Iranian Missiles And Torpedos

In sci.military.naval Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote:

In rec.aviation.military.naval wrote:
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"George" wrote:

Incorrect, since we use airborne radar to detect torpedos (among other
technologies, such as sonar)
So, this brings us to radar. Typical modern radar frequencies run from
snip

In practice, most ASW radar are X-band or thereabouts (~10 GHz). With a
seawater attenuation of 1000 ~ 2000 dB/m, they are useless for
penetrating seawater, but the 3cm wavelength means they are able to
detect periscopes and snorkels.

However.
Absolutely nothing moves that fast in nature.
I would not be astounded if fancy post-processing of the sea-surface
reflection could pick out the wake.
At least in some conditions.

It would take sea-state 0, do you know what that means?

Millpond-like I'd assume.

Given that subs have been picked up this way, it seems to be
fundamentally possible.
I suspect that in many sea conditions, the frequencies of interest are going
to be quite similar to the peaks frequencies generated by waves is going to
make the processing rather horrible.
And of course, for torpedos under a certain depth/speed/volume/...
ceiling, they are going to be increasingly hard to pick up.


Not to mention the whole fact that it'd be really best to use radar from
overhead, for best vertical resolution.

It's gonna be trivial to find a supercavitating torpedo a diameter below
the surface.
(not to mention the porpoising).
I suppose down to maybe 8 diameters, you'll see massive surface effects,
not to mention the bubble trail.
Somewhere beyond that it'll be tricky.

Is there a limit to the size of supercavitating projectiles?
Supercavitating subs would be just cool, though of course with very
limited endurance.
Hmm. Supercavitating nuclear powered subs.