Two Tomahawks launched from an SSGN (Florida)

Are you certain about that? The reason I ask is because Boeing’s entry was never shaped for launch from a TT and in fact gets it’s triangular cross section from the desire to maximize the use of the available volume on a rotary launcher.

You missed the significance of a word in my posting. I wrote:

“the configuration of the two missiles was defined by the need to be compatible with the SAC’s rotary launcher and the standard USN torpedo tube *respectively*.”

= the ALCM had to be compatible with the rotary launcher, and Tomahawk had to be compatible with the torpedo tube.

There were plans to have an air-launched version of the Tomahawk for naval use but it got cancelled.

You’re right, but from memory the air-launched Tomahawk was originally evaluated as an alternative to ALCM, so was proposed for USAF use.

Not sure if Tactical Tomahawk can be air-launched but it for sure can’t be launched from a torpedo tube as apparently it’s too fragile

‘Fragile’ might not be the right word. The goal of the Block IV missile – subsequently renamed Tactical Tomahawk – was to get the cost down, and analysis of the design showed that a major cost driver had been the requirement for torpedo tube launch.

The USN had subsequently developed a submarine-mounted vertical launcher, and this form of launch placed less stress (in terms of torsion load, I think) on the missile. So eliminating torpedo tube launch allowed the creation of a less expensive airfare.

This left the UK in the lurch, because RN submarines don’t have vertical launchers. So a launch capsule had to be developed to allow Tactical Tomahawk to be launched from a torpedo tube. (And I’d love to know how the development costs of that project were split between the US and UK.)

Sferrin,

I always thought it was the same company and probably similar guidance/propulsion technology. Thanks for clearing that up.

From the link you posted

“In an UGM-109 underwater launch, the missile remains enclosed in its transport canister until it has cleared the torpedo tube. The canister is then ejected, and the booster ignites to propel the missile to the surface. After it is fully airborne, some protective covers are jettisoned, and the flight procedes as in a surface launch. Newer SSNs also have vertical launch tubes for the UGM-109 missile. “

Maybe it is only a recent development that due to lighter structure Tactical tomahawk can’t be launched from the torpedo tube?!?

Most likely. They brought the cost down quite a bit on Tactical Tomahawk and that could be by using cheaper materials and simpler construction. Plus if you don’t have to withstand a torpedo tube launch maybe you can make the thing lighter weight or out of cheaper materials. Aluminum vs titanium or composites for instance.

P.S: Do you happen to know the cruise altitude for both the missiles(TM and ALCM)?

I imagine the answer is “it depends” however, if you look at the videos of the Tomahawk doing an airburst over the Vigilante or the one where it’s flying into the side of a building it appears to be flying pretty low.

Sferrin,

I always thought it was the same company and probably similar guidance/propulsion technology. Thanks for clearing that up.

From the link you posted

“In an UGM-109 underwater launch, the missile remains enclosed in its transport canister until it has cleared the torpedo tube. The canister is then ejected, and the booster ignites to propel the missile to the surface. After it is fully airborne, some protective covers are jettisoned, and the flight procedes as in a surface launch. Newer SSNs also have vertical launch tubes for the UGM-109 missile. “

Maybe it is only a recent development that due to lighter structure Tactical tomahawk can’t be launched from the torpedo tube?!?

P.S: Do you happen to know the cruise altitude for both the missiles(TM and ALCM)?

I guess what i am trying to ask is, if air launched version was modified extensivley to the point where you can distinctly see stealth meausres in its shape, no such changes were applied to basic design of naval Tomahawk. The same cylindrical shape,round nose, movable intake scoop and straight wings (no sweep).

Is there a problem with launching something that looks like this from VLS or torpedo tube?

The air launched missile and the Tomahawk are different missiles altogether. They’re not even made by the same company. There were plans to have an air-launched version of the Tomahawk for naval use but it got cancelled. Not sure if Tactical Tomahawk can be air-launched but it for sure can’t be launched from a torpedo tube as apparently it’s too fragile. Vertical launchers on ships and subs only.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-86.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html

and Vought’s entry:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-110.html

So the configuration of the two missiles was defined by the need to be compatible with the SAC’s rotary launcher and the standard USN torpedo tube respectively.

Are you certain about that? The reason I ask is because Boeing’s entry was never shaped for launch from a TT and in fact gets it’s triangular cross section from the desire to maximize the use of the available volume on a rotary launcher. Even AGM-86A that never went into production had that cross section.

As for RCS (to the other poster who asked) you’ll notice the AGM-86B has a “crease” or ridge on the nose to help reduce the radar hotspot there (CALCM doesn’t have that BTW, only the nuke version). There’s not a whole lot you can do with a tubular, blunt-nosed missile like the Tomahawk (and Vought’s very similar entry) though you’ll notice on the latest version “Tactical Tomahawk” they added a small point to the nose for the same purpose as the crease on the AGM-86B. Sure, you could wrap it up in a ton of RAM but that takes up volume and weight.

When the ALCM and Tomahawk were originally designed in the mid-1970s, their small physical size and low cruise height was thought to be enough to give them a very good chance of penetrating Soviet defences – Soviet AF ‘look-down shoot-down’ radar technology was still at an early stage. So the configuration of the two missiles was defined by the need to be compatible with the SAC’s rotary launcher and the standard USN torpedo tube respectively.

If the Soviet defences had improved to the point where penetration capability was threatened, the plan was to install a small active EM system on each cruise missile.

I guess what i am trying to ask is, if air launched version was modified extensivley to the point where you can distinctly see stealth meausres in its shape, no such changes were applied to basic design of naval Tomahawk. The same cylindrical shape,round nose, movable intake scoop and straight wings (no sweep).

Is there a problem with launching something that looks like this from VLS or torpedo tube?

I have a question about US cruise missiles. While air launched cruise missiles program resulted in advanced cruise missile AGM 129 with stealth features (and now even JSSM has stealth incorporated in it’s shape), why there was no effort made to make sub/surface launched tomahawks more stealthy as far as the shape goes?

When the ALCM and Tomahawk were originally designed in the mid-1970s, their small physical size and low cruise height was thought to be enough to give them a very good chance of penetrating Soviet defences – Soviet AF ‘look-down shoot-down’ radar technology was still at an early stage. So the configuration of the two missiles was defined by the need to be compatible with the SAC’s rotary launcher and the standard USN torpedo tube respectively.

If the Soviet defences had improved to the point where penetration capability was threatened, the plan was to install a small active EM system on each cruise missile.

I have a question about US cruise missiles. While air launched cruise missiles program resulted in advanced cruise missile AGM 129 with stealth features (and now even JSSM has stealth incorporated in it’s shape), why there was no effort made to make sub/surface launched tomahawks more stealthy as far as the shape goes?

Seems like I have to explain it to you in a clearer manner, you slowmo. In this thread, I only claimed that the system was feasible. I did not claim it was actually under research, or that it was already operational. I have stated clearly many times that I did not know, with regards to the latter two. And so all I needed to do to prove it was feasible was to show that the major components needed for such a system already exists.

In the 054A thread, you tried to prove that a system existed on the 054A by stating that such a system was feasible with China’s capabilites. In actuality, you didn’t even prove that much. But the worst flaw in your logic is equating the feasibility of something to it actually being deployed. That is something you are trying to accuse me of, and it is something I never did in this thread. All you critters are the same, reduced to accusing others of making claims they never did and attacking them based on that. :rolleyes:

I’m wondering how do people like yourself don’t get any kind of suspension for using names like slowmo and critters for others? But then again, the foul language used in this thread is getting embarrassing, the moderators really should shut this one down.

It’s kind of interesting that you still say I didn’t prove that much, when everyone seemed to join my side in the debate and you ended up quiting that thread. So, it was only you not believing in the evidence. Whereas in this case, it’s worthless debate between you and Crobato. Nobody cares except you two, really.

Hey, if you only think something is feasible, why do you still argue like this
“Its still up to you to prove it, rather than suggest via innuendo that it can.”
I already said that all the parts needed for such a system are available. What more do you need?

If you are not trying to argue for the existence of a program getting to this system, don’t use that kind of argument. Just say it’s a possibility and move on. Who spends pages arguing about possibilities? Maybe you just have too much free time. Anyone would believe that you are insisting that because parts are there, the system is also there.

Actually a three-trick pony as there is no reason why the missile load out would have to be exclusively SAMs. Still could embark a decent TLAM onload along with the SAMs and there is always the spec forces accomodation and apparent SDV capability. The main ‘trick’ though – the discrete, invulnerable to SEAD, siting of a large battery of of active, area, SAMs is something not easily achieved by any other platform. Even if I accepted the one-trick comment, from an already-paid-for hull, its a pretty good trick!

Except that in order to perform this latest trick, the boat will need to get far closer to a hosile coast while also forgoing the defence of stealth. That puts the boat at a far higher risk then if it was quietly inserting spec-op units or firing tomahawks from a thousand miles away.

What more, the SSGN SAM is far from a complete system. Its nothing more then a glorified SAM carrier that has zero independent engagement capacity. If you take out or force away the sensor platforms and/or was able to disrupt communications, then the whole thing is rendered useless.

Now, if there was a way of allowing SSGNs to search, lock-on and engage air targets completely independently, then you would have what you and other advocates seem to suggest an SSGN SAM would be, and that would be a different kettle of fish. But thats not the case nor will it be anytime soon.

Poor attempt at misdirection there PLAwolf – the advantage of siting the missiles on a submerged, largely invulnerable, platform over that of a surface escort is very obvious in the threat environment.

Not really. One of the key arguements for this system is surviverability and that is linked to range. If the SSGN is not armed with a 200mile SAM, then the geography of the region would force them into the Taiwan strait bottleneck that would make it far easier to counter them.

If the arguement was for them to be equiped with SM2s, then you’d see that to counter them by creating too much risk for the USN to ever allow their use would involve little more then the PLAN deploying its SSK fleet in the strait.

Its the 200mile range SM6 that gives this suggestion any credibility at all, but with a 200mile ranged missile, an Aegis DDG can do a far better job for a fraction of the monetary and opportunity costs not to meantion a far lower risk.

Crobato – least thats what he seemed to be saying?

Well I’m not responsible for his remarks or he mine. 😉

Oh please dont give me that launch transient junk AGAIN. Shout out for an accoustic barrier round the SSGN, just before firing, and that blocks any kind of transient detection – a couple of escorts banging away on active would probably be sufficient to mask the silo hatch opening and the missile deployment – certainly for any PLAN battery-powered SSK set likely to be in theatre.

PLAN late model Songs and almost certainly Yuans have flank array sonar and thats nothing to sniff at.

Besides, how close would your escorts need to be to create an effective barrier? Depends on the sonar the PLAN uses doesn’t it? But thats one thing you can’t know unless you have some very good and accurate human intel, and since thats not something US intelligence agencies are famed for, lets just assume the USN does not know the PLAN’s sonars better then the PLAN. How are you going to set the range for the escorts? Too far away and your subs are at risk, too close and your escorts are at risk.

You would have been better off guessing that PLAAF AWACS might get a radar hit on the missiles point of origin when they get airborne Wolf!

Thats not a reliable means to pinpointing a lauch location as a missile is rather fast, and even a slight delay in detection can throw the area way off.

Still consistently a believer in sending your naval forces out to their unfortunate demise in shoddy boats then PLAWolf?. Last time we discussed PLAN ops you sacrificed all the PLAN FAC crews on the Taiwan altar…least the Mings crews will have some company in the afterlife eh?!

Thats the price one has to pay when facing a technologically superior foe. I would not get too snobby about the need to make sacrifies in war least your forget the exchange rate between shermans and german leopord/tigers. Unless you are advocating surrender as soon as your opponent has kit better then yours, I would suggest you take a more mature attitude unless you can come up with a strategy to take out the USN with the PLAN and not expect to take serious losses.

More importantly one wonders precisely what the SSGN skipper would be doing letting a noisy old SSK, banging away on its active gear, get a hit on him, for the other SSK types to exploit, when he should have been creeping off in the other direction at the first hint of an active sonar pulse.

