Air attack submarine
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
And idea I had a little while back.
Has the idea of a submarine fitter with radars and anti-aircraft missiles ever been considered? I was thinking such a sub could get in close to an enemy coastline and when a flight of enemy aircraft flies over lazily (thinking they're safe so close to home) the sub would surface, track the aircraft and then fire off some missiles before submerging again.
Does anyone see any major issues with this? I think it has the potential to seriously whittle down enemy aircraft numbers.
Google 'interactive defense and attack system'
/thread
Neat idea. Not worth exposing the sub to retaliation, though. It's a lot harder to build a new submarine than a few small aircraft.
>>28259183
>Surface to deploy radar
>Enemy wreck your shit in 50 different ways
Good idea.
In the off chance you somehow do not get blown out of the water right away and manage to submerge they still know your rough location and can direct every possible anti-sub weapon in the area to you.
why not make fighters that can dive underwarter and fire supercavitating torpedos at submarines;
guided by underwater awacs of course
>>28259262
OP is dumb and this idea is dumb.
That being said, a SAM could be created that is capable of firing underwater. I'm sure a towable or deplorable buoy could be created with a surface to air radar built in.
Have AWACS, ship, stealth fighter, stealth drone, and ground radars all feeding targeting data to a submarine.
Submarine launches missiles using networked data. While remaining below the surface.
>>28259262
Because a military totally has the aircraft to cover every mile of ocean.
Assets couldn't close in and kill the sub in the 5 minutes it takes to do its thing.
>>28259395
They will still know where you are after you are done, making the sub a free kill for the enemy.
>>28259414
By that logic submarines are useless because the enemy will know where they are once they kill an enemy ship.
Your argument is dumb.
>>28259395
It's not uncommon for militaries to be able to track space debris...
Civilians have had access to technology that lets them see fish on the bottom of the ocean for a long time...
Odds are, submarines are obsolete and the military is afraid to tell us.
>>28259183
The British already done that. Even North Korea subs got a automated short range SAM to counter Orions and MH-60.
Here's the British system.
> British SLAM (Submarine Launched Airflight Missile) system fitted into the sail. This consisted of a pedestal with an optical sensor and a cluster of six Blowpipe SAMs. The system was also slaved to the periscope. In order to fire the missiles the pedestal mast was raised above the water, typically with the submarine at periscope depth. The missiles were guided in flight with a crewman using a joystick to guide the missile to the target. The Blowpipe missile was a first generation shoulder-launched weapon loosely equivalent to the RedEye and GRAIL systems (i.e. a generation before Stinger). The concept was that the submarine would use these missiles to down or deter slow moving anti-submarine helicopters, particularly ones using dipping sonar which would present relatively
unchallenged targets for the system. The missiles were quickly obsolete and the system was quietly removed without replacement.
(Pic:HMS Aeneas, 1972)
>>28259183
Good idea. Few problems:
Submarines are expensive as fuck. If you put one on the enemy's coast, there are way more valuable things for it to do than shoot down airplanes. Conventional strike, nuclear strike, anti-ship, and anti-submarine missions are all a better use of the platform.
The submarine would have to surface to use its radars. This makes it extremely vulnerable. Nations already patrol their coastlines aggressively for submarines, because of the other threats listed above. Any submarine that actually surfaced under wartime conditions would get promptly raped.
Radar benefits from altitude. A destroyer, or even a frigate, standing farther back, can see a lot farther, and pose a much greater threat to enemy aircraft.
Finally: AWACs. All the advantages of a submarine offshore, encapsulated in a much cheaper airplane much further away.
The fact is, in a wartime situation, planes aren't going to assume they're safe at any point in their mission, and no submarine will be even remotely safe on the enemy's coast.
>>28259348
Don't we already have submarines that can do this? One of our SSN classes carries like 50 cruise missiles and SSBNs can carry like 150.
>>28259348
Good idea, but cheaper to do it with a destroyer above the surface.
>>28259320
Op is dumb? I'd like to see you say that to a German Scientist. They're literally making a middle that does this. Seriously. Look at the thread before posting.
>>28259434
>Odds are, submarines are obsolete and the military is afraid to tell us.
Fucking idiot
The simple reason they don't do this is because a submarine on the surface is a hell of a lot more vulnerable than an aircraft above it.
PR China RMK30. 30mm RWS mounted on conning tower.
>>28259493
>>28259441
Ere's another picture.
>>28259460
Submarines can be a mobile SAM battery that is hidden from easy detection.
You could also probably develop a silo launched AWACS drone. So the submarine can get targeting data on its own.
>>28259425
There is a difference between downing aircraft on the enemy coastline and sinking ships in the middle of a fucking ocean.
>>28259533
>You could also probably develop a silo launched AWACS drone
Now you're basically talking sci-fi
>>28259493
I wonder how they decided to put that on a submarine
>Should we put a gun on there?
>Better question - should we NOT put a gun on there?
>.......... good point, let's do it
>>28259183
You realize the US Navy can literally nuke the moon from the Marianas Trench, right? The fact that they aren't doing what you're saying isn't because they can't do it or they haven't thought of it. They aren't doing it because it's absolutely retarded.
France system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGl42ELB_A
>Does anyone see any major issues with this?
1) Submarines can't search for aircraft whilst they're submerged and would have to surface randomly and hope they have a target, which is suicide. It's the equivalent of walking into the middle of the street in Raqqa with a blindfold on, then trying to take it off and find a target before you get killed.
