Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A3SM: A True Game Changer for Submarine Self Defence against Threats from the Sky
Navy Recognition ^ | 24 June 2013

Posted on 06/26/2013 2:18:29 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

A3SM: A True Game Changer for Submarine Self Defence against Threats from the Sky

As part of the Paris Air Show Navy Recognition was invited by DCNS to visit their factory located near Angoulême in southwestern France. The 260 year old site used to manufacture guns for the "French Royal Navy". It now specializes in the production of submarine equipment such as torpedo tubes and torpedo handling systems. It is also the place where the FREMM frigates' vertical launch systems are produced. The focus of the visit however was the A3SM, a new anti-air defence weapon system for submarine currently under development by DCNS and MBDA.

A3SM stands for Arme Anti-Aérienne pour Sous Marins (literally Anti-Air Weapon for Submarines). The project was first unveiled during Euronaval 2012 and it actually consists in two versions: a Mast version and an Underwater Vehicle version.

A3SM: What needs does it fulfill?

Today, submarines have no way to defend themselves against air threats. Submarine forces worldwide have an increasing need to operate close to shores in shallow waters. (As an example during the campaign in Libya, submarines were conducting intelligence missions close to shores). In such situation submarines are an easy target for helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). When detected in shallow waters, there is no possibility for the submarine to escape, contrary to deep sea where they can employ various tactics and disappear. Up until now, submarines were harmless against air threats, while significantly cheaper and less complex naval platform like small Fast Attack Craft (FAC) may be fitted with a SAM solution.

It is this gap that DCNS and MBDA are looking to fill. The doctrine of use is not for the

(Excerpt) Read more at navyrecognition.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; asw; dcns; submarine

A3SM Underwater Vehicle Version with Mica IR Image: MBDA/DCNS

1 posted on 06/26/2013 2:18:29 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Very interesting.


2 posted on 06/26/2013 2:24:41 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Today’s submariners are gonna love this .


3 posted on 06/26/2013 2:50:41 PM PDT by ping jockey (IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME YOU GREASY,HAIRY ARMPIT,HIPPIE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

ah I see.. Americas military machine is so dumbed down they need inspiration from the French..

I can think of several options more practical than this..
like (A)dual purpose sub to air -or- sub to ship missiles..

even roving drone torpedos(mini-subs) that can lauch(A) or other options..


4 posted on 06/26/2013 3:22:02 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Didn’t I read somewhere (not in a novel I hope) that the Russians had a sail mounted SAM some time back for taking out hovering ASW helos?


5 posted on 06/26/2013 3:24:54 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ping jockey

Especially the pregnant ones.


6 posted on 06/26/2013 4:17:58 PM PDT by ansel12 (Libertarians, Gays = in all marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
James Bond has already demoed this in The Spy Who Loved Me

Q was on top of this back in '77

7 posted on 06/26/2013 4:18:04 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The USA tested this type of weapon in 1996.

TWA 800 was the tragic result of a bad decision by a program manager.

Because the project was “black”, there was no one to overrule the program manager.

I was once an engineer at the aerospace company that developed the missile that took out TWA 800.

I know:

1. What missile was being tested.
2. The new sensor that was mounted on the missile that made it seek out the airliner and not the target drone.
3. Why the test was performed in Long Island Sound.

What I do not know is who the idiot was who decided to test a missile in crowded civilian airspace.

The lessons that everyone needs to learn from this:

1. Black programs have a strict need-to-know requirement. The SecDef and Prez Billie would not have been in the loop. They would only find out after the airliner was shot down that the missile had come from a U.S. Navy submarine. The Black World folks do NOT trust pols or senior civvies...with good reason. I KNOW these black world guys and they keep their mouths SHUT.

When the briefing charts about the cool new technology or weapon disappear and everybody clams up....you know the project went black. And you know that you will be fired for even asking about it.

2. The coverup and the ridiculous explosion-in-the-center-fuel-tank was designed to fool the American people just before an election. The Russkies and Chicoms are not stupid. They knew IMMEDIATELY that the U.S. Navy had a sub-to-air missile that could be fired without surfacing.

Did everyone get that? The coverup and scam were NOT directed at our enemies. The voters were the stupid sheep to be led.

And the MSM supported the BS story all the way because they could not let Clinton take the blame. They always assume that the general public is stupid, and they are often proven right.

Once again, NEVER trust the MSM or the fedgov. That applies when the pubbies are in power and double when the dims are in power.

If a story like the center fuel tank seems ridiculous, it is a SCAM.

I will not reveal any details that could harm the national security of our country, so don’t ask.


8 posted on 06/26/2013 4:50:19 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darth

Are you Michael Rivero?


9 posted on 06/26/2013 4:55:40 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69; sukhoi-30mki
Actually British. trial in 1972, but never found a market

SLAM (using the Shorts Blowpipe MANPAD)

Actually the French system is actually two.

a( The mast version (periscope depth) uses the very short range MISTRAL MANPAD/Sadral

b) The tube launch version (all depths) uses the larger short range MICA-VL

The small mast version appears no real advance on what the Brits did 40 years ago - but takes up no weapons space

The larger tube version is an advance, but (particularly as it reguires a launch canister) means it would have to swap one-for-one for torpedoes or cruise missiles

10 posted on 06/26/2013 5:03:02 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("New Yorks Finest" are now "The Untouchables")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: darth

After 9/11 all the conspiracy nutters instantly dropped the theory that it was a Navy missile and changed it to a terrorist missile, so you’re not going to find anyone with any interest in your story.

1) TWA 800 didn’t explode over Long Island Sound, it was over the Atlantic.

2) Though it’s been examined, we don’t have a submarine launched anti-aircraft missile, and I suspect I’m in a better position to know than whatever job you fantasize you had or have.

3) There are a variety of conspiracy nutter websites already long out there with submarine missile claims for TWA 800, which is where I suspect you got your information.


11 posted on 06/26/2013 5:05:56 PM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

If the submarine is submerged then how does it know the airplane or helicopter is up there and where it is?


12 posted on 06/26/2013 5:08:24 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darth
I will not reveal any details that could harm the national security of our country, so don’t ask.

You mean like talking about super-secret black programs that went amuck and shot down a civilian airliner? Those kind of national security secrets?

13 posted on 06/26/2013 5:09:59 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Nope.

I am a retired aerospace engineer. During my career I worked for five aerospace companies and held a TS clearance.

I worked on programs including the Space Shuttle, Space Station, and the Strategic Defense Initiative.

When Ronaldus Magnus gave his “Star Wars” speech, I was selected as the Business Development Manager because I was an Academy grad. The Division GM was Class of ‘39, so we got along well.

About one year later I was instrumental in running the first SDI laser experiment that utilized the Space Shuttle. Remember when we shot a laser at the Shuttle from AMOS (Air Force Maui Optical Station)? That was my idea.

The company got a nice contract and I got a 26% raise that year.

Later, I had a chance to work on advanced technology programs from across the corporation, many of which went “black”. Not being a Black World guy, I still don’t know if our Cloaking Device actually worked outside of the Lab!

In 1990, just before the first Gulf War, I came up with a dirty rotten trick we could use to shut down Saddam’s entire front line. The JCS liked it and procured the hardware, but decided it was too dirty too deploy....bad publicity and all that. Besides, Saddam was not that tough to defeat, and we might need that arrow in our bag of tricks for bigger foes in the future.

One thing I should clear up is that I saw the new sub-to-air missile plan while working on interceptors for strategic defense programs. When TWA 800 got shot down, I knew immediately which missile had been involved.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Hell, I was THERE. I know where the bodies are buried and what got covered up.

Speaking of which, I really need to take my geiger counter to Downey, California. One of the old timers told me that they buried a small nuke reactor under the runway at the old Consolidated Vultee plant in 1949 when the feds ended a contract. There’s a car lot there now.


14 posted on 06/26/2013 5:18:25 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: darth
guided how, since it wasn't heat seeking... surly that isn't classified
15 posted on 06/26/2013 5:25:17 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Are you saying that all of the witnesses did not see missile(s)? I think their testimony is well established.

As to whether we had or have such a sub-to-air missile, are you saying you have access to every black program that has been tested? Sorry, but you and I only would have access if we had a need-to-know.

In my case, I often knew things I was not supposed to know which came in handy when we were bidding against competitors.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, but see the short resume that I posted.


16 posted on 06/26/2013 5:26:38 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Forgot to mention, some of the public info I got from AWST, which I read religiously every week. In addition to the articles, there were lots of letters to the Editor about TWA 800 calling BS on the official story line.

One of the most irritating aspects of FR is the insults from people who know little about the technologies involved.

So how do you get kerosene vapor to explode? And why were those guys in the hangar pounding on the aircraft wreckage to make it look like the explosion was inside the aircraft instead of outside?


17 posted on 06/26/2013 5:31:34 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

OK, so a multitude of witnesses including a couple of pilots testify they saw missiles rising from the ocean.

Airliner goes down.

BS story about exploding fuel tanks is met with derision by lots of aerospace engineers.

Do you really think the Russkies and Chicoms did not get this immediately?

My primary point was that the coverup fooled a lot of American voters but not our enemies.


18 posted on 06/26/2013 5:36:49 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: darth

I asked how the submarine would know the airplane or helicopter was around and where it was. Since you’re so up on the details of shooting down the airliner then surely you can answer those simple questions.


19 posted on 06/26/2013 5:39:34 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Cannot say.

I will only say that it was a new and very significant technology.

To my knowledge, it has never gone into mass production. Check back issues of AWST (Aviation Secrets Weekly, we used to call it).


20 posted on 06/26/2013 5:41:40 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: darth
2. The new sensor that was mounted on the missile that made it seek out the airliner and not the target drone.

3. Why the test was performed in Long Island Sound.

Odd, as I have never heard mention of any "target drone" being in the TW800 neighborhood. Was it invisible to the thousands of eyewitnesses?

Doubly odd, since the event in question occurred over the Atlantic, south of Long Island, not over Long Island Sound -- north of Long Island. And Long Island Sound, incidentally, was the location Michael Rivero kept insisting upon.

What I do not know is who the idiot was who decided to test a missile in crowded civilian airspace.

Nor can I imagine any "Black World folks" stupid enough to conduct such a test in "crowded civilian airspace".

Why "off Long Island" when "off Cape Hatteras" or "off Vieques Island" or "off Kodiak Island" would work just as well?

Color me skeptical...

21 posted on 06/26/2013 5:44:38 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: darth
so it wasn't heat seeking, RADAR guided nor homing on electronic emissions, that must be new...
22 posted on 06/26/2013 5:45:56 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

I was not a Navy guy and so I cannot speculate on how to detect aircraft from underwater.

OK, I will speculate: It would be safe to assume that the sub may be able to detect the acoustic signature of an aircraft since they can identify specific enemy boats by their unique signature.

BTW, one of my other contributions was a way of detecting submerged craft from space sensors. It involved the use of a very advanced chip that one of our subcontractors had developed. The guys in San Diego really loved that one.


23 posted on 06/26/2013 5:46:56 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: darth

Your story is getting wilder by the minute and crazier with every post you make. Don’t let that tin foil beanie get too tight. Or maybe it’s already too late?


24 posted on 06/26/2013 5:51:11 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

I have concluded that most of you guys must sack groceries for a living.

Is there a single aerospace engineer out there?

Did everyone buy the MSM story?


25 posted on 06/26/2013 6:01:47 PM PDT by darth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: darth
I have concluded that most of you guys must sack groceries for a living.

I have concluded that you are as full of crap as a Christmas turkey. Now what?

Did everyone buy the MSM story?

This isn't an either/or situation. Just because I don't believe a word of your story doesn't mean I automatically believe the official one.

26 posted on 06/26/2013 6:04:56 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Unless I am mistaken , there won’t be any girls on subs anytime soon. The bathrooms are to confusing.


27 posted on 06/26/2013 6:19:18 PM PDT by ping jockey (IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME YOU GREASY,HAIRY ARMPIT,HIPPIE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I would prefer the IDAS missile operational on German Type 212 submarines in 2014. This missile got several advantages over the MBDA missile concept for submarines.

4 missiles fit in the space of one torpedo instead of one missile with a torpedo as a capsule. The IDAS missile doesn’t need a capsule for a submerged launch. The best thing is guidance through a fiber wire. So the crew on a submerged submarine can even see the target, redirect the missile or even abort the attack in case the target is friendly.

The concept of the smaller MICA missile was rejected by German Navy. Emerging the submarine to attack was seen as a stupid idea.
http://www.diehl.com/en/diehl-defence/products/guided-missiles/idas.html
http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-defence/user_upload/flyer/IDAS_07_2008.pdf
http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/missile-system-idas.html

French CGI can’t match German live firings in 2008;-)


28 posted on 06/27/2013 12:35:22 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
I asked how the submarine would know the airplane or helicopter was around and where it was.

That's quite easy. An helicopter is a thread to a submarine when a dipping sonar is used. That sound can easily detected an located by a submarine. The ASW helicopter is located just a few meters above the sonar.

A submerged submarine can't detect a flying aircraft except you have systems like this:
http://maschinenbau.gabler-luebeck.de/en/entwicklungen/kommunikationssysteme/
http://maschinenbau.gabler-luebeck.de/en/entwicklungen/eigenschutz/index.html (VOLANS)

Maybe some captains can aim at the track of sonobuoys laid out by an ASW aircraft. The sonobuoys had to go active immediately. It's also possible to just see an aircraft via periscope but then the submarine is at snorkeling depth. A deep flying ASW aircraft might be a good target. This could be the answer why P-8 Poseidon is not flying as low as a P-3 Orion.

A nice option is to attack coastal installations. Submarine gets target coordinates and attacks without any armed UAV flying around.

29 posted on 06/27/2013 2:49:14 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
That's quite easy. An helicopter is a thread to a submarine when a dipping sonar is used. That sound can easily detected an located by a submarine. The ASW helicopter is located just a few meters above the sonar. A submarine may hear a dipping sonar in active mode but what about inactive? Sonar operators, whether surface or subsurface or aviation, don't go active unless they have to. The reason for that should be obvious; if you put noise in the water your enemy can hear it as well. But I'll play along. So the sub hears an active sonar on a certain bearing. It has no way of telling just how far that sonar is. But it shoots off its missile anyway. Now it has given its exact position away to helicopters who are trying to find it. The missile goes into the air. How does it know where the helicopter is? How is it going to lock on to its target? Radar? If the sub sticks a mast up to use radar then it tells the world where it is. Heat seeking? You still have to point the missile in the direction of your target so it has a chance of locking on to the heat source. So your sub is shooting off missiles and hoping it hits something, and providing its exact location to whoever is looking for it. Madness.

A submerged submarine can't detect a flying aircraft except you have systems like this: http://maschinenbau.gabler-luebeck.de/en/entwicklungen/kommunikationssysteme/ http://maschinenbau.gabler-luebeck.de/en/entwicklungen/eigenschutz/index.html (VOLANS)

Again you have to stick a mast out of the water and radiate something. You are providing your exact location to your opponent and giving up greatest weapon; stealth.

Maybe some captains can aim at the track of sonobuoys laid out by an ASW aircraft. The sonobuoys had to go active immediately. It's also possible to just see an aircraft via periscope but then the submarine is at snorkeling depth. A deep flying ASW aircraft might be a good target. This could be the answer why P-8 Poseidon is not flying as low as a P-3 Orion.

Most sonobuoys are passive. They don't give off any noise. And even the active ones are dropped from altitude. Wouldn't the sub need to know altitude and speed in order to calculate where the airplane might be? Assuming it continues flying straight and level?

A nice option is to attack coastal installations. Submarine gets target coordinates and attacks without any armed UAV flying around.

How does a submarine bases SAM solve that?

30 posted on 06/27/2013 3:52:30 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

A submarine may hear a dipping sonar in active mode but what about inactive? Sonar operators, whether surface or subsurface or aviation, don't go active unless they have to.

You won't find a modern diesel submarine with a passive sonar until you hit the fin of a submarine. Passive sonar may work with louder nuclear powered submarines.


But I'll play along. So the sub hears an active sonar on a certain bearing. It has no way of telling just how far that sonar is.

Modern submarines are equipped with towed array sonar systems. In case the source is not in a direct line between submarine and TASS distance can be calculated. Sometimes flank array is sufficient. In case of a strong signal right in front and above of the submarine the source has to be close. Then it's not a big difference between 500 yards or 5,000 yards distance to attack an slow flying ASW helicopter.


But it shoots off its missile anyway. Now it has given its exact position away to helicopters who are trying to find it.

The solution is to keep cool until you are sure the helicopter will find you anyhow. The point there the missile breaks through the surface isn't the location of the submarine. Another helicopter may face the same fate.


The missile goes into the air. How does it know where the helicopter is? How is it going to lock on to its target?

IDAS is a submarine launched version of IRIS-T missile. IRIS is the abbreviation for Infra Red Imaging System. The missile sends a infrared TV image back to the submarine. The missile can act autonomously or could be guided by an operator. Most common infrared countermeasures will fail.


Radar? If the sub sticks a mast up to use radar then it tells the world where it is.

The trick is the buoy with passive radar detection of the active helicopter radar. The buoy is another point useful for triangulation.


Heat seeking? You still have to point the missile in the direction of your target so it has a chance of locking on to the heat source.

The missile will emerge not so fast out of the water. Just lock how quick the seeker head is (video): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T#Technik The missile knows the bearing and locks in that direction - This feature is called lock-on after launch.


So your sub is shooting off missiles and hoping it hits something, and providing its exact location to whoever is looking for it. Madness.

I guess a submarine will fire the missile just in case it is close to be located.


Again you have to stick a mast out of the water and radiate something. You are providing your exact location to your opponent and giving up greatest weapon; stealth.

It's not a mast with a submarine underneath. It's just a small buoy swimming somewhere and the UAV is already launched in advance. It wouldn't make sense to emerge for launching the UAV just like it won't make sense to emerge to fire the MISTRAL missile.


Most sonobuoys are passive. They don't give off any noise. And even the active ones are dropped from altitude. Wouldn't the sub need to know altitude and speed in order to calculate where the airplane might be? Assuming it continues flying straight and level?

You are right here. There are to many unknowns to find a sufficient solution to shoot down an aircraft. An low flying aircraft searching with MAD could be attacked by submarine tracking the aircraft by periscope. Won't make sense for Type 212 submarine to attack an aircraft except it is protecting a nuclear powered submarine.


How does a submarine bases SAM solve that?

The warhead of IDAS carries more explosives than a AGM-114 Hellfire. Except for highly armored targets like tanks or APCs enough to take out coastal targets like radar or some bad guys. IDAS is not just a SAM with an infrared seeker. It's also a TV guided bomb.

31 posted on 06/27/2013 10:37:05 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The Israeli attack on Syrian missile depot close to Latakia could be first use of IDAS missiles:
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israeli-submarine-strike-hit-Syrian-arms-depot-319756
http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_07_14/Israel-hits-Syria-to-destroy-Russian-made-Yakhont-anti-ship-missiles-3943/

Targeted Yakhont missiles are propelled with solid-propellant booster as first stage. Stored together even a small explosion could trigger a chain reaction.

Syria tries to avoid this disgrace by blaming al-Qaida to hit the facility “The group fired missiles of European design that caused large fires in the bases.”
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=10527


32 posted on 07/15/2013 3:23:53 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson