Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: A NASTY attack sub idea
Message-ID: <7065@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Jun 89 02:35:56 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 39
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
	As I was playing 688 at lunch the other day, and I had an idea that
    I want a reality check for.  
	Here's the situation: I'm at scope depth.  Some clown in a helo is
    dipping and pinging me with his active sonar.  There isn't a thing that
    I can do to this damn helo.  Or is there?

	What would a Tomahawk cruise missile do to a helo or an Orion?  Or
	a Harpoon for that matter?

	Can anybody comment on the possibility of Anti-air capabilities on 
	subs?

	While the 1,000 pound warhead might be considered insufficent to
    take out heavy cruisers, I'd think that it would do a real number on a
    helo or a P3 Orion or a Bear.  The Harpoon has a top speed of .9
    mach, it's certainly fast enough to catch any helo, a Bear, and after a
    short chase even the Orion.  The Tomahawk at 475kt is faster than the
    Orion at 415kt, but that would be a long chase.

	Since one of the methods for dealing with ASW protected convoys is
    to go after the protection first, why not go after the most mobile arm
    of the ASW group, its air units.  They shoot frigates, don't they, why
    not helos?  How many helo losses would it take to screw up the ASW
    efforts of a convoy?  I doubt that the frigates carry many spare helos!
    (Whatcha think, frigate guys?)

	This tactic would fail in the face of friendly aircraft, since the
    missiles might go after friends, but how often do attack subs have air
    support? 
	This one also has the problem of exposure, you have to be close to
    the surface to do it.  But as a contingency measure, I find it
    appealing.

    Neil Kirby

    ...cbsck!nak