Nuclear Torpedoes

M

muttly

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
14 June 2020
Messages
332
Reaction score
196
How many nations have these weapons and how effective are they.
 
Well given no-one has used any its a bit hard to answer the effectiveness question.
 
Near as can be seen in open sources, the current answer is one, the Russian Federation Navy. And probably only the developmental Status-6.
 
Is there any truth to the rumor that the Royal Canadian Navy kept nuclear depth charges in Bedford Basin?
 
Could a chain of them just off the continental shelf detonated just ahead of a tsunami reduce its impact?
 
publiusr said:
Could a chain of them just off the continental shelf detonated just ahead of a tsunami reduce its impact?
Click to expand...

No. You'd just be turning it into a radioactive tsunami
 
Would using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
 
muttly said:
Would using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
Click to expand...

There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows. Killing an aircraft carrier at sea with >3000 people on board would be a hell of an escalation, and there would be strong temptation to nuke the base where the subs came from. Likewise if someone when SSBN hunting with nukes, there would be a strong use-or-lose calculus at play. Best not to introduce that level of uncertainty.

As for survivability, the "joke" about the US Mk45 ASTER torpedo was that it had a Pk of 2, the target and the shooter. The only scenario I can imagine where it would have been used is to kill an SSBN during its launch sequence.
 
TomS said:
muttly said:
Would using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
Click to expand...

There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows. Killing an aircraft carrier at sea with >3000 people on board would be a hell of an escalation, and there would be strong temptation to nuke the base where the subs came from. Likewise if someone when SSBN hunting with nukes, there would be a strong use-or-lose calculus at play. Best not to introduce that level of uncertainty.

As for survivability, the "joke" about the US Mk45 ASTER torpedo was that it had a Pk of 2, the target and the shooter. The only scenario I can imagine where it would have been used is to kill an SSBN during its launch sequence.
Click to expand...
ASTOR
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
muttly said:
Would using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
Click to expand...

There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows. Killing an aircraft carrier at sea with >3000 people on board would be a hell of an escalation, and there would be strong temptation to nuke the base where the subs came from. Likewise if someone when SSBN hunting with nukes, there would be a strong use-or-lose calculus at play. Best not to introduce that level of uncertainty.

As for survivability, the "joke" about the US Mk45 ASTER torpedo was that it had a Pk of 2, the target and the shooter. The only scenario I can imagine where it would have been used is to kill an SSBN during its launch sequence.
Click to expand...
ASTOR
Click to expand...

Right. Should have double-checked.
 
publiusr said:
Could a chain of them just off the continental shelf detonated just ahead of a tsunami reduce its impact?
Click to expand...

Really bad idea;- Subsurface ocean nuclear detonations produce massive quantities of fallout. That’s why there’s been so few. This is because large quantities of salt (Sodium and Chlorine) is exposed to the high energy neutrons present during the early phase of chain reaction. Upon exposure, they transmute into really nasty isotopes which are light enough to migrate significant distances.

This was first observed on Operation Crossroads where the spread of nasty fallout exceeded all expectations and the last shot (Charlie Shot ;- a deep water event) was cancelled due to concerns. Glen Seaborg described the aftermath of Crossroads “The worlds first nuclear disaster”. The Brits were also surprised at this phenomenon after Operation Hurricane.

The really big Operation Castle and Redwing shots that were fired on barges, had hundreds of tons of boron and cadmium bearing sands between the device and the sea water.
 
Last edited:
Atomic tipped torps have the least negative controls, except for free-fall munitions, correct?
 
TomS said:
There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows.
Click to expand...
Truth is, nobody really knows whether using nukes on land would 'count', either.

Sinking an aircraft carrier might well be seen as more escalatory escalation than destroying a land-based electronic listening post, for instance. There's really no way of knowing unless it happens and we get to check if the world still exists the next day.
 
ASROC was widely used by Western nations and featured on a US warship in the Bedford Incident movie.
Did other nations have nuclear ASROC or were they reserved for the USN?
 
uk 75 said:
ASROC was widely used by Western nations and featured on a US warship in the Bedford Incident movie.
Did other nations have nuclear ASROC or were they reserved for the USN?
Click to expand...

As far as anyone knows, nuclear ASROC was USN-only.
 
As far as I know only the US and USSR developed nuclear torpedoes and the former employed only one type rather briefly (previously mentioned ASTOR/Mk45). I believe it actually required command detonation and guidance. I think the Russian version(s) would self guide/detonate and might still be in inventory. Both were tactical weapons to be used against other ships and submarines.

In addition both sides had rocket delivered nuclear depth charges for both surface and submerged launch. For the USN these were called ASROC (which had a conventional torpedo option) and SUBROC (which didn't). These left US service decades ago; I suspect the Russians still maintain a small number of both types.

Status 6/Poseidon is a completely different class of weapon that is a strategic delivery system of much higher yield designed for use against a port target. I don't believe it has entered service yet and only one special one off GUGI submarine can employ it, though Russia plans to build a class of dedicated carriers for the weapon.
 
