I have a feeling that those SH-60 seahawk may be able to locate these sub but these sub could also easily destroy seahawk or even P-3 with moderately sophisticated SAM.

During the timeframe, mast mounted SAM's were very uncommon; as was the SH-60. During the 70s and early 80s the USN relied on the SH-3.

On the other hand, MK-46 (exist in largest quentity) is only good for attacking slow SSGN and SSBN and diesel sub. It its no escape range is greatly diminish when used against sub that can travel between 30 to 43 kt. Akula could manage 35 to 36 kt and even the huge OScar 2 could manage a respectable 30 to 31 kt. A stern chase from a MK-46 greatly reduce its effective range. PAPA/ALFA could even out run a mk-46.

Again, during the timeframe you are discussing, the Oscar and Akula were unavailable, or just coming online. The fastest that the Soviets had at sea was the Alfa with the titanium hull.

P-3 could easily carry torpedo weighing 2000 pound or more. Why no such torpedo is produce for the 300 plus P-3 in 1970s/1980s ?/

Why carry an assault rifle and only issue each soldier a single 30 round magazine? The same principle applies. The Orion was tasked with long-range patrols with an extended loiter time in the patrol area. Sending a patrol a/c into a patrol zone with two torpedoes would limit its time on station during wartime vs. a similar a/c armed with four torpedoes. You never can account for those "lucky" hits, and the Mk-46 was not a bad weapon; not great, but not bad either.

SH-60 could actually carry torpedo as heavy as 1000 pound. Why MK-50 is so small ??

For the same reason as above. One sortie with one torpedo with one miss requires another sortie. We aren't talking laser-guided weapons here that always hit their target. The heavier the ordnance weighs, the fewer you can carry. If one misses, then the mission is a scrub requiring the launch of another bird, which generates more wear and tear on the airframes, airedales, and flight crews, plus in the time you are waiting to get another a/c on the scene, Ivan is tossing weapons back at you.


Now I have no doubt that the sharp charge warhead could penetrate even the huge double hull of OScar 2 or Typhoon. But the impact will be weak and the flooding will probably be isolated to a few compartment. The HOLES of the damage will not be too big. The sub could still move on.

The holes don't have to be large. Punch a few holes in the pressure hull and you've greatly reduced the operating depth of a sub, making it much easier to localize and kill.

What can a 100 pound PBNX or sharp charge do ? At most equal to the damage power of 150-200 pound of TNT. If Typhoon is in low pressure shallow water, it could probably survive a direct hit from MK-50 if it is not hit at places which contain fuel or ammo.


A Typhoon class could more than likely survive multiple hits in shallow water  by  an airdropped torpedo. Those hits, however, would severely limit it from completing its tasking; raise its noise signature, and certainly limit its ability to hide in deeper water.  That would be a mission kill.

When used againt a 30kt victor, MK-46 must be launch within 4000m away from it.

While a SH-60 must really get very close to a ALFA to kill it, it is so easy to launch a SAM againt a target that is less than 1 km away and flying at such low altitude !!!!!!

Again, we go back to carrying a single heavier weapon. You generally don't just drop a single weapon; rather, you bracket the target with a couple limiting his options of escape.


WHy not equipped destroyer with missile that can carry the huge MK48 or a shorten verion of MK 48 ?? Even those small Russian frigate or coast patrol boat can sometime be equipped with the giant SILEX ASW missile weighing 8000 plus pound.

Those small frigates were mission specific too...most USN ships are multi-task platforms.

Why US navy invest so much on sonar and huge destoyer and huge P-3 fleet but so little in equipping them with torpedo with enough speed/range and large enough warhead ??

Because a bullet doesn't do you any good if you can't find the target. ;-)

Is there some secret weapon in hidden somewhere. Is there any more respectable weapon than the puny ASROC or mk46 from small torpedo tube?

Or maybe the small torpedo tube is meant to be launcher for ANTI torpedo torepdo or high speed decoy.

IS there some hidden 533mm torpedo tube in spruance ?

That is just mental masturbation on your part. The ships and aircraft of the era were adequately equipped to carry out their assigned task.

Largest anti ship missile in operation is harpoon (no more than 1600 pound). Use to have something bigger ---1.5 ton anti ship tomahawk.

Used to? Or still do?

There is nothing to stop USN from producing high speed and big warhead missile or torpedo. I wonder what stop it.

Maybe a lack of credible threats?

SUBROC is the only respectable ASW weapon. Its long range and the nuc warhead ensure that accuracy is not needed. BTW its heavy too.

And SUBROC was a respectable weapon, IF you planned on going nuclear, which was not really an option. The MK-48 is a more realistic option.

Cheers!

Is there some secret weapon in hidden somewhere. Is there any more respectable weapon than the puny ASROC or mk46 from small torpedo tube?

Or maybe the small torpedo tube is meant to be launcher for ANTI torpedo torepdo or high speed decoy.

IS there some hidden 533mm torpedo tube in spruance ?

HAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA

US ship is really underarm

Largest anti ship missile in operation is harpoon (no more than 1600 pound). Use to have something bigger ---1.5 ton anti ship tomahawk.

Even tomahawk is small.

you're not making sense.  you're arguing about how the USN was going to ASW engage the Sovs in the 70's-80's and then trying to draw a relationship to ASW now?

 

in the 70-80's the USN played hack the shad on Soviet subs - ie they were tasked to follow the boomers and kill them if they made any noises indicating a launch.  They had the numbers to do it - and they regularly have overmatch.  The ASW NATO teams of the 70'80's were without peer. The USN, RN, Canadians, Dutch and Germans had ASW teams that were without parallel across all prosecution mediums.  Hell, even in the 60's during the cuban crisis the USN tracked all 5 russian nuke weapons carrying subs from their bases in the north sea to cuba.  They were using ASW strike forces comprising CV's and escorts (not CV centred task forces, these were actually ASW strike forces).  The Soviets didn't have a high degree of confidence of getting past the ASW teams at all.  In Red Storm Rising the Russian sub drivers interviewed post cold war said that they had no idea that the USN had their measure, but were completely frustrated by the ability of the USN and RN to tag them apparently at will.

 

Apart from the issue that you dismiss the Mk46, you seem to think that only one torp would be used - thats a nonsense.  You drop as many packages as possible as it contributes to spooking the driver.  You saturate the area for a reason.

Huh?  The Mk 54 has more processing power than the onboard computer systems of some navies frontline skimmers.  The onboard database has probably got a better collection of target signatures than any other torpedo in its class.

 

The Mk48 ADCAP CBASS can traverse and hunt in the littorals better than any other large torpedo.  It can actually chase diesels into their own hides (which is why it was designed anyway).  One CBASS on its own could mortally effect a Typhoon (its legacy build motive as well)

 

The other issue is that neither the Mk54 or Mk48 CBASS have any meaningful data in the public domain.

 

There is a reason why SUBROC and IKARA fell out of practical favour.

 

 

There is more to detect from an underwater vehicle then noise.

The domain that brings more hopes today is definitively on beamforming nowadays (and US are not leading the research here, dispite higher spendings), concerning the accoustic field.

I have seen some things very promising in Templecombe last winter.

 

Now, from water caracteristics and variations behind a submarines, a lot of phenomenoms are appearing, from salinity, disturbances (I didn't pronounce the word "phosphorent residue", Gary) etc etc...

 

The Russians tried a low orbital electromagnitic detection system also, with some success, but in too much particuliar sea configuration unfortunatly.

 

The problem, at the end of the day, is that the medium is not homogen, leading to invevitable misinterpretations.

That is why accostic still have nice days to come.