PLAN Type 035/039/091/092 Submarine Thread
- Thread starter crobato
- Start date
Ambivalent
Junior Member
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
My claim is specifically for helos with dipping sonars. These are not widespread, Merlins and Sea Kings are large heavy helos not typically carried by frigates or destroyers. It is only recently that the USN was able to shrink a dipping sonar into a size and weight that would work with the SH-60 airframe while still retaining the big radar and the anti-ship mission. The old SH-60F was a single mission platform. Most ASW helos do not even have much in the way of on board processing, relying on the computers aboard the launch ship to tell them where to drop their torpedos. A Lynx, while dynamically light years ahead of my tired old Sea Pig did not have any dipping sonar, nor did it have much in the way of the ability of my old Sea Pig to calculate a tactical plot. The ship did a lot of that work for them ( we couldn't do their anti-ship mission either ). All they had to go on were sonobuoys and the ship's sonar. Not much. We had all of that plus our own tactical plot of our sonobuoys, sonobuoys from the stiff wingers, and our own dipping sonar. The ability to put a sonar in the water fairly close ( can't tell you, but it's close ) and go active with impunity is a powerful tool no other ASW asset has. You have bearing and range with great accuracy, the sub is lit up like daylight, and your partner flies over with that MAD gear streaming to drop torps. Skimmers ( ships ) and subs rarely if ever go active, but not so a helo. Every other participant in the ASW game has to rely on triangulating passive sonar bearings to get close to the sub. This is less precise than active sonar.
As for the comment on the effectiveness of light weight air dropped torps against modern subs, this is the reason for the Mk-50 torpedo. The warhead can defeat double hulls and it has sufficient speed and endurance to hit the deepest diving attack subs. Consider also that the helo making the attack is trailing MAD gear to verify they are directly over top of the sub when they drop their torpedos.
Here is a paragraph out of Globalsecurity on the SH-60F
"The SH-60F defends the carrier against subsufarce contacts inside of 50 miles and can be tasked to prosecute submarines out to 150 miles. The SH-60F is capable of launching and processing both active and passive sonobuoys, but prosecution of hostile submarines is usually accomplished through the use of its active/passive dipping sonar. The SH-60F uses a variable depth sonar and sonobuoys to detect and track enemy submarines. Detection is primarily accomplished by using the AQS-13F dipping sonar which is deployed on a 1575 foot cable while the aircraft hovers 60ft above the ocean. The pilots are assisted in maintaining their 60ft day or night all weather hover by an automatic flight control system. The SH-60F is highly mobile and can "jump dip" to reposition its sonar for tracking evasive submarines. Active dipping sonar in combination with Mk-46 and Mk-50 torpedoes make the SH-60F the platform of choice for prosecuting hostile submarines"
Fanbois or the voice of experience? The SH-60F is already being replaced by the MH-60R
My claim is specifically for helos with dipping sonars. These are not widespread, Merlins and Sea Kings are large heavy helos not typically carried by frigates or destroyers. It is only recently that the USN was able to shrink a dipping sonar into a size and weight that would work with the SH-60 airframe while still retaining the big radar and the anti-ship mission. The old SH-60F was a single mission platform. Most ASW helos do not even have much in the way of on board processing, relying on the computers aboard the launch ship to tell them where to drop their torpedos. A Lynx, while dynamically light years ahead of my tired old Sea Pig did not have any dipping sonar, nor did it have much in the way of the ability of my old Sea Pig to calculate a tactical plot. The ship did a lot of that work for them ( we couldn't do their anti-ship mission either ). All they had to go on were sonobuoys and the ship's sonar. Not much. We had all of that plus our own tactical plot of our sonobuoys, sonobuoys from the stiff wingers, and our own dipping sonar. The ability to put a sonar in the water fairly close ( can't tell you, but it's close ) and go active with impunity is a powerful tool no other ASW asset has. You have bearing and range with great accuracy, the sub is lit up like daylight, and your partner flies over with that MAD gear streaming to drop torps. Skimmers ( ships ) and subs rarely if ever go active, but not so a helo. Every other participant in the ASW game has to rely on triangulating passive sonar bearings to get close to the sub. This is less precise than active sonar.
As for the comment on the effectiveness of light weight air dropped torps against modern subs, this is the reason for the Mk-50 torpedo. The warhead can defeat double hulls and it has sufficient speed and endurance to hit the deepest diving attack subs. Consider also that the helo making the attack is trailing MAD gear to verify they are directly over top of the sub when they drop their torpedos.
