Maybe... I have been reading about submarine anti air missiles for thirty years... Hasn't happened yet...
Apparently Soviet/Russian Kilo,
Akula and
Typhoon-class submarines all (could) carry SA-N-5 or SA-N-8 portable SAM systems. Basically navalized versions of Soviet/Russian Manpads. I am not aware of any incidents where they were actually used, but apparently GF is.
Amongst the other purposes of some jets in ships, is the mpa they can give, if you are having a system on the helos for over the horizon asigment, say lamps, arent you going to use more the jet than the helo in a situation where the machine has to fly low, because of your enemies radar, and has to fly through uncontrolled waters, an helo can be shot down much more easly by an hostile sub than a jet, a supersonic jet could scape from the range of the sub´s missile. Apart from the speed and range of the recoinasence, 250 km/h for the helo versus 1000 for the jet.
I would suggest checking ones facts, prior to making a post like this again. At present and having checked some of my sources, these are the following MRA/MPA which are jet-powered. They are the Tu-22MR "Backfire", the Xian H-6/Tu-16 "Badger", Nimrod MR.2/MRA.4, the S-3 Viking, and the upcoming P-8A Poseidon. With the exception of the Tu-22MR "Backfire" all of these jet-powered aircraft are subsonic. And with the exception of the carrier-bourne ASW jet the S-3 Viking, the other aircraft are either variants of civilian airliners or long-ranged military bombers. There are of course others which I have either not come across in the immediate search I did, and/or had been operational but since retired
What is important for most surveillance-type operations is the ability to stay on station for extended periods of time. Speed is largely irrelevant in terms of a "bonus" feature, and in many cases high speed is actually a negative capability. Something like an MPA, whether it is fixed or rotary-winged, is going to have an assigned area to monitor as it were, looking for possible intrusions. As such, being in the appropriate location to monitor the assigned area for as long as possible is typically more important than being able to get to/from the patrol station. A good compare/contrast example comes from the USCG. The HC-144A Ocean Sentry, which is a version of the Spanish CN-235-300 is entering USCG service to replace the HU-25 Guardian, itself a variant of the Dassault Falcon 20G jet. Depending on configuration, the prop-powered Ocean Sentry and have a mission endurance of ~9 hours, which is a significant improvement of the max 4 hours from the HU-25 Guardian. Given that the Falcon has a max speed nearly twice the speed of a CN-235 but is still being replaced, it would tend to suggest that being "fast" is not an advantage in terms of MPA ops.
Additionally, the P-3 Orion MPA is a version of a propeller-driven civilian airliner from the late 1950's, with the final MPA version ceasing production ~1992 IIRC. The reason a replacement programme is underway for the aircract is that some examples of the Orion which are still in service are upgraded -B Orions, and/or early model -C Orions from the 1960's which means that may well have hit the forty year mark. That would suggest that the Orion was considered a "good" design, which means speed was unimportant in terms of operationss.
Just to reiterate, it is often worthwhile double checking ones position and supporting facts, prior to posting them. Doing so, can often help one avoid posting incorrect or inaccurate information.
-Cheers
nfloorl:?
