>hard to detect by sonar
>fast as frick
>can carry good payloads
Why aren't these used as cheap ASW platforms?
>hard to detect by sonar. >fast as fuck. >can carry good payloads
>hard to detect by sonar
>fast as frick
>can carry good payloads
Why aren't these used as cheap ASW platforms?
You can't detect them with sonar because they make so much noise it blinds the sonar.
Uh?
https://airlifthovercraft.com/hovercraft-information/hovercraft-and-the-environment/
>All Airlift Hovercraft are fully amphibious and create virtually no under water noise, just atmospheric noise levels that would be typical of a diesel truck or bus. The fact that there are no underwater protrusions or propellers eliminates the usual thrashing noise signature associated with conventional propeller driven craft, as well as negating any possible seabed erosion when operating in shallow waters. It therefore becomes obvious that fish and other marine life are in no way affected. This has been confirmed by independent scientific tests. The major noise factor with any hovercraft is the propeller noise, which in any case is largely directional in characteristic. Airlift Hovercraft’s hovercraft propulsion propellers have been designed with low tip speed to minimise atmospheric noise
That's very cool, I also take everything marketing literature tells me and believe it 100%.
First of all, yeah no shit marketers are going to say that their profits totally don’t deafen everything underwater.
Second of all, there’s a big fricking difference between “probably doesn’t kill fish with sheer noise” and “undetectable by sonar that can hear chains clinking together from several miles away”
How were submarines able to detect Tu-95?
We detected a low flying P-3 when it did a run on us with the MAD boom off of San Diego. Not detecting by SONAR? You won't get an echo with active, but passive will detect
>This has been confirmed by independent scientific tests.
>provides zero (0) sources
Totally legit.
>atmospheric noise levels that would be typical of a diesel truck or bus
I have a bridge to sell you.
>Captain there appears to be a diesel truck above us in the middle of the Pacific.
>Ah, nothing to worry about then. At least it isn't a ship.
>hmm… why has there been a bus or F250 circling us for 2 hours in the middle of the fricking ocean?
because helicpters arent detecteble by sonars even faster and more agile, and you still need to spot submarine by you own sonar your bigger ship.
t.have no idead about fleets and shit, but i still think im right
> because helicpters arent detecteble
They are though
Really? How?
Sonar. Helicopters are pretty damn loud
Only when they're low, such as when operating a dipping sonar.
Helicopters may be cheaper I can give you that.
>you still need to spot submarine by you own sonar your bigger ship
Uh no? Jus throw a bunch of sonars or/and underwater mics building an aucustic net and just like with artillery indirectly send the torpedo wherever the submarine is detected
only a person with brain damage could actually write this shit. That thing is probably louder than an active oil rig on sonar, would get mulched by torpedoes and doesn't have a whole lot of range.
>would get mulched by torpedoes
Can it even be hit by torpedoes? Reminder that it doesn't go underwater the only thing touhing the water is the skirt
Yes?
The craft is not underwater, how would you guide the torpedo to the target? How would it even detonate if there is nothing underwater to hit?
If sonar can detect it, then torpedo can find it foloving the signal, the surface uder it and exploding using proximity fuse.
The skirt scratches the surface, I have my doubts if sonar could pick it as a target specially with the waves of the sea.
>You are able to do far more damage to a ship by destroying the hull from below, than poking a hole in the side.
And hovercraft doesn't have a hull underwater, there is even more space in between the water and the platform carrying the weight
>Sonar can hear fricking airplanes and helicopters
>unable to hear a fricking hovercraft
Bonus points
>he doesn't understand how a torpedo exploding under the keel destroys a ship
Nice reading comprehension, where did I say that underwater explosions can't destroy hulls or keels? I said that hovercraft doesn't have hulls or keels underwater and that there is space between the the craft and the sea surface
And the fact that you think it matters how much is underwater is proof of your moronation. The way modern torpedos work is by making a big hole in the water that suddenly doesn't support the weight of the ship at that point, leading to the keel getting broken by a sudden massive amount of pressure. This works just as well if the hole the torpedo makes disrupts the hovercraft's ability to hover on the water instead, with the only potential caveat being that hovercrafts are so light and small by definition that they lack a proper keel to snap, and instead will just get capsized and destroyed by the explosion that a normal warship wouldn't get tossed around by.
