LuftWolf and Amizaur's Realism Mod Poll #11: Adv. Torpedoes

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I think the UUVs should have better range and speed. More like the LMRS.

Something you can really send to scout ahead. Thats what UUVs have been billed as.

It's hard to go fast and use a sidescan sonar. I'm not clear that the LMRS goes very fast at all. It's also sort of unclear exactly what they're supposed to be scouting ahead of.

My suspicion is that the actual idea is probably to use the speed of the SSN to get the LMRS someplace near a beach and ahead of the fleet, where the SSN will stop. While it's there they'll use the LMRS to scout out the mines convertly while something like an ESG approaches the hostile coast.

So... it's scouting ahead but not ahead of the SSN, so much as ahead of the fleet.

[Deathblow]

All the things I read says that the heavyweight (torptub sized) UUV do about 3-4 knots with about a 30-50 hour endurance, iirc. What they don't say is that ANY uuv currently in existence has ASW detection capability and are really only suitable to mine recon.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...logy/uuvmp.pdf
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...e_15/wave.html
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

Perhaps a very drastically reduced sensor capability with a 50+ nm range? That should make things interesting...

[Deathblow]

You know what truly simulated UUV behavior would be...

... a uuv that is not wired controlled, but moves independently and promots contacts to the link intermitantly.

[Henson]

How many torpedoes would we shoot?

As many as it takes. There is guidance on this subject, but I cannot elaboarate here.

Just keep in mind that all but three US submarines have only 4 horizontal tubes...how long do you think it takes to secure from a launch and load another 21' long weapon (and that's if we don't care about keeping the wire)? When you're talking about the possibility of other platforms out there, care for your own survivability dictates that you use the minimum necessary force when you are faced with limited reload capacity. That is a question of submarine warfare that has been faced since the beginning...how many weapons should I shoot? The purpose of better weapons is to eliminate the need for 'shotgunning' or overkill. We have built weapons that are survivable and intelligent enough in their own right that they allow us to run away. "He who shoots first dies last."

[Bellman]

UUVs - Any quest for reality must unfortunately limit itself to replicating what we know is currently available.

Whilst the prospect of the tactical possibilities of the large UUV project is exciting it can never be right in a real-world
sim to second-guess the future. However I think it safe to make a reasoned judgement that no sane skipper
would risk his sub navigating through or near high risk expopsure and littoral water areas without the benefit
of a (some) recce device/s.

Obviously such devices must exist and are highly classified. However taking cognisance of the extreme quietness
of many platforms and high background noise levels in shallower waters we can confidently simulate an improved UUV.

That this UUV is mine tasked is clear but its performane characteristics are unknown. This is a game
and the LwAmi mod new UUV, within software possibilities, should reflect what we think is realistic. (THINK)
So if the modders request our (vote) for 'realistic' type features we should consider only what will enhance the game.

My focus would be on increased range/durability, variable speeds, a loiter facility and both passive and active
sonar. The sonar performance judgement is the 'big issue' :hmm:

[Deathblow]

Heck we might as well throw in HyStrike Missiles, Tatical Tomahawks, USN SuperCavitator Torps, and Nuclear Electric Drive Submarines

j/k.... actually.. not really

[Bellman]

More great links DB, thanks.

A new UUV could be quite a useful sensitive tool like a dentists probe. Just a small step forward from what we have.
Given range and deployment/run-out speed improvements many tactical aspects of the sim would be enhanced.

Egs. Launch deep and slow until cover behind seamount then accelerate round towards opponents suspected flank
position and go slow and probe. Etc....

Makes sense - why risk deploying an expensive state of the art sub and its crew in or near high risk areas including
shallow littoral waters when you can recce the area and/or clear mines with a fraction of the cost benefit risk ratio.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

All the things I read says that the heavyweight (torptub sized) UUV do about 3-4 knots with about a 30-50 hour endurance, iirc. What they don't say is that ANY uuv currently in existence has ASW detection capability and are really only suitable to mine recon.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...logy/uuvmp.pdf
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...e_15/wave.html
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may06-14.php

Perhaps a very drastically reduced sensor capability with a 50+ nm range? That should make things interesting...

Well... ya know... there's nothing that says you CAN'T detect a submarine with an imaging sonar. "Hey... guys... I think I found the SSK they said was around here..." *taps on screen*

It's just that they typically can't see very far. :-)

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

How do we know that large torpedo salvos *aren't* what the reality of real life sub vs sub combat would be? Has anyone here actually been in a real life and death sub battle with their life and the life of their crew on the line?
...

Everyone is insistent upon the "only one-two torps per volley" obession as "real life" but does anyone have proof that this is the reality besides Hollywood movies and television?

I've talked to a couple former submarine officers on it, and they both had different answers. The one argued that a one-shot-one-kill mentality was common. The other, who was an old Cold Warrior, and more mathematically oriented, seemed to think more like I do on the subject, talking about salvo sizes, torpedo search widths, and geometry.

I don't think there's a single "best" tactic. My sense is that it depends on the target and how far away it is.

The only thing I've found available to the public on the subject is some stuff left over from WWII for straight running and passive acoustic homing torpedoes in Methods of Operations Research by Morse and Kimball. The logic in that sort of literature is very general, though. There's not really any reason why you couldn't apply a lot of it to develop tactics for contemporary weaponry.

[OneShot]

As for the One Shot - One Kill issue, well personally I try to go for that, and it has proven to work most of the times, but it is risky and certainly not guaranteed to yield satisfactory results. However especially with the "new" Accoustics model after 1.03 it is clearly possible to bring it off ... even more then once in one game (I tried it and it works), but you need a pretty good SWAG of your enemys whereabouts, which in turn makes TMA pretty important.

Nevertheless I can see the logic behind the salvo suggestion(s) and given the right tactical situation I guess that would be a prudent choice of action, still my personal preference is the One Shot - One Kill tactic.

[Bellman]

Not sure how we come to be talking 'Salvos' in a LwAmi mod thread. :hmm: Some folk around here are on their
favourite soapbox. LuftWolf you asked ''Should I make the UUV better or worse ? ''
May I suggest that you run a poll on UUV development ?

My feeling is that the LwAmi sub v sub environment often demands slow stealthy progress, which can turn
rapidly into a knife fight. The 'Salvo' propagandists will lead us down a slippery slope of 'Doom' overkill.
However real, and the arguments continue, this will be the unintended outcome in many free for all
and team sub v sub dives.

Better to cope with the relative short sightedness by compensating with enhanced standoff probes.
UUVs will then redress the balance in SSN matches. Do we really want to take part in dump and run fests ?

We know that its real F18 procedure for a flight/s to stand-off incoming enemy formations by launching
all their air to air s.a. missiles from high altitude then do a 180 and dive shallow beneath enemies radar.
But it sure made for a dull game ! Ditto DW.!!

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Deathblow

You know what truly simulated UUV behavior would be...

... a uuv that is not wired controlled, but moves independently and promots contacts to the link intermitantly.

That would be better. It'd be nice to set some waypoints and just have it drive a search pattern. I'm not sure if promoting links would be the way it'd do it, though. There's lots of talk about improved underwater communications but once again, it all exists only on PowerPoint. I suspect that they actually have to recover the UUV back through the torpedo tube and download what it's found to a computer.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Do we really want to take part in dump and run fests ?

That's sort of SSNs and SSes are there for. :-) If you want to slug it out, surface warfare is where it's at. It's also much more fast paced.

Harpoon is best for surface warfare, though.

But it sure made for a dull game ! Ditto DW.!!

Not if you design the scenario right, and everyone executes their equally thought out tactics well.

Here's how the ideal situation works:
Side A shoots... with 0.9 Pk (according to his own estimates)
but due to errors in estimating the range to target the true Pk is in fact about 0.65.

Side B counterfires, lucks out and evades.

Side A detects side B's countefire but decides it won't hit anything. He takes his best depth for evasion and slinks away a 6kts.

Side B then begins some sort of search tactic (which might be as simple as just driving down the bearing of the original torpedo launch), and eventually sneaks up on side A....

These things are not boring. They ARE however time consuming. :-)

[Bellman]

Well SQ I'm going to pay due regard to the position your in and back-off and say like Galbraith - 'I hear you!'

UUVs: I suspect that there are many good reasons why the topic and the LwAmi modding of UUVs will end in a 'blind alley.'
It would just be kinda nice to shuffle a little further nearer to what cannot be mere paper illusions !

Boredom: My threshold, as you should know (Kara), is very high........usualy !

Salvos: What I fear is the contamination of impressionable newcomers to our sim, who may not see it as an
appropriate tactic in certain circumstances. But a return to 'carpet bombing' thinking.

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

UUVs: I suspect that there are many good reasons why the topic and the LwAmi modding of UUVs will end in a 'blind alley.'
It would just be kinda nice to shuffle a little further nearer to what cannot be mere paper illusions !

It depends on what you think is a paper illusion. Right now, the only operational UUV is the LMRS. Everything else exists either only on paper, or else is a university or corporate research project. Heck, a coworker of mine just got back from a conference and apparently one of the engineers trying to sell one to the Navy works out of his garage. The whole UUV thing is REALLY rough right now. I don't see that it's going to change for a while.

UUVs will probably be used for ASW in the future somehow. It's not really clear how, though. The big challenge is how to fit a sensor on it. The only one I know of that looks like a really reasonable ASW weapon because it tows a VDS, the Sea Talon, only exists on paper, and is carried by a surface ship. It's too big for a submarine.

Boredom: My threshold, as you should know (Kara), is very high........usualy !

So what are you complaining about?

Salvos: What I fear is the contamination of impressionable newcomers to our sim, who may not see it as an
appropriate tactic in certain circumstances. But a return to 'carpet bombing' thinking.

I say let 'em carpet bomb. It doesn't help you much if the distance scales for the whole scenario are reasonable. The root cause is not that the tactic itself is bad, but that the scenarios are often inappropriately compact.