Well, it’s a torpedo, you say.
What else can be done with it? It
is what it is. If that seems like a
reasonable summation to you then congratulations, you’re a prime candidate for
admiral in the US Navy. For the rest of
us, let’s take a look at what developments might be possible for the torpedo.
The Navy’s current heavyweight torpedo is the Mk48. Here’s a few features and points of interest:
- Mk48 has been operational since 1972.
- Mk48 Mod 5 ADCAP (Advanced Capability) IOC 1987
- Mk48 Mod 7 CBASS (Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System) IOC 2006
Mk48 Torpedo Features
|
|
Size
|
19 ft long, 21 in diameter
|
Warhead
|
650 lb, high explosive
|
Cost
|
$3.8M for current version
|
Range
|
31 miles at 40 kts
|
So, what’s wrong with that? It
seems like a good torpedo, right?
Wrong! Let’s see what other
countries have in the way of torpedoes.
Russia leads the way in torpedo advances and development, dating back to
the Cold War efforts of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union/Russia has always relied on their submarine fleet to
compensate for their lack of surface navy capabilities compared to the West/US
so it is not surprising that they lead the world in torpedo development.
Germany and China also have some noteworthy torpedoes.
The UK’s Spearfish torpedo, while fairly pedestrian, is reported by
NavWeaps as having an 80kt max speed version which would be impressive for a
conventionally powered (non-supercavitating) torpedo.(3)
The table below lists some of the features and examples of torpedo
developments that the US lacks.
Foreign Torpedoes
|
|
Supercavitation
|
German firm in early 2000’s developed a 250 mph torpedo (1); Russian VA-111 Shkval 230 mph (2); SKorea has a supercavitating torpedo (see,
“Korean Supercavitating Torpedo”)
|
High explosive weight
|
Russian 650 mm 65-76 with 992 lb warhead; Russian 65-76 DST92 with 1225 lb warhead;
|
Very long range / very high speed
|
Russian 650 mm 65-76a with 62 mile max range and 50 kts max
speed; UK Spearfish with 80 kt max
speed (3)
|
Wake homing
|
Russian 650 mm 65-76; Chinese
533 mm Yu-6
|
The table demonstrates that existing technology is significantly beyond
that of the US Mk48 torpedo. Given our
dependence on submarines to carry a lot of the naval combat responsibilities
during war, this is disappointing. As
with mine countermeasures, ASW, naval gun support, ship armor, and so many
other areas of naval combat, the Navy steadfastly refuses to recognize and
support the development of key areas and torpedoes are yet another
example. Because torpedoes don’t garner
giant sums of money in the budget, the Navy has little interest in torpedo
development. You would think the US Navy
would have forever learned an institutional lesson about torpedoes from its
WWII fiasco … but obviously not.
Clearly, the prize for the best torpedo in the world goes to the Russian
65-76 DST92, wake homing, 1225 lb warhead, 62 mile range, and up to 50 kt
speed. The US Navy Mk48 isn’t even in
the running!
Before we move on from current, state of the art foreign torpedoes,
let’s recall a torpedo from the past – the Japanese Type 93 Long Lance. The Long Lance was a 24 inch diameter torpedo
with a 1080 lb warhead and a range of 12 miles at 49 kts (22 miles at 36
kts). This was a ship killer! For more on WWII torpedoes, see “Torpedoes –Then and Now”.
Moving beyond the current state of the art – and the past! - , what
future torpedo developments should we be looking at? Here’s some possibilities:
Stealth – just as
aircraft stealth took a giant leap forward with proper shaping and coatings, so
too, might torpedoes benefit from shaping and coatings designed to reduce the
acoustic signature and reflectivity of sonar sound waves; torpedo noise reduction (propulsion, mainly)
is certainly possible though possibly at the expense of speed
Supercavitation – the concept has
already been demonstrated and just needs to be refined to allow more effective
steering and target sensing
Multiple Warheads - a torpedo that can separate into multiple warheads like a MIRV or cluster bomb might prove useful in evading torpedo defenses and maximizing damage
Tagging – torpedoes that
‘tag’ a target rather then explode might prove useful in tracking ship
movements and finding larger task forces;
magnetic or chemically attaching ‘warheads’ would seem possible
New Explosives – Significant
advances have been made in air/land explosives and that leads one to speculate
that similar advances ought to be possible for torpedoes; for example, the equivalent to fuel-air explosives,
using chemical-water reactions are theoretically possible given the existence
of elements that react violently with water
Wake Homing – again, this
technology exists and just needs to be adapted to US torpedoes and, possibly,
enhanced
Chemical Trace Homing – small
quantities of chemicals given off by the target ship are ‘sniffed’ in the water
and tracked; this technology has been demonstrated in laboratories and rumor
suggests is being tested in Russian submarines;
the challenge is to miniaturize it and adapt it to torpedoes
Terminal Evasive Maneuvers – enemy countries
are working on active anti-torpedo interceptors so, just like anti-ship cruise
missiles are capable of performing terminal evasive maneuvers, there is no
reason why a torpedo shouldn’t be able to do the same
Littoral – the Navy found
out that the neither the Mk48 nor the Mk54 lightweight torpedo were effective
in shallow water ASW scenarios; we need
to develop a shallow water torpedo
Networking – cruise missiles
are capable of networking, in flight, and performing self-designation of
targets; similarly, a torpedo salvo
ought to be able to network and self-determine target allocation
Containerized Storage
and Launching – just as VLS missiles are now containerized to reduce maintenance and
protect the missiles from the environment, so too, should torpedoes be
containerized for storage and launch
There you have some examples of the kinds of torpedo developments the
Navy should be looking at. I’m sure
there are many other possibilities, as well.
If we’re going to depend on our submarines to carry the load in future
naval combat then we simply must provide our subs with the very best torpedoes
in the world. At the moment, we are not
doing that and, in fact, we are running a distant second to Russia. The Navy’s failure to aggressively develop
new torpedo capabilities hamstrings our submarine’s combat performance. This has to change. We cannot afford a repeat of the WWII torpedo
fiasco. We need to do the hard work and develop
new torpedoes … now.
