Quoted: Quoted: I think AIM-120's would be better, but maybe they can't detect aircraft far enough away to be usefull. Maybe size and weight have something to do with it. It's nice to see that someone is still thinking about how to expand a submarines capabilities. Someone is always thinking about expanding sub capabilities.

Isn`t the AIM 120 a beam riding missile? If so, the SSN would have to remain at periscope depth actively emitting to target an aircraft. It would be very vulnerable. The Sidewinder is a fire and forget weapon.  This program sounds like a return of SIAM (Self initiated to Air Missile) from the ~80s. Back to the Future!

Quoted: Isn`t the AIM 120 a beam riding missile? If so, the SSN would have to remain at periscope depth actively emitting to target an aircraft. It would be very vulnerable. The Sidewinder is a fire and forget weapon.  This program sounds like a return of SIAM (Self initiated to Air Missile) from the ~80s. Back to the Future!

You're confusing the AIM-120 with the AIM-7.

AIM-120 has it's own radar.

Quoted: Quoted: A James Bond movie had a sub launched heat seeker many years ago.  Might have inspired this.  (I know we talked about it at my litle nook of Raytheon.) They are kind of a catch 22.  My sources have told me that a sub in the right conditions can track a low flying helo.  But lowflying helos usually need to be using in water sensors to find submerged subs. sono-bouys, dipping sonars, vectored attacks from a surface unit.  Mad Gear is marginal.  But if it stops over the sub, the sub might as well fire the IR missile, it would undoubtedly cause the  helo jock to lose concentration.  But the noise generated would likely allow other units some pretty good noise to localize the sub. Subs really like to stay passive and quiet. Coming up to launch depth is asking to get detected. Would they have to come up to close to the surface? With this encapsulated system they might be able to "float" it up after the sub has moved? I'm guessing it would get targeting info from a AEGIS system but I'm not even sure what depth they have to be at to get that info. Just some speculation from a  landlubber.

If they weren't close to the surface most air targets would be out of range by the time the capsule got up there.  Subs really really hate to make noise and the most effective helo borne sub finders are dipping sonars.  If the missile launch made much noise the helo would drop it's fish and the game would be on.  The sub might get the helo but it would end up making enough noise avoiding the fish that other units would have a much better idea of where the sub is making it much easier to kill the sub.


As far as dropping mutiple torpedos aganist a convoy, interesting concept but not practical.  Convoys are pretty much a thing of the past.  Right now about the only place (I can think of) where a convoy might be used is to shove the PrePo, MBAF ships and similar into Korea or Taiwan. MBAF - Medium Brigade Afloat, PrePositioned stocks, Maritime Prepositioned ships are the big ships that are carrying military equipment.  they would go to a port area which has been  taken or given to the Marines or Army to use for offloading the equipment to outfit the trrops which are being flown in.  I can't think of any European /Atlantic/ Med scenario where a convoy would be needed.  Convoys being used to fight a bunch of ships through a blocking force.  Aint nobody that we need to worry about over in that region that could field a blocking force.

 Of course, maybe a convoy coming toward us is possible.  We'ld just have to supply the UN all the shipping needed to carry the armor.

I believe there's a difference between a Beam Rider missile such as Sea Slug and a Semi-Active Radar Homer such as AIM-7.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: Imagine a B-1, 2, or 52 deploying a FLOCK of Mk. 48 ADCAPs (modified for aerial drop and autonomous operation) at an enemy shipping convoy. It'd be noteworthy. CJ Slight problem #1. Unless the ships are lightly defended, an aircraft carrying a heavy torp like a Mk 48 would have to get will inside SAM range in order for the torp to reach the ship. Slight problem #2. Mk 48's are big buggers, 19 feet long, over 3600 lb in weight. Putting one into the water in a way that it won't break apart when it hits the water isn't going to be so simple (have a look at Barnes Wallis and the problems he faced developing his bouncing "dam buster" bombs in WW2). As a comparison, a Mk 46 is just over 8 feet long and 570 lbs, a Mk 50 is 9'4" long and 750 lbs. Pushing a Mk 48 out of a torpedo tube at a few dozen knots is not the same as dropping one into the water from a plane doing a couple of hundred knots. I suppose it could be done if you strengthened the casings to withstand the impact forces, but you'd have to give up something else to keep it the same size (eg fuel space inside the torp, which means less range, which means you have to get closer to drop it), or make it bigger, and heavier, which complicates the issue of casing strength vs water entry impact. The release altitude is going to be very critical as well. If a ship is undefended enough that an aircraft big enough to carry a Mk-48 can get close enough to it is feasible, then there are already other weapons already in service that could be used instead. Ob-trivia: The Harpoon anti-ship missile was originally developed as an anti-submarine missile. The short version is that early Soviet missile subs had to surface and prepare their missiles before they could actually be fired. This preperation could take up to 15 minutes. A patrolling anti-sub aircraft could catch a surfaced sub part way through prepping the missiles for launch, but there was no guarrantee that a light airdropped anti-sub torp of that time would successfully lock onto a surfaced sub, so a missile was developed that could lock onto a surfaced sub. If it could lock onto a surfaced sub, it could also lock onto a ship. We now call that missile "Harpoon".

Google Marconi Hammerhead.

It is a Tigerfish- the same size as our Mk 48- converted exactly like the little Mk 44/46/50 are into CAPTORS

I dont know if any conversion kits were actually purchased by the RAF but it WAS designed built and tested, with the torpedo-turned-mine kicked out the back of C-130s and it did work.  With the added advantage that it was large enough to sink a surface warship as well as a submarine.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Imagine a B-1, 2, or 52 deploying a FLOCK of Mk. 48 ADCAPs (modified for aerial drop and autonomous operation) at an enemy shipping convoy. It'd be noteworthy. CJ Google Marconi Hammerhead. It is a Tigerfish- the same size as our Mk 48- converted exactly like the little Mk 44/46/50 are into CAPTORS I dont know if any conversion kits were actually purchased by the RAF but it WAS designed built and tested, with the torpedo-turned-mine kicked out the back of C-130s and it did work.  With the added advantage that it was large enough to sink a surface warship as well as a submarine.

The impression I got from CJ's comment was that he was suggesting a WW2 style air attack with un-encapsulated Mk 48's which go active when they enter the water and then immediately start to chase a target.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Imagine a B-1, 2, or 52 deploying a FLOCK of Mk. 48 ADCAPs (modified for aerial drop and autonomous operation) at an enemy shipping convoy. It'd be noteworthy. CJ Google Marconi Hammerhead. It is a Tigerfish- the same size as our Mk 48- converted exactly like the little Mk 44/46/50 are into CAPTORS I dont know if any conversion kits were actually purchased by the RAF but it WAS designed built and tested, with the torpedo-turned-mine kicked out the back of C-130s and it did work.  With the added advantage that it was large enough to sink a surface warship as well as a submarine. The impression I got from CJ's comment was that he was suggesting a WW2 style air attack with un-encapsulated Mk 48's which go active when they enter the water and then immediately start to chase a target.

Oh, the part about "autonomous" confused me, you just ment sans wire guidance or lock before launch. I'm sorry.

Although if the CAPTOR or Hammerhead can survive the drop, a unencapsluated Mk 48 probably could too.  The capsule doesnt add much to the torpedos structure.

The question though would be kindof "why"

Regular ASuM's have longer range.

Quoted: Now they are acqiring HUMRAAM units- AIM-120's mounted in racks on the back of a Humvee.

The US Navy will look into slapping an improved AMRAAM seeker on the nose of a Standard Missile. It's already "navalized" and I'm sure the Navy + contractors can figure out how to rig VLS from periscope depth. It'll be a fire-and-forget Standard missile.

Just imagine how much of the bad guy's the resources will be tied up. You park a few a few subs off the coast in addition to the ships we already have and there won't be any patrol craft coming off the coast to even find our main fleets. The sub will be at periscope depth receiving target data from a radar plane or ship. The bad guys sortie aircraft, and they get blown out of the sky before they can form up. The bad guys would have to send out a sub to the last launch point and it could take a whole day just to get there because they have to sneak up.

Quoted: So why don't the aircraft or ships engage directly?

Are you asking about ours or theirs Ours will already be tasked. What's left of theirs will try to get up and that's when a sub can play as a sub-surface picket ship and they'll play right into our hands. Plus any planes that sortie to carry weapons to launch range will eventually have to return to base. We'll get them leaving and returning.

Most of the posters here really seem to think the rest of the world is stuck in a bubble and doesn't have a clue.  The Russians are working on an air launched version of their 91RE1 Klub anti submarine missile for export. The 91RE1 is an impressive system, Mach 2.5, good range, already in service on ships and submarines.

And what kind of planes will use to launch that missile? Oh wait, exactly the kind of planes that are vulnerable to pre-emptive attack, CAP, and picket subs/ships. Yes, the rest of the world is stuck in a bubble and doesn't have a clue because they've going to have to buy a whole lot of missiles, parts, and etc. just to keep up our old stuff and they don't have an answer to what we've got coming when the bullets start flying.

Quoted: The Mk24/27 "Fido" was a whole new torpedo. Its 19" diameter was a all new size for the USN. Its original 10ft length was also new.  And it had the first accoustic homing system, it was also the first electric-powered US torpedo, which limited its speed to 12 knots, though at the time it appeared in August 1943  that was twice the speed of any German or Japanese sub.  They were carried by Avengers and Liberator/Privateers, and from early 1944 on were paired with the "Jezebel" the first sonoboy, eight of which were carried by a Avenger under wing on racks usually used for 5" rockets. Fido was, in fact, the worlds first autonomous homing projectile- the German guided missiles of WWII were all either radio command guided or wire guided.  None were self homing, and the wake homing version of the G7 torpedo appeared only in 1944- after Fido. Fido was actually issued at the time under the cover name "Anti-Submarine MINE Mk 24" and its existance was not widely known untill the 1990's as it was listed Top Secret. Its not like airmen who had dropped them stayed quiet for 50 years, but since it never appeared in official histories, there was no primary source record for historians, so it was just rumor. "Old war stories" and such. In the spring of 1944 the Mk27 'Fido' appeared, it was lengthened by 2 feet to house a larger battery and its speed was increased to 14knots, with a reduction in range.  It then became standard equpment in the stern tubes of US fleet subs.  Most subs had only room for one reload of the standard 21"/21' size for each stern tube, but TWO Mk27's could be carried instead. Their purpose was to be shot at Japanese DD's and other ASW escorts. Since the standard ASW weapon of the time was the depth charge, ASW vessels had to pass over (or very nearly so even with K-guns) a sub.  They would literally impale themselves on the Mk27s fired out the rear tubes as they charged down on the sub to drop its pattern  The Mk 27, which could "swim out" due to its undersized diameter without the need for compressed air ejection and had a very silent electric motor could not be heard by the DD/DDE as it was launched AND could be discharged all the way down to the subs maximum operating depth, which the heavyweight torpedos could not be due to the amount of air needed to overcome the water pressure.  Although it still had only the small 100pound TORPEX warhead of the Mk24, and usually could not sink a DD, it would usually give them something more important to think about than completing a depth charge attack. Mk27's with retuned seekers later became the USNs first sub to sub ASW torpedo, though their effectivness was limited against the new Russian subs based on the German Type XXI design, which could out run them by six to eight knots. When the first purpose built ASW torpedo was brought out in the 1950s, the Mk 37, it kept the Mk27's undersized dimensions.

Thats a damned interesting peice of history.

Quoted: Let me guess, your're not .Mil or have any submarine experience.....

I was a Space Shuttle Door Gunner, and that's all that counts! You're just like the rest of the whiners who keep saying that the USA can't do this or can't do that, or it will be too much for us. Then the US military wipes the floor with the bad guys over and over again.

You better pray we never fight a war with Iran or China because you might eat those words like all the pansies before Afghanistan and Iraq.

Besides, I've got an ultimate back-up plan. The USA buys top-of-the-line Russian weaponry at bulk prices and uses them against the bad guys. The Russian want to get PAID and they'll take American Express.

Quoted: Thought so, you've never even had your feet wet.....

Hehe, we'll see who eats crow. Won't we. It's inevitable that one side has to prevail in the coming fight, then we can tally up and see if things went more along your predictions or more along mine.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let me guess, your're not .Mil or have any submarine experience..... I was a Space Shuttle Door Gunner, and that's all that counts! You're just like the rest of the whiners who keep saying that the USA can't do this or can't do that, or it will be too much for us. Then the US military wipes the floor with the bad guys over and over again. You better pray we never fight a war with Iran or China because you might eat those words like all the pansies before Afghanistan and Iraq. Thought so, you've never even had your feet wet.....

That probably not the only thing he's never gotten wet.

Vito if you ever want to find the dumbest reply in a thread, just look for one he posted.

Quoted: That probably not the only thing he's never gotten wet. Vito if you ever want to find the dumbest reply in a thread, just look for one he posted.

Hehe, laugh all you want. I just hope that arfcom has a good archive feature. I really do want to see how it pans out in the future and see who eats crow at the end. This whole thing has a familiar tone: can't do this, shouldn't do that, do it this way, blah blah blah. There's always a lot of noise before every branch of the US military makes a move with/without the shooting. We shall see.

I think we're all forgetting the greatest possibility. These could be for the SSGNs. The SSGNs, unlike their SSBN counter parts will, in all likely hood, actually launch missiles and be vulnerable for an extended period of time. Now if they can give the ASW aircraft something to think about whilst they continue to lob T-hawks, I think that's a good thing. I think the application could be extended to the VL Fast Attack boats as well. After all, you're already launching missiles and announcing your position to the world, might as well be able to defend yourself.

Quoted: Go deep and evade is the best defence....

A fast attack may be able to get away with it, but an SSGN might not depending on how the doors are configured. Hell the first detection of an SSGN might be the launch of the T-hawks, and in that case if the ASW aircraft comes to investigate while the sub is in the middle of launching, a quick reaction missile could be handy.

Quoted: I could see no realistic scenario were a Skipper would use this as an offensive system.

That's why it will work! When all the professionals say subs can't/shouldn't be used as opportunistic anti-aircraft platforms, that's a signal for the US military to look into it. Who would be crazy enough to park subs in close proximity to enemy airbases and air routes to ambush aircraft? It's crazy, but we have the technology. We can do it.

This could be turned into a mine.

If it fits, you could launch it from a torp tube.  

It floats to the surface but is held at around 50ft by a weight.  A floating passive EM bouy is released but attached to the capsule.

When an enemy EM signal is detected and in range, the weight is release, the capsule surfaces and fires.  The missle flies in the direction of the contact.


Why?

eh.... just leave a bunch in the Persian Gulf and tell the Haji that they are not allowed to leave their country


Or you could put them around high value areas, but they wouldn't be as effective as a surface mounted SAM battery.

I guess the only real value is to have them mounted in pre-flooded verticle tubes, or mounted outside the sub.  So that they can be silently, or as close to it, released while the sub makes a getaway.

Quoted: I think we're all forgetting the greatest possibility. These could be for the SSGNs. The SSGNs, unlike their SSBN counter parts will, in all likely hood, actually launch missiles and be vulnerable for an extended period of time. Now if they can give the ASW aircraft something to think about whilst they continue to lob T-hawks, I think that's a good thing. I think the application could be extended to the VL Fast Attack boats as well. After all, you're already launching missiles and announcing your position to the world, might as well be able to defend yourself.

I think you might be right that this is for the SSGN Tactical Tridents. IIRC they were working on other encapsulated systems as well and it was s'posed to be a modular setup that could carry a variety of weapons so they wouldn't have to be "Navalized", thus keeping cost down and allowing more flexibility.
I think they have even talked about using the Army's MLRS missiles as a possible payload. Range was much shorter however.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Let me guess, your're not .Mil or have any submarine experience..... I was a Space Shuttle Door Gunner, and that's all that counts! You're just like the rest of the whiners who keep saying that the USA can't do this or can't do that, or it will be too much for us. Then the US military wipes the floor with the bad guys over and over again. You better pray we never fight a war with Iran or China because you might eat those words like all the pansies before Afghanistan and Iraq. Thought so, you've never even had your feet wet..... That probably not the only thing he's never gotten wet. Vito if you ever want to find the dumbest reply in a thread, just look for one he posted.

And he keeps posting dumber and dumber ideas, look at that last one

That's why it will work! When all the professionals say subs can't/shouldn't be used as opportunistic anti-aircraft platforms, that's a signal for the US military to look into it. Who would be crazy enough to park subs in close proximity to enemy airbases and air routes to ambush aircraft?  It's crazy, but we have the technology. We can do it.



PSST KM How would the sub parked real close in in shallow water know the planes are coming???

Quoted: PSST KM How would the sub parked real close in in shallow water know the planes are coming???

Magic.

C'mon PaDanby, even the Brits were using their subs as advanced warning of incoming Argentine planes during the Falklands War. Guess what? The Argentines didn't get a bead on them in their home waters when the route between their airbases and the islands was obvious. We have much better sensors and communications nowadays, and they don't have to be run off the sub. So quit kissing vito's rear-end and "think big" or "think differently". So if the Brits were able to monitor formations of tiny aircraft back then from submarines, then don't you think they would have loved to shoot them down while they were loaded with fuel and bombs instead of letting them get closer to their fleets?

