home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!ncrlnk!ciss!law7!military
- From: Fast-Eddie Felson <JMARTTILA@finabo.abo.fi>
- Subject: Re: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
- Message-ID: <Bxo178.63D@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: Turku School of Economics
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:42:44 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 63
-
-
- From Fast-Eddie Felson <JMARTTILA@finabo.abo.fi>
-
- From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
- >(along with a few "attemped" computer simulations) make shallow water sonar
- >performance to be nill. While the ability to use long array devices and
- >some convergence zones may be lost, I still wouldn't say that sonar
- >performance is "severely degraded."
-
- Using long array devices for passive sub detection is possible and even
- effective. The convergence zones are just one little detail. Towed array
- sonar allows you to listen to the noises the sub makes instead of you own
- engines and also peek under the thermal layers (there are such things in
- shallow water too O:).
-
- >In shallow water other ASW devices besides sonar excell. IR and actual
- >visual spotting come to mind. MAD should still retain most if not all of
- >its effectiveness. Also, I would think surface wakes produced by the
- >submerged boat would be much more prominant.
-
- In peacetime situations passive acoustic detection is the most important,
- because MAD, IR and other clerical methods have a very limited range and
- thus are not suitable for controlling large areas. Passive acoustic
- methods also require much less resourses. The other methods (mainly active
- sonar) are more suitable for exact target positioning and fire-control.
-
- >I think one of the major problems in shallow water ASW is the performance
- >of ASW torpedoes. How well would a Mk-46 fare in a shallow water
- >situation? In many shallow water situations depth charges might be more
- >effective.
-
- It depends on the situation. If the sub is hiding close to seabottom and
- the bottom is rough causing a lot of false echoes a depth charge would be
- the right choise. However, if the sub is moving it's a decent target for
- a torpedo almost like in any other environment. As much as I know the
- Swedes have recently aquired new torpedoes to be used in shallow water so
- at least they believe it works O:)
-
- >Also, mentioned, was the opinion that Diesel Electric Boats have a great
- >edge over Nuclear Boats in shallow or coastal water operations. While a
- >well designed DE boat is harder to find that the average nuclear sub, they
- >do have to give themselves away by snorkling sooner or later. Also, no
- >modern DE boat that I know of can cut over 20 knots. A submerged approach
- >to a modern container ship going into or out of port would be awfully
- >difficult.
- >I can't see tracking an Iranian Kilo as being a major operation in the
- >Persian Gulf.
-
- First I have to point out that no DE submarine is made to pursue its target,
- but to wait stationary and silent on the seabottom. DE submarines fit well
- in this kind of tactics - after turning off the engines they are practically
- invisible for passive sonar and due to their small size they are also a very
- small active sonar or MAD target.
- Nuclear submarines can't just like that turn off their reactor since it
- takes time to turn it on. They are also much larger and hard to manoevre in
- tight spaces.
-
- JM
-
- _______________________________________________________________________
- Jouni Marttila - Yo-kyl{ 11 B 25, 20540 Turku, FINLAND - +358 21 374624
- jmarttila@finabo.abo.fi - jmarttila@finabo - abovax::jmarttila
-
-