>The way modern torpedos work is by making a big hole in the water that suddenly doesn't support the weight of the ship at that point, leading to the keel getting broken by a sudden massive amount of pressure
I already knew this, and that was my point, that hovercraft didn't had hull nor keels to be destroyed that way
>This works just as well if the hole the torpedo makes disrupts the hovercraft's ability to hover on the water instead, with the only potential caveat being that hovercrafts are so light and small by definition that they lack a proper keel to snap, and instead will just get capsized and destroyed by the explosion that a normal warship wouldn't get tossed around by.
And this is where I wanted to go, a hovercraft is not a regular ship, If a torpedo explodes underneath the craft the space and the air cushion could mitigate the damage, how deep torpedoes usually explode? How much an explosion of a torpeado could rise the sea level underneath the craft? How much pressure can the skirt of the hovercraft handle when the sea level rises because of the explosion? That's of course if the torpeado can detonate exaclty underaneath the hovercraft
See
If a hovercraft is incapable of operating due to waves, how well do you think it's going to take something like this happening in it's proximity? Do you see the big fricking sprays of water getting pushed up by the explosion?
?t=274
can't you cut the shit short and just tell him, that torpedo can't catch an hovercraft, they barely can catch fast ship (multihull and stuff like that)
Not yet, I want to talk about every inch of this unit, it's potential and it's flaws
it's basically the obsolete (due to helicopters and aircraft) submarine chaser role, the ship/boat used for the role were basically old tech equivalent of you idea, indeed some of them doubled as amphibious landing ship, and you want base the thing on amphibious operation craft.
biggest problem with an hovercraft is that you don't have a single stat in wich an helicopter isn't better unless placed in a scenario so specific that is not worth it.
namely by the simple fact they float they can just shut down everithing and stay long time (compared to helicopter) there listening and shit and then moving fast and manouvrablity for the short range and bad seekeeping the have (they smooth as frick up to a certain seastate then but after a certain treeshold is a shitfest) basically you put them in coastal defence in an arcipelago or where there are complex coastlines (like norway do with the skjold class in antisurface) but even in that situation you could do basically the same thing with an obsolete genuine cheap ass sub chaser wich will cost far less to aquire and operate.
>how deep torpedoes usually explode?
Whatever depth it's been programmed to blow at, so assume whatever will be the biggest problem for the hovercraft.
>How much how much how much
It's a quarter of a metric ton and then some of HE. You're an aircraft or you're fricked.
>That's of course if the torpeado can detonate exaclty underaneath the hovercraft
It can, no matter how much you don't want it to because this whole "hovercraft are immune to torpedoes" thing seemed like the first fricking time in forever that you got to feel like you were smart.
>Whatever depth it's been programmed to blow at, so assume whatever will be the biggest problem for the hovercraft.
Totally agree
>It's a quarter of a metric ton and then some of HE. You're an aircraft or you're fricked.
If the torpedo is half underwater half above at the moment of explosion right below the hovercraft, well for sure there is no chance, but if it explodes quite deep as if it wanted to destroy any other warship, well there is no ship below the water plus depending on the size it has some space between the sea level and the craft plus the air cushion, the air under the craft can be compressed and decompressed, the effect may not be strong but could deflect part of the explosion maybe? What I want to say is that maybe it could survive a deep explosion, of course that would mean that somebody fricked up at the moment of launching the torpedo or the torpedo wasn't made with a "sink hovercraft" option.
>"hovercraft are immune to torpedoes"
Never said that, I'm just casting doubt that possibility because... it hasn't been done before? It's kinda hard for me to believe that something that barely scratches the sea surface can be followed by a torpeado, is totally not the same but feels kinda like an air to air missile being able to track a submarine, it's kinda hard for me to accept that without proof of it working but again, it hasn't been done.
the effect it's on the same line
of the abrams in irak against hundred kg of ied placed under street surface.
a torpedo will not break the back of a small ship by sagging, neither the shockwave will do damage to an hovercraft or a small submarine.
small titanium submarine (being less affected to be tossed around than a light built hovercraft) are so immune to the effect of underwater explosions that basically depth charge are fricking totally useless against them so that homing torpedo with shaped charge warhead have been developed just for deal with them
> if it explodes quite deep as if it wanted to destroy any other warship
It won’t, because it won’t be set to explode that deep.
And ultimately, it’s irrelevant since even if the torpedo doesn’t outright break the hovercraft in half, it’ll shred the frick out of the air cushion and sink it that way
Of course, it’s even further irrelevant since submarine launched Harpoons are a thing
lol, because under the skirt there is not at all a regular boat, just to stay afloat when rare occurence like turning off the engines for a while happen.
> I have my doubts if sonar could pick it as a target
You’d be wrong
how moronic are you fricking Black person
How moronic are you?
Do you understand how torpedoes work?
They don't hit to detonate, they detonate underneath. Its been like that since WW2. You are able to do far more damage to a ship by destroying the hull from below, than poking a hole in the side.
Torpedoes can be guided under the hovercraft and remotely detonated using the control cable.
Ok this may be moronic take but why don't we use fleet of drone-sailboats for anti-sub warfare?
If you equip them with solar panels and some backup generator, they could probably operate for weeks if not months, while being almost completely silent.
Sailboats are slow.
he has a point. They are experimenting with drone ASW boats. Putting sails will extend endurance. I don't know if they can get the computer to run sails properly though. It would be used for station keeping when endurance is more important than speed.
And to remain undetected submarines have to move either slow or so deep they can't threaten surface vessels.
You can happily cruise at 20kts and hear just fine in a sub
Drone boats on any water more rough than a canal is a bad idea.
On the open ocean you either have to make the boat big enough and powerful enough to not get pushed around by the waves or skillful enough to avoid those waves.
At that point why not just make a regular boat?
Why not use a small blimp?
Because your mom isn’t available 24/7
BOOM, ROASTED
>Why don't we use x
We do, but really we use buoys instead.
>let's take the scenic route
>fits 5 tanks but can't fit 4 infantry
American soldiers, please understand
Helicopters are faster, can fill multiple roles, easier to store on boats, and most importantly, they suffer less from rough seas.
Waves
Hello. High sea state calling. Just wanted to let you know it was fun capsizing your ground effect platform.
This. There are so many really cool high-speed technologies that were pioneered in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, but none of them really worked out on the open ocean. Hovercraft at least make for good high-speed landing boats, but that's about it.
Why doesn't America sell these?
US allies in the Pacific could use these
>hard to detect by sonar
underwater is the only time you won't hear these things, and it's a maybe. LCAT's are fricking LOUD. Go to Jacksonville NC beach and watch them sometime.
Can they be used outside of littoral zones?
They can travel through snow, ice, mud and sand easily, that covers swamps, rivers, frozen water, snowy tundra and deserts, they probably are absolute trash on forests and cities though because they can't take down trees as tanks do and lack a lot of maneuverability needed on the narrow streets.
No I mean can they be used in deep waters? Submarines aren't going to be in littoral waters.
>as cheap ASW platforms?
Because they are super-not-cheap
Uh compared to a destroyer/cruiser ship I mean
They only do 300 nmi compared to a cruiser 10,000
Yeah in that regard they suck unless they somehow get nuclear powered.
You DO know that this isn’t 1943 anymore, and helicopters are the primary ASW platform, right?
They have poor sea worthiness. They are fine until something goes wrong.
cheaper to use regular boats
Because they are very easy to sink
oh hey I had the G.I.Joe version
So loud that submarines can hear you coming
Hehe
If it's not knocking with active sonar the sub is just going to cruise underneath it at 5 knots and 0 fricks.