From the fact you knew they lost both towed arrays, it was a real sub and not a AI one. Maneuvering error by a newbie perhaps? In theory, if you do everything right, a 40kn torp has almost no valid DLZ against a 40kn boat and IIRC Seawolf had a 600m max depth which is higher than the TEST-71 in the game. Tell me more. I might be able to put it in my back pocket for one day...

Ramius maneuver? Charge at the torps? Are you more lucky than good - they set the RTE too high?

1. DLZ?

2. Might he mean having run very close to a piece of terrain, deployed a noisemaker and turned away at the last second as the "Ramius Manuever"?

Oh sorry, borrowed the term "Dynamic Launch Zone" from the Air Force in AAM employment - a similar concept. Effective weapon range depends on speed of weapon and target*. If you have a 29kn torp (or even 36knot) chasing a 35kn target, you have virtually no DLZ - the target can simply turn and run and you will never reach him. That little bit of DLZ represents the part where he has to turn and accelerate.

*as well as altitude. Not so important underwater, but in real life IIRC torpedo performance varies a bit depending on its running depth too.

Could be, but I prefer the book Ramius.

Ah I see. I'm familiar with the concept as I'm a AAW guy, but I always known it as a "No-escape zone" (NEZ). I have no idea what bubbleheads call it.


As do I. Taking one for freedom is way more cool than shaking off both torps.

Hey LuftWolf. Think it might be better to do a LWAMI mod exchanging the SET-53 (which is worse than useless) with a "Yu-5" torpedo for the Kilo? Chinese (printed in Hong Kong) sources would claim that such a torp came into service with Song-class, and even if it doesn't, such a torp as a hypothetical would be an equalizer. As it is, I might as well carry 53-65K torps even in ASW - the thing is that useless.

You've given the Americans a new Mk54 and the Russians got to exchange the "Type 53" for a UGST, so maybe it is time to give the Chinese a turn...

It supposedly has a range of 30km, speed 50 knots, max depth 400m, wire guidance, 200kg warhead. I suppose you can use your UGST as a template. Make it available on all six tubes of the Kilo, but only 5 and 6 have the facility to do wire guidance.

Just a thought...

That's actually a pretty darn good idea. :up: :know:

I'll look at it. Changing the parameters of the Set-53 to match another more effective torpedo is pretty easy, although I might not be able to make it wireguided.

So at worst, I can make the Set-53 more like a USET-80, which I think would work fine as well.

Thanks for the idea! :rock: :arrgh!:

About the Seikan Tunnel mission...
 

Could someone please guide me through the Seikan Tunnel mission? I really need some help on that one. I've tried it a couple of times now, but I just can't see that d*mn midget sub! I ping and I drop buoys, but even if I have "show truth" (or whatever it's called) turned on and know where to look, I can't find it on my sonar screen(s). Please help!

EDIT: OK, I'm a little further down the road now ;). I managed to find it with the help of show truth (at least I found it...). Now another question: When I have a contact, how do I determine if it's a surfaced or submerged one?

Look out of the window (Pilot/ATO) or turn on Radar (both for Helo) or for the P3, look out of the Pilot window, turn on radar or use the camera.

Cheers
OS

I find the auto-track option on the camera for an Active Sonar Return for this exact purpose. It works wonders.

?
 

Is that realistic? Do you really have to send a chopper out to know if the contact is a ship or a (submerged) sub?

Re: ?
 

Well, to use your eyes seems quite realistic to me... ;)

I just thought technology was available to tell if a contact was on the surface or under it...