Submarine-Launched Ship-To-Air Missiles

[aonestudio]

New guided missiles for submarines: the Bundeswehr has commissioned thyssenkrupp Marine Systems to develop the advanced air defence system IDAS

TKMS to complete IDAS submarine-launched missile development - Naval News

The Germany BAAINBw signed the contract for the development and qualification of IDAS for the active self-defence of submarines

www.navalnews.com

Germany May Build World's First Sub With Anti-Aircraft Missiles

When it delivers in the early 2030s, Germany's next attack sub will be the only known example in the world with active defenses against sub-hunti...

maritime-executive.com

 

[Tzoli]

Erm... isn't the Soviet subs equipped with SAMs in the mid-late cold war? To scare off ASW aircraft and helicopters?

Victor III and III Mod with SA-N-10 Grouse
Sierra I with SA-N-8 Gremlin
Sierra II, III and III Modernized with SA-N-10 Grouse
Kilo I, I Export, Mod and Improved with SA-N-8 Gremlin
Kilo II Improved with SA-N-8 Gremlin
Akula I,II,III with SA-N-10 Grouse
Echo II Modernized with SA-N-5 Grail
Oscar II,III with SA-N-10 Grouse
Severodvinsk II with SA-N-10 Grouse
Delta III with SA-N-5 Grail
Delta IV with SA-N-10 Grouse
Typhoon with SA-N-10 Grouse
Borei I,II with SA-N-10 Grouse

 

[sdmuleman]

In all this discussion keep in mind that submarine design, especially for SSN's is very very constrained and complex. So beyond the challenges of technically launching the missile there's a simple matter of where do you put it. Pretty much no matter what you do it's displacing another weapon, system or capability. Which is more likely to be useful - sub to air missile or more torpedoes?

 

[TomS]

Erm... isn't the Soviet subs equipped with SAMs in the mid-late cold war? To scare off ASW aircraft and helicopters?

Victor III and III Mod with SA-N-10 Grouse
Sierra I with SA-N-8 Gremlin
Sierra II, III and III Modernized with SA-N-10 Grouse
Kilo I, I Export, Mod and Improved with SA-N-8 Gremlin
Kilo II Improved with SA-N-8 Gremlin
Akula I,II,III with SA-N-10 Grouse
Echo II Modernized with SA-N-5 Grail
Oscar II,III with SA-N-10 Grouse
Severodvinsk II with SA-N-10 Grouse
Delta III with SA-N-5 Grail
Delta IV with SA-N-10 Grouse
Typhoon with SA-N-10 Grouse
Borei I,II with SA-N-10 Grouse

Those are all MANPADS, which were stowed inside the sub and intended to be used by a gunner standing in the sail while the sub is surfaced. It's a bit like saying that US subs are armed with machine guns because there is an M249 in the arms locker.

But this isn't the first sub with a SAM. At very least, there's HMS Aeneas that tested SLAM, and possibly at least one or more Israeli subs fitted with an operational version.

 

[zjz]

IDAS began development about 20 years ago, and now it is still in "development"??

It is supposedly similar to the cancelled MBDA Triton, which was developed at the same time as the MBDA Polyphem .....

Some Polyphem info :

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=594

Polyphem Missile – APCON AeroSpace & Defence

apcon.aero

 

[Dilandu]

Erm... isn't the Soviet subs equipped with SAMs in the mid-late cold war? To scare off ASW aircraft and helicopters?

Yes, but those were hand-launched MANPAD's, that could be fired only when surfaced. This tread is about SAM's being capable of launched from submerged submarine.

 

[Dilandu]

IDAS began development about 20 years ago, and now it is still in "development"??

It just didn't attracted much interest initially, As was mentioned in this topic - the idea of sumbarine-launched SAM is somewhat contradictory and its usefulness is doubtful, so while IDAS project wasn't cancelled it was a rather low-priority work. Especially for cash-limited German military.

 

[zjz]

I recalled that there is a argument that submarine should avoid detection and contact with aircraft and surface enemy, so by launching an anti-aircraft missile might give away its presence, thus violating the above principle .... so better not have it at all!

 

[Scott Kenny]

I recalled that there is a argument that submarine should avoid detection and contact with aircraft and surface enemy, so by launching an anti-aircraft missile might give away its presence, thus violating the above principle .... so better not have it at all!

This is true. But in places where you cannot just go deep to break contact (like the Baltic), having SAMs is better than getting your butt blown off because you couldn't escape the MPAs.

As a secondary feature, IDAS is also likely to be good for smashing OPVs. And OPVs are just too small to be worth spending a heavyweight torpedo on.

 

[zjz]

This is true. But in places where you cannot just go deep to break contact (like the Baltic), having SAMs is better than getting your butt blown off because you couldn't escape the MPAs.

As a secondary feature, IDAS is also likely to be good for smashing OPVs. And OPVs are just too small to be worth spending a heavyweight torpedo on.

Yes, the concept of operation is similar to that envisioned for Polyphem/Triton ......

 

[xena]

But this isn't the first sub with a SAM. At very least, there's HMS Aeneas that tested SLAM, and possibly at least one or more Israeli subs fitted with an operational version.

Correct. But Blowpipe in SLAM system couldn't be used submerged like Polypheme.

 

[Ronny]

I recalled that there is a argument that submarine should avoid detection and contact with aircraft and surface enemy, so by launching an anti-aircraft missile might give away its presence, thus violating the above principle .... so better not have it at all!

If submarine launched anti air missile can be launched from UUV then that could spell the dead of heli dipping sona

 

[Scott Kenny]

If submarine launched anti air missile can be launched from UUV then that could spell the dead of heli dipping sona

Not really.

It's still better to run away than to shoot back. If you shoot back, they 100% know you were there at X time and you can only go Y fast away from there.

Whereas if you run, they may not know where you are.

 

[Ronny]

Not really.

It's still better to run away than to shoot back. If you shoot back, they 100% know you were there at X time and you can only go Y fast away from there.

Whereas if you run, they may not know where you are.

Depend on what the range of the submarine launched anti air missile and also how far the UUV carrying them can operate aways from the mother submarine. If the underwater SAM can fly as far as 80 km then the search radius would make finding the submarine quite impractical even if the submarine staying still


Also Imagine a hypothetic scenario: your submarine detect enemy fleet from 100-150 km, you as a captain order the launch of anti ship missile toward enemy fleet. After that you order retreat while leaving behind some UUV armed with SAM, maybe even spread them out. Then run aways at top speed. Enemy helicopter dipping their sona trying to find you will get shotdown, so that limited their searching capability

 

[kqcke for you]

Depend on what the range of the submarine launched anti air missile and also how far the UUV carrying them can operate aways from the mother submarine. If the underwater SAM can fly as far as 80 km then the search radius would make finding the submarine quite impractical even if the submarine staying still

But for that you would have too be capable of tracking that helicopter at 80km.

 

[Ronny]

But for that you would have too be capable of tracking that helicopter at 80km.

If the helicopter dipping the sonar trying to find the submarine then multiple UUV can triangulate its bearing, then they can go to surface to pop their periscope for a better look

 

[Scott Kenny]

Depend on what the range of the submarine launched anti air missile and also how far the UUV carrying them can operate aways from the mother submarine. If the underwater SAM can fly as far as 80 km then the search radius would make finding the submarine quite impractical even if the submarine staying still

Launching the item makes noise.

The missile broaching the surface is a VERY obvious thing. It's the second most obvious thing besides a ship exploding for no apparent reason. And both are called "Flaming datums" for a reason.

Also Imagine a hypothetic scenario: your submarine detect enemy fleet from 100-150 km, you as a captain order the launch of anti ship missile toward enemy fleet. After that you order retreat while leaving behind some UUV armed with SAM, maybe even spread them out. Then run aways at top speed. Enemy helicopter dipping their sona trying to find you will get shotdown, so that limited their searching capability

3rd Convergence Zone contacts IIRC are not an accurate enough bearing to send AShMs towards, you'd work closer to get a better course track on them. Even if the missiles have the range to get there, a submarine's primary sensors don't have the sensitivity to pull that off.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ronny, submarines are assassins, not warriors.

Sneak in, stab the target, sneak out. Nobody knows how they got in.

 

[Ronny]

Launching the item makes noise.
The missile broaching the surface is a VERY obvious thing. It's the second most obvious thing besides a ship exploding for no apparent reason. And both are called "Flaming datums" for a reason.

Yeah may be, but it is no more obvious than submarine launching land attack cruise missiles, and both Russian and USA submarine already done a lot of that.
Beside, SAM launched from UUV is potentially more secretive because UUV can be pretty far from the submarine.

3rd Convergence Zone contacts IIRC are not an accurate enough bearing to send AShMs towards, you'd work closer to get a better course track on them. Even if the missiles have the range to get there, a submarine's primary sensors don't have the sensitivity to pull that off

Many Russia submarine are equipped with long range Ashms for the whole purpose of attacking US CSG from extended range. It is not a new trend either. Charlie- II class that entered service in 1973 were equipped with SS-N-9 that can strike surface ship from 109 km. Osca-I submarine entering service in 1980 were equipped with SS-N-19 that can strike surface ship from 700 km away. Future Russian submarine like Yasen-M and Borei are even equipped with Zircon that supposedly can reach 1000 km.

 

[timmymagic]

Launching the item makes noise.

The missile broaching the surface is a VERY obvious thing. It's the second most obvious thing besides a ship exploding for no apparent reason. And both are called "Flaming datums" for a reason.

This is why I favour utilising a loitering munition to make ASW helos a little cautious....the Aerovironment Blackwing is a good example. Basically a sub launched Switchblade...just ISR at present...but it shows the direction of travel...stick a warhead on it and have some AI/machine learning to recognise a helo as a target (and that wouldn't be hard...its quite visually distinctive).

Blackwing™ Submersible Loitering Reconnaissance System | Tactical Missile Systems | AeroVironment, Inc.

AeroVironment's Blackwing™ can be deployed from a submerged submarine using an underwater-to-surface delivery canister, a surface ship, or mobile ground vehicle via tube or multipack launcher.

www.avinc.com

Doesn't occupy an entire torpedo tube, instead launched from countermeasure dispensers, minimal launch signature from sub or when broaching the surface and flying...

Basically if you detect an ASW helo nearby you pop one out...and the helo has to run....gives you time to disengage and get the hell out of dodge, with the benefit that the Blackwing could be up hunting a target or just circling discouraging a search for 30+ minutes....with more loaded and ready to go if they haven't had the message already...

 

[Nik]

Another factor:
If sub-hunting helo has to 'cut & run', popping flares etc etc, how long to return to ship, refuel, change pants, rig a spare 'dipper' ?

And how many spare 'dippers' do such ships carry ?

My understanding is, like mine-sweeping paravanes, 'Always Too Few'...

Also, if 'decoy / mine' that pops a helo-hunter when accosted, the sub has gone else-where...

 

[Justo Miranda]

In my opinion, the submarine's sensors cannot compete with those of specialized aircraft and helicopters, any attempt to detect an air attack, except for optical means, can only increase the helicopter's detection capability. It is feasible to use missiles against aircraft but deploying them through a pressurized hatch system requires a few vital seconds, and if the missile fails, all enemies in the area will know where it has been fired from. I believe that the best option for a submarine is to remain hidden, silent and as cold as possible at great depth. Perhaps the only technology capable of balancing these shortcomings would be the use of directed energy weapons, but only the first time, after which the enemy did not get too close, firing from behind the horizon.

 

[Ronny]

In my opinion, the submarine's sensors cannot compete with those of specialized aircraft and helicopters

I don’t see how that could be the case. A submarine is several thounsand tons, a helicopter is a dozen tons, anything you can fit on a helicopter then you sure can put a much bigger and better version on a submarine. Hell, you can fit bigger sonar on UUV than you can put on helicopter.

any attempt to detect an air attack, except for optical means, can only increase the helicopter's detection capability. It is feasible to use missiles against aircraft but deploying them through a pressurized hatch system requires a few vital seconds, and if the missile fails, all enemies in the area will know where it has been fired from. I believe that the best option for a submarine is to remain hidden, silent and as cold as possible at great depth. Perhaps the only technology capable of balancing these shortcomings would be the use of directed energy weapons, but only the first time, after which the enemy did not get too close, firing from behind the horizon.

If you put missile inside UUV then the use of underwater SAM will give main submarine additional time to retreat, hell it probably terrified the helicopter crew from using their dipping sonar

 

[Justo Miranda]

I don’t see how that could be the case. A submarine is several thounsand tons, a helicopter is a dozen tons, anything you can fit on a helicopter then you sure can put a much bigger and better version on a submarine. Hell, you can fit bigger sonar on UUV than you can put on helicopter.


If you put missile inside UUV then the use of underwater SAM will give main submarine additional time to retreat, hell it probably terrified the helicopter crew from using their dipping sonar

Underwater SAM? You mean that the submarine would launch a SAM in immersion without knowing where the target is? How was the SAM going to find the target after getting out of the water? Spinning around until it is captured with its sensors? Theoretically feasible but the launch would detect the position of the submarine and anti-submarine helicopters do not operate alone, they are part of a weapons system.

 

[Ronny]

Underwater SAM? You mean that the submarine would launch a SAM in immersion without knowing where the target is? How was the SAM going to find the target after getting out of the water? Spinning around until it is captured with its sensors?
Theoretically feasible but the launch would detect the position of the submarine and anti-submarine helicopters do not operate alone, they are part of a weapons system.

Why would the submarine randomly launch its SAM without knowing target location?. The submarine would only launch SAM if there is a helicopter hovering and dipping its sonar. The submarine can get pretty good bearing of target in that case, no need for the SAM to spin around. And if these SAM are launched from UUV then it is even harder to find the submarine

 

[Justo Miranda]

Why would the submarine randomly launch its SAM without knowing target location?. The submarine would only launch SAM if there is a helicopter hovering and dipping its sonar. The submarine can get pretty good bearing of target in that case, no need for the SAM to spin around. And if these SAM are launched from UUV then it is even harder to find the submarine
View attachment 757973
View attachment 757974
View attachment 757975

If the helicopter is using the immersion sonar, it will detect the launch, detach itself from the sonar and begin to maneuver by launching infrared flares. Most helicopters shot down by SAMS are surprised, but if they are alerted, they are very difficult to shoot down because they maneuver better at low speed than AA missiles.

 

[Hanz2k]

Put Thermal imager on Coyote Block 2 like missile, some software and send it in spiral course - sooner or later it will find helo or at least keep helo anway.

 

[Ronny]

If the helicopter is using the immersion sonar, it will detect the launch, detach itself from the sonar and begin to maneuver by launching infrared flares. Most helicopters shot down by SAMS are surprised, but if they are alerted, they are very difficult to shoot down because they maneuver better at low speed than AA missiles.

IIR missiles like mica is pretty much near impossible to be fooled by flares because they can see the shape of target. Missiles doesn’t need to replicate the flight trajectogy of target to shot them down. Helicopters are pretty easy target because they are slow

 

[Hanz2k]

If the helicopter is using the immersion sonar, it will detect the launch, detach itself from the sonar and begin to maneuver by launching infrared flares. Most helicopters shot down by SAMS are surprised, but if they are alerted, they are very difficult to shoot down because they maneuver better at low speed than AA missiles.

It is just because Manpads tech just stop in late 90s last century. Let it catch up with latest thermal imaging, fuel and software.

 

[Justo Miranda]

It is just because Manpads tech just stop in late 90s last century. Let it catch up with latest thermal imaging, fuel and software.

Technology advances for both predators and prey and the submarine is the prey as soon as its presence is detected.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In my opinion, the submarine's sensors cannot compete with those of specialized aircraft and helicopters, any attempt to detect an air attack, except for optical means, can only increase the helicopter's detection capability. It is feasible to use missiles against aircraft but deploying them through a pressurized hatch system requires a few vital seconds, and if the missile fails, all enemies in the area will know where it has been fired from.

No, helicopter dipping sonar is very limited versus submarine sonar.

The airborne advantage is in terms of visual/IIR and radar sensors.

Subs can't use radar or visual sensors without being at periscope depth and therefore very vulnerable.

I believe that the best option for a submarine is to remain hidden, silent and as cold as possible at great depth. Perhaps the only technology capable of balancing these shortcomings would be the use of directed energy weapons, but only the first time, after which the enemy did not get too close, firing from behind the horizon.

Not exactly.

I mean, yes, the best options for subs are to hide, usually ducking under the ~200ft thermocline. (okay, yes the thermocline is usually a little deeper than that, but being at 200ft keel depth gets you above it.)

But there are places where subs operate that hiding isn't an option. Like the Baltic Sea.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This is why I favour utilising a loitering munition to make ASW helos a little cautious....the Aerovironment Blackwing is a good example. Basically a sub launched Switchblade...just ISR at present...but it shows the direction of travel...stick a warhead on it and have some AI/machine learning to recognise a helo as a target (and that wouldn't be hard...its quite visually distinctive).

Blackwing™ Submersible Loitering Reconnaissance System | Tactical Missile Systems | AeroVironment, Inc.

AeroVironment's Blackwing™ can be deployed from a submerged submarine using an underwater-to-surface delivery canister, a surface ship, or mobile ground vehicle via tube or multipack launcher.

www.avinc.com

Doesn't occupy an entire torpedo tube, instead launched from countermeasure dispensers, minimal launch signature from sub or when broaching the surface and flying...

Basically if you detect an ASW helo nearby you pop one out...and the helo has to run....gives you time to disengage and get the hell out of dodge, with the benefit that the Blackwing could be up hunting a target or just circling discouraging a search for 30+ minutes....with more loaded and ready to go if they haven't had the message already...

Still has the issue of launch signature, plus most submarine countermeasures are 3" in diameter.

But yes, that's probably the better option for most subs. Pop out a loitering SAM and go deep to break contact.

Which still leaves us the issue of the places where you can't go deep, like the Baltic.

 

[Ronny]

Technology advances for both predators and prey and the submarine is the prey as soon as its presence is detected.

It depend, if the submarine has no weapons to defend itself then sure it is the prey. But if it carry SAM then the submarine would be a lot more dangerous to the helicopter than the helicopter is dangerous to the submarine. A Mica missile will reach the helicopter at much faster rate than a small MK54 torpedo can reach the submarine

 

[publiusr]

Phoenix fit in an SLCM?

 

[Ronny]

Phoenix fit in an SLCM?

It probably can but unneccessary

 

[Scott Kenny]

Phoenix fit in an SLCM?

Phoenix missiles are all scrap.

SL-AMRAAM-ERs would be the next best thing. Or active ESSMs.

 

[Ronny]

The airborne advantage is in terms of visual/IIR and radar sensors.

Subs can't use radar or visual sensors without being at periscope depth and therefore very vulnerable.

I think the key advantage of airborne assets against submarine is the fact that they are effectively invisible to submarine primary sensor which are passive and active sonar. And traditionally submarine carry no anti air weapons that can be used while submerged so effectively aircraft are also invulnerable to submarine.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think the key advantage of airborne assets against submarine is the fact that they are effectively invisible to submarine primary sensor which are passive and active sonar.

Oh, you can definitely hear the helo's rotors while submerged.

There's even a really entertaining picture at the Keyport WA museum of a torpedo that decided the hovering helicopter was the sonar target it was supposed to be chasing, and getting itself at least 3 lengths out of the water in the attempt!

And traditionally submarine carry no anti air weapons that can be used while submerged so effectively aircraft are also invulnerable to submarine.

That's the real killer.

 

[Ronny]

Oh, you can definitely hear the helo's rotors while submerged.

Oh sure, I’m talking more about situation when aircraft fly at medium altitude and dropping sonobouys

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oh sure, I’m talking more about situation when aircraft fly at medium altitude and dropping sonobouys

Sometimes you can hear those splash, if it is a calm day.

If the aircraft is at relatively low altitude, you'll hear it. (For example, a P-3 has a 68hz tonal)