Quoted: Quoted: PSST KM How would the sub parked real close in in shallow water know the planes are coming??? Magic. C'mon PaDanby, even the Brits were using their subs as advanced warning of incoming Argentine planes during the Falklands War. Guess what? The Argentines didn't get a bead on them in their home waters when the route between their airbases and the islands was obvious. We have much better sensors and communications nowadays, and they don't have to be run off the sub. So quit kissing vito's rear-end and "think big" or "think differently". So if the Brits were able to monitor formations of tiny aircraft back then from submarines, then don't you think they would have loved to shoot them down while they were loaded with fuel and bombs instead of letting them get closer to their fleets?

You're a f'g i*** aren't you?  I ain't kissing the Limeys butt.  I am seriously calling into question your absolute lack of anything resembling knowledge of war at sea.  What makes you think the Brits were using subs as radar or visual pickets?  did you read that in MAD magazine?  Try again and tell us how a sub could detect and report incoming aircraft without using some kind of active sensor.  You do know what an active sensor is don't you?  Pray tell us what it is?  Now tell us why you think any submarine would ever use an active sensor in any generalized search function?  You realize that the last thing a sub would ever do is emit any kind of  sound or electronic signature that tells the bad guys HERE I AM/

C'mon fess up.  Tell the truth you have no navy experience of any kind, do you?

Quoted: You're a f'g i*** aren't you?  I ain't kissing the Limeys butt.

It looks like it from here, and you getting mad adds a confirmation.

I am seriously calling into question your absolute lack of anything resembling knowledge of war at sea.  What makes you think the Brits were using subs as radar or visual pickets?

What makes you think they didn't?

did you read that in MAD magazine?

I wish, I'm a fan of that magazine.

Try again and tell us how a sub could detect and report incoming aircraft without using some kind of active sensor.  You do know what an active sensor is don't you?  Pray tell us what it is?

You look through a periscope towards the runway. That's a passive sensor. You keep the sub underwater and stick the RF antenna above the waterline to pick up radio calls, that's a passive sensor too. The sub drops a team on the coast and they radio the Falklands fleet while the sub stays under. Gee, look at that! It's MAGIC.

Now tell us why you think any submarine would ever use an active sensor in any generalized search function? You realize that the last thing a sub would ever do is emit any kind of  sound or electronic signature that tells the bad guys HERE I AM

I wouldn't think they would, neither would you, and neither would the enemy. That's the key. It's a trap for the bad guys that get close to the sub.

C'mon fess up.  Tell the truth you have no navy experience of any kind, do you?

I was a Space Shuttle Door Gunner, and that's all that counts!

It depends on what the Brits were monitoring. They may have had a radio mast up and were just passively listening for radio chatter from the Argentine pilots, or an ESM mast up listening for radar emissions from the Argentine A-4's.

Quoted: listening for radar emissions from the Argentine A-4's.

I don't remember Argentine A4's having radars. I bet the Brits were listening to the Argentine pilots bragging to their mistresses that only he out of a flight of 4 planes will sink all the British ships during their scheduled take-off tomorrow at 0900. No wait, scratch that. These are Argentines. Only he out of all the pilots in Argentina will sink all the British ships by himself and take-off will be at 1100 instead.

You look through a periscope towards the runway. That's a passive sensor. (Oh that's rich, you know what the visual horizon of a periscope is?  And what are you going to do if the runway isn't on the beach?)You keep the sub underwater and stick the RF antenna above the waterline to pick up radio calls, that's a passive sensor too. (Big whoop, they aren't going to stick an antenna up all the time, and assuming they collect all kinds of good data, how are they going to get it to anybody?)The sub drops a team on the coast and they radio the Falklands fleet while the sub stays under. Gee, look at that! It's MAGIC.  

It's stupid. Why don't you ask any of the SpecOps types around here if they would go on a mission like that? and how long they think a team would last.    How long do you think a team that can visual an airfield and then has to radio out data is going to last against any kind of competent military?  Or are you seriously suggesting they drop a team on a daily basis to catch all the various raids launching? and enough teams to cover several airfields?You really think a sub is going to sit that close to the coast.  If they insert a team they are going to turn around and get the flock out of dodge.  The sub sure as hell isn't going to radio any reports.

