Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:53:41 EDT
In a message dated 7/14/1999 6:29:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> >Submarines don't do aviation very well: aircraft are bulky and subs are
> >volume-critical, plus conducting flight operations traps you on the
surface.
>
>
> Actually, with drone fighters, you could save space, becuase they can
be
> smaller and don't have as intensive as crew needs are regualr fighters.
> Particlarly if you were using jet seaplane or tilt-jets.

Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though it
would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as compared to
a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and such?
What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all work?

-K (who thinks it may soon be time to "resurrect" Ironhelm)
Message no. 2
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:24:07 +0100
In article <9f6c2bbe.24be9925@***.com>, Ereskanti@***.com writes
>Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though it
>would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as compared to
>a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and such?

One proposal being debated at the moment is to take the four oldest
Ohio-class SSBNs, remove their Trident missiles and fire control, and put
seven-cell Tomahawk launchers in twenty-two of the missile tubes thus
vacated. (Two would be reserved for special operations use: converted
into lockout chambers, apparently, for SEALs to do their stuff through)

One hundred and fifty-four TLAMs. Ouch :)

The Wandjima looks not totally unlike a Tomahawk in size (fairly similar
payload & performance) and tube-launched cruise missiles are nothing
new: folding wings and a rocket booster to kick it up to speed.

The tactical problem is always recovery: the enemy just has to follow your
drones home to find the launching ship, and a submarine sacrifices a lot of
"stand and fight" ability in order to submerge. But, with drones or
aircraft, you're stuck on the surface broadcasting a lot of EM - if you have
to submerge, your drones are uncontrolled and all your aircraft are
suddenly minus a landing strip.


>What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all work?

A hell of a wideband transciever to handle all the commlinks :)


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:40:06 -0400
At 17.24 07-15-99 +0100, you wrote:
>One proposal being debated at the moment is to take the four oldest
>Ohio-class SSBNs, remove their Trident missiles and fire control, and put

They shouldn't be debating- the Navy should be doing. Until the West
Virginia is anything more than plans, we have no subs that are really
capable of dealing with the covert and "missions-other-than-war" work we've
been asking them do for the past ten years. Boomers are quiet, and these
babes have pleny to convertable room.

>into lockout chambers, apparently, for SEALs to do their stuff through)
>One hundred and fifty-four TLAMs. Ouch :)

<droool>

>The tactical problem is always recovery: the enemy just has to follow your
>drones home to find the launching ship, and a submarine sacrifices a lot of
>"stand and fight" ability in order to submerge. But, with drones or

One shot drones are one way. Basically cruise missiles with the ability
to protect themselves and strike secondary targets enroute.

>aircraft, you're stuck on the surface broadcasting a lot of EM - if you have

Autopilot, anyone? (Unless SR3/R2 say that drones are no longer atonomous
(sp)) You can also use satellite tranmission, with the controlers located
someplace other than the sub, which just gets them there.

>to submerge, your drones are uncontrolled and all your aircraft are
>suddenly minus a landing strip.

May be not. Tightbeam microwave-to-sat-to-surface links are pretty hard
to pick up, and a laser based system would be almost impossible. (although
the dowlink would be a grade A pain in the butt to engineer)
Combine that with a low-profile conn, and low-observability construction,
and you might be able to do it.




CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 4
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:43:00 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though it
> would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as compared to
> a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and such?

> What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all work?

That might work, but in a "more bang for your buck" vein, you'd be
better off refitting your old boomers with sub-launched cruise missiles.
For instance, you can fit at least 4 tomahawk or harpoon vertical
launch tubes in the same diameter filled by 1 trident ICBM tube (you may
be able to get 7 in a classic hex pattern, but I'd have to check the
physical dimensions again). Further, you can stack at least one reload
vertically beneath your main launch tubes.
Now your basic Ohio-class sub has 24 Trident ICBM tubes. That
translates to anywhere from 96 to 168 tomahawks or harpoons inbound in a
very short amount of time. Give a minute or so to go through the reload
cycle and you have another 96 to 168 missiles on the fly. From *one* sub.
This is a surface task force commander's worst nightmare. All
without ever departing from conventional arms (a big plus in our
nuclear-paranoid world). Sure, anti-missile defenses will get a lot of
the missiles through attrition, but your standard Phalanx gun is a defense
of last resort. With that many missiles, you'd rapidly swamp the enemy's
defenses, and the resulting carnage would be pretty phenomenal, especially
if the first salvo was directed at the surface group's pickets.
Once stripped of this critical layer of protection, the second salvo
(directed at larger targets like carriers, troop ships, oilers, etc) would
be even more devastating.
And that says nothing of the ability to project power over land.
If the US could conceivably have that many missiles sitting off the coast
of your country *without you knowing it*, you may be less belligerant.
The ability to make good on a diplomatic threat instantanously,
powerfully, and by surprise is a pretty potent tool for getting what you
want.
Honestly, I'm not sure why the USNavy hasn't looked into it
seriously. As a force multiplier, a reconfigured boomer would be an
excellent addition to the Navy's capabilities.

