Torpedo thread

[Deadmanwalking]

The rate at which a ship sinks is not related to the size of the warhead of the torpedo. In most cases it is where it hits that is more important. For example a small torp penetrating the hull and exploding within the magazine inside the ship will cause more damage than a heavy hitting the bow. Most torpedoes today have a delayed fuse for the same reason. Also ships are designed with bulkheads below the waterline and more importantly the vulnerable parts of the ship (magazine, fuel, etc) are placed above the waterline.
This also answers another question why the ships are more geared towards stopping a sea skimmer than a torp.
Another reason for being more protected against a sea skimmer is as below
Most ships (even corvettes nowadays) carry a small ASW helo. generally ships move in pairs and so there will be atleast one helo monitoring the area around the ship to detect and destroy subs. A torp has a range of 30-35 Nm (45 miles). This range is head on and not tail chase. This makes the platform firing the torpedo very vulnerable to attack by the ships own sonar system or the ASW helo.
On the other hand AShM's (Anti-ship missiles) have ranges in excess of 100 miles and can be fired by aircraft well before the aircraft itself comes within the kill envelope of the ship. Also sea skimmers are more difficult to detect at longer ranges as they fly in the blind spot of the ship board radar.

 

[Systems Adict]

...Ships are designed with bulkheads below the waterline and more importantly the vulnerable parts of the ship (magazine, fuel, etc) are placed above the waterline.

Are you sure ??

Many ships still have their main magazine BELOW the waterline, to help keep the munitions cool, or so if there is a hit from the likes of a torpedo, that an explosion is dealt with by the in-rush of water, to prevent any fire spreading.

It's similar with fuel tanks, as they're also used to help keep the ship balanced, using the fuel as ballast.

...On the other hand AShM's (Anti-ship missiles) have ranges in excess of 100 miles and can be fired by aircraft well before the aircraft itself comes within the kill envelope of the ship. Also sea skimmers are more difficult to detect at longer ranges as they fly in the blind spot of the ship board radar.

Most modern warships have radars which can detect aircraft out to ranges beyond 180 miles (300 Km).

That aside, when you discuss "blind spots", are you talking about the incoming missile actively seeking out the gaps in the radar lobe pattern (which are more obvious at greater ranges from the ship), or are you talking about "wooded arcs" (a partial blind spot cause by ships super structure getting in the way of the radar transmission)?


SA

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Most modern warships have radars which can detect aircraft out to ranges beyond 180 miles (300 Km).

That aside, when you discuss "blind spots", are you talking about the incoming missile actively seeking out the gaps in the radar lobe pattern (which are more obvious at greater ranges from the ship), or are you talking about "wooded arcs" (a partial blind spot cause by ships super structure getting in the way of the radar transmission)?

What chance do you have of defending yourself from an Aircraft/ Ship which you detect at 300 kms, when the a/c/ Ship launches an AShM at you like the Brahmos (300 km, supersonic, or the Sea Eagle (100-120 km range) missile?
By Blind spots i mean the area of interference also called as sea clutter, which exists after about 30kms out from most radar systems in use. Also most radars are designed to identify fighter sized targets, missile signatures are far smaller as compared to that.
Wooded Arcs are not very common on most capital ships today as they are designed to keep the transeivers on the top of the superstructure. More importantly the range that you are talking about, is not what is referred to as FLAT plate range, but a 5-10 degree azimuth range. The horizon of the ship is within the flat plate, and the radar will have an effective range only till the horizon, after which there will be too much clutter.

 

[McTaff]

What chance do you have of defending yourself from an Aircraft/ Ship which you detect at 300 kms, when the a/c/ Ship launches an AShM at you like the Brahmos (300 km, supersonic, or the Sea Eagle (100-120 km range) missile?
By Blind spots i mean the area of interference also called as sea clutter, which exists after about 30kms out from most radar systems in use. Also most radars are designed to identify fighter sized targets, missile signatures are far smaller as compared to that.
Wooded Arcs are not very common on most capital ships today as they are designed to keep the transeivers on the top of the superstructure. More importantly the range that you are talking about, is not what is referred to as FLAT plate range, but a 5-10 degree azimuth range. The horizon of the ship is within the flat plate, and the radar will have an effective range only till the horizon, after which there will be too much clutter.

There are several issues here, should be bought up in a different thread. This is a torpedo thread, we really should re-rail.

Re: What chances do you have against sea skimmer missiles; Depending on the method of launch you may have an idea of the direction, or even have the launcher under surveillance. Submarines have a better chance of being able to fire undetected than aircraft, for instance. However, the missiles themselves would be telegraphing their location by radar transmissions.

Air surveillance radars are quite advanced, airborne radars are coming to the fore and the layered defence system is designed to take out missiles at varying ranges with different weapons (i.e. The US uses the AEGIS system with the RIM-66, RIM-156 and related missiles, then to the RIM-162 ESSM, then on to gun systems such as the Phalanx CWIS). Then you have chaff, flares and decoys.

Chances of survival? Good question. Better than versus a torpedo, say? Well...

Your question earlier re: Why geared towards stopping missiles rather than torpedoes is actually because the emphasis on anti-torpedo is actually threefold:
1) Masking acoustic signatures
2) Decoys
3) ASW.

Generally, it's difficult to stop bombers screaming in at high Mach numbers and flinging a bunch of missiles in a saturation attack. But subs... they are a much more limited resource, and the idea is to keep tabs through surveillance and deterring them, then into prosecuting the contact before it manages to fire a torpedo.

Also, the idea behind heavyweight torpedoes is not to penetrate the hull. The idea is to detonate below the keel of a ship. A skin-on-skin kill is not sought after as you lose a lot of the explosive energy to the atmosphere which is compressible. If you detonate below the keel, the water is not compressible and is pushed away, causing an artificial 'bubble' to break the back of the ship. A ship in two halves is no longer a combative element.

 

[dumpster4]

According to Jane's:

"The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is probably operating innocuous-looking vessels
that are armed with the world's longest-range torpedo: a capability that would
enable it to target Iranian Kilo-class submarines at their base."

It looks like they borrowed a trick from the Soviets. Google "Soviet Torpedo
Trawler" and you'll see what I mean.

Unfortunately, I can't post links yet.

Are there any other navies that use ships like this for covert Torpedo attacks?

How difficult is it to add a covert torpedo-launching capability to a fishing boat or
other "innocuous-looking" vessel?