If air is present, yes. However, the tube is equalized to prevent this from happening. Realize, It is not air that pushes the weapon out of the tube, but a big plug of water from a "Water Ram". It still makes noise but not as much as you'd think. If you are close enough, sonar can still pick it up. Electrical torpedo's, being of a smaller diameter, can actually swim out under their own power and are not ejected.
Questions about Submarine abilities
- Thread starter Spetsznaz
- Start date
OK, I was thinking that while the torpedo moves through the water, it generates noise. Something like propelling a torpedo at 40kn through the water should make noise?
There was this article years back on futuristic submarines utilizing supercavitation technology to achieve aircraft-like speeds. It would be the end of the Silent Service as subs would no longer be stealthy at those speeds though there's no reason why they wouldn't be at slower speeds. It sounds like science fiction but given lots of time and even lots more money it could very well come true.
Supercavitation has been done to death in here and systematically pulled apart
The US was testing supercavitation torpedo concepts decades before the soviets/russians and abandoned it for good reason.
it was a dumb arse idea in the 60's. it is a dumb arse idea in the 21st century - esp when the tech solutuion has not chaged
True, but just reading about a 300 knot torpedo (actually a mostly unguided underwater rocket, see "VA-111 Shkval") is impressive. Apparently Iran has some setup (See "Hoot") as some sort of ambush attack sea mine for ships within the gulf. As you say though, being an mostly unguided weapon in a 3D combat zone severely limits in usefulness in antisubmarine combat, unless fitted with its original nuclear warhead. Close really does count in Horseshoes and Nuclear Bombs.
For the sake of this thread though, firing a supercavitating (gas encapsulated) weapon would be heard pretty much by everyone within a hundred or more miles. I doubt even the explosion of impact would be much quieter than the dang launch would be.
It occurs to me that if something were to disrupt the gas bubble around a submarine utilizing supercavitation technology, like a torpedo detonating close by, that the sensation for the occupants would be similar to ramming a bridge abutment.
Any one got any idea if that would work?
The Shkval/Skval is specifically what we pulled apart (across numerous forums) when it was trotted out as some uber weapon
its not, its limitations are legion. it looks impressive until you inject real world tactical and technical constraints.
I don't underestimate the technical challenges that need to be overcome but everything starts with a vision. IMO a submarine fleet based on supercavitation tech may likely be the future of underwater combat.. granted that future is something I'm not likely to see in my lifetime.
It occurs to me that if something were to disrupt the gas bubble around a submarine utilizing supercavitation technology, like a torpedo detonating close by, that the sensation for the occupants would be similar to ramming a bridge abutment.
Any one got any idea if that would work?
I could see this as a means of faster underwater propulsion but how the heck do you keep a boat, surrounded by trillions and trillions of gas bubbles, quiet while a rocket motor blasts the water to steam behind it?
You can't.. that's the reason the term "Silent Service" will no longer be applicable.. you'll be trading stealth for very high speed/performance. I can't see why it couldn't remain stealthy at lower speeds though, similar to what subs achieve today.
stormrider
New Member
Absolutly true. Submarines taking any offensive action are at risk of detection.It's the admiral decision to weight his strategy and loose such an intelligence asset for the sake of a sunken ship. Its better be worth it. The best example of this was General Belgrano sinking, which resulted in immediate abortion of all Argentinian Navy activities during the conflict.
stormrider
New Member
IMHO the Silent Service (Stealth) wont fade because of supercavitation and new performance capabilities. Just like airplanes, it doesnt matter how high and how fast you fly, there is always a weapon to counter this. Stealth on the other hand is not so straightforward. Instead I believe supercavitation to be real, but to be used properly. Right actions in the right time! Efficacy against Efficiency.
stormrider
New Member
It was meant to be atomic. Shkval is unguided and despite being damned fast, its not accurate enough to guarantee a kill. Its actually a last attempt of self defense.
To explain this better, one needs to look back in time. During the Cuban Missiles Crisis, Soviet Foxtrots SSKs were deployed with nuclear torpedoes to be used in the case of certain defeat and possible capture. Its was kamikazi attack due to its huge kill zone. If that sounds ugly and typical of the iron curtain, the USS Seawolf, responsible for recovering "tapes" containing recordings of soviet communication via underwater cables, also carried mean of self destruction and sacrifice, by rigging HE in selected sections of its hull, in order to avoid capture of its crew and sensitive equipment; A lesson learned from the USS Pueblo episode.
You are confusing the mission sets of subs like Parche with Seawolf.
It was Parches job to breach and gather - not Seawolf, although any sub does ISR, some are fitted out better than others for it.
general note to all.
please do a search on here about the benefits of cavitation etc before reinventing the wheel.
there's some fact and personal fiction plus a good dose of urban myth getting mixed with opinion and they need to be separated from each other lest people assume that those opinion assume that they're fact and repeatable (and perpetuate the urban myth elements)
Last edited:
971
New Member
@gf0012-aust
Well it seems that you got your info mixed up.
