henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/02/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Exocet does not "pop-up" as far as I know, unlike the Harpoon, which does. >The resaon it does is not to evade enemy fire; in fact, by "popping-up" >it exposes itself more! As I recall, the pop-up maneuver was aimed at trying to do more damage. It has become unpopular recently because of the increased exposure. The modern version is to drop to wavetop height (*really* low, as opposed to rather low) for final approach, to make interception harder. I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out. This avoids *all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective place too. There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (05/03/89)
From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) On the subject of sea-skimmers and popups ... In article <6034@cbnews.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: > ... >No sea-skimming missile hits below the waterline, so it is unlikely to sink >a ship that way. They *do* home in towards the central command & control >centers as stated by a previous poster. > ... They don't really "home in" on the CIC, since the CIC does not emit anything. They usually are active radar homing and merely aim for the centroid of the radar contact. That, of course, is where many CICs are. I don't know of any passive radar homing sea-skimmers. Such a missile would be like the air launched ARMs. They could knock out radar and sensors (via air-burst) but would not do much, if any, structural damage. That is, unless, somebody reworked the guidance logic (to aim below the mast level of the radars) or used a hybrid system. There are some (mostly Soviet) infra-red homing sea-skimmers. I am not sure if they tend to hit in a different pattern. Again, it would depend on the quality of their guidance logic. (eg recognize the ship, ignore the stack plume) In article <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > ... >As I recall, the pop-up maneuver was aimed at trying to do more damage. >It has become unpopular recently because of the increased exposure. The >modern version is to drop to wavetop height (*really* low, as opposed >to rather low) for final approach, to make interception harder. I believe Henry is (generally the case) correct. But I think it should be pointed out, pop-up still works real well against (older) ships that don't have CIWS. >I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile >that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out. This avoids >*all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective >place too. There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft >torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use. The Sea Lance carries Mk50, which is only for ASW use. The SS-N-16 carries a Type E. While it was probably meant for ASW use in this configuration, I think Type Es are anti-ship capable. However, I suspect, you are calling for a "real" torpedo (like Mk48), though perhaps with shorter range and bigger warhead. This poses some serious design problems with weight and size of a missile that can carry a big torpedo. On the other hand, the Soviets already have those massive AS-4s and AS-6s. Others have chosen to make their missiles faster (ie supersonic) to make them harder to intercept, but have paid in terms of size or range due to increased fuel consumption. I think maybe the trick is to use a compromise solution. The missile travels subsonic until making its attack run at which point it uses a terminal booster to go in fast. The idea is to make it harder to intercept without paying too much in terms of fuel consumption. Ted Kim ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall PHONE: (213) 206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 ESPnet: tek@ouija.board
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (05/03/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile >that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out. This avoids >*all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective >place too. There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft >torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use. I believe that the Soviet SS-N-14, which is a medium-range missile carrying a standard 533mm torpedo (the 'stock' Soviet torpedo size), can be set for either surface or subsurface targeting. Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) (05/03/89)
From: dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) In article <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile > that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out. This avoids > *all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective > place too. There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft > torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use. The major problem is probably that anti-ship torpedoes are *heavy*. The current air dropped torpedoes (ALWT et al) have small warheads designed to disable submarines, not sink a reasonably compartmented surface ship with lots of reserve buoyancy. A significant secondary damage effect of missiles is fire damage caused by the still burning engine, which a torpedo wouldn't have. (I believe that the exocet warhead on the Sheffield didn't explode, all damage was due to fire.) -------------------------------------------------- Dean F. Kling dfkling@cs.washington.edu
steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) (05/05/89)
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) In article <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile >that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out. This avoids >*all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective >place too. There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft >torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use. And I'm surprised that nobody has (apparently) been working on anti-torpedo defenses. With several hundred pounds of torpex homing in on *my* keel I'd sure want to shoot something at it. Something about the size of one of the shoulder-launched missles, powered by a solid fuel rocket motor and designed for about 300 yards underwater seems about right. How hard can it be to home on a torpedo's propulsion system? Having spent a few weeks on a ship whose primary mission was torpedo interceptor I've given it a little thought over the years :-) Of course there may be something in R&D or even the inventory that I don't know about, but more likely it is really hard for some reason I haven't thought of. -- Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services uunet!nuchat!steve POB 890952 Houston, Texas 77289 (713) 964 2462 Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software.
gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul Robichaux) (05/06/89)
From: gt0818a%prism@gatech.edu (Paul Robichaux) The FY90 Navy budget indeed included funding for R&D on a point-kill anti- torpedo weapon. My understanding is that so far, it's just a verrrry fast, short-range torpedo that will use shipboard passive and its own active systems to find and kill inbound torps. In a related line item, the Navy's also funding a better towed decoy system to counter the newer Russian torps which home on a ship's wake and hit it from astern. -Paul -- Paul E. Robichaux, Undergrad Peon | Internet: gt0818a@prism.gatech.edu Georgia Institute of Technology | BITNET: gt0818a@GITNVE2 GT PO Box 30818; Atlanta, GA 30332 |============================================
djm@etive.edinburgh.ac.uk (D Murphy) (05/08/89)
From: D Murphy <djm@etive.edinburgh.ac.uk> In article <6276@cbnews.ATT.COM> nuchat!steve@uunet.UU.NET (Steve Nuchia) writes: > >[ Previous quote ] > >And I'm surprised that nobody has (apparently) been working on >anti-torpedo defenses. With several hundred pounds of torpex >homing in on *my* keel I'd sure want to shoot something at it. > >Something about the size of one of the shoulder-launched missles, >powered by a solid fuel rocket motor and designed for about 300 yards >underwater seems about right. How hard can it be to home on a torpedo's >propulsion system? > >Having spent a few weeks on a ship whose primary mission was torpedo >interceptor I've given it a little thought over the years :-) > >Of course there may be something in R&D or even the inventory >that I don't know about, but more likely it is really hard for >some reason I haven't thought of. >-- >Steve Nuchia South Coast Computing Services >uunet!nuchat!steve POB 890952 Houston, Texas 77289 >(713) 964 2462 Consultation & Systems, Support for PD Software. During WWII they had a sort of cluster depth charge (I think it was called `squid') carried by the escorts (first deployed on the `Flower' class Corvettes ?) which was launched out from the ship and detonated in a pattern underwater. Assuming you know that there is a torpedo coming in (you can occasionally see them at the RN torpedo range near Skye in Scotland's North West coast) they must make a hell of a noise travelling and be pretty easy to detect with sonar - it would surely be possible to revive such a system. A strike pattern with width, range and depth dimensions should be able to disable or damage a torpedo. Murff.... JANET: djm@uk.ac.ed.etive Internet: djm%ed.etive@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Murff@uk.ac.ed.emas-a Murff%ed.emas-a@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk trinity@uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis trinity%ed.cs.tardis@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk D.J. Murphy Chemistry Dept. Univ. of Edinburgh "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying." Woody Allen