Submarines

[red_elk]

It's strange, we have almost no Polish jokes. Most jokes are about Chukchis, Georgians and Jews. Less about Ukrainians, Armenians, Balts and Chinese. Almost none about Poles or Belorussians.

 

[Truthy]

I think it had very little to do with immigration. It was more a generational thing related to WW2. My parents grew up with WW1 as their immediate history, and it left that sense of "the trenches" and wars being these long protracted standoff affairs where the front really never moved. When the blitzkrieg folded Poland in a matter of days there was less inclination to recognize that the Germans had adopted a revolutionary form of warfare than there was to just blame it on some inherent flaw in the Poles.

Edit: I wrote something in response to this, but disregard. This is the submarine thread! Let's get back to submarines. Jokes involving submarines are fair game.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Edit: I wrote something in response to this, but disregard. This is the submarine thread! Let's get back to submarines. Jokes involving submarines are fair game.

Agreed. Ethnic humor is about as funny as a screen door on a submarine anyway.

 

[Hrothbern]

Jokes involving submarines are fair game.

well...

A Belgian hijacks a submarine... he demands 2 million Euro and a parachute

 

[IglooDame]

Missile strikes don't sink a ship as fast as a torpedo, but even the non nuclear ones will clear the decks. They make it very hard to get out and over the side, from what I understand.

Depends on the warhead size. (Yes I realize this is stating the obvious.) Harpoons, Exocets, Tomahawks, and such don't have the large warheads that some of the bigger Russian ones apparently do. You might recall that a Perry-class frigate USS Stark took two Exocet hits, and while one of them failed to detonate, the one that did explode didn't obliterate the ship and crew.

 

[Zardnaar]

Was it the British who made Frigates out of aluminum and the exocet hit in in the Falklands war.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Depends on the warhead size. (Yes I realize this is stating the obvious.) Harpoons, Exocets, Tomahawks, and such don't have the large warheads that some of the bigger Russian ones apparently do. You might recall that a Perry-class frigate USS Stark took two Exocet hits, and while one of them failed to detonate, the one that did explode didn't obliterate the ship and crew.

I think a conventional Tomahawk warhead is like three times the size of an Exocet warhead, but maybe I'm overestimating how hard a missile strike would be. FWIW a Tomahawk has a heavier warhead than the Mk48 torpedo that was the standard in my day, but there's no beating that under the keel detonation for kill power. Kinda surprising that the classic "torpedo bomber" aircraft apparently went out of style, considering.

 

[IglooDame]

Was it the British who made Frigates out of aluminum and the exocet hit in in the Falklands war.

HMS Sheffield in the Falklands and USS Stark both took hits from Exocets that failed to explode, and the rocket fuel created fires that were arguably worse than the warhead detonation would have been. I'm not as familiar with the Royal Navy, but yes one of the reactions to the Stark hit was that the next class of surface ships (Arleigh Burke destroyers) did feature more structural steel vice aluminum.

 

[Cutlass]

Depends on the warhead size. (Yes I realize this is stating the obvious.) Harpoons, Exocets, Tomahawks, and such don't have the large warheads that some of the bigger Russian ones apparently do. You might recall that a Perry-class frigate USS Stark took two Exocet hits, and while one of them failed to detonate, the one that did explode didn't obliterate the ship and crew.

I have a friend who served on a Perry who told me that his brother in law served on the Stark, and evacuated the engine room before the missile hit.

Was it the British who made Frigates out of aluminum and the exocet hit in in the Falklands war.

The Perry class frigates, and some other American ships, had Aluminum superstructures. These are an aluminum-magnesium alloy that will burn, once started.

 

[red_elk]

I think a conventional Tomahawk warhead is like three times the size of an Exocet warhead, but maybe I'm overestimating how hard a missile strike would be. FWIW a Tomahawk has a heavier warhead than the Mk48 torpedo that was the standard in my day, but there's no beating that under the keel detonation for kill power. Kinda surprising that the classic "torpedo bomber" aircraft apparently went out of style, considering.

Granit has starting mass of 7 tonnes and 750 kg warhead, but lacks hypersonic speed. Zircon has 300-400 kg warhead and speed up to 8 mach.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Granit has starting mass of 7 tonnes and 750 kg warhead, but lacks hypersonic speed. Zircon has 300-400 kg warhead and speed up to 8 mach.

Well, those sound like they would hurt pretty bad.

 

[Cutlass]

Granit has starting mass of 7 tonnes and 750 kg warhead, but lacks hypersonic speed. Zircon has 300-400 kg warhead and speed up to 8 mach.

A mach 8 speed is going to do critical damage to a ship, even without a warhead.

 

[red_elk]

A mach 8 speed is going to do critical damage to a ship, even without a warhead.

From what I read, Granit (several tonnes at 1.5-2 machs) can sink medium-sized ship without warhead too. But it's easier to intercept.

 

[Cutlass]

From what I read, Granit (several tonnes at 1.5-2 machs) can sink medium-sized ship without warhead too. But it's easier to intercept.

Easier to intercept is an issue. A warhead the size you describe will do critical to fatal damage to most ships. Assuming the missile actually hits. But at the same time, the chances of defensive measures stopping that missile will be much greater. A higher speed missile is harder to hit with defensive fire.

The unknown factor in the effectiveness of these missiles is how good their targeting systems are. A miss is a miss, no matter how big your warhead or fast your missile.

 

[Zardnaar]

From my understanding a lot of Russian or equipment is over hyped due to PR.

The exception being their warheads and missiles. Nasty anti tank RPGs and maybe shipping and air defense missiles.

 

[red_elk]

Easier to intercept is an issue. A warhead the size you describe will do critical to fatal damage to most ships. Assuming the missile actually hits. But at the same time, the chances of defensive measures stopping that missile will be much greater. A higher speed missile is harder to hit with defensive fire.

The unknown factor in the effectiveness of these missiles is how good their targeting systems are. A miss is a miss, no matter how big your warhead or fast your missile.

Granit is a late Soviet technology, not very modern but quite capable. Missiles can attack in group and coordinate actions between each others.
Recently watched a cool video about hypothetical standoff between Kirov-class battlecruiser (armed with 20 Granits) and Burke destroyer. The battlecruiser is heavier but somewhat older:

 

[Truthy]

What class(es) of subs were you on, @Timsup2nothin?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That one. After the modifications we were effectively the class, with the John Marshall. One of a kind, in the Pacific while they got the Atlantic and Med. I'd actually be in that picture if it weren't for the fact that I was under the waterline, as usual.

 

[Truthy]

That one. After the modifications we were effectively the class, with the John Marshall. One of a kind, in the Pacific while they got the Atlantic and Med. I'd actually be in that picture if it weren't for the fact that I was under the waterline, as usual.

Were you onboard when she ran aground?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Were you onboard when she ran aground?

No, that was a while after I got out. I still had friends on board so i heard about it though. Not really as exciting as it sounds. Sort of beached her onto a sandy beach, and submarine hulls are tough.