# Very High Speed Torpedoes



## syscom3 (Apr 3, 2006)

Iran has announced they have "perfected" torpedoes that travel extremely fast (200 mph plus?).

I looked at some web sites to see if this is possible. It looks like it is, as it works on a "supercavitation" principal.

Read for yourself. Think its actually a threat that cant be defended against?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/220813.shtml

http://suppressednews.com/newsitems/world/AlAyEVAEukbkaGgay.html

http://warfare.ru/?catid=267&linkid=1728 (and scoll down the page to BA-111 Shkval underwater rocket)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

Supposedly those Shkval torpedoes have been around for years. You'd just hope to god that you had enough distance between you and it to take some kind of deffensive measure.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 3, 2006)

... Or may be it is only an Urban Legend to scare submariners so they are more effecient.



No honestly, it's scary...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 3, 2006)

Maestro said:


> No honestly, it's scary...


To say the least. Russian weapons have never been known for their accuracy, but then they didn't always have to be accurate. What they lack in guidance, they make up for in yield. If that thing goes off within a mile...well you probably get the picture. Assuming it's nuclear of course, which it well could be. A Shkval will get to you mighty fast too.


----------



## R988 (Apr 4, 2006)

According to wikipedia: 
In 2004 the German weapons manufacturer DIEHL BGT Defence announced their own supercavitating torpedo called the Barracuda.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 4, 2006)

I wonder what a defence would be against these. 

It would make a tremendous noise while underway, and the ships defenses would easily "hear" it.

Would a large conventional underwater detonation in its path create a shockwave that would wreck the cavitation bubble and deflect it?


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 4, 2006)

Maybe.


----------



## marconi (Apr 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I wonder what a defence would be against these.
> 
> It would make a tremendous noise while underway, and the ships defenses would easily "hear" it.


That will probably the last thing they will hear.


syscom3 said:


> Would a large conventional underwater detonation in its path create a shockwave that would wreck the cavitation bubble and deflect it?


I doubt it would help.I think its easier just to destroy the torpedf course, if you will have enough time.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 5, 2006)

Marconi, I couldn't agree better.


----------



## Smokey (Apr 5, 2006)

I heard that some versions apparently don't have a warhead and just use kinetic energy

Apparently supercaviating bullets were also developed for an underwater assault rifle

Allegedly design began in the 1960s - could make a good Bond film



> On April 5, 2000, an American businessman, Edmond Pope, and a Russian colleague were arrested by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) in Moscow. The men were charged with stealing scientific secrets -- specifically information on the Shkval torpedo. Pope, a retired U.S. Navy captain who spent the majority of his career working in naval intelligence, was then the head of a private security firm. Two weeks after the arrest, the FSB claimed that Pope was seeking plans for the high-speed underwater missile. The retired navy officer was detained during informal contact with one of the Russian scientists who helped to create the torpedo.
> 
> Pope spent eight months in the Russian Lefortovo prison awaiting trial. He was convicted of espionage and sentenced to 20 years. On Dec. 14, 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin pardoned Pope on humanitarian grounds; the American has been suffering from bone cancer.
> 
> Pope was in Russia as a businessman to purchase Russian technology when he apparently fell prey to a Canadian intelligence operation intent on purchasing the Shkval torpedoes, according to U.S. intelligence sources.





> Design began in the 1960s when the NII-24 research institute was ordered to produce a new weapon system capable of combating nuclear submarines. In 1969, the GSKB-47 would merge with NII-24 to create the Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics (constructor Merkulov); the Shkval would be a product of this merger.
> 
> Deployed in the early 1990s but in fact operational before this, the Shkval is designed as a countermeasure against torpedoes launched by undetected enemy submarines. It may also be used as a counter to incoming torpedoes whereby it is launched at the enemy submarine, forcing it to evade, and hopefully cutting the guidance wire to its torpedo in the process.



From

http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html

http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 5, 2006)

Smokey said:


> Apparently supercaviating bullets were also developed for an underwater assault rifle


Quite possible. Underwater rifles already exist.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as69-e.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 5, 2006)

If the torpedo is traveling at 200 mph, then its traveling at about 3 miles per minute. If the sub is close, then the targeted ship has a very short time period to react. If its at its outer ranges, smaller ships would have time to react and get out of its way. Larger ships like the carriers might have a chance, depending on its response to the helm.

While this torpedo sounds quite deadly, remember that its speed isnt blindingly fast. An anti-torpedo torpedo is quite possible as a defense. A combined closing rate of 250 knots is not fast as compared with missles which have supersonic closing rates.


----------



## marconi (Apr 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> An anti-torpedo torpedo is quite possible as a defense.


Are there any such anti-torpedos now?If I am not mistaken Russian Fleet have some kind of missiles that can be fired in the direction of incoming torpedo.But are there any anti-torpedo torpedos?


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 5, 2006)

The Iranians may have a fancy new trick up their sleeve, but the US has quite a few...


----------



## R988 (Apr 6, 2006)

Iranians are all talk as usual, their tech is just old rehashed stuff from the soviets or US, like their new aircraft, one of which is a mildly rehashed version of an F-5 with F/A-18 style tail, the other is a development of a Russian training aircraft.

Even the Germans have developed supercav torps but theirs is guided and faster by the sound of it, supposedly can even intercept the shkval. I'd say the Ruskies and Yanks are probably much further beyond that tech to let the Iranians get hold of it. 



> http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1
> Barracuda
> 
> Barracuda is a technology demonstration program for a supercavitating underwater missile for defence against torpedoes and for engagement of submarines. It is equipped with a rocket motor, inertial reference unit/autopilot and a mobile, conus-shaped tip. The rocket motor provides Barracuda with an underwater speed of 360km/hr, the inertial reference unit/autopilot stabilizes the missile and the flexible nose cone provides steering. During underwater travel, Barracuda moves in an air bubble, the so-called cavitation bubble which greatly reduces the water resistance, thus enabling the high speed. Some test models of the underwater missile have been built, successfully demonstrating stable straight and curved path accuracy in several tests. Barracuda will be deployed from submarines and from surface vessels.



some stuff in german I can't understand
http://www.morgenwelt.de/609.html

US must have something like it, they are certainly working on the tech, here is a link to one that could be used as a high speed transport for seal teams.
http://www.darpa.mil/ATO/solicit/underwaterexpress/index.htm

some interesting comments on defensetech
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002291_comments.html


> a) The US Navy bought some shkval's from Yeltsin's govt in the 1990's.
> b) There is no guidance: straight line only. They were designed for a Russian sub to perform a suicide attack on a US aircraft carrier by sneaking in close enough for the missle to be effective (but too close for the sub to escape support ships).
> c) I would imagine (since these are so noisy) that even a conventional topedo lauched from the targeted vessel could find and kill the shkval, since it's moving towards the conventional torpedo.
> d) The Russians conned the Iranians into paying hard cash for an almost useless weapon system.



http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001688_comments.html


> The American Supercav and the Russian VA-111 Shkval are both high-speed supercavitating torpedoes, 250 mph class (more recently, there are also the English MK70 SpearFish TL8 and the German Barracuda). They don't use blade propellers to move, but powerful powder rocket motors. A fewer part of the generated hot gas is also projected in a front outlet on their nozzle, and the water in contact is vaporized, surronding the entire body, creating very low drag, thus high speed capabilities.
> Russia has sold about 40 Shkval-E to China in the 90's.
> http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml
> 
> ...





> The Russian's torpedos that the US Navy was copying were capable of going 230 mph underwater. Scientific American did a story 4-5 years ago. The link is to an article on the subject. There was also work being done on supercavitating ammo for macine gun defence of ships, i.e. projectiles that don't slow down immediately under water.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 6, 2006)

According to the german article, Barracuda made 432 kts. at trials. It seems to be designed as answer (?) to the shkval with full homing capability to intercept the noisy shkval. It also is said that Barracuda can be fired from all 533 mm tubes and dropped from aircrafts or even helicopters if the need arises. Development suffers from recent gouvernmental fund cutting.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 6, 2006)

R988, thanks for that information.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 6, 2006)

Say what you want to about the Shkval, I sure as hell wouldn't like to be in the water with one.

Yeah, great info though R988.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 7, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> Say what you want to about the Shkval, I sure as hell wouldn't like to be in the water with one.



Especially in a submarine... In a standard ship, you can at least hope to get out of a torpedo hit alive. But in a sub... You have three choices :

1 - Die instantaneously in an implosion.
2 - The sub slowly let water in and you drown.
3 - Same situation as #2 but you manage to make it to a "secured" area of the ship and you wait for help until you die asphyxiated.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 8, 2006)

or if ur lucky, the ub breaks in half and you omehow escape... but then get drowned by something


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2006)

> but then get drowned by something


Like what??? Some big fatass diesel dyke crew-cutted bitch with a bad case of roids and a goiter the size of Mount Rushmore pouring Chocolate Pudding down ur throat???

Last time I checked, looma, u usually "get drowned" by filling ones lungs full of water....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 9, 2006)

what if u get knocked out by some huge chunk of metal? one's lungs will fill with water wouldn't it?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2006)

If the submarine breaks in half looma, there's no way in hell anyone's getting out alive.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2006)

After rereading some articles on my desk, the shkval or any supercav torpedo can´t be considered as a weapon of choice. Underwater-anything needs to be silent and stealthy, hence the opposite of how the shkval performs. With tactical redundance in mind, this weapon doesn´t present a thread except for pre emptive strikes or vengance ones. Questionable is, what development potential will allow further advances in this tech to become more stealthy.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

Ive ehard that fast wake following torpedo's are very hard to detedt because they are hiding inside the turbulant and noisey waters churned up by the propellor


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2006)

I can tell You that the opposite is the case. The nose of the torpedo always is in contact with surrounding water and surrounding pressure effcts may measure up to (d/w) db at trials. (I may give the hint that the soviet Papa class measured 97 db at 40 kts during trials).The speed of Sound underwater is very high, so there is at least a very good chance to detect it in time as long as the supercav is not naturally transsonic (measured against water). The torpedo itself is (for our times) strictly subsonic, both measured against air and against water, so the rocket propulsion noises also reach the water approx. 17-35 ft. behind the exhausts and can be detected as well.
Future research will need to concentrate for a optimal wave frequency at a special set speed. If the waves can delete each other out (theoretically possible but technically uninvestigated), there is at least a possibility to hide the exhaust noises. I read that the nose noises are matter of investigation, also.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

These torpedo's can be considered one shot weapons, as whomever shoots it off will be met with a variety of return fire.

But, if you consider the cruel math of it, at least to the islamo-fascists, trading a small submarine for a torpedo hit on an aircraft carrier (fleet or amphib, dont matter), then they consider it a fair trade.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2006)

A somehow worrisome thought. But You are absolutely right, Syscom. 
Problem is that they need to close in for at least 5.000 yrds for a clean shot (max range is up to 7.800 yrds but 5.000 give more solutions at all) and I am confident that they do not field the submarine tech to do this stealthy except for waiting on the seabed. The US submarine noise detections are the best in the world, this may give them the edge, but the risk stays.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 13, 2006)

at 5000m you have about 45 secs to plan anything


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

45 seconds is plenty of time if you are ready for it.

It would almost take an automated setup though.


----------

