The U.S. Navy Is Building 'Super' Torpedoes for Its Nuclear Submarines

[Onkel Neal]

The U.S. Navy Is Building 'Super' Torpedoes for Its Nuclear Submarines (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/get-ready-china-russia-the-us-navy-building-super-torpedoes-18855)

Modifications to the weapon improves the acoustic receiver, replaces the guidance-and-control hardware with updated technology, increases memory, and improves processor throughput to handle the expanded software demands required to improve torpedo performance against evolving threats, according to Navy information on the weapon.

The Mod also provides a significant reduction in torpedo radiated-noise signatures, a Navy statement said.

[zamfe]

No offence, but this article not only contains zero information, but also insults the reader with expressions like "..that can better destroy enemy ships..".
Reads like propaganda to me.

[Rockin Robbins]

No offence, but this article not only contains zero information, but also insults the reader with expressions like "..that can better destroy enemy ships..".
Reads like propaganda to me.
"That can better destroy enemy ships" is a properly constructed and sensible thing to say when the actual information is not available and basically, that is all the writer has. American weaponry has always been designed for effect, not to accomplish fancy technical feats.

Like that American submarine of World War II, which has failed to capture the worship of the world like the somehow sexier German U-boats. You can point to technical points where the U-boats were superior, but only one thing matters. The American submarines could better destroy enemy ships.

That's why 250 or so American submarines outperformed 1,100 German U-boats. Saying those submarines were superior because "they could better destroy enemy ships" does not insult the reader. It conveys the essential fact.

I couldn't disagree with your statement any more.

[Kapitan]

"That can better destroy enemy ships" is a properly constructed and sensible thing to say when the actual information is not available and basically, that is all the writer has. American weaponry has always been designed for effect, not to accomplish fancy technical feats.

Like that American submarine of World War II, which has failed to capture the worship of the world like the somehow sexier German U-boats. You can point to technical points where the U-boats were superior, but only one thing matters. The American submarines could better destroy enemy ships.

That's why 250 or so American submarines outperformed 1,100 German U-boats. Saying those submarines were superior because "they could better destroy enemy ships" does not insult the reader. It conveys the essential fact.

I couldn't disagree with your statement any more.

Agreed

If you think any navy will release accurate technical specifications on new weapons that are in design or are in development your so far off the mark, it took us 15 years to resolve items such as the VA-111 Skhval and also some years to figure the Mig 25

[Kapitan]

Just on a side note rockin robbins 250 submarines didnt really out perform the 1100 u boats when you look back 1941 to mid 43 torpedo issues caused alot of misses and problems

Whats more the tactics were so much different the japs didnt really convoy likethe british did and when they did they were ineffective, they also had set lanes where as the british system was a bit more flexable.

[ikalugin]

There is little information in the article to state that any kind of game changing capability growth happened. Sounds like the interative improvements done to a standard weapon.

[biosthetique]

The USN is always improving its arsenal, it is a constant whether one knows about it or not. So accurate article or not, it is always in motion.

Don't you trust your country, your navy that you have to bicker about it?