HMS Hood VS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Guns ONLY)
- neil hilton
- Senior Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm
Re: HMS Hood VS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Guns ONLY)
Im pretty sure the mod 5 mk 46 is capable of attacking surface targets.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
- Rick Rather
- Member
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Re: HMS Hood VS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Guns ONLY)
Nope.
Sonar Technician (Surface) 1985 - 1995. I manned Fire Control. I won't say that that the Mk46 Mod5 was "my baby" since my torpedo-men would hunt me down but I was the one who entered the torpedo settings and launched the fish.
Quite frankly, today's USN is not interested in surfaced-launched antiship torpedoes. I feel that this attitude is justified. Surface targets should be engaged by missiles & guns long before they get within range of Mk46s (remember that 5 miles is the MAX range - tactically, you'd have to launch much closer).* If we wanted longer-range torps, they would have to be much larger, which translates to more weight, hull volume and/or deck area - and not just for the weapons & tubes, but also the handling equipment. To me, it's not worth it.
Not everyone feels that way. Russian warships still carry 533mm torpedoes.
*The obvious tactical exception is a surprise attack - as in the opening salvo at the start of hostilities. The afore-mentioned Russian warships were designed with this in mind. Tom Clancy also used it in "Debt of Honor", though he overlooked/ignored the minimum depth setting on the torpedoes. The downside of this tactic is the almost certain subsequent destruction of the launching ship. This was an acceptable trade for the Soviets if they could bag a NATO high-value target. The USN, for better or for worse, is uncomfortable with the idea of "expendable ships". Doctrine for an opening salvo thus calls for air and/or missile attacks from long range.
Sonar Technician (Surface) 1985 - 1995. I manned Fire Control. I won't say that that the Mk46 Mod5 was "my baby" since my torpedo-men would hunt me down but I was the one who entered the torpedo settings and launched the fish.
Quite frankly, today's USN is not interested in surfaced-launched antiship torpedoes. I feel that this attitude is justified. Surface targets should be engaged by missiles & guns long before they get within range of Mk46s (remember that 5 miles is the MAX range - tactically, you'd have to launch much closer).* If we wanted longer-range torps, they would have to be much larger, which translates to more weight, hull volume and/or deck area - and not just for the weapons & tubes, but also the handling equipment. To me, it's not worth it.
Not everyone feels that way. Russian warships still carry 533mm torpedoes.
*The obvious tactical exception is a surprise attack - as in the opening salvo at the start of hostilities. The afore-mentioned Russian warships were designed with this in mind. Tom Clancy also used it in "Debt of Honor", though he overlooked/ignored the minimum depth setting on the torpedoes. The downside of this tactic is the almost certain subsequent destruction of the launching ship. This was an acceptable trade for the Soviets if they could bag a NATO high-value target. The USN, for better or for worse, is uncomfortable with the idea of "expendable ships". Doctrine for an opening salvo thus calls for air and/or missile attacks from long range.
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather
-- R. Rather
- neil hilton
- Senior Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm
Re: HMS Hood VS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Guns ONLY)
So if the torps won't work against Hood I can't see Arleigh Burke being able to do much against Hood even with its full ammo load out.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
- Rick Rather
- Member
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:15 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Re: HMS Hood VS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Guns ONLY)
Pretty much.
The Harpoon missile does have a "pop-up" feature. In the last few of its approach, it goes from a sea-skimming profile to a quick climb, then dives almost straight-down on the target at over 600 kts. The warhead is considerable - 221kg of modern explosive, as opposed to Bismarck's 15" bursting charges (AP = 18.8kg, BHE = 32.6kg, NHE = 64.2kg).
I wonder if Harpoon's SAP warhead could penetrate Hood's deck armor?
The Harpoon missile does have a "pop-up" feature. In the last few of its approach, it goes from a sea-skimming profile to a quick climb, then dives almost straight-down on the target at over 600 kts. The warhead is considerable - 221kg of modern explosive, as opposed to Bismarck's 15" bursting charges (AP = 18.8kg, BHE = 32.6kg, NHE = 64.2kg).
I wonder if Harpoon's SAP warhead could penetrate Hood's deck armor?
Just because it's stupid, futile and doomed to failure, that doesn't mean some officer won't try it.
-- R. Rather
-- R. Rather
- neil hilton
- Senior Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm
Re: HMS Hood VS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (Guns ONLY)
Hoods deck armour is 1 to 3 inches, a Harpoon probably would penetrate the deck but that would set it off so I doubt it would be able to do any critical damage deep in the ship where it matters.Rick Rather wrote:Pretty much.
The Harpoon missile does have a "pop-up" feature. In the last few of its approach, it goes from a sea-skimming profile to a quick climb, then dives almost straight-down on the target at over 600 kts. The warhead is considerable - 221kg of modern explosive, as opposed to Bismarck's 15" bursting charges (AP = 18.8kg, BHE = 32.6kg, NHE = 64.2kg).
I wonder if Harpoon's SAP warhead could penetrate Hood's deck armor?
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!