Live data from Hacker News

Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

thedrive.com

31–40 of 219 posts

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#31
post #17

Never occurred to me that torpedoes can be battery powered. Any idea what kind of cells they have? I got confused by the dual units here: > 65cm torpedoes have enough fuel to travel in excess of 100 kilometers at 50 knots for just over an hour. Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out. Weird nautical units.

Probably some form of lithium primary cell as they have high energy densities and good shelf life.

The article says Zinc-Oxide

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#32
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered why there's a guy in the plane at all at this point. Doesn't it severely limit the maneuverability of the aircraft to have a liquid-fueled brain piloting it around rather than some remotely controlled semi-autonomous solid-state electronics?

You are thinking from a technical perspective. You will always need a guy in the cockpit that can refuse an order. Not the same thing if it's a room of drone pilots, a drone pilot will just get fired and replaced on the spot. Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collater…

Except we already make most of our air-based strikes from drones currently, so that can't be the reason we have SOME piloted planes.

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#33
post #11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I read your comment just as the movie top gun started on my TV. I really wonder what air-to-air unmanned dog fight would look like. Are drone swarms a thing yet? a sky filled with drones would be terrifying. I would hope modern jets deploy drone like missiles manned by ground crew for dogfights,but if I learned anything about F22 and F35, they spend trillions to basically let middle parties steal the money and t…

The weapons and tactics you describe might be possible in a few years but today they're science fiction.

Top militaries can be several years ahead in secret capabilities. Curious how much of what’s described is actually operational today.

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#34

“A torpedo cannot be ‘command-detonated’ as seen in the movie Hunt for Red October.” Why is this so? The wire controls seem sufficient.

I think it just means it's unnecessary. Just disarm the warhead (or inert it) and shut off the torpedo like they describe in the article. The donating part is pointless.

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#35

Somewhat related, my uncle was a “Phantom driver” (F4 Phantom II) in Vietnam. Flew a bunch of missions of varying types. So Top Gun comes out, and my mom points out he had graduated Fighter Weapons School - my uncle is a real Top Gun! So I asked him for tales of dogfights, war stories. He had exactly one: “they’d send us out to fight some MiGs, and as soon as we got in range and turned our radar on to start shooting,…

Recently saw an old video on youtube about that. Top Gun was created in response to heavy losses in Vietnam. It was very small and they had trouble even finding space for classes. A turning point came when a Mig was captured and they trained with it to find weaknesses. After that everything changed. The kill ratio inverted and they did start to run when engaged in some cases. Your uncle was lucky to go after the strategy was worked out, or he probably wouldn't have come back!

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#36
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered why there's a guy in the plane at all at this point. Doesn't it severely limit the maneuverability of the aircraft to have a liquid-fueled brain piloting it around rather than some remotely controlled semi-autonomous solid-state electronics?

You are thinking from a technical perspective. You will always need a guy in the cockpit that can refuse an order. Not the same thing if it's a room of drone pilots, a drone pilot will just get fired and replaced on the spot. Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collater…

This reminds me a lot about the Geneva convention and how the rules of war very quickly got tossed aside during WW2.

If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral.

By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight.

We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#37
post #17

Never occurred to me that torpedoes can be battery powered. Any idea what kind of cells they have? I got confused by the dual units here: > 65cm torpedoes have enough fuel to travel in excess of 100 kilometers at 50 knots for just over an hour. Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out. Weird nautical units.

Knot means nautical mile per hour. It’s not a short way to say “nautical mile”.

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#38
post #4

Has any ship been torpedoed by a submarine since the Admiral Belgrano in 1982?

In 1999 the USS Bremerton torpedoed the New Carissa. One Mark 48 did the trick.

That was after 69 rounds from a 127 mm deck gun on the USS David R. Ray couldn't sink it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Carissa

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#39
I rip on surface fleets as being floating reef fodder that would be sunk almost immediately against any modern power, either because of the sophistication of submarines, the rise of cheap drones winning the economic exchange, or death-from-above missles and ICBMs that are basically undefendable.

But against subs I'm surprised there aren't plans for a drone-net that surrounds a fleet or high value ship that can detect incoming underwater threats via some mesh networking.

Re: Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

#40
post #17

Never occurred to me that torpedoes can be battery powered. Any idea what kind of cells they have? I got confused by the dual units here: > 65cm torpedoes have enough fuel to travel in excess of 100 kilometers at 50 knots for just over an hour. Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out. Weird nautical units.

So fun trivia. A nautical mile is one minute of latitude (1/60th of a degree). The meter was originally 1/10,000,000th of the equator to the north pole. So I'd argue the nautical mile was more logical than the statute mile, in this respect.

This is also why you can rough 1knot:2km; you're dividing those 10,000,000 old-world-meters by 5400 (90°*60').

Post reply on HN