GMG4RWF wrote:
Busto963 wrote:
I am not talking about prosecution, I am talking about dealing with an emergent submarine at close range.
Worse case, I want a weapon that gives me a chance to kill the SOB who likely is in the process of pulling the trigger on me. It may lead to a phyric victory - he shoots me, I shoot him; but I would want every enemy submarine CO to know that that even if he achieves a perfect firing position, he will still be fired upon. I want to impose as much mental stress on my enemy as possible.
If the sub got that close then chances are you wouldn't know it till the torp hit anyway (& if the sub were properly equipped he would be launching AS missiles from range anyway (Harpoons can be launched from TT tubes)), anyway if it did happen that you noticed him just before he emptied his tubes, just launch ASROCs (they carry the same TT on the end as the Mk32 fires - or a depth charge.) so all you really need for that is Mk41 tubes set aside for ASROCs
You are making assumptions about ASROC and other weapons that do not advance your argument.
A submarine torpedo, or missile launch requires the rapid displacement of a lot of water at depth; it is a very noisy affair.
There are minimum range and depth of water considerations. Also, the torpedoes launched by the MK32 and VLA are *much* inferior to larger 21"/533mm (or larger) weapons.
Busto963 wrote:
GMG4RWF wrote:
I think it is a mistake for western surface ships to have given up on potent ship launched torpedoes (ASW and anti-surface).
Torpedo tubes can do other things like launch UUVs and mines.
UUVs & mines can be launched in other (& some cases more effective) ways, such as Helos & Sub mounted TTs. Subs can enter enemy waters undetected (I understand that during the cold war the U.S. maintained a tap on the Soviet base at Vladivostok & regularly did a data download dump by sailing a sub right into the harbor & linking directly to the tap & were never detected) also during WW2 U-230 sailed right into Chesapeake Bay, laid a mine field & left undetected (they actually used the same technique depicted in the movie "Down Periscope").
I disagree.
Helicopters are a hugely inefficient means of delivering a minefield, and I think most professionals would characterize it as a waste of assets. The truly large UUVs and mines designed for submarines, which are the most effective examples, cannot be carried by H-60 aircraft without major (read massively expensive) structural modifications to the airframes. If the USN wants to get back into the aerial delivered sea mine business, and I think that they (and the USAF) should, then fixed wing aircraft is the way to do it.
But that is not even remotely the end of the story. While submarines are indeed a fantastic means of delivering mines clandestinely, and particularly into harbors; the bulk of sea mines should be delivered by surface ship. The reason is that frees up the submarines to hunt enemy submarines which is the optimal employment of a submarine, and also for reasons of economy. Also, as pointed out above, installing a 21” torpedo tube on a surface ship to deliver UUVs, mobile and captor mines, would be significantly easier and less expensive than mucking about with helicopter structural modifications.
GMG4RWF wrote:
the ship mounted TT is actually a rather less potent weapon with limited range, large area/volume/weight requirements & adds extra exposed explosive potential to a ship.
Ahem, this was my original point. The USN was stupid to give up 21"/533 mm torpedoes. The most efficient means of sinking a vessel or man-made platform (oil rigs, etc.) is to employ a torpedo. In fact, the amount of gun or missile ordinance required to sink a large commercial hull would be cost prohibitive. Not only is there a strong historical requirement for delivering the coup de main using torpedoes, but the only effective way to stop a terrorist hijacked ship (research the Tamil Tigers) before it inflicts 911-type damage, is a torpedo.
GMG4RWF wrote:
missiles can do most anything a TT can do but at longer range & with less exposure (well usually).
Missiles would be my first choice for killing a
warship, but they are not likely to guarantee a kill on a very large merchant hull.
Missiles are not an efficient or cost effective means of delivering mines, drones, or other munitions and sensors.
Ergo, missiles cannot do “anything” a TT can do.
You should thoroughly read Captain Wayne Hughes book on “Fleet Tactics.”
GMG4RWF wrote:
On an episode of Myth busters (re guarding the "Confederate long range rocket") Adam said he'd "take accuracy over range any day". But if I can kill an enemy OVER THERE
where he can't shoot me back, I'll take that any day.
This is why the Myth Busters run a TV show instead of the navy.
The naval maxim to "attack
effectively first" - effectively requires accuracy as prerequisite. Unleashing tomahawk strikes on terrorists camping in tents is not viable. Unleashing long range missile salvos based on sketchy EW reports is not viable.
Admiral Percy Scott observed: “Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting is what we have to do if we want to win. Strategy and tactics count for nothing if we cannot hit; the only object of a man-of-war is to hit.”
Perhaps Dave, or other member of the pipe hitters union will weigh in, but Google Larry Vickers for an explanation of the motto of a real warrior:
“Speed is fine – Accuracy is final...”
Wyatt Earp