Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: A NASTY attack sub idea
Message-ID: <7104@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 Jun 89 04:53:15 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



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

Neil Kirby asks about AAW defenses for submarines.  We have
anecdotal photographs (look at Naval Institute Proceedings
issues) of Soviet SSNs with purported AAW missiles sitting
in the conning tower.  Most commentators think they used
balsa rather than some other wood...

Sub has to sacrifice its covertness in order to nail the aircraft.
Further, by the time the sub is aware of the aircraft, it's
too late.  So nobody has gotten terribly serious although the
Brits toyed around with a small missile called Blowpipe.

Neither Harpoon nor Tomahawk are very good choices -- they are
anti-surface weapons, not AAW.  If you wanted a tube-launched one,
build a smaller one from existing components and carry a bigger loadout.
On the other hand...SubRoc with its nuclear warhead was an ASW
weapon -- said to have a Pk of 2.0 -- it effectively got the toher
guy and you didn't have to have a very good fire control solution.
And it also got you.  Certainly nail any aircraft in the neighborhood if
it vented to the sruface...

b