Quote:
Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse+Oct 5 2004, 07:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (I-Hate-Hulse @ Oct 5 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Oct 5 2004, 12:31 PM
Its unlikely that you would ever see a Akula going at 35 knots, I would be able to hear them with a glass up against my ear with my head underwater. There also aren't a lot of them at sea anymore
|
Even a USN SSN would have problems running at 35 kts without sounding like a burglar with bells on. Still, I'd rather be the the skipper of the Akula with 35 kts to play with in outrunning/maneuvering a torpedo than the skipper of HMCS Corner Brook with 6....
You're right, the Russians don't have as many as they used to, but India and China are rumored to have be on the export list. Once they get a few, count on seeing lots of indigenous variants, likely better than the Russian ones.
Combine a SSN with a supercavitating 'Shkval" torpedo at 200+ knots... bye bye US Carrier Battle Group. Russia kindly sold these to the Chinese. [/b][/quote]
The Submarine would have to get inside of the carrier group just to fire that thing. Lets say anywhere from 7500 to 9000 yards. you also have to remember that a trailed nixie is still effective against that torpedo. If an Akula which is pretty equivalent to a 637 class Sturgeon, with equivalent sonar and quieting can slip inside of a carrier exclusion zone then it deserves to sink a carrier.
the American's and the British are probably the pre-emitive nations when it comes to sub hunting, I just don't see the advantage of a 200 mile an hour torpedo. you have to be able to targe and fire it for it to be effective.
Its also doubtful that something with a conventional warhead would do much damage to a carrier unless it was a screws on hit which would blow the bearings.