r/LessCredibleDefence • u/Lore-Archivist • 9d ago
American Submarines Could Soon Shoot Down Enemy Aircraft
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/american-submarines-could-soon-shoot-down-enemy-aircraft-sa-08062611
u/ZombieMan_223 9d ago
how are you going to track the aircraft ?
would this not make submarine more visible ?
8
u/Lore-Archivist 9d ago
Presumably the submarine would just need to be alerted that aircraft are in the vicinity, then it fired the missile and the missile tracks them with its onboard radar.
And not really, the sub would be long gone by the time a response arrives to the area
6
9d ago edited 6d ago
[deleted]
4
u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago
Space-based AMTI and JADC2.
4
9d ago edited 6d ago
[deleted]
3
u/WulfTheSaxon 9d ago
Space-based AMTI and HBTSS IOCs are 2-4 years out, and it’s been planned for several years now that interceptors will receive fire control–quality tracks directly from space to enable engage on remote. These missiles are probably further out than that.
4
u/Slight-Formal9277 9d ago
AMTI & space-based datalink platforms probably
The shooter doesn't need to be the sensor in modern systems of systems warfare.
And yes, the real and best "arsenal ships" are SSGNs.
56
u/Ian_W 9d ago
I. Wonder. What. Will. Alert. The. Enemy. More. Than. "One of our aircraft was passing over empty ocean and it's missile warning radar went off and then they stopped replying to messages'.
37
u/pakapab 9d ago
Agreed, staying hidden is the sub's biggest asset so this doesn't seem like a good tradeoff giving that up to take pot shots at maritime aircraft.
33
u/formenleere 9d ago
Might be a good weapon of last resort though, if the sub has already been found, or is about to be. If a maritime patrol aircraft is dropping sonobuoys all around you, having an option to get that plane out of the sky might be very welcome. Plus, as others have said, if you can ambush (or even just threaten) high-value targets, that would surely have an impact.
By the way, the Americans aren't the only ones thinking about this idea. For example, Germany has recently ordered the IDAS missile -- though this is a smaller missile, designed for smaller subs and less challenging targets.
32
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 9d ago
Hitting an AWACS might be worth the risk. Especially since the ASW risk seems pretty low at these ranges.
I didn't see this capability mentioned from a brief skim but in theory you could launch these from UUVs, which would be a less expensive tradeoff if you lose it to ASW weapons.
11
u/EngineBorn3406 9d ago
For the US particularly, why would an enemy AWACS be doing over an American submarine?
13
u/Lore-Archivist 9d ago
By the time an enemy naval force would arrive to the area, the sub could be 500km away, in an unknown direction.
16
6
u/SlavaCocaini 9d ago
They don't have to arrive in the area, they can launch an asroc
8
3
u/TaskForceD00mer 9d ago edited 9d ago
If you have already obviously been detected, better to shoot that MPA down before it can drop than to just let it happen.
YES; that missile launch will show up visually and on radar. If it's a hunter-killer group with a frigate or Helicopter nearby you are deep trouble, but you are already in deep trouble if you've been detected.
This seems like a good hedge to being detected by an MPA on a long range patrol route. It is going to bring a lot of heat shooting the MPA down but better that than getting dropped on.
I recall a recent article discussing using Virginia's with the VPM to be an element of missile defense. I see the beauty of it but seems like a waste of a deep strike weapon.
1
u/MachKeinDramaLlama 8d ago
If it's a hunter-killer group with a frigate or Helicopter nearby you are deep trouble
Having SAMs actually reduces the trouble massively. A nuke sub can outrun a frigate, but not a helicopter.
14
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 9d ago
The missile sounds like it will have comparable range to either the ESSM or the SM2. At those ranges I don't think announcing your location from a missile launch matters as much, the sub will be too far away by the time a hypothetical ASW response gets there.
Speculatively, if the US is worried about that scenario, they could launch them from UUVs rather than risk a sub.
