In message , phil hunt
writes
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:09:37 +0100, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
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.

Speed of sound in water is about 3,000 miles an hour, from memory, so
getting a torpedo to go that fast would be a significant achievement.

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.

Torpedo guidance needs the torpedo to listen for either the noise of the
enemy, or the sonar echoes from its own transmission. Shkval achieves
its speed by 'supercavitating', meaning it's sheathed in a layer of
bubbles; and, again, it's really noisy. Both factors mean it can't use a
guidance system other than basic gyrostabilisation.

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.

I think it'll do many things well, but the F-22 and Typhoon were
designed as air-superiority fighters from the outset: Typhoon always had
a secondary ground-attack role, the F-22 is a tacked-on afterthought to
try to protect it from budget cuts

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam