Iranian Torpedo

[Crater 0]

Thought this was a good read...

 

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,93859,00.html

 

Crater

[fireengineer 1]

Thought this was a good read...

 

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,93859,00.html

 

Crater

I liked that.

[KylRoy 0]

...very interesting, indeed. sounds like overcompensation, though. ;)

[+Dave 2,322]

Iran Schmiran....

[+streakeagle 871]

It is quite a bit of overcompensation. He obviously never served on a US nuke sub and doesn't have the first clue about how they really operate. I served on SSN-687 and also served on our only remaining diesel, AGSS-555. While the rocket torpedo isn't an overwhelming threat, the fact is that subs were not detecting each other at 30 miles. While I was serving (from 1989 to 1997), the subs on both sides were so quiet that the threat of collision was the biggest threat while attempting to detect and track enemy subs. Detection ranges had gotten very short, even when using towed arrays. At close range, the rocket torpedo could be fired in a spread that no sub could escape given that it was going slow enough to be quiet. Sonar would easily detect and announce the threat... then the officer would have to give orders to evade, then the helmsman would have to respond to those orders. At short ranges and low speeds, the sub would have trouble accelerating and turning quick enough. Let us assume that both subs are doing 5 kts and that the detection range is 2000 yards (approx. 1 nm). If a single rocket torpedo is immediately fired down the bearing of the detection without any target motion analysis, it will travel 1 nm at 200 kts in 1/200 hours = 18 seconds. The sonar operator will barely have time to tell his supervisor "Torpedo in the Water!". The submarine will have moved at most 1/200 * 5 * 2000 = 50 yards in that time (150 feet) assuming that it is moving across the line of sight rather than toward it (an unrealistic assumption since the two subs had to be pointing at each other to some degree to get within detection range). Our subs are over 300 feet long. You could fire two rocket torpedos and easily cover the 150 feet the sub will have moved and have a fair chance of hitting in the horizontal plane. It is the vertical plane that is the problem. Unless the sound conditions are ideal or the subs are very close, depth is always a best guess and the hull diameter is ony between 30 and 40 feet. Unless fighting in extremely shallow water or in a narrow sound channel, you have a very slim chance of getting the depth close enough to score even a proximity hit. Is 2000 yards close enough to assume direct path and/or allow for the curvature of the sound propagation per an environmental measurement that may be over 24 hours old? I really don't want to find out the hard way. It should be quite apparent from the above calculations that a sub has NO time to respond to a rocket torpedo. If the attacker had sufficient time to get a solid solution before firing, he will get a solid hit if he can estimate the depth accurately enough. A MK 48 can be decoyed or even outrun. A 200-knot rocket torpedo fired close aboard gives you no time to react and is impervious to decoys/countermeasures. Contrary to what this guy is saying, US subs were very concerned about this threat while I was serving. Since the time I have left, my friends tell me that we have regained the acoustic advantage we once enjoyed in the 60s and 70s. If that is the case, then the rocket torpedo becomes useless since the platform carrying it will be detected and killed long before he is close enough to employ it accurately

 

As for his assertions about how subs work as a team with other assets... Subs work best alone. When attached to a battlegroup, they have to move too fast to keep up with the fleet and the fleet makes too much noise to maintain an effective search. You also have to spend a lot of time at PD to be able to communicate with the battlegroup, which is not a good thing to do if you want to remain undetected and at an optimum depth for searching. Sub operations may have changed since I left, but I doubt it. US subs prefer to hunt alone deep in enemy waters... that way classification is a lot faster and easier: if you hear something it must be the enemy since you are the only friendly around ;)

 

I left the Navy as an E-6 up for E-7 and stood Sonar Supervisor watches for 4 of my 6 1/2 years of sea duty. I can assure you that gives me some insight that Tom Clancy wannabe's will never have. Unfortunately, congress frequently listens to armchair admirals more than they do the real admirals when deciding on the Navy's budget :p

Edited April 19, 2006 by streakeagle

[Kraut 0]

I think Streakeagle's read a better one. I have absolutely no experience as a submariner but there were a few things I was struggling with the first read, the suicide statement being just one. The suicide approach worked well for the Japanese in WWII & seems to be working well now for some peoples from the East. When an opponent is that dedicated, be it in war or on the street, they're hard to beat. I'm not saying they can't be beat, just damn hard & expensive in lives & materials.

FWIW,

Good Hunting!

Edited April 19, 2006 by Kraut

[Mannie 21]

I think Streakeagle's read a better one. I have absolutely no experience as a submariner but there were a few things I was struggling with the first read, the suicide statement being just one. The suicide approach worked well for the Japanese in WWII & seems to be working well now for some peoples from the East. When an opponent is that dedicated, be it in war or on the street, they're hard to beat. I'm not saying they can't be beat, just damn hard & expensive in lives & materials.

FWIW,

Good Hunting!

 

Hey Kraut I know damn to well how you feel.

 

We eat this s**t on a daily bases. :stink:

 

But I can assure you one thing.

 

We will win in the end

[Kraut 0]

MannieB, I can't even imagine what you & your peoples go through, ON A DAILY BASIS YET! Knowing one's enemy by sight or even sound is one thing, but in your case, none of those life saving conditions are available. Every day it's yours & the lives of family & friends that walk under that cloud & I sometimes wonder when your people are going to snap. I myself, with the way I was brought up, couldn't handle it & I probably would. I guess you probably grew up with it, but still, she's just one big mind bend for me.

FWIW,

Good Hunting!

[Mannie 21]

MannieB, I can't even imagine what you & your peoples go through, ON A DAILY BASIS YET! Knowing one's enemy by sight or even sound is one thing, but in your case, none of those life saving conditions are available. Every day it's yours & the lives of family & friends that walk under that cloud & I sometimes wonder when your people are going to snap. I myself, with the way I was brought up, couldn't handle it & I probably would. I guess you probably grew up with it, but still, she's just one big mind bend for me.

FWIW,

Good Hunting!

 

Krout buddy, we have but only two choises.

 

The other one is to stop existing as a nation.

 

Now all you have to guess is; What is the first choise.

[Kraut 0]

Yes MannieB, I have an idea of the what & the who, it's the how I struggle with. Just the how!

FWIW,

Good Hunting!

[Mannie 21]

Yes MannieB, I have an idea of the what & the who, it's the how I struggle with. Just the how!

FWIW,

Good Hunting!

 

Its like the french say, en la guere com la guere (In war like in war)

[charlielima 328]

I'm in total agreement with SE. That's probably all I can say. :ph34r: BZ, CL

[Crater 0]

I agree with SEagle on several points that he mentions...

 

You could fire two rocket torpedos and easily cover the 150 feet the sub will have moved and have a fair chance of hitting in the horizontal plane. It is the vertical plane that is the problem. Unless the sound conditions are ideal or the subs are very close, depth is always a best guess and the hull diameter is ony between 30 and 40 feet.

 

Depth perception, do you think the Iranian Navy has it?

 

Since the time I have left, my friends tell me that we have regained the acoustic advantage we once enjoyed in the 60s and 70s.

 

That is a true statement and that is why the schmiran wasn't a big concern to the brass. They were more concerned about its impact on large surface vessels from a fast moving surface contact. Less concerned with the hypothetical threat to only submarines that you describe in your post. Once launched the torpedo has very limited guidance on a horizontal plane and much less vertically. For most Navies (except one) the tech isn't there yet.

 

As for his assertions about how subs work as a team with other assets... Subs work best alone. When attached to a battlegroup, they have to move too fast to keep up with the fleet and the fleet makes too much noise to maintain an effective search. You also have to spend a lot of time at PD to be able to communicate with the battlegroup, which is not a good thing to do if you want to remain undetected and at an optimum depth for searching. Sub operations may have changed since I left, but I doubt it. US subs prefer to hunt alone deep in enemy waters... that way classification is a lot faster and easier: if you hear something it must be the enemy since you are the only friendly around

 

I agree and disagree, there are subs that work with battlegroups and subs that don't. Plain and simple for all the reasons that you mention. I wouldn't want to command a sub attached to a battlegroup, who would? Subs on patrol are rarely continuously attached to a battlegroup unless considered necessary. They are alternated during patrols to cover the battlegroups movements.

 

Crater

Edited April 24, 2006 by Crater