Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: A NASTY attack sub idea
Message-ID: <7209@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Jun 89 03:36:21 GMT
References: <7132@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7159@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 68
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
In article <7159@cbnews.ATT.COM> eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) writes:
	[various parts deleted, including Henry's reply..]

>The argument is very similar to one which took place some months back about
>the fighting ability of certain special force units.  Good ones
>know when NOT to fight.  So it goes with subs.  That's their special
>place and benefit.

	My context in the original posting was that the location of the sub
    has already been blown.  I was at scope depth, and the dipping helo
    found me.  In reality, the helo would be getting ready to drop Mk46's 
    on me.  I wanted something to mess him up while he was trying to get
    me.  He already knew I was there.  But I was where I wanted to be, and
    I wanted to get my cruise missiles off before I ran.  I needed to buy
    time by splashing the helo.

>Nothing better than a near miss on the ASW, even a hit, then the rest of
>the ASW forces could try and pound the hell out of the now exposed sub.

	Why does the near miss make the ASW guys do anything different?
    (other than morale effects).  If they were going to prosecute the sub,
    they'd do it if it fired or not.

>Care to think how helpless the sub crew would feel?  Better to not
>give one's position away.  It amazes me that number of people who would
>want to get into an engagement.  I would hope most of these types get

	For subs, running now if you haven't been discovered makes the best
    sense.  I was after a desparation/backup measure in case the other side
    was having a lucky day.

>weeded out during the selection process.  But I would also hope that
>small handheld Stringer type be available internally.
>
>Another gross generalization from
>
>--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov


	In summary:

	1) This type of response may have such limited application that
    it's not worth the cost and space required.
	
	2) If a sub commander needs this, he's already in serious trouble.

	3) It's technically feasible.

	4) The US and perhaps NATO and the Warsaw Pact don't have it in
    standard service.

	5) It would certainly reduce the efficiency of the ASW air arm
    after a few successful uses.


    Missing from this was any comment on how many 'spare' helos there are
    for ASW work in a convoy situation.  Is this a weak link or are the
    helos rarely threatened?



    Thanks for all of the responses.

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak