Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Modern submarine torpedo attacks are not like in the movies
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33018/modern-submarine-torpedo-attacks-are-nothing-like-what-you-see-in-the-movies
218 comments
More wrong stuff...
"It is best if the weapon detonates within a meter of the hull, but a contact detonation can have devastating effects against even the largest warships."
Torpedoes targeting ships definitely do not want to hit anywhere near the hull. They explode well beneath the target, tens of meters below. They don't try to directly damage the target. Their explosives create a large void of gas, a hole, under the ship. The ship then cracks in half as it 'falls' into the hole. Whether this technique is also used against submarines, with much stronger hulls, is likely classified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zQ0wBvh18
"It is best if the weapon detonates within a meter of the hull, but a contact detonation can have devastating effects against even the largest warships."
Torpedoes targeting ships definitely do not want to hit anywhere near the hull. They explode well beneath the target, tens of meters below. They don't try to directly damage the target. Their explosives create a large void of gas, a hole, under the ship. The ship then cracks in half as it 'falls' into the hole. Whether this technique is also used against submarines, with much stronger hulls, is likely classified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6zQ0wBvh18
The Russian VA-111 Shkval torpedo explodes on impact, but then again, it's traveling underwater at 370km/h
Trivia: I'm pretty sure that shkval in Russian means heavy, stormy rain.
But this would mean the ship also breaks when hit by two normal sea waves with the right spacing between them.
Yes. All large ships have a theoretical wave size that will snap them in half. The bigger the ship the larger this wave, mostly beyond possible.
True. The explanation given is wrong.
Proximity detonation breaks the ship from the force the gas bubble directs upwards.
Proximity detonation breaks the ship from the force the gas bubble directs upwards.
There are going to be two effects. The first is a very large upward moment directly beneath the ship at the point of explosion, followed soon after by a downward moment when the explosion void is filled by the water and everything around it is pulled inwards to fill the vacuum.
The upward hit should actually be easier for a ship to resist because there is only air above the ship and it is “relatively” easy to lift the ship out of the water and into the air, but the downward pull means the ship is going to be pulled against the water and that will not move out of the way as easily or as quickly as the air. The second effect is what leads to the most damage.
The upward hit should actually be easier for a ship to resist because there is only air above the ship and it is “relatively” easy to lift the ship out of the water and into the air, but the downward pull means the ship is going to be pulled against the water and that will not move out of the way as easily or as quickly as the air. The second effect is what leads to the most damage.
The way I was taught this is that the strongest force and impulse (integral of a force over the time interval) is upwards after the explosion. The ship is already structurally destroyed at this point. Nothing works even if the ship does not immediately sink. When the ship falls donwards is when the keel breaks, hull breaks and water gets in. Any subsequent oscillation can cause more damage.
I know this is actually very important and interesting in the context of understanding how to build better ships/torpedoes, but I'm just imagining two seamen clinging to debris arguing on the exact mechanics by which the torpedo blew up their ship.
Clearly the solution is to have hinges in the middle of the keel.
That is a thing. Google "articulated tug barge".
Yeah, this explanation doesn't seem right. I suspect there is a strong component of direct damage to the hull involved.
It is pretty common for ships to have sections of it suspended in air in high seas.
It is pretty common for ships to have sections of it suspended in air in high seas.
Very tangential question.
I can think of only a handful of targets that the US might want to shoot at. (I realize there might be a ton, and this is my lack of imagination). The handful I can think of, almost all of them seem like they're in the supply chain to actually build the torpedos. I'm pretty skeptical of the depth of the US stockpile.
To put it another way, if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft, would these tools still be relevant? The US industrial base is mighty, and could certainly retool to meet whatever need arises, but that'll take years.
Really seems neat, but after you've taken your 20 or 50 or whatever shots, how do you resupply? Seems like you'd need special coatings or shelf stable chemicals or a hundred other things to make the super fancy weapon.
it sure _seems_ like (although I have no fucking clue, so I'm asking) the super fancy weapons are available for a few weeks if things get real bad.
_edit_ realized I didn't actually ask a question. Can the US actually build these things from, like, minerals? It's a big country, we have them. The industrial base doesn't seem tuned for actually doing that though.
_further edit_ I'm a very silly person. it seems like the only must have is a plausible second strike capability. It's great to be able to protect the free flow of oil, or defend the Kurds from chemical weapons. Hell, one of the most American things I can think of is protecting yankee clippers for safe trade. It's part of the Marine's Hymn. but clearing pirates from the shores of Tripoli isn't absolutely vital. I'd sort of thought that subs jobs in the modern world was making sure that if the US can't play, no one else can either, with moderately sized nuclear weapons. Again, I'm a very silly person. The question with the further edit is, do subs have an essential job beyond second strike cabability?
I can think of only a handful of targets that the US might want to shoot at. (I realize there might be a ton, and this is my lack of imagination). The handful I can think of, almost all of them seem like they're in the supply chain to actually build the torpedos. I'm pretty skeptical of the depth of the US stockpile.
To put it another way, if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft, would these tools still be relevant? The US industrial base is mighty, and could certainly retool to meet whatever need arises, but that'll take years.
Really seems neat, but after you've taken your 20 or 50 or whatever shots, how do you resupply? Seems like you'd need special coatings or shelf stable chemicals or a hundred other things to make the super fancy weapon.
it sure _seems_ like (although I have no fucking clue, so I'm asking) the super fancy weapons are available for a few weeks if things get real bad.
_edit_ realized I didn't actually ask a question. Can the US actually build these things from, like, minerals? It's a big country, we have them. The industrial base doesn't seem tuned for actually doing that though.
_further edit_ I'm a very silly person. it seems like the only must have is a plausible second strike capability. It's great to be able to protect the free flow of oil, or defend the Kurds from chemical weapons. Hell, one of the most American things I can think of is protecting yankee clippers for safe trade. It's part of the Marine's Hymn. but clearing pirates from the shores of Tripoli isn't absolutely vital. I'd sort of thought that subs jobs in the modern world was making sure that if the US can't play, no one else can either, with moderately sized nuclear weapons. Again, I'm a very silly person. The question with the further edit is, do subs have an essential job beyond second strike cabability?
> if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft
US has something better than the draft: poverty. As long as there's a large enough pool of young people without options, there's no problem. A draft generally can only be minimally discriminatory for PR reasons, so poverty as enlistment incentive works much better.
Though, talking about US military running out of manpower is a far, far fetch, isn't? It surpasses or is extremely competitive with any other military by any measure [0][1].
According to Blind Man's Bluff, which covers submarine warfare during the cold war from the US perspective, right up to the nineties, atomic subs had 3 main roles: espionage and intelligence gathering, preserving second strike ability, shadowing enemy subs to have a chance of thwarting their strikes in case of crisis. What submarine warfare was during the cold war, right up to the end, was largely defined by the technical superiority of US subs, especially their ability to remain undetected. By the collapse of USSR, Soviet subs were about to catch up in terms of essential technology. I would be intrigued to learn what sub warfare is like now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
US has something better than the draft: poverty. As long as there's a large enough pool of young people without options, there's no problem. A draft generally can only be minimally discriminatory for PR reasons, so poverty as enlistment incentive works much better.
Though, talking about US military running out of manpower is a far, far fetch, isn't? It surpasses or is extremely competitive with any other military by any measure [0][1].
According to Blind Man's Bluff, which covers submarine warfare during the cold war from the US perspective, right up to the nineties, atomic subs had 3 main roles: espionage and intelligence gathering, preserving second strike ability, shadowing enemy subs to have a chance of thwarting their strikes in case of crisis. What submarine warfare was during the cold war, right up to the end, was largely defined by the technical superiority of US subs, especially their ability to remain undetected. By the collapse of USSR, Soviet subs were about to catch up in terms of essential technology. I would be intrigued to learn what sub warfare is like now.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
Currently most military recruits come from the middle classes. Youths in poverty typically fail to meet enlistment standards due to health problems, low standardized test scores, criminal record, drug use, etc. Of course there are many exceptions but that's the general rule.
https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&con...
Excerpt from DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
> An important predictor to military service in the general population is family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities.
Excerpt from DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
> An important predictor to military service in the general population is family income. Those with lower family income are more likely to join the military than those with higher family income. Thus the military may indeed be a career option for those for whom there are few better opportunities.
People aren't going to sign up to get killed for that kind of money. That's why they had to be drafted in the Vietnam era.
And that's also why minimum-wage restaurant workers are going on strike in the coronavirus era.
And that's also why minimum-wage restaurant workers are going on strike in the coronavirus era.
A draft is good if the rich kids are in it too, that usually makes policy makers more sober.
Now that we have a volunteer army, there are differences between how the wars of today are fought compared to the Viet Nam war. The Viet Nam war had literally an order of magnitude more deaths than our current wars. Having a volunteer force means the soldiers have to treated better and paid more than a draftee. These wars have been a waste of lives and money but things would have been much worse if there were millions of draftees serving in the middle east and Afghanistan. Having a volunteer force in the 1960s would have meant that if the Viet Nam war would have been fought, there would have been with a lot more concern for the loss of life of the solders - it likely wouldn't have been fought anything like it was fought.
The USA should use this opportunity to step back and re-think whether registering for the draft is needed in this age. The whole draft registration program is simply a waste of millions of dollars a year.
The USA should use this opportunity to step back and re-think whether registering for the draft is needed in this age. The whole draft registration program is simply a waste of millions of dollars a year.
I don't (off the top of my head) remember my sources for claims about poverty being a mechanism for manning the US military, so I won't push the point. I'll leave it at saying that I wish you were right.
You're definitely right that it's a recruiting pressure - that and the free college and the path to naturalisation. But that only holds as long as the casualties are relatively low. And the ~4k dead and ~30k wounded of Iraq was relatively low compared to the ~58k dead of Vietnam. It's not clear what kind of non-nuclear war would bring that level of dead again, but I reckon restarting the Korean war would do it.
The US industrial base was mighty, but these days it's a very pale shadow of what it was. Rampant cost cutting, outsourcing, and lack of protecting domestic production has absolutely devastated US manufacturing. There's still lots of design work that goes on, but almost all the actual manufacturing takes place elsewhere. What little is actually "made" in the US is almost entirely assembled from raw components that are themselves manufactured outside the US.
> Rampant cost cutting, outsourcing, and lack of protecting domestic production has absolutely devastated US manufacturing.
This is utterly false thing that you learn if only read news articles. The value and quantity of manufacturing is now the highest it has ever been in the US.
What has declined is the number of workers and the share of GDP. This applies to almost all OECD countries. As economies change from industrial to post-industrial, the share of manufacturing declines naturally because manufacturing productivity increases.
Agriculture is something like 3% of the GDP, yet developed countries produce more agricultural products than they did when 90% of the economy was agriculture. The same thing is happening to manufacturing.
This is utterly false thing that you learn if only read news articles. The value and quantity of manufacturing is now the highest it has ever been in the US.
What has declined is the number of workers and the share of GDP. This applies to almost all OECD countries. As economies change from industrial to post-industrial, the share of manufacturing declines naturally because manufacturing productivity increases.
Agriculture is something like 3% of the GDP, yet developed countries produce more agricultural products than they did when 90% of the economy was agriculture. The same thing is happening to manufacturing.
> This is utterly false thing that you learn if only read news articles. The value and quantity of manufacturing is now the highest it has ever been in the US.
I've seen it first hand. I've talked with people that have been impacted by it. I've also seen the corporate slight of hand that tries to disguise it. Components manufactured in China, shipped to Mexico for assembly, then shipped to the US to have some decorative panels and stickers slapped on so they can put a "made in USA" sticker on the side.
