300knt torpedo

It is, if you know where you're going. It only takes imagination and hard work. If the payoff's worth the effort, it will happen - just ask Albert Einstein:

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
Albert Einstein, 1932

I could quote a zillion examples of people who created technology in order to achieve their goals - Kelly Johnson, Burt Rutan, Thomas Edison...heck, for that matter, the first prehistoric genius who conceived the idea of tying a rock to a stick.


"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
-- Alan Kay

 

http://www.heartquotes.net/Expert.html

 

Technology

Sandwich composite technology already existed in other forms before Rutan adapted it to aircraft.

The Skunk Works had to create from scratch all the technology (including screws and bolts) for building a titanium airframe.

 

And your point would be?

 

How old are you, anyway?

 

Technology

How some people blather on about "creating a technology" without really knowing what the concept means.

 

OK, explain it to me.

 

I don't mean to interrupt.. but maybe we can discuss this more productively. I honestly don't know much about the subject, but it seems to me that we should have the technology to track an incoming torpedo, and generate a solution to fire another torpedo or underwater weapon to intercept it at x distance away from the ship. it seems pretty cut and dry to me, however I must be overlooking something. Intercepting a 300kt torpedo is an entirely different problem. But I would think we should be able to intercept a common torpedo. As a ships captain I'd feel much better knowing i could shoot it down than relying on noisemakers, decoys etc to evade the torpedo. What am I overlooking?

 

Don't worry about Franklin, he's a troll. I apologize for allowing it to go on as long as I did, but it was a slow week (my project was finished) and baiting trolls can be a lot of fun to someone trapped in a cubicle.

As far as the rest of your statement, I agree 100%. I think the difficulty lies in retaliating quickly enough through the water, not so much in tracking it.

Supercavitating weapons will never be a big deal, however, because they give the launching sub's position away. Suicide bombers are cheap - suicide subs, not so cheap.

 

Because it's the OCEAN

You're overlooking the fact IT AIN'T FREAKIN' AIR. IT'S THE OCEAN. It's not remotely close to being cut and dried. Do you think if it were that simple the Navy would still have submarines? They're a hell of a lot bigger than a torpedo and a lot slower.

 

He's trolling again...

 

"Supercavitating weapons will never be a big deal, however, because they give the launching sub's position away." A dumb as **** statement. How does launching conventional torpedos not do the same thing?

 

That's your all purpose answer to anyone who notices your fact free responses and simplistic thinking.

 

Sorry, franklin, I'm tired of troll baiting. If you want to have an actual discussion, go back and support the statements you made last week - then I'll be happy to continue the debate. But I'm not interested in a flame war.

 

Stonebreaker,
you seem to be overwhelmingly optimistic that technology to intercept/avoid torpedos (and supercavitating torpedos) is either already out there or will be developed, (technology you have not yet demonstrated)
yet you seem to be completely pessismistic about supercavitating weapon technology being developed to the point where it will be feasable- for exsample not giving away the subs position.
This blind faith in, and dissmisive pessimism of, technological advancement appears to me at least to be fairly contradictive.

I am certainly not going to claim the brilliance of military investment, but these guys really do try to avoid investing big money into things that "will never be a big deal."

I must say, I also find the way that you have gone about this argument quite arrogant, rude and inflamatory.
Don't get me wrong, at times it has been a good discussion, and is certainly a worthy subject, but neither of you have come out with anything to resolve the matter like you seem to think it has been resolved (in your favour).

To repeatadly refer to someone who has maintained a level of decency as a "troll" - whatever that means, to state that it was you "allowing it to go on as long as I did" and also to ask "how old are you anyway?" really does reek of immaturity.
If you wish to trully win this argument, which you may well do so- then you still have much to prove, but most importantly, you will have to do it without attempting to personally insult or defame your oponent.
If your ideas and arguments were that strong you would not have resort to personal insults. Your victory would be apparent.

It is not.

P.S. I post this critiscism and complaint openly to you, rather than hide it behind a negative rep. While making myself a target (mmm, like the sub?)maybe at the very least you can appreciate that.

[EDIT- ok, this battle is moving fast, inbetween my posting I missed a fair bit- amongst which frankilin referring to your ideas as 'dumb as ****'- see where getting personal takes us...]

[2nd EDIT- Stonebreaker, for someone who is not interested in a flame ware, you sure have lit a few fires]