U Sank My Carrier!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Flubber


Isn't the problem for most subs that such uplinks increase their detectability by quite a lot??

sure, but you only need to do it for a second. after that, everything is annhilated.

[Patroklos]

If you were to replace the Nuke silos in a boomer with vertical-launch Cruise missiles instead then the capacity would be huge - I'm guessing that it could launch 3-4 salvo's of 60+ missiles each which is probably enough to overwhelm most ships defences.

Like most great ideas, already thought of. The Us has already converted four Ohio-class submarines from SSBNs to SSGNs. Two are in trials and the other two are still being modified. and 60 plus missiles is nothing, a DDG has that. It carries significantly more.

Don't they have training torpedoes? Torps without warheads, that go PLONK! and release color or smoke or something when they hit?

No, at most a sub can shoot a green dye floater or flare to the surface, but then of course the escorts know where they are and they instantly die.

Anti-submarine excersices are ridiculous in that there is no really accurate way to phisically test tactics. Most of the times subs and surface ships are never alowed to operate in the same area becaues subs positions are always secret and thus we don't want to run into each other. All the things normally do is see how close the sub can get, not test how effective the following attack would be.

I'm betting the naval commaders hate being within range of so many ground based radars; it must be nearly impossible to hide

I bet Iranian missile battery commanders get tired of having to replace their equipment every time they try and burn through our jamming when we pas through the Straights of Hormuz.

I'm sure things are different now (after the Cole), but when I was on the Enterprise, our ship was completely defenseless. No one manned .50 cal guns. I don't even think the gunners mates knew how to shoot them.

What I stated is not only our force protection when transiting the Persian Gulf, but also when passing Cape Henry on our way into Norfolk, or going from pier one to peir two here at the base, a total trip of .5 miles. We have lots of practice.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Like most great ideas, already thought of.

Nice to know I still have great ideas

Originally posted by Patroklos and 60 plus missiles is nothing, a DDG has that. It carries significantly more.

That's not 60 missiles carried, that's capable of firing a salvo containing 60+ missiles, the sub should be able to store enough for 4-6 salvos, around 300 missiles in total.

And these are anti-ship cruise missiles (like the harpoon) does a DDG really carry 60 of them? (I know they can't launch anything like 60 in a go though)

[DeathByTheSword]

i dont want to go back a page to copy paste the person saying it but on the matter of +mach torpedos:

1. the 'wall' of bubbles is being created by the torpedo itself. yes it is could give the sub away but any torpedo does that

2. 2-5 nm with speeds over mach 1 doesnt give a whole lot of time to change coarse succesfully..especially counting in reacting time and the commands that have to be given

3. they have had working prototypes has I have said before...


4....cant remember a 4 right now..stupid poker night


about the carrier sub of japan they did build them and also did build the aircraft but it was to late...the US scuttled them when the got the entire jap sub fleet after the surrender....WATCH MORE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

[Dis]

disvovery channel? Are you serious? That crappy channel only has programs about motorcycles and rebulding motocycles (and old cars). American chopper etc.

That network has really fallen from grace.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
2. 2-5 nm with speeds over mach 1 doesnt give a whole lot of time to change coarse succesfully..especially counting in reacting time and the commands that have to be given

My point was about the ability of the torpedo to turn. At 2-5 nautical miles a sub will not have a great location on any target without using active sonar . The are usally drawing best guesses of a target area. If the Mach torpedo goes straight, there is a very good chance it would miss even a very large target. Thats why most torpedos have some form of seeker head. I agree that against a Mach one inbound any target ship moves won't matter that much but my question is could this magical prototype do things like turn if it was about to miss that carrier by 300 years

[DeathByTheSword]

no the 70s model couldnt do much except get to mach 1.1 and then fly to every direction except straight...but i believe with some very simple aerodynamic changes and extra stuff on board the torpedo we could......i have a paper on this somewhere on my old computer...(we had to write a paper on how to make some simple modifcations that COULD (i repeat COULD) have helped the design)...only got a 7 (out of 10) though...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
i
1. the 'wall' of bubbles is being created by the torpedo itself. yes it is could give the sub away but any torpedo does that

Can't a normal torpedo be "fired" and just do enough revolutions to maintain depth until it was commanded to make its run? I thought I read that somewhere but I could be wrong.


Sorry but I'm just trying to imagine what kind of propulsion system can make a torpedo go Mach 1 through water

What was the propulsion system of this magical prototype ??

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos


HAHAHAHA

And what was the lesson from that war? That the British needed full scale carriers.

This article is ridiculous.

Plus, you know, SOME sort of point-defense*


*of course, on our boat the CIWS is refered to as "Christ, it won't shoot!"

[Dis]

I'm just curiuos how CIWS and Sea Sparrow launchers would work in a full on attack. Sure they could knock test missiles out of the sky. But I doubt any more than 2 or 3 were fired at the ship.

I always had my doubts. On the Enterprise we had 2 sea sparrows one starboard, one port. And if I recall correctly we had 3 CIWS phalanx systems.

We had .50 cal mounts, but as I said, I have never seen them used except for tests. Even transitting the Suez canal we didn't man the gun mounts. I'm sure that has changed after the Cole bombing, however. I may be mistaken about the gun mounts, but I know they didn't man the one on the fantail. Our fantail was our smoking section. And the .50 isn't permantly mounted. You'd have to carry the gun through a huge crowd of people. I hated walking back there to dump trash. It was always so crowded.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dis


you can't always have the luxery of being 500 miles offshore. The persian gulf is the best example here. Since most of our wars involve the persian gulf.

I've been there many times on the USS Enterprise and the USS Guam.

First of all you have to travel through the Suez canal. We were nothing but targets there. The Egyptians run things pretty well there. Then the Straights of Hormuz. I'm not sure if that's the correct name. I can't find it on a map. There are 2 straigths. One by Yemen and Ethiopia we passed by. And then another by Iran and United Arab Emrites. Not to mention the persian gulf itself is not that big.

edit: and I didn't count the straihts of Gibralter. it's by europe and N. Africa- a little more peaceful region of the world. But it's still a vulnerable spot.

Now, in order to get to the Gulf from the West Coast you have to Either roll through the Strait of Malacca. Pirates are a problem, though they tend to ignore American and Singaporean Naval ships. While we were transiting through to Sumatra to help with the Tsunami, some Indonesian Pirates attacked a Russian tanker...that turned out to be a Russian Navy auxillary that had radardirected 57mm on it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dis
I'm just curiuos how CIWS and Sea Sparrow launchers would work in a full on attack. Sure they could knock test missiles out of the sky. But I doubt any more than 2 or 3 were fired at the ship.
.

Yer out of your mind. ON it's best day our CIWS couldn't swat a Learjet-dragged target out of the sky, much less a missile.

[OzzyKP]

What would be the effectiveness, y'all think, of some kind of hidden mine system. Where charges of some kind were attached to the sea floor by divers, and fitting with something to take them to the surface. Maybe like a missle, maybe just a big pocket of air that would float it to the top if released from its chains at the bottom.

Could enemies just wait for our big ships to pass over a field like this, and then release all the weapons?

Would they be detectable by sonar?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Dis
disvovery channel? Are you serious? That crappy channel only has programs about motorcycles and rebulding motocycles (and old cars). American chopper etc.

That network has really fallen from grace.

QFT

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword


about the carrier sub of japan they did build them and also did build the aircraft but it was to late...the US scuttled them when the got the entire jap sub fleet after the surrender....WATCH MORE DISCOVERY CHANNEL

Ahhh, so they DID build them. The program I was watching was on the History Channel and I couldn't remember if they said they were built, or still in RandD.

I do know that the Imperial Japanese Navy was the first nation to use helicopters for war.



But, my point being that if they were able to produce sub carriers back then, we could definitely do something now. Would make it a little harder to detect them as opposed to surface based carriers.