During the Cold War, the US Navy concluded that lightweight
torpedoes were largely ineffective against Soviet submarines, in terms of
achieving a kill. Even heavyweight
torpedoes were questionable and thought to require multiple hits to kill. Lightweight torpedoes were considered more of
an annoyance to Soviet subs than a lethal threat.
Lightweight torpedoes are a lethal threat only to small,
lighter built diesel subs.
Lightweight torpedoes are not a ship-sinking threat to
anything much bigger than a patrol boat and are not capable of sinking surface
ships, either merchant or naval.
That being the case, why is the Mk54 lightweight torpedo so
ubiquitous throughout the surface Navy?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for ships to mount heavyweight torpedoes?
Here’s a brief comparison of the Mk48 heavyweight and Mk54
lightweight torpedo characteristics.
Characteristics vary, of course, depending on the exact model but these
are representative. Note the lightweight
torpedo’s warhead weight and range deficiencies compared to the heavyweight
torpedo.
- Sinking merchant ships
- Sinking submarines
- Sinking surface ships
- Destroying maritime structures (oil platforms and such)
Is the small size of the lightweight torpedo to have ammunition commonality with the air dropped torpedoes carried by helicopters? As I understand it, the lightweight torpedo can be fired out of triple torpedo tubes and carried by ASW helos. The Kaman Seasprite was relatively small, as helicopters go - I can only imagine the difficulties it would have had in trying to carry a Mark 48.
ReplyDeleteDestroying maritime structures like oil platforms can create an environmental disaster. These oil platforms have no defenses. I see no sense destroying them. If the Navy wants to destroy oil platforms then the Navy first should build AAW and ASW warships and special vessels for clearing the sea from the oil products.
ReplyDeleteCommander of Naval Opinions I have one question. Look at the situation. It has been reported that Iran has mined the Strait of Hormuz lately. We know tha the US Navy retired its all Avenger class mine hunters. Also we know that the LCS are not able to search and destroy the mines. The question is how to search and destroy the naval mines? I see you know very well how to design AAW, ASW, anti surface warfare ships, aircraft carriers, carrier aircraft and so on. Sure you know what kind of warships I needed to deal with naval mines. How to project them, deploy and do the mission - search and destroy naval mines. You say that you did an ideal fleet structure for the Navy, but there are no mine hunter warships. There is no way to ignore this vital thing. Write an article and post it on your blog. It is very actually.
ReplyDelete“All of this leads me to ask, why isn’t the Mk48 standard on surface ships?”
ReplyDeleteThe need is clear, but to state the obvious: because the USN, particularly the surface navy, clearly does not value the capability that having a fast, deep diving torpedo with the explosive capability to sink or heavily damage whatever it hits provides.
The Navy also does not value modern EW systems, heavy anti-ship missile, fast logistics ships, and a host of other weapons and systems needed to prosecute war. Some of this is due to budget reality (these wars of choice in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc. have impact!), and some of it is due to ignorance bordering on criminal negligence. We bear the fruit of a lack of focus on mission/threat/method/end-state lasting for decades.
If I was a committee chairman in Congress, I would haul every living SECNAV and CNO into session going back to Vietnam, and ask why they requested funding for all these ships, which are supposedly designed around the weapons they carry, and within the operational constraints governing their employment?
GAB
For helo's that's why we have lightweight torpedoes and the soviets built hundreds of diesel electric subs.
ReplyDeleteAs for surface ships I guess it's because they are fire and forget? while the heavy torps are wire guided so no rapid manuvering after firing.
Plus the 3 shot launcher and 3 lightweight torps weigh just a little more than a single heavyweight torp so having multiple heavyweight torps in a launcher is a lot more weight which US ships already struggle with according to what you have wrote about it.
During last September's Chinese military parade, a long-range rocket assist torpedo AJC015 is light torpedo. It can fit into VLS of type 052D and 055.
ReplyDeleteSo, a light torpedo can be used to strike submarine far away.
US also has rocket assisted torpedo RUM-139 (based on MK54) but range is much smaller than AJC015, ~22km.
DeleteAJC015 can be designed to fly more than 100km because China use unmanned submarines to find enemy submarines. Once a target is identified, information is sent to a 052D or 055 to fire AJC015. AJC015 flies to designed location then enters water to sail toward the submarine. To carry a heavy torpedo for this long distance (say 100km) needs an ultra-big rocket which is unrealistic.
2 x Royal Navy mk viii torpedoes sank the General Belgrano in in 1982. This was an old style cruiser ex USS phoenix 1939 so armour etc I belive they have about 800 lbs warhead, so I would have thought 3 or 4 hits by a mk 54 should do some serious damage.
ReplyDeleteFor surface ships, while heavy torpedoes are quite powerful weapons, they compare poorly with antiship missiles in terms of time to target. Firing a Mark 48 at 30 miles, it'll take 25 minutes to impact the target. A Harpoon missile will cover that distance in 3 minutes. This puts us at a certain disadvantage versus our adversaries who're equipped with antiship missiles. We also can't maneuver evasively as freely, because we need to keep guidance wires running.
ReplyDeleteHeavyweight torpedoes are a more effective weapon for SSNs because of the asymmetric situational awareness. The sub can close into knife fighting range, releasing the fish at closer range before the victim notices they're there. Warship vs warship during the cold war was a lot more symmetric: if you saw them, they saw you.