Go grab virtually anything from around your house (excluding food) and it's more likely than not that that thing was manufactured in whole or in part outside the US. That didn't used to be the case. Coming out of WW2 it was rare for people to own non-domestically produced goods.
This isn't a case of US manufacturing just being so ridiculously efficient that you just don't need many companies making things. That might hold water if most goods were still manufactured in the US, but they aren't. Cars are about the only manufactured consumer good still made in the US, and even they are quite often assembled in Mexico. Pretty much any electronic device is made in China.
Here's a case study, Ikea which is a very popular furniture manufacturer (among other things) mostly assembles their products in Mexico and China. They do have some US manufacturing, but that's largely because they acquired rights to some large swaths of woodland and it makes sense to process and assemble that on site.
To be clear, you mentioned agriculture, and yes, the US does have a thriving agriculture sector, but agriculture isn't manufacturing.
The US screwed up badly when it let basic manufacturing get outsourced. When the factories making screws and transistors are all based in other countries, eventually all the other factories are going to follow them.
I've seen it first hand. I've talked with people that have been impacted by it. I've also seen the corporate slight of hand that tries to disguise it. Components manufactured in China, shipped to Mexico for assembly, then shipped to the US to have some decorative panels and stickers slapped on so they can put a "made in USA" sticker on the side.
Go grab virtually anything from around your house (excluding food) and it's more likely than not that that thing was manufactured in whole or in part outside the US. That didn't used to be the case. Coming out of WW2 it was rare for people to own non-domestically produced goods.
This isn't a case of US manufacturing just being so ridiculously efficient that you just don't need many companies making things. That might hold water if most goods were still manufactured in the US, but they aren't. Cars are about the only manufactured consumer good still made in the US, and even they are quite often assembled in Mexico. Pretty much any electronic device is made in China.
Here's a case study, Ikea which is a very popular furniture manufacturer (among other things) mostly assembles their products in Mexico and China. They do have some US manufacturing, but that's largely because they acquired rights to some large swaths of woodland and it makes sense to process and assemble that on site.
To be clear, you mentioned agriculture, and yes, the US does have a thriving agriculture sector, but agriculture isn't manufacturing.
The US screwed up badly when it let basic manufacturing get outsourced. When the factories making screws and transistors are all based in other countries, eventually all the other factories are going to follow them.
> I've seen it first hand.
You can't quantify manufacturing by looking around. What you see is cheap consumer products with low value added.
If you follow value chains for products manufactured in China, you quickly notice China imports high value added manufacturing products from other countries (including the US) then assembles them with cheap workforce and adds cheap components.
You can't quantify manufacturing by looking around. What you see is cheap consumer products with low value added.
If you follow value chains for products manufactured in China, you quickly notice China imports high value added manufacturing products from other countries (including the US) then assembles them with cheap workforce and adds cheap components.
> Go grab virtually anything from around your house
Manufacturing can be for goods that you don't find in your house?
If you look at the German mittelstand there's a lot of businesses that make stuff for some unknown-to-the-public industrial niche.
I'm guessing the US also has a bunch of those.
Manufacturing can be for goods that you don't find in your house?
If you look at the German mittelstand there's a lot of businesses that make stuff for some unknown-to-the-public industrial niche.
I'm guessing the US also has a bunch of those.
>Manufacturing can be for goods that you don't find in your house?
>If you look at the German mittelstand there's a lot of businesses that make stuff for some unknown-to-the-public industrial niche.
>I'm guessing the US also has a bunch of those.
And that is exactly why he said "from your house". Home goods lend themselves very, very well to outsourcing because low initial cost is such a key design criteria and they tend to have a density and packaging requirements that make them convenient to ship. If you browse through the McMaster or Grainger catalogs you'll find that a huge number of things (maybe not a majority but likely the largest minority) are made in the US and the rest are made all over the world.
>If you look at the German mittelstand there's a lot of businesses that make stuff for some unknown-to-the-public industrial niche.
>I'm guessing the US also has a bunch of those.
And that is exactly why he said "from your house". Home goods lend themselves very, very well to outsourcing because low initial cost is such a key design criteria and they tend to have a density and packaging requirements that make them convenient to ship. If you browse through the McMaster or Grainger catalogs you'll find that a huge number of things (maybe not a majority but likely the largest minority) are made in the US and the rest are made all over the world.
You’re talking about cheap consumer products that will always be made cheaply.
No one is going to make a consumer product like they used to. Take power tools and kitchen appliances for example. They don’t have to be make entirely of metal when plastic will do just fine for home use.
Like Germany we want to keep high quality manufacturing at home.
No one is going to make a consumer product like they used to. Take power tools and kitchen appliances for example. They don’t have to be make entirely of metal when plastic will do just fine for home use.
Like Germany we want to keep high quality manufacturing at home.
According to wikipedia the US stockpile of Mark 48s is over 1000, and the current manufacturer is building about 50 a year, which certainly seems like enough for a little bit. Most military manufacturing happens in country or in an allied country, and there are people in the military devoted to making sure the supply chain for this stuff is healthy, and making sure there is room for surge if needed. As for overseas needs, it's hard to imagine a scenario where the US Navy is unable to defend American convoys in the Atlantic (linking them to manufacturing and raw materials in South America, Europe and Africa) at least not in the first year of the conflict.
Of course in a total war scenario things start to change. When it's truly nation against nation in a global conflict every part of society needs to be re-tooled into a giant war machine. In WW2 the US told General Motors how many cars they were allowed to make a week, because they needed steel for tanks. I imagine any facility capable of making electronics in the US and Europe today would be re-tooled to make the chips for Mark 48s, AIM-120s, SM-2s, etc.
EDIT: Oh, and in a total war scenario, submarines are essential weapons. Remember, a total war isn't just army against army, it's also economy against economy. If you can deny your opponent access to the resources it needs you can win the conflict, and that means you need submarines to sink enemy supply convoys. This would certainly come up in a hypothetical Sino-American conflict. The overwhelming majority of Chinese imports and exports come through ports. The port of Shanghai alone gets more tonnage of supplies in and out in a month than all land routes in and out of China COMBINED get in a year.
Of course in a total war scenario things start to change. When it's truly nation against nation in a global conflict every part of society needs to be re-tooled into a giant war machine. In WW2 the US told General Motors how many cars they were allowed to make a week, because they needed steel for tanks. I imagine any facility capable of making electronics in the US and Europe today would be re-tooled to make the chips for Mark 48s, AIM-120s, SM-2s, etc.
EDIT: Oh, and in a total war scenario, submarines are essential weapons. Remember, a total war isn't just army against army, it's also economy against economy. If you can deny your opponent access to the resources it needs you can win the conflict, and that means you need submarines to sink enemy supply convoys. This would certainly come up in a hypothetical Sino-American conflict. The overwhelming majority of Chinese imports and exports come through ports. The port of Shanghai alone gets more tonnage of supplies in and out in a month than all land routes in and out of China COMBINED get in a year.
> To put it another way, if there was a war so bad, the US reinstituted the draft, would these tools still be relevant?
The drafted people would all go to factories and boatyards to build thousands of new submarines. Each submarine would likely have no people on board, and be fully remote control.
The age old problem of "you can't hide while sending and receiving data, so you can't make a drone sub" has been solved by using below-noise-floor gold codes, so without the coding key, nobody can even tell a transmission is going on.
The drafted people would all go to factories and boatyards to build thousands of new submarines. Each submarine would likely have no people on board, and be fully remote control.
The age old problem of "you can't hide while sending and receiving data, so you can't make a drone sub" has been solved by using below-noise-floor gold codes, so without the coding key, nobody can even tell a transmission is going on.
I'm a cryptographer, so I'm inherently curious about secret communication. It just so happens that I'm also very curious about radios, satellite communications, etc.
Do you have a link that provides more information on these "below-noise-floor gold codes"? I tried googling, but I haven't found much technical information that I trust is entirely truthful or relevant.
Do you have a link that provides more information on these "below-noise-floor gold codes"? I tried googling, but I haven't found much technical information that I trust is entirely truthful or relevant.
The principle is that if your ally has a receive antenna with a gain of X, and you use a modulation scheme with a coding gain of Y, and you transmit strong enough that your signal can be received by your ally with a snr margin of Z, then as long as your enemy doesn't have a receive antenna with gain > X+Y-Z, they can't detect your signal from the noise.
Since Y can be increased arbitaraly (at the cost of channel data capacity), it's always possible to transmit some information to your ally without your enemy seeing a transmission, it might just be a few bits per second, but theres a lot you can do with a few bits per second in warfare.
One needs to make sure that the above holds true for all possible frequency windows and time windows, so no carrier waves or high power sync pulses!
I believe the implementation is much harder than the theory - just one crystal oscillator or PLL anywhere in your radio hardware will leak some of that frequency into the output, and since the bandwidth of a crystal oscillator is super low (obviously an ideal oscillator has zero bandwidth), even a tiny leak is detectable by an enemy.
Since Y can be increased arbitaraly (at the cost of channel data capacity), it's always possible to transmit some information to your ally without your enemy seeing a transmission, it might just be a few bits per second, but theres a lot you can do with a few bits per second in warfare.
One needs to make sure that the above holds true for all possible frequency windows and time windows, so no carrier waves or high power sync pulses!
I believe the implementation is much harder than the theory - just one crystal oscillator or PLL anywhere in your radio hardware will leak some of that frequency into the output, and since the bandwidth of a crystal oscillator is super low (obviously an ideal oscillator has zero bandwidth), even a tiny leak is detectable by an enemy.
http://www.wirelesscommunication.nl/reference/chaptr05/cdma/... is relevant. How the noise floor comes into it I'm less sure, and am not about to wade through information theory textbooks on my lunchbreak.
No doubt that's what the end of the war would look like. But war is, generally speaking, a kind of work on the field. That kind of work isn't currently done by robots.
I have read the comms channels underwater are low to very low bit rate. If true, a remote controlled sub seems unrealistic.
Also a remote control sub would be continually sending data back which surely is tantamount to continually yelling "I'm here! I'm here!", so I don't really buy the RC sub theory yet. (edit: I don't buy your suggestion that it's possible to hide that. You just need to emit too much power and you can't hide that).
Also a remote control sub would be continually sending data back which surely is tantamount to continually yelling "I'm here! I'm here!", so I don't really buy the RC sub theory yet. (edit: I don't buy your suggestion that it's possible to hide that. You just need to emit too much power and you can't hide that).
Correct, you can’t remote control a submerged submarine, you get maybe a few characters per minute rate of transmission. There are a few ELF stations throughout the world, the US, Russia and India all having some.
Some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency which has my favorite quote. “ ... few nations have built naval ELF transmitters to communicate with their submarines while submerged. China has recently constructed the world's largest ELF facility roughly the size of New York City in order to communicate with its submarine forces without having them to surface. ...”
The antenna needed for these transmissions requires a lot of land.
Some more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency which has my favorite quote. “ ... few nations have built naval ELF transmitters to communicate with their submarines while submerged. China has recently constructed the world's largest ELF facility roughly the size of New York City in order to communicate with its submarine forces without having them to surface. ...”
The antenna needed for these transmissions requires a lot of land.
Point a laser straight up at your satellite.
That's not true. I was working on a system to do (not on subs, but the techniques are applicable) that a few years ago. With a big enough array, anything is possible, see the entire field of radio-astronomy. This includes sparse arrays, as long as you have good enough time sync to do coherent integration.
Apparently, there are things called "swim out" torpedoes?
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/at5nt4/silent_l...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbeQmfXE0ws - discussed in this video (from in the parent article)
https://www.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/at5nt4/silent_l...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbeQmfXE0ws - discussed in this video (from in the parent article)
Those are sometimes called "stealth" torps. They run quiet, and slow, so they don't want the noisy launch procedure. But they also don't do 50 knots. On the other end of the scale there are the rocket torpedoes, really missiles that fly underwater at speeds over 200 knots. You might hear them coming but won't be able to do much about them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
And there are even anti-aircraft torpedoes in development. They are a total gamechanger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
And there are even anti-aircraft torpedoes in development. They are a total gamechanger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDAS_(missile)
Actually, latter versions of the Mark 48 will do this, running at variable speed. Slow launch, creep towards the target, and dogleg even, then run up to 50+ knots once it's close enough to be heard. With wire guidance, the sub could essentially drive the torpedo to where they wanted it before violent speed and maneuvering would likely cut the wires.
This was depicted somewhat famously in the book Red Storm Rising. By all accounts it was accurate.
Shkval is a really special case and not the supertorpedo some made it out to be. It's a countermeasure really, and it's range is far too short to use against other submarines. It's a last resort weapon, when someone's already found you.
IDAS seems really fascinating to me though, like the "Stinger SAM mast" concepts I'd sometimes hear about. IDAS seems more practical and safe to me though. Coming up to periscope depth to take a potshot at a helo sounds like a risky maneuver to me. IDAS would give better options.
This was depicted somewhat famously in the book Red Storm Rising. By all accounts it was accurate.
Shkval is a really special case and not the supertorpedo some made it out to be. It's a countermeasure really, and it's range is far too short to use against other submarines. It's a last resort weapon, when someone's already found you.
IDAS seems really fascinating to me though, like the "Stinger SAM mast" concepts I'd sometimes hear about. IDAS seems more practical and safe to me though. Coming up to periscope depth to take a potshot at a helo sounds like a risky maneuver to me. IDAS would give better options.
Manpad-type missiles like the British Blowpipe have been mounted on submarine masks.
A major threat to a submarine is all the helicopters and patrol aircraft with their dipping sonars etc. There are some really great pics taken from periscopes of opposition helicopters during the cold war. Nothing you'd want to see in a hot war neither.
It seems good to throw a little missile at the helicopter you've just spotted approaching, to give them something to evade and worry about as you make your escape?
A major threat to a submarine is all the helicopters and patrol aircraft with their dipping sonars etc. There are some really great pics taken from periscopes of opposition helicopters during the cold war. Nothing you'd want to see in a hot war neither.
It seems good to throw a little missile at the helicopter you've just spotted approaching, to give them something to evade and worry about as you make your escape?
A helo would have to be much more careful if it thought it might be shot at by a missile, so some deterrence effect. OTOH if you shot at it and missed it would active dip right on top of you and then launch some LWTs, and you'd be blasted.
If they could leave an autonomous missile pod floating just below the surface, with a submarine-like ESM mast, that would be more interesting. You couldn't get in dip range to verify subsurface contacts without being in MANPAD (BOTPAD?) range. Really the same idea as autonomous mines, which have a magnificent power of area denial.
If they could leave an autonomous missile pod floating just below the surface, with a submarine-like ESM mast, that would be more interesting. You couldn't get in dip range to verify subsurface contacts without being in MANPAD (BOTPAD?) range. Really the same idea as autonomous mines, which have a magnificent power of area denial.
The current tactical solution to people taking potshots at helicopters is flying in pairs. Whoever gets shot at evades. Whoever doesn't get shot at shoots at wherever the shot came from. The Navy doesn't use this tactic much because the ocean is relatively free of people hiding in apartment buildings and bushes with RPGs but they could quickly adopt it if needed at the expense of effectively halving the size of their helicopter fleet.
I think if I just dodged a short range missile launched from the mast of a submarine, I’d drop a torpedo immediately to force the sub to dive.
There are now wire-guided AA-missiles that are launched from torpedo tubes while the sub is underwater.
Come on, everyone who has played Dangerous Waters enough knows that the best defence against maritime patrol aircraft is for the captain to boldly surface the boat and take the pesky plane down with a shoulder-launched missile ;)
You are over-analyzing. There is nothing in the sentence you quote that says if the torpedo was launched or swam out etc. Nothing in the sentence you quote even qualified how long "near instant" was. Etc.
You are also saying you know more about this subject than the sub vet who wrote the article...?
You are also saying you know more about this subject than the sub vet who wrote the article...?
Author is known as Jive Turkey on YouTube, and he knows his stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ
"Aaron Amick is a retired U.S. Navy submarine sonarman. He served in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on 688 Los Angles Class Fast Attack and Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. He has published two audiobooks on Cold War-era submarines, Akula SSN Project 971 Sub Brief and USS Nautilus SSN-571 Sub Brief."
I dunno, the author's bio suggests that he knows that he's talking about.
I dunno, the author's bio suggests that he knows that he's talking about.
Somewhat related, my uncle was a “Phantom driver” (F4 Phantom II) in Vietnam. Flew a bunch of missions of varying types.
So Top Gun comes out, and my mom points out he had graduated Fighter Weapons School - my uncle is a real Top Gun!
So I asked him for tales of dogfights, war stories. He had exactly one: “they’d send us out to fight some MiGs, and as soon as we got in range and turned our radar on to start shooting, they’d turn and run.”
So not like the movies?
“Nope.”
So Top Gun comes out, and my mom points out he had graduated Fighter Weapons School - my uncle is a real Top Gun!
So I asked him for tales of dogfights, war stories. He had exactly one: “they’d send us out to fight some MiGs, and as soon as we got in range and turned our radar on to start shooting, they’d turn and run.”
So not like the movies?
“Nope.”
There's a really good, really old (like 25+ years old) episode of Nova called "TopGun and Beyond" where a Viet Nam era fighter pilot said exactly that.
Then he goes on to describe an engagement where the MiG didn't :-)
Found it on YouTube. Yay!! Now I don't have to watch my poorly-recorded-from-broadcast-TV VHS version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-1vPWfHy8
Then he goes on to describe an engagement where the MiG didn't :-)
Found it on YouTube. Yay!! Now I don't have to watch my poorly-recorded-from-broadcast-TV VHS version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-1vPWfHy8
Duke Cunningham is in there.
Too bad he went the corruption route later in life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
Too bad he went the corruption route later in life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
Wow, this is great. I read a lot about aviation history when I was younger but it was amazing to watch it and much more in depth about certain topics.
Recently saw an old video on youtube about that. Top Gun was created in response to heavy losses in Vietnam. It was very small and they had trouble even finding space for classes. A turning point came when a Mig was captured and they trained with it to find weaknesses. After that everything changed. The kill ratio inverted and they did start to run when engaged in some cases. Your uncle was lucky to go after the strategy was worked out, or he probably wouldn't have come back!
The FW-190 was cutting Allied aircraft to pieces in WW2, until the Allies captured one intact, learned its weaknesses, and turned the tables.
To get extra range, the P-51s had a large fuel tank installed just behind the pilot (where the passenger seat goes if you've ever gotten a ride). Unfortunately, full of fuel caused a large imbalance in the airplane, making it nearly unmaneuverable. Naturally, the pilots would burn that tank off first.
The Germans never realized this - if they did, an attack on the P-51 squadrons soon after they took off would have caught them helpless.
Source: my dad was a P-51 pilot
To get extra range, the P-51s had a large fuel tank installed just behind the pilot (where the passenger seat goes if you've ever gotten a ride). Unfortunately, full of fuel caused a large imbalance in the airplane, making it nearly unmaneuverable. Naturally, the pilots would burn that tank off first.
The Germans never realized this - if they did, an attack on the P-51 squadrons soon after they took off would have caught them helpless.
Source: my dad was a P-51 pilot
According to Wikipedia's article on the P-51[1]:
> Bomber escort defenses were initially layered, using the shorter-range P-38s and P-47s to escort the bombers during the initial stages of the raid before handing over to the P-51s when they were forced to turn for home.
So it sounds like even if the Germans knew it wouldn't have mattered much, and even then these planes were taking off from Britain for the most part.
Even then, a lot more than just this piece of intelligence would need to happen for the Luftwaffe to engage airplanes shortly after takeoff across the English channel.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang#P-...
> Bomber escort defenses were initially layered, using the shorter-range P-38s and P-47s to escort the bombers during the initial stages of the raid before handing over to the P-51s when they were forced to turn for home.
So it sounds like even if the Germans knew it wouldn't have mattered much, and even then these planes were taking off from Britain for the most part.
Even then, a lot more than just this piece of intelligence would need to happen for the Luftwaffe to engage airplanes shortly after takeoff across the English channel.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang#P-...
The Luftwaffe even in 1944 was known to sneak through Allied defenses and shoot down B-17s. My father served as a B-17 navigator in 1944 and heard a Luftwaffe fighter shoot two bursts and bring down 2 B-17s in the landing pattern. The B-17s were caught by surprise cleaning their guns and never fired a shot back.
The Luftwaffe could have taken out a squadron of P-51s with just a handful of fighters. This would have required the AAC to then launch a bunch of fighters to protect the long range fighters until the tank was burned off, significantly hampering their power.
The P-51 was basically unable to turn with the center of gravity so far back.
The Luftwaffe could have taken out a squadron of P-51s with just a handful of fighters. This would have required the AAC to then launch a bunch of fighters to protect the long range fighters until the tank was burned off, significantly hampering their power.
The P-51 was basically unable to turn with the center of gravity so far back.
That's not how aircraft aerodynamics work.
Tail heavy aircraft turn faster than nose-heavy aircraft. With the centre of aerodynamic pressure in front of the centre of mass the wings contribute extra turning force whenever the aircraft isn't facing exactly into the airstream.
If the centre of mass is too far behind the centre of pressure the aircraft becomes unstable - continuously trying to snap around and fly backwards.
Tail heavy aircraft turn faster than nose-heavy aircraft. With the centre of aerodynamic pressure in front of the centre of mass the wings contribute extra turning force whenever the aircraft isn't facing exactly into the airstream.
If the centre of mass is too far behind the centre of pressure the aircraft becomes unstable - continuously trying to snap around and fly backwards.
I think we're on the same page. When I wrote "unable to turn" I meant "unable to turn in a stable manner". It would exhibit what in a car we'd call "oversteer". The pilot would have to be very gentle and careful in turns, which means death in air combat.
Wait, was your dad a P-51 pilot, or a B-17 navigator? Quite different roles. I know the AAC moved people around at whim, but this seems unusual.
He was a B-17 navigator during WW2 for 32 missions. After the war, he left the military and went to college. After that he rejoined to become a fighter pilot (what he wanted originally anyway). He flew P-51s, and later transitioned to jet fighters. Flew combat in the Korean War, mostly ground attack missions.
I would have joined the Air Force too, but with my thick glasses the AF told me no way I would be a pilot. So I wound up as a compiler nerd instead :-)
I would have joined the Air Force too, but with my thick glasses the AF told me no way I would be a pilot. So I wound up as a compiler nerd instead :-)
That's amazing. My grandfather flew for Pan Am during the war, and his flight career spanned biplanes to the 707. I'm in awe of that generation. Your dad sounds like he had a similar adventure!
Yup, he learned to fly in stringbag biplanes. An era that will never come again. My father had a long and very full life. Sounds like your grandfather did, too!
Have Doughnut and Have Drill were the govt programs (which have been declassified) where we used acquired MiGs to learn their weaknesses. There are some great videos on YouTube and books from people who were directly involved in the Red Eagles.
Any history on the use of the word “Have” in project names like this? I’m thinking of “Have Blue” also but didn’t realize it seems to be a theme. It’s always sounded weird as hell to me.
Edit: oh I found something to answer my own question: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-m...
Edit: oh I found something to answer my own question: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-m...
It appears that "Have" was used by assignment of the Joint Staff to a specific organization. Still random of course, but interesting that its provenance and scope of application is not quite so super secret, at least not anymore.
