Should Wakehoming Torpedos Work Vs. Subs?

[LuftWolf]

I want to throw this out there because I don't have the foggiest clue.

[TLAM Strike]

Submarines do produce wakes so... :roll:

[Bill Nichols]

Submarines do produce wakes so... :roll:

Unless they are on the surface :-j

[Amizaur]

I believe that submerged and non-cavitating submarines don't leave visible wake, am I right ?

Reducing depth of 65cm to -10m would be effective way of limiting it's usage to surface contacts, however it seems that my info about 65cm being near-surface only weapon was not true, it probably is capable of being launched and run quite deep. I think that because few years ago Russians were offering it for export as TT-5 heavyweight wake-homing torpedo, and in the paper describing it was said about possible deep launch and wide spectrum of run depths.
But I think this still doesn't mean that it can be used against submarines, leaving no visible wake, even if it was set to correct depth !
Disabling subs as possible target in DB editor means only that you can't launch it at sub, but if you re-classify contact as surface you could still use it and it would guide at submerged subs without problems...
So the only way to prevent it is probably just limiting it's run depth... what has also positive aspect because there would be no need to remember set it shallow - it would be default. Same effect can be achieved by modifing wake-homer doctrine and forcing command of 10m depth after enable.
Looking at the doctrine it seems that it's not possible to make it ignore wake of submarines - based on tgt class or something. Wake isn't detected by sensor, it have to be coded somehow different...
But again looking at doctrine I see that it is ordered to IGNORE any countermeasures :-) that's why wake-homing 65cm is much better than conventional - at least for me :-)

[LuftWolf]

I have disabled the db flag and reduced the mission priority to 0 so AI subs won't fire wakehomers anymore (unless they misclasify a target).

I left the depth unchanged so, as Amizaur said, you can still use it against subs if you reclassify it in the db.

A doctrine change to make it run shallow after enabling would be a good addition, unless you want to retain a bootlegged ASW capability, which is fine either way. :up:

[NastyHyena]

It's my understanding on wakehomers that they detect the water disturbances left by a ship. In that case, a sub underwater should be trackable by one, as they also leave a disturbance in the water. It's just, with a serface ship, you only have two dimensions to worry about to get the torp to run over the wake. With a sub, you have to figure out it's exact depth in order for the torp to find the 'wake'.

[LuftWolf]

My goal is to try to prevent the AI from launching wakehomers at subs, as I've been convinced that's not a good thing. Also, since the UGST is now up to 27nm, it's less of an issue. So I think it can now be used purely as ASUW weapon, or a very sneaky think to do an opponent if you are in shallow water or want to take a chance. :arrgh!:

I think Amizaur said that the wakehome doctrine ignores target type anyway and just homes in on targets, so it should still work as before once you launch it.

[Dr.Sid]

I'm not sure with anything what I say here .. but I'l do it anyway. IRL wakehomers detects home with special HF active sonar. It detects small bubbles in very short distances. Torpedo tries to stay on the border of the wake. There have to be bubbles. Subs are made to make no bubbles at all, or much less of it, until they cavitate, of course. So wakehoming should not work, or not very well, until sub cavitates (or surfaces).
But .. wakehomers don't rely ONLY on wake homing. They have passive sensors too. They only switch to wakehoming when they detect the wake. It is not good idea to fire wake homer from head-on course, but in most cases it will hit without entering the wake..I did used wakemohers many times in DW against subs. On kilo you often have no other torpedoes left. Wakehomer at least 'scares' AI sub.
But I think I even did kill something with it. I don't know if the 'wake homing stage' was entered, but the passive homing should be enough.

It would be great to have ability to program 'after enable course' for wake homers. I thing something must be used IRL.
With that, you would be able to fire torpedo from head-on, aim it into the wake, preprogram 180% turn before enabling, so the torpedo will falow wake in the correct direction.

[jlab]

i remember sinking numerous subs with the 53-65k in SCXIIc... and being sunk by them myself even more frequently - and it was a cool thing.

plus, the way cms are working in DW, it's nice to have an option that won't spoof/blow up so easily.

i think wakehomers should follow wakes, wherever they may be.

[DivingWind]

i remember sinking numerous subs with the 53-65k in SCXIIc... and being sunk by them myself even more frequently - and it was a cool thing.
That reminds me a moment from SC.When I was at periscope depth akula engaged me with a wakehoming torpedo.(That happened in STOCK SC)

[James31278]

They don't make bubbles unless cavitating, they only produce ripples in the water when not cavitating. Subs also dont leave a huge wake trail its pretty much as soon as they pass it stops.

[MaHuJa]

In DW, the wakehomers' performance against subs is something I believe is pretty realistic: They start homing about the time they are close enough to home on the hull itself.

At least that's my experience.

[Kapitan]

ive killed a sub forget what type think a rubis class witha wake homer