane can put me right)

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Gooseuk,

The change in the world scene was one of contributing factors to the abrupt ending of the Seawolf class and the change to the Virginia class.

From the UK's point of view, the sale of the Upholder class boats to Canada was a mistake in my opinion as they were (despite the incident on the HMCS Chicoutimi) and still are very good boats.

They could have bridged a gap until the Astutes are ready to go (I am still not sure about the capabilities of these boats, I am sure Orangetom or Paperplane can put me right)

Cheers

BHR


I agree fully, the selling of the Upholder Class subs was nothing short of stupidity from the powers that be, although I would have to admit that the Navy may have had its arm twisted, in so much as they are keen on their new carrier's, rather than some diesel subs.

The Upholders were bought cheap and will give the Canadians, one hell of an offensive weapons platform for the future, I have heard plans of fitting the latest in AIP systems to them, although as with every thing in the Canadians armed forces, they are open to change.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
The article on the Cutthroat is titled " Small submarines help promote submarine stealth"

It is also called a Large Scale Vehicle or LSV.

I am not quite sure how to get the page or link to come up on this format but here goes.

"http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_11/submarine_stealth.html"

I do not know how you guys post the links so that you can click on them and they come up.

I hope this will help you in your search.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRulesThe change in the world scene was one of contributing factors to the abrupt ending of the Seawolf class and the change to the Virginia class.


In fact the navy did not want any Seawolfs and wanted to cancel the program before any were delivered, but they were forced on the USN as part of several 'pork barrel" projects.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

In fact the navy did not want any Seawolfs and wanted to cancel the program before any were delivered, but they were forced on the USN as part of several 'pork barrel" projects.



u sure it was the Navy who didnt want the Seawolfs or was it the beancounters? the Navy wanted this sub just like the Air Force wants the F-22.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
You posted

The change in the world scene was one of contributing factors to the abrupt ending of the Seawolf class and the change to the Virginia class


The Seawolf project is extreamly expensive as was the Los Angeles class in its day.

Almost everything in the project is a step away from the Los Angeles class boats from reactor design to the metal used in hulls. Translation ...huge costs. Huge. And then there is the added costs for the Jimmy Carter, the last of the Seawolfs after extending the hull about a hundred feet in length.
No doubt this added huge costs to a already expensive project.
I am not sure about the Navy not wanting them in the first place..but I do know that after the Los Angeles class the navy wanted a boat with the ability to make extensive modifications to it down the road as new technologies came about and do so easier than was done with the LA's. Computer designs have helped alot in this arena. Alot of yards are going to this computer/modular construction. This was immediately obvious to me when I saw the picture of the Astute class boat under construction.
The Virginia class boats are not cheap mind you ...and new technologies are constantly coming on line. What the computers do is allow you to quickly insert the new modifications faster than was done under previous construction techniques. This ability to modify can be designed in from the begining verses as a after thought in previous construction designs and techniques. Not just for this kind of boat but any ship. I suppose they are doing this too with new automobile designs on computers..airplanes too.
Costs are going to be a huge factor for many nations including this one on future projects against a depreciating currency.

By the way ..now that she is gone..I got to see the Jimmy Carter a few weeks back. Nice looking boat.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Its ok the Chinese are staring to build new nuclear subs too, they only have DE now cuz they did not have the know how and resources to build a nuke sub. All of their new class subs are nuclear so we just have to wait until they build more nuke subs and it will be just like the days of the cold war.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yes..your position is not unrealistic. Well done. We are keeping a close eye on what is happening in Communist China.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
The U.S is not dumb enough to put it's carrier in the Taiwan Strait during a war with China. I read that USN carriers would be stationed a couple hundred miles East of Taiwan in any conflict with China.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Well, the subs are wery quiet and they have a nice advantage even though the carrier propably has planes made for "sub-destroying"... like the J-3...


Actually it's the S-3 Viking. Great platform for the mission.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Its ok the Chinese are staring to build new nuclear subs too, they only have DE now cuz they did not have the know how and resources to build a nuke sub. All of their new class subs are nuclear so we just have to wait until they build more nuke subs and it will be just like the days of the cold war.


i dont get what your trying to say.? china had nuke subs or had bad ones.?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join