Why Did Torpedoes Go Out of fashion as anti surface ship weapons?

There is literally no way to do what you are asking without spending thousands of dollars to buy live commercial satellites images.

 

All I'm saying look for an aircraft carrier that was at sea in any of the Google satellite images.

 

There is no way to know when the composite images used for google earth were taken.

 

A U.S. sub managed to torpedo a Japanese freighter carrying 1,000 or so Japanese oil refining and mining personnel to the recently seized Dutch oil fields, almost their entire skilled labor pool with oil expertise, and they lost over 800 of them. Why they put so many on one ship is something I've never found out, but that alone made their conquests of the oil fields a waste of time and defeated the whole point of allotting forces to the area in the first place. Command arrogance mostly likely. The Dutch and some English did a lot of damage to the fields, and the Japanese managed to squeeze some product out, but not nearly what they could have if it hadn't been for that sub.

 

Some areas of Google Maps are faked, thrown in to create the appearance of completeness; at least that was true a few years ago.

 

Does it matter ?

Except for a month or so last year there has always been at least one or two CSG in the 5th Fleet AOR conducting combat operations over Afghanistan and Iraq and even Syria.

Google Earth use to have a time and date when the satellite image was taken.

But you are dealing with Google. When they get something to work the way it's suppose to work, Google tries to fix it making it worse. They're as bad as Microsoft.

 

If the Russians ever figure out how to steer their supercav torpedoes, that trend will change.

 

They use image composites. It didn't have the time and date of the satellite photos, it was the time and date the composite was created. Why do you think Google Earth isn't covered in clouds?

 

Are those the rocket propelled torpedoes?

 

Speaking of supercav torpedoes, how are the Chi-Coms supercavitating submarines coming along ?

 

Yes. They redirect the exhaust onto the nose to create an air pocket around the fish that allows them to zip along at reported 200MPH. Problem is they can't really steer them yet. Germans have some blue water ones reportedly that are much more maneuverable but don't have the range or speed as the Russian ones. The US plays around with them but doesn't keep any in the field yet so far as I know. They aren't a huge priority for us given our other options.

 

3,500 mph is not supersonic under water IIRC.

 

From what I have read they still don't have a rocket propulsion system for them and the artificial membrane they create by injecting fluids over their hull dissipates quick. The US is developing one as well, but it looks like ours will be more like a triangular shaped underwater jet that blows out its nose cone.

 

The older version of Google Earth use to show the clouds.

I don't like the current version of Google Earth.

Typical Silicon Valley, if it's not broken they fix it anyways so it becomes broken.

 

The new sub envelops a submerged vessel inside an air bubble to avoid problems caused by water drag

SUPERCAVITATION
The new sub is based on Soviet technology developed during the cold war.

Called supercavitation, it envelopes a submerged vessel inside an air bubble to avoid problems caused by water drag.

A Soviet supercavitation torpedo called Shakval was able to reach a speed of 370km/h or more - much faster than any other conventional torpedoes.

In theory, a supercavitating vessel could reach the speed of sound underwater, or about 5,800km/h, which would reduce the journey time for a transatlantic underwater cruise to less than an hour, and for a transpacific journey to about 100 minutes, according to a report by California Institute of Technology in 2001.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...n-speed-sound-using-bubble.html#ixzz4qsbGoiiQ

 

Because you never had to find anything that was obscured by clouds.

 

I am guessing hitting one at 3600 miles per hour will not be good for sea turtles or the subs.

 

I was thinking more in line with a 3,600 mph sub hitting a whale.

I remember a couple years ago when the topic was supercavitation subs breaking the sound barrier under water.

The pistol shrimp. Very interesting. I wonder if DARPA is working on a pistol shrimp weapon ?

 

They are probably working on everything, but theoretically wouldn't they be breaking the sound barrier in air, not water, since supercavs move in a pocket of air?

 

I don't know, my physics instructor in college didn't teach physics but political correctness.

 

Blew your GPA out of the water I bet

 

There are a lot of reasons. The be a one shot ship killer you're looking at a weapon of about 2000 Kg along with at least a 250 to 300 Kg warhead. For a missile launched system, you have the size and weight of the missile along with the torpedo itself. It makes for a very large, complicated system. It would be too heavy for many/most aircraft and the torpedo would have to survive the impact into the sea at high speeds unless you tried to para drop it like an ASROC which is much smaller.
A high speed torpedo would be detected very quickly. In addition there is the range factor. Even is you launched the weapon at 40,000 meters at 40kn, The target ship can do at least 30-35kn and you're in a stern chase with a slow closing speed. You'll run out fuel before you catch the target and the launch vehicle is well within surface to air missile range.
A WW2 like torpedo system that is tube launched on surface ships is an option, however, the circumstances would have to favor the ship, such as limited sea room in a choke point and close to land. Ship to ship missile systems are cheaper and would simply work better.
That's just the beginning.

 

Can those antisubmarine torpedoes that surface warships in the U.S. Navy launch out of triple tube launchers be sent after surface targets?

 

I do not really believe that nobody have ever built an anti-torpedo before year 2000. Theoretically torpedo should be easy to intercept with another torpedo. It is relatively slow to sound of speed in water. It is relatively slow. It is very loud. The warhead of a normal torpedo should be capable if not to destroy a torpedo, but should be able to damage the fins, steering and the screw. Theoretically

This is a Russian anti torpedo.
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/naval-systems/shipborne-weapons/paket-e-nk/
https://topwar.ru/85728-kompleks-protivotorpednoy-zaschity-paket-e-nk.html
the article says the first intercept was achieved in 1998.
The anti torpedo is the small one, look for a pic with a jet engine exhaust.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCL_Technology_Demonstrator_programme
US is developing a hard kill system based on British soft kill system.

These torps require to do different things, but generally speaking, why not?

 

They wouldn't be very effective. Plus if you're within range to use them, why not just use your gun? Or your own anti-ship missiles?