RE: http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,193737,00.html

Perhaps a review of our needs to address our potential adversary (adversaries) should take into account that our enemies have built and are building subs that can get in close to our shoreline for a sneak attack: maybe we should be building 5 or 10 diesel subs for the purpose of operating along our shallow coastal waters and outfit them with torpedoes and missile defense arsenals.

The barbarians are at the gate!

The soviets developed the wake following torpedo in the 1960's. There is no defense for it.

60 torpedos no SSN survives to fight.

300 wake following torpedos and no US Navy surface fleet to fight.

Now What?

Perhaps we should review how the Navy and the military spends its money. Instead of limiting our purchases to certain vendors, we can purchase from the lowest bidder, regardless of ownership, race, or gender.

My office recently purchased 10 new desks to replace 10 desks we bought years ago. But since we ordered from THE catalog, we paid $800+ for each desk instead of paying the ~$300 each desk would cost at Walmart or Office Depot. Anybody who uses the supply system knows about the waste, fraud and abuse that the supply system REQUIRES of us.

Additionally, we should review the policy of "use or lose" budgets. For 10 months, we are told that we don't have the money to buy something unless it is mission-critical. The last 2 months, we are told to make a wish list and Santa delivers. How about allowing a department to spend a certain amount of money each year, with no penalty for spending less and no hassle for spending more IF IT IS JUSTIFIED?

quote:

Originally posted by 10321174:
The soviets developed the wake following torpedo in the 1960's. There is no defense for it.

60 torpedos no SSN survives to fight.

300 wake following torpedos and no US Navy surface fleet to fight.

Now What?

Wake homing torpedoes are an ASW weapon?

How do they solve the depth problem, assuming, of course, a level of sophistication that allows them to successfully get a firing solution in the first place?

No defense against a wake homer? How about the fact that it has about a 60-40 chance of going in the right direction?

quote:

Originally posted by Bleah:

quote:

Originally posted by 10321174:
The soviets developed the wake following torpedo in the 1960's. There is no defense for it.

60 torpedos no SSN survives to fight.

300 wake following torpedos and no US Navy surface fleet to fight.

Now What?

Wake homing torpedoes are an ASW weapon?

How do they solve the depth problem, assuming, of course, a level of sophistication that allows them to successfully get a firing solution in the first place?

No defense against a wake homer? How about the fact that it has about a 60-40 chance of going in the right direction?

Perhaps one shouldn't react to uninformed posts...

Wake-homing torpedoes are anti-surface ship and not anti-submarine. When the wake-homers were first publicly revealed, I asked Vice Admiral Joe Metcalf if there was a defense against them. He replied: Of course, just put a frigate in the wake of every aircraft carrier.

Norman

Wake Homing P.S.

The torpedo's guidance can aserctain the direction of the target as it passes through the wake... perhapsd a 90-10 probability of getting the right direction. Norman