Here is a paragraph out of Globalsecurity on the SH-60F
"The SH-60F defends the carrier against subsufarce contacts inside of 50 miles and can be tasked to prosecute submarines out to 150 miles. The SH-60F is capable of launching and processing both active and passive sonobuoys, but prosecution of hostile submarines is usually accomplished through the use of its active/passive dipping sonar. The SH-60F uses a variable depth sonar and sonobuoys to detect and track enemy submarines. Detection is primarily accomplished by using the AQS-13F dipping sonar which is deployed on a 1575 foot cable while the aircraft hovers 60ft above the ocean. The pilots are assisted in maintaining their 60ft day or night all weather hover by an automatic flight control system. The SH-60F is highly mobile and can "jump dip" to reposition its sonar for tracking evasive submarines. Active dipping sonar in combination with Mk-46 and Mk-50 torpedoes make the SH-60F the platform of choice for prosecuting hostile submarines"
Fanbois or the voice of experience? The SH-60F is already being replaced by the MH-60R
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Strange, the links weren't showing until I opened a reply. Let's see if it gets preserved with a report.
Addendum. I only got the fyjs.cn website. The pics may have been taken down. I guess its "sensitive".
Strange, the links weren't showing until I opened a reply. Let's see if it gets preserved with a report.
Addendum. I only got the fyjs.cn website. The pics may have been taken down. I guess its "sensitive".
Ambivalent
Junior Member
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Eh, depends. Most nations do not have big fleets of maritime patrol aircraft and UAV's that allow persistent surveillance of their maritime frontiers. Subs historically have proved most effective operating independently as lone wolves against merchant traffic. Japan tied their subs to their big surface fleets and, despite having some outstanding submarine classes, they made little impact in the war against the USN. By comparison, the US and German Navies both gave their respective submarine fleets complete autonomy of operations with considerable success.
Now, to operate a sub in the face of determined ASW from surface and airborn assets is difficult to impossible. Subs survive by being small and quiet in this vast ocean, the proverbial needle in the haystack. If you put enough ships and aircraft in the same piece of water, you shrink that ocean very quickly and make it very difficult for that sub to make an attack.
ASW is changing very quickly. As surface ship costs rise, fewer go to sea, so UAV's and UUV's are coming on line to replace manned ships and aircraft. The P-8 will not replace the old P-3 one for one. It cannot fly at 200 feet and turn to stay on top of a sub while launching it's torpedos. Rather, the USN will now rely on UAV's in a program called Broad Area Maritime Surveillance ( possibly a Navy specific Global Hawk or Predator to patrol the seas, relying on the fewer number of P-8's to prosecute anything interesting the UAV finds. Likewise a company called iRobot has a prototype UUV called Seaglider that will allow the USN to put thousands of these small autonomous swimmers, each of which can stay at sea for many months, to listen for adversary subs or surface ships, reporting these findings periodically to satellites when it surfaces, allowing the P-8 to prosecute an actual datum rather than staring at empty ocean for hours and hours day after day like the P-3 community often did. A sensor rich environment and net centricity replace hundreds of ships and airplanes patrolling the ocean.
Here are a selection of the possible sensor nodes:
Eh, depends. Most nations do not have big fleets of maritime patrol aircraft and UAV's that allow persistent surveillance of their maritime frontiers. Subs historically have proved most effective operating independently as lone wolves against merchant traffic. Japan tied their subs to their big surface fleets and, despite having some outstanding submarine classes, they made little impact in the war against the USN. By comparison, the US and German Navies both gave their respective submarine fleets complete autonomy of operations with considerable success.
Now, to operate a sub in the face of determined ASW from surface and airborn assets is difficult to impossible. Subs survive by being small and quiet in this vast ocean, the proverbial needle in the haystack. If you put enough ships and aircraft in the same piece of water, you shrink that ocean very quickly and make it very difficult for that sub to make an attack.
ASW is changing very quickly. As surface ship costs rise, fewer go to sea, so UAV's and UUV's are coming on line to replace manned ships and aircraft. The P-8 will not replace the old P-3 one for one. It cannot fly at 200 feet and turn to stay on top of a sub while launching it's torpedos. Rather, the USN will now rely on UAV's in a program called Broad Area Maritime Surveillance ( possibly a Navy specific Global Hawk or Predator to patrol the seas, relying on the fewer number of P-8's to prosecute anything interesting the UAV finds. Likewise a company called iRobot has a prototype UUV called Seaglider that will allow the USN to put thousands of these small autonomous swimmers, each of which can stay at sea for many months, to listen for adversary subs or surface ships, reporting these findings periodically to satellites when it surfaces, allowing the P-8 to prosecute an actual datum rather than staring at empty ocean for hours and hours day after day like the P-3 community often did. A sensor rich environment and net centricity replace hundreds of ships and airplanes patrolling the ocean.
