AA missiles

[Kilroy_RIP]

Without researching it, I'm going to say that the original Hunt for Red October game had AA missiles to shoot down those pesky helicopters. The Seawolf class - which is not in standard CW game client must have had them - though I think the Los Angeles class had them also.
Real world had the AIM-9x SLAM missile which was in the HRO game for the Seawolf class, though I can't prove it!

[steven777]

Originally posted by ofd358:

Without researching it,....I'm going to say.... - though I think ....though I can't prove it!

I believe you!

[theCarthaginian]

The US never deployed SLAAMs... this has been verified by actual bubbleheads here already. Tested - yes; deployed - no.

The Sovs and later Russian Navy only deployed MANPADS and these were for surfaced use only. And a surfaced sub is a dead sub.

The Germans MIGHT have a semi- recoilless 30mm telescoping mount on some of their new diesel boats, but this isn't confirmed AFIK.

AA weapons on a sub have all the practicallity of ti.ts on a boar hog.

[theCarthaginian]

Originally posted by steven777:

Originally posted by ofd358:

Without researching it,....I'm going to say.... - though I think ....though I can't prove it!

I believe you!

+1

[TW-打劫貓~]

Agree with

[Kerbalspacepolice]

the brits had a periscope with a MANPAD on it that they could raise at periscope depth

[theCarthaginian]

Originally posted by Kerbalspacepolice:

the brits had a periscope with a MANPAD on it that they could raise at periscope depth

Was it fielded operationally?

[Team Triss]

Originally posted by theCarthaginian:

Originally posted by Kerbalspacepolice:

the brits had a periscope with a MANPAD on it that they could raise at periscope depth

Was it fielded operationally?

The Blowpipe, and I think so.

Would love a link to the posts on here that say 9Xs were tested but not fielded, btw. Over in the other topic there was some back and forth about it, but nothing about fielding status one way or the other.

P.S. I WANT TO BELIEVE

[TalonCG]

Originally posted by LoR Team Triss:

Was it fielded operationally?

The Blowpipe, and I think so.
[/quote]

Blowpipe missile was nearly useless. As bad or worse than the Russian SA-7. Might as well try to use a slingshot.
2.5 mile (5000yd) range. Command guided... Good luck keeping the sight on target in rolling seas. Evem if you did get lucky and hit the target, they'd still have time to datalink or radio call your location to other assets.

[The Inept European]

All SLAAMS actually fielded were replaced with a high powered transponder that broadcast the boat's coordinates and a message in Russian saying "I'm on the surface, come sink me y'all!!". This equipment was determined to have exactly the same functionality as a SLAAM but was less expensive and easier to operate. :-/

[The Inept European]

Sub-Blowpipe was a concept demonstrator and not fielded. Presumably it fulfilled its purpose perfectly by demonstrating to the RN that a sub SAM is a net liability.

By the way Blowpipe was CLOS because it was for very short range use (infantry or installation self defence), ie near visual range, vs slow movers, and CLOS was deemed more reliable than trying to defeat IR countermeasures, which was probably a good call.

[RED]

Strela-2 was ok'ish manpads, especially in M variant. Blowpipe though, has the honor of being the absolute worst portable AA system since the Fliegerfaust.

It was MCLOS, where M is very important because it means Manual Command to Line of Sight ie you look at your target through a scope and try to hit one moving object with another moving object by giving it commands with a joystick. And all that at distance up to ~3km. Fun, fun, fun. The whole idea barely worked for ATGMs where you shoot at slow moving tanks, when it comes to rotary and fixed wing it failed spectacularly.

Dunno how targeting station of such system would look like on a sub. Better scope? Stabilization? What is certain though, you would have to maintain visual on the target. Any volunteers?

Idea of SLAAM ain't a bad one, but missile just has to be launched from some depth, climb and find target in its own. Pretty much no other way.

I am personally happy with the fact that there is no defense against aircraft in CW. Both realistic and fun.

[thunda]

Originally posted by RED:

I am personally happy with the fact that there is no defense against aircraft in CW. Both realistic and fun.

Has anyone tried parking under a dipping Helo and fired up a TLAM or a TASM, hmm..

[Kilroy_RIP]

As far as the game goes, I'd like to see the Seawolf class with the -9x which were launched from PD in a canister. It was a high-risk desperado move, but if a helo's torp was going to get me I took some satisfaction by killing it! And sometimes, I dodged his torp!

[Wraith_Magus]

The Seawolf already has a perfectly viable defense against air assets: a 33 knot top speed and a very quiet profile.

Generally speaking, if you aren't doing something stupid, then unless you're massively unlucky and a mission spawns one 30 feet away from you, it's not a problem, especially since Helo torpedoes are garbage and are easily tricked even in a Sturgeon, much less a Seawolf.

[TalonCG]

Originally posted by Wraith_Magus:

The Seawolf already has a perfectly viable defense against air assets: a 33 knot top speed and a very quiet profile.

Generally speaking, if you aren't doing something stupid, then unless you're massively unlucky and a mission spawns one 30 feet away from you, it's not a problem, especially since Helo torpedoes are garbage and are easily tricked even in a Sturgeon, much less a Seawolf.

+1