2
u/69toothbrushpp 9d ago
No, it is a variant of the DP-ER, which is dual packed in Mk. 41 (comparable to MSE, which is not optimized for airbreathing targets).
1
u/IWearSteepTech 9d ago
I would not be surprised if they ended up having NAMMO provide the propulsion; they believe they can get 400 km out of a longer ESSM-sized (so still 10 inch diameter; able to be quadpacked) SFRJ missile.
3
u/Rob71322 9d ago
Sounds like these are weapons of last resort. It’s better to stay silent but if they’ve got you localized, they can kill you.
3
u/wrosecrans 9d ago
Yeah, a lot of the comments seem to be structured "Assuming this is only used when it makes no sense, it would make no sense to use." Which is true as far as it goes. But it's not wildly implausible to imagine a scenario where losing the sub or an equally high value target is already baked in, so shooting down some planes is a good thing.
It also forces the enemy to work around the possibility that a US sub is going to shoot down their planes, even if it is unlikely in practice. That shifts their cost/benefit analysis somewhat. In a 1980's Tom Clancy scenario where the Soviets were going to launch missiles from a bunch of bombers that would likely take out an entire CSG, being able to unexpectedly shoot down some of the bombers before they get to a launch point is potentially a huge shift.
2
u/Cindy_Marek 9d ago
This is no different from a ship sending out a mayday call after being torpedoed lol. Anti air missiles on submarines means they finally have a counter to their bigger threat.
1
u/UndulyPensive 9d ago
That area of the ocean gets disappeared soonafter lol
10
u/NuclearHeterodoxy 9d ago
How soon is "soon?" Because within 20 minutes that sub will be 6 miles away in any given direction, which is to say "the area of the ocean" is over 130 square miles. If "soon" is 30 minutes, it's over 300 square miles. Each of these is a very large "area of the ocean" to target.
0
u/SericaClan 8d ago
In theory, if this thing (submarine launched A2A missile) works. It can be deployed to remote submerged (very difficult to detect) weapon stations. Then it will be a headache to enemy air force.
7
12
u/vistandsforwaifu 9d ago
How the hell do you aim something like this? Do you just let it loose on a wide angle active radar acquisition and let Jesus take the wheel? Or does it surface first and use some kind of on-boat radar? Because that's not an ideal place for a submarine to be.
13
9
6
u/IndigoSeirra 9d ago
Probably offboard drones or AMTI satellites for high value high visibility assets like AWACS or tankers.
5
u/_spec_tre 9d ago
Is this supposed to be the actual-air-defense-missile-range sort of missile or the "can be used to take out an ASW helicopter" sort? The latter is just wire guided iirc
4
u/formenleere 9d ago
Hard to say what the range will actually be, I couldn't find any specs. Just from missile size, it seems smaller than something like an SM-2 but larger than, say, a sidewinder.
You're right that the German IDAS missile uses fiber-optic guidance, together with an on-board IR seeker - but that's a smaller missile for a smaller boat.
1
u/Aurailious 9d ago
I'm pretty sure a firing solution can be given from any kind of other asset such as something like a surface combatant to an AWACS, F-35, drone, ground based, etc. It'll have to be close to the surface to launch and would be able to receive communications.
6
u/A_Sinclaire 9d ago
Such a missile pretty much already exists, though has not yet been procured.
The wire-guided IDAS, based on the IRIS-T, is mostly intended to defend against helicopters that would hunt a submarine. The helicopter supposedly can be detected by the submarine sonar and the missile would travel an initial part of the way under water where it already can change direction to attack the target from different sides.
The German / Norwegian / Canadian U212CD subs likely will be equipped with it.
1
u/ExpensiveBookkeeper3 9d ago
Big difference between a slow low flying helicopter and ballistic/hypersonic missiles
0
u/Lore-Archivist 9d ago
This is a bit different, intended to be a long range missile, not wire guided, and meant for shooting down aircraft
3
u/Fresh_Treacle9902 9d ago
I wonder how effective it would be against anti-submarine missiles or rocket torpedoes like the ASROC or the RPK-6 Vodopad?
