tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post1583698242542981911..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Torpedo Threat - Is It Really?ComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9909940458912514472019-05-06T12:59:07.484-07:002019-05-06T12:59:07.484-07:00For the US Navy, I don't see a purpose.
For ...For the US Navy, I don't see a purpose. <br /><br />For a foreign Navy it might make sense to have a small sub that could broadside a dozen or more torpedos at a high-value target. Sealed shore-loaded torpedo canisters might offer simplified engineering and lower cost than conventional reloadable torpedo tubes.<br /><br />In short, a cheap 'pepper-box' sub that can put a hurt on large enemy ships or large groups of enemy ships. Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160163509930734619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84271983608470026672019-05-02T13:15:13.902-07:002019-05-02T13:15:13.902-07:00We already had that, essentially. It was the Mk67...We already had that, essentially. It was the Mk67 Submarine Launched Mobile Mine (SLMM). It was, basically, a smart fuzed Mk 37 torpedo that would act as a mine and was launched from a sub, traveled to its destination, and then lay in wait for a target meeting the fuze specifications. <br /><br />A sub could, in theory, launch dozens of them and seal a harbor or navigational choke point while standing safely off.<br /><br />There are conflicting reports whether the SLMM remains in active service. There was, at one time, a program to convert the current Mk48 torpedo into SLMMs but I believe that was cancelled.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11788427670129341712019-05-02T13:06:18.735-07:002019-05-02T13:06:18.735-07:00I'm not quite sure what problem you'd be s...I'm not quite sure what problem you'd be solving? Subs have multiple torpedo tubes and can/do launch volleys of torpedoes.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38620235403569722652019-05-02T11:22:46.669-07:002019-05-02T11:22:46.669-07:00Given the likely failure of a single torpedo to be...Given the likely failure of a single torpedo to be fatal, I believe we need to deploy the same techniques we do with AShM, massed volleys. To do this I believe development of a VLS for torpedoes should be developed. It would basically be a variant of current SSBN or SSGN designs, but with torpedoes instead of missiles. It might even be possible to develop a system that can be loaded with either.<br /><br />Randall RappAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87527198160806919552019-05-02T07:12:57.571-07:002019-05-02T07:12:57.571-07:00I have thought about this as well. A screen would ...I have thought about this as well. A screen would consist of buoys up to 40 nautical miles in front and 10 nautical miles behind and 20 nautical miles to each side for a total of 16 bouys in a grid. Any torpedo or sub getting to within 30 nautical miles of the carrier would be alwaysc within 10 nautical miles of a buoy. I would use 1 asw helicopter to process the data transmitted and perform the kills. 4 auxillary helicopters would be used to continually move buoys from the rear echelon to the front echelon as the carrier group moves forward. The array and buoys could weigh up to 2 tonnes each with sensor arrays up to 300 metres below the surface. The floating buoy would have a hook for deployment Communications technology as well as passive sensors to detect anti ship cruise missiles entering the networked area. The technology exists that the buoys would be both active and pasive sonar. They could also be configured to transmit targeting data to ssk an ssn using an acoustic link. Think of this as a very large and sensitive acoustic array that is well away from the ships surrounding the carrier. By being stationary, they are far more likely to detect the noise of a sub or torpedo. If a torpedo was detected it would give a 30 minute warning so the direction of the carrier could be changed to reduce the chance of intercept. I actually think a new cruiser needs to be developed and built that has enough deck and hangar space to operate the asw group efficiently at the speed of a cvn. I would give the same cruiser the role of ballistic missile defense and put a very good radar system on it. In other words it would be a ship that concentrates on only the defense of the carrier group.<br /><br />I think the carrier group without beefed up asw defense is an extremely vulnerable and costly asset that needs to be properly defended. I am a little shocked by the lack of asw development sibce the end of the cold war and see modern submarines having a feild day with the current cvn.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880601121069657708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57105173306004011252019-05-02T06:23:43.686-07:002019-05-02T06:23:43.686-07:00Much of the power of torpedos in many ways is psyc...Much of the power of torpedos in many ways is psychological. A commercial ship like a tanker getting torpedoed even if doesn’t sink—in fact it’s doula single hit to a double hulled tanker—would cause insane amounts of over reaction. <br /><br />This is where I think a UUV could be useful. Imagine a large one being carried DSRV style on the back of a Virginia. A hundred miles off shore it launches the UUV. The UUV has surprisingly simple programming. It simply goes to a predetermined point and begins swimming a pattern in front of ( or maybe in) a large harbor, say Shang Hai. It has a simple passive sonar that listens only for really big ship sounds at relatively close range. When it gets a hit it launches its payload, two lightweight torpedoes which immediately go active and attacks the first thing it pings. The UUV turns off with a timer to turn back on and return to Pearl or another mothership. <br />Basically it’s a mine that mimics a sub.<br />Now you have temporarily bottled up a harbor as they sweep the hell out of it looking for a sub, and that Virginia is hundreds of miles away shadowing a boomer already.Littorally or Figurativelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18163975830269552279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17417727285043194332019-05-01T19:16:00.649-07:002019-05-01T19:16:00.649-07:00"proximity fusing, [terminal homing], faster ..."proximity fusing, [terminal homing], faster reload, integrated fire control, [larger lethal area, and cheap]"<br /><br />I like it, but we both know complex fuses make the shots cost more, guidance systems (likely) unacceptably so, and the other features require (hopefully slightly) more complex, capable, and expensive launchers. If we accept the costs, it may still be viable or even necessary.<br /><br />The mortar array is a great launch system for firing a wide spread in a mostly set pattern. Some upgrades to its rate of fire are possible, as are the other proposed launcher improvements, but I'm not against bristling our hulls with dozens of simpler mortar arrays if that's more effective. Deck space is at a premium, but these could be mounted with little to no footprint (except RCS!!) at the ship's extremities and/or integrated in the hull (low RCS, slightly more $$).<br /><br />I don't bash torpedo guidance in general, ships various emissions are *usually* a lot louder than background, making the problem technically easy. All of that changes when the depth charges go off...<br /><br />After thinking about the problems of torpedo guidance, I've concluded this effect - if sustained - is probably more valuable than a depth charge's pK to hard kill, and the majority of our decoys and other soft kill countermeasures combined.<br /><br />Unlike missiles, heavy torpedoes actually have options in the terminal phase. Once (the guidance system assumes) the torpedo is directly under a ship, it can safely loiter for an extended period and use its sensors to discriminate real ships from decoys before detonating. If it misses a ship or decoy in a terminal maneuver, it has the guidance, hydrodynamics, and propulsion to maneuver to the target's predicted position before that prediction is useless. Both capabilities rely on endurance, which heavy torpedoes have in spades unless they're fired at the end of their envelope. Without something (exploding) to obscure their sonar and wake-homing, they get multiple attempts at an easy problem.Darth Anubishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007164480607753952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17166451714220246022019-05-01T10:11:59.487-07:002019-05-01T10:11:59.487-07:00An aircraft is small, fast, and moves in three dim...An aircraft is small, fast, and moves in three dimensions,<br />If it dives, fires its after burners, and turns hard to the right, its in a very different place than if it climbs, air brakes, and turns left.<br /><br />A ship is big, slow and moves in two dimensions, flank speed hard right and all reverse hard left, take quite some time to move far apart.<br /><br />If you break an AAMs target lock 5 seconds before impact, it will most likely miss. If you blind a torpedo 5 second away, you arent going to get away, you are still where you were, unless it tries something clever.<br /><br />Belgrano was attacked by unguided torpedo, and destroyed, it was taken entirely unawares, and was unable to even signal it was under attack, or had been attacked, never mind activate active defences. One of its escorts was hit by a torpedo that failed to detonate, and it didn't realise.<br /><br />"This also suggests that the Navy should be conducting extensive torpedo performance tests. Have a sub fire live torpedoes – with the warheads removed, of course – at ships and see what actually happens. "<br /><br />That is perhaps the greatest idea I've ever heard, a blank torpedo would have no way of damaging a ship.<br />Blank AAMS would still cause catastrophic damage to aircraft, blank AShMs would cause fires and superstructure damage, but a blank torp would pose no real threat.<br /><br />Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20687660660339453572019-05-01T08:05:06.204-07:002019-05-01T08:05:06.204-07:00Just wondering out loud, but could a "smart&q...Just wondering out loud, but could a "smart" torpedo avoid or reduce the probability of being affected by such charges by slightly zig-zagging as it approaches its target? Obviously it wouldn't maneuver to the point where it loses contact with its target. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83141131154641901822019-05-01T07:36:11.760-07:002019-05-01T07:36:11.760-07:00How many sensors and helos would you envision need...How many sensors and helos would you envision needing to screen a carrier group?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38316194521640153682019-05-01T06:44:18.379-07:002019-05-01T06:44:18.379-07:00I am talking about a future technology using much ...I am talking about a future technology using much larger non disposable sonar buoys. The sensitive crystals that are up to 99% efficient weigh up to 10kg. The current devices used are no more than 62% efficient. The viking deployed disposable buoys and did not reteieve them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880601121069657708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68248817678993998322019-05-01T06:37:39.896-07:002019-05-01T06:37:39.896-07:00For those that are interested the group was from p...For those that are interested the group was from penn state and published in science daily march 2018.