On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:52:16 +0100, Keith Willshaw keith@kwil
lshaw_NoSpam.demon.co.uk wrote:
An absolute desperation weapon adopted only the Russians

Explain why cavitating torpedos are a desperation weapon, please.

They're LOUD. So, the enemy knows they're coming from the moment you
fire; which means they're good counterfire weapons, but not much use if
you enjoy an acoustic advantage. Shkval is a means to try to redress "we
are noisier than the enemy, and have poorer sonar": it's designed to be
a response to hearing "high speed screws, Green 150, torpedo inbound,
bearing steady!"

Would it be possible to have a supersonic torpedo? That'd be hard to
dodge, I imagine.

For above-water use, you have to get close, because they're unguided.

I don't see any reason why one couldn't be fitted with a guiadance
system.

Given that air superiority is obviously a good idea, which aircraft
supplies the most air superiority capability per money spent? The
F-22 (assuming the USA would sell it)? The F-35? The Typhoon?
Something else?

Typhoon for bang-per-buck, F-22 for absolute if costly capability per
airframe.

I guess the F-35 tryies to do to many things to be a superlative
fighter.

Haggle to see what both factions will sell for, and how
degraded the 'export version' is.

That would make sense.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?