Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!amdcad!military
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-torpedo warfare
Message-ID: <27085@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 2 Sep 89 07:29:07 GMT
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 32
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)

Countering a torpedo after it has been launched -- that is at the
engagement stage of the combat cycle -- tends to be
a losing proposition.  Exactly the same reasons that close-in
EW systems intended to break a terminal homing missile off
don't work well either.  Critical to engagement-stage 
countermeasures is detailed knowledge of the other guys'
targeting system.  First -- that requires GOOD intelligence
input at the HUMINT level -- overhead satellites can't do
that job.  Second -- it's easier for the missile/torpedo
designer to stay a jump or two ahead of the decoy/countermeasure
designer.  Hard lesson we're learning in SDI...

In this regard, the submariners, with the stealth inherent to
the environment, have a real advantage.  With battle groups,
the basic rules -- if you intend to be successful -- are the same.
One: don't get detected.  If the other guy doesn't know you are there,
he won't attack you.  Two: when detected, don't let him localize you
to enable successful engagement.  A general purpose good tactic to
consider at this situation is make it look like the ocean is full of you
and hope he attacks the wrong target or desides to conserve his
ammunition.

I've run a couple of these warfighting models, albeit in a surface,
EW scenario rather than a subsurface one.  When the next war breaks
out, buy stock in the companies that make chaff.

Rex Buddenberg
budden at manta.nosc.mil