Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LuftWolf
But let's not fool ourselves... if we really wanted to have the most accurate mod possible, the Akula would probably be hopelessly vulnerable to just about everything in the US arsenal, so I like to think I'm modding a world where the Russians have at least nominal parity with the USN, which is clearly does not and never has had, especially when it comes to submarines.
|
Wow, those are some pretty bold statements...
Might I suggest some light reading... I just bought
Submarine Technology for the 21 st Century by Stan Zimmerman and it presents some interesting facts and perspectives about the various capabilities/problems/innovations out between the nations. Of note is that Russians were the first nation to use Anechoic coating, the first to develop wakehoming torpedoes, and the first with supercavitating technology... those guys can put out great engineering.
If 80% of USET-80's failed, here's an interesting quote from the book to put that into perspective...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stan Zimmerman in "Submarine Technology for the 21st Century"
But torpedo unreliability continues to haunt American submariners. "We've learned the Mk 48 ADCAP isn't as good as we thought it would be. We're working on that," Vice Adm. Henry Chiles told a submarine audience in 1993. It is probable Chiles was thinking of a General Accounting Office report in late 1992. While the GAO was looking into the BSY-1 submarine combat system destined for the Improved 688-class of attack submarines, it also noted a devastating fact. A defense trade press publication reported, "Navy evaluators are also interest in available programs to correct torpedo deficiencies, but is [sic] concerned about about inadequate funding for that pursuit, GAO notes. Tests on the system's torpedo-engagment capabilites were hampered because about 56% of those torpedoes missed their targets due to technical failures."....
... The British suffered even more embarrasing problems with the Tigerfish heavyweight torpedo, which will be retired from the fleet by 2000, replaced by the newer Spearfish. The Tigerfish cost more than one billion British pounts ($1.6 billion) to develop but never proved successful. "[T]he disastrous saga of the Mark 24 Tigerfish provides a salutary example of exactly what can go wrong with a new weapon system," wrote Edwyn Gray. "It is said that early versions of the Mark 24 suffered a 75% failure rate -a record of misfortune that puts it in the same class as America's wartime Mark 14..."
|
[edit]excuse any typos