Here are a selection of the possible sensor nodes:
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
Thanks for the information (I genuinely enjoyed it). However, you still haven't answered my questions.
1. Are submarines obsolete due to the usage of the SH-60F or similar platforms? If so, please point me to proof. Lots of major navies still value submarines.
2. If 1 destroyer w/ an SH-60F went up against a 1 submarine in various environments, what would happened? How about 4 destroyers w/ 4 SH-60F against 3 destroyers (w/ 3 helicopters) plus 1 sub? Comparing multiple destroyers/skimmers with multiple SH-60F/equivalents against 1 submarine is NOT always the case. The submarine could have buddies under water, skimming on water, and above water.
Thanks for the information (I genuinely enjoyed it). However, you still haven't answered my questions.
1. Are submarines obsolete due to the usage of the SH-60F or similar platforms? If so, please point me to proof. Lots of major navies still value submarines.
2. If 1 destroyer w/ an SH-60F went up against a 1 submarine in various environments, what would happened? How about 4 destroyers w/ 4 SH-60F against 3 destroyers (w/ 3 helicopters) plus 1 sub? Comparing multiple destroyers/skimmers with multiple SH-60F/equivalents against 1 submarine is NOT always the case. The submarine could have buddies under water, skimming on water, and above water.
maozedong
Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I think they change the link digital, I already fixed, we can see the pictures now. sorry, I tried to put for attach thumb jpg before, but didn't work.
I think they change the link digital, I already fixed, we can see the pictures now. sorry, I tried to put for attach thumb jpg before, but didn't work.
Ambivalent
Junior Member
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I will direct your attention to the summer of 1943. By that point the USN and RN had enough maritime patrol aircraft, carrier base aircraft and surface ships with good enough radars on board to make it almost certain death for a German sub to operate on the surface. The USN had gone from a defensive ASW position, protecting convoys from attacks, to actively hunting submarines in the open ocean and attacking them first. At the exact same time, USN submarines were tightening the noose on Japan, and would eventually starve her of resources. The difference? Japan never adopted a dedicated ASW position.
A single dipping sonar helo doesn't give you all that much capability. Two however can make a submarine's life pure misery. You can leapfrog the sub for hours if necessary ( SH-3's had five and a half hours endurance and could refuel from a hover from any nearby ship, called HIFR ). One helo can have it's sonar in the water giving it's partner range and bearing data for it to fly to to dip it's sonar, or if the datum is small enough, to attack the sub. The sub will try to drift out of sonar range, gradually change depth and work it's way slowly out of your net, but it cannot do anything too fast or the noise will give it away. Meanwhile, the carrier is steaming rapidly away. It was not unknown during the Cold War to park a frigate and a couple of helos over a Soviet sub harassing it with active sonar while the CVBG steamed off into the distance.
For ASW, the actual weapon is only part of the solution. You have to have persistence and broad area coverage. Every time the sub pokes a periscope up or make a move, it must involve some immediate risk of drawing an attack. By the summer of 1943 the USN and RN had enough assets in the Atlantic to make this the situation the German's faced. Their losses, and the stunning drop in Allied shipping losses, testify to how well this worked.
Whether or not a particular helo can win, one on one, with a particular class of threat submarine is not a valid comparison because every helo will come at you as part of a larger ASW team of ships and other aircraft. Their combined sensors and how they integrate the data will determine the outcome. Training counts too. Finding and chasing other nations subs is great training. Coordinating surface and air assets is easier than coordinating submarines too, if you think about it, although subs are beginning to use distributed outboard sensors and UUV's to increase their sensor horizon.
A pair or more of dipping sonar helos are one of the most valuable tools in ASW, which is why, for example, the JMSDF built the DDH's and the Canadians made room for Sea Kings and now Merlins on their frigates and destroyers. Just from my experience, a single sub against a pair of trained crews in SH-3's, I'd give the advantage to the helos, but keep in mind very often the helos are brought out to a suspected sub first detected by another platform. A P-3 covers a lot of ocean, and might turn something interesting up, ditto the Hoover, but the helo is a better tool to localize the sub and attack it. When I flew, we didn't have many flight decks in the fleet so we didn't have the persistence with helos we have today, so the Hoover had to do the longer range searching for us.