Don’t you see that thats the point? Any skipper with half a brain would be heading the other way = you are herding them away. The lurking Songs/Kilos/Yuans are there to deal with any skippers feeling reckless enough to go take a shot at the Mings.

The transient thing has been covered, firing does not automatically give the game away, besides how many engagements do you anticipate this boat staying in for?. Even with a couple of hundred SM’s its going to go through them within a relatively short timeframe. Optimistically one might give the subsurface SM-6’s a, real-world, pK of 0.5 i.e two missiles on each target. Finding 100 or less air targets over PLAAF assembly areas and the Taiwan Strait shouldnt be difficult…so you are probably looking at two, perhaps, three engagements tops, within a short duration, then the sub is creeping off for reload.

And what makes you think the PLAAF is going to be assembling over water? Remember they are no longer reliant on short-legged J7s. In fact, any attack package against Taiwan is likely to assemble far from the coast so as not to give the game away.

As for shooting Sm6s in huge waves. Well bare in mind the limitations of the gear. How many missiles will an AWACS be able to guide at the same time?

We also have the composition of a large strike package. Any large fighter formation is likely to have AWACS and dedicated EW plane support. That means far greater reaction time and survival rates for large formations (especially against the small nose cone seekers on missiles as opposed to more powerful and expansive platform sensors).

And lastly we have durability. How many SSGNs does the USN have and how long can they stay on station if they use up their missiles so quickly? And how long is it going to take for them to get back to port, rearm and get back on station?

Its just not a viable defensive strategy. Its a silver bullet nausense weapon that I think would more interest the PLA then the US military.

The mere presence of such a discrete capability is going to impact PLAAF planning and if the ‘one shot wonder’ accounts for 70-80 downed air targets on its own if called into action, all for the price of a few modifications to the launch systems on the SSGN and a CEC/buoy comms fit then, IMO, its quite probably a successful system.

That 70-80 downed air targets figure would require a boat to carry nothing but SAMs. And even then its an extremely high figure.

Such a system would change the PLA’s planning, and that would further limit the number of targets such SSGNs are likely to bring down.

And, as usual, you pay no attention to how the cost-benefit analysis would pan out if you lost an SSGN or two in the process. 70-80 fighters will probably cost about the same as your SSGN depending on type, but those 70-80 pilots get ejection seats whereas the crew of your SSGN will all go down with the boat with zero chance of escape.

Wow PLA Heavy Rocket Artillery units have a 1000 ballistic missiles that they would be able to fire on a seconds notice (so as not to tip off RoCAF to scramble aircraft) and they can fire them simultaneously can they?. Impressive if they can get the whole RoCAF on the ground, before an airforce, well-used to staring down the barrel of ‘1000 TBM’s’, can get some aircraft aloft?!

I never said they can fire 1000 missiles at the same time, nor would they want to even if they could. The hundreds of missiles that will be fired in the first wave can give the RoCAF as little as 5 minutes warning time. A lot of fighters can get into the air and many would, but I don’t expect many E2s to be in that rank. And anything that does get aloft is going to be overwhelmingly outnumbered, and even if any does survive long enough to require a base to return to, the runways are going to be in no condition to allow them to land.

Its improbable that the PLA would be able to keep the entire RoCAF grounded
or destroy them all in one swoop, but big lumbering E2s and tankers are almost certain to play no part in any war except in the opening hours.

Many have been binned without being ‘fatally flawed’ as I stated initially though…this sub-surface-to-air concept does have a habit of resurfacing every now and again…if you’ll forgive the pun!.

And they will keep bobbing up and down in limbo until the PLA starts to rival or even over-take the US military.

Unless something has been pruposely design from the start to do a job, its unlikely to be terribly good at it if it has just been modified, even more so if you try to make the mods as cheap as possible. And with the many problems faced by an SSGN SAM platform, we can see that this is not going to be one of those rare exceptions.

The problem is that given the choice, the US high command is going to want F22s and carriers over dedicated SSGN SAM because those weapons are just so much more effective, and you just can’t beat the ‘awe’ factor either.

Don’t try to twist the situation around. It certainly wasn’t like that. You were the one who insisted then that something existed despite you having no proof that it did. My stand then was always that we didn’t know if it existed, and so we could not make claims that it did and base performance on that basis.

In this thread, I have stated CLEARLY many times that I don’t know if such a system exists, simply because I have no access to what programs are being funded. Crobato first thought that there was no black badget and that he knew everything about the US military. When I pointed out that there was a black budget he tried misdirection and gave a lame ‘so what?’. :diablo:

Next he tried to question the feasibility of the system, and tried subtly to make it sound as if I had claimed that such a system existed. That was a claim I never made. All I ever claimed was that such a system was feasible. That’s because the major components needed for such a system to be feasible already does exist. Crobato however insists that an idea can only be proved to be feasible if it exists. If it doesn’t exist, it isn’t feasible. Anybody with half a brain can see what’s wrong with that line of logic. Can you?

I don’t care what you are arguing with him about.

this is your exchange with Crobato:
“Its still up to you to prove it, rather than suggest via innuendo that it can.”
I already said that all the parts needed for such a system are available. What more do you need?

But it’s interesting the case was that I provided plenty of evidences that I thought were proof, but you didn’t. And then you asked me to “prove it”. Lol, you can deny my evidences as much as you want. point is that I thought they were evidences, many other people on the thread also argued for me (and nobody else argued against me). Forward to this one, you are providing “parts that are available” and Crobato is asking you to prove it. Look familiar?

weren’t you the guy that kept on using that against 054A? That if they don’t explicitly state it, that it doesn’t exist? Funny how you are going the other way now.

Don’t try to twist the situation around. It certainly wasn’t like that. You were the one who insisted then that something existed despite you having no proof that it did. My stand then was always that we didn’t know if it existed, and so we could not make claims that it did and base performance on that basis. Just because the parts are available doesn’t mean it is operationally deployed. I have made mo such claim that the idea I’m talking about in this thread was deployed. Again, you are like Crobato, resorting to accusing others of making claims they never did, and attacking them based on that.

In this thread, I have stated CLEARLY many times that I don’t know if such a system exists or if it is even under research, simply because I have no access to what programs are being funded. Crobato first thought that there was no black badget and that he knew everything about the US military. When I pointed out that there was a black budget he tried misdirection and gave a lame ‘so what?’. :diablo:

Next he tried to question the feasibility of the system, and tried subtly to make it sound as if I had claimed that such a system existed. That was a claim I never made. All I ever claimed was that such a system was feasible. That’s because the major components needed for such a system to be feasible already does exist. Crobato however insists that an idea can only be proved to be feasible if it exists. If it doesn’t exist, it isn’t feasible. Anybody with half a brain can see what’s wrong with that line of logic. Can you?

I already said that all the parts needed for such a system are available. What more do you need?

weren’t you the guy that kept on using that against 054A? That if they don’t explicitly state it, that it doesn’t exist? Funny how you are going the other way now.

That’s an inherently incorrect and that is what I learned with debating with an intel analyst. Its a fallacy to assume if you have the infrastructure, you have the tool. Whether or not it actually exists is independent from it. Either you have it, or you don’t. Simple as that.

You were asking me about the feasibility of this notional system, bot about whther it existed. i already said all the major components needed for such a system to work already exists. Finding out that I have already given all the proof I need, you now try misdirection and insist that I must prove it exists for it to be feasible. Again, pathetic. 😀

And besides, not all the parts are available. How many AWACS out there are capable of providing the level of TWS needed for missile guidance (there are different levels of TWS). To handle many targets and to provide fast enough updates, you are going to need electronic scanning at least, and not with a mechanical rotodome. You are looking at replacing the current fleet with the next generation of AWACs, and the SM-6 missile itself is not yet in service.

The E-2D uses electronic scanning on a mechanical rotodome. Yes, it is designed to provide mid course guidance for the SM-6.

Show me proof that the existance of a black budget means that your imaginary sub should exist.

Show me where did I say it definitely exist just because of the existence of a black budget? You were the one who insisted that such a program couldn’t have existed since programs needed “to be brought to the Congress and the Senate. And it has to find supporters.
” :rolleyes: What I said was that you don’t know if it exists since not every program is open to public scrutiny. Don’t think that I will let you get away with trying to turn the situation around like that.

And do you? Do you actually know what is the difference between COTS and MILSPEC? Do you know which particular MILSPEC standard you are talking about because there are certainly many, and some of it apply to thing that don’t relate with weapons systems.

Do you actually know what is the difference between a commercial and military processor?

Here is another question for you. What is there in a commercial processor that you cannot use to do the signal processing needed for military applications?

At least I do understand that non-COTS technology does not definitely mean using vacuum tubes. :diablo: You must have done quite a bit of last minute reading up to get so cocky. Good for you. Next time try to do that before you shoot your mouth off.

BS. You have people fooled here in this board about your “competence”.

In fact, the more you talk the more it is obvious you are covering up a major failure and ignorance in your part.

“Natural Circulation” is a term that is never in use and applied to anything diesel electric. It is a term made by the nuclear industry, in fact it is not even a submarine term and it is there only to describe a method of cooling totally exclusive with nuclear reactors. Natural circulation has nothing to as a term with whatever liquids or gas circuits being used in the Ohio class, such as the ventilation.

So don’t act arrogantly thinking you got some advantage here. Your counter reply is even more laughable.

So the Gotland is not “natural circulation” because the engine runs a pump to cool the engine? By golly, the coolant pump is the last thing you will ever hear in a piston engine. What do you call an air cooled engine then?

What makes you even more of a dufus is that a sub like the Gotland when it is in silent mode, it won’t be running any engine at all underwater.It will rely mainly on its electric motor and batteries. Where is the circulation in an electric motor then? Why don’t you just call that “No Circulation” then. No Circulation beats Natural Circulation any time.

So you not only have problems with English, but with your logical thinking as well. Where did I ever say that SSKs propulsion ever involved Natural Circulation. :rolleyes: 😀

Which is a screaming contradiction to what you said about what is needed for interception right? If its moving slowly, then a diesel boat can intercept it.

You cannot read? I already said “I was just pointing out the dynamics of the situation where a SSK was actually trying to chase down a SSGN. ” The SSGN doesn’t have to be zipping around at full speed. It could, upon detection of a SSK trying to catch it, escape from the SSK with its superior speed, so long as the SSK wasn’t within torpedo range yet.

Moving slowly defeats the purpose of being a nuclear boat isn’t it? It also defeats the whole purpose of being an AD ship, which is to be in the right place and in the right time, and that means speeding up to it.

Showing your ignorance again. SSBNs do not go running around at high speed, which is counterproductive to their need to maintain discreetness. SSGNs have the same mission profile and will be creeping along slowly too. Neither does it need to ‘run’ to an area, although it can do so with its ~25knt speed. Why do so? Ships and subs never catch up with jet planes. All it has to do is get to an opportune area near the expected flight path of enemy fighters and stay there before the action starts.

Now lets deal with some other things you said in your previous post. Yes, a nuclear sub has more power to deal with sensors—if those sensors are active. For passive sensors you don’t need that much electricity. Furthermore modern microcircuitry have also greatly reduced the amount of energy such equipment needs, and this is further met by advances in battery technology (aluminum or lithium cells).

Are you trying to drown us with your ignorance. 😀 First, even assuming that your misconception was correct, SSKs don’t need active sensors? :rolleyes: More importantly, active sensors alone are not the only major consumers of power. Processing and even passive systems use a lot of power themselves. The Seawolf only has one major active sonar, but its computing and sensor power requirements alone came up to 570kW. Francois will probably be better placed to elaborate on this.

Wow, you are backtracking.

There aer many noise generating components in any submarine but a nuclear sub has much more of them than an electric sub.

LOL, where am I backtracking? A nuclear submarine has more noise making components, but it also has more space for silencing technologies.

As for the last sentence in that quote, you made it up as you go along, didn’t you?

Another weak pathetic attempt of a retort for an argument you know you have lost? 😀

Wow you are so idiotic. By far the most important algorhythm of all are forms of Fourier Analysis such as Fourier Transforms, needed for noise filtering. It is not on the sending out end that is important but on the receiving. Beam forming—which is in fact, more of a controlling application rather than an analysis—does not even come close to the complexities and the sheer processing power to do Fourier Analysis. The use of Fourier in fact, is the biggest ever development for signal processing, whether its radar, sonar or communications, and to have it done in real time by modern microprocessors and DSPs is one true major revolution for radars, sonars and communications in the nineties. It is important even for EW/ECM and SIGINT.

Lots of blabber in an attempt to offuscate the blatant fact that you have crap on your face? Good try, might work on some. 😉

Let me tell you again. Even if its possible like five years from now, is not proof that it exists now. The burden is on you.

All these arguments sizes you up like Sferin, all mouth, but don’t really understand what is going on.

I’m asking you again. Prove where did I insist that a system like that exists, when I clearly mentioned “I will be the first to admit I do not know whether such a system is under testing. “. Clearly you must be getting desperate to find a way to discredit me so much so that you are now trying to accuse me of making a claim I never did. Smashing you is so easy I almost feel guilty. 😮 Like clubbing a retarded seal. :diablo:

I already said that all the parts needed for such a system are available. What more do you need?

That’s an inherently incorrect and that is what I learned with debating with an intel analyst. Its a fallacy to assume if you have the infrastructure, you have the tool. Whether or not it actually exists is independent from it. Either you have it, or you don’t. Simple as that.

And besides, not all the parts are available. How many AWACS out there are capable of providing the level of TWS needed for missile guidance (there are different levels of TWS). To handle many targets and to provide fast enough updates, you are going to need electronic scanning at least, and not with a mechanical rotodome. You are looking at replacing the current fleet with the next generation of AWACs, and the SM-6 missile itself is not yet in service.

First you show your ignorance about the existence of black budgets, citing the lack of as proof that every program is visible to public scrutiby. Now you say ‘so what’? Pathetic. 😀

Show me proof that the existance of a black budget means that your imaginary sub should exist.

Again you illustrate so clearly you don’t know what the hell is the difference between COTS and MILSPEC standards. Yet you shot your mouth off insisting that PLAN SSKs were using COTS equipment. Sferrin was right about you. 😀

And do you? Do you actually know what is the difference between COTS and MILSPEC? Do you know which particular MILSPEC standard you are talking about because there are certainly many, and some of it apply to thing that don’t relate with weapons systems.

Do you actually know what is the difference between a commercial and military processor?

Here is another question for you. What is there in a commercial processor that you cannot use to do the signal processing needed for military applications?

Actually, I do know. All you say corroborates with what I said. It’s your English that’s failing you. What part of “Natural circulation makes for no pump noises, which is the main cited noise maker in comparison to the Gotland. ” do you not understand? That means that the Ohio can rely on natural circulation, which means no pumps need to be working, and pumps are the main noise makers in comparison to SSKs like the Gotland. Comprehende? :rolleyes:

BS. You have people fooled here in this board about your “competence”.

In fact, the more you talk the more it is obvious you are covering up a major failure and ignorance in your part.

“Natural Circulation” is a term that is never in use and applied to anything diesel electric. It is a term made by the nuclear industry, in fact it is not even a submarine term and it is there only to describe a method of cooling totally exclusive with nuclear reactors. Natural circulation has nothing to as a term with whatever liquids or gas circuits being used in the Ohio class, such as the ventilation.

So don’t act arrogantly thinking you got some advantage here. Your counter reply is even more laughable.

So the Gotland is not “natural circulation” because the engine runs a pump to cool the engine? By golly, the coolant pump is the last thing you will ever hear in a piston engine. What do you call an air cooled engine then?

What makes you even more of a dufus is that a sub like the Gotland when it is in silent mode, it won’t be running any engine at all underwater.It will rely mainly on its electric motor and batteries. Where is the circulation in an electric motor then? Why don’t you just call that “No Circulation” then. No Circulation beats Natural Circulation any time.

Who are you trying to impress? 😀 :rolleyes: What you don’t seem to understand is that the Ohio will be moving at low speeds most of the time, thus it can rely on natural circulation.

Which is a screaming contradiction to what you said about what is needed for interception right? If its moving slowly, then a diesel boat can intercept it.

Moving slowly defeats the purpose of being a nuclear boat isn’t it? It also defeats the whole purpose of being an AD ship, which is to be in the right place and in the right time, and that means speeding up to it.

Now lets deal with some other things you said in your previous post. Yes, a nuclear sub has more power to deal with sensors—if those sensors are active. For passive sensors you don’t need that much electricity. Furthermore modern microcircuitry have also greatly reduced the amount of energy such equipment needs, and this is further met by advances in battery technology (aluminum or lithium cells).

Where did I say the Ohio is as quiet as a Gotland? Neither you nor I has the clearance to know that. It may be quieter, it may not be. There are many noise generating components to a submarine and pump noises are just one of them. We also don’t know the level of silencing technologies and how effective they are that has gone into either of them. Just because the Gotland was rented to play aggressor does not necessarily mean it must be quieter. SSBNs and SSGNs and most SSNs have to play operational roles and cannot be diverted for purely aggressor roles.

Wow, you are backtracking.

There aer many noise generating components in any submarine but a nuclear sub has much more of them than an electric sub.

As for the last sentence in that quote, you made it up as you go along, didn’t you?

Amazing that you actually believe specialised algorithms are open sourced and shared. Shows much about the level of your ignorance. 😀 Wonder why UK was looking at a French adaptive beam-forming algorithm and had to wait for clearance for its transfer if they are open sourced?

Wow you are so idiotic. By far the most important algorhythm of all are forms of Fourier Analysis such as Fourier Transforms, needed for noise filtering. It is not on the sending out end that is important but on the receiving. Beam forming—which is in fact, more of a controlling application rather than an analysis—does not even come close to the complexities and the sheer processing power to do Fourier Analysis. The use of Fourier in fact, is the biggest ever development for signal processing, whether its radar, sonar or communications, and to have it done in real time by modern microprocessors and DSPs is one true major revolution for radars, sonars and communications in the nineties. It is important even for EW/ECM and SIGINT.