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/meaning-of-have-in-c...
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/meaning-of-have-in-c...
Top Gun was created in response to heavy losses in Vietnam
That in itself is a crucial piece of historical context. The MiGs of the day were better than contemporary American fighters such as the F-86. They operated at altitudes the Americans couldn’t reach and shot downwards. One reason America was in Vietnam in the first place was a genuine fear that the Soviet system was actually better! It was the Sidewinder missile that really turned things around.
That in itself is a crucial piece of historical context. The MiGs of the day were better than contemporary American fighters such as the F-86. They operated at altitudes the Americans couldn’t reach and shot downwards. One reason America was in Vietnam in the first place was a genuine fear that the Soviet system was actually better! It was the Sidewinder missile that really turned things around.
The F86 was on a rough par with the MIG15 in Korea. Yeager's assessment was that it was all about pilots, not the planes.
Trivia: the Soviets eventually recovered an intact downed Sabre and shipped it to Russia for evaluation. They copied from it, including the Sabre's gun-sight that later fitted out the MIGs in Vietnam.
Did the F86 ever serve in the Vietnam war?
Trivia: the Soviets eventually recovered an intact downed Sabre and shipped it to Russia for evaluation. They copied from it, including the Sabre's gun-sight that later fitted out the MIGs in Vietnam.
Did the F86 ever serve in the Vietnam war?
In Vietnam, the F100 (successor to F86) was in use, and it was actually obsolete at the time in comparison to the Migs.
The F100 was the first jet that could fly supersonic in level flight. It was known as the widowmaker, as it was basically a subsonic aircraft that could go supersonic, with pre-supersonic cockpit and controls. The workload on the pilots was intense, and many pilots died in flight school.
Since it was basically obsolete, it was used as ground attack aircraft, with fighter support provided by F105s.
Source: family member flew F100s in Vietnam
The F100 was the first jet that could fly supersonic in level flight. It was known as the widowmaker, as it was basically a subsonic aircraft that could go supersonic, with pre-supersonic cockpit and controls. The workload on the pilots was intense, and many pilots died in flight school.
Since it was basically obsolete, it was used as ground attack aircraft, with fighter support provided by F105s.
Source: family member flew F100s in Vietnam
>Did the F86 ever serve in the Vietnam war?
No. The National Guard had them through the 1960s but jet fighter technology was moving so fast at the time that they were not in front line service by the time the US had any involvement in Vietnam.
No. The National Guard had them through the 1960s but jet fighter technology was moving so fast at the time that they were not in front line service by the time the US had any involvement in Vietnam.
US strategy in the 50s when this stuff was designed or ordered was oriented around our friend the atom... nuke everyone. At one point there was serious discussion about the need for a Navy.
Vietnam was a crucible where a lot of entrenched thinking had to be burned away, unfortunately those lessons were taught in the context of that awful conflict.
Vietnam was a crucible where a lot of entrenched thinking had to be burned away, unfortunately those lessons were taught in the context of that awful conflict.
Can you recommend any resources on how Vietnam changed US strategy?
[deleted]
I knew a guy who was a chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons guy in the army. He took bomb diffusal training, studied old soviet missiles, the lot. What did he do on a day to day basis? Mostly blew up grenades that didn't blow up on their own. Apparently it was super boring.
That's the sort of job you want to be super boring.
Likely because it has the chance to be super exciting _once_.
This brought to mind this Schlock Mercenary strip[1].
[1] https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2010-08-29
[1] https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2010-08-29
bomb guys are EOD SW, they made a movie about them a while back, Hurt Locker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_Ordnance_Disposal_Ba...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_Ordnance_Disposal_Ba...
Well.
The Vietnamese pilots were using Soviet tactics, mainly Ground Control vectors.
Most Vietnamese pilots were rookies, but they did have some aces who would dogfight, like Colonel Toon, who was shot down by Randy Cunningham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
But largely the tactics were to surprise the Americans with first MiG-17's, then have a MiG-21 at high speed do an ambush pass from the clouds through lower-flying Americans.
The Vietnamese could have done a lot more damage had they known how worthless the US air-air missiles were at the time. There were all kinds of problems with taking too long to arm (around 4 seconds) and vibration from takeoffs and landings inerting the missiles. And that no gun thing.
Additionally, US pilots were expected to have up to a dozen radio channels active, causing pilot workload problems until they turned off like 11 of them.
The Vietnamese pilots were using Soviet tactics, mainly Ground Control vectors.
Most Vietnamese pilots were rookies, but they did have some aces who would dogfight, like Colonel Toon, who was shot down by Randy Cunningham:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham
But largely the tactics were to surprise the Americans with first MiG-17's, then have a MiG-21 at high speed do an ambush pass from the clouds through lower-flying Americans.
The Vietnamese could have done a lot more damage had they known how worthless the US air-air missiles were at the time. There were all kinds of problems with taking too long to arm (around 4 seconds) and vibration from takeoffs and landings inerting the missiles. And that no gun thing.
Additionally, US pilots were expected to have up to a dozen radio channels active, causing pilot workload problems until they turned off like 11 of them.
He told me he didn’t have a lot of confidence in the Sparrow. They eventually got some aircraft with guns but never used them; despite Top Gun school something like 90% Of his flights were ground attack missions.
Highly recommend folks who are into aircraft warfare pick up a book about how the AIM-9 Sidewinder was developed as a side project at China Lake by the Navy that had to be done under the radar due to politics. It's a great story about engineers driven by a real customer need fought bureaucracy, politics and some interesting technical challenges to build a missile and get it in the hands of pilots. They were up against a military contractor (Hughes) pushing the AIM-4 Falcon which had horrible numbers in the field. The Falcon required like 3 people and 4 racks worth of equipment to troubleshoot it while the Sidewinder required a screwdriver and a voltmeter.
The Sparrow had its own challenges from what I've read. Specifically issues with the acquisition radar being able to track a fast moving target and the missiles ability to receive the reflected signal and apply the right amount of correction. Got to remember that the time when these missiles were being developed it was to target slow moving bombers - not tight turning bandits.
The Sparrow had its own challenges from what I've read. Specifically issues with the acquisition radar being able to track a fast moving target and the missiles ability to receive the reflected signal and apply the right amount of correction. Got to remember that the time when these missiles were being developed it was to target slow moving bombers - not tight turning bandits.
Is the book - Sidewinder - Creative Missile Development at China Lake?
https://www.amazon.com/Sidewinder-Creative-Missile-Developme...
https://www.amazon.com/Sidewinder-Creative-Missile-Developme...
Yep, that's the one. Thanks for finding and posting (wasn't able to do this where I was at).
I've only heard good things about the Sidewinder.
The rest ... were a liability for years.
US pilots also had the bizarre order to visually identify targets before shooting (which then meant waiting 4 seconds for the missile to arm before actually firing it.)
Amongst other things, visibility in the tropics is often not 4 seconds worth, and the enemy can use clouds to get real close.
The rest ... were a liability for years.
US pilots also had the bizarre order to visually identify targets before shooting (which then meant waiting 4 seconds for the missile to arm before actually firing it.)
Amongst other things, visibility in the tropics is often not 4 seconds worth, and the enemy can use clouds to get real close.
Not to mention the AIM-4 was originally designed to shoot down Soviet bombers and not for dogfighting.
The no gun thing is over hyped. The Navy never did install guns in their fighters in Vietnam, and still ended up reversing the kill ratio.
It was all about missiles. Once the missiles got fixed, the kill ratio turned around very quickly.
And yes, had nothing to do with guns. Guns are and have been obsolete on fighter aircraft for decades.
And yes, had nothing to do with guns. Guns are and have been obsolete on fighter aircraft for decades.
They started carrying gunpods at the time. Missiles of the era were inaccurate and finicky.
No, the Navy didn't [0]. The Air Force did carry them. They Navy got better at avoiding the weaknesses.
0. https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and...
0. https://combatace.com/forums/topic/91818-the-f-4-phantom-and...
The article's description of submarine warfare is surprisingly similar to how modern air combat is supposed to play out, and parallels modern artillery's shoot and scoot philosophy as well. Hide, find, hit, and hide again.
Recently read this blog post that discusses the focus on concealment and cover and why fixed weapons platforms can be difficult to rely on in a modern context: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Long gone are the days of the British soldiers taking a knee in formations to shoot their muskets. Essentially expecting to take turns with the enemy trading shots. Never did understand that mentality at all.
Well, that was when individual muskets were inaccurate and the coordination issues with commanding thousands of men using drums and flags meant a large mass of soldiers firing in sync could scare the opposing side into fleeing and allow calvary to mop up. And before that, you had knights with plate armor that could could shrug off most bladed weapons on a battlefield that would have destroyed peasant conscript without armor. Warfare's evolved from elite units that could tank almost anything you can throw at them, to using masses of men to soak up more damage than the opposing side, to using cover and squad tactics to evade machine gun fire, to trying to be so stealthy that the enemy can't even fire on you at all. This progression has resulted from modern technology making offense superior to defense in every way. Makes you wonder if there will be a technological progression in the future that begins to give defense an edge over offense.
You're obviously right about this, but I still think of WW1 as "The Stupid War".
In terms of defence gaining an edge over defense; I don't really think so. Offence is always cheaper. Think nukes.
In terms of defence gaining an edge over defense; I don't really think so. Offence is always cheaper. Think nukes.
As long as M.A.D. holds, nukes is almost a defense. I fear the day they are used in anger.
Defense vs Offense is the quintessential cat & mouse game. If the offense comes up with a new weapon, the defense is forced to come up with a counter. If the defense comes up with a better shield, offense comes up with a bigger bomb.
Because if they split up they would be easily overwhelmed from a concentrated charge from the other side and split apart and sent running, especially if they had any horsemen. And during a rout is when the majority of casualties would happen.
Also being in formation helps stop people from running. If all your guys are spread out in the woods, more than a few might take that chance to 'disappear' from the battle if not from the entire military. It is a lot harder to do that in a tight formation and you would easily get called out, or even potentially shot in the back, for deserting.
Also being in formation helps stop people from running. If all your guys are spread out in the woods, more than a few might take that chance to 'disappear' from the battle if not from the entire military. It is a lot harder to do that in a tight formation and you would easily get called out, or even potentially shot in the back, for deserting.
In the days before accurate rapid fire weapons, the key to victory was pumping out more lead per second than the other squad. The only way to do that was discipline, training, and keeping cool under fire.
It was an innovative approach in the Napoleonic era. French units would form up in columns with the idea of punching through the line with conscripts. The British would spread out and deliver a much higher volume of fire, and do so very quickly.
Where do these unhistoric French bashing memes come from? Is it taught in school in US and UK? I swear to god Anglosaxons thinks that the English won the 100-year war.
They would not form deep columns to punch through, only one nation used solid squares in that age and that was the Prussian army. The French would form battalion columns which are pairs of companys deployed individually in lines after each other. Most of the brittish vs column memes are from ambushes where naturally the ambushed part had not time to deploy to line.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/inf... " The Prussians formed their battalions (4 companies each) rather in closed columns than hollow squares. Their regulations issued in 1812 (Exercir Reglement fur die Infanterie) eliminated the hollow square in favour of a dense column formed from the Angriffscolonne."
The french moved to contact in maneuver columns, Just Like Everybody Else Did As Well. The fact that you don't hear the brittish doing it is because they very seldom advanced at all in any battle. This is what we still do, we march manourver battalions in columns on roads and deploy mechanized forced out to a line once we are close to the enemy.
