DCNS Offer ZRK for submarines

At the Euronaval 2012 exhibition in Paris, the French shipbuilding association DCNS presented two proposals for the A3SM anti-aircraft missile system designed for self-defense submarines. Both variants of the complex are offered to arm non-nuclear submarines for foreign customers.

The first version of the complex (A3SM Mast) is a slewing tube with an MBDA Mistral man-portable air defense missile system located inside a rocket, lifted on a special mast pull-out device located in the fence of pull-out devices of a submarine (like a periscope). The launch of the launcher and the launch of the Zour is made when the submarine is at a periscope depth. Targeting and aiming is carried out with the opto-electronic periscope rising simultaneously. DCNS has already conducted ground tests for the launcher of this system.

Conceptually, this variant of the A3SM complex is thus an analogue of the British Vickers SLAM air defense system that was developed at the beginning of the 1970s of the British, which used the Short Blowpipe mobile complex. The SLAM complex successfully passed ship tests on the decommissioned British submarine Aeneas in 1972, but did not find any customers.

Image of the launch of the Mistral SAM in the DCNS A3SM Mast anti-aircraft missile system

The second variant of the complex (A3SM Underwater Vehicle) uses missiles based on an MBDA MICA medium-range missile of the air-to-air class and has a declared firing range of up to 20 km. The missile is placed in a capsuled container launcher, similar to the MBDA Exocet SM39 anti-ship missile capsule designed to launch submarines, and fired through a standard outboard 533-mm torpedo tube.

Image of combat use of DCNS A3SM Underwater Vehicle anti-aircraft missile system using MICA rocket

Comments

[alexng]

And that idea is not bad. We must also think about the air defense of the submarine fleet. Although it does not fit in my head, how can this aircraft be tracked from an underwater position without a radar or any optical scanners? Are there specialists on a branch in this area?

[Wedmak]

The radar does not work under water, the optics are very close, the sound will not overcome the boundary of the media. So xs, how ... Although there is one little idea - it is aimed at an active sonar, the one that the turntable lowers. If he is active. Well, then everything is relatively simple.

[Retx]

And in the video this is shown - aiming a torpedo over an active sonar, and then the missile makes a homing.

[Wedmak]

Far there a torpedo emerges. And if we say, to immediately emerge near the sonar, then actually you do not need to carry rockets, it will be enough to undermine the usual (of course, modified) anti-aircraft warhead in the direction of the helicopter.

[Retx]

Why? A PLO helicopter will detect the launch of a torpedo and, by the time it approaches, it will actually take action. And so, more likely to lose, although I'm not an expert

[Wedmak]

I am not a specialist either, so we can fantasize a lot.

[crazyrom]

Everything is much simpler: by the presence of a sonar (sonars), the submarine knows that somewhere there someone is flying. When a rocket flies out of the water, it itself is guided, either by radar or thermal, to the first flying target that comes across. Usually the planes and helicopters that prey on submarines have absolutely no resistance to missiles, they are not combat (the same BE-12), and one simple missile will certainly hit them. If someone worries that the missile will fall into a friendly target, then everything is simple: if an enemy helicopter is looking for a submarine with a sonar, there are no naturally friendly aircraft nearby, otherwise it would have been shot down for a long time.

[Narkom]

Hard to believe the same Be-12 can dump 85 buoys))) and all without wire

[sir.jonn]

On the submarine there is a radar on a retractable mast operating on the surface and periscope depth, though I do not know its purpose.

[Narkom]

retractable devices, but it’s also easier to notice the boat when it goes in this mode ...

[Vito]

alexneg Good day to you, Friend1

Quote: alexneg

And that idea is not bad. We must also think about the air defense of the submarine fleet.

The idea is really not a bad one, all the more so besides the French, the Germans are also involved in these developments (there was a short article on this subject).
If such weapons systems are already being developed by several countries, then this is already a trend! Anti-submarine aviation is the worst enemy of submarines and of course I would like to be more protected from this evil by our VALUABLE submariners.
May God grant them health!
Submariners-DEAR respond! I'd like to know the opinion of professionals!

[alexng]

Good afternoon, Vito!

[ShturmKGB]

It is necessary to cling to the sonar with a hook, and to the bottom, there seems to be no underwater helicopters ...)

[GSH-18]

Of course, it is best to launch a guided missile from a submerged position without raising the overscope! (there is a capsule start-up option, and there is one in the article). I think the homing of the missile is carried out by the sonar dropped from the helicopter, although I could be wrong .. Our designers need to tackle this issue closely! And then the "partners" have too many aircraft carriers!