USS Seawolf (SSN-575) did that job long before USS Parche (which just took over).
Seawolf was mainly responsible for the Sea of Okhotsk cable tapping missions while Parche did it mostly in the Barents IIRC.
This is an instant “out of memory”. I’ll have to check it though but I’m pretty sure that was the case.
Well it seems that you got your info mixed up.
USS Seawolf (SSN-575) did that job long before USS Parche (which just took over).
Seawolf was mainly responsible for the Sea of Okhotsk cable tapping missions while Parche did it mostly in the Barents IIRC.
This is an instant “out of memory”. I’ll have to check it though but I’m pretty sure that was the case.
I think you need to check your history. Serawolf only did partial missions and was never design capable enough to undertake the same kind of missions that Parche did (ie brown/green water)@gf0012-aust
Well it seems that you got your info mixed up.
USS Seawolf (SSN-575) did that job long before USS Parche (which just took over).
Seawolf was mainly responsible for the Sea of Okhotsk cable tapping missions while Parche did it mostly in the Barents IIRC.
This is an instant “out of memory”. I’ll have to check it though but I’m pretty sure that was the case.
Parche was retired years ago. Her job has been taken up by another vessel.
Her Presidential commendations were only publicly announced (without references) upon her decommissioning.
Parche was specifically cut and modified for her missions, Seawolf was not.. ie Parche was a deliberately modified and tasked ISR asset.
She is the most decorated vessel in USN history and the majority of her missions are still classified.
If you look at the design of both boats you can see straight away that one was designed specifically for the job and has a more capable hull design.
No disrespect to Seawolf (575) but she's got nowhere near the history and.or honors
Look at my specific statements about Seawolf, it is deliberately stated around the mission set, I believe that you're looking at the overall DEVRON 5 tasking rather than the individual records and capabilities of the respective subs
971
New Member
Well you can view it any way you want it.
My post was in direct answer to your reply to what stormrider wrote and to that ONLY. And what he wrote is true. Seawolf did the cable tapping and recordings withdrawal before Parche embarked on similar missions in the Barents.
You said that he confused the mission sets of the subs. He didn’t. He was talking about Seawolf and what she did. That is correct.
Now I don’t really care which sub was more suited for that kind of job or more purposely modified for that kind of missions. Or whether Seawolf did it only partially or whether she was less designed capable to undertake the kind of missions Parche undertook. Or the Presidential commendations each received. That’s beside the point stormrider tried to make.
So no history needs to be checked.
My post was in direct answer to your reply to what stormrider wrote and to that ONLY. And what he wrote is true. Seawolf did the cable tapping and recordings withdrawal before Parche embarked on similar missions in the Barents.
You said that he confused the mission sets of the subs. He didn’t. He was talking about Seawolf and what she did. That is correct.
Now I don’t really care which sub was more suited for that kind of job or more purposely modified for that kind of missions. Or whether Seawolf did it only partially or whether she was less designed capable to undertake the kind of missions Parche undertook. Or the Presidential commendations each received. That’s beside the point stormrider tried to make.
So no history needs to be checked.
I assume that you want to engage in debate without getting snippy?
If so, then Seawolf undertook cable tapping missions but not to the same degree of insertion inside soviet waters as Parche.
My comment revolved around the capability and for me was around how far inside the beltline she ran those missions.
Feel free to email me rather than get knitted up in here about semantics.
ie A mustang is a car, a GT40 is a car. all cars aren't equal.
at the end of the day they were both DEVRON 5 assets and both undertook similar missions. one was demonstrably better at it and did quite a bit more - none of that is meant or intended to diminish what Seawolf did - as the precursor to Parche.
News about IDAS
This bit is interesting. The propulsion, spooling and signature management were of course big challenges to overcome, but they seem to have achieved it. The IRST seeker must certainly be quite expensive due to very high performance asked due to it's heritage, so considering the nature of the targets a considerably cheaper one should also do. The best of both worlds might be of course a high-low seeker mix, but it is hard to say how high the true cost will be for that.
Didn't knew that the program was frozen, but given the tight budget and the current situation such a weapon system was surly a hard sell in Germany and in Italy as well.
A system like IDAS will always be a hard sell because of the inherent limitations.
- To use it forces the sub to stay close to the surface, increasing its vulnerability to detection.
- “The submarine can acquire ASW helicopter when submerged, by localizing the ripple effect created by the rotor downwash” sounds an awfully lot like it would require the use of active sonar, a dead giveaway if the helicopter has dropped any passive sonar buoys. Probably won’t work well in anything over sea state 1.
- Rocket propulsion underwater is noisy. Unless the helicopter is almost on top of you he probably has enough time to get a general location and drop his torpedo(s) before you can kill him.