I will direct your attention to the summer of 1943. By that point the USN and RN had enough maritime patrol aircraft, carrier base aircraft and surface ships with good enough radars on board to make it almost certain death for a German sub to operate on the surface. The USN had gone from a defensive ASW position, protecting convoys from attacks, to actively hunting submarines in the open ocean and attacking them first. At the exact same time, USN submarines were tightening the noose on Japan, and would eventually starve her of resources. The difference? Japan never adopted a dedicated ASW position.
A single dipping sonar helo doesn't give you all that much capability. Two however can make a submarine's life pure misery. You can leapfrog the sub for hours if necessary ( SH-3's had five and a half hours endurance and could refuel from a hover from any nearby ship, called HIFR ). One helo can have it's sonar in the water giving it's partner range and bearing data for it to fly to to dip it's sonar, or if the datum is small enough, to attack the sub. The sub will try to drift out of sonar range, gradually change depth and work it's way slowly out of your net, but it cannot do anything too fast or the noise will give it away. Meanwhile, the carrier is steaming rapidly away. It was not unknown during the Cold War to park a frigate and a couple of helos over a Soviet sub harassing it with active sonar while the CVBG steamed off into the distance.
For ASW, the actual weapon is only part of the solution. You have to have persistence and broad area coverage. Every time the sub pokes a periscope up or make a move, it must involve some immediate risk of drawing an attack. By the summer of 1943 the USN and RN had enough assets in the Atlantic to make this the situation the German's faced. Their losses, and the stunning drop in Allied shipping losses, testify to how well this worked.
Whether or not a particular helo can win, one on one, with a particular class of threat submarine is not a valid comparison because every helo will come at you as part of a larger ASW team of ships and other aircraft. Their combined sensors and how they integrate the data will determine the outcome. Training counts too. Finding and chasing other nations subs is great training. Coordinating surface and air assets is easier than coordinating submarines too, if you think about it, although subs are beginning to use distributed outboard sensors and UUV's to increase their sensor horizon.
A pair or more of dipping sonar helos are one of the most valuable tools in ASW, which is why, for example, the JMSDF built the DDH's and the Canadians made room for Sea Kings and now Merlins on their frigates and destroyers. Just from my experience, a single sub against a pair of trained crews in SH-3's, I'd give the advantage to the helos, but keep in mind very often the helos are brought out to a suspected sub first detected by another platform. A P-3 covers a lot of ocean, and might turn something interesting up, ditto the Hoover, but the helo is a better tool to localize the sub and attack it. When I flew, we didn't have many flight decks in the fleet so we didn't have the persistence with helos we have today, so the Hoover had to do the longer range searching for us.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
As for helos with dipping sonar, I though it was more widespread, because we even have pictures of Z-9C with dipping sonar and it's a relatively small helo.
i'm sure MK-50 is much improved compared to MK-46 in processing, acquisition and most important kinetic performance, but it still simply can't compare against something like ADCAP which can go at 55 knots for 20 nm (i assume the real figure is better than this). Gary on DT was talking a while ago about the processing power of CBASS, which is apparently leaps ahead of even ADCAP in target acquisition. I'm not saying MK-50 can't be used in ways to hit a modern nuclear submarine, but it just has certainly limitations due to its size.
As for helos with dipping sonar, I though it was more widespread, because we even have pictures of Z-9C with dipping sonar and it's a relatively small helo.
Re: PLAN submarines Thread II
I think you're kind of putting words in Ambivalent's mouth. He was saying that in a situation where a submarine is facing two ASW helicopters that are close by and are looking for the submarine, the helicopters have a quite a good chance of sinking their target.
This does NOT mean that submarines are obsolete. A bullet will reliably kill an infantryman. Does that mean infantrymen are obsolete? An attack helicopter will reliably kill a tank, and the tank can't even fight back. Does this mean tanks are obsolete?
Ambivalent was merely stating that within certain parameters dipping sonar is a very effective weapon, and he is right.
I think you're kind of putting words in Ambivalent's mouth. He was saying that in a situation where a submarine is facing two ASW helicopters that are close by and are looking for the submarine, the helicopters have a quite a good chance of sinking their target.
This does NOT mean that submarines are obsolete. A bullet will reliably kill an infantryman. Does that mean infantrymen are obsolete? An attack helicopter will reliably kill a tank, and the tank can't even fight back. Does this mean tanks are obsolete?
Ambivalent was merely stating that within certain parameters dipping sonar is a very effective weapon, and he is right.