CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Were the Pingers ever used to move troops en masse?...
Pingers were not used heavily for troop transport.

...That was a Jungly job - the ASW Sea Kings had ASW, surface search, HDS, VERTREP, and SAR to do, as well as decoying Exocet....
I know.

However, that’s my point! Particularly after the loss of Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May, we were short of RW lift. Yet even though there were no Argentine submarines at sea at this stage (or indeed for the rest of the War), Woodward had to honour the threat of them which fixed assets which could otherwise have been deployed to augment Jungly capacity (as well as that of ‘BN.’)

That was the main success of the Argentine SSKs. Similarly, I’d argue that biggest effect of our SSNs was fixing their surface fleet in territorial waters after the loss of the Belgrano.

Regards,
MM
 
However, that’s my point! Particularly after the loss of Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May, we were short of RW lift. Yet even though there were no Argentine submarines at sea at this stage (or indeed for the rest of the War), Woodward had to honour the threat of them which fixed assets which could otherwise have been deployed to augment Jungly capacity (as well as that of ‘BN.’)

That was the main success of the Argentine SSKs. Similarly, I’d argue that biggest effect of our SSNs was fixing their surface fleet in territorial waters after the loss of the Belgrano.
Totally. One of the things that has often been said about our SSN fleet over the years is that it’s the threat of a presence which does so much to deter.
 
Radar is not something that a dived sub is likely to use, certainly not in contested waters.
I didn’t say they’d necessarily use it in contested areas (although I wouldn’t rule it out). However, subs sometimes use radar and other emitters when at periscope depth and some can be detected at useful distances.

Regards,
MM
 
I didn’t say they’d necessarily use it in contested areas (although I wouldn’t rule it out). However, subs sometimes use radar and other emitters when at periscope depth and some can be detected at useful distances.

Regards,
MM
Radar is of little use to a sub at periscope depth, and tactically will act as a homing beacon. Any sub that chooses to use radar either doesn't mind being detected, or wants to be detected.
 
Radar is of little use to a sub at periscope depth, and tactically will act as a homing beacon. Any sub that chooses to use radar either doesn't mind being detected, or wants to be detected.
I was always of the impression of ‘Come up, have a quick look and then dive again if necessary’, albeit only in certain circumstances.
 
Seems reasonable. "Look", however, means just that, visual, not radar.
I can appreciate that looking is passive. However, it’s range-limited and the periscope can still be spotted. Radar has range and therefore allows you to put in some distance if need be, surely?

I don’t know; never been there. Can anyone else add comment?
 
I can appreciate that looking is passive. However, it’s range-limited and the periscope can still be spotted. Radar has range and therefore allows you to put in some distance if need be, surely?

I don’t know; never been there. Can anyone else add comment?
The periscope tends to be higher than the radar, which gives it a greater horizon and therefore range. The periscope is also much smaller, both physically and in terms of rcs (thanks to ram/rap) and harder to detect.
 
Radar is of little use to a sub at periscope depth, and tactically will act as a homing beacon. Any sub that chooses to use radar either doesn't mind being detected, or wants to be detected.
We’re probably in violent agreement in some regards and I’m certainly not suggesting subs bang away 360 degrees on radar for hours on end. Nor is any use advisable for Capt Nemo in many circumstances. In short, radar is at best a secondary sensor for subs.

However, in certain circumstances, it is of use and ‘worth a squirt.’ For instance, at periscope depth a quick scan can provide situational awareness of surface and air activity out to about 20 and 100 miles respectively; certainly way beyond visual means. All is needed is a couple of scans, then submerge and get below a thermocline. The value is enhanced when combined with limiting a scan to as small a sector as possible; 30 degrees may be more than sufficient. Modern Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radars also complicate ESM cuts.

Ultimately, I can think if numerous examples where MPA, pingers or other platforms have gained an ESM indication of a sub where that sub self-evidently didn’t want to be detected. Sometimes that led to a ‘CERTSUB’, sometimes it escaped.

Regards,
MM
 
Radar has range and therefore allows you to put in some distance if need be, surely?
No!

Radar range depends on antenna height, target height, output power, antenna gain and receiver sensitivity. However it involves transmitting, and receiving, so the radar wave suffers from two lots of free space loss and other losses and attenuation - on the way there and on the way back.

