DJ
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Are anti-submarine functions still needed?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 06:56 AM UTC
My fellow ground pounders, let's try a Navy question. I am sitting here toying with a P2V Neptune bomber trying to put decals on a wooden model. Why did I tell my Boss I could do it? At any rate, I am wondering given the current threats in the world, how much anti submarine capabilities does the USN require? Do we need a replacement for the P3 Orion? What do you think?
DJ
DJ
warlock0322
Member Since: January 13, 2003
entire network: 1,036 Posts
KitMaker Network: 152 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 08:08 AM UTC
Wow DJ:
That is one heck of a question. I haven't seen a P-3 since my last duty station in 93.
I don't think that the P-3 is pulling this duty alone anymore. The Navy has the Seahawk outfitted with sonar bouys and can deliver airborne torpedos. Plus they also have the S-3 Viking and E2C Hawkeyes are ASW capable.
But given the present threat today. I don't really know if it is needed with the other technology that is out there, but I don't know what the real threat of Subs are out there.. I have heard on news reports that North Korea and such are trying to acquire them....
It is a great stable aircraft from what I have heard and maybe the Navy is treating it like the CH-46. They just keep flying it until they can't keep them in the air anymore. ala V-22 Osprey. Then when they cannot get parts anymore for them they'll just retire the old girl for a well deserved rest.
That is just a guess on my part I would be curious to hear what someone anyone who knows more about this had to say..Very very interesting question indeed
Paul
That is one heck of a question. I haven't seen a P-3 since my last duty station in 93.
I don't think that the P-3 is pulling this duty alone anymore. The Navy has the Seahawk outfitted with sonar bouys and can deliver airborne torpedos. Plus they also have the S-3 Viking and E2C Hawkeyes are ASW capable.
But given the present threat today. I don't really know if it is needed with the other technology that is out there, but I don't know what the real threat of Subs are out there.. I have heard on news reports that North Korea and such are trying to acquire them....
It is a great stable aircraft from what I have heard and maybe the Navy is treating it like the CH-46. They just keep flying it until they can't keep them in the air anymore. ala V-22 Osprey. Then when they cannot get parts anymore for them they'll just retire the old girl for a well deserved rest.
That is just a guess on my part I would be curious to hear what someone anyone who knows more about this had to say..Very very interesting question indeed
Paul
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 08:33 AM UTC
Paul--- I ask the question because we have a large amount of resources in the form of the P-3 squadrons deployed around the globe. Presumably, they are looking for subs. I trust someone with more smarts that I possess on the subject will let us know how flexible the P-3 fleets is. I can believe that they track surface vessels in the Persian Gulf and fly radio monitoring missions. I recall that one was used inSomalia to provide overhead photos. So, there is versatility there. Once again, we have smart Navy guys who can comment much better than I on the subject.
DJ
DJ
matt
Campaigns AdministratorMember Since: February 28, 2002
entire network: 5,957 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,626 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 08:37 AM UTC
Cob
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:17 PM UTC
DJ,
The best ASW platform is (in my opinion)another submarine. Back in the "good old" predictable days of the cold war, the US Navy was responsible for maintaining the lines of communications- supply routes- across the Pacific and the Atlantic. ASW was a huge mission. The P-3 fit the need for a long range maritime patrol aircraft capable of search/detect/destroy along those supply routes.
That mission has pretty much gone away but the P-3 is still pretty useful in and is still deployed. The Navy plane shot down by China not too long ago was a version of the P-3.
HTH
Cob
Tin_Can
Member Since: January 26, 2002
entire network: 1,560 Posts
KitMaker Network: 344 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 02:07 PM UTC
Ah, a question I have experience with and still deal with today...lol!
I agree with COB that another submarine is the best weapon against a submarine.
To answer the question. I'm not a P-3 pilot or mission commander but have worked with them on several occassions. They have truly developed into a multi-role platform capable of performing many functions. In the ASW role, in my opinion, most current P-3 guys probably wouldn't recognize a sub if they flew over a surfaced one. I don't think that's necessarily their fault either. With the end of the cold war, the P-3 fleet expanded into the other roles it performs now. They perform a lot of SSC (surface search coordination) work, counter-drug ops, land attack with the SLAM (which I've controlled a P-3 doing this very function in Operation Allied Force), mine laying and electronic warfare functions.
Somebody mentioned the many variants of the P-3. There are many that people know about and some that you don't.
The P-3 is an aging platform like other USN airframes (F-14, EA-6B, E-2, C-2) and suffers the same problems everything in the military is seeing nowadays-overuse and not enough fund or replacements parts to keep things in 100% readiness. Having missions scratched due to down planes is not an uncommon occurrence.
The SH-60F does have the active dipping sonar capability that is good for local active prosecution.