Even in the context of an effective ABM system that can stop significant numbers of ICBMs, a nuclear powered strategic torpedo makes little sense to me. It makes for a mediocre second strike weapon that is limited to a very finite geographical set of targets a week later. If Russia and China want to waste resources on such a device, I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't an ASROC specific thread so I thought this would be the place to put it, this popped up on my YouTube page a few days ago concerning the ASROC:

 
Since this just showed up...

publiusr said:
Atomic tipped torps have the least negative controls, except for free-fall munitions, correct?
Click to expand...
The US Mk45 ASTOR was command guided and detonated, if the wire broke the torpedo went inert. (and it's depressingly easy to break the wire...)

If you're far enough away from an underwater nuclear explosion and face it bow on, all that will happen is all your external hatches lifting off their seats for a moment and getting water in the area. Remember, a blast wave has a compression front and then a rarefaction (low pressure) area behind it. The overpressure just pushes the hatches tighter, but the rarefaction will lift them a bit off the seat.

One of the nuclear test shots had some submarines at various distances, and they discovered water in the escape trunks etc after the test. So the next test they put high speed cameras inside the sub. You could see the sub changing shape as the shockwave moved down the length towards the cameras.


Josh_TN said:
As far as I know only the US and USSR developed nuclear torpedoes and the former employed only one type rather briefly (previously mentioned ASTOR/Mk45). I believe it actually required command detonation and guidance. I think the Russian version(s) would self guide/detonate and might still be in inventory. Both were tactical weapons to be used against other ships and submarines.

In addition both sides had rocket delivered nuclear depth charges for both surface and submerged launch. For the USN these were called ASROC (which had a conventional torpedo option) and SUBROC (which didn't). These left US service decades ago; I suspect the Russians still maintain a small number of both types.
Click to expand...
Also, the VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo was originally nuclear tipped, since they didn't have a way to guide it at the time and a snapshot return fire weapon doesn't have an accurate fix on where the enemy is. Sonar calls a rough bearing when they hear the launch transient and that may not be very accurate. The idea was to slam that supercavitating shot down the same bearing as the incoming torpedo to force the attacking submarine to maneuver and break the guidance wire, which raises the chances of the attacked sub for spoofing or whatever the seeker in the incoming torpedo.

The second version has longer range, a guidance wire that can handle the heat and speed, and a conventional warhead.


Josh_TN said:
Status 6/Poseidon is a completely different class of weapon that is a strategic delivery system of much higher yield designed for use against a port target. I don't believe it has entered service yet and only one special one off GUGI submarine can employ it, though Russia plans to build a class of dedicated carriers for the weapon.
Click to expand...
Had a long debate here about it actually being a carrier group delete button, because strategic use just doesn't make sense. It has no way to be recalled or stopped, and it would take 3+ weeks to get from the patrol bastion to NY Harbor or Virginia Beach. The whole war could change in that amount of time.

It's got a nuclear reactor to power it to maybe 80 knots, and it will go that fast as long as the reactor holds out. So a sub carrying Poseidons could get a bearing for a carrier group and send this monster at them, from outside the range of the carrier's defensive ASW.
 
Poseidon is large enough that I would think it could be targeted by torpedoes, although that is more difficult if 80 knots can be achieved. But I rather doubt that top speed - do the Russians claim 80knts?
 
Josh_TN said:
Poseidon is large enough that I would think it could be targeted by torpedoes, although that is more difficult if 80 knots can be achieved. But I rather doubt that top speed - do the Russians claim 80knts?
Click to expand...
They initially claimed 100 knots, but that's BS. The fastest an underwater body can go without supercavitating is 80.

It's got a reactor feeding steam to a turbine that drives the screw(s). It's got plenty of power to do 80 knots.
 
Since there doesn't appear to be an ASROC thread if I do open one which would be the appropriate forum to post it in?
 
Scott Kenny said:
So the next test they put high speed cameras inside the sub. You could see the sub changing shape as the shockwave moved down the length towards the cameras.
Click to expand...
Any ideas towards detonating torps against any hydrates/clathrates that might be beneath naval assets? Brief shock-waves are one thing—a blow-out turning the sea under a carrier group into foam quite another.

In fact, I can’t recall any nuke shot off at the sea floor…unless shallow
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Any ideas towards detonating torps against any hydrates/clathrates that might be beneath naval assets? Brief shock-waves are one thing—a blow-out turning the sea under a carrier group into foam quite another.
Click to expand...

Seems about as reliable as using artillery to trigger avalanches to bury enemy tanks. It could happen (maybe), but it's not something you would ever plan on.
 
publiusr said:
Any ideas towards detonating torps against any hydrates/clathrates that might be beneath naval assets? Brief shock-waves are one thing—a blow-out turning the sea under a carrier group into foam quite another.

In fact, I can’t recall any nuke shot off at the sea floor…unless shallow
Click to expand...
I don't think you'd get low enough pressure to get the hydrates to dissociate and/or burn.
 
Scott Kenny said:
One of the nuclear test shots had some submarines at various distances, and they discovered water in the escape trunks etc after the test. So the next test they put high speed cameras inside the sub. You could see the sub changing shape as the shockwave moved down the length towards the cameras.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! Could you get a link at this video?
 
Dilandu said:
Very interesting! Could you get a link at this video?
Click to expand...
It's not one I've seen personally, only heard described from one of the submariners who was there. Unfortunately. (Not many people wearing both a Submarine Combat Patrol Pin and a Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin, this guy was one of them.)
 
Last edited:
Operation Crossroads used eight submarines but I understand all were on the surface.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom