MAD Detection Question: Within what range of an umpteen thousand GRT of ferrous hulled surface vessel would MAD be ineffective for detecting a second ferrous hull contact? And does there need to be a Harpoon rules note about this? Answer: You are correct. MAD would be useless in this instance. Since merchants are usually larger than a submarine, their magnetic signature would be greater. In addition, all submarines are depermed to reduce this signature and many nuclear submarines also have degaussing systems to keep their magnetic signature low. Finally, the ship is closer to the sensor and since MAD operates on the 1/R 3 principle, there is virtually no chance for the MPA aircraft to distinguish the very small submarine signature from the large merchant one. As for a rule change, yes. Add a sentence to section 4.7 Magnetic Anomaly Detection. “Surface ships within 2,000 yards of a submarine of the same size class or larger mask the sub’s magnetic signature. Submarine Flooding In section 7.3.2.7 Flooding, on page 7.4, delete the paragraph that starts “If a sub suffers a flooding critical, it is automatically severe.” It contradicts the following paragraph, and is kinda harsh. BT Back to The Naval Sitrep # 24 Table of Contents Back to Naval Sitrep List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2003 by Larry Bond and Clash of Arms. This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history and related articles are available at http://www.magweb.com