So even if they stick a radio antenna up, which they ain't gonna do, lets assume they pick up all kinds of neat data about the raid, what the hell are they going to do with it?

Quoted: It depends on what the Brits were monitoring. They may have had a radio mast up and were just passively listening for radio chatter from the Argentine pilots, or an ESM mast up listening for radar emissions from the Argentine A-4's.

They still have to get the mission report out to the fleet.  IIRC the Falklands were at almost max effective range for the scooters.  But remember islands don't move, the planes were able to fly out on the same heading until they started to get esm hits and then start flying under the radar coverage.  The Brits were able to put pickets off the threat axis and track the strikes coming in.  The Argies had a choice go after the pickets which probably had air cover if needed and maybe not get back or continue on to where the real targets were around the islands.  Once thy got close to the island they used the Mk1 eyeball for most targetting.

You can't compare the Falklands with a situation where the task group is maneuvering around especially one with real carriers, real AEW a/c and real interceptors.  Even Vito will admit that it was a real closely run thing.  If the Argies had been able to fuse their bombs correctly the Brits would have lost a few more ships.  If they had landed a few more bigger guns and waited a while to unleash them the Brits had 3" guns and shore battery fire with 5" guns would have been a real challenge.  If the islands were a hundred miles closer to the coast, it would have been a lot tougher on the Brits.

Quoted: So even if they stick a radio antenna up, which they ain't gonna do, lets assume they pick up all kinds of neat data about the raid, what the hell are they going to do with it?

Something like this....

... The SSN's began a new and critical function: lying off Argentinca's air bases, and using electronic equipment, sonar, and visual sightings to report the take-off of aircraft sorties towards the Falklands. ... 'Two Skyhawks have just taken off from Rio Gallegos, course so-and-so, speed so-and-so. Their estimated time of arrival in your area is so-and-so. Four Mirages are steering east towards you, range a hundred and sixty miles, time of arrival so-and-so.' The British submarines and itelligence teams covering movements from the main Argentine aire bases maintained a constant stream of information. ...

I dug through my old issues of Mad magazine and found that dialouge in a Spy vs. Spy comic strip. And just like MAGIC, Harrier jump jets knocked down Argentine planes like the Battle of Britain.

Quoted: You can't compare the Falklands with a situation where the task group is maneuvering around especially one with real carriers, real AEW a/c and real interceptors.

Magically, the USA has all of that. Plus all the improvements since the Falklands era. So the last thing the bad guys will expect is an anti-aircraft attack from a submarine "too close" to their territory. You have to think like a pirate, "RRRRRRRRR!"

I wonder how many AIM-9X's could fit in a Trident Silo?

Quoted: I wonder how many AIM-9X's could fit in a Trident Silo?

Let's see. According to Global Security, you can fit 7 Tomahawks in one Trident tube. Lock Mart has developed a "quad pack" of ESSMs for a VLS tube, which also fits one Tomahawk. So off hand, I'd guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 28, if they can pack 'em like ESSM.

Quoted: Quoted: I could see no realistic scenario were a Skipper would use this as an offensive system. That's why it will work! When all the professionals say subs can't/shouldn't be used as opportunistic anti-aircraft platforms, that's a signal for the US military to look into it. Who would be crazy enough to park subs in close proximity to enemy airbases and air routes to ambush aircraft? It's crazy, but we have the technology. We can do it.

Please please please stop feeding the

If this guy in actually serious, well...

Quoted: Quoted: I wonder how many AIM-9X's could fit in a Trident Silo? Let's see. According to Global Security, you can fit 7 Tomahawks in one Trident tube. Lock Mart has developed a "quad pack" of ESSMs for a VLS tube, which also fits one Tomahawk. So off hand, I'd guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 28, if they can pack 'em like ESSM.

Any of those load-outs are pretty impressive.

I think there was even talk of using SM-3's as well.

Quoted: I think there was even talk of using SM-3's as well.

I'm not buying this. SM-3s for what? They're BMD missiles. Do you really need a stealthy BMD launch platform?

Quoted: Quoted: I think there was even talk of using SM-3's as well. I'm not buying this. SM-3s for what? They're BMD missiles. Do you really need a stealthy BMD launch platform?

