Navy's newest "One hitter quitter"


PDA






brigadier
August 17, 2008, 12:09 PM
Here is an interesting video of the big guns. Submarine Sinking a destroyer in one shot.

http://gizmodo.com/5030589/megatorpedo-sinks-destroyer-in-one-hit

If you enjoyed reading about "Navy's newest "One hitter quitter"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MinnMooney
August 17, 2008, 12:14 PM
Amazing! If the torpedo had 7 more ounces of powder, I believe it would have actually split the destroyer in half..... which it just about did.

brigadier
August 17, 2008, 12:18 PM
It DID split that ship in half.

scrat
August 17, 2008, 12:21 PM
wow amazing

MMCSRET
August 17, 2008, 01:21 PM
An even better destroyer killer is an H.M.A.S (Australian) air craft carrier. Just ask the survivors of the Frank E. Evans (DD-754). It did break the destroyer in two. (Ref.-H.M.A.S. Melbourne)

4v50 Gary
August 17, 2008, 01:23 PM
Well, during WW II, the Queen Mary sliced her escorting cruiser, HMS Curacoa in half. Size does matter and the Queen Mary sailed away, leaving the Curacoa's sailors on their own. What choice did the skipper of the Queen Mary have? Put 30,000 soldiers at risk to save 800 sailors?

Medusa
August 17, 2008, 02:15 PM
Ok, now we know what a one-shot-stopper looks like. Anyone care to conceal carry one? Awesome and I'm only sad we don't have toys like that.

lgsracer
August 17, 2008, 03:27 PM
21 feet long 21 inches in diameter. About a ton and a half. 800 to 900 lbs of RDX based explosives in the warhead. 55 knots plus, wire guidance, passive and active sonar seeking too.

akodo
August 17, 2008, 03:28 PM
wow

next time we catch terrorists tooling around the ocean in a destroyer we can sink em fast before they get on a plane or something....

oh wait

should we really be planning on fighting WW4 on the sea and not in some cramped dirty city?

dalepres
August 17, 2008, 03:29 PM
Propaganda. There are too many gaps in the video to know anything about what happened.

Loomis
August 17, 2008, 03:38 PM
I like it.

When to we put it to use? There are some russian targets in the black sea blockading georgia.

Does anyone know how hard it is to get a sub through the bosporus without being detected?

spyder1911
August 17, 2008, 03:39 PM
Old story. The torpedo did not actually hit the ship, it was detonated underneath the ship. This caused a giant air bubble to come up in the middle of the ship. Then the weight of the ship itself caused it to crack in the middle.

Owen
August 17, 2008, 03:39 PM
should we really be planning on fighting WW4 on the sea and not in some cramped dirty city?



Because the next war always looks just like the last one...

lgsracer
August 17, 2008, 03:52 PM
Check out these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm

http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2008/02/mk-48-torpedo-not-just-for-skimmers.html

http://www.navy.gov.au/weapons/torpedoes.html

http://www.usscasimirpulaski.com/tourmiddlelevel.htm

1911 guy
August 17, 2008, 06:01 PM
Spyder1911 is right, the warhead detonated below the keel, causing the ship to be unsupported and she broke her own back. Nothing unusual, though. That's been the model for high yeild torpedos for a while. There hasn't been a naval vessel built yet that can take its own weight, so the weapons just exploit that weakness.

Shung
August 17, 2008, 06:07 PM
What I'd really fear at sea, would be a Shkval !

MMCSRET
August 17, 2008, 06:11 PM
Just remember 2 things: 1. there are only 2 kinds of ships built in our world; submarines and targets. 2. mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets.

divemedic
August 17, 2008, 07:11 PM
In the war between weapon designer and armor manufacturer, the weapon always wins in the end.

xsquidgator
August 17, 2008, 07:15 PM
That's what we in the submarine service call a "21 inch countermeasure"! Don't waste time shooting off little noisemakers to distract an enemy torpedo, send a couple of those things in his direction to give HIM something to worry about while you finish settling his hash.

czhen
August 17, 2008, 07:38 PM
Hi, guys
In 1982 Argies sunk many England ships with Exocet misiles with one shot.Again shot placement rule, rather caliber.

RecoilRob
August 17, 2008, 09:55 PM
There is one more little thing at play in torpedo warfare that hasn't been mentioned, which is the incompressibility of water.

When there is a detonation under an air-filled boat, the shock-wave goes in the path of least resistance....which is straight up through the boat. The 'bubble' thing might actually lift the ends up and finish the breaking, but I think the shock-wave does the initial destruction.

Read about limpit mines where the concept is exploited to great effect.

SSN Vet
August 17, 2008, 10:00 PM
the Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo is an amazing weopon...

it actually detonates below the enemy ships and vaporizes the water their. The ship is raised up from the force of the explosion and when it comes back down, there's no water there to support the keal....hence she is broken in half and goes to the bottom very quickly.

They have actually been in the fleet for many years, and it's still thee "top shelf" weapon. Not likely to be improved upon any time soon as the money isn't there to develop "cold war" weapons. They have actually never been fired in a hostile engagement.

There has only been one modern (nuclear) submarine torpedo engagement in a hot war, when the HMS Conqueror plugged the Argentine Cruiser General Belgrano during the Falkands war. Fortunately for the Argentines, the Brits shot a spread of ancient Mk 8 torpedoes and though some 300 were killed, they managed to abandon ship.

If they had used a modern torpedo, they certainly would have lost all hands.

There was a big stink about this sinking as the Belgrano was outside of the 200 mile 'cross this line and you're toast' zone the Brits had declared. The Conqureror was tracking the Belgrono steaming towards the Falklands, and reported in for instructions. None other than Maggie Thatcher (Mrs. Brass Balls herself) authorized the attack. Apparently the Belgrano had turned coarse and was heading away, but little did they know their fate was sealed.

I guess they played chicken with the wrong Prime Minister.

benEzra
August 17, 2008, 10:06 PM
Anyone care to conceal carry one?
Easy, if you can hide it underwater...

I guess a nuclear submarine is the ultimate CCW...

SSN Vet
August 17, 2008, 10:12 PM
I guess a nuclear submarine is the ultimate CCW...

and of course, no one is going to confirm or deny that they do or do not carry much more potent weapons than their torpedoes.

if Iran keeps going on the path they're on, they may just find out what it's litke to play hard ball in the big leagues yet..... and if they do, they will forever regret it.

oneshooter
August 17, 2008, 11:10 PM
Strange tale of the General Belgrano, origionally the USS Phoenix (CL-46)
a Pearl Harbour survivor. Sold to Argentina in 1946, she was uparmed with Sea Cat missiles in the 60's.
An American WW2 cruiser sunk by a British sub, using WW2 Mk8 #4 torpedoes!

Ironic!!!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

Jeff White
August 18, 2008, 12:51 AM
Are torpedoes firearms? No they aren't. That makes this discussion interesting, but off topic..

Jeff

If you enjoyed reading about "Navy's newest "One hitter quitter"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!