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880601121069657708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16456449492099314222019-05-01T06:36:51.916-07:002019-05-01T06:36:51.916-07:00"I envisage relocatable sonar buoys being pla..."I envisage relocatable sonar buoys being placed around carrier battle groups and being moved by helicopters to new locations as the carrier group moves."<br /><br />We had this. It was called the S-3 Viking. It was used to lay chevrons of sonobuoys out ahead and around the carrier group.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30929845206808985492019-05-01T06:31:30.350-07:002019-05-01T06:31:30.350-07:00Conceptually, that would work although you'd p...Conceptually, that would work although you'd probably want a much bigger salvo capacity but, yes, a modernized version would be along the lines of what we're looking for.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43992938617366995592019-05-01T06:14:33.760-07:002019-05-01T06:14:33.760-07:00The problem with the anti torpedo system was the f...The problem with the anti torpedo system was the false alarm rate making it unusable. Using underwater explosive charges makes sense on the disabling side but does nothing to solve the problem which is detection and identification.<br /> I think that problem needs to be solved before any reliable torpedo defense is viable. There has been some scientific work published on samarium doped ferroelectric crystals which have a log magnitude improvement in signal noise ratios over current sonar piezoelectric crystals. You will laugh at this but it is work being carried out in the USA and funded by both the Department of defense as well as the republic of China! M<br />Just unbeliavable.<br /><br /><br />The problem is that they are large, expensive heavy and non disposable. I envisage relocatable sonar buoys being placed around carrier battle groups and being moved by helicopters to new locations as the carrier group moves. In otherwords create a stationary sonar net array around the force well away from the noise of the ships. Network the sonar arrays so an accurate sonar map is produced so that subs and torpedos can be detected at much larger distances so that the ships simply turn away in another direction and decoys are deployed either by the buoys themselves or by the helos. It takes a torpedo about 8 minutes to travel 10km.- plenty of time yo deal with it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880601121069657708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81019856737154139232019-04-30T18:10:29.764-07:002019-04-30T18:10:29.764-07:00I wonder if an advanced version of the British Lim...I wonder if an advanced version of the British Limbo depth charge system might work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo_(weapon)Seal Of Lionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304620391386824536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86848758789081685442019-04-30T15:59:22.206-07:002019-04-30T15:59:22.206-07:00"RBU … I see it as the CIWS of the underwate..."RBU … I see it as the CIWS of the underwater AEGIS"<br /><br />Exactly right. I would hope that if we were to develop an RBU-ish weapon, we'd give it a few improvements over the original Soviet design: proximity fuzing, very short range simplistic guidance??? (may be a reach too far considering this should be a basic, cheap weapon), faster reload, integrated fire control, larger pattern, etc.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63358600077884927552019-04-30T15:51:25.376-07:002019-04-30T15:51:25.376-07:00How to program a control system to defeat this tac...How to program a control system to defeat this tactic:<br /><br />1. take some aerial photos of ships in a variety of single-ship and multi-ship wake-crossing maneuvers.<br /><br />2. generate wake-homing sensor data that mimics these maneuvers (or substitute actual data collection for step 1, both are easy enough)<br /><br />3. Have a human annotate this data with the actual position and heading of the ships in each data set.<br /><br />4. Provide the data to a machine learning algorithm, or just manually analyze the patterns to develop "dumb" algorithms to deconvolute the wakes.<br /><br />5. Analyze the algorithms, try to break them (design countermeasures), make a few changes to counter the obvious countermeasures, then stick it in a torpedo.<br /><br /><br />Of course, it's not exactly *easy* to actually do, but the problem is obvious enough and the solution simple enough that I strongly suspect that it has been done.Darth Anubishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007164480607753952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25757921678206381012019-04-30T15:29:44.451-07:002019-04-30T15:29:44.451-07:00The depth charges do not necessarily need to hit t...The depth charges do not necessarily need to hit the torpedo. If set to explode between the torpedo and the vessel it would create a wall of disturbed water through which the torpedoes sensors could not penetrate for some time, giving the vessel a chance to manoeuvre or perhaps shut down its engines. To avoid German wake homing torpedoes in WW2 RN escorts would reduce speed to less the 7 knots. Below this speed the torpedo sensors could not detect the wake. Obviously technology moves forward but the principle remains.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12485228199384554693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50420168380308220542019-04-30T15:26:04.202-07:002019-04-30T15:26:04.202-07:00"You're aware, I take it, that in typical..."You're aware, I take it, that in typical SinkEx [is]... as unrealistic as you can get"<br /><br />Yes, I wasn't explicit, but that's part of what I was referring to here:<br /><br />"even in ideal circumstances this takes *time* using conventional warheads, and passive or active damage control can make a ship survivable against several hits from conventional torpedoes."<br /><br />My point was never to disagree with the post's premise - in fact, I wholly endorse it. My point was that the scope of the torpedo threat is a lot broader (nuclear torpedoes), and the definition of success is as well (losing billion dollar ships is unacceptable even if it takes a couple dozen torpedoes).<br /><br />"I love the idea of the Soviet RBU."<br /><br />I can tell, you've said so in response to every mention of it here so far! I like it too, and I absolutely agree that it's a necessary capability, but I see it as the CIWS of the underwater AEGIS; the last hard kill countermeasure before damage control becomes the name of the game.<br /><br />An RBU doesn't have the range to intercept a nuclear torpedo at a safe distance, or to follow-up failed engagements with additional shots (counting a full volley as a shot), the latter of which is a serious concern even with conventional torpedoes.<br /><br />RBU-1000 has (reported) max range of 1 km, reaction time of 2 minutes from initial detection, 1 minute if some targeting data is already available, and reload of "less than three minutes". Mark 48 travels (reportedly) at up to 102 km/h, and we expect it (and other well designed torpedoes) to sprint the last 1000m of an engagement. After the explosions stop and your sonar operator gets some idea of what's going on underwater again, you've got 35 seconds left - assuming no actual downtime in detection capability caused by blowing stuff up *near your ship* underwater.<br /><br />What about using multiple RBUs? Sure, now you can take 2 shots against 1 torpedo (or *dense* swarm) with several large deck-mounted systems. I'll admit, it definitely beats taking a hit if you're a thin-skinned ship like Burke, but a longer range option is mandatory... if it's feasible.<br /><br />If it's not, then I refer back to CNOps' adage about ASW; don't play tag with submarines, attack their bases.Darth Anubishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007164480607753952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37097924299269884062019-04-30T15:17:49.122-07:002019-04-30T15:17:49.122-07:00I, too, have wondered about simple countermeasures...I, too, have wondered about simple countermeasures like circling back across one's own wake. That would seem like it would completely confuse the torpedo. I doubt that wake homing is fine enough to distinguish multiple, crossing wakes. Yet more reason to conduct realistic testing which the Navy refuses to do.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-28867836245715065582019-04-30T15:15:42.215-07:002019-04-30T15:15:42.215-07:00You may be thinking of this a bit wrong. Think of...You may be thinking of this a bit wrong. Think of RBU charges less like a depth charge and more like a carefully designed pattern of proximity fuzed charges. The ship's sonar (or multiple sonars in an ASW networked defense!) will provide the firing solution and the charges are dropped in a predictive pattern, boxing in the torpedo along its predicted path. Proximity fuzes eliminate the need for direct hits and the pattern ensures a good chance of a significant effect. <br /><br />Even if the torpedo isn't out and out destroyed, it may be sufficient to simply deflect the torpedo from its course/depth enough to break its target lock. A torpedo sensor has a relatively small field of view. Once deflected, it may well be unable to re-establish course/depth and reacquire its target.<br /><br />Viewed this way, the odds of success seem reasonable. Of course, that's just speculation on my part. Realistic testing would have to be conducted but at least it seems plausible.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81940264358759613092019-04-30T14:17:20.141-07:002019-04-30T14:17:20.141-07:00A 21-in torpedo going 40 knots is a pretty small t...A 21-in torpedo going 40 knots is a pretty small target to hit with a depth charge, which is basically what the Russian RBU delivers. The Russian RBU-6000 can fire a salvo of 12 rounds. To be effective against a torpedo, I would imagine having to fire many dozens to provide a good chance of hitting a torpedo.<br /><br />It would be interesting if swarming technology could be applied to anti-torpedo weapons. The idea would be to drop groups of RBU-like charges along the path of an incoming torpedo with each group positioning itself to provide the best chance of hitting the torpedo. <br /><br />One possible countermeasure to this would be for the incoming torpedo to approach the target ship from a much lower depth and strike the ship from below or rise a short distance from the ship and strike it amidship. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21808609051028241562019-04-30T10:59:28.126-07:002019-04-30T10:59:28.126-07:00If two ships travel in opposite directions in a ci...If two ships travel in opposite directions in a circle what does that do to wake homing torps?Peter Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21145674659341533252019-04-29T17:40:04.965-07:002019-04-29T17:40:04.965-07:00"A hedgehog to blow up underwater grid square..."A hedgehog to blow up underwater grid squares *near your ship*"<br /><br />I love the idea of the Soviet RBU. It would seem to have utility as an area anti-torpedo weapon and, in fact, is claimed as such by the Russians. Whether it's actually effective or not is an open question. For a variety of reasons, I'd love to see the Navy develop an RBU type weapon.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com