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

111–120 of 219 posts

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

#111

Post by angry_octet »

willvarfar wrote: post #107
ckozlowski wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Manpad-type missiles like the British Blowpipe have been mounted on submarine masks. A major threat to a submarine is all the helicopters and patrol aircraft with their dipping sonars etc. There are some really great pics taken from periscopes of opposition helicopters during the cold war. Nothing you'd want to see in a hot war neither. It seems good to throw a little missile at the helicopter you've just spotted app…

A helo would have to be much more careful if it thought it might be shot at by a missile, so some deterrence effect. OTOH if you shot at it and missed it would active dip right on top of you and then launch some LWTs, and you'd be blasted.

If they could leave an autonomous missile pod floating just below the surface, with a submarine-like ESM mast, that would be more interesting. You couldn't get in dip range to verify subsurface contacts without being in MANPAD (BOTPAD?) range. Really the same idea as autonomous mines, which have a magnificent power of area denial.

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

#113

Post by waste_monk »

dylan604 wrote: post #91
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…

My (admittedly very armchair) understanding is the ping is a lot worse for the hunter than the target - the distance you can hear the ping is roughly 2x the distance* you'll get a useful return from it, so if the target is beyond that range you'll effectively lose all stealth and confer a huge advantage to the enemy.

* this is complicated by thermal layers, geography, etc. but very approximately 2x is the figure I've heard.

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

#114

Post by angry_octet »

_8j50 wrote: post #81
cortesoft wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Air to land not air to air.

We'd happily have air to air drones (really RPA/RPS) except for jamming.

Basically all the current generation RPS tech (like Reaper) stops working once you're dealing with someone with jamming capability. No one is happy with algorithms pulling the trigger yet for air to ground, but air to air I can see happening quickly.

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

#115

Post by angry_octet »

lainga wrote: post #18
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #15

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 could make an argument about drone jamming and autonomous behaviour not being quite there yet... I think that's what the "wingmen" are for. The paradigm we're moving out of was one where you'd get high-quality sensor data from a specialized patrol or AWACS plane like an E-3, which would send information to ground, which would relay it to the fighters. Now, platforms like the F-35 often have better sensors than pa…

Still a place for AWACS, bigger RADAR allows different frequencies, much wider field of view, lots of power. Usually they would communicate with fighters directly to update their picture (voice & link). Ground controllers usually take a back seat to what AWACS says.

The difference with the drone wingman (wingbot?) is that the controller is in the air and close by, and she can point a powerful X-band radar at the drones to use as an un-jammable comms link (high power, better geometry). If the manned aircraft were also to merge then they could be jammed because the geometry would be wrong, but for short periods the wingbot tactics are mainly dominated by physics (energy, shot flyout and engagement envelopes).

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

#116

Post by ashtonkem »

angry_octet wrote: post #111
willvarfar wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manpad-type missiles like the British Blowpipe have been mounted on submarine masks. A major threat to a submarine is all the helicopters and patrol aircraft with their dipping sonars etc. There are some really great pics taken from periscopes of opposition helicopters during the cold war. Nothing you'd want to see in a hot war neither. It seems good to throw a little missile at the helicopter you've just spotted app…

A helo would have to be much more careful if it thought it might be shot at by a missile, so some deterrence effect. OTOH if you shot at it and missed it would active dip right on top of you and then launch some LWTs, and you'd be blasted. If they could leave an autonomous missile pod floating just below the surface, with a submarine-like ESM mast, that would be more interesting. You couldn't get in dip range to veri…

I think if I just dodged a short range missile launched from the mast of a submarine, I’d drop a torpedo immediately to force the sub to dive.

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

#117

Post by angry_octet »

deanCommie wrote: post #42

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...

RIPLEY How may drops is this for you, Lieutenant?

GORMAN Thirty-eight...simulated.

VASQUEZ How many combat drops?

GORMAN Well...two. Three, including this one.

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

#119

Post by angry_octet »

tzs wrote: post #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?

I think we can take this as an explanation for generalists, rather than a problem set from basic EE.

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

#120

Post by razzmataz »

kitteh wrote: post #50
neurobashing wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He told me he didn’t have a lot of confidence in the Sparrow. They eventually got some aircraft with guns but never used them; despite Top Gun school something like 90% Of his flights were ground attack missions.

Highly recommend folks who are into aircraft warfare pick up a book about how the AIM-9 Sidewinder was developed as a side project at China Lake by the Navy that had to be done under the radar due to politics. It's a great story about engineers driven by a real customer need fought bureaucracy, politics and some interesting technical challenges to build a missile and get it in the hands of pilots. They were up agains…

Not to mention the AIM-4 was originally designed to shoot down Soviet bombers and not for dogfighting.
Post reply on HN