LuftWolf and Amizaur's Weapons and Sensors Realism Mod

[Qppralke]

Is it possible to make the sonobuoy splash visible and audible on sonar ?

[LuftWolf]

Not directly no.

In terms of doing this in gameplay terms, I not entirely sure adding this would be accurate...

Remember in WWII when hydrophone operators heard depthcharges entering the water, that's because they were often directly underneth the boat dropping the charges...

Given how loud the sea is on its own, anywhere between 65-100db without anything else in it, I'm not sure how well a sonobuoy splash would be heard in such conditions.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Unless there's a way where you can only model if it's reasonably close, no.

PD

[LuftWolf]

Yes, I can model the splash to be more or less undetectable unless they are right on top of you.

The way I would do it is to give the Buoys a top speed of 1 kts and a thrust that gives them a +45 PSL. I would then have the buoy go to top speed when it hits the water and stop when it gets about 10ft deep.

I'm pretty sure it would work, but it'd have to be SO quiet, that its unlikely it'd be even worth doing, since on Russian sonar there is no chance at all you'd pick it up and with the waterfall it'd be bearly recognizable too.

I mean, we are talking quiet here...

[Qppralke]

Keep in mind, that sonars have improved since the world war II.
I don't have real life sonar experience, but if you can hear a shrimp far far away, I assume a splash from a buoy which have a bigger mass , could also be audible .
That's just a guess.Of course, the shrimp is very fast moving contact and probably has a larger area .
Can you hear a raft ? Weaves striking into the raft . . . I wonder . . .
Or ship wreck, can you hear the water, moving inside the wreck ?

Another request :-) Do you think it would be possible to create a false contact (like some noise from inside the earth etc ? It could be really tricky . You could make it moving under the bottom (in the scenario editor) and dissapear. That would be really confusing . . .
There are some sounds for them already on the internet , and some comunity sound mods .

[LuftWolf]

I sent you a PM.

[LuftWolf]

Ok, I guess I'll do buoy splashes for LWAMI4.

Cheers,
David

[Qppralke]

I'll much appreciate it

[GrayOwl]

Hi Guys! And what the truth MK48 ADCAP has TNT a charge in 400 Kg? And UTK Torp 750 Kg? The truth You in it trust? :hmm:

[LuftWolf]

The database damage values are not 1-1 damage points to kg.

You'll notice all the LWT's have a warhead of 120 points.

The ADCAP is rated higher than other torpedoes for the same warhead weight because it has an advanced shaped-charge warhead , that directs a jet of plasma into the hull of the target, very similar to a HEAT round used for anti-armor work.

Additionally, the UTK torpedo has increased damage to create the underkeel effect for the ADCAP when used in this mode.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

If you are interested... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

Explosive Charge 650 lbs. (292.5 kg) PBXN-103
This is equivalent to about 1,200 lbs. (544 kg) of TNT

[UglyMowgli]

Inerver heard thaht the Mk48 had a shaped charge, LWT like 46 and 50 should have one because the lack of explosive but the heavy torpedo like mk48 didn't need shaped charge, they acrry enough explosive to blast everthing. I am wrong?

[LuftWolf]

The Mk48 was designed specifically to defeat the fast, deep diving, *double-hulled* submarines the Soviets built, specifically its SSBN's.

As part of an effort to ensure any submarine hit by the ADCAP went to the bottom (as opposed to being able to carry on in some reduced capacity, perhaps as a nuclear threat), I believe (or at least what I have heard says... no special sources, just paying very close attention over time) the USN specified that the ADCAP to some degree be "overbuilt", to ensure the full power of its explosive warhead was directed past the first hull and into the main pressure hull.

I suspect that the ADCAP has at least a two part warhead configuration, with the first warhead being made of a special explosive compound to both physically damage and chemically degrade the common metals found in submarine hull construction. The second part of the warhead has a very short delay with a forward-blast shaped charge. If the timing and fusing is done correctly, the first warhead triggers when the torpedo is nearly within contact distance of the hull, and then just as the blast of the first stage is degrading the integrity of the hull, the second blast fires to blow both its own blast force and the molten metal and remaining pieces of the outer hull into the interior of the sub.

It's basically exactly like a chemical anti-tank round, and just as nasty, only underwater and much bigger.

Cheers,
David

PS I could be completely wrong... but this technology has been around since the early phases of WWII (think panzershrecks and bazookas...), and its the perfect way to defeat a double hulled submarine specifically designed to suffer blast damage to its outer hull and maintain SLBM capability.

PPS And if you think about just how much larger a Typhoon SSBN is than a single ADCAP torpedo, you'll understand why the USN made this specification.

[UglyMowgli]

Well, You didn't need to pierce the double hull of the submarine, you just have to aim the stern aera of a submarine, wihtout propulsion or direction control a submarine is doomed and the blast of the explosion in all case will make severe damage to the shaft and heavy leak in the propulsion room.
Modern torpedo like blachshark, spearfish and certainly the mk48 are 'enought intelligent' to attack the most vunerable part of a submarine, the stern (witch is also the noisy one).

[LuftWolf]

Well, yeah, that's what one would think.

On the other hand, the very fact that the Kursk had survivors on board after two catastrophic internal explosions is testiment to the Russian designers.

I used to be very skeptical of the claims of how solidly the Russians built their boats, until only very recently. If its a matter of bringing the 33,000 tons of total destruction to the bottom or not, I'd think that one would aim for a weapon that absolutely got the job done.

Keep in mind, if you fire at a Typhoon and miss, that means its going to be firing several dozen nuclear warheads at its earliest opportunity.

Not even the Blackshark has that kind of pressure on it.

Cheers,
David

[GrayOwl]

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

The database damage values are not 1-1 damage points to kg.

You'll notice all the LWT's have a warhead of 120 points.

The ADCAP is rated higher than other torpedoes for the same warhead weight because it has an advanced shaped-charge warhead , that directs a jet of plasma into the hull of the target, very similar to a HEAT round used for anti-armor work.

Additionally, the UTK torpedo has increased damage to create the underkeel effect for the ADCAP when used in this mode.

Thanks for playing.

Cheers,
David

If you are interested... http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

No, No... Formula for calculate percent damages in "DW" same as in "Harpoon":
ARMOR Tgt / ARMOR Wpn = % Damages. Strongly 1 to 1 ! (Except for the doctrines using variable 'DETONATE')

But if You made recalculate explosion weight - so correctly...

Whether more correctly to calculate a Armor/Damage hulls under "Harpoon" formulas? (Damage Points Calculate)

Some values hulls are obviously high, others are too small.

Under keel explosion Is strongly "Hypotetical".
In DW damages areas at 3d model not modelled...



It only rather feigns a level of damages at the expense increase of quantity of an explosive, but on another it cannot be made. There can be this correct decision...


Only MK 48 ADCAP, UTK mode have been. Why other torpedos with a wire control have no an opportunity to shoot under keel?

This is similar "God Help" for US sub drivers. :hmm:

Or I is wrong?