2) Submarines can't carry a full sized search radar/fire control radar system so anything they use would be far too short range to attack aircraft besides ASW ones.
Subs need anti-aircraft torpedos that'll swim out some distance, sit on the surface with active radar/passive sensors, waiting for a target.
Could do the same thing with anti-ship missiles
Essentially autonomous attack drones.
>>28259583
>being this retarded.
>>28259583
ICBM's can't even make it to orbit
why do you think they can go to the fucking moon
>>28259471
What?
>>28259183
its call IDAS
>20km range
>Sub-launched anti-air missile
>designed for ASW helicopters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)
>>28259765
>>28260093
Are you guys with the DOD's disinformation wing or what? This is basically common knowledge at this point.
>>28260112
You're asking why that's a stupid statement?
>>28259574
submarine silos are pretty big.
You encase the drone in missile casing, wings folded, and AESA radars. Launch it like you would a SLBM. Casing splits open and a small rocket boost motor pushes the drone up some more while the wings open. Then the drone flies under its own power. Establishes data link to the submarine. Where a controller then flies it. Drone uses AESA radar to scan around with out the large moving radome.
When the fuel gets critical. You can ditch it in the ocean to break up and sink. You could fly it to a friendly airfield or carrier. You could also kamikaze it into something.
why not a wire operated bouy you can deploy 2-3 miles away from yourself, bouy pops up, feeds the sub sensor info. Launches missile at a boat or a chopper, bouy remains to feed sensor data before exploding.
>>28260294
Or you could just have an aircraft carrier with fighter planes on it at half the retardation
Instead of having ships that carry planes, why not make planes that carry ships?
Come on America, get with the program.
>>28260326
because not everyone is America?
>>28260158
Yes.
I think submarines are too vulnerable against any adequately prepared enemy. They are pretty much only used as surveillance and artillery platforms, watching people fish and ship cargo. SSBNs are still functional under the mutually assured destruction doctrine, which ironically implies they will never be used and the only reason they have for existing, is just to exist without ever being used.
>>28259183
subs already do this
>>28260437
>They are pretty much only used as surveillance and artillery platforms
And used to attack other ships in times of war.
>>28259314
Someone in DARPA just got an erection reading this.
>>28260364
Anti-air surface ships then, there is literally no reason for it to be a submarine
>>28260517
A submarine is literally the worst ship to do it with >>28259686
>>28260144
You're an idiot if you think and SLBM or ICBM has enough delta-v to reach the moon
>>28260517
Besides not getting raped by the enemy. Kind of an important point.
>>28261103
No kind of naval vessel is more vulnerable on the surface than a submarine.
>>28259348
the only reason to use a submarine as opposed to any other vessel is stealth.
you park your dumb ass next to the enemy's coastline and start ripple firing missiles off, even if you are under water, you lose all your stealth.
in which instance you lose any reason to use a submarine.
let alone the difficulties in sending all that targetting data to a submarine via a method that can penetrate to sufficient depth underwater and maintain enough bandwidth while doing so to constantly update targetting to intercept multiple dynamic targets and itself does not give the position of the submarine away.
it's just a silly fucking idea. why do you think no one has bothered with it already? because it's not new idea either.
>>28261202
Especially next to a coastline because you're NOW TRAPPED AGAINST THAT COASTLINE
>>28259425
torpedoes are much quieter than missiles to launch from a submarine.
>>28259755
literally why the fuck
and can you not see the sort of difficulties a system like that would have in typically dynamic coastal waters?
how the fuck are you going to power the radars, or have them stable enough to be useful, or big enough to be useful or fucking anything?
fuck
>>28260228
>and AESA radars
you're one-shotting aesa radars
why wouldn't i just pack it with fucking cruise missiles and kill the entire airfield instead
>>28260294
what kind of sensors do you think you're going to be operating
>>28259209
>/threading your own post
Die in a fire you worthless stain of cum on a giraffe's hind leg.
>>28261169
But will only be on the surface for a few minutes. Every other ship is stuck there.
>>28259467
He 's saying that the idea itself is dumb.
Current missiles are used for protection against ASW helos, not actually hunting planes.
It's possible to make an AA-focused submarine, but that presents few advantages, since the radar emissions needed for it to find any aircraft will expose it to the enemy (also it needs to surface to use radar). So basically you have a subpar AA frigate that you can sneak almost everywhere, except it's gonna be completely unsupported once it deploys and is way more expensive than a surface vessel.
"Just fuck my shit up" indeed.
>>28259441
> Blowpipes
>>28259441
>The Blowpipe missile was a first generation shoulder-launched weapon loosely equivalent to the RedEye and GRAIL systems
>Blowpipe
>the only MCLOS SAM in the world
>less than 5% hit rate
>equivalent to anything
That an insult to actually effective american and soviet missiles.
![surcouf[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fMeZXXJ.jpg "surcouf[1].jpg")
>>28259576
I'm glad that we're on the same level here.
>>28259183
Stupid idea. The point of a sub is its stealth. Banging around with a powerful AA radar sacrfices the one advantage of a sub.
>>28260136
IDAS is fibre-optic guided. Has nothing to do with using a radar.
>>28260136
>fiber-optic guided
Well that's fucking clever. Just last night playing CMANO I found myself wishing for a goddamned anti-aircraft SAM that could be launched from tubes or VLS while submerged.