The S-3 does have ASW capability but my experience with them is that they have evolved into another SSC platform and tanker.
With the end of the cold war, proliferation of diesel submarines around the world has increased. That, in my opinion, is where the rubber meets the road nowadays-diesel submarine prosecution in the littoral environment. So, to answer your question DJ, yes, we still need an ASW function in the Navy.
I agree with COB that another submarine is the best weapon against a submarine.
To answer the question. I'm not a P-3 pilot or mission commander but have worked with them on several occassions. They have truly developed into a multi-role platform capable of performing many functions. In the ASW role, in my opinion, most current P-3 guys probably wouldn't recognize a sub if they flew over a surfaced one. I don't think that's necessarily their fault either. With the end of the cold war, the P-3 fleet expanded into the other roles it performs now. They perform a lot of SSC (surface search coordination) work, counter-drug ops, land attack with the SLAM (which I've controlled a P-3 doing this very function in Operation Allied Force), mine laying and electronic warfare functions.
Somebody mentioned the many variants of the P-3. There are many that people know about and some that you don't.
The P-3 is an aging platform like other USN airframes (F-14, EA-6B, E-2, C-2) and suffers the same problems everything in the military is seeing nowadays-overuse and not enough fund or replacements parts to keep things in 100% readiness. Having missions scratched due to down planes is not an uncommon occurrence.
The SH-60F does have the active dipping sonar capability that is good for local active prosecution.
The S-3 does have ASW capability but my experience with them is that they have evolved into another SSC platform and tanker.
With the end of the cold war, proliferation of diesel submarines around the world has increased. That, in my opinion, is where the rubber meets the road nowadays-diesel submarine prosecution in the littoral environment. So, to answer your question DJ, yes, we still need an ASW function in the Navy.
greatbrit
Member Since: May 14, 2003
entire network: 2,127 Posts
KitMaker Network: 677 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 08:04 PM UTC
yes ASW capability is still needed.
subs IMHO are the best nuclear deterant out there. the idea of nuclear missiles erupting from the sea at any point is pretty scary to me!
subs can singlehandedly change the course of a war. the falklands for example.
before and after the sinking of the belgrano, the entire argentine surface fleet was so terrified of the lone british nuclear sub in the area, that they remained in port throughout the entire war. if the argies on our islands would have had naval back up, the outcome of the war may have been very different!
i dont know much about US naval aircraft, but i know the P3 is a pretty old aircraft, but so is the nimrod, our ASW aircraft. but, they do the job so well, there isnt much need to replace them.
obviously with the enemies we face at the moment, tactical nuclear weapons etc are of rather limited use, so subs wont play much of a role in anti terrorist ops, but whats to say some rogue nation wont take advantage of our present proccupation with terrorists?
as someone mentioned, north korea looks to be actively seeking subs
cheers
joe
subs IMHO are the best nuclear deterant out there. the idea of nuclear missiles erupting from the sea at any point is pretty scary to me!
subs can singlehandedly change the course of a war. the falklands for example.
before and after the sinking of the belgrano, the entire argentine surface fleet was so terrified of the lone british nuclear sub in the area, that they remained in port throughout the entire war. if the argies on our islands would have had naval back up, the outcome of the war may have been very different!
i dont know much about US naval aircraft, but i know the P3 is a pretty old aircraft, but so is the nimrod, our ASW aircraft. but, they do the job so well, there isnt much need to replace them.
obviously with the enemies we face at the moment, tactical nuclear weapons etc are of rather limited use, so subs wont play much of a role in anti terrorist ops, but whats to say some rogue nation wont take advantage of our present proccupation with terrorists?
as someone mentioned, north korea looks to be actively seeking subs
cheers
joe
matt
Campaigns AdministratorMember Since: February 28, 2002
entire network: 5,957 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,626 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:02 AM UTC
The ols SH-3h was replaced by the SH-60... My Uncle helped oversee the transition of his airwing before retiring. (NAS JAX) there's a Wing of each Sh-60's & P-3's i've had the pleasure of getting to climb on the p-3's & SH-3's when I was younger
Ranger74
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 08:26 AM UTC
I have to agree with the experienced swabbies, ASW is definitely still needed. As stated above, the Germans, Spanish, Netherlands, Italians, and r countries are big producers of diesel-powered coastal subs - rememer the big worries in the press about Iran's acquisition of three diesel boats.
The P-3 is, I believe, undergoing a rebuild/modernization program. They are in big time use in the Caribbean for counterdrug missions, and for search and rescue off east and west coasts of USA. They are now armed with Harpoon ASMs for naval strike and role The SH-60s are used for for immdiate active defense of the fleet, while the P-3s work from land bases.
I rememebr as a kid in the early 60s, watching the Neptune's flying out of Naval Reserve Air Station Los Alamitos, CA. Occasionally we could see then flying off of Huntington Beach.
The P-3 is, I believe, undergoing a rebuild/modernization program. They are in big time use in the Caribbean for counterdrug missions, and for search and rescue off east and west coasts of USA. They are now armed with Harpoon ASMs for naval strike and role The SH-60s are used for for immdiate active defense of the fleet, while the P-3s work from land bases.
I rememebr as a kid in the early 60s, watching the Neptune's flying out of Naval Reserve Air Station Los Alamitos, CA. Occasionally we could see then flying off of Huntington Beach.
ModlrMike
Member Since: January 03, 2003
entire network: 714 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 08:51 AM UTC
One of the main reasons that Canada has diesel subs is to that the US can train against them. Diesel subs are very quiet, especially below 8 knots.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 09:03 AM UTC
How many sub does Canada have?
m60a3
Member Since: March 08, 2002
entire network: 778 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 09:13 AM UTC
Well, speaking of the Threat facing the US Navy and it's allies:
China has subs
Iran has subs
North Korea has subs
Three reasons to keep the ability to track and sink subs right there.
China has subs
Iran has subs
North Korea has subs
Three reasons to keep the ability to track and sink subs right there.
ModlrMike
Member Since: January 03, 2003
entire network: 714 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:46 PM UTC
Quoted Text
How many sub does Canada have?
We have four Victoria (Upholder) class diesel boats. Here's a link to the fleet:
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp
Tin_Can
Member Since: January 26, 2002
entire network: 1,560 Posts
KitMaker Network: 344 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 01:28 PM UTC
Ah, I see the subject jumped to the Canadian Navy. I'm currently working with Commander, Canadian Forces Atlantic in planning an exercise for June. I'll have several Canadian ships working for me. I've worked with them in the past and its always been a blast.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2004 - 03:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Well, speaking of the Threat facing the US Navy and it's allies:
China has subs
Iran has subs
North Korea has subs
Three reasons to keep the ability to track and sink subs right there.
Good point and more than ample reason to retain a strong capability in this area. Did Iran get the subs from China or Russia?
Cob
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 06:17 AM UTC
DJ,
I believe they are Kilo diesel boats exorted by Russia. Not sure if China is building an export version (yet). The other comman export boat is the German type 209.
v/r,
Cob
I believe they are Kilo diesel boats exorted by Russia. Not sure if China is building an export version (yet). The other comman export boat is the German type 209.
v/r,
Cob
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 12:33 AM UTC
Would the Germans sell a boat to Iran?
SS-74
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2004 - 04:51 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextWell, speaking of the Threat facing the US Navy and it's allies:
China has subs
Iran has subs
North Korea has subs
Three reasons to keep the ability to track and sink subs right there.
Good point and more than ample reason to retain a strong capability in this area. Did Iran get the subs from China or Russia?
India Has Subs
Pakistan has subs
Japan has subs
Germany has subs
France has subs
I think Iran got it from Russia could be their Golf class, but I could be wrong. I think the thing with actual real nations have subs is that most of them will think twice before actually use them. But with the downfall of Russia, what if some terrorist group get their hands on a say old Foxtrot class diesel boat, that would raise some chaos down the Med. so ASW capability is definitely warranted for safety of the nations.
Cob
Member Since: May 23, 2002
entire network: 275 Posts
KitMaker Network: 95 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2004 - 05:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Would the Germans sell a boat to Iran?
I doubt it. Iran bought Kilo's from Russia.
Cob
ModlrMike
Member Since: January 03, 2003
entire network: 714 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:42 PM UTC
Here's a quick rundown of diesel boats, though I'm sure I missed some:
Iran - three Soviet built Kilo
Egypt - four Chinese built (Soviet designed) Romeo
Isreal - three German built Dolfins
N. Korea - 22Romeo, 4 Whiskey, 62 diesel infiltration subs
Pakistan - 3 Agosta 90B class, 2 Agosta, 4 Daphne (all diesel, all French built)
Australia - 6 Collins class
Russia - 18 diesel boats of vaious classes
China - 74 diesel boats of various classes
Canada - 4 Victoria (ex Upholder) class
Argetnina - 3 diesel boats
Brazil - 5 boats
Chile - 4 boats
Columbia - 2 boats
Equador - 2 boats
Peru - 4 boats
Venezuela - 2 boats
Germany - 18 boats
Greece - 13 boats
Netherlands - 4 boats
Norway - 6 boats
Italy - 9 boats
Poland - 4 boats
Portugal - 2 boats
Spain - 12 boats
Sweden - 11 boats
Turkey - 19 boats
Ukraine - 1 boat
Yugoslavia - 1 boat
Denmark - 4 boats
That's just from a quick glance at Janes...
