View Comments (14)

• Off topic

  Should Scorpene Need an Underwater Air Defences System Such as CAMM or AM90 MICA Marhalim ?.

  Reply
  No need

• Will the fine be paid or another extension granted? Would be interesting to know whether any penalties were collected in the past from GLC if and when there were any delays in completion of any projects or procurement deliveries.

  Reply
  It is likely that it will be waived upon appeal.

• But i read One Of Perajurit Magazine Says It Should Need For Air Defence Submarine to Protect from Topedos Marhalim.

  Reply
  Asked Perajurit then...

• @Syed
  I think you misread. Almost no submarine in the world mounts anti-air missiles. US, UK, Soviet and Israeli subs have tested using modified MANPADs like Stinger and Igla before, but US and UK stopped testing and I don't think Russian or Israeli subs carry them either. Neither CAMM nor MICA have sub-launched versions.

  A sub's best defence is hiding. The advantage is with the ASW helicopter, before the time it can shoot at the heli with a missile, the heli would probably be ready to torpedo the sub.

• @ chua

  There is the IDAS...

  https://scontent-kut2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/19424380_1503107766412191_5540012339713432864_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=1351f69f435be903776a8406518f57db&oe=59FE7BE9

  http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-defence/user_upload/flyer/IDAS_07_2008.pdf

• Chua,

  First, detection is not a one way street. Submarines do have the capability to detect a helicopter's rotor wash as it impacts the sea.

  Second, not all submarine launched SAMs are mast mounted VSHORADS. MICA IR and IRIS-T do have have sub launched variants under development.

  These concepts have substantial range, submerged launch and lock on after launch capability. All of which make for a very significant threat to helicopter-type targets. There will be situations when helicopters are the only airborne ASW asset or even the only ASW asset that can be deployed.

  It's easy to see how these factors can force a major rethink of helicopter ASW tactics and make sub launched SAMs worth the cost.

• @AM
  Hmm, I see it, but I doubt it...

• Doubt it if you want. The technology for submarine sonar to detect helicopters and launch missiles while submerged has existed for a long time.

  Submarines can cost billions of dollars and host hundreds of crew. Even small submarines can have a strategic role. It is not surprising if they are given a way of shooting back.

  Israel will probably be an early adopter of the system. IDAS is a German system, the Israeli subs carry Israel's strategic deterrent, they don't have as much space as to hide as their US and other counterparts, and Egypt is getting fresh assets capable of ASW.

  Those Egyptian assets won't last a day in a war, but the Israeli subs are treated as important enough to warrant the system.

• Chua - ''but US and UK stopped testing and I don’t think Russian or Israeli subs carry them either. ''

  A possible reason could have been the USN and RN moving to all all SSN fleet; which tend to operate in deeper waters than SSKs; plus the fact that sub mounted MANPADs then were not reliable and had less effective seekers/guidance systems. When a SSK is hunted, its achillles heel - when without AIP - is its battery. Hunters might not need to pyschically destroy a sub; merely to force it to use up its battery and force a sub to surface. In such a situation, when a sub is short of battery and is being hunted; a MANPADs would be useful in driving off a pesky helo or MPA.

  Israeli subs had Blowpipes back in the 1980's; various Soviet subs also had MANPADs. The issue then was how troublesome and reliable such a system was. Now it's different, technology for mounting a MANPADs in a sub and detecting a target has matured . There is no doubt such a system has uses but it would only be used if there was little choice as it visually gives away the position of a sub. Just because some navies might not go for such a system doesn't mean it has no utility. For that matter, some navies still don't see the need for their boats to have a anti-ship missile and most countries don't see the need for a gun launched missile from MBTs.

  Chua - ''The advantage is with the ASW helicopter,''

  Actually, no - the advantage in most cases will be with the sub.' especially in a littoral environment. Also, ASW in most cases is time consuming and there is the question of how much range and endurance a helo [already loaded with torps and sonobuoys] has. An ideal situation would be for helos to operate in pairs, which is why some navies have space for 2 helos on board their frigates.

  Chua - ''Neither CAMM nor MICA have sub-launched versions.''

  True but why would there be a need when smaller [and cheaper] missiles will do?

  Chua - ''before the time it can shoot at the heli with a missile, the heli would probably be ready to torpedo the sub.''

  Not necessarily so.

  - a helo could be operating many NM away from its parent ship. Even if the sub was within - on paper - range to fire a weapon, it might not have a good enough solution for the sub CO to do so.
  - a sub which is hunted or is trying to get into position might not want to give away its position by firing a torp.

  AM - ''DAS is a German system,''

  Back in the 1990's there was a fibre optic German system called Polyphem; intended to be used from subs [to hit helos and land targets], from ships and from helos. It was offered to us as a Sea Skua alternative but the programme was ditched.

• @Azlan
  "There is no doubt such a system has uses but it would only be used if there was little choice as it visually gives away the position of a sub. Just because some navies might not go for such a system doesn’t mean it has no utility."

  Perhaps.

  "Actually, no – the advantage in most cases will be with the sub."

  Yes, IF the sub chooses to hide, which I did note is the sub's best defence. I was talking in context of a sub and heli trying to fire at each other with a MANPAD-SAM and torpedo, I think the heli has better detection chances and torpedo Pk > MANPAD Pk, plus ASW helis do carry lots of passive missile defences. Given the latter, a MANPAD-SAM like Igla might do nothing more than loudly announce the position of the submarine.

  "True but why would there be a need when smaller [and cheaper] missiles will do?"

  I dunno, Syed is the one who mentioned CAMM and MICA...

  "– a helo could be operating many NM away from its parent ship. Even if the sub was within – on paper – range to fire a weapon, it might not have a good enough solution for the sub CO to do so.
  – a sub which is hunted or is trying to get into position might not want to give away its position by firing a torp."

  Wasn't talking about shooting the parent ship. I said, before the time a sub can shoot at the heli with a MANPAD-SAM, the heli would probably be ready to torpedo the sub.

  Anyway all that was in context of then-existing MANPAD-SAMs, the IDAS looks more promising. But I think we have other budget priorities...