Text 24207, 154 rader
Skriven 2009-05-19 17:28:22 av hap newsom (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Glen Jamieson
Ärende: RE: SMART SUBS  90519
=============================
Hey Glen!
->  -> 
->  ->  HN> Key word is "undetected"...they can (a) gather
->  ->  HN> intelligence data from foreign shores,(b) insert
->  ->  HN> operational teams ashore, (c) track enemy sea
->  ->  HN> maneuvers, (d) destroy enemy surface vessels,
->  ->  HN> (e) protect friendly vessels and shipping lanes,
->  ->  HN> (f)launch conventional warheaded cruise missles
-> 
->  -> (a) is a good one, although much of that intelligence is now provided
->  -> by satellites.  Re (b), not being a particularly belligerent nation,
->  -> Australia is not likely to insert operatives into another country, but
->  -> the submarines could be useful to unobtrusively pick up operatives or
->  -> high profile refugees from other countries.  (That was something I
->  -> hadn't thought of.)  These days satellites can do (c) quite
->  -> effectively.  The submarines can certainly do (d), but fortunately we
->  -> don't seem to have any enemies with ships at present.
->  -> 
->  -> At present the main friendly vessels needing protection (e) are in the
->  -> Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean which are subject to piratical
->  -> attacks. I don't know how fast our new submarines are, but if they
->  -> could out-run the pirates' speedboats and have the range they could 
be
->  -> quite useful there. Naturally I don't know what weaponry our new subs
->  -> are likely to be equipped with, but medium range cruise missiles would
->  -> be a logical addition to expensive torpedoes.  A small cannon to fire
->  -> at the pirates would be useful.
->  -> 
->  HN> There is a lot of data that a sattelite can not
->  HN> gather. And I've seen Aussie's in action and
->  HN> they can hold their own with belligerence! And
-> 
-> Only when roused!  (G)  We don't have any empire building ambitions.
-> 
Have you ever seen an Aussie 
Naval Crew take over a bar?? (grin)

->  HN> you never know who's tomorrow's enemies might
->  HN> be. Since most of Australia's imports and exports
->  HN> go via the Sea, being able to defend shipping
->  HN> lanes and ensure continuity of commerce is a 
->  HN> strong selling point.  A sub does not need to
->  HN> be able to outrun or catch a Pirate's speedboat.
->  HN> they can (a) simply track them to a "destination",
-> 
-> That is an interesting possibility, if the snorkling sub quietly
-> followed a would-be pirate boat until it turned into a real one, then
-> suddenly surfaced nearby, with a weapon pointed at the pirates.
->
Most likely not snorkeling, running on 
electric power. The new generations 
of diesel electrics are fast, quiet, and 
capable of quite a bit only on electric
power. 
 
->  HN> (b) "shadow" ships and wait for the pirates to 
->  HN> come to them, or (c) lie offshore at known 
->  HN> pirate "bases" and whack em when they come
->  HN> out. Torpedoes are not too expensive and are
->  HN> quite effective. I don't see deck guns on 
->  HN> subs as a big factor, but a couple of good
->  HN> sized automatic rifles carried topside and 
->  HN> mounted in exisitng mounts can do a lot. 
-> 
-> When being shown over an Oberon class sub in Fremantle recently I was
-> told that the torpedoes cost some hundreds of thousands of $$$ each.
-> Pirates are becoming quite a problem in some parts of the world, and
-> they are getting better armed.  I think one of the difficult aspects
-> to dealing with them is that they don't hoist the Jolly Rodger any
-> more to identify themselves.  They remain peaceful navigators of the
-> high seas right up to the point where they point guns at, or board
-> ships.  Submarines could locate and shadow pirate "mother ships" and
-> warn other naval vessels.   As pirates now use high powered rifles and
-> RPGs, a small cannon mounted on a sub would enable the sub to remain
-> out of range of the RPGs while firing at the pirates.
->
Torpedoes are far less expensive than 
cruise missles and such...and there are 
many "dumb" torps that work just as 
well as their more expensive cousins.
I'm more of a pragmatist, I'm in favor 
of simply torping the mother ship and 
letting nature (and hungry sharks) take
care of business from then on...A much
stronger deterrent than capture and imprisonment
in a cell that's probably more comfy than
the oringal home. However a deck mounted
weapon is a problem in several ways. first
it detracts from the "aerodynamic" design
of the hull, and second it will make "noise"
as the sub moves at speed, third it would
be exposed to the corrosive effects of the 
salt water, making reliability a problem. 

-> As I typed that, I heard a news item about 2 Australian frigates which
-> were on training exercises in the Gulf of Aden when they responded to
-> an emergency call to rescue a ship under fire from pirates.  The
-> success of that operation may well result in Australia stationing
-> naval ships there permanently, as that Gulf is the main route for
-> Australian exports to Europe.
->  
Sink em on sight I say.

->  -> I still think that the main purpose of our government's announcement
->  -> that 12 submarines would be built here was political, intended to
->  -> prepare voters for the next election - but then I am rather cynical
->  -> about governments and their promises.
->  ->
->  HN> There is that as well.
->  HN> All in all, I like submarines
->  HN> and think they will play a 
->  HN> big role in the future of naval
->  HN> warfare. 
-> 
-> I like the idea of submarines, and think they have uses in the future,
-> but probably in new fields.  One point that you haven't mentioned is
-> the proven ability of a sub to travel beneath the Arctic ice floes to
-> reach otherwise inaccessible areas.  I remember reading of a Russian
-> sub planting a flag at the North Pole.  Now if a substantial oil field
-> was found there, that could be worth fighting over.
->
Going under the pole is not a big
thing anymore. Lots of subs have 
done it by now. It's pretty shallow
up there and not a place where 
subs would be very happy operating.
 
-> The main development in modern subs is the quest for silence of
-> operation, with peculiarly shaped propellors being used.  In my
-> younger days I worked on the design and development of a directional
-> sensing, air launched sono-buoy.  (I was your "enemy"!)  Two of those
-> dropped into the sea from an Orion could track a submarine (or surface
-> craft at night) for 30 miles or so - but only if it made a noise.  The
-> Magnetic Anomaly Detector in the "sting" on the tail of the Orion will
-> only work if the plane is flying directly over the submerged boat.
-> 
There's a local PC-3 Orion that flies training missions 
around here...I give it rude gestures whenever I 
see it...although I can say my sub was never
detected, even when our own Anti sub units
were trying to track us. Modern subs now are
even more stealthy than they were in my day.
Once we "shadowed" a carrier group for three 
days and they never knew we were there..we 
worked firing solutions for 6 ships with certainty 
of kill shots of over 95%. When we turned that
report in at the end of our patrol I can bet that
the captains of those ships, and the commander
of the carrier group got an earfull from CincPac
(Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet)
chat with you soon!
hap 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)