Future Multi-role Navel Weapon

gardnerdesign

New Member
My vision of a future multi-role navel weapon would be a weapon system that could attack submarines, surface vessels, low flying aircraft, costal installations and even intercept torpedoes. This system could be deployed on surface vessels, submarines and even aircraft. I know it sounds like an impossibly tall order for one weapon but all the technology exists today. First I will elaborate on the design of such a weapon and technologies utilized, and then I will describe the truly novel tactics that such a weapon allows for.
Propulsion: A weapon as versatile as the one I’m proposing would need an equally versatile engine. The obvious choice for me would be a hybrid rocket engine do to its ability to produce very low thrusts to very high thrusts depending on oxidizer flow. Hybrid rocket engines also tend to have specific impulses that fall between a liquid fueled rocket and a solid fuel rocket; this is a bonus for range.
Shape: This is probably the most important aspect of the weapon, and would require variable geometry control surfaces. The shape would barrow heavily from the Russian skval and skval2, but with the addition of wings that can fold in tight enough to not penetrate the bubble created during super cavation. The tail surfaces would be fixed and would penetrate the bubble to increase stability and allow for course corrections.
Guidance: The primary guidance would come from a gyro to keep the weapon running straight and would receive course corrections from ULF signals as well as VHF data link and an optical sensor. For underwater guidance course corrections would be sent through a thin wire trailing the weapon and would have a length equal to its maximum undersea range. For guidance over greater ranges the weapon would act as a missile (deploying its wings and throttling up its engine) and fly through the atmosphere receiving data transmissions through it VHF antenna until target was within range than it would slow back down and enter the water (with sufficient speed to supercavate) and receive any further course corrections through it ULF antenna.
Warhead: The warhead would be anywhere from 250 pounds to 1000 pounds. It has to be enough to inflict sufficient damage to a wide variety of target and should take into account the ability of the weapon to drastically speed up in its terminal phase.
Now I will talk about the unique flight profiles that this weapon can utilize and how it will be used against different targets excluding coastal bombardment as I think it is not quit as novel as the other uses .
Aircraft/Ship/Sub VS Sub: When an enemy sub is detected weather through use of the ship/subs own sensors or through third-party sensors (other subs, surface ships, sonar bowies, ect…) it is relayed to the aggressor ship/sub who fires the weapon at the enemy sub and transmits course corrections through a wire trailed by the weapon. For extended rang sub kills the weapon would leave the water (or ship) and fly down range before slowing (if it is moving too fast) and enter the water supercavating and hitting the target any course corrections would have to be sent by third party (but would probably be unnessesary at this point do to the high speed of the weapon and low speed of the target).
Ship/Sub VS Torpedo: Probably the most simple of flight profiles, yet by far the most desired and novel, the weapon would leave the ship/sub and supercavate towards the incoming torpedo at a speed far superior to conventional torpedoes and would receive course corrections through it wire guidance system until it intercepts the incoming threat.
Sub VS Ship: When a sub detects a ship or receives coordenance from third party the weapon will speed out of the water deploy its wings and fly close to the surface until ship is detected, then it will line up with the ship (leading off if necessary) and slow down and enter the water (supercavating) to negate any CIWS and impact the ship below the water line causing increased damage over conventional anti-ship weapons. (This flight profile is identical to how the weapon would be used in a ship vs. ship or aircraft vs. ship situation except the weapon would not have to first leave the water, it would simply be launched)
Sub VS Aircraft: The weapon would leave the water and receive course corrections through its VHF antenna and optical sensor. It would throttle up its engine to maximum and would probably not require it to deploy its wings. (It is unlikely that a surface ship would opt to use this weapon against aircraft as other more robust systems would be available)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
1) Waste of money due to complicated electronics fit on expendable missile
2) Severe waste of efficiency due to using a thick-skinned torpedo hull on a missile, especially with a supercavitating hull
4) Waste of money due to severely oversized warhead spectrum for most applications
5) Difficulty of onboard assembly; done away with in recent times for a reason (you know how big a Masurca assembly complex is?).

Size it down by 80%, do away with the anti-sub/anti-torpedo role and make the sub-launch optional. And keep the electronics simpler. That's something usable - and pretty much already in the pipelines btw (IDAS/IRIS-SL).
 

gardnerdesign

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
IRST-SL i a surface to air missile..... this weapon is not intended for anti air as its primary role merly as an expansion of its origanal capability... i origonaly designed it as a weapon similarto the SS-N-27 sizzler but with an ability to supercavate (a very novel way to overcome CIWS), this is a more cost efective desighn as it is very simple and can hit virtualy any warship regardless of CIWS (even subs). Alot of the guidence I included would most likly be proven unnessesary (so i agree with that) due to the relitivly slow speed of all naval vessals but it is stupid not to add the wires and give it a simple capability to intercept other subs and torpedo's(the later being a weapon that is currently only deffendable by deploying counter measures wich wouldn't be as affective against a wire guided supercavating torpedo).... so i do agree that i over complicated the sytem .... but i also believe the R&D would prove weather or not the more complex guidence is nessesary. further more i would reasearch composit technoligy before i say anything is to heavy (reenforced ceramics and carbonfiber structures would be required. Also the stress on a supercavateing projectile is only on the nose so the rest of the body would not need the same reenforcing still signifigant but not like the nose, also a solid rocket engin and pressurized oxidizer tank are very structuraly sound even under high pressure.)

Thanx for not agreeing with me, debate is an integral part of development
 

gardnerdesign

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Its more a torpedo than a missile anyways its comparable to a missile launched topedo just it integrates both the supercavating engine and the atmospheric engines wich to me is got to be a lot cheaper .... especially when u concider that hybrid rocket engines are simple and dont use exotic fuels.
 
Top