I very well be smoking pot on this one.... I swore that I read an article where they talked about using the SSGN for BMD due to it's long time on station and it's stealthyness. I can't find anything now using google-fu and I'm at work but I'll make an effort to check when I get home. From what I remember it was just an idea being bandied about.. all conceptual.

Quoted: I bet the Brits were listening to the Argentine pilots bragging to their mistresses that only he out of a flight of 4 planes will sink all the British ships during their scheduled take-off tomorrow at 0900

Curiously enough, the British did somehow manage to eavesdrop into the plans to sink Coventry. They took the force allocations as quite a complement.

Unfortunately, they actually did manage to sink Coventry.

I believe the Russians only ever put the Mast-mounted SAMs on their diesel boats. If you're in shallow water, their natural habitate, and running on battery power, and just been actively pinged, taking a pot shot may not be the worst thing you could do.

NTM

Quoted: Quoted: I think there was even talk of using SM-3's as well. I'm not buying this. SM-3s for what? They're BMD missiles. Do you really need a stealthy BMD launch platform?

Shit, I can't find an article anywhere to back this up. Looks like I was out to lunch on this one.

Same story, a little different spin....

AIM-9X Land Launch Demo Advances Sub Payload Capability
By Team Submarine Public Affairs, NAVSEA Newswire, 5 Jan 06

WASHINGTON - The Navy successfully conducted a research and development (R&D) land based test at an Army range in New Mexico, leveraging the Sidewinder AIM-9X missile, an air to air missile used on tactical fighter aircraft, to proof out critical missile adaptation features for submarine use.

Among the test objectives achieved in November 2005 were the ability to vertically launch the missile from zero velocity, and to lock-on after launch.  The test was a collaborative effort between the Joint Program Office for Air to Air Missiles, Raytheon Missile Systems and Team Submarine Advanced Research.  Capt. Mark Bock, program manager for Team Submarine's Undersea Defensive Systems Program Office, led this effort.

The land launched test involved detecting, tracking and destroying an unmanned helicopter drone. The target was not visible to the missile at launch.  The missile turned and acquired the target several miles down range, remaining locked on until intercept.

Many “firsts” were achieved during this demonstration.  Aside from the zero air speed vertical launch, this test was also the first AIM-9X launched from an Army Chaparral trailer, the first AIM-9X to engage a target below 3,000 feet, or 300 knots, and the first launch using a commercial off the shelf fire control system.

Because the AIM-9X missile is a good choice for research and development (R&D) of small missile payloads for the guided missile submarines (SSGNs) and attack submarines (SSNs), the results can be extended to other missile payloads and different platforms such as the Littoral Combat Ship.  

The next step in this R&D process is to analyze the vertical launch thrust characteristics of gas production and temperature in support of encapsulation for an underwater test.  

According to Capt. Bock, planning for in-water testing of the capability is currently underway.

“The ‘encapsulation’ technique will be the forerunner for deploying air breathing payloads like unmanned aerial vehicles from submarines in the future,” he said.

The most mature of these encapsulation technologies, the Stealthy Affordable Capsule System or SACS, will be leveraged for the next phase of risk reduction testing. This effort, led by the Northrop Grumman Corporation, will demonstrate the capability to encapsulate and perform submerged launch of the AIM-9X from a launch fixture representative of a submarine Vertical Launch System that is currently used for Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The long-range research goal is to be able to field any existing Department of Defense missile payload onboard submarines rapidly and at low cost.

Quoted: Quoted: I bet the Brits were listening to the Argentine pilots bragging to their mistresses that only he out of a flight of 4 planes will sink all the British ships during their scheduled take-off tomorrow at 0900 Curiously enough, the British did somehow manage to eavesdrop into the plans to sink Coventry. They took the force allocations as quite a complement. Unfortunately, they actually did manage to sink Coventry. I believe the Russians only ever put the Mast-mounted SAMs on their diesel boats. If you're in shallow water, their natural habitate, and running on battery power, and just been actively pinged, taking a pot shot may not be the worst thing you could do. NTM

Well no one could of expected that the escorting Type 22's Sea Wolf system would chose that particular moment to "sulk".

By the time they got it switched off of of automatic/radar control to manual/TV engagement it was too late.

(I read Max Hastings book)

Thank you. I've not seen that photograph in ages, 'tis one of the best of the war.

What I'm looking for isn't the 25-year anniversay, it's the 30-year anniversary. I'm sure there will be many things revealed after the thirty-year-rule takes effect.

NTM