Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu
From: dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: popup maneuvers
Summary: Missiles and Torpedoes
Message-ID: <6204@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 3 May 89 03:13:00 GMT
References: <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dfkling@june.cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling)

In article <6157@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> I'm slightly surprised that nobody has yet built a heavy antiship missile
> that simply carries a heavy torpedo and drops it 1-2 km out.  This avoids
> *all* the close-in defences, and explodes the warhead in a more effective
> place too.  There are one or two antisub missiles that drop an aircraft
> torpedo, but nothing designed for antiship use.

    The major problem is probably that anti-ship torpedoes are *heavy*.
The current air dropped torpedoes (ALWT et al) have small warheads designed
to disable submarines, not sink a reasonably compartmented surface ship 
with lots of reserve buoyancy.  A significant secondary damage effect of
missiles is fire damage caused by the still burning engine, which a 
torpedo wouldn't have.  (I believe that the exocet warhead on the 
Sheffield didn't explode, all damage was due to fire.)

--------------------------------------------------
Dean F. Kling
dfkling@cs.washington.edu