" - however, if the enemy kept his cool and opened fire only at close range, the officers instead of tightening the column, they deployed it into line and opened fire. As soon as the enemy began wavering under the fire they charged with bayonets. In 1805 at Austerlitz, French columns advanced with great coolness and at slow pace. The Russian infantry fired at long range but the French continued their march until they were 100 paces away from the enemy. They halted and opened fire, then "formed in several lines" and rapidly moved forward. The enemy fled. Captain Bonnet described similar infantry attack at Borodino; after few minutes the Russian skirmishers arrived in good order a little to the left "... and a dense column to our right. I deploy my battalion and, without firing, march straight at the column. It recoils. When carrying out this movement we were so exposed to grapeshot from the guns in the village that I saw my battalion falling and being breached like a crenellated wall. But still we went on.""
And by the way the nation which most frequently deployed "spread out" troops are, wait for it, the French!
"Several companies or even battalions could be employed as skirmishers (tirailleurs en grande bande). The tiralleurs en grande bande acted in large numbers, stormed or defended a position, or turned the flank of the enemy. The large skirmish formations were usually supported by columns and artillery. At Friedland General Oudinot had deployed 2 full battalions as skirmishers into the Sortlack Wood. In 1814 at La Rothiere four French battalions were formed in skirmish order by La Giberie to anticipate any attack which might develop in the rear of the wood. The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations. (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 111) In 1806 at Jena, the French 16th Light Infantry advanced left in front towards the woods: its third battalion advanced en tirailleurs (in skirmish order) towards the wood, the first and second battalion, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed into line in the plain at musket range from the Prussian battery."
"The British well-drilled regulars were humiliated by American farmers, militia and Indians fighting in lose order. The american experience made a profound impact and resulted in tactical and organizational changes in the British army. But still the quality of the British skirmishers (except the 60th and 95th Regiment) was below their French counterparts. French General Foy wrote: "Several regiments of the line, such as the [British] 43rd, the 51st, the 52nd etc., are called light infantry regiments. These corps, as well as the light companies of the battalions, have nothing light about them but the name; for they are armed and with some slight change in the decorations, clothed like the rest of the infantry. It was considered that the English soldier did not possess sufficient intelligence and address to combine with the regular duty of the line the service of inspiration of the sharpshooter."
A Royal Scots officer wrote after Waterloo, that the French skirmishers were better trained, and on the whole much more effective in this type of fighting than the British skirmishers. (Barbero - "The Battle" p 255)
Moyle Sherer of the 34th Foot wrote on the British skirmishers: "Not a soul….was in the village, but a wood a few hundred yards to its left, and the ravines above it, were filled with French light infantry. I, with my company, was soon engaged in smart skirmishing among the ravines, and lost about 11 men, killed and wounded, out of thirty-eight. The English do not skirmish so well as the Germans or the French; and it is really hard work to make them preserve their proper extended order, cover themselves, and not throw away their fire; and in the performance of this duty, an officer is, I think, far more exposed that in line fighting." (Rory Muir- "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon")"
They would not form deep columns to punch through, only one nation used solid squares in that age and that was the Prussian army. The French would form battalion columns which are pairs of companys deployed individually in lines after each other. Most of the brittish vs column memes are from ambushes where naturally the ambushed part had not time to deploy to line.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/inf... " The Prussians formed their battalions (4 companies each) rather in closed columns than hollow squares. Their regulations issued in 1812 (Exercir Reglement fur die Infanterie) eliminated the hollow square in favour of a dense column formed from the Angriffscolonne."
The french moved to contact in maneuver columns, Just Like Everybody Else Did As Well. The fact that you don't hear the brittish doing it is because they very seldom advanced at all in any battle. This is what we still do, we march manourver battalions in columns on roads and deploy mechanized forced out to a line once we are close to the enemy.
" - however, if the enemy kept his cool and opened fire only at close range, the officers instead of tightening the column, they deployed it into line and opened fire. As soon as the enemy began wavering under the fire they charged with bayonets. In 1805 at Austerlitz, French columns advanced with great coolness and at slow pace. The Russian infantry fired at long range but the French continued their march until they were 100 paces away from the enemy. They halted and opened fire, then "formed in several lines" and rapidly moved forward. The enemy fled. Captain Bonnet described similar infantry attack at Borodino; after few minutes the Russian skirmishers arrived in good order a little to the left "... and a dense column to our right. I deploy my battalion and, without firing, march straight at the column. It recoils. When carrying out this movement we were so exposed to grapeshot from the guns in the village that I saw my battalion falling and being breached like a crenellated wall. But still we went on.""
And by the way the nation which most frequently deployed "spread out" troops are, wait for it, the French!
"Several companies or even battalions could be employed as skirmishers (tirailleurs en grande bande). The tiralleurs en grande bande acted in large numbers, stormed or defended a position, or turned the flank of the enemy. The large skirmish formations were usually supported by columns and artillery. At Friedland General Oudinot had deployed 2 full battalions as skirmishers into the Sortlack Wood. In 1814 at La Rothiere four French battalions were formed in skirmish order by La Giberie to anticipate any attack which might develop in the rear of the wood. The French on occasion deployed even entire divisions [!] in skirmish formations. (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" 1996 p 111) In 1806 at Jena, the French 16th Light Infantry advanced left in front towards the woods: its third battalion advanced en tirailleurs (in skirmish order) towards the wood, the first and second battalion, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed into line in the plain at musket range from the Prussian battery."
"The British well-drilled regulars were humiliated by American farmers, militia and Indians fighting in lose order. The american experience made a profound impact and resulted in tactical and organizational changes in the British army. But still the quality of the British skirmishers (except the 60th and 95th Regiment) was below their French counterparts. French General Foy wrote: "Several regiments of the line, such as the [British] 43rd, the 51st, the 52nd etc., are called light infantry regiments. These corps, as well as the light companies of the battalions, have nothing light about them but the name; for they are armed and with some slight change in the decorations, clothed like the rest of the infantry. It was considered that the English soldier did not possess sufficient intelligence and address to combine with the regular duty of the line the service of inspiration of the sharpshooter."
A Royal Scots officer wrote after Waterloo, that the French skirmishers were better trained, and on the whole much more effective in this type of fighting than the British skirmishers. (Barbero - "The Battle" p 255)
Moyle Sherer of the 34th Foot wrote on the British skirmishers: "Not a soul….was in the village, but a wood a few hundred yards to its left, and the ravines above it, were filled with French light infantry. I, with my company, was soon engaged in smart skirmishing among the ravines, and lost about 11 men, killed and wounded, out of thirty-eight. The English do not skirmish so well as the Germans or the French; and it is really hard work to make them preserve their proper extended order, cover themselves, and not throw away their fire; and in the performance of this duty, an officer is, I think, far more exposed that in line fighting." (Rory Muir- "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon")"
My grandfather flew F-86s in Korea, and his experience was similar - the MiGs always ran most of the time. From his personal history:
"In September 1952, I was made an instructor pilot in the F-86 and, in early November, I was made a flight commander and an engineering test pilot. It was also in November that we had one of our most frustrating experiences while I was at Kimpo. One day we were called into a hush hush briefing and told that the State Department had cleared us for a one time crossing of the Yalu River—and, as I remember, the only restriction placed on us was that we could not attack any aircraft on the ground, and that may have been because most of those people were not proficient in air-to-ground operations, I don’t know. Anyway, we anticipated some real aerial combat for a change since we would be able to catch the Migs with no place to run to—it sounded like the mission of a lifetime!! Imagine our disappointment, then, at going up to the Yalu River and not finding a single Mig anywhere—we went right on across the river into China and circled the big airfield complex at Antung and, looking down, there wasn’t a single aircraft anywhere on any of those three airfields! Apparently, the State Department had given the Chinese the same information they had given us and all the aircraft had been moved north to Mukden, Manchuria.
Well, as luck would have it, from our position at 40,000’, I spotted a single aircraft, on final approach to one of the Antung airfields, about a mile and a half from the end of the runway, one of the 10% that never gets the word, I guess. I really felt frustrated about the entire situation and was desperate to get a shot at one of those guys in their own back yard—I called the bogie out to #3 and said I was going after him. Number 3 called back and bet me a milk shake (to be repaid in the States) that I’d never reach him before he touched down, and then, of course, he was home free. I rolled over into a split-s maneuver, left full power on and was shortly exceeding Mach 1 (the speed of sound)—I completed one 360 degree diving turn and came out the bottom of that dive at about 1300 feet. I was really moving, and I just had time to rapidly reverse the bank, acquire the Mig in the gunsight and squeeze off a quick burst—he was about six feet in the air over the end of the runway at that time and that burst of gunfire caught him squarely in the center of the fuselage, lighting it up like a Christmas tree. I just saw his aircraft slam into the ground and go careening off the runway and then I shot past him and had to direct my attention elsewhere. I whistled past the control tower and under a bunch of electric wires, and all the time I could hear automatic weapons firing so I must have been very close to them. An aircraft going directly away from enemy guns is an easy shot so I stayed on the deck (close to the ground) for a couple of miles and then made a steep climb out. Maybe getting that guy was a dumb thing to do but it sure was satisfying!"
"In September 1952, I was made an instructor pilot in the F-86 and, in early November, I was made a flight commander and an engineering test pilot. It was also in November that we had one of our most frustrating experiences while I was at Kimpo. One day we were called into a hush hush briefing and told that the State Department had cleared us for a one time crossing of the Yalu River—and, as I remember, the only restriction placed on us was that we could not attack any aircraft on the ground, and that may have been because most of those people were not proficient in air-to-ground operations, I don’t know. Anyway, we anticipated some real aerial combat for a change since we would be able to catch the Migs with no place to run to—it sounded like the mission of a lifetime!! Imagine our disappointment, then, at going up to the Yalu River and not finding a single Mig anywhere—we went right on across the river into China and circled the big airfield complex at Antung and, looking down, there wasn’t a single aircraft anywhere on any of those three airfields! Apparently, the State Department had given the Chinese the same information they had given us and all the aircraft had been moved north to Mukden, Manchuria.
Well, as luck would have it, from our position at 40,000’, I spotted a single aircraft, on final approach to one of the Antung airfields, about a mile and a half from the end of the runway, one of the 10% that never gets the word, I guess. I really felt frustrated about the entire situation and was desperate to get a shot at one of those guys in their own back yard—I called the bogie out to #3 and said I was going after him. Number 3 called back and bet me a milk shake (to be repaid in the States) that I’d never reach him before he touched down, and then, of course, he was home free. I rolled over into a split-s maneuver, left full power on and was shortly exceeding Mach 1 (the speed of sound)—I completed one 360 degree diving turn and came out the bottom of that dive at about 1300 feet. I was really moving, and I just had time to rapidly reverse the bank, acquire the Mig in the gunsight and squeeze off a quick burst—he was about six feet in the air over the end of the runway at that time and that burst of gunfire caught him squarely in the center of the fuselage, lighting it up like a Christmas tree. I just saw his aircraft slam into the ground and go careening off the runway and then I shot past him and had to direct my attention elsewhere. I whistled past the control tower and under a bunch of electric wires, and all the time I could hear automatic weapons firing so I must have been very close to them. An aircraft going directly away from enemy guns is an easy shot so I stayed on the deck (close to the ground) for a couple of miles and then made a steep climb out. Maybe getting that guy was a dumb thing to do but it sure was satisfying!"
There's a fantastic book, "Clashes" by Marshall Michell all about this subject, which I can highly recommend. All about the air war in Vietnam.
https://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-197...
https://www.amazon.com/Clashes-Combat-North-Vietnam-1965-197...
Wow, I read your comment just as the movie top gun started on my TV. I really wonder what air-to-air unmanned dog fight would look like.
Are drone swarms a thing yet? a sky filled with drones would be terrifying. I would hope modern jets deploy drone like missiles manned by ground crew for dogfights,but if I learned anything about F22 and F35, they spend trillions to basically let middle parties steal the money and the tech is something designed decades ago.
If I was china I would pop out hundreds of thousands of cheap drones to augment radar capabilities all the stealth tech would be useless if the adversary has millions of eyes at different altitudes each capabale of visual/infrared/lidar detection of fast moving objects. US intel seems spread thin, I wonder if they do enough spying to know what their enemies are capable of. Chinese R&D has been catching up fast these last few years.
Are drone swarms a thing yet? a sky filled with drones would be terrifying. I would hope modern jets deploy drone like missiles manned by ground crew for dogfights,but if I learned anything about F22 and F35, they spend trillions to basically let middle parties steal the money and the tech is something designed decades ago.
If I was china I would pop out hundreds of thousands of cheap drones to augment radar capabilities all the stealth tech would be useless if the adversary has millions of eyes at different altitudes each capabale of visual/infrared/lidar detection of fast moving objects. US intel seems spread thin, I wonder if they do enough spying to know what their enemies are capable of. Chinese R&D has been catching up fast these last few years.
Missiles are drones that are not supposed to come back.
6th-Gen fighter concepts include drone "wingmen" under partial control of fighter pilots in their own fighters. e.g. Japan's I3 Fighter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I3_fighter
ed.: and yes, the F-22 and F-35 are 5th generation and decade-old tech. There is unfortunately a lot of lead time on fighter development. I think the F-15 was relatively speedy at 9 years from selection to roll-out (1967 - 76).
ed.: and yes, the F-22 and F-35 are 5th generation and decade-old tech. There is unfortunately a lot of lead time on fighter development. I think the F-15 was relatively speedy at 9 years from selection to roll-out (1967 - 76).
I've always wondered why there's a guy in the plane at all at this point. Doesn't it severely limit the maneuverability of the aircraft to have a liquid-fueled brain piloting it around rather than some remotely controlled semi-autonomous solid-state electronics?
You could make an argument about drone jamming and autonomous behaviour not being quite there yet... I think that's what the "wingmen" are for.
The paradigm we're moving out of was one where you'd get high-quality sensor data from a specialized patrol or AWACS plane like an E-3, which would send information to ground, which would relay it to the fighters. Now, platforms like the F-35 often have better sensors than patrol planes do; and despite still having a person inside, are better at evading missiles than big patrol planes are. So it's more like the fighters take on the role of the patrol planes; the human inside decides what to do, probably assimilating information from other fighters; and sends the drones out to do acrobatics. And there's no need to run that information through a ground station first.
The paradigm we're moving out of was one where you'd get high-quality sensor data from a specialized patrol or AWACS plane like an E-3, which would send information to ground, which would relay it to the fighters. Now, platforms like the F-35 often have better sensors than patrol planes do; and despite still having a person inside, are better at evading missiles than big patrol planes are. So it's more like the fighters take on the role of the patrol planes; the human inside decides what to do, probably assimilating information from other fighters; and sends the drones out to do acrobatics. And there's no need to run that information through a ground station first.
Still a place for AWACS, bigger RADAR allows different frequencies, much wider field of view, lots of power. Usually they would communicate with fighters directly to update their picture (voice & link). Ground controllers usually take a back seat to what AWACS says.
The difference with the drone wingman (wingbot?) is that the controller is in the air and close by, and she can point a powerful X-band radar at the drones to use as an un-jammable comms link (high power, better geometry). If the manned aircraft were also to merge then they could be jammed because the geometry would be wrong, but for short periods the wingbot tactics are mainly dominated by physics (energy, shot flyout and engagement envelopes).
The difference with the drone wingman (wingbot?) is that the controller is in the air and close by, and she can point a powerful X-band radar at the drones to use as an un-jammable comms link (high power, better geometry). If the manned aircraft were also to merge then they could be jammed because the geometry would be wrong, but for short periods the wingbot tactics are mainly dominated by physics (energy, shot flyout and engagement envelopes).
I think the idea with all the modern long range smart weaponry and anti-radar targeting tech and such is that the airplane with the squishy, fragile pilot is really a platform for very deadly, smart single-use drones (missiles) and if anyone gets close enough to shoot at the drone platform then several things have already gone wrong.
You are thinking from a technical perspective. You will always need a guy in the cockpit that can refuse an order. Not the same thing if it's a room of drone pilots, a drone pilot will just get fired and replaced on the spot.
Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collateral damage. Beyond that, if a fighter pilot engaged an enemy aircraft he coule be starting a war,you can't make the same quality of observation about the enemy pilots,their intent and threat.
Humans make different decisions if they are detached from the scene. I agree the piloting and targeting should be mostly automated away but final decison should be done by someone at the scene risking their own lives
Imagine being given an order to kill a terrorist, but you notice the place he is at is actually a wedding. A fighter pilot has final authority on the strike, he can make decisions about collateral damage. Beyond that, if a fighter pilot engaged an enemy aircraft he coule be starting a war,you can't make the same quality of observation about the enemy pilots,their intent and threat.
Humans make different decisions if they are detached from the scene. I agree the piloting and targeting should be mostly automated away but final decison should be done by someone at the scene risking their own lives
This reminds me a lot about the Geneva convention and how the rules of war very quickly got tossed aside during WW2.
If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral.
By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight.
We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.
If you compare say the Battle of River Plate (1939) vs. say the North Atlantic convoy run or the siege of malta (1942), there's a dramatic difference in how war was conducted and the types of weapon systems that were most effective. River Plate was almost gentlemanly: while commerce-raiding, the Graf Spee would first hail the merchantmen she was taking prisoner, identify them as belligerents, give them the opportunity to surrender, and then take crews on board before sinking them. When she was engaged and damaged, the ship took refuge in Montevideo, released the prisoners, and then there was elaborate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid violating Uruguayan neutrality. The ship was scuttled without further loss of life - other than Captain Langsdorff, who committed suicide. Several of his British adversaries attended the funeral.
By 1942, nobody cared about any of that. The most effective weapons were submarines and aircraft, and they shot to kill on sight.
We're at peace right now, despite a state of perpetual war that mostly exists for propaganda and business purposes. If it ever came to an existential conflict, human judgment would likely become a liability. Humans generally don't want to kill; in a state of total warfare that hesitation could be lethal.
There is also the Laconia incident [1], the German U-boat that sank the Laconia tried to help rescue survivors but was attacked by Allied aircraft.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
I disagree, soldiers are conditioned to avoid hesitation, two nuclear bombs were dropped on japan,the pilots committed suicide. A soldier that would hesitate means the situation warrants hesitation.
Not hesitating when you should could mean escalation of conflict. Even if you win the battle,it can cost you the war. Look at vietnam, the US lost domestic support because of lack of political support at home. You need the people who are pulling the triggers to know what victory means and it is not as simple as efficiently killing everyone.
The only time taking humans out of decision making makes sense is if you want indiscriminant killing,political support would not waiver at the sight if most civilians being slaughtered , you are fine with inspiring waves of terrorists that will attack your civilians and every other country will remain allied to you and continue to engage in commerce with you despite your genocidal ambitions.
Even in world war 2, civilians were mostly not targeted and prisoners were taken on both sides.
War is not about killing, war is means to acheive a political end by force. A machine that kills without knowledge of the (political) end game in mind will slaughter the enemy and cost you victory. Killing axis soldiers was not the goal of the allies,liberating occupied regions and removal of the fascist regimes was the goal, a goal that can easily be acheived by bombing every populated area of europe with minimal foot soldier involvement.
Not hesitating when you should could mean escalation of conflict. Even if you win the battle,it can cost you the war. Look at vietnam, the US lost domestic support because of lack of political support at home. You need the people who are pulling the triggers to know what victory means and it is not as simple as efficiently killing everyone.
The only time taking humans out of decision making makes sense is if you want indiscriminant killing,political support would not waiver at the sight if most civilians being slaughtered , you are fine with inspiring waves of terrorists that will attack your civilians and every other country will remain allied to you and continue to engage in commerce with you despite your genocidal ambitions.
Even in world war 2, civilians were mostly not targeted and prisoners were taken on both sides.
War is not about killing, war is means to acheive a political end by force. A machine that kills without knowledge of the (political) end game in mind will slaughter the enemy and cost you victory. Killing axis soldiers was not the goal of the allies,liberating occupied regions and removal of the fascist regimes was the goal, a goal that can easily be acheived by bombing every populated area of europe with minimal foot soldier involvement.
Civilians were definitely target by both side throughout WW2. From Rotterdam to Dresden, Nanking to Tokyo. Both sides indiscriminately and intentionally killed civilians.
> two nuclear bombs were dropped on japan,the pilots committed suicide
None of the pilots died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
Both planes returned to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bockscar
None of the pilots died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
Both planes returned to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enola_Gay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bockscar
You're making an interesting argument, but one that was rendered obsolete a long time ago.
We've used beyond line of sight weapon systems on massive scale for at least 40 years, and weapons like the Tomahawk and JSOW have taken things completely out of the realm where such an argument can be taken seriously.
The decisions you talk about are probably valid doing close air support in something like a helicopter where the aircraft actually operates at an altitude where the pilot can actually distinguish targets on the ground.
There's a whole vast world of aviation delivered ordnance that has nothing to do with that world.
We've used beyond line of sight weapon systems on massive scale for at least 40 years, and weapons like the Tomahawk and JSOW have taken things completely out of the realm where such an argument can be taken seriously.
The decisions you talk about are probably valid doing close air support in something like a helicopter where the aircraft actually operates at an altitude where the pilot can actually distinguish targets on the ground.
There's a whole vast world of aviation delivered ordnance that has nothing to do with that world.
Good point,and drone strikes are being used as well. Some is vastly different than all. There hasn't been a major war where most or majority of kills happened remotely yet. I think either wars will be very short or exremely long if it was mostly done by unmanned operators and it will mean more civilians and less soldiers will die.
I think the most recent wars we've been involved in have been very tilted towards standoff weapon strikes. I suspect, although I don't think there are real numbers to really look at, that the vast majority of deaths over the last few years in wars the US has been involved in have been from weapons where no pilot was physically in danger.
To your last point, I think we've reduced the civilian death toll greatly by use of precision weapons. Compare what we do now to what was done in WWII or even Vietnam to an extent.
To your last point, I think we've reduced the civilian death toll greatly by use of precision weapons. Compare what we do now to what was done in WWII or even Vietnam to an extent.
Except we already make most of our air-based strikes from drones currently, so that can't be the reason we have SOME piloted planes.
Air to land not air to air.
We'd happily have air to air drones (really RPA/RPS) except for jamming.
Basically all the current generation RPS tech (like Reaper) stops working once you're dealing with someone with jamming capability. No one is happy with algorithms pulling the trigger yet for air to ground, but air to air I can see happening quickly.
Basically all the current generation RPS tech (like Reaper) stops working once you're dealing with someone with jamming capability. No one is happy with algorithms pulling the trigger yet for air to ground, but air to air I can see happening quickly.
We have plenty of air to air drones. They're mostly prefixed with "Standard Missile", but that's what they are.
Latency issues, I am guessing....
When fighting an advanced adversary with the ability to disrupt satellite communications, remote control can only be used at short ranges within line of sight. And EW makes even that problematic.
Kinda exciting to know that the Gradius Option is finally becoming a reality.
DecadeS-old tech. From design and prototyping to testing to actual deployment takes 2-3 decades...
The F14 was even quicker. 1969 selection to 1973 deployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#VFX
It's interesting how things changed from that generation to the next.
The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue.
The F14's electronics, BTW, were pretty primitive. This episode of the Fighter Pilot Podcast F14 is amazing. The ways people had to keep the systems going were dramatic. In the 1990s the back seater in the F14 would sometimes carry their own tools to fix things in the plane.
https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/042-f-14-tomcat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#VFX
It's interesting how things changed from that generation to the next.