Marc
Message no. 5
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:47:06 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> One proposal being debated at the moment is to take the four oldest
> Ohio-class SSBNs, remove their Trident missiles and fire control, and put
> seven-cell Tomahawk launchers in twenty-two of the missile tubes thus
> vacated.

So 7 will fit? I thought so. For my money, this is the way to
go (see my last message). When I was doing my undergrad work in Naval
Architecture, this is one of the projects I looked into for a senior
design thesis. It's a sound idea, and it's cool that it's actually
getting considered.

Marc
Message no. 6
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:07:43 -0400
At 01:40 PM 7/15/99 -0400, you wrote:

> >aircraft, you're stuck on the surface broadcasting a lot of EM - if you have
>
> Autopilot, anyone? (Unless SR3/R2 say that drones are no longer
> atonomous
>(sp)) You can also use satellite tranmission, with the controlers located
>someplace other than the sub, which just gets them there.
>
> >to submerge, your drones are uncontrolled and all your aircraft are
> >suddenly minus a landing strip.
>
> May be not. Tightbeam microwave-to-sat-to-surface links are
> pretty hard
>to pick up, and a laser based system would be almost impossible. (although
>the dowlink would be a grade A pain in the butt to engineer)
> Combine that with a low-profile conn, and low-observability
> construction,
>and you might be able to do it.

How about a towed array that makes its way to the surface. If you're really
sneaky you have a drone fitted with the control cable mentioned in the
Target:Smugglers Haven sourcebook that bobs to the surface. One rigger
controls that, along with all of the ECM/ECCM gear on it to make sure it
doesn't get blown up. Then you slap all sorts of stealth material on it to
make it as small a target as possible.

On that drone you put all the uplink gear for all of the rest of the
drones. From that all of them can be controlled. The sub does not have to
loiter on the surface, it can be as far down as that control cable goes.


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 7
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:13:52 EDT
In a message dated 7/15/1999 1:13:54 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
renouf@********.com writes:

> > Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though
it
>
> > would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as
compared
> to
> > a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and
such?
>
> > What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all
work?
>
> That might work, but in a "more bang for your buck" vein, you'd be
> better off refitting your old boomers with sub-launched cruise missiles.

Ah, but you are missing the idea I think. Do you/have you read the idea of
"Ironhelm". Though NOT something for the average SR Game (or even many
SR-Pirate games), it is without a doubt a different consideration here. I'm
talking about launching a surprise, controllable, system that would be
intended on taking over and causing minimal damage to a target (like say,
another larger surface vessel or perhaps another pirate-like target such as a
pirate stronghold.

<snipped huge boomer conversion idea.>

-K
Message no. 8
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:47:40 -0400
At 15.07 07-15-99 -0400, you wrote:
>sneaky you have a drone fitted with the control cable mentioned in the
>Target:Smugglers Haven sourcebook that bobs to the surface. One rigger

A babby blimp, like a Condor....
I like the way your mind works. How much do you want for it? :)


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 9
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:17:40 +1000
> Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though
it
> would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as compared
to
> a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and such?
> What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all work?

I can answer that one... The specs are sitting in front of me. : )

One 'Ohio' class SSBN carries 24 launch tubes for the Trident I C4 SLBM.

Lockheed UGM-96A Trident I C4 SLBM
Dimensions: length 10.4m (34.1 ft), diameter 1.9m (6 ft 2.8 in)
Launch weight: 31751 kg (70,000 lb)

That's the actual missile... No doubt the launch tube is a little larger.

