Mk-48 Torpedo Results

Roger Dodger · 02-13-12, 01:52 PM

I thought some of you would like to see how our torpedoes have improved since WWII. Too bad the Mk-14's magnetic exploders didn't work this well.

Use the links to view the video.

http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4

You have never seen footage where a single torpedo does damage like this. It's a US made (non-nuclear) torpedo that is in use today by our submarines. Very precise, very accurate and very powerful.

This is the Australian Submarine Navy doing a live torpedo practice shot on one of their decommissioned ships. They used a MK 48 torpedo developed in the USA .

It is not a contact weapon. It is designed to go off directly underneath the ship at about 50 feet under the keel. The effect is devastating as you can see from the video. This lethal weapon can break the back of ships much larger than the one shown in this video. They don't even have a chance of survival.

http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4

Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."

Sailor Steve · 02-13-12, 01:55 PM

That video is several years old now, and it's been put up here a dozen times or more. I'm sure there are some newbies who will appreciate it, though.

Stealhead · 02-13-12, 07:31 PM

[/QUOTE]Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE]

They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers.

That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars.

People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech .

inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

kstanb · 02-13-12, 10:06 PM

Yes, at $3.8M it is expensive, but it is a +90% sure kill; Mark 14s were expected to be launch in salvos and a 10% success rate more than acceptable according to :
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg9

"Number of Torpedoes Fired by U.S. Submarines

Total number fired = 14,748
Average number fired per attack = 3.586 Average number fired per ship sunk = 14,748 /1,392 = 10.59.
(8 in 1942; 11.7 in 1943; 10 in 1944) "

Something interesting I recently read: at the Java Sea battle, the Japanese launched 92 torpedos in one salvo and achieved 1 hit ! ... and that was in some ways successful since in the end they won the battle with fewer losses than if those torpedoes would not had been fired

Roger Dodger · 02-14-12, 12:35 AM

Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE]

They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers.

That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars.

People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech .

inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm[/QUOTE]

Interesting calculator! A dollar today = 7 CENTS in 1942.

A USS Virginia class sub today runs around $2 Billion ($14 Million in 1942). What was the price of a Gato/Balao class sub in WWII? Of course the new subs are 'somewhat' more sophisticated than they were in WWII.

God Bless Electric Boat

PacificWolf · 02-14-12, 10:44 AM

Wow that was an amazing split-in-half explosion, i'd like to see how the battleship or aircraft carrier "reacts" to this beauty.

Sailor Steve · 02-14-12, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacificWolf

Wow that was an amazing split-in-half explosion, i'd like to see how the battleship or aircraft carrier "reacts" to this beauty.

Not as well. They have much thicker, stronger keels and are much harder to break. A destroyer is a lightweight by any standard.

PacificWolf · 02-14-12, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not as well. They have much thicker, stronger keels and are much harder to break. A destroyer is a lightweight by any standard.

Yes youre right, but i wonder how many of them needs to hit a battleship to sunk.
And another question, was there a battleship that was split in two in any war? Im just curious.

02-13-12, 01:52 PM	#1
Roger Dodger Sonar Guy Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 384 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	Mk-48 Torpedo Results I thought some of you would like to see how our torpedoes have improved since WWII. Too bad the Mk-14's magnetic exploders didn't work this well. Use the links to view the video. http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4 You have never seen footage where a single torpedo does damage like this. It's a US made (non-nuclear) torpedo that is in use today by our submarines. Very precise, very accurate and very powerful. This is the Australian Submarine Navy doing a live torpedo practice shot on one of their decommissioned ships. They used a MK 48 torpedo developed in the USA . It is not a contact weapon. It is designed to go off directly underneath the ship at about 50 feet under the keel. The effect is devastating as you can see from the video. This lethal weapon can break the back of ships much larger than the one shown in this video. They don't even have a chance of survival. http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/b...ustraliano.mp4 Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints." __________________ Last edited by Roger Dodger; 02-13-12 at 02:12 PM.

02-13-12, 01:55 PM	#2
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	That video is several years old now, and it's been put up here a dozen times or more. I'm sure there are some newbies who will appreciate it, though. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

02-13-12, 07:31 PM	#3
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	[/QUOTE]Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE] They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers. That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars. People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech . inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm Last edited by Stealhead; 02-13-12 at 08:00 PM.

02-14-12, 12:35 AM	#5
Roger Dodger Sonar Guy Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 384 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	Wikipedia article on this torpedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo . Lots of interesting specs including the $3.8 MILLION cost per EACH. NOTE: the Mk-14 cost around $10,000 each, and were thought to be too expensive for 'live' testing. "Don't worry, they work fine in the blueprints."[/QUOTE] They did test the Mk.14 but with the magnetic detonator they did not test a live round and it was off the east coast the reason they did so little testing was because they wanted to keep it secret (this was in the late 30s) the problem with the mk.14 was that it went through a very limited and unrealistic testing program.Once they ran tests in Fremantle and Hawaii the submariners solved the mk.14s problems without the help of engineers. That is $10,000 in 1941 dollars it would be much closer to the cost of the current Mk.48 do not forget that in 1940 the Mk.14 was cutting edge.Its cost in modern dollars would be about the same as the Mk.48. A Mk.14 torpedo would cost about $155,446.10 in 2011 dollars.A mk.48 would cost about $257,323.92 in 1941 dollars. People would be shocked if they knew how much weapons cost one JADM costs $35,000-70,000 depending on the bomb size one B-2 bomber costs 2 billion dollars can you believe that for just one plane a US Navy carrier you could almost argue is priceless if you counted the value of the its crew and aircraft warfare is very expensive and that is just in monetary terms not mention in the lives makes you think about Eisenhower's famous speech . inflation calculator actually very interesting: http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm[/QUOTE] Interesting calculator! A dollar today = 7 CENTS in 1942. A USS Virginia class sub today runs around $2 Billion ($14 Million in 1942). What was the price of a Gato/Balao class sub in WWII? Of course the new subs are 'somewhat' more sophisticated than they were in WWII. God Bless Electric Boat __________________

02-14-12, 10:44 AM	#6
PacificWolf Ensign Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Gdańsk, Poland. Posts: 233 Downloads: 237 Uploads: 3	Wow that was an amazing split-in-half explosion, i'd like to see how the battleship or aircraft carrier "reacts" to this beauty. __________________ "All ships can dive, only submarines can surface"

02-13-12, 10:06 PM	#4
kstanb Sparky Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 153 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 0	Yes, at $3.8M it is expensive, but it is a +90% sure kill; Mark 14s were expected to be launch in salvos and a 10% success rate more than acceptable according to : http://www.hnsa.org/doc/subsinpacific.htm#pg9 *"Number of Torpedoes Fired by U.S. Submarines* Total number fired = 14,748 Average number fired per attack = 3.586 Average number fired per ship sunk = 14,748 /1,392 = 10.59. (8 in 1942; 11.7 in 1943; 10 in 1944) " Something interesting I recently read: at the Java Sea battle, the Japanese launched 92 torpedos in one salvo and achieved 1 hit ! ... and that was in some ways successful since in the end they won the battle with fewer losses than if those torpedoes would not had been fired