The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue.
The F14's electronics, BTW, were pretty primitive. This episode of the Fighter Pilot Podcast F14 is amazing. The ways people had to keep the systems going were dramatic. In the 1990s the back seater in the F14 would sometimes carry their own tools to fix things in the plane.
https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/042-f-14-tomcat...
> The introduction of sophisticated computers seems to be part of the issue.
Sophisticated technology was always part of the issue no matter how far back in time you go. What changed is the mentality. 50 years ago you had to deliver because the enemy was at your door. Today companies realized that they can make far more money by just dragging it out for decades through the magic of a cost-plus contract and subcontracting. The kind of arrangement that keeps entire subcontracting companies going forever even if they only tread water and never deliver anything.
If anything, sophisticated computers and software just made it easier to drag your feet because unlike building the actual plane, coding is not that capital intensive. You just need your coders constantly writing code and picking up a paycheck while shipping eternal pre-alpha builds.
Sophisticated technology was always part of the issue no matter how far back in time you go. What changed is the mentality. 50 years ago you had to deliver because the enemy was at your door. Today companies realized that they can make far more money by just dragging it out for decades through the magic of a cost-plus contract and subcontracting. The kind of arrangement that keeps entire subcontracting companies going forever even if they only tread water and never deliver anything.
If anything, sophisticated computers and software just made it easier to drag your feet because unlike building the actual plane, coding is not that capital intensive. You just need your coders constantly writing code and picking up a paycheck while shipping eternal pre-alpha builds.
This was already achieved 15 years ago with the X-45As flying simulated combat missions together.
Eh. There are documented dogfights out there that are dramatic, they even made a show about it with the actual pilots:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfights_(TV_series)
That said, there are countless stories about US pilots locking up a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around (they'd see/hear that they were receiving high PRF - being locked on). That happened a lot more in the 70s and after as US air to air radar got better (look down shoot down radar didn't exist until the 70s too).
That said, there are countless stories about US pilots locking up a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around (they'd see/hear that they were receiving high PRF - being locked on). That happened a lot more in the 70s and after as US air to air radar got better (look down shoot down radar didn't exist until the 70s too).
>> a bandit who has a RWR system that scares them into turning around
They weren't necessarily scared. Such maneuvers are stock counters to potential radar-guided missiles. (1) Missile ranges depend on closing speed. You can launch against something coming towards you sooner than something heading away. By turning around, or just sideways, the mig can instantly get outside of missile range. (2) Doppler radar measures relative velocity. Turning around/sideways reduces relative velocity. That can break a radar lock. If you can hear the American jet coming via the RWR, turning sideways may allow you to disappear from radar and draw your enemy closer. It would be wrong to assume that such maneuvers are done out of fear.
They weren't necessarily scared. Such maneuvers are stock counters to potential radar-guided missiles. (1) Missile ranges depend on closing speed. You can launch against something coming towards you sooner than something heading away. By turning around, or just sideways, the mig can instantly get outside of missile range. (2) Doppler radar measures relative velocity. Turning around/sideways reduces relative velocity. That can break a radar lock. If you can hear the American jet coming via the RWR, turning sideways may allow you to disappear from radar and draw your enemy closer. It would be wrong to assume that such maneuvers are done out of fear.
Ah, Falcon 4.0, I miss you so much. This "beaming" maneuver was in the manual, along with all kinds of other goodies. Most fun a 13 year old could have.
I'm well familiar with Doppler notching and missile evasion. However in the accounts I was speaking about it was cases where they turned around and departed the area. Follow up conversations with some of these crews (which included Iraqi pilots, Libyan pilots to name a few) said that once they had seen the transition from being hit from search radar to acquisition radar they didn't want to provoke any further and chose to exit the engagement. Remember that during the 1980s the Phoenix AIM-54 had a scary reputation for it's range as well as the later AIM-120.
You mean like how torpedoes actually detonate when they hit a target in a movie ? ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo
Or how in the movies they don't run in circles and sink the submarine that launched them ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tang_(SS-306)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo
Or how in the movies they don't run in circles and sink the submarine that launched them ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_18_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tang_(SS-306)
Or they sink a truck?
https://youtu.be/GpEcU0OEzhc?t=120
https://youtu.be/GpEcU0OEzhc?t=120
To be fair, the article title does say "Modern", which, argueably, neither of those two are.
[deleted]
What do 70-75 year old torpedoes (look at the manufacturing dates in the articles you cited) have to do with modern torpedoes?
How is there an article entitled "modern submarine torpedo attacks" apparently written in 2020 that doesn't contain the word "supercavitating"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
Somewhat cynical take: because the West doesn’t have superiority in this space.
These got a lot of attention a while back. But their use case is limited because they're really short-ranged. These things go all out soon after leaving the tube, make a hell of a lot of noise, and are good only really close in. They're sort of a last resort weapon, a snapshot provided that the enemy shooting at you is even within range.
A modern US Mark 48 can swim out quietly under wire guidance and emit no noise or sensor emissions, steered on an intercept course, then revved up to top speed once it's in close. A torpedo like the Shkval can't close the distance, and that's assuming the enemy even knows where they're being shot from. Just because a Mark 48 suddenly goes active on your stern doesn't mean it was fired from there.
According to the wiki article, this was for intercepting incoming torpedoes. I suppose that could work, though again, the noise I'd imagine would be troublesome. It might mask for you a bit, but your attacker would know where this thing was shot from. Meanwhile, your own sonar is only going to hear this thing, meaning you've lost a solution on the guy shooting you, leaving him to set up again.
I highly suspect the reason we haven't seen an equivalent is because the tactical doctrine doesn't call for one. My armchair two-cents.
A modern US Mark 48 can swim out quietly under wire guidance and emit no noise or sensor emissions, steered on an intercept course, then revved up to top speed once it's in close. A torpedo like the Shkval can't close the distance, and that's assuming the enemy even knows where they're being shot from. Just because a Mark 48 suddenly goes active on your stern doesn't mean it was fired from there.
According to the wiki article, this was for intercepting incoming torpedoes. I suppose that could work, though again, the noise I'd imagine would be troublesome. It might mask for you a bit, but your attacker would know where this thing was shot from. Meanwhile, your own sonar is only going to hear this thing, meaning you've lost a solution on the guy shooting you, leaving him to set up again.
I highly suspect the reason we haven't seen an equivalent is because the tactical doctrine doesn't call for one. My armchair two-cents.
My personal theory is that a big use case for Shkval is in the littoral and shallow waters of the Baltic Sea where there is fantastic opportunity to play hide and seek. Especially sub to sub. I think the Soviet command expected enemy subs to successfully sneak up on them and then have something up their sleeve to raise hell right back.
For that kind of case, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the torpedoes deployed all the time at 100 meters or so from the main sub, so that they can counterattack after it gets destroyed? It could drag them behind it on cables.
A misconception I had was that submarines fight each other under water.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864
"It is the only documented instance in the history of naval warfare where one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-864
"It is the only documented instance in the history of naval warfare where one submarine intentionally sank another while both were submerged."
Not for nothing, but have there BEEN many submarine engagements since WWII?
Is current doctrine that, say, fast attack subs would shoot at opposing boomers from underwater? I mean, it seems likely, right?
Is current doctrine that, say, fast attack subs would shoot at opposing boomers from underwater? I mean, it seems likely, right?
Not a submariner, but I always thought that was the essence of the existence of the fast attack.
There are some suspected ones during the Cold War (the USS Scorpion and the Soviet K-129)
Outstanding article, very informative, but the tense and tone is slightly amusing to me:
> Actual underwater combat occurs silently with very little reaction time to fend off an impending attack.
Does it occur? Do we have any examples of "actual underwater combat" occurring? I don't believe we have any real life examples of nations withs submarine capabilities in combat. War games probably don't count...
> Actual underwater combat occurs silently with very little reaction time to fend off an impending attack.
Does it occur? Do we have any examples of "actual underwater combat" occurring? I don't believe we have any real life examples of nations withs submarine capabilities in combat. War games probably don't count...
RIPLEY
How may drops is this for you, Lieutenant?
GORMAN Thirty-eight...simulated.
VASQUEZ How many combat drops?
GORMAN Well...two. Three, including this one.
GORMAN Thirty-eight...simulated.
VASQUEZ How many combat drops?
GORMAN Well...two. Three, including this one.
None that anyone can talk about.
Has any ship been torpedoed by a submarine since the Admiral Belgrano in 1982?
Minor Nitpick, it was the General Belgrano
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
I just upvoted you. I can only say it has been a while...
Unclear. The ROKS Cheonan was supposedly sunk by a torpedo fired from a North Korean submarine in 2010. But that has never been conclusively proven.
In 1999 the USS Bremerton torpedoed the New Carissa. One Mark 48 did the trick.
That was after 69 rounds from a 127 mm deck gun on the USS David R. Ray couldn't sink it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Carissa
That was after 69 rounds from a 127 mm deck gun on the USS David R. Ray couldn't sink it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Carissa
Side question -- do submarines really have the ability to ping, like in Hunt for Red October, do they ever use it, and does it actually use the frequency range of human hearing like that? Do torpedoes? Or are they ultrasonic (given that depth gauges I know are ultrasonic). I assume that subs once did use such pings historically given how common that sound effect is associated with them. Maybe not any more I guess?
The thing about the ping is that everyone that can hear it gets the benefit of that ping. So you are 100% giving away your position with a ping. Nowadays, you want to stay silent, so you use passive sonar. A very long tail is trailed behind the sub with lots of microphones listening. They've done it so long, they know what all sorts of things sound like. Man made objects likes subs and surface ships, airplanes flying above the water, rocks sliding, crabs crawling, etc.
My (admittedly very armchair) understanding is the ping is a lot worse for the hunter than the target - the distance you can hear the ping is roughly 2x the distance* you'll get a useful return from it, so if the target is beyond that range you'll effectively lose all stealth and confer a huge advantage to the enemy.
* this is complicated by thermal layers, geography, etc. but very approximately 2x is the figure I've heard.
* this is complicated by thermal layers, geography, etc. but very approximately 2x is the figure I've heard.
Yes, I understand, though my question was more whether subs actually have the ability to issue an audible ping like in that movie -- and why they would ever do it.
> With command wire capabilities, the weapon can change its attack geometry or even shut down if directed by the fire control operator. Detected targets can be changed, depth and range limitations can be set, and countermeasures, such as decoys and jammers, can be ignored using the submarine’s sonar data instead of the torpedo's lower-fidelity onboard sonar data. If the data link is lost, the weapon will follow its last given command and execute pre-programmed countermeasure defeating profiles, if necessary.
This somehow reminded me of the final scene from John Carpenter's Dark Star (spoilers, obviously) where a smart bomb wants to blow up (yes, you read that right), and the crew has to talk it into not doing so by using philosophy to give it an existential crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck
This somehow reminded me of the final scene from John Carpenter's Dark Star (spoilers, obviously) where a smart bomb wants to blow up (yes, you read that right), and the crew has to talk it into not doing so by using philosophy to give it an existential crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck
“A torpedo cannot be ‘command-detonated’ as seen in the movie Hunt for Red October.”
Why is this so? The wire controls seem sufficient.
Why is this so? The wire controls seem sufficient.
If true, my guess: little need for the feature, and an understandable reluctance to make the fuze any more complicated than necessary, especially as failures or inadequacies in various sorts of fuze or triggering device have repeatedly caused serious problems with naval ordnance. See: early-war American WWII torpedos basically just not working, British AP shells in the WWI Battle of Jutland detonating too early and so being far less effective than they should have been.
