Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 84

Thread: Unmanned Sub Tracker - Testers Wanted

  1. #41
    Proof that few problems can't be solved with enough explosives.

  2. #42
    Bleed White and Blue! Shogun's Avatar
    Posts
    7,635
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    Proof that few problems can't be solved with enough explosives.
    "Hey, we can't hit them, why not make is so it doesn't MATTER if we hit them"

  3. #43
    Torps with multiple warheads?

  4. #44
    MIRV torpedos.

  5. #45
    Penguinaciously duckalicious. Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Posts
    16,524
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTRA View Post
    Most warships have a ring of armour,10 metres @ 18" or more thick down to about 15 metres at 40", and that's not even a capital ship.
    Most modern warships are essentially unarmoured.

    we sent in Swordfish's with MK42's if I remember to put the fear of God up 'em!
    Mk XII (18 inch).
    The Mk42 was a development-only, US submarine-launched 21" torp. Started in 1949, abondoned in '52

  6. #46
    Bleed White and Blue! Shogun's Avatar
    Posts
    7,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Most modern warships are essentially unarmoured.
    There is little need to.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Most modern warships are essentially unarmoured.


    Mk XII (18 inch).
    The Mk42 was a development-only, US submarine-launched 21" torp. Started in 1949, abondoned in '52
    Well with torpedos like the ADCAP you'd have better luck ditching the armor and trying to make a break for it.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTRA View Post
    Passive systems are usually preferable as they don't give away your position to the enemy.
    Indeed, and a friend of mine used to work on exactly that. He no longer does, so I can only assume they succeeded.

  9. #49
    What characteristic of passive sonar did he work on?

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    What characteristic of passive sonar did he work on?
    Oh, just the usual run of the mill severely classified stuff, and it wasn't just sonar, it was multi-element.

  11. #51
    Never heard of that phrase used before 'multi element'.

  12. #52
    Well, I know some modern warships have thin skins to theoretically allow a missile to pass right through without detonating, I would have thought sub-surface armour could still prove useful against torpedoes though, though perhaps not anymore.

    Thanks for the updated info D, I'm no expert on torpedoes and the '42 had stuck in my foggy excuse for a mind for some reason.

    I think with digital technology that it would be easy to program a low-power 16bit processor to analyse and respond to acoustic stimulae with great accuracy. The Navy already have a digital library of many vessels, and presumably the base unit of these stand-off "sleeper" type torps could easily accomodate such a system, conserving power for the torpedo itself.

    If such a system was to undergo a long deployment, sea-crud building up on it might cause a misfire. Normally this wouldn't be a problem as anti-foul lasts a couple of years, but these things can't be serviced all that easily I don't suppose. So I'm still thinking that they are a weapon of expedience with limited long term uses. We already have a series of underwater sonic detectors originally set up by CINCPAC in the late 40's and 50's (If I recall correctly), and updated over the years.

    It would be interesting to know if one of these has been used for real, outside of controlled testing parameters.

  13. #53
    What? Like what ship exactly? Ultra its not just a microphone hooked up to a tripwire. Seaweed will not set it off.

  14. #54
    I couldn't tell you which particular vessel is built this way as I'm not a naval enthusiast, but it is current naval strategy to reduce surface armour so a missile can pass through without detonating. I believe a number of ships in the British, American and Norwegian navies have been built such as this, and have been active for about 30 years now. This evolved as a strategy to counter ship killing missiles such as the Exocet and Penguin. The theory is that thin armour does not cause the missile to detonate, but Dyw would know more about that than me.
    I'm not saying seaweed will set it off. What I said was that left for extensive periods, crud would have a chance to build up possibly causing a misfire. A misfire is any event during the firing of a torpedo that causes it to fail to run true to its target, in this context. A bit of seaweed isn't likely to affect it, but an encrustation of barnacles, molluscs and other sea-bourne detritus will eventually disable it, given time. Therefore it would not function well in a long term deployment. There are also other reasons for this.
    Last edited by ULTRA; 04-20-11 at 01:03 PM. Reason: Typo

  15. #55
    I find that excessively hard to believe, namely because it would take a pretty big idiot to make a pressure sensor that cannot tell the difference between air pressure and a steel plate, no matter how thin.

    And most missiles have radar seeker heads, I'd think they could figure out when the range to target hits zero.

    It seems pretty unrealistic from my perspective.

  16. #56
    The thing is that anti-ship missiles are so destructive that no amount of armour can protect them. Instead, they have radar anti-missile systems that try and shoot it down before it even gets there. If it does get through, the (usually aluminium) skins used nowadays are built in hexagonal cells to maintain integrity in the event of explosion. The only use for armour now is to protect against heavy guns (which are a thing of the past now) and bombs dropped by aircraft.
    I found this message-board entry. With a tiny bit of searching you could find out plenty about it, it's no secret.. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-256970.html

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by fedr808 View Post
    Never heard of that phrase used before 'multi element'.
    They embraced all manner of passive systems, and non-acoustic systems too. Signals that might be considered not significant if taken on their own can be given more confidence if they correlate to data from another source, and each source might not be able to give reliable data on it's own, but it's more reliable when correlated.

    That's as much as I know (apart from the sources) but then I am security cleared to some extent and have worked on his computer systems, and really, I guess, that's as much as I should say. I guess you can guess what the other sources might be.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTRA View Post
    Well, I know some modern warships have thin skins to theoretically allow a missile to pass right through without detonating,
    And Kursk class subs go for the opposite approach, a hydrodynamic outer hull, that will detonate torpedoes, so there is some separation between the detonation and the structural hull.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by phlogistician View Post
    And Kursk class subs go for the opposite approach, a hydrodynamic outer hull, that will detonate torpedoes, so there is some separation between the detonation and the structural hull.
    Lordy, I didn't know that..They'd rather duke it out with a ton of Amatol or Torpex or whatever the hell they use? But then, I suppose it's the rational alternative..You don't want a great fat torpedo running it through like a virgin on prom-night half a mile underwater, do you?
    Reminds me of explosive reactive armour used on some main battle-tanks. On being hit, a flat plate of armour with a layer of plastic explosive behind it (not unlike a claymore in principal) detonates on impact with a HEAT round, deflecting the blast (in theory.)

    I like armour, interesting stuff.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by phlogistician View Post
    They embraced all manner of passive systems, and non-acoustic systems too. Signals that might be considered not significant if taken on their own can be given more confidence if they correlate to data from another source, and each source might not be able to give reliable data on it's own, but it's more reliable when correlated.

    That's as much as I know (apart from the sources) but then I am security cleared to some extent and have worked on his computer systems, and really, I guess, that's as much as I should say. I guess you can guess what the other sources might be.
    Best guess is MAD. Then the sonar equivolant of the ESM mast.

    I can't think of any other passive sensors off the top of my head.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By EndLightEnd in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 12-04-11, 04:57 PM
    Replies: 59
  2. By Someone in forum World Events
    Last Post: 09-14-10, 04:32 PM
    Replies: 57
  3. By one_raven in forum Linguistics
    Last Post: 04-07-07, 04:10 PM
    Replies: 38
  4. By draqon in forum Human Science
    Last Post: 02-26-07, 02:43 PM
    Replies: 27
  5. By Free_Matt_417 in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 01-13-07, 02:31 AM
    Replies: 2

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •