Austin wrote:US has invested massive amounts in man , machine and material to come up with an effective ASW system on global scale , here is a good write up on DARPA effort which played a key role in this ASW effort.
A History of DARPA’s Contributions to Antisubmarine Warfare
Hopefully the Russian could catch up in ASW within the next decade.
Austin i must say very thanks to you for this article (another bright proof ,if that was still necessary, of the lousy level of those type of PR publications aimed at public opinion consuption
) on the....supposedly.....great achievements of LAMBDA project in ASW operations and with a statement of ....Secretary of the Navy John Lehman
... even totally warped in its original meaning ,i have no laughed for so long since a very long time.Those J .Lehman's words
, (a sort of public slogan which refer to capability to possibly engage the outer layer of Soviet submarines at defence of national SSBN "sanctuaries" in the first 5 minutes of a war thanks to the reduced range resulting from its "bright ideas" on NATO naval unit’s deployments
) are inserted
,in fact, in the NATO naval doctrine it had proposed to contrast URSS's worrying quantitative/qualitative expansion
and envisioning a "full offensive" deployment of an enormous number of US naval unities close to Northern URSS Navy controlled area -practically well within SOSS and Northern district Air Force's reach !!!- , relying on the rear coverage of SOSUS ,to "compress" operational manoeuvring's area of URSS's submarines and ships and ,supposedly, prevent so Soviet unities to press against or destroy the, at this point, vital SOSUS's nodes , becoming capable so to attack freely NATO's deep refurbishment lines.
I know,i know this could appear a doctrine naive and totally suicide ,but it appear so for no other reason that it…… WAS
.... , but we must realize that it is the same John Lehman who
, in the meantime that all the NATO’s scientists of the sector and all its strategic analysts was losing theirs sleep at compute how much days a large scale conventional offensive of URSS would have reach the European Atlantic coast and what type of tactical nuclear weapon’s employment (the only serious and credible response found to have some chance of success) would have not triggered a nuclear response by part of Soviets and when the whole NATO diplomatic sectors was attempting to lure Soviets at sign the CFE , had proposed as solution to...invade "at surprise" URSS from the Pacific and reach Moscow after a ground campaign through the Siberia !!!
A true GENIUS
I image that it is unnecessary to explain why John Lehaman was ,by far, the most beloved NATO's military figure in URSS at the time and why was very common , at the time , among Soviet officials, the joke:
"Pray the God to preserve Secretary Lehman in spirit ,in health and.....in charge"
(The serious note is that this already inherently naive and suicidal doctrine was greatly worsened and would have, likely, conducted the NATO Navy to a very quick demise in an hypothetical war ,by the fact that NATO analysts was totally unaware :
1) That SOSUS structure and data flow were completely compromised by Walker/Withworth 's ring with the exposure of all the NATO ballistic submarines
2) Of the wide overmatch
and the linked invisible, dramatic shift in submarine operations, generated by the introduction in Soviet Navy of vastly superior weapon systems both offensive in nature
-such as RPK-6/7 Водопад/Ветер - tactical
- such as the PMK-1 mine - or defensive
– such as the Mg-74 self propelled submarine simulator ,the RG-28 self propelled active sonar simulator or the submarine hull mounted polymer dispensers for carry out otherwise impossible evasion or anti-torpedo manoeuvres -
3) That Soviets had ,since a long time, realised that increase in quieting would have rendered passive acoustic detection a less and less central element in ASW and invested heavily in breakthroughs in not acoustic detection
, in particular with space-based submarine detection (URSS was already at the time at least 15 years head of NATO in the anti-surface worldwide detection and tracking system with RORSAT / EORSAT ), capitalising obviously the very poor depth limit of large majority of NATO submarines, and convection cell detection ; all of that linked to the capability to conduct a true decapitating strike against NATO ballistic submarines employing thermonuclear RVs of land based ballistic missiles (the successful tests conducted in 1984 with RSD-10’s RV in the Barent Sea confirmed the capability) .
“Russian could catch up in ASW within the next decade”…
In the next decade ,under total silence , Russian Kosmonit Center would have likely already completed and put in orbit the second generation of submerged submarines multimode detection/tracking satellites (capable also against enemy submarines travelling at greater deepness ) ; catching with USA’s ASW capability's line -a true technological blind-alley as already brightly foreseen in URSS times -, would mean literally for Russia an involution of 25 -30 years.
Limited conventional conflict and full scale thermonuclear war ,involve the employment of technical capabilities completely on different levels....