Very high speed torpedoes VA-111 Shkval

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,021
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Scientific American in their May 2001 issue had an article titled "Warp Drive Underwater" about supercavitation technology and the Russian Va-111 Shkval torpedo. This was about the time that the sinking of K-141 Kursk was believed to have been caused by an explosion of a Shkval. The article suggests that supercavitation was the next big thing in undersea warfare. There were predictions of all sorts of rocket-powered torpedoes and superfast minisubs. Is supercavittion still in the realm of science fiction or are defense contractors and navies seriously looking at supercavitation technology?
 
Is supercavittion still in the realm of science fiction or are defense contractors and navies seriously looking at supercavitation seriously?

oh yes this seriously seriously !

again it was the Germans first in experiment on that during WW2 ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shkval
http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1

after wiki
Heckler & Koch P11 for underwater use, have also supercavitating bullets
 
It depends on what you mean. Supercavitating propellers have been around for years but have limited applications at the high end of the speed range so aren't greatly used. I seem to remember one of the Russian propeller blade materials for their large hydrofoils being optimised for supercavitation. It used the force of the cavitation bubbles popping to increase the strength of the blade (presumably strain hardening) instead of causing pitting and damage like usual.

Supercavitating things are usually pretty loud as well, which further limits the applications.
 
red admiral said:
It depends on what you mean. Supercavitating propellers have been around for years but have limited applications at the high end of the speed range so aren't greatly used. I seem to remember one of the Russian propeller blade materials for their large hydrofoils being optimised for supercavitation. It used the force of the cavitation bubbles popping to increase the strength of the blade (presumably strain hardening) instead of causing pitting and damage like usual.

Supercavitating things are usually pretty loud as well, which further limits the applications.

I am principally referring to underwater torpedoes/missiles and high-speed submarines. Some sources talked about high-speed submerisible fighters. But I didn't know if this was in the realm of science fiction or if this was pausible.
 
They are damn real
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a49930f38-e94d-4cff-bda4-fe0e7ca2e0a7

All the photos (c) Missiles.Ru

Oleg Granovsky from waronline.org have collected some links to weapons using cavitation


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CA29B-0EA6-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm

http://www.diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/storm_over_the_squall.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/220813.shtml

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/hsuw.htm

http://www.ctechdefense.com/projects.html

http://www.deepangel.com/html/supercavitation.html

RAMICS:

http://www.ctechdefense.com/ramics.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2001/dot-e/navy/01amc.html

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/kursk.html

http://www.fresh.co.il/dcforum/dcbo...95&forum=Army#3

German Barracuda

http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1
 

Attachments

  • CIMG0525.jpg
    CIMG0525.jpg
    56.1 KB · Views: 1,015
  • CIMG0532.jpg
    CIMG0532.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 961
  • CRW_7009_01.jpg
    CRW_7009_01.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 945
  • CRW_7190_01.jpg
    CRW_7190_01.jpg
    32.2 KB · Views: 920
  • CRW_7193_01.jpg
    CRW_7193_01.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 912
  • IMG_0326-1.jpg
    IMG_0326-1.jpg
    112.1 KB · Views: 105
  • CRW_8983.jpg
    CRW_8983.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 94
  • Shkval-CRW_0035.jpg
    Shkval-CRW_0035.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 78
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?230536-China-develops-revolutionary-submarine-with-high-speed-of-100-knots

Hmmm.
 
The Elektropribor design bureau's Khishchnik (Predator) torpedo project seems to the Shkval's intended successor: http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ie/2017/01/the-shkval-boogieman-or-evolved.html
 
Is there any way to build an effective guidance system? It is hard to see sonar working through the bubble! Maybe radar for terminal guidance?
 
Avimimus said:
Is there any way to build an effective guidance system? It is hard to see sonar working through the bubble! Maybe radar for terminal guidance?

Anything that transitions the bubble barrier would be distorted. Be it sonar or radar. This is a fundamental problem with super-cavitating weapons. It is why the Shvical and it's successors are only short range weapons ('cause the target would manoeuvre as soon as it "heard" the weapon in the water). Unless they included post launch guidance to correct for those manoeuvre. The obvious answer would be to use wire or fibreoptic guidance with a honking big, most probably active sonar on the launcher. Which of course reveals the presence of the launcher and where it is...
 
It's not a wonder weapon, but like the Long Lance of World War 2, it is fearsome if properly employed.
It travels at 200+ knots.
It has a nuclear warhead.
460 pounds for a warhead will give one a lot of potential kilotons.
This means the shooters torpedo water is a rather large expanse of ocean that 20-35 knot ships need to get out of before a 200+knot device can get into it.

With a World War 2 torpedo data computer this would be something to take seriously.
 
Hello everybody.

First one ,i'm sorry for my english ... i'm learning ... and i do my best .

I have a lot of questions about the high speed torpedoes type La VA-111 Chkval

a) this type of torpedoes is born 20 years ago,and I didn't have see equivalent model in other naval forces Why?
It say that Russia has sell such torpedoes to China ... I'm not sure ...what do you know about ?

b) If the concept of the high speed torpedoes "work" , why not a high speed submarine ?

c) against such a torpedo what do you think about a linear shotting of submarine grenades (not to hit the torpedo itself,but to disrupt the water around the torpedo so that the thin gazous phase could be perturb and thus the torpedo ...
 
Not an expert but the use of a gasified point in the water would seem unlikely. Since the torpedo you mention relies on producing such an effect to achieve high speed. The weapon is an area denial weapon anyway attacking a formation of ships rather than a single target. Probably with a nuclear warhead. Enough to seriously disrupt a carrier group.
 
a. Well Iran seems to also build their own version. the "Hoot"
b. Supercavitating concept wont work at current submarine because it doesn't allow use of sonar. Cavitation is not necessarily a "quiet" phenomenon, you have noisy gas generator and massive propulsion noise that came from the rocket or other possible means of propulsion you have and that means you cannot navigate or even listen to the enemy acoustic emission.
c. Why so complicated ? shoot another torpedo on its way will work just fine.
 
This is a very dumb and relatively off-topic question, but what happens if you make a torpedo go supersonic underwater? Is there any difference in effect due to the sonic boom? Not like making something go that fast is realistic, of course...
 
GWrecks said:
This is a very dumb and relatively off-topic question, but what happens if you make a torpedo go supersonic underwater? Is there any difference in effect due to the sonic boom? Not like making something go that fast is realistic, of course...

It would be similar as one on air except that the medium is alot denser. You might still have sonic boom but now your sonic boom comes with a tsunami.
 
Thank you for the thread .

A first question : is it possible for the topedoe to change of direction while it use supracavitation ?

A second question : why there is no submarine who use supracavitation ?

A third question : a shot of dam with depth charges couldn't be enough to do explose the torpedoes against a wall of water after that the supracavitation has been disturb ?
 
Thank you for the thread .

A first question : is it possible for the topedoe to change of direction while it use supracavitation ?

A second question : why there is no submarine who use supracavitation ?

A third question : a shot of dam with depth charges couldn't be enough to do explose the torpedoes against a wall of water after that the supracavitation has been disturb by the depths charges ?
 
1: Yes. I understand that at least one version of shikval was wire guided. I believe it had at least some maneuverability by poking vanes outside the bubble.

2: A few possibilities:
A: It would be very expensive and the equipment for generating the bubble would take a lot of internal volume.
B: The gas has to come from somewhere which would put a hard limit on the duration of a high speed run. (It's possible that something might be done with a nuclear reactor boiling seawater, but that would be a dubious proposition for a host of reasons).
C: The hull forms optimized for supercavitation and those useful for underwater stealth are not similar in any ay except having a circular cross section. The craft would be essentially blind while supercavitating.

3: I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking is it possible to stop this weapon by creating gas bubbles via explosions to disrupt its supercavitating envelope, I'm not sure. I think it would pass through any bubble like it would its own. However, regarding the specific example of depth charges, large underwater explosions in close proximity tend to be quite detrimental to hulls of any type.
 
A big thank you for this very interesting answer that answers all my questions .

Thank you again.
 
Avimimus said:
Is there any way to build an effective guidance system? It is hard to see sonar working through the bubble! Maybe radar for terminal guidance?

Anything that transitions the bubble barrier would be distorted. Be it sonar or radar. This is a fundamental problem with super-cavitating weapons. It is why the Shvical and it's successors are only short range weapons ('cause the target would manoeuvre as soon as it "heard" the weapon in the water). Unless they included post launch guidance to correct for those manoeuvre. The obvious answer would be to use wire or fibreoptic guidance with a honking big, most probably active sonar on the launcher. Which of course reveals the presence of the launcher and where it is...
The original theory was for a Shkval to be loaded into a tube as the "snapshot" emergency weapon, not as a primary attack piece.

You hear the launch transients of someone sending a torpedo your direction and you send that 200+knot Shkval back at them. Enemy sub maneuvers and cuts the torpedo guidance wire so you have an easier time dealing with the incoming. You now only have to fool the onboard guidance, not the fire control tech back in the enemy submarine.

An unguided Shkval will require a nuclear warhead to be effective. A conventional Shkval would have to be wire guided to have a chance of hitting. Of course, at 200 knots, a Shkval will cover the 8000 yard range in about 72 seconds. So if one is pointed at you, better pray their launcher missed the bearing to the launch transients...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom