4 ms·

Aren’t torpedos fired from ships and planes as well? A plane dropping a torpedo wouldn’t care that it was loud and the high speed would ensure the target ship w

by varenc 6y ago

Aren’t torpedos fired from ships and planes as well? A plane dropping a torpedo wouldn’t care that it was loud and the high speed would ensure the target ship won’t have much time to get out of the way.

nickff 6y ago
Air-launched torpedoes are different from submarine-launched ones. The former are usually lighter, battery-powered, and almost exclusively employed against submarines. The latter are larger, often chemically powered, and used against both submerged and surface targets. Super-cavitation just isn't very helpful for air-launched torpedoes.
bigbubba 6y ago
Torpedoes may also be launched from naval mines. An example is the Mark 60 CAPTOR, which is anchored to the sea floor where it waits for a target to shoot its Mark 46 (chemically powered) guided torpedo.
- dmix 6y ago
  That's fascinating, there are so many modern weapon systems on wikipedia to keep up with. Modern naval warfare sounds like it would get extremely expensive loses really fast in any serious war situation. I know it's mostly peaceful and these ships are mostly used for power projection. But everything I've read about anti-ship missiles (even mostly from the 1970s era which I'm counting as modern) and swarming Iranian torpedo boats hitting aircraft carriers, it seems to be a giant waste of money - if actual modern combat was the goal. https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-nerd-iran-is-building-a-fake-aircraft-carrier-how-can-you-tell/ https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-nerd-iran-is-building-a... https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millenni...
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    There really hasn't ben full scale mass naval conflict since WW2. The Falkland Islands is the closest, and yes, anti-ship missiles proved quite potent. Keep in mind some of the articles about carrier vulnerability are just empty nonsense. Carriers don't operate alone. The air wing gives them an enormous area of awareness. The group always has multiple ships with AEGIS and plenty of defensive missiles. A combination of a submarine and anti-submarine helicopters protects them from subsurface attacks. It's an arms race, an important one, but it's not quite as one sided as some of these articles portray. Remember, improvements to missile technology helps defensive interception too.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      ...are just empty nonsense. Are they? From time to time one can read about some submarine "popping up" almost next to the carrier, after virtually have sunken it in some large training maneuver, in spite of all the stuff you mentioned. Folklore?
      - JohnBooty 6y ago
        Parent poster said "some", not "all"....
      - HarryHirsch 6y ago
        What you don't hear about much is underwater drones. I have no doubt that they exist, and a drone swarm, each drone armed with a few tons of conventional explosive is infinitely more politically palatable than a low-yield nuke to take out a carrier group.
dralley 6y ago
If we're talking about a plane attacking a ship, there are better and less risky ways to do that. Plus, the short range means that you'd have to fly so close to to the enemy that you would almost certainly be taken out by anti-air defenses first.

by varenc 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

Air-launched torpedoes are different from submarine-launched ones. The former are usually lighter, battery-powered, and almost exclusively employed against submarines. The latter are larger, often chemically powered, and used against both submerged and surface targets. Super-cavitation just isn't very helpful for air-launched torpedoes.

bigbubba 6y ago

Torpedoes may also be launched from naval mines. An example is the Mark 60 CAPTOR, which is anchored to the sea floor where it waits for a target to shoot its Mark 46 (chemically powered) guided torpedo.

dmix 6y ago
That's fascinating, there are so many modern weapon systems on wikipedia to keep up with. Modern naval warfare sounds like it would get extremely expensive loses really fast in any serious war situation. I know it's mostly peaceful and these ships are mostly used for power projection. But everything I've read about anti-ship missiles (even mostly from the 1970s era which I'm counting as modern) and swarming Iranian torpedo boats hitting aircraft carriers, it seems to be a giant waste of money - if actual modern combat was the goal. https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-nerd-iran-is-building-a-fake-aircraft-carrier-how-can-you-tell/ https://pando.com/2014/05/26/the-war-nerd-iran-is-building-a... https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millenni...
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  There really hasn't ben full scale mass naval conflict since WW2. The Falkland Islands is the closest, and yes, anti-ship missiles proved quite potent. Keep in mind some of the articles about carrier vulnerability are just empty nonsense. Carriers don't operate alone. The air wing gives them an enormous area of awareness. The group always has multiple ships with AEGIS and plenty of defensive missiles. A combination of a submarine and anti-submarine helicopters protects them from subsurface attacks. It's an arms race, an important one, but it's not quite as one sided as some of these articles portray. Remember, improvements to missile technology helps defensive interception too.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    ...are just empty nonsense. Are they? From time to time one can read about some submarine "popping up" almost next to the carrier, after virtually have sunken it in some large training maneuver, in spite of all the stuff you mentioned. Folklore?
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      Parent poster said "some", not "all"....
    - HarryHirsch 6y ago
      What you don't hear about much is underwater drones. I have no doubt that they exist, and a drone swarm, each drone armed with a few tons of conventional explosive is infinitely more politically palatable than a low-yield nuke to take out a carrier group.

dralley 6y ago

If we're talking about a plane attacking a ship, there are better and less risky ways to do that. Plus, the short range means that you'd have to fly so close to to the enemy that you would almost certainly be taken out by anti-air defenses first.