Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 219 posts

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

#91

Post by dylan604 »

supernova87a wrote: post #82

Side question -- do submarines really have the ability to ping, like in Hunt for Red October, do they ever use it, and does it actually use the frequency range of human hearing like that? Do torpedoes? Or are they ultrasonic (given that depth gauges I know are ultrasonic). I assume that subs once did use such pings historically given how common that sound effect is associated with them. Maybe not any more I guess?

The thing about the ping is that everyone that can hear it gets the benefit of that ping. So you are 100% giving away your position with a ping. Nowadays, you want to stay silent, so you use passive sonar. A very long tail is trailed behind the sub with lots of microphones listening. They've done it so long, they know what all sorts of things sound like. Man made objects likes subs and surface ships, airplanes flying above the water, rocks sliding, crabs crawling, etc.

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

#92

Post by sandworm101 »

rudyfink wrote: post #88
sandworm101 wrote: post #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 d…

Apparently, there are things called "swim out" torpedoes? https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/at5nt4/silent_l... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbeQmfXE0ws - discussed in this video (from in the parent article)

Those are sometimes called "stealth" torps. They run quiet, and slow, so they don't want the noisy launch procedure. But they also don't do 50 knots. On the other end of the scale there are the rocket torpedoes, really missiles that fly underwater at speeds over 200 knots. You might hear them coming but won't be able to do much about them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

And there are even anti-aircraft torpedoes in development. They are a total gamechanger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)

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

#93

Post by dylan604 »

soneil wrote: post #40
tra3 wrote: 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').

If you use a 7200rpm hard drive does the math work out differently?

I always forget the definition of the nautical distance. Thanks for the reminder. There's also the knot in a rope every certain distance that would get counted against a stop watch to see how fast the ship was moving.

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

#94

Post by goatinaboat »

phkahler wrote: post #35
neurobashing wrote: post #3

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…

Top Gun was created in response to heavy losses in Vietnam

That in itself is a crucial piece of historical context. The MiGs of the day were better than contemporary American fighters such as the F-86. They operated at altitudes the Americans couldn’t reach and shot downwards. One reason America was in Vietnam in the first place was a genuine fear that the Soviet system was actually better! It was the Sidewinder missile that really turned things around.

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

#95

Post by sandworm101 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #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 d…

More wrong stuff...

"It is best if the weapon detonates within a meter of the hull, but a contact detonation can have devastating effects against even the largest warships."

Torpedoes targeting ships definitely do not want to hit anywhere near the hull. They explode well beneath the target, tens of meters below. They don't try to directly damage the target. Their explosives create a large void of gas, a hole, under the ship. The ship then cracks in half as it 'falls' into the hole. Whether this technique is also used against submarines, with much stronger hulls, is likely classified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zQ0wBvh18

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

#96

Post by oinkl »

_8j50 wrote: post #80
nostrademons wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> two nuclear bombs were dropped on japan,the pilots committed suicide

None of the pilots died.

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

Both planes returned to the US.

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

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

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

#97

Post by ckozlowski »

Arubis wrote: post #70
kragen wrote: post #47

How is there an article entitled "modern submarine torpedo attacks" apparently written in 2020 that doesn't contain the word "supercavitating"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

Somewhat cynical take: because the West doesn’t have superiority in this space.

These got a lot of attention a while back. But their use case is limited because they're really short-ranged. These things go all out soon after leaving the tube, make a hell of a lot of noise, and are good only really close in. They're sort of a last resort weapon, a snapshot provided that the enemy shooting at you is even within range.

A modern US Mark 48 can swim out quietly under wire guidance and emit no noise or sensor emissions, steered on an intercept course, then revved up to top speed once it's in close. A torpedo like the Shkval can't close the distance, and that's assuming the enemy even knows where they're being shot from. Just because a Mark 48 suddenly goes active on your stern doesn't mean it was fired from there.

According to the wiki article, this was for intercepting incoming torpedoes. I suppose that could work, though again, the noise I'd imagine would be troublesome. It might mask for you a bit, but your attacker would know where this thing was shot from. Meanwhile, your own sonar is only going to hear this thing, meaning you've lost a solution on the guy shooting you, leaving him to set up again.

I highly suspect the reason we haven't seen an equivalent is because the tactical doctrine doesn't call for one. My armchair two-cents.

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

#98

Post by ARandomerDude »

sandworm101 wrote: post #78
kitteh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah, Falcon 4.0, I miss you so much. This "beaming" maneuver was in the manual, along with all kinds of other goodies. Most fun a 13 year old could have.

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

#99

Post by ckozlowski »

sandworm101 wrote: post #92
rudyfink wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, there are things called "swim out" torpedoes? https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/at5nt4/silent_l... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbeQmfXE0ws - discussed in this video (from in the parent article)

Those are sometimes called "stealth" torps. They run quiet, and slow, so they don't want the noisy launch procedure. But they also don't do 50 knots. On the other end of the scale there are the rocket torpedoes, really missiles that fly underwater at speeds over 200 knots. You might hear them coming but won't be able to do much about them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval And there are even anti-aircraft t…

Actually, latter versions of the Mark 48 will do this, running at variable speed. Slow launch, creep towards the target, and dogleg even, then run up to 50+ knots once it's close enough to be heard. With wire guidance, the sub could essentially drive the torpedo to where they wanted it before violent speed and maneuvering would likely cut the wires.

This was depicted somewhat famously in the book Red Storm Rising. By all accounts it was accurate.

Shkval is a really special case and not the supertorpedo some made it out to be. It's a countermeasure really, and it's range is far too short to use against other submarines. It's a last resort weapon, when someone's already found you.

IDAS seems really fascinating to me though, like the "Stinger SAM mast" concepts I'd sometimes hear about. IDAS seems more practical and safe to me though. Coming up to periscope depth to take a potshot at a helo sounds like a risky maneuver to me. IDAS would give better options.

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

#100

Post by ckozlowski »

neurobashing wrote: post #3

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 fantastic book, "Clashes" by Marshall Michell all about this subject, which I can highly recommend. All about the air war in Vietnam.

https://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-197...

Post reply on HN