Compare that to your average drone... You could probably fit the drone,
it's launcher, spare ammunition, a repair station and the kitchen sink all
in one tube. ; )

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: JonSzeto@***.com JonSzeto@***.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:12:53 EDT
Ereskanti@***.com wrote,

> > Actually, with drone fighters, you could save space, becuase they can
> be
> > smaller and don't have as intensive as crew needs are regualr fighters.
> > Particlarly if you were using jet seaplane or tilt-jets.
>
> Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though it
> would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as compared
to
> a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and such?

> What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all work?

The Trident II D-5 missile has an overall length of 44 feet (13.4
meters), a diameter of 6'11" (2.11 m), and weighs over 2,800 kg*. A
Wandjina has a Body of 3, which would probably give it an equivalent
size to your regular automobile (about 12 feet (4 m) long and 6 feet (2
m) wide) and a weight between 200 and 750 kg. You could probably fit
three (or four) Wandjinas in the space that an ICBM would take up, with
a little space left over for extra ammo and fuel.

* From the Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons, published by
the Army Times Publishing Company, copyright 1995.

-- Jon
Message no. 11
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:41:05 +1000
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Renouf <renouf@********.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Friday, 16 July 1999 3:43
Subject: Re: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)


>
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though
it
> > would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as
compared to
> > a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and
such?
> > What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all
work?
>
> That might work, but in a "more bang for your buck" vein, you'd be
> better off refitting your old boomers with sub-launched cruise missiles.
> For instance, you can fit at least 4 tomahawk or harpoon vertical
> launch tubes in the same diameter filled by 1 trident ICBM tube (you may
> be able to get 7 in a classic hex pattern, but I'd have to check the
> physical dimensions again). Further, you can stack at least one reload
> vertically beneath your main launch tubes.

Again with the specs in front of me...

General Dynamics BGM-109 Tomahawk
Dimensions: length 6.4m (21 ft 0 in), diameter 53.3cm (1 ft 9 in)

McDonnell Douglas UGM-84A Harpoon
Dimensions: length 4.628m (15.2 ft), diameter 34.3cm (13.5 in)

Given the dimensions for the Trident I C4 that I gave in my other post, you
can see that only the Harpoon could have a reload stack below it, *IF* such
an idea was considered... Most sub commanders would quail at the thought of
a warhead being less than 5 feet from the rocket exhaust of a launching
Harpoon. I know *I* would, particularly as the second layer is supposed to
be a reload layer, and therefore must be passed up to be launched. : )

I'll let you figure out how many you can squeeze in one Trident tube,
though. : )

> Now your basic Ohio-class sub has 24 Trident ICBM tubes. That
> translates to anywhere from 96 to 168 tomahawks or harpoons inbound in a
> very short amount of time. Give a minute or so to go through the reload
> cycle and you have another 96 to 168 missiles on the fly. From *one* sub.

See above... Particularly as it only takes you a minute to cycle the reload
missile. : )

Assuming it was done, yes, I can see just about any Surface Task Force
Commander would be worried, though. : )

Nevermind anyone within 160 km of shore (range of a Harpoon, make it 460km
if it was a Tomahawk B or C).

<snip>

> And that says nothing of the ability to project power over land.
> If the US could conceivably have that many missiles sitting off the coast
> of your country *without you knowing it*, you may be less belligerant.
> The ability to make good on a diplomatic threat instantanously,
> powerfully, and by surprise is a pretty potent tool for getting what you
> want.
> Honestly, I'm not sure why the USNavy hasn't looked into it
> seriously. As a force multiplier, a reconfigured boomer would be an
> excellent addition to the Navy's capabilities.

The Navy probably hasn't looked into it because they haven't been told to.
: )

In any case, however, it would probably be prohibitively expensive. What
with refitting the launch tubes, changing firing control mechanisms,
testing, fixing bugs in the idea, more testing, fixing more bugs, testing,
and then outfitting other subs that way... I'm sure there's a fair bit I
missed too. And all of this is to happen today, when the American Military
is finding it harder and harder to justify all it's expensive "toys"?
Sorry, I don't see it happening.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 12
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:50:29 +1000
> The Trident II D-5 missile has an overall length of 44 feet (13.4
> meters), a diameter of 6'11" (2.11 m), and weighs over 2,800 kg*.

