Taming the Shkval (Rocket Torpedo)

[Deathblow]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Shkval useless
Iran weak
America strong

Cool thanks.
I do plan to read it eventually. Too exhuasted from too much work atm though.

[XabbaRus]

Also having read Joe Buff novels which even though set in the near future, they are guff.


Grrr...yep Shkval isn't the uber weapon that news sites write about. It is a useful weapon though...ask anyone who plays DW..it must be true.

[GunnersMate]

Now if we can only mod the game to have those super torpedos from the DiMercurio books.

[MadMike]

The Mk48 torpedo is not configured for a nuclear warhead.
The long retired Mk45 ASTOR (Anti-Submarine Torpedo) was deployed from 1963 to 1975. It carried the W-34 nuclear warhead.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.htm

Other interesting anti-submarine weapons included the Mk7 Betty, Mk105 Hotpoint, Mk34 Lulu depth bomb, B57 depth bomb (which I worked), ASROC, and the B-90 (cancelled by Congress).

Yours, Mike

[SmokinTep]

They don't go to sea with any nukes anymore, 688's, but the MK 48 can be outfitted for a nuke warhead. It would have to be done in port and loaded that way onboard.

[Abraham]

@ SmokinTep:
Excellent article. Mandatory read for all interested in modern sub warfare.


@ TLAM Strike:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Shkval useless
Iran weak
America strong

Excellent summary.
Mandatory for all who don't read the original article but still want to discuss modern sub warfare.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

while Joe's article makes for great reading and all, fortunately for Joe... he doesn't serve aboard the subs that will have to deal with the weapon...

he can can certainly afford to be so 'sure' about his assertions...

you can take this as bible, just like some people believe Tom Clancy to be the high priest of submarine warfare... but anyone with half an operating pshyce will realize that Clancy has never served on a sub at all... he's a novelist... a spinner of fanciful tales... stories written for public consumption...

me... i'd rather hear from someone who will be looking the skval right in the eye, so to speak... an article written by them would be a lil more closer to reality as far as i'm concerned...

i've read some of his works (buff)... his accreditations are impressive... i don't necessarily grant him the high standing that some seem to... anyone who downplays the obvious threat that a high speed weapon like that, when combined with today's super quiet, state of the art diesel subs, placed in a littoral ocean environment... well, he is making a grave error in judgement... similar to the same error that 'experts' who said that the Navy's F-4 Phantom shouldn't be deployed with guns because dogfighting was obsolete made decades ago...

the obvious consequences of failing to take the entire spectrum of available facts into account, is historically evident and proven...

--Mike

[MadMike]

"... but the MK 48 can be outfitted for a nuke warhead. It would have to be done in port and loaded that way onboard."

Uh huh, which one is it then? :hmm:

http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/.../Allbombs.html


Yours, Mike

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

... but I swear I've seen similar points brought up years back when the Shkval first became world knowledge, and IIRC that paper was much better. Oh well...

But modern U.S. submarine passive sonars are able to derive the range to any high-decibel sound source instantly, obviating the need to ever go active against an inbound torpedo. The implied analogy to radar-absorbent materials on cruise missiles fails underwater.)

I suppose he's talking WAA, but that only applies to a very few new subs.

pecial new active and passive sonars, advanced signal processing algorithms, and console display modes so sophisticated they’re classified

1) How does a "display mode" help you?
2) Classified conveniently means that you don't have to prove anything

and the task force would literally cast a wide net to localize, track, target, and sink any threats. In the earliest, “battlespace preparation� phase of some armed showdown, a lot of attention would be paid to accounting for and neutralizing all potential Shkval-launching platforms.

In other words - Stryker theory. A "wide net" is not very useful if it is also sparse. If nobody detects anything, the network is useless. If it is detected by any armed platform, the diesel's probably dead anyway before anyone else can intervene, so the network is also only marginally useful.

The point of the discussion, so far, is that speed of one weapon, viewed alone, doesn’t determine the outcome of either a sub-on-sub dogfight or a major naval engagement.

Either he intends this to deal with only Press-grade arguments, or this is a strawman.

The fact that the maximum range of a Shkval or derivative, before its rocket fuel runs out, is only four or five miles, should help put in proper perspective that supercavitating torpedoes are hardly as “hellacious� as they’ve been described. (By the way, their disadvantages hold equally well if carried on enemy nuclear subs as if carried on enemy diesels.)

Fortunately, out of that range we can always try SS-N-15 Starfish missiles with torps rather than nukes...

Perhaps one good proof of this is that active duty submariners I’ve met on subs or talked to at conferences aren’t exhibiting any panic over Shkvals.

What were they going to say? "Arrgh! Shkval! It's gonna kill us all! Mommy!" Even if the Shkval had blue-laser guidance and would home in unerringly, they can't say that and they can't let themselves think that - its bad for morale.

The way they describe it, the latest mod of the Improved Advanced Capability (ADCAP) Mark 48 sub-launched heavyweight torpedo remains by far their weapon of choice.

American submariners tend to assume that they will always detect first and fire first. If you hold those two assumptions as facts, then indeed you don't need something like the Shkval.

Furthermore, this is another strawman. The Shkval might be useful in some situations, but ask even a Russian whether he'd choose USET-80s or these and he'd choose the USETs. The Shkval is a secondary weapon, not intended to replace a primary one.

By holding open the range using the nuclear submarine’s maximum speed advantage over the diesel’s (say, 30+ knots sustained compared to 20ish in short bursts), the American vessel can “bombard� its opponent from outside the diesel’s ability to hit back with Shkvals.

Oh, cool. First you assume you will detect and finish your TMA of the submarine before you get inside 5 miles (recent experiences with Akulas suggest there is no guarantee of this) in confined waters. Then you'd just run, making lots of noise and eradicating your ability to hear the SSK. Nice tactics, Custer.

(One news source claimed that the U.S. Navy had failed to invest in good torpedos for years now, and that our best fish were so slow that enemy subs and ships could simply outrun them. I have never read a more incorrect statement in my entire 10-year career as a non-fiction submarine commentator.)

Well, you can blame the US Navy for this. Take their official stats, assume they are true, and make your own conclusions. Their current "official" stats are either such blatant lies they insult everyone's intelligence, or the US has indeed failed to invest in good torpedoes for decades.

But there is a difference in kind between a Shkval and a Mark 48.

Yes. The Mark 48 is an offensive weapon and the Shkval is a defensive one.

Speed was the design bureau’s sole object (because conventionally-powered USSR torpedoes in the late 1960s were slow).

Help me. I'm rolling on the floor laughing. Homing torpedoes of that era were all pretty slow. If anything, the American submarine torpedo was the MK37 - 26 knots. Russians use the 53-65 for surface attack (45 knots) and the SET-65 for ASW (40 knots). This was considered quite adequate until subs busted 30 knots (and the Alfa didn't help).

American submariners tell me that all they need to do when faced with an incoming high-explosive Shkval is make a slight change in depth (or a fast change in heading and speed), and the Shkval will go right by, its impact or laser-proximity fuse left with no reason to explode within dangerous range. It’s very beneficial to be able to move in three dimensions, even or especially in the littorals!

Maybe, but could you make it fast enough? Why would it use laser (laser fuzing underwater?) rather than magnetic fuzing anyway? What if it fires a spread or two or four at your direction, or maybe there isn't enough depth to really do a depth excursion.

This seeming enhancement to the Shkval introduces a substantial Achilles’ heel: When moving slowly, and relying on conventional sensors to home on its target, the Shkval becomes vulnerable to all the standard evasive tactics and countermeasures with which American submariners are exceedingly well versed.

There's the small problem that such a Shkval would probably start search only 1000m away because of the tiny uncertainty zone, and while you are still at slow speed, rather than flank.

As for anti-torpedo darts and shockwave creators, well they aren't in service yet. That's like saying that in the future, there will be a Shkval with blue-laser guidance, forming Mercurios Vortex D missiles...

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

very intersting points K...

--Mike