:rolleyes: Your logic would apply to CEC as well. I’m sure that if CEC didn’t exist and a CEC like scheme was proposed you would spill the same BS logic. 😀 You do realise that the scheme being discussed now is not too far different from what the CEC is already doing, with the only difference being the launching units are currently surface units instead?

Let me tell you again. Even if its possible like five years from now, is not proof that it exists now. The burden is on you.

All these arguments sizes you up like Sferin, all mouth, but don’t really understand what is going on.

So how long in advanced did they plan on deploying those mines then? As I’m sure nothing will make the soviet high command’s day more then a haul of AMRAAMs for them to take apart and study. It was a bad idea then and still is now.

Here you go again PLAWolf. NATO had subs up in those waters constantly yet we’d have sown mines right where we knew they’d get picked up?!. Come on man dont be obtuse!. Unless the Russians routinely swept their coast at these points, which they didnt – fact known from routine observation, there is no reason to suspect that the mines would ever even have been detected. Plus there were quite a few other sneaky-beaky items that NATO SSN’s left in sensitive waters up there that weren’t discovered for years so there is plenty of precedent for this ‘bad idea’!.

Its a one trick pony that depends almost exclusively on the ‘suprise’ factor. Unless the US develops them in total secrecy, their effectiveness will be majorly limited if the PLA is expecting them.

Actually a three-trick pony as there is no reason why the missile load out would have to be exclusively SAMs. Still could embark a decent TLAM onload along with the SAMs and there is always the spec forces accomodation and apparent SDV capability. The main ‘trick’ though – the discrete, invulnerable to SEAD, siting of a large battery of of active, area, SAMs is something not easily achieved by any other platform. Even if I accepted the one-trick comment, from an already-paid-for hull, its a pretty good trick!.

Besides, its the SM6 missile that makes this concept even theoretically practical. But such a missile can be deployed on surface ships for a similar effect at a fraction of the cost and risk.

Poor attempt at misdirection there PLAwolf – the advantage of siting the missiles on a submerged, largely invulnerable, platform over that of a surface escort is very obvious in the threat environment.

Who said anything about running around on active all the time?

Crobato – least thats what he seemed to be saying?.

Fact of the matter is that for an SSGN to fire SM6s would be the same as it doing the pinging as the noise from the launches will allow every nearby boat to pinpoint it. Not something any USN skipper would want to do on a regular basis in SSK infested waters.

Oh please dont give me that launch transient junk AGAIN. Shout out for an accoustic barrier round the SSGN, just before firing, and that blocks any kind of transient detection – a couple of escorts banging away on active would probably be sufficient to mask the silo hatch opening and the missile deployment – certainly for any PLAN battery-powered SSK set likely to be in theatre. You would have been better off guessing that PLAAF AWACS might get a radar hit on the missiles point of origin when they get airborne Wolf!.

Besides, running on active might not be as bad an idea as you might think. The PLAN’s old Mings are so noisey they’d be easily found even if they wanted to run silent, so they might as well not even try and ping away. With some modern Songs, Kilos and Yuans lurking nearby, it won’t be as foolish as you might think. And the PLAN would gladly trade Mings for Sea wolves and Vaginans.

Still consistently a believer in sending your naval forces out to their unfortunate demise in shoddy boats then PLAWolf?. Last time we discussed PLAN ops you sacrificed all the PLAN FAC crews on the Taiwan altar…least the Mings crews will have some company in the afterlife eh?!. More importantly one wonders precisely what the SSGN skipper would be doing letting a noisy old SSK, banging away on its active gear, get a hit on him, for the other SSK types to exploit, when he should have been creeping off in the other direction at the first hint of an active sonar pulse.

Not if the SSGN ever plan on using any of its missiles. As soon as it start shooting, its no longer ‘invisible’. Thats going to have a big impact on both the engagement time of SSGNs(the longer you shoot, the longer you stay put and the greater the chance an SSK will get you), and also its availability (if you ‘shoot and scoot’, you are not going to be in a position to fire missiles as you move position).

The transient thing has been covered, firing does not automatically give the game away, besides how many engagements do you anticipate this boat staying in for?. Even with a couple of hundred SM’s its going to go through them within a relatively short timeframe. Optimistically one might give the subsurface SM-6’s a, real-world, pK of 0.5 i.e two missiles on each target. Finding 100 or less air targets over PLAAF assembly areas and the Taiwan Strait shouldnt be difficult…so you are probably looking at two, perhaps, three engagements tops, within a short duration, then the sub is creeping off for reload.

All that makes an SSGN SAM a far cry from an effective AD weapon. Its more of a one-shot-wonder nausence weapon.

The mere presence of such a discrete capability is going to impact PLAAF planning and if the ‘one shot wonder’ accounts for 70-80 downed air targets on its own if called into action, all for the price of a few modifications to the launch systems on the SSGN and a CEC/buoy comms fit then, IMO, its quite probably a successful system.

How exactly is the RoCAF going to get any E2s into the air when the PLA has over a thousand ballistic missiles deployed to stop things just like that?

Wow PLA Heavy Rocket Artillery units have a 1000 ballistic missiles that they would be able to fire on a seconds notice (so as not to tip off RoCAF to scramble aircraft) and they can fire them simultaneously can they?. Impressive if they can get the whole RoCAF on the ground, before an airforce, well-used to staring down the barrel of ‘1000 TBM’s’, can get some aircraft aloft?!.

And how many proposed projects have been binned after just such ‘serious looks’ found the entire concept fatally flawed?

Many have been binned without being ‘fatally flawed’ as I stated initially though…this sub-surface-to-air concept does have a habit of resurfacing every now and again…if you’ll forgive the pun!.

This SSGN SAM shooter concept is just a new variation on an old idea!. It would work too!.

The original concept was a modified encapsulated AMRAAM in a naval mine. The concept was that a few dozen of these AMRAAM-mines would be sown just offshore of the Backfire bases on the Kola Peninsula and would be activated when US IRsats/SSN’s started detecting regiment sized launches. Firing was completely blind and relied on US observation of Tu-22 operations from the bases in question identifiying forming up areas etc. The lack of friendly aircraft in the area mitigated the RoE problems naturally.

So how long in advanced did they plan on deploying those mines then? As I’m sure nothing will make the soviet high command’s day more then a haul of AMRAAMs for them to take apart and study. It was a bad idea then and still is now.

The problem, really, with a SAM-SSGN is operational need. The only theatre that it could conceivably be of value….now that the Backfires arent the worry they once may have been…is Taiwan. Having a battery of a couple of hundred advanced SAM’s on a discrete platform invulnerable from rapid air assault IS a system which would upset the PLAAF measurably too – lets be under no illusions on that one.

Its a one trick pony that depends almost exclusively on the ‘suprise’ factor. Unless the US develops them in total secrecy, their effectiveness will be majorly limited if the PLA is expecting them.

Besides, its the SM6 missile that makes this concept even theoretically practical. But such a missile can be deployed on surface ships for a similar effect at a fraction of the cost and risk.

The concept of PLAN SSKs prowling up and down the straits banging away on active, to try and eliminate the SSGN is frankly ludicrous also. Its tantamount to the PLAN inviting any surface or subsurface platform to blow them out the water. No SSK skipper would entertain such a course of action.

Who said anything about running around on active all the time?

Fact of the matter is that for an SSGN to fire SM6s would be the same as it doing the pinging as the noise from the launches will allow every nearby boat to pinpoint it. Not something any USN skipper would want to do on a regular basis in SSK infested waters.

Besides, running on active might not be as bad an idea as you might think. The PLAN’s old Mings are so noisey they’d be easily found even if they wanted to run silent, so they might as well not even try and ping away. With some modern Songs, Kilos and Yuans lurking nearby, it won’t be as foolish as you might think. And the PLAN would gladly trade Mings for Sea wolves and Vaginans.

The problem for the PLAN/PLAAF is ironically similar the the counter-SSK scenario that they have presented potential aggressors. The SSGN doesnt move much once on station, thats a given, with 200nm missiles it pretty much doesnt need to anyway. Its comms are on a schedule…once on station and at defence watches/alert-condition it streams VLF and floats a buoy on a predetermined go signal. The target is therefore extremely discrete and that places the onus on the agressor to dig it out of where its hiding.

Not if the SSGN ever plan on using any of its missiles. As soon as it start shooting, its no longer ‘invisible’. Thats going to have a big impact on both the engagement time of SSGNs(the longer you shoot, the longer you stay put and the greater the chance an SSK will get you), and also its availability (if you ‘shoot and scoot’, you are not going to be in a position to fire missiles as you move position).

All that makes an SSGN SAM a far cry from an effective AD weapon. Its more of a one-shot-wonder nausence weapon.

Best way to do that today is with a low-freq active towed array backed by lots of choppers. Problem for PLAN is that they dont have any low-freq active tails deployed and choppers against an SM-6 ‘arsenal ship’ would redefine the concept of suicide!

Surface ships are going to be just as easy to kill as airborn targets, but each DDG lost if a lot more money and lives lost.

The RoCAF E-2’s will in all probability see a PLAAF strike package forming and there is little reason to believe that the SSGN couldnt be fully cued up within a few minutes of the E-2 raid analysis being completed. This could also be a good solution to the targetting problem…squadron sized groups of Flankers, JH-7’s etc should appear to be quite different to more innocent targets on radar…least I’ve not heard of many instances of Airbus’ full of nuns/kids flying around in formations of twenty or more.

How exactly is the RoCAF going to get any E2s into the air when the PLA has over a thousand ballistic missiles deployed to stop things just like that?

Short version is, I guess, I’d be willing to put up £10 of my own money that someone, somewhere, has looked seriously into this as a way of leveraging extra capability out of an already-paid-for hull and CEC/SM6 technology that is being developed anyway.

And how many proposed projects have been binned after just such ‘serious looks’ found the entire concept fatally flawed?

Man this is going to be like clubbing a baby seal. :diablo:

Apparently the one-liners are even more than you can handle. Who ever said SSGNs would be TRACKING targets?

Who said they’d be firing blind? Who said IFF wouldn’t be being used? Do you know what “CEC” means beyond the words the acronym stand for?

Explain how firing a missile from underwater is going to keep an AWACS from identifying targets. Oops.

I’d call you something here but it’s much more fun to watch you do it to yourself. 😀

You know what line of sight is for an orbiting AWACS that can move info over a satellite link if it needs to?

Why when you can do that with -688s and helos operating under aircover?

Well you’re just too smart for me. Maybe next you’ll be berating me about how your pinging SSKs are going to detect an Ohio before the Ohio hears the pings now? :diablo:

Nah, it’s easy to have the good stuff when you don’t have to make it yourself.

Don’t need to. The fact is you don’t know enough about it to even come up with a plausible bull$hit answer which is why you refuse to when called on it.

Wow really? A flying aircraft isn’t a static target? Well hell, I guess it’s true, even a blind squirrel gets an acorn once in a while.

Looking forward to your next “lesson” ROFL. :diablo:

You know what is completely idiotic about your answers, is that you yourself don’t know what the hell you are trying to talk about and so you are left trying to make an implication how ‘smart’ you are.

You have a scheme that is absolutely taxing and C3 intensive. Sure your AWACS can do a lot, but it has to do a whole lot of other things, and you are just adding to the burden, just when there are plenty of advocacy now within the US forces to reduce top heavy mission cycles with something more autonomous. Trying to abuse your CEC just because you have CEC isn’t smart. You have not even dealt that there are fixed numbers when it comes to target tracking, that number goes down further if you are tracking with the necessary quality for a missile lock, and limitations to the number of missiles you can guide from an external platform, which also is confronted with other duties. This opens for many potential failure points, ranging from human errors to decoys and ECM affecting your IFF.

I am never an advocate for platforms, Chinese or US or anything that do not have an autonomous detect, track, identify, target, launch, and guide cycle within that platform and that isn’t strategic in purpose. Even in my posts in the CDF and SDF (concerning the 022 that does the same thing for the ships) I do not advocate that.

This is just fantasy material for frustrated armchair neocons. Go to your nearest admiral and suggest that and see if you don’t get laughed at.

Point out where did I say that a black budget means it exists? I was responding to your ignorant assumption that just because there is congressional oversight means the public gets to know of everything in the US military. I will be the first to admit I do not know whether such a system is under testing. Besides, you asked why such a system wasn’t fielded. Naturally so, since the components needed to make such a system viable was only just fielded.

Its still up to you to prove it, rather than suggest via innuendo that it can.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-08-pentagon-spending_x.htm

So what? That only means it can be a lesson for the Congress and the Senate to be more vigilant. You are not in the Cold War anymore and facing heavy deficits now.

Lots of blabber. So are they using COTS or MILSPEC? You don’t seem to know, yet you asserted that COTS equipment were used in PLAN SSKs.

Blah blah blah. Whatever they are using, they have to be using the electronic components that can be made from their fabs. What’s really the diffference between COTS and MILSPEC for chips being used for sonars when you can build microprocessors and DSPs with transistor sizes under 0.18 micron?

What makes you think a Gotland class is any harder to find than an Ohio? An Ohio has much better sensors allowing it to sense enemies and take evasive actions earlier. It is nuclear powered allowing for unlimited endurance without the need to recharge batteries, unlike the Gotland. Natural circulation makes for no pump noises, which is the main cited noise maker in comparison to the Gotland. The Ohio was a strategic asset, you can bet your farm that as far as possible, every practical technology to reduce its detectability it would have gone in. Besides, with Chinese ASW technology as dismal as it currently is, there isn’t much the SSGN needs to fear.

You don’t know what the FK natural circulation is do you when you just mentioned it in comparison to the Gotland.

Let me underline what you just said, shows you your basic ignorance about sub technologies.

The fact is the Gotland does not need natural circulation because it does not have a nuclear reactor. Natural circulation is about the movement of coolant iinto the reactor without using pumps. To some degree, all nuclear reactors do have natural circulation as a backup, and natural circulation is also best used when you have low power settings. When the sub is at full steam, you certainly do need your pumps. For safety reasons, both pump and natural circulation must present—it is impossible even for the Ohio not to have coolant pumps though it does not need to use it at lower speeds.

But even with natural circulation, steam is still running through pipes, and that produce their own noise, which is used to turn a turbine, itself noisy, and these turbines turn on a set of reduction gears (transmission) and that adds noise.

Compare that to the Gotland. Electric motor—that has far less moving parts than a turbine. Electricity running through wires, want to bet that makes a lot less noise than steam running through pipes? An electric motor has much more torque than a turbine, which means you can eliminate the reduction gear box, something the Type 209 has already done. A nuclear reactor cannot be fully stopped, but an electric motor can.

If you think the nuclear sub is that quiet, ask again why do you have to lease the Gotland to play aggressor and not use your own ships? The USN also uses other countries like Peru to serve as aggressors for ASW exercises.

Quit being master of the obvious. It’s true that some technology is already open sourced, that much China’s researchers can leverage on. But specialised algorithms and design technology are not open sourced, that China’s researchers will have to build experience on. if you think China can get to US/UK/France level of technology in 1 generation, that’s your perogative.

Really? Are Fourier Transforms no open sourced? Digital Signal Processors. SAW devices? The first thing by far is to detect and amplify signals, and that’s the same common set of technologies with sonars, radars, telephones, modems, celphones, and a whole bunch of stuff. The processing capability of whatever you can get for dollars now exceeds whatever the military computers you have in the eighties in the order of magnitudes.

One way the CIA analyzes capability is to analyze the basic technological components of that capability.

In this case,

Microprocessors
Digital Signal Processors
Amplifiers like SAW devices
Institutions of research and development
Availability of outside sources of information and consultation
A highly developed engineering and programming skillset.

And its yes, yes, yes, yes and hell yes.

This SSGN SAM shooter concept is just a new variation on an old idea!. It would work too!.

The original concept was a modified encapsulated AMRAAM in a naval mine. The concept was that a few dozen of these AMRAAM-mines would be sown just offshore of the Backfire bases on the Kola Peninsula and would be activated when US IRsats/SSN’s started detecting regiment sized launches. Firing was completely blind and relied on US observation of Tu-22 operations from the bases in question identifiying forming up areas etc. The lack of friendly aircraft in the area mitigated the RoE problems naturally.

The problem, really, with a SAM-SSGN is operational need. The only theatre that it could conceivably be of value….now that the Backfires arent the worry they once may have been…is Taiwan. Having a battery of a couple of hundred advanced SAM’s on a discrete platform invulnerable from rapid air assault IS a system which would upset the PLAAF measurably too – lets be under no illusions on that one.

The concept of PLAN SSKs prowling up and down the straits banging away on active, to try and eliminate the SSGN is frankly ludicrous also. Its tantamount to the PLAN inviting any surface or subsurface platform to blow them out the water. No SSK skipper would entertain such a course of action.

The problem for the PLAN/PLAAF is ironically similar the the counter-SSK scenario that they have presented potential aggressors. The SSGN doesnt move much once on station, thats a given, with 200nm missiles it pretty much doesnt need to anyway. Its comms are on a schedule…once on station and at defence watches/alert-condition it streams VLF and floats a buoy on a predetermined go signal. The target is therefore extremely discrete and that places the onus on the agressor to dig it out of where its hiding. Best way to do that today is with a low-freq active towed array backed by lots of choppers. Problem for PLAN is that they dont have any low-freq active tails deployed and choppers against an SM-6 ‘arsenal ship’ would redefine the concept of suicide!.

The RoCAF E-2’s will in all probability see a PLAAF strike package forming and there is little reason to believe that the SSGN couldnt be fully cued up within a few minutes of the E-2 raid analysis being completed. This could also be a good solution to the targetting problem…squadron sized groups of Flankers, JH-7’s etc should appear to be quite different to more innocent targets on radar…least I’ve not heard of many instances of Airbus’ full of nuns/kids flying around in formations of twenty or more.

Short version is, I guess, I’d be willing to put up £10 of my own money that someone, somewhere, has looked seriously into this as a way of leveraging extra capability out of an already-paid-for hull and CEC/SM6 technology that is being developed anyway.