300knt torpedo

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

I agree in the conventional torpedo scenario, but the ST is another matter. Because you have to have the cavitation generator on the front of the torpedo, it cannot hear anything infront of it - the cavitation would block everything else. I don't see how it could hear effectively from the sides, either - the dang thing is rocket powered. The entire cavitation chamber is going to be full of rocket sound. I don't know how physics could get around that particular problem.


As I said earlier, the interceptor doesn't have to be faster than the ST. The quintesential example is a baseball catcher - the ball is moving near 100 mph, yet the catcher doesn't move his glove nearly as fast because he only has to intercept the pitch's path - it's not necessary to match the pitch's speed.

Another option, and the one I think is most practical, is a system similar to the current CWIS turrets, only optimized to shoot into the water. If your rate of fire is fast enough, your first few bullets will be used to dig a hole in the water down to the intercept depth. I got that idea from a sci-fi book describing how a futuristic tank would fire a stream of projectiles at near lightspeed. Seems like it would be fairly easy in water, as I can splash my hand down several inches before the water rushes in to cover it; at the current 6000 rounds per minute of the CWIS system, I doubt it would have much trouble holding the hole open until it ran out of ammo.

"Because you have to have the cavitation generator on the front of the torpedo, it cannot hear anything infront of it"

Incorrect.

The cavitation initiator -- a cone or flat plate -- is FORWARD of the bubble.

IN THEORY since it is in direct contact with the water a passive sonar could be located inside it.

Torpedos have also used magnetic homing.

[hansp77]

Stonebreaker,
you seem to have a very open mind to (and even a philosophy of) human ingenuity and innovation, for the invention of things that people say are impossible.
Now this is why I find your position on this subject so suprising.
You seem to be primarily thinking about this situation through the defensive position.
It seems to me that it is always going to be easier to attack something than to defend it. Defensive technology generally plays catch up with attacking technology. By the time it catches up, there is something new to defend against.
I mean what defensive technology has triumphed (and continued to) over an attacking technology? this seems especially true in military examples. A new armour, means a new armour piercing, a new radar, means a new stealth system, etc, etc.

Whats that saying, "sometimes the best defence is a good offence?"
I think there is something in that for this debate.


Sadly, if we humans have proved ourselved good at one thing repeatadely, it is that we are great at inventing ways to kill each other.
The ST, while still in pioneering stage, may turn out to be one of these.
I think from the evidence presented so far, if it was operational today, then it would be a most formidable weapon, and I doubt very much that the defensive weapons of today could adequately defend a ST attack. Remember, if a ST is destroyed on the way to its target, then the sub does not automatically die, and maybe only one of the ST's it would be launching would need to make it through for the target to die. Once the appropriate ways to defend from it had been developed, then the ST would most probably have developed new ways around these defenses- possibly like the example I gave, or there will just be some other new weapon that will supercede this technology.

[marshmat]

This little battle is getting tiring, boys.
I don't recall F. ever saying that intercepting a torpedo, whether at 30kt or 300kt, is against the laws of physics. Of course it's not. But I also don't recall S. ever proving that the technology to do so is feasible at present. Which it's not. Please, guys, sit back and take a look at the last four pages of this thread. Was anything productive actually said? Do either of you have a clue what the other is actually saying?

Technology cannot be created by willpower alone. Even huge amounts of money cannot always create solutions. As recent US missile defence tests have shown, the chances of actually shooting a projectile out of the sky are pretty slim, even when the target has a homing beacon on it and the interceptor has radar, infrared, GPS, and a device to track that homing beacon. Bullets from supersonic weapons simply disintegrate within a few feet of hitting water- it's not at all easy to go fast underwater, let alone hit something moving fast underwater. We may be able to do this in future, but at present it's not something you can use on the open ocean.

BTW:

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Actually, the do have underwater radar.

The device referred to in that article is a 405nm band lidar, not a radar as we know it. It has a range of ten metres in clear water.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by hansp77

Stonebreaker,
you seem to have a very open mind to (and even a philosophy of) human ingenuity and innovation, for the invention of things that people say are impossible.
Now this is why I find your position on this subject so suprising.
You seem to be primarily thinking about this situation through the defensive position.
It seems to me that it is always going to be easier to attack something than to defend it. Defensive technology generally plays catch up with attacking technology. By the time it catches up, there is something new to defend against.
I mean what defensive technology has triumphed (and continued to) over an attacking technology? this seems especially true in military examples. A new armour, means a new armour piercing, a new radar, means a new stealth system, etc, etc.

Whats that saying, "sometimes the best defence is a good offence?"
I think there is something in that for this debate.


Sadly, if we humans have proved ourselved good at one thing repeatadely, it is that we are great at inventing ways to kill each other.
The ST, while still in pioneering stage, may turn out to be one of these.
I think from the evidence presented so far, if it was operational today, then it would be a most formidable weapon, and I doubt very much that the defensive weapons of today could adequately defend a ST attack. Remember, if a ST is destroyed on the way to its target, then the sub does not automatically die, and maybe only one of the ST's it would be launching would need to make it through for the target to die. Once the appropriate ways to defend from it had been developed, then the ST would most probably have developed new ways around these defenses- possibly like the example I gave, or there will just be some other new weapon that will supercede this technology.

The ST torpedo actually reminds me the most of SAMs - surface to air missiles. Your mention of some sort of radio control got me thinking. I suppose you could use a wire guidance system from the submarine in order to steer the ST - conventional torpedos do it all the time. That would certainly make it harder to hit; however, the down side is the submarine would have to stay in one spot to guide it. The way to defeat a hand-launched wire guided missile isn't to shoot the missile; the correct tactic is to shoot at the launcher. This works for both hand-launched and full on SAM missiles that are guided from ground-based radar. The same tactic could work for the ST.

Your assertion that "a good offense is the best defense" is exactly right. I agree with it 100%. That's why I believe the ST is a bad technology - it has that huge flaw of giving away the sub's position. It's not like a regular torpedo, either - the difference in sound between a regular torpedo and an ST is the difference between a bow and arrow and an AAMRAM. The harpoon missile is a much better solution, IMHO, since it does not necessarily give away the sub's position.

I definitely believe in human innovation and invention. That doesn't mean you can't make a wrong choice. A good example of that is in racing, particularly amateur racing. Different guys try different combinations of parts and have varying levels of success. For example, one guy might spend five thousand dollars on parts for his car and gains, say, 1 second in the quarter mile. Another guy might spend eight hundred dollars on an identical car and pick up just as much or even more speed. I've seen it happen many times. It all depends on the technology you choose and the level of skill with which you execute.

[edit] A better example that I just thought of is Edison's use of direct current. It worked, but had the huge flaw of not being able to be transmitted more than a mile without a lot of loss. AC current solved this problem because you can use transformers with AC.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by marshmat

This little battle is getting tiring, boys.

Well, we're having fun.

Originally Posted by marshmat

Technology cannot be created by willpower alone.

Depends on who you talk to. Thomas Edison said "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."

Originally Posted by marshmat

Even huge amounts of money cannot always create solutions. As recent US missile defence tests have shown, the chances of actually shooting a projectile out of the sky are pretty slim, even when the target has a homing beacon on it and the interceptor has radar, infrared, GPS, and a device to track that homing beacon. Bullets from supersonic weapons simply disintegrate within a few feet of hitting water- it's not at all easy to go fast underwater, let alone hit something moving fast underwater. We may be able to do this in future, but at present it's not something you can use on the open ocean.

As I said earlier, use the first bullets in a rapid fire stream to open a hole to the target. Each bullet goes a few meters farther until the bullet stream intersects the torpedo path.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

There are no fire control systems based on active sonar.

Torpedos use passive sonar to home in on the noise of the target.

They also use active sonar. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm

Here's a site with some more details on torpedo active sonar: http://www.naval-technology.com/cont...iles/eurotorp/

You really shouldn't be so quick to dismiss human intellect. You've stuck your foot in your mouth at least three times in this discussion so far.

[stonebreaker]

If you go after the sub instead of the munition, the sub only gets one shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASROC

And, if a supercavitator is fired at a sub, we can respond with an even faster weapon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBROC

Ours has two advantages: It's faster, because it flies smart and not hard; and the torpedo it drops in the water is guided. Or, you just use a nuclear depth charge if you just have sort of a general idea where the enemy is.

[twakeley]

I was reading Crush Depth by Joe Buff and they mentioned the Shkval torpedo. Quick background, its 2012 and the U.S. is involved with a ww3 type scenario vs. Germany and tactical small yield nuclear weapons are the weapon of choice, but only underwater to "minimize" the effects of the radiation. Totally unrealistic, but a great read. Basically there are two state of the art subs, U.S and German hunting eachother in the Hunt for Red October style except with nuclear weapons. They seemingly routinely fire a nuclear tipped weapon to detonate infront of and therefore prematurely detonating an incoming identical weapon fired from another sub.

Obviously fiction, but then again walking on the moon was science fiction until we actually did it (supposedly). But thats another discussion.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

They also use active sonar. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm

Here's a site with some more details on torpedo active sonar: http://www.naval-technology.com/cont...iles/eurotorp/

You really shouldn't be so quick to dismiss human intellect. You've stuck your foot in your mouth at least three times in this discussion so far.

You make the mistake of assuming my comments on intellect are about more than one person.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

If you go after the sub instead of the munition, the sub only gets one shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASROC

And, if a supercavitator is fired at a sub, we can respond with an even faster weapon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUBROC

Ours has two advantages: It's faster, because it flies smart and not hard; and the torpedo it drops in the water is guided. Or, you just use a nuclear depth charge if you just have sort of a general idea where the enemy is.

Getting that one shot is WHY the Russians developed the supercavitating torpedo.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by stonebreaker

Well, we're having fun.

Depends on who you talk to. Thomas Edison said "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration."

As I said earlier, use the first bullets in a rapid fire stream to open a hole to the target. Each bullet goes a few meters farther until the bullet stream intersects the torpedo path.

You make the mistake of confusing the underwater behavior of CONVENTIONAL bullets with supercavitating projectiles.

"As I said earlier, use the first bullets in a rapid fire stream to open a hole to the target. Each bullet goes a few meters farther until the bullet stream intersects the torpedo path."

NOT needing to do this is WHY supercavitating bullets and projectiles are being developed.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by twakeley

I was reading Crush Depth by Joe Buff and they mentioned the Shkval torpedo. Quick background, its 2012 and the U.S. is involved with a ww3 type scenario vs. Germany and tactical small yield nuclear weapons are the weapon of choice, but only underwater to "minimize" the effects of the radiation. Totally unrealistic, but a great read. Basically there are two state of the art subs, U.S and German hunting eachother in the Hunt for Red October style except with nuclear weapons. They seemingly routinely fire a nuclear tipped weapon to detonate infront of and therefore prematurely detonating an incoming identical weapon fired from another sub.

Obviously fiction, but then again walking on the moon was science fiction until we actually did it (supposedly). But thats another discussion.

The DUMBEST use of the word "supposedly" EVER.

It's not another discussion because there is nothing to discuss.

It's on a par with the idiots who try to say an airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon or that ordinary aircraft contrails are "chemtrails."

[twakeley]

I bet I can beat it though...

Supposedly your not arrogant, combative and antagonistic for little to no reason at all.

Anyways, I just figure someone like Richard Branson (virgin atlantic) would have "moon base" tours or something by now. But personally I'll take their word for it.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by twakeley

I bet I can beat it though...

Supposedly your not arrogant, combative and antagonistic for little to no reason at all.

Anyways, I just figure someone like Richard Branson (virgin atlantic) would have "moon base" tours or something by now. But personally I'll take their word for it.

Not only did Rutan's SpaceShipOne beat the X-15 altitude record, Rutan's team was able to do it on nothing remotely approaching the budget spent to develop the X-15.

SpaceShipOne was also the first all composite airplane to go supersonic and the first supersonic airplane developed without government funds as well as being the first all composite spaceplane.

The budget being discussed to develop a tourist version of SpaceShipOne is not even the cost of a single new 747.

[longliner45]

dont worry boys :bubbas navy got something to counter it,,,,,,,longliner