That is odd. I know that during the war in the Pacific the Japanese were extremely careful to avoid having the vastly superior longlance torpedoes fall into the hands of the Allies. They would go to great lengths to search for and recover lost, unexploded torpedos that were in shallow water. It seems like a command-detonation options would be very useful in this regard.
Well, I can guess at a few reasons. 1. As mentioned elsewhere, the radio signal path loss through salt water is astoundingly high -- I did the math once. 2. WW II era radio technology was bulky, and did not work well on batteries -- vacuum tube filaments eat a lot of power and the plate supply requires a high voltage battery. 3. WW II era radio technology did not have encryption built-in -- it would have been pretty easy for the enemy to signal the torpedo to blow up before you launched it, which would kind of ruin your afternoon.
If we follow the spirit of the article, submarine operation is all about stealth. Detonating a (missed) torpedo would give away that there is an engagement, whereas letting it sink is quiet.
I think it just means it's unnecessary. Just disarm the warhead (or inert it) and shut off the torpedo like they describe in the article. The donating part is pointless.
My guess it's to prevent accidents by using kill boxes, especially when they fight in groups.
Probably some sort of safety reason .
Wireless Signals don't pass through water very well. A submarine has to surface to send messages.
My guess is that any wireless signal would be unlikely to reach a torpedo in motion.
For the torpedos with wires, the article says they can be shut down from afar. Maybe you don't want to blow something up that's close enough to be attached to you via wire. Safer to let it sink.
My guess is that any wireless signal would be unlikely to reach a torpedo in motion.
For the torpedos with wires, the article says they can be shut down from afar. Maybe you don't want to blow something up that's close enough to be attached to you via wire. Safer to let it sink.
The most in recent serious submarine attack, the sinking of the Blegrano they decided to skip the fancy homing missiles due to unreliability and fired three non-guided torpedoes so it was a bit like the WW2 movies.
I rip on surface fleets as being floating reef fodder that would be sunk almost immediately against any modern power, either because of the sophistication of submarines, the rise of cheap drones winning the economic exchange, or death-from-above missles and ICBMs that are basically undefendable.
But against subs I'm surprised there aren't plans for a drone-net that surrounds a fleet or high value ship that can detect incoming underwater threats via some mesh networking.
But against subs I'm surprised there aren't plans for a drone-net that surrounds a fleet or high value ship that can detect incoming underwater threats via some mesh networking.
Smaller drones have weaker propulsion and can't keep up with the ship its supposed to provide a detection bubble around. Being underwater and having to deal with additional drag also doesn't help. The large size of an aircraft carrier belies the fact that it is the fastest ship in the carrier group and can outrun all of its escorts. Larger ship = more space to pack powerful engines.
That's also a major issue for a lot of other drone swarm schemes such as using drone swarms to counter fighter aircraft. Smaller drones don't have the propulsion to keep up with fighters, and once you make drones large enough to hold the engines that would let them keep up with a fighter you might as well build a fighter instead.
That's also a major issue for a lot of other drone swarm schemes such as using drone swarms to counter fighter aircraft. Smaller drones don't have the propulsion to keep up with fighters, and once you make drones large enough to hold the engines that would let them keep up with a fighter you might as well build a fighter instead.
Agree that power is the biggest limitation on drone/swarm concepts. Small engines / rotors are just not as efficient.
It is interesting to consider the change in tactics and design once you consider the fighter expendable. You don't have to turn away once you get shot at in-range -- you can keep flying and shoot at the point of maximum impact. The aircraft might only be designed to last for 10 combat hours, or to have a poor safety record. For example, in aircraft the design margin is ~1.5 (vs >2 for surface); for unmanned it might be ~1.1.
The drone-vs-human tactics will persist until both sides have competent drones, at which point they might evolve to look more like human-vs-human tactics: protect your high value assets, imperil theirs.
It is interesting to consider the change in tactics and design once you consider the fighter expendable. You don't have to turn away once you get shot at in-range -- you can keep flying and shoot at the point of maximum impact. The aircraft might only be designed to last for 10 combat hours, or to have a poor safety record. For example, in aircraft the design margin is ~1.5 (vs >2 for surface); for unmanned it might be ~1.1.
The drone-vs-human tactics will persist until both sides have competent drones, at which point they might evolve to look more like human-vs-human tactics: protect your high value assets, imperil theirs.
There were networks of deployable remote surveillance buoys being developed by the 1990s. Source: Public research reports of military research organizations. Presumably removing the propulsion expectation simplifies the problem domain.
So they were deployed but then abandoned?
I wonder if you could have a flotilla of heli-drones that drop in sampling microphones/active sonar. Wind might be hard to deal with in storms or heck even typical conditions.
I wonder if you could have a flotilla of heli-drones that drop in sampling microphones/active sonar. Wind might be hard to deal with in storms or heck even typical conditions.
... torpedos can go 50 knots for 100km/over an hour, but a drone can't?
Fundamentally underwater hydrodynamics is still in its infancy. How do I know? I just have to look at a shark.
Fundamentally underwater hydrodynamics is still in its infancy. How do I know? I just have to look at a shark.
A typical ship is going to be out at sea for a long longer than an hour. A drone-net that only lasts for an hour isn't exactly a persistent detection zone. If you want something with range + speed, you're going to need size for the power plant and fuel. Maybe you could hack together something with drones coming back to a mothership to recharge.
If by fighter you mean "manned fighter" there are several reasons to build large, fast drones; no life support overhead, much better maneuverability (tolerance for high g), no worries about pilots flying highly dangerous missions, can use impact kills.
When you store unguided torpedo inside capsule in the bottom of the ocean, or allow it to float in some predetermined depth, you have Torpedo mine, like CAPTOR.
You don't need expensive submarines, if you want to protect narrow points or specific areas. You just drop torpedo mines underwater.
You don't need expensive submarines, if you want to protect narrow points or specific areas. You just drop torpedo mines underwater.
Never occurred to me that torpedoes can be battery powered. Any idea what kind of cells they have?
I got confused by the dual units here:
> 65cm torpedoes have enough fuel to travel in excess of 100 kilometers at 50 knots for just over an hour.
Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out. Weird nautical units.
I got confused by the dual units here:
> 65cm torpedoes have enough fuel to travel in excess of 100 kilometers at 50 knots for just over an hour.
Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out. Weird nautical units.
So fun trivia. A nautical mile is one minute of latitude (1/60th of a degree). The meter was originally 1/10,000,000th of the equator to the north pole. So I'd argue the nautical mile was more logical than the statute mile, in this respect.
This is also why you can rough 1knot:2km; you're dividing those 10,000,000 old-world-meters by 5400 (90°*60').
This is also why you can rough 1knot:2km; you're dividing those 10,000,000 old-world-meters by 5400 (90°*60').
If you use a 7200rpm hard drive does the math work out differently?
I always forget the definition of the nautical distance. Thanks for the reminder. There's also the knot in a rope every certain distance that would get counted against a stop watch to see how fast the ship was moving.
I always forget the definition of the nautical distance. Thanks for the reminder. There's also the knot in a rope every certain distance that would get counted against a stop watch to see how fast the ship was moving.
From linked reference:
Silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al)
Silver oxide-zinc (AgO-Zn)
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion)
Lithium-polymer
Lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4)
1,040 Wh/kg
490 Wh/kg
600 Wh/kg
600 Wh/kg
520 Wh/kg
The F21 is powered by a new generation of silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al) sea-water primary battery using dissolved sodium dioxide powder as electrolyte and incorporating a new electronic closed loop electrolyte circulation system.
In comparison with silverzinc and other technologies, AgO-Al energy density is unrivalled. It ensures both maximum speed beyond 50 knots and endurance around 1 hour without compromising safety.
TIL: A silver-oxide battery (IEC code: S) is a primary cell with a very high energy-to-weight ratio. They are available in small sizes as button cells, where the amount of silver used is minimal and not a significant contributor to the product cost.
Silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al)
Silver oxide-zinc (AgO-Zn)
Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion)
Lithium-polymer
Lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4)
1,040 Wh/kg
490 Wh/kg
600 Wh/kg
600 Wh/kg
520 Wh/kg
The F21 is powered by a new generation of silver oxide-aluminium (AgO-Al) sea-water primary battery using dissolved sodium dioxide powder as electrolyte and incorporating a new electronic closed loop electrolyte circulation system.
In comparison with silverzinc and other technologies, AgO-Al energy density is unrivalled. It ensures both maximum speed beyond 50 knots and endurance around 1 hour without compromising safety.
TIL: A silver-oxide battery (IEC code: S) is a primary cell with a very high energy-to-weight ratio. They are available in small sizes as button cells, where the amount of silver used is minimal and not a significant contributor to the product cost.
And here we are on Hacker News with other threads on how battery density is peaking with Lithium and there is nothing better in sight.
Turns out there are silver based battery that can do almost double. So what's the catch as to why it's not being adopted by phones?
Turns out there are silver based battery that can do almost double. So what's the catch as to why it's not being adopted by phones?
Silver is expensive, and the Defense Department is substantially less price-conscious than the average smartphone buyer.
They're primary batteries. Which is to say: not rechargable.
Non rechargeable phones aren't very popular, and these batteries need air so can't be easily water-proofed. Also they swell during discharge.
> Turns out 1 knot/hr is nearly 2km/h so that checks out.
I think you meant to write 1 knot hour is nearly 2 km -- a weird way to compare distances, but hey, the math works.
I think you meant to write 1 knot hour is nearly 2 km -- a weird way to compare distances, but hey, the math works.
Knot means nautical mile per hour. It’s not a short way to say “nautical mile”.
Probably some form of lithium primary cell as they have high energy densities and good shelf life.
The article says Zinc-Oxide
Well, they don't need to be rechargable...
> The batteries are connected in series allowing each weapon to have 2, 3, or 4 batteries. More batteries give the weapon more range. Fewer batteries make the weapon much lighter and more agile, but at the cost of range.
This sounds wrong. Shouldn't they be connected in parallel?
This sounds wrong. Shouldn't they be connected in parallel?
I think we can take this as an explanation for generalists, rather than a problem set from basic EE.
Not necessarily (answering as an Electrical Engineer with zero submarine knowledge), batteries in series give more voltage while batteries in parallel allow more current drawn. Now it depends on what and how your propulsion is.
I would assume that we're talking about the physical location being sequential, like stages on a rocket.
I think it would be more interesting to have a list of things that are like in the movies, as I assume it would be a lot shorter than the list of things unlike, and rarity is in many things considered more important than the common.
Does anybody even attack submarines nowadays? Isn't the sole purpose of a torpedo - to make the opponent believe they better avoid attacking you?
The article misses out on other forms of submarine attacks, like anti ship missiles (harpoon) and ballistic missiles.
Wonder how much of this will translate to space combat.
Favorite article comment:
"I love these deep dives on a topic."
"I love these deep dives on a topic."
Take the following: "These high-torque, permanent magnet electric motor torpedoes ramp up to speed in under a second. They go from sitting in a torpedo tube to 50 knots in a near-instant because they don’t have the mechanical lag and inertia thermal torpedoes must overcome during startup. "
So much of that is totally wrong. The torpedo has nothing to do with how it gets out of the tube. Its propulsor (not a propeller) wont work from the back of a torpedo tube. Starting it up in the tube, INSIDE the sub, sounds horribly dangerous. The torp is ejected by force from the sub and then starts its engine. Electric or thermal, it's doing 50+ whether it wants to or not. Once out of the tube, further acceleration potential is limited by depth/pressure. All torps have more than enough torque to start cavitating their propulsor in shallow water. To continue to automotive analogy, it doesn't matter whether your car is electric or turbine powered, acceleration is limited by how much power your tires can handle before spinning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjoholiW1ho
And this is why you don't want that engine running prior to the torp leaving the tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoElLaLcfOc