Live data from Hacker News

Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

thedrive.com

71–80 of 219 posts

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

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From linked reference: Silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al) Silver oxide-zinc (AgO-Zn) Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) Lithium-polymer Lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4) 1,040 Wh/kg 490 Wh/kg 600 Wh/kg 600 Wh/kg 520 Wh/kg The F21 is powered by a new generation of silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al) sea-water primary battery using dissolved sodium dioxide powder as electrolyte and incorporating a new electronic closed loop electrolyte circ…

And here we are on Hacker News with other threads on how battery density is peaking with Lithium and there is nothing better in sight. Turns out there are silver based battery that can do almost double. So what's the catch as to why it's not being adopted by phones?

Silver is expensive, and the Defense Department is substantially less price-conscious than the average smartphone buyer.

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

#72
Take EVERYTHING in that article with a giant tub of salt. The specifics of torpedo combat are some of the most closely guarded military secrets.

Take the following: "These high-torque, permanent magnet electric motor torpedoes ramp up to speed in under a second. They go from sitting in a torpedo tube to 50 knots in a near-instant because they don’t have the mechanical lag and inertia thermal torpedoes must overcome during startup. "

So much of that is totally wrong. The torpedo has nothing to do with how it gets out of the tube. Its propulsor (not a propeller) wont work from the back of a torpedo tube. Starting it up in the tube, INSIDE the sub, sounds horribly dangerous. The torp is ejected by force from the sub and then starts its engine. Electric or thermal, it's doing 50+ whether it wants to or not. Once out of the tube, further acceleration potential is limited by depth/pressure. All torps have more than enough torque to start cavitating their propulsor in shallow water. To continue to automotive analogy, it doesn't matter whether your car is electric or turbine powered, acceleration is limited by how much power your tires can handle before spinning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjoholiW1ho

And this is why you don't want that engine running prior to the torp leaving the tube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoElLaLcfOc

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

#73

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,…

There's a really good, really old (like 25+ years old) episode of Nova called "TopGun and Beyond" where a Viet Nam era fighter pilot said exactly that. Then he goes on to describe an engagement where the MiG didn't :-) Found it on YouTube. Yay!! Now I don't have to watch my poorly-recorded-from-broadcast-TV VHS version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-1vPWfHy8

Wow, this is great. I read a lot about aviation history when I was younger but it was amazing to watch it and much more in depth about certain topics.

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

#74
post #67
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the book - Sidewinder - Creative Missile Development at China Lake? https://www.amazon.com/Sidewinder-Creative-Missile-Developme...

Yep, that's the one. Thanks for finding and posting (wasn't able to do this where I was at).

I've only heard good things about the Sidewinder.

The rest ... were a liability for years.

US pilots also had the bizarre order to visually identify targets before shooting (which then meant waiting 4 seconds for the missile to arm before actually firing it.)

Amongst other things, visibility in the tropics is often not 4 seconds worth, and the enemy can use clouds to get real close.

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

#75

Outstanding article, very informative, but the tense and tone is slightly amusing to me: > Actual underwater combat occurs silently with very little reaction time to fend off an impending attack. Does it occur? Do we have any examples of "actual underwater combat" occurring? I don't believe we have any real life examples of nations withs submarine capabilities in combat. War games probably don't count...

None that anyone can talk about.

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

#76

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,…

There's a really good, really old (like 25+ years old) episode of Nova called "TopGun and Beyond" where a Viet Nam era fighter pilot said exactly that. Then he goes on to describe an engagement where the MiG didn't :-) Found it on YouTube. Yay!! Now I don't have to watch my poorly-recorded-from-broadcast-TV VHS version. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-1vPWfHy8

Duke Cunningham is in there.

Too bad he went the corruption route later in life:

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

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

#77
> The batteries are connected in series allowing each weapon to have 2, 3, or 4 batteries. More batteries give the weapon more range. Fewer batteries make the weapon much lighter and more agile, but at the cost of range.

This sounds wrong. Shouldn't they be connected in parallel?

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

#78
post #56

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,…

Eh. There are documented dogfights out there that are dramatic, they even made a show about it with the actual pilots: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfights_(TV_series) That said, there are countless stories about US pilots locking up a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around (they'd see/hear that they were receiving high PRF - being locked on). That happened a lot more in the 70s and aft…

>> a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around

They weren't necessarily scared. Such maneuvers are stock counters to potential radar-guided missiles. (1) Missile ranges depend on closing speed. You can launch against something coming towards you sooner than something heading away. By turning around, or just sideways, the mig can instantly get outside of missile range. (2) Doppler radar measures relative velocity. Turning around/sideways reduces relative velocity. That can break a radar lock. If you can hear the American jet coming via the RWR, turning sideways may allow you to disappear from radar and draw your enemy closer. It would be wrong to assume that such maneuvers are done out of fear.

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

#79

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 stra…

The FW-190 was cutting Allied aircraft to pieces in WW2, until the Allies captured one intact, learned its weaknesses, and turned the tables.

To get extra range, the P-51s had a large fuel tank installed just behind the pilot (where the passenger seat goes if you've ever gotten a ride). Unfortunately, full of fuel caused a large imbalance in the airplane, making it nearly unmaneuverable. Naturally, the pilots would burn that tank off first.

The Germans never realized this - if they did, an attack on the P-51 squadrons soon after they took off would have caught them helpless.

Source: my dad was a P-51 pilot

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

#80
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

I disagree, soldiers are conditioned to avoid hesitation, two nuclear bombs were dropped on japan,the pilots committed suicide. A soldier that would hesitate means the situation warrants hesitation.

Not hesitating when you should could mean escalation of conflict. Even if you win the battle,it can cost you the war. Look at vietnam, the US lost domestic support because of lack of political support at home. You need the people who are pulling the triggers to know what victory means and it is not as simple as efficiently killing everyone.

The only time taking humans out of decision making makes sense is if you want indiscriminant killing,political support would not waiver at the sight if most civilians being slaughtered , you are fine with inspiring waves of terrorists that will attack your civilians and every other country will remain allied to you and continue to engage in commerce with you despite your genocidal ambitions.

Even in world war 2, civilians were mostly not targeted and prisoners were taken on both sides.

War is not about killing, war is means to acheive a political end by force. A machine that kills without knowledge of the (political) end game in mind will slaughter the enemy and cost you victory. Killing axis soldiers was not the goal of the allies,liberating occupied regions and removal of the fascist regimes was the goal, a goal that can easily be acheived by bombing every populated area of europe with minimal foot soldier involvement.

Post reply on HN