If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jim Carriere wrote: I can understand why someone steeped in active sonar tactics might be skeptical of passive capability. But that skepticism should be a challenge to reconsider. The physics is pretty basic and has not changed, no matter what the personal experience. Heh... you really do learn something new every day... thanks. BTW I've never flown anything with a dipping sonar, just eyeball, radar, buoys, and MAD only (roughly in that order). And there's a strange appeal to a "passive attack" (that's a funny phrase). Passive detection offers the satisfaction of knowing you have an excellent chance of detecting him without him knowing it and documenting your own classified info at the same time. It seems more academically rewarding. I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. And certainly a lot more fun for the crewmen! Most of the time you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. This is true in the mid and outer zones, but with inner zone carrier ASW...that guy ain't going be showing his face much and we no longer care about stealth. It becomes a question of who can get in position to launch first, because he's not going to avoid 2-3 60F's going hammer. Of course, we pretty much figured the enemy would come in numbers...so it would really matter if we sunk 4 out of 5 or 7 out of nine. It just takes one. The gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare, and even then it still might miss. B57 away! --Mike |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Per Nordenberg wrote:
"Guy Alcala" skrev i meddelandet . .. For the AIP subs coming into service now, it's a looong time. See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...propulsion.htm Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989. http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html Yes I know, but they've only recently started to proliferate to countries outside Europe. Last time I checked the US didn't consider a war with Sweden very likely;-). Guy |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote: Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will presume that while training might change, objective reality does not. As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting that argument. I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air. I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway. Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's. Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing... One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding against eight torps. --Mike |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Per Nordenberg wrote: Coming into service now?? The RSwN have been operating AIP subs since 1989. http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/nacken.html Yes I know, but they've only recently started to proliferate to countries outside Europe. Last time I checked the US didn't consider a war with Sweden very likely;-). Which is not to say that there isn't a contingency plan for one tucked away deep in the bowels of Fort Fumble. Brought out every five or ten years for update if required. -- OJ III [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading. Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.] |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
----------
In article , isme (NimBill) wrote: China being so close to Taiwan could launch Diesl subs carrying ground troops all the way across the straights in numbers large enough to take over Taiwan with few being detected. According to this: http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/default.asp China currently has about 50 diesel submarines. Now assuming that they could fit 1000 ground troops in each of those submarines, they might be able to land 50,000 troops on Taiwan. Does that sound reasonable? Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30 troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600 ground troops last? Actually, if you are at all interested in the subject of Chinese submarine capabilities and the ability of the US Navy to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, you can check out a series of recent interesting articles on this subject appearing in the journal International Security: Lyle Goldstein and William Murray, "Undersea Dragons: China's Maturing Submarine Force," International Security, Vol. 28, No. 4, Spring 2004, pp. 161-196. Michael A. Glosny, "Strangulation from the Sea: A PRC Submarine Blockade of Taiwan," (same issue of IS), pp. 125-160. Also see the correspondence by Michael O'Hanlon, and Goldstein and Murray in the current issue, pp. 202-206. The authors differ on a number of things, but they all generally agree that a Chinese submarine blockade of Taiwan would ultimately fail. The big question is how many ships the US Navy might lose trying to break the blockade. D |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Wise wrote:
In article , Gord Beaman wrote: Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will presume that while training might change, objective reality does not. As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting that argument. I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air. I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway. Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's. Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing... One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding against eight torps. --Mike Mk 54's are depth charges... -- -Gord. (use gordon in email) |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote: Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will presume that while training might change, objective reality does not. As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting that argument. I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air. I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway. Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's. Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing... One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding against eight torps. Mk 54's are depth charges... Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big fixed-wing thing, as I never heard of them in the HS community. Our ASW weapons consisted of four stations in which to amount any combination of MK-46 torpedo and B57 depth charges only (at least as I recollect). I know the answer is probably easily Googleable, but what sort of depth charge (conventional or nuke) is the Mk-54? --Mike |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Gord Beaman wrote:
Jim Carriere wrote: I've said it before, I believe a .50 caliber machine gun on a helo is a better ASW weapon than any air dropped torpedo. Most of the time you find a sub it will be on or near the surface taking a look. The gun will make his life difficult because you will definitely hit him with enough of the bullets. A perfect torpedo shot is pretty rare, and even then it still might miss. Would a fifty be of much concern to a sub?...I know that we had a pair of .303's on Lancasters and they told us that it's value was in keeping the sub's crew from manning their deck gun...do subs even have a deck gun now? I doubt it. I think it would make the periscope AFU, and before you think that's too hard a target, aircrewmen occasionally hit smoke floats in practice gunshoots. Not really sure about penetrating the pressure hull, but API ammunition is pretty impressive stuff. My point is a partial mission kill is possible (of course sinking is impossible). |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Wise wrote:
In article , Gord Beaman wrote: Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will presume that while training might change, objective reality does not. As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the exception that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics supporting that argument. I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air. I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway. Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's. Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing... One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding against eight torps. Mk 54's are depth charges... Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big You were both right, there is a Mk 54 lightweight torpedo coming... someday. More or less the brains of the Mk 50 and the body of the Mk 46. I did not know (or forgot) there was such a thing as a Mk 54 depth charge. I've heard of the B57, you really only have to be close with that one, like horseshoes and hand grenades, but no need for a followup |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, maybe too high. Let's assume that each of those subs could carry 30 troops. Then China could land 600 troops on Taiwan. How long would 600 ground troops last? My goof--30 times 50 is 1500, not 600. Never post after midnight. Brain don't work. The main point is still valid--you cannot invade Taiwan by submarine. D |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|