SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Conflicts -- Current & Future > Other, By Region > Europe

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-15-2012   #41
AdamG
Council Member
 
AdamG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
Given Gertz's record for obtaining help from within officialdom, one can happily speculate whose best interests are served by this unconfirmed report.
Yeah, and?

Gertz paints a pretty plain picture.
Quote:
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
Perhaps Gertz is stumping for the ASW funding proponents, but it's not mutually exclusive to point out 1) that the Russians are getting back into the habit of flexing their muscles, and 2) a Russian sub sat on our doorstep twiddling it's thumbs for a month while 3) the USN leadership is engaged in sexual pattycakes and generally poor seamanship.
__________________
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
AdamG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012   #42
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,977
Default

Quote:
deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities
Ooooold story.

Stories about ASW deficiencies are available in abundance and it affects all classic forces.

Aerial ASW is a near-impotent museum piece from WW2 that does no more than to force the hostile subs to be cautious.

Classic surface ASW with passive sonar (towed or hull mounted doesn't matter) are in peril against old SSNs and at the same time totally useless targets in face of a modern hostile SSK.

Surface ASW is potent with low frequency active sonars, but the emitters should be detached from major surface units if not even dispersed. Survival of surface units still depends on being silent, that is "slow" unless they sail; cavitation begins with the relatively small surface ship screws already at speeds well below what classic tea clippers were able to achieve.
Most if not all "modern"(-time) navies insist on the classic impressive warship basis instead of accepting the need for many small units. It's a bit reminiscent of 10+ battleship WW2 navies being forced to build 500+ sub hunters during wartime.

SSNs are fine at defeating obsolete loud other SSNs, but fail regularly even at the detection of modern hostile SSKs.

Modern SSKs are less prone to be found by other modern SSKs, but this works both ways. They're also often too slow to intercept a 15 kts cruising convoy and certainly too slow to escort it.
Fuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012   #43
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 1,805
Default

The Akula is a very good sub which we already knew but this further confirms that.

If we didn't know the boat sailed from Russia, crossed the Atlantic and cruised around the Caribbean for a month, how did we know that it left and how did we know it was there for a month?
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012   #44
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,977
Default

Afaik some other source suggested that the Russians were on sightseeing tour, taking enough periscope photos as souvenirs.

Periscope shot souvenirs are apparently popular among sub drivers.
Fuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012   #45
carl
Council Member
 
carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver on occasion
Posts: 1,805
Default

I have another question for people who know about these things. Does this mean SOSUS isn't very useful anymore?
__________________
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
carl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012   #46
slapout9
Council Member
 
slapout9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Slapout,Al.
Posts: 4,431
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carl View Post
I have another question for people who know about these things. Does this mean SOSUS isn't very useful anymore?
Col. MacGregor (the Army Colonel Tank Commander) has been hired by the US Navy to basically re-do the whole underwater detection sensor network. So I think SOSUS is going to get a big upgrade so UUAV (Underwater Unmanned Attack Vehicles) can be used.

I had an article I had saved about a Soviet Missile launching sub crusing the Gulf Of Mexico undetectedI was going to post but I am not sure what I did with it but it is out there in cyber-space somewhere.

Don't never trust them Ruskies!
slapout9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7. ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation