+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30-05-06
    Posts
    770

    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6 View Post
    as for the cav weapons,

    I guess the last word on the USN's cav weapons might go something like, "lost but not forgotten".

    the USN already has cav weapons operationally deployed/employed. Both Galrahn and RickUSN will probably be aware of it/them.

  2. #62
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18-06-04
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    the USN already has cav weapons operationally deployed/employed. Both Galrahn and RickUSN will probably be aware of it/them.
    I guess it does. There was enough time to catch up even if there was nothing in the begining... and we know that USN was working on this for long. So we are in the new age - short range battles between subs would be now much more decisive and faster!!!

  3. #63
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30-05-06
    Posts
    770

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    So we are in the new age - short range battles between subs would be now much more decisive and faster!!!
    the weapons aren't sub based - yet. UDT is undergoing a huge transformation. Its far more significant IMV than the F-22/JSF media events, and/but its deliberately being kept low key.

  4. #64
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18-06-04
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    the weapons aren't sub based - yet. UDT is undergoing a huge transformation. Its far more significant IMV than the F-22/JSF media events, and/but its deliberately being kept low key.
    but why would you need a non sub based cav weapon? Isn't it faster to deliver torpedo to the point with a rocket rather than shoot these 10km with a non-guided cav torpedo/shell? I mean your rocket will cover those 10km much faster and then your torpedo would be very close to targe!!!

  5. #65
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30-05-06
    Posts
    770

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    but why would you need a non sub based cav weapon? Isn't it faster to deliver torpedo to the point with a rocket rather than shoot these 10km with a non-guided cav torpedo/shell? I mean your rocket will cover those 10km much faster and then your torpedo would be very close to targe!!!
    1. you're assuming that its a torpedo.
    2. you're assuming an anti-sub role.

    UDT involves more than torpedoes... and/or submarines
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 18th December 2006 at 08:48. Reason: clarity

  6. #66
    Regular
    Join Date
    22-11-06
    Posts
    108

    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    1. you're assuming that its a torpedo.
    2. you're assuming an anti-sub role.

    UDT involves more than torpedoes... and/or submarines
    The RAMICs has been deployed already? Wasn't there some problems with it or something?

  7. #67
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30-05-06
    Posts
    770

    Quote Originally Posted by Transient View Post
    The RAMICs has been deployed already? Wasn't there some problems with it or something?
    RAMICs is still going through updates. The irony of RAMICs is that the original 20mm project was achieving 1 shot 1 kill to a "substantial" depth. When USN hijacked Rods project and forced it to go to 30mm they blew out the accuracy stats. The round started coning due to the change in recoil characteristics. Rule No1: when the designer knows what he's doing - let him be and go and annoy another project instead.

    Some of the old team are now on an australian project and there are two other US UDT projects underway that I'm aware of. (my last contact with ex-R-team members being Nov 06)

  8. #68
    Regular
    Join Date
    22-11-06
    Posts
    108

    But I cannot imagine them insisting on 30mm without a very compelling reason if the existing 20mm works fine and meets the requirement. Would one of the other 2 UDT projects be the SUPERCAV project with the VLA motor?

  9. #69
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30-05-06
    Posts
    770

    Quote Originally Posted by Transient View Post
    But I cannot imagine them insisting on 30mm without a very compelling reason if the existing 20mm works fine and meets the requirement.
    can't really comment as its a (potential) 3 way litigous issue. (IP challenges)


    Quote Originally Posted by Transient View Post
    Would one of the other 2 UDT projects be the SUPERCAV project with the VLA motor?
    no
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 19th December 2006 at 02:30. Reason: clarity

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Supersonic Torpedo (Shkval)
    By berkut in forum Naval Forces
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 1st June 2009, 00:03
  2. Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1)
    By Ray in forum NATO & The Russian Resurgence
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2nd April 2007, 14:33
  3. Good things from WW2
    By canadian boy in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 27th November 2006, 18:07
  4. Why the torpedo tube variations?
    By Horrido in forum Naval Forces
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 9th December 2005, 22:41

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts