Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by dmos62 » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 8:48 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #206

dmos62 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft US has something better than the draft: poverty. As long as there's a large enough pool of young people without options, there's no problem. A draft generally can only be minimally discriminatory for PR reasons, so poverty as enlistment incentive works much better. Though, talking about US military running out of manpower is a far, far fetch, isn't? It surpas…

Currently most military recruits come from the middle classes. Youths in poverty typically fail to meet enlistment standards due to health problems, low standardized test scores, criminal record, drug use, etc. Of course there are many exceptions but that's the general rule.

https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&con...

Excerpt from DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

> An important predictor to military service in the general population is family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities.

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

#212

Post by greedo » Wed, Apr 15, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #209

greedo wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, was your dad a P-51 pilot, or a B-17 navigator? Quite different roles. I know the AAC moved people around at whim, but this seems unusual.

He was a B-17 navigator during WW2 for 32 missions. After the war, he left the military and went to college. After that he rejoined to become a fighter pilot (what he wanted originally anyway). He flew P-51s, and later transitioned to jet fighters. Flew combat in the Korean War, mostly ground attack missions. I would have joined the Air Force too, but with my thick glasses the AF told me no way I would be a pilot. So…

That's amazing. My grandfather flew for Pan Am during the war, and his flight career spanned biplanes to the 707. I'm in awe of that generation. Your dad sounds like he had a similar adventure!

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

#213

Post by supernova87a » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 12:10 AM UTC

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…

Yes, I understand, though my question was more whether subs actually have the ability to issue an audible ping like in that movie -- and why they would ever do it.

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

#214

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 3:22 AM UTC

NickNameNick wrote: post #179

WalterBright wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Luftwaffe even in 1944 was known to sneak through Allied defenses and shoot down B-17s. My father served as a B-17 navigator in 1944 and heard a Luftwaffe fighter shoot two bursts and bring down 2 B-17s in the landing pattern. The B-17s were caught by surprise cleaning their guns and never fired a shot back. The Luftwaffe could have taken out a squadron of P-51s with just a handful of fighters. This would have re…

That's not how aircraft aerodynamics work. Tail heavy aircraft turn faster than nose-heavy aircraft. With the centre of aerodynamic pressure in front of the centre of mass the wings contribute extra turning force whenever the aircraft isn't facing exactly into the airstream. If the centre of mass is too far behind the centre of pressure the aircraft becomes unstable - continuously trying to snap around and fly backwa…

I think we're on the same page. When I wrote "unable to turn" I meant "unable to turn in a stable manner". It would exhibit what in a car we'd call "oversteer". The pilot would have to be very gentle and careful in turns, which means death in air combat.

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

#215

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 3:27 AM UTC

greedo wrote: post #212

WalterBright wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was a B-17 navigator during WW2 for 32 missions. After the war, he left the military and went to college. After that he rejoined to become a fighter pilot (what he wanted originally anyway). He flew P-51s, and later transitioned to jet fighters. Flew combat in the Korean War, mostly ground attack missions. I would have joined the Air Force too, but with my thick glasses the AF told me no way I would be a pilot. So…

That's amazing. My grandfather flew for Pan Am during the war, and his flight career spanned biplanes to the 707. I'm in awe of that generation. Your dad sounds like he had a similar adventure!

Yup, he learned to fly in stringbag biplanes. An era that will never come again. My father had a long and very full life. Sounds like your grandfather did, too!

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

#216

Post by jacobush » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 7:06 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #208

jacobush wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal theory is that a big use case for Shkval is in the littoral and shallow waters of the Baltic Sea where there is fantastic opportunity to play hide and seek. Especially sub to sub. I think the Soviet command expected enemy subs to successfully sneak up on them and then have something up their sleeve to raise hell right back.

For that kind of case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the torpedoes deployed all the time at 100 meters or so from the main sub, so that they can counterattack after it gets destroyed? It could drag them behind it on cables.

In shallow, litteral waters full of all sorts of junk and varied topography? ... maybe not.

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

#217

Post by _archon_ » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 11:43 AM UTC

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 would assume that we're talking about the physical location being sequential, like stages on a rocket.

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

#218

Post by kragen » Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #216

kragen wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that kind of case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the torpedoes deployed all the time at 100 meters or so from the main sub, so that they can counterattack after it gets destroyed? It could drag them behind it on cables.

In shallow, litteral waters full of all sorts of junk and varied topography? ... maybe not.

Yeah, I was thinking of the deep-sea case, despite the context given above. Wouldn't do to have a dozen torpedoes all sending out sonar chirps!

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

#219

Post by opo » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 7:22 AM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #162

pjc50 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't going to sign up to get killed for that kind of money. That's why they had to be drafted in the Vietnam era. And that's also why minimum-wage restaurant workers are going on strike in the coronavirus era.

A draft is good if the rich kids are in it too, that usually makes policy makers more sober.

Now that we have a volunteer army, there are differences between how the wars of today are fought compared to the Viet Nam war. The Viet Nam war had literally an order of magnitude more deaths than our current wars. Having a volunteer force means the soldiers have to treated better and paid more than a draftee. These wars have been a waste of lives and money but things would have been much worse if there were millions of draftees serving in the middle east and Afghanistan. Having a volunteer force in the 1960s would have meant that if the Viet Nam war would have been fought, there would have been with a lot more concern for the loss of life of the solders - it likely wouldn't have been fought anything like it was fought.

The USA should use this opportunity to step back and re-think whether registering for the draft is needed in this age. The whole draft registration program is simply a waste of millions of dollars a year.