Skip to comments.
A bomb to bust the deepest bunkers
Eurekalert | New Scientist ^
| 7/13/05
| David Hambling
Posted on 07/14/2005 1:34:42 PM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: Restorer
I think this puppy has Little Kim's name on it.
To: LibWhacker
"The Russians have had such a torpedo since the 1990s: called Shkval"
this is very bad news....I hope we have developed them too.
China is known to be buying these.
22
posted on
07/14/2005 2:19:46 PM PDT
by
injin
To: konaice
"because something traveling that fast can't turn very fast."
With all the friction? I think it could turn on a quarter. But torpedoes are designed to hit ships or subs which can't turn that fast either.
The downside of this torpedo is that it would one noisy SOB with all the cavitation and could be tracked down by another torpedo using sound to locate and destroy it before it hits a ship.
23
posted on
07/14/2005 2:22:56 PM PDT
by
jwh_Denver
(Looks like we're going to need a new "What A Country"?)
To: LibWhacker
I also like the concept of bringing 20,000 pounds in from orbit. As Jane's pointed out a few years back, "American air power now stands second, only to the wrath of God." I love that quote.
To: jwh_Denver
The downside of the torp is that it can't use any homing gear while supercavitating. It would have to slow to down to look for the target, or else be fired like an unguided bullet.
25
posted on
07/14/2005 2:27:04 PM PDT
by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
To: SampleMan
"American air power now stands second, only to the wrath of God."
I get chills down my spine just reading that. Awesome.
26
posted on
07/14/2005 2:28:11 PM PDT
by
reagan_fanatic
("We must be tolerant and understanding of those trying to blow us to pieces" - Ted Kennedy & Co.)
To: jwh_Denver
downside of this torpedo is that it would one noisy SOB with all the cavitation and could be tracked down by another torpedo using sound to locate and destroy it before it hits a ship. Hit a 200 mph torpedo? Good luck. This torpedo wasn't designed to home on anything. It was/is a last ditch self-defense weapon for SSBNs. You do the math on what they are going to put inside for a warhead. I'm betting on a really big boom just outside of the lethal range of the shooter.
To: SampleMan
I love that quote. Me, too, thanks! Going in my quote file.
To: konaice
The Russians have had such a torpedo since the 1990s: called Shkval, it can travel at 360 kilometres per hour. We used them in Afganistan. They are unsuitable for use in urban invironments, which is where most of the Iraq battles took/take place.Then the supercavity torps don't work on land! ;-)
29
posted on
07/14/2005 2:31:44 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: frogjerk
30
posted on
07/14/2005 2:48:20 PM PDT
by
dhuffman@awod.com
(The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
To: SampleMan
As Jane's pointed out a few years back, "American air power now stands second, only to the wrath of God." I love that quote. Yes, but a rather distant second...which is OK, as long as we only have to mix it up with those further down the list than we.
To: Yo-Yo
H-m-m-m.
I'm no expert but perhaps they are borrowing from shaped charge technology. It might be a two-phase device with the first "charge" (could even be non-explosive compressed gas) creating the "bubble" for the warhead that carries the second-phase explosive.
The "bubble" wouldn't have to last long - at over 180 kph it's going to dig a hole pretty quickly.
To: LibWhacker
IP 16 inch shell (Iowa class BB) would penetrate 160' reinforced earth. Bring back the battleships!
33
posted on
07/14/2005 3:22:12 PM PDT
by
jpsb
(I already know I am a terrible speller)
To: LibWhacker
Russians have had such a torpedo since the 1990s: called Shkval, it can travel at 360 kilometres per hour A 180 knot torpedo? Remind me to stay out/off of the water.
34
posted on
07/14/2005 3:24:23 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: LibWhacker
Good morning Iran and North Korea!
35
posted on
07/14/2005 3:24:36 PM PDT
by
freeangel
( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
To: samadams2000
I still want to know why we havent used any of the MOABs. Why build them if we arent gonna have some fun with them? Because we only built a very few prototypes, and didn't even test drop all of those. Not really a real useful weapon anyway, except for the intimidation factor. (Shock and Awe squared).
36
posted on
07/14/2005 3:26:32 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: konaice
This would seem to be a rather tricky weapon to use, because something traveling that fast can't turn very fast It doesn't need to turn very fast. By the time you know it's coming, you don't have time to move out of the way enough to matter.
37
posted on
07/14/2005 3:27:39 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: Little Ray
I don't think supercavitation would stop radar.
38
posted on
07/14/2005 3:29:55 PM PDT
by
jwh_Denver
(Looks like we're going to need a new "What A Country"?)
To: Yasotay
It seems that the German Bunker Building Engineers beat our Bunker Buster Development Engineers in the Battle of Saddam's bunkers. What makes you think that? It was Saddam's movement scheme that defeated our intelligence collection. He moved faster than we could find out where he was. The bunkers that were targeted were busted, AFAIK.
39
posted on
07/14/2005 3:30:01 PM PDT
by
El Gato
To: konaice
"And by all accounts, destroys the submarine trying to fire it."
Is it made by the Acme Torpedo company, by chance?
40
posted on
07/14/2005 3:30:16 PM PDT
by
righttackle44
(The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson