Supercavitation Again II. [Conclusion]
This is coolbert:
The aerial torpedo?
Please recall the amazing and astounding and counter-intuitive concept of super-cavitation.
[counter-intuitive in that when a certain high rate of speed underwater is achieved, drag becomes almost non-existent.]
A concept incorporated into the design of German World War Two [WW2] anti-ship glide bomb technology [Hs 293 and Hs 294].
"the Henschel Hs 293 and the larger Henschel Hs 294. Both missiles were supposed to be guided to a point in front of the water line of a ship. At water entry, the warhead would separate from fuselage and wings. Using its remaining kinetic energy, the (unguided) warhead-projectile would then follow an underwater path towards the ship target . . . The underwater path could be curved slightly upward by means of a small ridge on the upper side of the ogive. The projectile had to be curved upward in order to achieve a nearly horizontal path at the point of impact."
"Just before it reached its target it was guided into the water, where it then would run like a torpedo, propelled by its remaining kinetic energy."
An aerial glide bomb, that just prior to impact with the target, functions as an underwater torpedo.
"A small number of the Hs-293C were built, equipped to attack ships below the waterline. This unsuccessful design evolved into the Hs-294 air delivered torpedo system"
IT IS ALWAYS FUNDAMENTALLY AND INTUITIVELY PREFERRED TO HOLE A SHIP BELOW THE WATERLINE RATHER THAN JUST STRIKE THE SUPERSTRUCTURE?? BREACHING WATERTIGHT INTEGRITY IS ALWAYS THE WAY TO GO? DAMAGE ABOVE THE WATERLINE IS ALWAYS MORE EASILY CONTROLLED BY DAMAGE PARTIES THAN BELOW THE WATERLINE DAMAGE? THE GERMAN TOOK THIS INTO CONSIDERATION DURING INITIAL DESIGN OF THE HS 293/4 SERIES GLIDE BOMB DEVELOPMENT?
Modern anti-ship cruise missiles DO NOT incorporate this feature [aerial torpedo] in their design. I have perused the wiki entry of modern anti-ship cruise missiles and DO NOT find any instances of cruise missiles designed to strike a target below the waterline as would the Hs series German glide bombs!
With perhaps one exception? The Otomat/Teseo.
"The Otomat is a long range anti-ship missile capable of reaching around 180 km at an average speed of 1,000-1,100km/h"
"The Otomat/Teseo is an Italian built anti-ship and coastal attack missile first built by the Italian company Oto Melara jointly with Matra and now made by MBDA."
"The warhead is designed to explode inside the ship with the force of the explosion directed to the bottom of the target ship."
"the explosive blast is focused downward, attempting to blast a hole in the ship bottom sinking rather than just damaging the vessel."
The Otomat strikes ABOVE the waterline, as does any other of the conventional anti-ship cruise missiles, but then explodes in a fashion to direct the blast DOWNWARD, the target being holed BELOW the waterline!!
NO USE of super cavitation, however. Modern cruise missiles have a much greater speed than the German Hs series glide bombs, much better electronics, and can carry [?] a larger warhead. YET, designers have neglected or just brushed aside the super cavitation principle for some reason? The destructiveness of modern cruise missiles is considered to be adequate for the task? Planners and designers feel what is in use now more than fulfills the bill?
And, of course, finally, from Suvorov on the inventiveness of Italian weapons designers, specifically Oto Melara [called Otto Velara by Victor]:
There maybe some people who underestimate Italy as a country of great thinkers, but not the GRU [Soviet/Russian military intelligence] . . . The Italians were the unrecognized geniuses of military and naval technology [in the years prior to World War Two!!]"
And still are too? Still come up with innovative and unique designs that outstrip the competition? Anti-ship cruise missiles, for instance?