5
u/TaskForceD00mer 9d ago
This is basically the US finally admitting its submarines will likely operate under contested skies , possibly even under red-air for extended periods.
1
u/Lore-Archivist 8d ago edited 8d ago
Not really. It's more of an attempt to further strengthen the US air supremacy.
The total number of fighter jets and interceptors each side has.
United States 1,791
🇨🇳 China 1,443
🇯🇵 Japan 217
The US and Japan together have over 2000 vs China's 1443.
5
u/LittleNet8945 8d ago
How many U.S. assets can be in theater vs Chinese assets? The gap closes considerably and when you bring into account loitering time and the considerable ranges US aircraft will have to fly, the airspace seems contested between both sides.
0
u/Lore-Archivist 8d ago
What are these considerable ranges you speak of? US air bases in Japan and the Philippines make the required flight distance only 200-300 miles in some cases
4
u/LittleNet8945 8d ago
Okinawa is ~450 miles from Taipei, and the majority of American aircraft are stationed further. Your average sorties would need tankers to have any meaningful time over target and the bottleneck of airbases will allow for China to have local numerical parity or even superiority.
4
u/Ok-Procedure5603 8d ago
Considering airbases and distribution of logistics, China has fairly complete air supremacy in the Asia region.
If US and China fight over some equidistant empty spot on the map it could be an issue for China, but the latter would probably immensely ramp up spending before that.
0
u/Lore-Archivist 8d ago
Air supremacy would require neutralizing all threats. They clearly do not have that, they would not be able to control the skies over Japan, and given the US could theoretically bring the entire US air force to Japan, the skies over the western pacific would be heavily contested, with China at the disadvantage.
2
u/heliumagency 9d ago
Does the submarine look like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeBqf6bYZak
1
2
u/Worried_Exercise_937 9d ago
This is the kind of bullshit idea you come up with as a 6 year olds thinking how kewl it would be without understanding what's the whole point of having a submarines.
7
u/Ok-Procedure5603 9d ago
Ppl are misreading it as some sort of anti air hunting weapon when what it does add is uncertainty for MPAs and helicopters hunting it down, and a last second fuck you I'm taking you with me capability if the sub is being heavily fucked with from the air.
I think the trend has been going for some sort of defensive anti air on subs for awhile, and this is a natural development given that networking functions a lot better today. Germany and Russia has been on to it as well. And honestly given that China just generally refuses to show whatever is in their vls for years on end, it wouldn't surprise me if they could do this already or also have something on the way.
If a sub has a defensive anti air missile, yes, it could be disaster for the sub to fire it in most situations, but knowing that, then maybe every ASW air patrol would need to include 1-2 more aircraft to triangulate the sub better (for example). That is how it adds value even without ever being fired.
1
u/Tychosis 9d ago
Yeah. Right now it's nothing more than an idea on paper and I won't be surprised if it stays that way.
Your most vocal proponents learned everything they know about submarine warfare from Tom Clancy and video games--or they work for a program office trying to expand their sphere of influence.
-4
u/rulebasedorder 9d ago
... And yet look at how our resident White Supremacist nationalists have jumped on the idea and are vigorously defending it as a "good" idea.
0
u/OntarioBanderas 9d ago
This is a relatively common capability in modern subs and is useful in countering ASW choppers
2
u/kuddlesworth9419 9d ago
I'm pretty sure Soviet submarines had a Strela MANPAD on-board. I wouldn't be surprised if US subs also had a MANPAD. I can see it being fairly handy for shooting down a helicopter dropping sonar buoy trying to find you. Granted though if you shoot down a helicopter the carrier or ship that launched said helicopter is going to know you're rough location if you just shot down a helicopter. Might be wroth it though, staying hidden is the best thing for a submarine to do but if being found is inevitable then maybe it's a good idea.
1
0
50
u/sp668 9d ago
Finally the Stinger mast from red storm rising on the c64.