|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 5, 2013 16:08:36 GMT -8
The Naval Research Lab just launched a drone from a submerged submarine – giving a huge edge to the future of special operations. It took six years to develop and launch an all-electric, fuel cell-powered, folding-wing drone aircraft from a submerged submarine. The eXperimental Fuel Cell Unmanned Aerial System, or XFC UAS, was fired from the submarine's torpedo tube using a “Sea Robin” launch system, which is designed to fit within an empty Tomahawk launch canister used for launching Tomahawk cruise missiles. More here: www.defenseone.com/technology/2013/12/navy-launches-drone-submerged-submarine/75026/ |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 6, 2013 4:11:11 GMT -8
One of the things that has puzzled me for years is how the Navy was able to assure the Russians that no nuclear weapons were being carried on board ships carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles. Theoretically, any ship with the capability to carry Tomahawks is nuclear weapons-capable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 7, 2013 9:54:26 GMT -8
The thing that most people don't understand is ANY warship can carry and deliver nuclear weapons today. Nearly anyone who has nuclear weapons can mount them in torpedos, SAMs, cruise missiles, antisubmarine rockets (ASROC), depth charges, aircraft and (of course) ballistic missiles plus major caliber artillery of 155mm or larger. Did I miss anything?  We've been assuring the Japanese for decades that the warships calling at Japanese ports and are homeported at Yokosuka aren't carrying nukes, but they understand that we aren't going to allow them to check the magazines. Even if the warships aren't carrying nukes it wouldn't take long to reverse that situation and we can assume the same is true of Russian warships. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 17, 2013 8:18:07 GMT -8
The thing that most people don't understand is ANY warship can carry and deliver nuclear weapons today. Nearly anyone who has nuclear weapons can mount them in torpedos, SAMs, cruise missiles, antisubmarine rockets (ASROC), depth charges, aircraft and (of course) ballistic missiles plus major caliber artillery of 155mm or larger. Did I miss anything? I'm all too familiar with that.
What I am asking is whether or not there is any way to verify that a TOMOHAWK is nuclear capable or not, |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 17, 2013 17:14:30 GMT -8
The thing that most people don't understand is ANY warship can carry and deliver nuclear weapons today. Nearly anyone who has nuclear weapons can mount them in torpedos, SAMs, cruise missiles, antisubmarine rockets (ASROC), depth charges, aircraft and (of course) ballistic missiles plus major caliber artillery of 155mm or larger. Did I miss anything? I'm all too familiar with that.
What I am asking is whether or not there is any way to verify that a TOMOHAWK is nuclear capable or not,Damned if I know shipmate. I know there was (is?) a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile model that was intended to mount a 25kt tactical nuke (TLAM-N) but I don't know if that variant is still in service. I kinda doubt it, I think it and all the ship killer types were all converted over to TLAM types with conventional or submunition warheads for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Short answer, I don't know if there is a way to tell if a TLAM is nuclear armed or not. I really hope the anti-ship Tomahawks (or something better to replace it) is available if we have to get into a shooting match with the PLAN or Russia. I'd hate to be limited to carrier aircraft and 60nm Harpoons in that event. The antiship Tomahawk, though subsonic had an effective range of about 600nm and a 1000lb warhead. |
|
