Any use for large torpedo tubes?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
westwords2020	Any use for large torpedo tubes?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 292 (21-May-2008 03:41:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Russian 533 mm torpedo tubes are over 8 meters in length compared to the NATO standard of 6.6 meters. Russia is unique in having large diameter tubes such as the 650mm tubes which are at least 11.3 meters. Seawolf has 764 mm/30 inch tubes for 30 inch weapons. During Virginia design requirements, four 30 inch tubes were considered and dropped. Russian 65-76 Kit can be launched from 650 mm like an underwater version of a cruise missile at ranges of 50nmi plus and homing on ship's wakes, very hard to counter by jamming/decoying and may need hard kill measures. What would you do with tubes 30 inches or 36 tubes? Besides heavy warheads and great ranges, what use are they? Could their be a place here for UUVs launch/recovery? Data taken from Naval Weapons current edition by Dr. Freidman whose info included the Russian TT-15 project for a 1500mm tube 24 meters long that was intended for November class SSN with three/four ton warhead which would have been nuclear? Could a Very Large Torpedo serve a purpose for a Navy like the PLAN of China or other near term competitor?
StewartG		#1	[-]
Posts: 504 (21-May-2008 21:09:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think the Soviet Great Big Torpedo Tube pre-dated their discovery of the Teller-Ulam configuration for multi-stage nuclear devices.
westwords2020		#2	[-]
Posts: 293 (21-May-2008 23:42:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I guess your right but could more reasonable sized large torpedo tubes provide some value? Norman Friedman said that a 30inch diameter torpedo would have twice the surface area in the nose for acoustic seekers presumably active and passive and better hydrodynamics leading me to believe the torpedo lenght would be the same as current USN torpedoes of 19 plus feet plus wire dispenser that stayed in the tube as well as in the torpedo proper.
seasick		#3	[-]
Posts: 4681 (22-May-2008 03:22:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Those large torpedo tubes are a nice idea but the USN is still satisfied with the Mk48 ADCAP. Those larger torpedoes also are more expensive.
westwords2020		#4	[-]
Posts: 294 (22-May-2008 13:43:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	According to Friedman, the 30inch torpedo tubes were not fitted with a 30 inch torpedo because the end of the Cold War brought about cutbacks. However, all three Seawolf subs were fitted each with Mk 69 30 inch tubes for future large diameter weapons. It may be that someday the tube calibre will be changed, perhaps on the successor to the current Virginia class or on a late model Virginia.
emc		#5	[-]
Posts: 3778 (22-May-2008 16:21:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	westwords2020 wrote: According to Friedman, the 30inch torpedo tubes were not fitted with a 30 inch torpedo because the end of the Cold War brought about cutbacks. However, all three Seawolf subs were fitted each with Mk 69 30 inch tubes for future large diameter weapons. It may be that someday the tube calibre will be changed, perhaps on the successor to the current Virginia class or on a late model Virginia. Digging into the dark and musty portions of the uncatalogued warehouse that is my memory, something about the large diameter tubes being, at least partly, to permit torpedoes to swim out, vs being ejected.
jua		#6	[-]
Posts: 108 (22-May-2008 17:37:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I read the 'swim out' idea in Tom Clansy's 'Submarine' but I've never found any other reference for it and consider it false. All Sea Wolf class SSNs have had their tubes jacketed down to 533mm AFAIK, so if 'swim out' was the goal it was a failed attempt. The only weapon I know of that would have used the 30" diameter tubes was Sea Lance. It was cancelled with the end of the cold war and quite honestly, detection ranges of modern subs are such that it would have been of little use anyway. Mk48 has ranges estimated out to ~40kilometers; this is more than far enough to kill whatever the SSN happens to detect. The only use for a larger tube would be for a large ASCM if you were hunting a CV or else for UUVs, though the USN specifically seems to be going down the route of making the UUVs fit the torpedo tube instead of the other way around. There really is no reason for a large number of tubes or for large tubes unless you are specifically using large warheads to hunt a CV, which is why only Russian boats generally have large tubes (650mm for Type 65) or large numbers of missile launch tubes (Oscar, Mike, etc). For sinking other surface ships and subs 533mm weapons are perfectly capable of reaching out beyond sonar detection ranges and delivering a warhead sizable enough to sink the target.
SubsRUs		#7	[-]
Posts: 24 (22-May-2008 21:31:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Swim out is a real concept, the purpose being to avoid the loud noise of impulsing a weapon from a torpedo tube. Alternatively, one can develop quieter ejection systems. According to Polmar and Moore's Cold War Submarines, SEAWOLF class submarines have 26.5-inch torpedo tubes. Some sort of "liner" is used when launching 21-inch weapons but such a device does not necessarily preclude swim out. According to several references, SEA LANCE was intended for 21-inch torpedo tubes. Re submarine detection ranges, why would a submarine-launched version of Sea Lance have been considered if long-range detection was not possible? Polmar and Moore state, "Sea Lance was intended for attacks out to the third Convergence Zone (CV), that is, approximately 90 to 100 n. miles (167 to 185 km)." Larger torpedo tubes enable the development of more effective torpedoes and UUVs -- if they are required (and affordable). However, more effective missiles would probably also require lengthening the torpedo tubes to keep missile proportions within reasonable bounds.
jua		#8	[-]
Posts: 111 (22-May-2008 22:40:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What if any SSNs use 'swim out'? When I asked why an impulse was even necessary once, someone said it had something to do with having the wire play out properly on launch. Regarding Sea Lance, I was under the impression that two and three convergence zone detections were more a thing of the past. Also a CV engagement would have to by definition take place in relatively deep water. So perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that for the 'litterol' ASW mission envisioned in future naval conflicts Sea Lance would most likely not be effective (targets would be detected inside the minimum range). Was not aware it was 21". There are a plethera of effective torps and anti-shipping missiles available for 21" although one could use larger tubes; I just fail to see the need for most navies. Again, the Russians seem to be unique in using both torps and ASCMs with diameters larger than 21" due to the fact their target set included very large, well protected ships. Fishing around on this subject recently I've found that PLAN has introduced the Yu-6 wish is a Mk48 analog with the additional feature of wake homing, so it seems the PRC is going to stick with 21" despite the fact they too tend to put emphasis on a potential conflict with the USN.
westwords2020		#9	[-]
Posts: 295 (23-May-2008 20:11:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Large diameter torpedoes enjoy a manuevering advantage and since the surface area of a 30 inch torp is double that of a standard torp, you have better seeker performance and a doubling of gain. The volume increase may allow half length torps to be used so that two can be carried in each rack or one very long range full length torpedo without sacrificing range as is in the current model. Beyond that, a submarine launched ASW standoff weapon would have a larger homing torpedo payload and greater standoff range and it's antiship capability would be improved. The torpedo could be dropped outside terminal defense range and attack a ship. The USN was concered that the Russians would give their eventual version of Subroc such a capablity, so Subroc had a nuclear air burst capability. The Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile might be slimed down to fit your tubes or a larger diameter tube of 36 inches might accomodate the SLIRBM which would be able to hit time critical targets with converntional precision warheads out to 1100nmi. However I would prefer a 30 inch version to ease constraints on the sub's interior. The eight tubes of Seawolf allow carriage of around 50 torpedoes and Tomahawks. Getting more weapons on a submarine of a given size would be advantagous. Current projects according to Friedman include a supercavitating torpedo that runs at Shivkal type speeds underwater and then climbs into the air to attack a ship from above. UUVs like the conceptual Manta which would be atached to four posiitons around the sub conformally. Each Manta with it's four torpedo tubes serves as either enhancing the mothership when docked with it's sensors and weapons. Detached, the Manta can perform a variety of missions constrained only by long range acoustic data link range and it's lithium batteries including cruise missile launching or torpedo launch against a submarine or surface ship.
jua	SLIRBM?	#10	[-]
Posts: 113 (23-May-2008 22:13:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Large diameter torpedoes enjoy a manuevering advantage A torpedo that is wider has a manuvering advantage? and since the surface area of a 30 inch torp is double that of a standard torp, you have better seeker performance and a doubling of gain. I'm not up on seekers, but I'll assume that's true. That said doubling of gain would be much increased range I suspect due to the inverse square law. The volume increase may allow half length torps to be used so that two can be carried in each rack or one very long range full length torpedo without sacrificing range as is in the current model. I don't think that shorter, fatter torpedoes are nearly as hydrodynamically as efficient but I will bow to those on the board that know. Beyond that, a submarine launched ASW standoff weapon would have a larger homing torpedo payload and greater standoff range and it's antiship capability would be improved. The torpedo could be dropped outside terminal defense range and attack a ship. The USN was concered that the Russians would give their eventual version of Subroc such a capablity, so Subroc had a nuclear air burst capability. If you have a source for that I'd like to see it. I dont' see how such a weapon would be any more advantageous than conventional ASCMs which handily fit into 21" tubes or could even be stored in non reloadable verticle tubes. Seems to be using a rocket to then deliver a torpedo to a surface target just gives you a weapon that is more complex than either a torp or ASCM while being vulnerable to the counter measures of both (SAMs, Nixie, manuvering/outrunning, etc). The Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile might be slimed down to fit your tubes or a larger diameter tube of 36 inches might accomodate the SLIRBM which would be able to hit time critical targets with converntional precision warheads out to 1100nmi. However I would prefer a 30 inch version to ease constraints on the sub's interior. I'm not aware of any SLIRBM to exist. And if it did/does, why would you launch it horizontally through a reloadable torp tube instead of having dedicated verticle tubes or even, increasingly, for ASCMs? The eight tubes of Seawolf allow carriage of around 50 torpedoes and Tomahawks. Getting more weapons on a submarine of a given size would be advantagous. Again never been near a Seawolf, but my understanding is the 50 weapons are a function of how big the torp room is and the automation used to move the ordnance, not a function of the tubes being larger (they are sleaved down as noted on another thread) or of having 8 tubes (this would allow four more fish in the tubes over a 688 were the torpedo room layout/handling identical I agree). Furthermore I question whether any post cold war sub really needs more than ~20 weapons outside of SSG/SSGNs that are saturating air defenses. In which case a battery of verticle tubes like the 688i or Amur seems more effective and simple. I'm not really sure where this fascination with larger launch tubes stems from. I don't see any need for larger tubes, and outside of SSG/SSGN I don't see a need for large numbers of tubes. Pretty much every navy in the world seems to think that this is unnecessary or at the least not cost effective.
westwords2020		#11	[-]
Posts: 296 (24-May-2008 02:26:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The interest in larger tubes comes from the performance of Russian 650mm tube launched weapons. The big wake homing Kit or Whale can reach out and attack a group of ships from a 50nmi launch range. Russian 533mm and 650mm tubes contain variants of the same ASW standoff weapon with the 533mm Starfish ranging out to 35 kilometers with a 400mm torpedo and the 650mm Stallion ranging to 100 kilometers with a short 533mm torpedo. A curiousity of Russian conventional ASW weapons is their ability to attack surface ships, providing they can penetrate the area defenses and release their torpedoes before entering the CIWS systems effective range. I think that it was intended to add to Seawolf vertical tubes in the bow but it fell through, perhaps because of a displacement limit of 9500? tons submerged. The larger weapons used by Russia simply have more range and bigger warheads but their latest designs are returning to the 533mm caliber while large ASCM/LACMs are better vertically launched like Yakhont which at 680mm diameter is too large for any tube in service. As to the numbers of 650mm weapons carried, it was apparently small, about twelve torpedoes/missiles. Russian sub classes exist that carry forty weapons but the addition of vertical launchers is a recent developement. As for SLIRBM, it is an active USN developement program for a two stage or three stage missile that can launch from SSGNs but a smaller missile might fit torpedo tubes ala Tomahawk or the existing vertical tubes in the Los Angelos class. My info comes from the book, Naval Weapons of the World, 5th edition, 2006 from USNI press and boy, does it make a dent in my budget but was worthwhile along with Combat Fleets, USNI, 2007 that lists aircraft, weapons and ships for every navy no matter how small or large.
SubsRUs		#12	[-]
Posts: 25 (25-May-2008 01:29:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Re half-length weapons, it appears to be a difficult problem for 21-inch diameter weapons constrained by the USN's standard weapon stowage rack length. Increasing the diameter would very likely cause it to have unacceptable hydrodynamic performance. Large diameter weapons and torpedo tubes have a severe impact on the host submarine design -- they will be larger and more expensive. According to several Websites, a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo weighs 3,695 pounds. 26.5 and 30-inch weapons of the same length would weigh about 5900 and 7500 pounds respectively. So, consider the weapon shipping, stowage, and handling structure and operating mechanisms required to move these "beasts" around and, also, hold them in place while the ship is maneuvering or being attacked. Vertical launch tubes might have been considered for Seawolf during early stage design but it is typical to study many design alternatives during this process. As a primarily ASW submarine, it is doubtful that VLS tubes were ever "intended." BTW, Seawolf's displacement constraint was 9,150 tons.
westwords2020		#13	[-]
Posts: 297 (26-May-2008 01:45:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You are right about the sizing of torpedoes greatly impacting submarine costs. The Russians, however are used to longer than USN/NATO standard tube lengths and Naval Weapons listed 6.6 meters for them. By contrast, Russian subs have 7.9meter and even 8.266 meter weapons which create problems in bigger and heavier torpedoes/missiles and their handling systems. Oscar II boats have the 650mm tubes but only a few weapons for their size. about 22 total of ASW missiles and 65-76 Kit 'underwater cruise missiles' plus the SS-N 19 supersonic ASCMs of which twenty-four were carried. Now a listed submarine weapon for a 650mm tube was 11.3 meters long and weight was 11,000 lbs for a range of 50nmi, wake homing, shipping targets and 765 kilogram warhead. For some reason, the Russians were willing to accept the cost and weight impacts of such heavy weapons and associated handling gear. Friedman claimed a 30 inch torpedo was better hydrodynamically, presumably because it had a better beam to length ratio. Mk 37 torpedoes were designed with the weapon stowage rack sizes in mind but were still half regular length or a little more but the original Mk 37s failed not because of hydrodynamics but due to being too slow and too short ranged for their intended ASW role. Today, by removing a fuel tank, a half length variant of the Mk 48 was built and tested and very satisfactory blewup and old ship as warhead remained unafffected by the shorter length. The Sierra Class I subs had a mix of four 650mm and four 533mm which may have been a compromise on weight/size considerations but the followon Siera II subs had eight 533mm tubes due to the increased size of their chin sonar arrays and six or eight external bow tubes loaded with either weapons or decoys which are 533mm calibre and 3.9 meters in length. Thankyou for your input for I'm here to learn as well as post my own ideas, lacking as they may be.
SubsRUs		#14	[-]
Posts: 26 (27-May-2008 02:48:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	From www.geocities.com/Pentagon/1592/ustorp5.htm: The Mk.37 Mod.0 was 19" in diameter by 135" long; weighed 1430 lb; used two speed, 26 knots (10,000 yards) and 17 knots (23,000 yards), electric propulsion; and carried a 330 lb warhead. I believe that the Sturgeon Class' torpedo stowage racks could each accommodate two Mk-37s or one "long" weapon. The shorter racks in later classes accommodate long weapons but not two of Mk-37 length. A 30" diameter long torpedo has a satisfactory length to diameter (L/D) ratio. A half-length weapon with the same diameter would probably have unsatisfactory hydrodynamic properties. In any case, to answer your basic question, "Any use for large torpedo tubes?", the answer was "Yes." Both the US and Soviet/Russian navies built submarines with larger than 21" diameter torpedo tubes so they must have seen an advantage in doing so. However, there is a second question, "Are they worth the cost?" where "cost" relates to ship size and complexity as well as dollars and rubles. In the late 1980s, it seems that the answer was "Yes" to this also. Right now, though, the answer appears to be "No" because both the US and Russian navies have reverted to 21" diameter torpedo tubes for their latest SSNs. For the USN, which never had any large diameter weapons, this just means that they are unlikely to develop any in the near to intermediate future. For the Russians, however, it means that they have decided to give up using weapons that they have already developed -- a very interesting decision if it is, in fact, true that the Severodvinsk will carry only 533 mm tubes (according to Polmar and Moore's Cold War Submarines). Last Edited By: SubsRUs 27-May-2008 03:31:16. Edited 1 times.
westwords2020		#15	[-]
Posts: 298 (27-May-2008 12:46:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thankyou for the data. The Mk37 was also used from a pair of fantail tubes, as an ASW weapon from destroyers and frigates (cruisers now under current classification system) but were found inadequate. There was a program to arm these ships with a surface launched Mk 48 which would have had plenty of range/speed for ASW and perhaps ASUW but it died and 21 inch tubes died as well. It should be noted that Russian tubes are longer at 533mm than ours or NATO with the ability to accomodate weapons of up to 8.25 meters if not longer with consequences on range and possibly warhead size.
westwords2020		#16	[-]
Posts: 299 ( 2-Jun-2008 19:31:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The weapons used by submarines will in the future consist of both single and dual purpose torpedoes, ASW standoff weapons as used by Russia, antiship and land attack cruise missiles, some of which will be supersonic and eventually hypersonic at least in the terminal phase. Is a coordinated long range torpedo/short range missile salvo practical? I don't know but if it was, the defenders should have some difficulties if say the torpedoes were detected at the same time as the missiles. It looks like 533mm will remain the standard calibre for sometime to come but the weapons carried in these tubes will be more deadly and perhaps longer ranged depending on the types of fuel used which might include the SCEPS of the Mk 50. Countering maritime patrol aircraft and ASW helos and someday tiltrotors is a probem being addressed by manufactures in the form of torpedo tube launched AA missiles such as Mica from Franch and Triton being developed by Israeli navy. Counntering torpedoes for subs and surface ships successfully would be a great improvement over current practice of decoys/jammers/chaff with hard kill antitorpedo weapons some of which are already being marketed and under developement by the USN. Shivkal rocket torpedoes with supercativating weapons may well come to pass with slow search speeds and high attack speeds of maybye 300 knots or more. A major developement would be armed UUVs like the Manta proposal, recoverable surveillance UUVs from torpedo tubes or mounted conformally around the hull as in the Manta which carries for launch tubes for torpedoes or cruise missiles. An adequate power source is need and perhaps sodium sulfur batteries that have 150w/hrs/kilogram power density and 117 kw/hrs per metric ton vice 20 kw/metric ton for lead acid types. It might serve in subs such as the new Class 212A boats from Germany which also feature fuel cells for eight knot patrol speed on a displacement of around 1400 tons or more. Perhaps we will see closed cycle diesel, gas turbine or steam turbine appear to give SSIs the sprint speeds of nuclear boats for short periods. The TR 1700 can obtain 25 knots for 20 nmi in bursts using a 500 ton lead acid battery. How would lithium ion or sodium sulfur batteries do here? With nearly six times the energy density and a compact form factor those bursts could last almost six hours which was what Walter U boats would have achieved in WW2 or speed might increase to a short sprint of 30 knots but in the end, the boat would still slow because of battery limitations. Time will tell what happens in the realm of non nuclear AIP/missile firing submarines.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Any use for large torpedo tubes?

Any use for large torpedo tubes?

Quick Reply