Submarines - The ultimate hunter

SA submarine outwits Nato force




A lone South African submarine left some Nato commanders with red faces on Tuesday as it "sank" all the ships of the Nato Maritime Group engaged in exercises with the South African Navy off the Cape coast.

The S101 -- or the SAS Manthatisi -- not only evaded detection by a joint Nato and South African Navy search party consisting of several ships combing the search area with radar and sonar, it also "sank" all the ships taking part in the fleet.

At several times during the exercise -- which lasted throughout Monday night and Tuesday morning -- a red square lit up the screens where the surface ships thought the submarine was. But it remained elusive.

This gave Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota something to brag about when he landed on the SAS Amatola on Tuesday to speak to the media

Link

This incident is another example of why the submarine is the ultimate naval weapon. A lot has been made about the ability of modern sonar but its still extremely difficult to combat the submarine. With the proliferation of quiet conventional submarines such as the Kilo, Type-209 and future models such as the Type 214 and Amur class it will be dangerous to operate surface vessels without extensive ASW equipment. Especially considering hot spots like Iran, China or Venezuela all have such equipment at their disposal

I think you'd agree with me Chinawhite that those sonar and radar operators must have had a seriously bad day.

Any half way decent operator will tell you that these days, not only do you look for what is out there, but also you learn to look for what is not out there. I suppose the easiest way to explain that, is to try to explain about the TOGS on a Chally 2.

On todays battlefield, there are thermal optics that will tell you not only where a vehicle is located, but can also let you know by way of a heat or thermal signature, of where the vehicle has come from and the route it has taken.

One of the methods to prevent detection, is to cover a stationary vehicle with radar and thermal repellant material.

Here in the UK, we call this plastic material 'Onion Skin'. It is (allegedly) radar and thermal repellant whilst able to allow rain water or dew to seep through thus aiding the cooling and helping to shield the thermal bloom.

When a gunner fires up the TOGS and scans the terrain in front of his vehicle not only is he [or she] looking for that tell tale thermal bloom, but also the missing background heat that is shielded by the Onion Skin.

Once located it is quite simple to lase and send a round into the blackness. This is infact how the Scots DG scored so many first round kills at night in GW1.

So it is the same for the detection of submarines and stealthy aircraft. You know it's out there but, if you get a 'nil return' and it is the rough shape and size of a sub, tank or aircraft, then that is worth taking a closer look at.

I do believe that a top sonar operator can distinguish between a heavy swell and rain falling on the see.

Still, ih the sub driver was able to get away with it, good job! Should be able to dine out on that for several years to come.

Originally posted by fritz
I think you'd agree with me Chinawhite that those sonar and radar operators must have had a seriously bad day.

Any half way decent operator will tell you that these days, not only do you look for what is out there, but also you learn to look for what is not out there. I suppose the easiest way to explain that, is to try to explain about the TOGS on a Chally 2.

Agreed..
But bad or good days and half-way/full-way decent operators are all variables in the battlefield. When the variables start becoming constants, then we need to raise our eyebrows.
In the end every force has to work with resources at hand. Good days and bad days are meaningless when push comes to shove.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say!


Good post cw.

Yup! 100% - all the way, which is why I mentioned TOGS on Chally 2.

The operator's bad day cannot simply be put down to that - a bad day. But neither does it smack of negligence. Seems to me that they might need re or continuation training.

Must be something about S.A. (I am a South African and this makes me proud to be).

Ever heard of what the Boere did to the British during the Anglo-Boer War? Same thing, different time and setting.

Dont forget that the skill of the captain most likely was critical for this.

I'm wondering if the sub had to actually fire (either practice torpedoes or a 'water slug from the tube would work), or if he got credit for a kill for getting into firing position and staying there for a period of time. I find it hard to believe that the launch transients for a torpedo spread (and possibly the transit noise from the torpedoes) didn't give *somebody* a plot, no matter how good the sub or its crew.

^^^

Good question..

I am also unaware of the SOPs in such exercises
Esp where the sinking of a surface vessel is more of an exact science in targetting while the converse is quite a trial and error approach with depth charges and the likes.

And that's where statements like 'sunk a whole fleet' or 'sunk a carrier' make you wonder what exactly transpired.

Originally posted by J.Smit
Must be something about S.A. (I am a South African and this makes me proud to be).

Ever heard of what the Boere did to the British during the Anglo-Boer War? Same thing, different time and setting.

Super boeren!! hehe
In fact it were the boers[1e vryheidsoorlog] who invented the stealth and guerilla warfare[and they were outstanding snipers]