300knt torpedo

[tom kane]

We have had news screenings showing high speed torpedo in Iran,and multi target intercon rockets,Yes they are working very well right now.Look out.

[lumiecraft]

Now if you get this thing to do 300 + MPH underwater and steer it accurately you may have something good, you'd think. Its a scare tactic and a smoke screen. If this thing will do 300 + underwater what will it do above water? Now if it takes 10 minutes to impact at 300 what is the time frame at lets say 2000 MPH in the air. No real time to think and kablooie. Well stealth rockets and planes are very successfull and with this power it's really stupid to do this in water. A ship has less time to react with an air to water than water to water. 300 is kind of a slow saunter compared to the air to ground. It works but its a useless smoke screen to frighten people. Got you going I see.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by lumiecraft

Now if you get this thing to do 300 + MPH underwater and steer it accurately you may have something good, you'd think. Its a scare tactic and a smoke screen. If this thing will do 300 + underwater what will it do above water? Now if it takes 10 minutes to impact at 300 what is the time frame at lets say 2000 MPH in the air. No real time to think and kablooie. Well stealth rockets and planes are very successfull and with this power it's really stupid to do this in water. A ship has less time to react with an air to water than water to water. 300 is kind of a slow saunter compared to the air to ground. It works but its a useless smoke screen to frighten people. Got you going I see.

Yeap! But submarines don't fly...

[lumiecraft]

Yes! but you got steer the dang thing and at 300 knots that will prove difficult at best. I'd bet a Nuke sub could move out of the way quick enough. And they would have to find it first. Not at all an easy task. I still think it is more a scare tactic than anything. Just good old chest pounding. My experience is if one boasts its usually just a bluff of sorts. Not that they can't pack a whollop but usually a bluff.

[tom kane]

Watching one of these things home in on a boat is not scarry it`s horrific.And that is just on the telly,what would it be like for real.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by lumiecraft

Now if you get this thing to do 300 + MPH underwater and steer it accurately you may have something good, you'd think. Its a scare tactic and a smoke screen. If this thing will do 300 + underwater what will it do above water? Now if it takes 10 minutes to impact at 300 what is the time frame at lets say 2000 MPH in the air. No real time to think and kablooie. Well stealth rockets and planes are very successfull and with this power it's really stupid to do this in water. A ship has less time to react with an air to water than water to water. 300 is kind of a slow saunter compared to the air to ground. It works but its a useless smoke screen to frighten people. Got you going I see.

A 2000 mph missile can't hit a submerged submarine. The supercavitating torpedo was developed by the Soviets during the cold war so that if a submarine got into a position to get off a shot there was no way the aircraft carrier or submarine it was shooting at would have time for evasive maneuvers. No matter how fast the torpedo, in order to be a credible threat it still requires an effective weapons platform to deliver it such as a submarine operated by a trained professional crew.

[marshmat]

I'd add that many modern warships can now shoot down airborne and sea-skimming missiles. As of yet, though, nobody has figured out how to shoot down a supercavitating torpedo before it reaches its target- the things are just too fast, unlike conventional torpedos which can sometimes be evaded or prematurely detonated.

[stonebreaker]

I tend to agree with lumiecraft. It's as much a propaganda weapon as anything, and a rather clumsy solution to the American CWIS guns. There are two very severe disadvantages to it: It's unguided, meaning you have to aim the entire sub at your target; and it basically leaves a trail straight back to the sub that fired it, meaning you only get one chance to hit your target before they know where you are.

The American solution, while not as cool from an engineering standpoint, is definitely more sophisticated from a military standpoint. Need to get a torpedo to a distant area quickly? Why shoot it THROUGH the water? Use a SubRoc - a torpedo with a rocket booster to fly it OVER the water to the target area before it drops into the water and starts looking for a target.

[tom kane]

They are also showing off throw away ground effect vehicles for launching,I guess the pilot goes too.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

I tend to agree with lumiecraft. It's as much a propaganda weapon as anything, and a rather clumsy solution to the American CWIS guns. There are two very severe disadvantages to it: It's unguided, meaning you have to aim the entire sub at your target; and it basically leaves a trail straight back to the sub that fired it, meaning you only get one chance to hit your target before they know where you are.

The American solution, while not as cool from an engineering standpoint, is definitely more sophisticated from a military standpoint. Need to get a torpedo to a distant area quickly? Why shoot it THROUGH the water? Use a SubRoc - a torpedo with a rocket booster to fly it OVER the water to the target area before it drops into the water and starts looking for a target.

1. Anti-submarine warfare is not as simple or easy as it looks in the movies.

2. For the Iranian weapon to be effective against American warships, it will require a quiet submarine manned by a professional crew.

3. According to many accounts, the supercavitating torpedo was created by the Russians during the cold war as an anti-submarine weapon for use by submarines against other submarines,

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by marshmat

I'd add that many modern warships can now shoot down airborne and sea-skimming missiles. As of yet, though, nobody has figured out how to shoot down a supercavitating torpedo before it reaches its target- the things are just too fast, unlike conventional torpedos which can sometimes be evaded or prematurely detonated.

It still requires an effective weapons platform to deliver it, such as a quiet modern submarine operated by a well trained crew.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by lumiecraft

Now if you get this thing to do 300 + MPH underwater and steer it accurately you may have something good, you'd think. Its a scare tactic and a smoke screen. If this thing will do 300 + underwater what will it do above water? Now if it takes 10 minutes to impact at 300 what is the time frame at lets say 2000 MPH in the air. No real time to think and kablooie. Well stealth rockets and planes are very successfull and with this power it's really stupid to do this in water. A ship has less time to react with an air to water than water to water. 300 is kind of a slow saunter compared to the air to ground. It works but its a useless smoke screen to frighten people. Got you going I see.

Ships are much more easily destroyed by explosions BELOW the waterline, particularly by explosions UNDER the keel.

300 knots is a mile in less than 9 seconds. How much evasive maneuvering can be done if from the moment the weapon is fired the ship has maybe at the most 30 seconds to react?

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Ships are much more easily destroyed by explosions BELOW the waterline, particularly by explosions UNDER the keel.

300 knots is a mile in less than 9 seconds. How much evasive maneuvering can be done if from the moment the weapon is fired the ship has maybe at the most 30 seconds to react?

I wouldn't try to maneuver, I'd have some sort of automated system that would automatically fire a countermeasure, such as a depth charge, to intercept the torpedo. The CWIS weapons are mostly automatic, I don't see why a depth charge couldn't be, too.

[FranklinRatliff]

That's a fantasy.

Automated aiming of radar controlled guns like the Phalanx system or dropping beacons into the water to distract a homing torpedo is one thing.

Trying to precisely place a depth charge to intercept or disrupt a supercavitation torpedo is another matter.

300 knots is over 400 feet PER SECOND.

When you examine all the variables involved there's no way on God's earth to even try.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

That's a fantasy.

Automated aiming of radar controlled guns like the Phalanx system or dropping beacons into the water to distract a homing torpedo is one thing.

Trying to precisely place a depth charge to intercept or disrupt a supercavitation torpedo is another matter.

300 knots is over 400 feet PER SECOND.

When you examine all the variables involved there's no way on God's earth to even try.

I don't see the speed as all that insurmountable of a problem. The torpedo is traveling in a straight line at a constant velocity, so computing an intercept path is not really that difficult, computing-wise. As far as absolute speed, they're shooting down mach 10 ballistic missiles, and they're on parabolic trajectories and changing velocities as they accelerate from gravity; so I don't see why intercepting a point moving at constant speed and velocity would be particularly difficult compared to that, especially considering that it's moving 20 or 30 times slower than the missiles.