| From: | "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Naval units (was Re: Killing in Shadowrun...) |
| Date: | Tue, 28 May 1996 17:09:00 +0100 |
edu>, Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.umich.edu> writes
>On Mon, 27 May 1996, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> 1956 study for a submersible aircraft carrier: 40,000 tons, nulcear
>> propulsion, submerged speed five knots (had to be optimised for surface
>> handling and stability), aircraft complement six STOL fighters.
>> (Submarine Design and Development, Norman Friedman)
>>
>> Submarines are far too tightly volume limited to be useful aircraft
>> carriers.
>
> An interesting study. Actually, if you scrap the idea of making
>long-distance "power-projection" (which is what the aircraft carrier is
>good at) and load the thing with a whole mess of small attack
>helicopters (Apache, Pave-Low, Longbow, etc.), you could make a sub
>carrier that packed a tremendous wallop over ground and was sneaky to
>boot. Arguably, however, you could do the same thing by gutting an Ohio
>class of its ballistic capabilities and packing it full of vertically
>launched, long-range cruise missiles.
The problem remains that you're stuck on the surface for long enough to
land, fold and strike down your force of helicopters, and you're close
enough to shore for them to reach their targets and return... and they
are still *bulky* items. The missiles give you less flexibility, but
more reach and more safety.
>> Doesn't matter: this is why you embark a helicopter or two. When you're
>> moving that fast you're blind, and by closing to attack over-the-side
>> you expose yourself to attack: better to put your weapon on a platform
>> the submarine cannot attack, together with sensors to localise and
>> classify vague contacts.
>
> Actually, the Soviets (when they still *were* Soviets)
>experimented with a pretty rude weapon. It was a modified man-pack SA-7
>Grail launcher mounted onto the periscope mast. The object of the unit
>was to be able to spot, acquire, and launch a small SAM at offending ASW
>choppers. They didn't have a whole lot of success with it, but that was
>mainly due to the fact that the thing was based off a Grail system (lame)
>and was basically jury-rigged together and held on with gum and baling
>wire. If this concept were seriously studied, it's entirely possible
>that subs could be death to aerial search platforms.
We prototyped SLAM (Sub Launch Antiaircraft Missile) on HMS Aeneas in
1972, as well. For what it did, it worked well: but...
The problem is that slow at periscope depth is exactly where you don't
want to be with a helo after you. The problem remains that a missile
small enough to go on a mast, or be shot out of a tube with associated
sensor gear, is (a) outranged by the helicopter's weapons, and (b)
likely to be fairly easily spoofed, especially if you opt for the
"launch and leave" option the US and France looked at off and on: the
helo's defences are usually better than the throwaway search-and-
classify system needed to tell the missile where to go.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