Iran - three Soviet built Kilo
Egypt - four Chinese built (Soviet designed) Romeo
Isreal - three German built Dolfins
N. Korea - 22Romeo, 4 Whiskey, 62 diesel infiltration subs
Pakistan - 3 Agosta 90B class, 2 Agosta, 4 Daphne (all diesel, all French built)
Australia - 6 Collins class
Russia - 18 diesel boats of vaious classes
China - 74 diesel boats of various classes
Canada - 4 Victoria (ex Upholder) class
Argetnina - 3 diesel boats
Brazil - 5 boats
Chile - 4 boats
Columbia - 2 boats
Equador - 2 boats
Peru - 4 boats
Venezuela - 2 boats
Germany - 18 boats
Greece - 13 boats
Netherlands - 4 boats
Norway - 6 boats
Italy - 9 boats
Poland - 4 boats
Portugal - 2 boats
Spain - 12 boats
Sweden - 11 boats
Turkey - 19 boats
Ukraine - 1 boat
Yugoslavia - 1 boat
Denmark - 4 boats
That's just from a quick glance at Janes...
SS-74
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2004 - 03:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Here's a quick rundown of diesel boats, though I'm sure I missed some:
Iran - three Soviet built Kilo
Egypt - four Chinese built (Soviet designed) Romeo
Isreal - three German built Dolfins
N. Korea - 22Romeo, 4 Whiskey, 62 diesel infiltration subs
Pakistan - 3 Agosta 90B class, 2 Agosta, 4 Daphne (all diesel, all French built)
Australia - 6 Collins class
Russia - 18 diesel boats of vaious classes
China - 74 diesel boats of various classes
Canada - 4 Victoria (ex Upholder) class
Argetnina - 3 diesel boats
Brazil - 5 boats
Chile - 4 boats
Columbia - 2 boats
Equador - 2 boats
Peru - 4 boats
Venezuela - 2 boats
Germany - 18 boats
Greece - 13 boats
Netherlands - 4 boats
Norway - 6 boats
Italy - 9 boats
Poland - 4 boats
Portugal - 2 boats
Spain - 12 boats
Sweden - 11 boats
Turkey - 19 boats
Ukraine - 1 boat
Yugoslavia - 1 boat
Denmark - 4 boats
That's just from a quick glance at Janes...
Taiwan got one or two as well.
SS-74
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2004 - 03:29 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Here's a quick rundown of diesel boats, though I'm sure I missed some:
Iran - three Soviet built Kilo
Egypt - four Chinese built (Soviet designed) Romeo
Isreal - three German built Dolfins
N. Korea - 22Romeo, 4 Whiskey, 62 diesel infiltration subs
Pakistan - 3 Agosta 90B class, 2 Agosta, 4 Daphne (all diesel, all French built)
Australia - 6 Collins class
Russia - 18 diesel boats of vaious classes
China - 74 diesel boats of various classes
Canada - 4 Victoria (ex Upholder) class
Argetnina - 3 diesel boats
Brazil - 5 boats
Chile - 4 boats
Columbia - 2 boats
Equador - 2 boats
Peru - 4 boats
Venezuela - 2 boats
Germany - 18 boats
Greece - 13 boats
Netherlands - 4 boats
Norway - 6 boats
Italy - 9 boats
Poland - 4 boats
Portugal - 2 boats
Spain - 12 boats
Sweden - 11 boats
Turkey - 19 boats
Ukraine - 1 boat
Yugoslavia - 1 boat
Denmark - 4 boats
That's just from a quick glance at Janes...
Taiwan got one or two as well.
4-Eyes71
Member Since: December 02, 2003
entire network: 424 Posts
KitMaker Network: 376 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 12:04 PM UTC
It never hurts to havea redundant ASW platforms that overlap. (short of calling it an overkill)
I think every warship is equipped in some way with ASW features (sonars, ASROC's, depth charges), ASW helos. Augmented by carrier-based S-3's and P-3's and their own SSN's
I'd say the (US) Navy (in this case) is pretty well-covered with such redundant systems. But then again, not all ASW systems are perfect.
What's important though that the ship or fleet is protected at all costs from any perceived threat, whether they come from the sky or beneath the waves.
I think every warship is equipped in some way with ASW features (sonars, ASROC's, depth charges), ASW helos. Augmented by carrier-based S-3's and P-3's and their own SSN's
I'd say the (US) Navy (in this case) is pretty well-covered with such redundant systems. But then again, not all ASW systems are perfect.
What's important though that the ship or fleet is protected at all costs from any perceived threat, whether they come from the sky or beneath the waves.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.