[gregor6549]

The idea of ​​submarine air defense is far from new. In particular, the USSR developed several versions of air defense systems for submarines, including a multi-container air defense system based on the Strela portable air defense system. The originality of the solution proposed by the French is that a combination of a torpedo with a missile defense system is supposed to be used to combat an air enemy, in which the rocket comes out from under the water far from the carrier. It seems like a good idea, but a number of problems arise:
1. The launch of a torpedo further unmasks the boat.
2. Guidance on the target in this case should be carried out using the homing head, which at significant distances and the use of interference is unlikely to provide a high probability of guidance and interception of an air target,
3. Active sonar mode in most cases, they try not to use or use to a minimum, because this mode unmasks the sonar carrier, i.e. a helicopter with a sonar in passive mode of operation can hang over the submarine, but she will not even guess about it.
Further, the use of omitted sonars is a rather rare method. Detection of submarines in the underwater position from the air is provided mainly with the help of discharged sonar buoys. Moreover, the detection of carrier buoys with submarines without surfacing submarines to the surface is very problematic, if not impossible. Of course, the option is possible when the boat releases to the surface something like a remotely controlled platform with a set of sensors for detecting air targets and pointing missiles at them, and then launches the missiles according to the method proposed by the French. But such a platform with sensors is essentially a floating radar, and a one-time radar because detecting and destroying it is even easier than the submarine itself. In addition, US Navy aircraft have long had radars capable of detecting small targets such as a periscope against the background of the sea surface i.e. and in the case of using passive rather than active sensors, this platform will not be difficult to detect
Moreover, the appearance of such a platform on the surface will unambiguously indicate that its carrier is hanging somewhere nearby, i.e. big submarine which means time to start a big hunt for it and place "flags". Those. as always, for every tricky z ... tsu there is always a bolt with a device. Classic.

[sir.jonn]

At Anthea, a towed device similar to an airplane is used for communication and is used when diving to depths greater than periscope. When finalized, this could become a good radar for detecting air targets and pointing missiles at them.

[gregor6549]

What you mentioned is suitable for radio communication in the ultra-long wave range without lifting the boat to the surface. Moreover, this connection is used primarily for receiving messages, for example, commands for permission to use weapons. For transmission, these systems are used mainly in emergency situations so as not to unmask the boat. And the purpose of the "airplane" is to prevent the "tail wagging"; to keep a fairly long cable antenna at a given depth and course. And if you attach a radar to the tail and put it on the surface, then for such a free service, the hunters for the submarine will only thank you.

[sir.jonn]

Thanks for the instruction really is not that.

[lelikas]

Hopefully this will not be shown to a stool, otherwise a bad dream.
It’s rather a means of mischief before death, or at least scare it at the end - for if helicopters are already hanging around you, drain the water-cheshi chest.

[gregor6549]

I completely agree, and there will be no more time to scratch my chest. There was already a case in the 70x when several boats were brought to the Atlantic that went to the collection point in different directions, in absolute radio silence and used the most ingenious tactics of camouflage like temperature layers and other crap.
And when everyone gathered at a given point and surfaced, an adversary's helicopter hung over each of the boats. Then there was a big scandal in the General Staff of the Navy and the Sudprom with the distribution of elephants (since all boats were deemed conditionally destroyed) and the demands "by tomorrow" to find a worthy answer to foreign intrigues at any cost.

[the polar]

Bullshit, not an idea.
Therefore, it is necessary to support them actively, let them spend resources on submarine fighting technology at the periscope depth with anti-submarine aircraft

[Zlyden.Zlo]

here the third option was considered. detachment from the container boat. ascent and launch of a rocket from it

[Oleg Rosskiyy]

Damn, but I thought it was a sinful thing, that this is a pipe from a potbelly stove, for setting a smoke curtain.

[rarik63]

The French are probably not stupid, offering air defense systems for a foreign customer, they don’t put theirs on their own. Any missile launched from a submarine will unmask it. A huge amount of money needs to be spent on development, testing and implementation. Plus losses in some other more important and vital TTX. It is no coincidence that all the leading countries of the world that possess the technology of production of modern submarines seek solutions not in the ability to shoot down these turntables, but in the ability to hide from them. The submarine is good because no one sees it, and not by how many helicopters it will take down.

[Cat]

French military designers at all times were distinguished by a tendency to create something "such". There are a lot of examples, starting with the original battleships of the late XNUMXth century and ending with the modern super-sophisticated Leclerc.
But here's a caveat: in all the wars that took place, large and small, French weapons did not show themselves in any way. Even a non-specialist in military equipment will easily remember the Russian T-34 and AK, the German Messer and the Tiger, the Japanese Zero and Yamato, the English "rombotank" and Stan, the shtatovka Flying Fortress, the Sherman, or the same M-16. But the samples of the French military industry, can anyone name them offhand? Not advertising like Leclerc and Surkuf, or scandalous like Mistral - but those that actually took off in the fighting? Oh well.
So let yourself invent. Whatever the child would entertain. Maybe they will kick someone if you're lucky =)