I forgot about those. Thanks for reminding me. : ) My information says

Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBM
Dimensions: length 13.96m (45.8 ft), diameter 1.89m (6 ft 2.4 in) ... Close
enough. : )
Weight: 57153 kg (126,000 lb) ... Just a slight difference... : )

The Trident I C4 missiles are in the first 8 Ohios (USS Ohio, Michigan,
Florida, Georgia, Henry M. Jackson, Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, SSBN726 -
SSBN733).

The Trident II D5 missiles are in all the others, though refits for the
older subs are planned. My information's a little old, though, so refits
*may* have already taken place on a few of them.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:12:47 EDT
In a message dated 7/15/1999 8:22:25 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
JonSzeto@***.com writes:

> The Trident II D-5 missile has an overall length of 44 feet (13.4
> meters), a diameter of 6'11" (2.11 m), and weighs over 2,800 kg*. A
> Wandjina has a Body of 3, which would probably give it an equivalent
> size to your regular automobile (about 12 feet (4 m) long and 6 feet (2
> m) wide) and a weight between 200 and 750 kg. You could probably fit
> three (or four) Wandjinas in the space that an ICBM would take up, with
> a little space left over for extra ammo and fuel.
>
> * From the Encyclopedia of Modern U.S. Military Weapons, published by
> the Army Times Publishing Company, copyright 1995.

Okay, *this* sort of solves a few questions ... now for another one...what
about recovery methods that might be available for a "drone launching
submarine"?

-K
Message no. 14
From: Veskrashen veskrashen@*******.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:09:55 -1100
Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> Okay, *this* sort of solves a few questions ... now for another one...what
> about recovery methods that might be available for a "drone launching
> submarine"?

Why not, for VTOL type drones anyway, waterproof the hulls and let them
sink into the water about 20 feet or so? I know that the engines would
need to be sealed to some degree, and battle damage would certainly
affect how well they would survive the event. However, this would allow
a submarine to stay submerged, and the drones would be low enough to
avoid most radar before they entered the water anyway. That way, at
least one method of following them back to their source would be
eliminated. As to what happens when they get there, use submersible
drones to maneuver them into a recovery bay, seal it up, clear it out,
and commence refeul/rearm/repair operations.

-Veskrashen.
Message no. 15
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:16:57 +1000
> Okay, *this* sort of solves a few questions ... now for another one...what
> about recovery methods that might be available for a "drone launching
> submarine"?

About what you'd expect... Splashdown & manual recovery, or V/STOL. Or,
(most likely) self-destruction of the drone after it's usefulness has ended.

Believe me, the submarine/carrier cross has been tried before and it failed
miserably. If you want the drone back, the most efficient method is to
build a specialised drone ship. If you want a covert drone launcher, fine,
a specialised sub could do it. But getting the drone back onto the sub is
very hazardous at best.

Modern submarines surface for only a very few reasons. In order of
frequency, 1) Returning to port (obviously) 2) Covert operations, 3)
Onboard emergency, 4) Surrendering to the enemy.

For covert ops, they are usually on the surface for no more than 15 minutes,
and it's usually less than 5. Being on the surface makes the submarine a
whole lot more vulnerable for many reasons, primarily being increased weapon
damage possibility (ie surface guns and missiles actually work) and the loss
of the submarine's primary attribute, it's stealth. Telling a sub commander
that he'll have to be on the surface for a long time is the quickest way to
make him nervous and get his veto of your idea. No sub commander will be
volunteering for drone recover duty, believe me.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 16
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:42:50 -0400
At 22.12 07-15-99 EDT, you wrote:
>Okay, *this* sort of solves a few questions ... now for another one...what
>about recovery methods that might be available for a "drone launching
>submarine"?

Increase the size of the sub, and you can use capture nets, but it would
take a while to do that. If you are cluttering up the upper deck with
catapults, I don't imagine that arrestor lines would increase your hull
noise much more. Limit yourself only to tilt enigne/VTOL capable drones.
Or, you can use float eqiupped drones, and a "wet dock" bay like they use
in troop ships. All of those are going to require making a larger sub than
a boomer, in fact.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 17
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:05:14 +0100
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.990715131711.11797C-100000@*******>, Marc
Renouf <renouf@********.com> writes
> Honestly, I'm not sure why the USNavy hasn't looked into it
>seriously. As a force multiplier, a reconfigured boomer would be an
>excellent addition to the Navy's capabilities.

Downsides are several.

1) - Treaty verification. The first four Ohios are to retire under START II,
when the Russians get round to ratifying it. That means they need to be
provably, permanently made incapable of carrying strategic nuclear
weapons. How detailed an inspection are you willing to allow? :) The
"traditional" solution is either to scrap the submarine, or to publicly fill the
tubes with concrete (adopted by the USSR for disarming some of its
Yankee-class SSBNs, which were for a while used as oversize SSNs)

2) - Weapon inventory. The USN doesn't have enough Tomahawks to load
out the fleet as it is. This is one of the factors that also killed off the
Arsenal Ship.

3) Weapon capabilities. At the moment, you're limited to Tomahawks,
which come in one flavour: conventional warhead land-attack. They need
detailed digital maps and imagery and several hours of missile planning
before launch: they are not quick-response assets. There's no antiship
version (the TASM was retired some years ago - its range far overreached
targeting capabilities and flight time to max range was over half an hour)

4) Lack of targets. There's no current shortage of Tomahawk launch cells
in the Fleet, and ships like DD-21 will further add to the arsenal (as well as
being able to pack in Land Attack Standard and fire ERGM rounds). For
the antiship mission, who's the threat that _needs_ this sort of firepower?
A fUSSR surface-action group might, but they're gone...


The idea has been circulating for a number of years, ever since the START
II treaty meant those four SSBNs could become surplus to strategic
requirements, but the case for it is not completely clear-cut.



--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 18
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:05:59 +0100
In article <4.2.0.58.19990715150422.00979bb0@*****.engin.umich.edu>,
Sommers <sommers@*****.edu> writes
>On that drone you put all the uplink gear for all of the rest of the
>drones. From that all of them can be controlled. The sub does not have to
>loiter on the surface, it can be as far down as that control cable goes.

Drop a homing torpedo on the uplink's location and it'll find the submarine.
Trust me on this :)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 19
From: Darrell L. Bowman darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:47:32 -0400
On 15 Jul 99, at 17:09, Veskrashen wrote:

> method of following them back to their source would be eliminated. As to
> what happens when they get there, use submersible drones to maneuver them
> into a recovery bay, seal it up, clear it out, and commence
> refeul/rearm/repair operations.

Yeah, my rigger Raven had a submersible drone.. It was just
survellance, but it worked great the time I needed to use it.


---
Premonitions played tag in the grottoes of my mind,
none of which I would have cared to take to lunch.
-- Corwin, Prince of Amber,
The Courts of Chaos, Roger Zelazny


Raven,
Irish Elven Rigger with an Attitude

Excalibur
Darrell Bowman
darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
http://sara.cas.nwu.edu/~arch/kos_rule.htm
UIN 1117228
Message no. 20
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:23:38 -0400
At 17.05 07-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>1) - Treaty verification. The first four Ohios are to retire under START II,

I don't think there is a way of getting around it. Unfortuantely.

>3) Weapon capabilities. At the moment, you're limited to Tomahawks,
>which come in one flavour: conventional warhead land-attack. They need

Why must it be dedicated to one weapons system? Would it not be possible
to make a submersible version of the VLS system? It means that each tube
is a one shot, but that is kinda the way it would have to work reguardless
of weather or not it is a dedicated 'Hawk launcher, right?


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 21
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:34:20 -0400
At 12:05 PM 7/16/99 , Paul J. Adam wrote:
>In article <4.2.0.58.19990715150422.00979bb0@*****.engin.umich.edu>,
>Sommers <sommers@*****.edu> writes
> >On that drone you put all the uplink gear for all of the rest of the
> >drones. From that all of them can be controlled. The sub does not have to
> >loiter on the surface, it can be as far down as that control cable goes.
>
>Drop a homing torpedo on the uplink's location and it'll find the submarine.
>Trust me on this :)

Depends on how you do the linkage. How easy is it to find a laser
transmitter/uplink system? If the buoy is pumping out all sorts of radio
transmissions, it'll be found. You keep it up to light transmissions,
there's a lot less to home in on.

Oh, and make them cheap and carry a few.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 22
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:19:35 +1000
> Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though
it
> would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as compared
to
> a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and such?
> What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all work?

I can answer that one... The specs are sitting in front of me. : )

One 'Ohio' class SSBN carries 24 launch tubes for the Trident I C4 SLBM.

Lockheed UGM-96A Trident I C4 SLBM
Dimensions: length 10.4m (34.1 ft), diameter 1.9m (6 ft 2.8 in)
Launch weight: 31751 kg (70,000 lb)

That's the actual missile... No doubt the launch tube is a little larger.

Compare that to your average drone... You could probably fit the drone,
it's launcher, spare ammunition, a repair station and the kitchen sink all
in one tube. ; )

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 23
From: Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:22:48 +1000
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 Ereskanti@***.com wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though
it
> > would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as
compared to
> > a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and
such?
> > What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all
work?
>
> That might work, but in a "more bang for your buck" vein, you'd be
> better off refitting your old boomers with sub-launched cruise missiles.
> For instance, you can fit at least 4 tomahawk or harpoon vertical
> launch tubes in the same diameter filled by 1 trident ICBM tube (you may
> be able to get 7 in a classic hex pattern, but I'd have to check the
> physical dimensions again). Further, you can stack at least one reload
> vertically beneath your main launch tubes.

Again with the specs in front of me...

General Dynamics BGM-109 Tomahawk
Dimensions: length 6.4m (21 ft 0 in), diameter 53.3cm (1 ft 9 in)

McDonnell Douglas UGM-84A Harpoon
Dimensions: length 4.628m (15.2 ft), diameter 34.3cm (13.5 in)

Given the dimensions for the Trident I C4 that I gave in my other post, you
can see that only the Harpoon could have a reload stack below it, *IF* such
an idea was considered... Most sub commanders would quail at the thought of
a warhead being less than 5 feet from the rocket exhaust of a launching
Harpoon. I know *I* would, particularly as the second layer is supposed to
be a reload layer, and therefore must be passed up to be launched. : )

I'll let you figure out how many you can squeeze in one Trident tube,
though. : )

> Now your basic Ohio-class sub has 24 Trident ICBM tubes. That
> translates to anywhere from 96 to 168 tomahawks or harpoons inbound in a
> very short amount of time. Give a minute or so to go through the reload
> cycle and you have another 96 to 168 missiles on the fly. From *one* sub.

See above... Particularly as it only takes you a minute to cycle the reload
missile. : )

Assuming it was done, yes, I can see just about any Surface Task Force
Commander would be worried, though. : )

Nevermind anyone within 160 km of shore (range of a Harpoon, make it 460km
if it was a Tomahawk B or C).

<snip>

> And that says nothing of the ability to project power over land.
> If the US could conceivably have that many missiles sitting off the coast
> of your country *without you knowing it*, you may be less belligerant.
> The ability to make good on a diplomatic threat instantanously,
> powerfully, and by surprise is a pretty potent tool for getting what you
> want.
> Honestly, I'm not sure why the USNavy hasn't looked into it
> seriously. As a force multiplier, a reconfigured boomer would be an
> excellent addition to the Navy's capabilities.

The Navy probably hasn't looked into it because they haven't been told to.
: )

In any case, however, it would probably be prohibitively expensive. What
with refitting the launch tubes, changing firing control mechanisms,
testing, fixing bugs in the idea, more testing, fixing more bugs, testing,
and then outfitting other subs that way... I'm sure there's a fair bit I
missed too. And all of this is to happen today, when the American Military
is finding it harder and harder to justify all it's expensive "toys"?Sorry,
I don't see it happening.

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 24
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters)
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:57:46 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/1999 11:18:00 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
atreloar@*********.com writes:

<snip neato stats>
> That's the actual missile... No doubt the launch tube is a little larger.
>
> Compare that to your average drone... You could probably fit the drone,
> it's launcher, spare ammunition, a repair station and the kitchen sink all
> in one tube. ; )


Actually, *THIS* adds another idea. What about an automated drone
reclamation system within a shared housing design for the drone as well?

-K

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!