Off the top of my head - the power of the reflected radar signal received is proportion to 1/R^4, whereas ESM only receives so the signal power is proportional to 1/R^2. So for a systems with the same receiver sensitivity the ESM receiver has a huge range advantage.

For a second I thought I was a student again!
 
No!

Radar range depends on antenna height, target height, output power, antenna gain and receiver sensitivity. However it involves transmitting, and receiving, so the radar wave suffers from two lots of free space loss and other losses and attenuation - on the way there and on the way back.

Off the top of my head - the power of the reflected radar signal received is proportion to 1/R^4, whereas ESM only receives so the signal power is proportional to 1/R^2. So for a systems with the same receiver sensitivity the ESM receiver has a huge range advantage.
I was talking about radar's range versus a vision system's range. I know that an ESM system will catch a sniff a good way before a radar system gets anything positive.

I'm going to lock you and @Magic_Mushroom in a room for trail by (intellectual?) combat.

For a second I thought I was a student again!
For a second, so did I. :-D
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Indeed, one of the very reasons I do feel the submarine threat is overstated is because Woodward kept many of his high value units so far East. The Argentines lacked sufficient ISR capacity to locate and identify, let alone prosecute those ships.
Completely true with hindsight, but given the technical intelligence available about the Argentine forces (some apologetic faxes of pages from Jane's publications... shades of Op ELLAMY two decades later) there was an overestimate of the reach of Argentine air power.

In particular, the ranges given for the Skyhawks were for their worst-case SIOP tasking ("one pilot, one engine, one bomb, one way") in a game of Global Thermonuclear War and not for a realistic return flight with conventional ordnance. From fuzzy memory I think there was a similar overstatement of the range, sensor capability and sortie rate of Argentina's S-2 Trackers, too.

(Not that I have any selfish vested interest in "more money, prestige and power for N2 please", of course...)
 
Modern Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radars
If we're talking modern, then modern "periscopes" utilise cameras, and can capture a 360° picture in a short space of time, in quite high resolution, which can them be studied at relative leisure, and showing contacts that would not be seen by eye through a traditional periscope.
 
If we're talking modern, then modern "periscopes" utilise cameras, and can capture a 360° picture in a short space of time, in quite high resolution, which can them be studied at relative leisure, and showing contacts that would not be seen by eye through a traditional periscope.
Yes, they can. The technology has been around for quite some time. However, show me a vision system that can penetrate cloud cover, etc..
 
If we're talking modern, then modern "periscopes" utilise cameras, and can capture a 360° picture in a short space of time, in quite high resolution, which can them be studied at relative leisure, and showing contacts that would not be seen by eye through a traditional periscope.
Unless it’s cloudy, hazy, raining, snowing or spray is degrading the image! Otherwise, why do modern subs still have radars and why isn’t an MPA only equipped with a camera?!!

Regards,
MM
 
Unless it’s cloudy, hazy, raining, snowing or spray is degrading the image! Otherwise, why do modern subs still have radars and why isn’t an MPA only equipped with a camera?!!

Regards,
MM
I believe that it's a requirement of international maritime law that radar is fitted, same as navigation lights.

MPA are a very different kettle of (shell)fish.
 
Unless it’s cloudy, hazy, raining, snowing or spray is degrading the image! Otherwise, why do modern subs still have radars and why isn’t an MPA only equipped with a camera?!!

Regards,
MM
Submarines have navigation radar for surface transits - ie fully surfaced. A surfaced submarine is vulnerable to things colliding with her due to her low profile, particularly in fog or at night. I simply cannot imagine that attempting to use a radar at periscope depth could be in any way useful - the sea spray and physical antenna size are going to be major issues.

I would imagine staying submerged is the best way of avoiding detection.

Incidentally, earlier this year I heard a talk from a former SSN CO, regarding 2011 Libyan operations. He played a sound recording which was astounding as to what you could hear - thus acoustics are the main sensor. Also, these days improved communications means a submarine can be integrated with a task group with much more ease.

A carrier acting as flag ship will have the right equipment for communicating with submarines, and can 'run' a boat as a task group asset.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top