300knt torpedo

[twakeley]

In the original post, it mentioned using conventional propellers until clear of the sub. So to solve the accuracy problem, why not disengage the rocket as it approaches the target and go back to conventional propellers. I realize that this makes it as vulnerable to countermeasures as conventional torpedoes, but surely the significantly shortened reaction time is an advantage.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by twakeley

In the original post, it mentioned using conventional propellers until clear of the sub. So to solve the accuracy problem, why not disengage the rocket as it approaches the target and go back to conventional propellers. I realize that this makes it as vulnerable to countermeasures as conventional torpedoes, but surely the significantly shortened reaction time is an advantage.

Because the current supercavitating torpedo(s) doesn't use propellers.

They're rocket powered from the get go.

Propeller propulsion for supercavitating vehicles is still on the drawing board.

[twakeley]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...3/220813.shtml

This article which was posted on the first page, says that the Russians are already advertising a homing version that slows down as it nears the target. However you are correct that it doesn't use propellers, just less thrust.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by twakeley

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

The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.

The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag's edges are pulled taut. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The "flutter" was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, "Old Glory" appeared to wave.

The Claim: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.

The Science: The Van Allen Belts are created by Earth's magnetic field, and protect the planet from dangerous solar radiation. The belts collects this radiation, and traps it in a layer surrounding the Earth. But unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. "It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray," said Plait. Outside the belt, the radiation drops to low levels that are only dangerous over extremely long periods of time.

The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.

The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.

The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.

The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.

The Claim: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?

The Science: Not always. If you take some dry fine-grained dust such as talcum powder and dump it out, it's easy to make tracks in it that hold their shape. The particles hold their positions due to the friction between them.

The Claim: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.

The Science: Space is really amazingly big. While there are indeed an uncountable number of tiny pieces of debris travelling through the Solar System at speeds in the neighborhood of 120,000MPH, the volume of space keeps the density low. The chance of any given cubic yard of space having a micro-meteor passing through it is incredibly close to zero. Additionally, the astronauts suits included a layer of kevlar to protect them from any tiny fragment they might encounter.

The Claim: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the "dusty surface."

The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was "kicked up" as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.

[FAST FRED]

If Iran decides to close the Straights to shipping they will use surface skimming missles.
Doesnt take many tankers lit to get the insurance gents to close an area.
1 will usually do it.

FAST FRED

[kc135delta]

lets see here;

21inches diameter x lets say 26 feet to make it even = 6552in3 divided by 3 becuase you need O2, fuel and then some water jet nozzle thing? - 2184in3 of fuel, 231 in3 = 1/4 gallon so 8.36363636363636336364 gallons of fuel? that wuld be burned in about 3 seconds,and were not even factoring in acceleration here!

myth = busted

I'm an aeronautical engineer so I know these things.


Allthough a completely stock russian Alfa sub did dive to 4,250ft or somthing (it was ovr 1,300 meters) and that's the deepest diving millitary sub in existance. Then they had some other sub that would dive to 1300m on a regular basis but it burned up in the pacific and I forgot it's name.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by kc135delta

lets see here;

21inches diameter x lets say 26 feet to make it even = 6552in3 divided by 3 becuase you need O2, fuel and then some water jet nozzle thing? - 2184in3 of fuel, 231 in3 = 1/4 gallon so 8.36363636363636336364 gallons of fuel? that wuld be burned in about 3 seconds,and were not even factoring in acceleration here!

myth = busted

I'm an aeronautical engineer so I know these things.


Allthough a completely stock russian Alfa sub did dive to 4,250ft or somthing (it was ovr 1,300 meters) and that's the deepest diving millitary sub in existance. Then they had some other sub that would dive to 1300m on a regular basis but it burned up in the pacific and I forgot it's name.

Since you didn't preface this with what you're referring to, we don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

[yipster]

only the sprint in under high speed supecavitation , launched it is cruising wire controlled

[kc135delta]

Originally Posted by FranklinRatliff

Since you didn't preface this with what you're referring to, we don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

The "300knt" torpedo

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by twakeley

In the original post, it mentioned using conventional propellers until clear of the sub. So to solve the accuracy problem, why not disengage the rocket as it approaches the target and go back to conventional propellers. I realize that this makes it as vulnerable to countermeasures as conventional torpedoes, but surely the significantly shortened reaction time is an advantage.

You must be psychic. Check out this article. Among other things, they say that the new improved shkval that the Kursk was testing when it sank does exactly that.

[FranklinRatliff]

Originally Posted by kc135delta

lets see here;

21inches diameter x lets say 26 feet to make it even = 6552in3 divided by 3 becuase you need O2, fuel and then some water jet nozzle thing? - 2184in3 of fuel, 231 in3 = 1/4 gallon so 8.36363636363636336364 gallons of fuel? that wuld be burned in about 3 seconds,and were not even factoring in acceleration here!

myth = busted

I'm an aeronautical engineer so I know these things.


Allthough a completely stock russian Alfa sub did dive to 4,250ft or somthing (it was ovr 1,300 meters) and that's the deepest diving millitary sub in existance. Then they had some other sub that would dive to 1300m on a regular basis but it burned up in the pacific and I forgot it's name.

Whether or not you're an aeronautical engineer, you don't know s*** about rockets.

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by kc135delta

lets see here;

21inches diameter x lets say 26 feet to make it even = 6552in3 divided by 3 becuase you need O2, fuel and then some water jet nozzle thing? - 2184in3 of fuel, 231 in3 = 1/4 gallon so 8.36363636363636336364 gallons of fuel? that wuld be burned in about 3 seconds,and were not even factoring in acceleration here!

myth = busted

I'm an aeronautical engineer so I know these things.

Maybe so, but you don't seem to know how to check your math.

[stonebreaker]

I didn't realize the shkval has been around for 30 years.

"Submariners say that all they need to do when faced with an incoming Shkval is make a slight change in depth."

[longliner45]

what ever the argument.......they have it and now we have to countor it .

[stonebreaker]

Originally Posted by longliner45

what ever the argument.......they have it and now we have to countor it .

Actually, the article I posted a link to above is pretty dismissive of it.