« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film  (Read 731 times)

Offline USRanger

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10325
      • BoP Home
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« on: December 21, 2006, 01:44:43 PM »
Logged
Axis vs Allies Staff Member
☩ JG11 Sonderstaffel ☩
Flying 'Black[Death] 10' ☩JG11☩

Only the Proud, Only the Strong Ne Desit Virtus

Offline Wolfala

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4875
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2006, 01:47:33 PM »
Ahh the good ol' MK-48 ADCAP. Gotta love it.
Logged


the best cure for "wife ack" is to deploy chaff:    $...$$....$....$$$.....$ .....$$$.....$ ....$$

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2006, 02:31:04 PM »
I'd like to see a nice CGI battle sequence between a russian Akula (with Shkval torpedos) and a Virginia, Seawolf, or LA class subs.  I'm sure the US navy has tactics/procedures for dealing with the Shkval, it'd be neat to see them in action.
Logged
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline ByeBye

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 599
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2006, 02:48:54 PM »
That explosion is amazing. The destroyer almost looked like a little toy being blown up bt an m-80.
Logged

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2006, 03:07:02 PM »
My understanding is that the MK-48 is so devestating because instead of hitting the ship, it detonates a few feet below.  Instead of a gas bubble explosion hitting the ship directly (which is compressible and could expend energy into the form of heat against the metal), it pushes the non-compressible water which just hits like a hammer.

Anyone who knows for sure who can say whether I've got that wrong?
Logged
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2006, 03:24:12 PM »
attacking a unmanned destroyer dead in the water sounds like milk-running to me.
Logged

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2006, 04:03:10 PM »
Well, I dunno, just a wee 2,000-tonner.  Endless repeat shots from different views and plenty of slow motion.  The actual event seems anticlimactic compared to its exaggerated documentation.  And of course no fuel or ordnance to go really spectacular.  

Just read again about the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the Yamato and Musashi going down.  Took lots and lots of bombs and torpedos.  No comparison, I know.  

For some mysterious reason this thread also brings to mind that massive  Russian jet flying boat that would just skim the water.  Where did that come from?  Must be elves somewhere ...
« Last Edit: December 21, 2006, 04:05:37 PM by Halo »
Logged
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2006, 04:26:43 PM »
Most torpedoes since WWII have the ability to detonate under the keel, like in that video. Does the Royal Australian Navy have ADCAPs?
Logged

Offline Choocha

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2006, 05:47:02 PM »
It called a pressure wave effect....most mines now use it too.  Very deadly, uses vessels mass against itself.  The pressure wave basicaly lifts the ship out of the water at a localized point causing the ship "to snap."
« Last Edit: December 21, 2006, 05:54:25 PM by Choocha »
Logged

Offline Choocha

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2006, 06:23:02 PM »
Oh about those Shkval torpedos.  Supercavitating tech. has been around for a long time.  Its just the press that makes a big deal about it.



Why then hasn't the USN embraced this technology?  Well, say you fire that thing in the North Atlantic, then wales humping in Hawaii will know where your at.
Logged

Offline Blank

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 699
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2006, 06:24:15 PM »
hajo you mean the Russian Ekranoplan dubbed the Caspian sea monster which uses Ground effect to kinda skim/fly above the water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan
Logged

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2006, 06:28:53 PM »
If im not mistaken its a frigate and not a destroyer..
Logged

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2006, 06:36:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
attacking a unmanned destroyer dead in the water sounds like milk-running to me.


Are you saying this is a submarine version of vulching????
Logged
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2006, 06:42:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Choocha
Why then hasn't the USN embraced this technology?  Well, say you fire that thing in the North Atlantic, then wales humping in Hawaii will know where your at.


That's just a poor excuse :)

Russians are constantly improving the technology and the technological advantage by russians only gets better. Meanwhile the USN isn't doing anything new that the russians haven't already.

If anything, you should not underrate the enemy and boast your own technology as better than theirs. The US technology is already far behind that of the russian IR missiles. Russians also saw the need for an anti-anti-tank missile/rocket defenses long before the US.

and no, I'm not favoring the russians at all, after all they are the most potent enemy of mine. It's just good to know what to expect.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2006, 06:46:05 PM by Fishu »
Logged

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2006, 06:47:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fishu
That's just a poor excuse :)

Russians are constantly improving the technology and the technological advantage by russians only gets better.  


are you talking about the rusting russian sub fleet? Are any of them still seaworthy?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »