Skip to comments.A3SM: A True Game Changer for Submarine Self Defence against Threats from the Sky
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 ...
A3SM Underwater Vehicle Version with Mica IR Image: MBDA/DCNS
Today’s submariners are gonna love this .
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..
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?
Especially the pregnant ones.
Q was on top of this back in '77
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.
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.
Are you Michael Rivero?
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
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.
If the submarine is submerged then how does it know the airplane or helicopter is up there and where it is?
You mean like talking about super-secret black programs that went amuck and shot down a civilian airliner? Those kind of national security secrets?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).