Future Heavyweight Torpedo Development

Helical scanning lasers are reaching 150 meters with consumer grade technology. I would be willing to bet much longer distances are possible as the technology was limited to under 30 meters a decade ago. Lasers are extremely noisy but offers superior precision to passive sonar.
 
MadRat said:
Helical scanning lasers are reaching 150 meters with consumer grade technology. I would be willing to bet much longer distances are possible as the technology was limited to under 30 meters a decade ago. Lasers are extremely noisy but offers superior precision to passive sonar.
Click to expand...
I would not expect more than 150-200m total range. And I'm not sold on the total distance as an active sensor. Total water depth for the deepest-penetrating light is only ~200m.
 
MadRat said:
I would hope they explored jettisoning battery packs to extend range on electric torpedoes. Starts off the full diameter torpedo then discards dead packs as it goes. Lightens the torpedo and reduces parasitic drag. Instead of neutral buoyancy, go for maximum power density, and utilize folding fins and sensors to control depth. Gravity might even be used to enhance acceleration.
Click to expand...
Points for creative thinking but that is going to be extremely difficult to do, if performance is at such a premium - surely just use thermal propulsion?

Electric torpedoes have got bloody good and will be more and more popular but I don't think we will see the shape of torpedoes meaningfully change tbh
 
MadRat said:
Helical scanning lasers are reaching 150 meters with consumer grade technology. I would be willing to bet much longer distances are possible as the technology was limited to under 30 meters a decade ago. Lasers are extremely noisy but offers superior precision to passive sonar.
Click to expand...
As for this, I don't think sonar is getting dethroned tbqh. If I was to guess at future changes to torpedo sensors I would be looking at multi mode (already exists) to improve CM resistance and evolutionary improvements to sonar performance.
 
EWPT2 said:
Points for creative thinking but that is going to be extremely difficult to do, if performance is at such a premium - surely just use thermal propulsion?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Otto or even the Lithium/SF6 version for speed and range.


EWPT2 said:
Electric torpedoes have got bloody good and will be more and more popular but I don't think we will see the shape of torpedoes meaningfully change tbh
Click to expand...
At this point, Lithium batteries are the equal in power density to Silver-Zinc, but are rechargeable. So you can use them repeatedly for Exercise Torpedoes and not have to replace the battery pack between uses.

I'd be game for a new torpedo more or less equivalent to the Mk37s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed. Otto or even the Lithium/SF6 version for speed and range.



At this point, Lithium batteries are the equal in power density to Silver-Zinc, but are rechargeable. So you can use them repeatedly for Exercise Torpedoes and not have to replace the battery pack between uses.

I'd be game for a new torpedo more or less equivalent to the Mk37s.
Click to expand...
So long as we stay in the realm of HWT's I believe this is already done on SeaHake for example.

We test fire every spearfish before it is considered warshot and afaik the US do the same with ADCAP, so they at least are re useable. Not sure how that works with lithium boilers but they have not made their way to a HWT yet afaik
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Not quite yet, but maybe coming soon to Mk 48 Mod 9.

Post in thread 'Future Heavyweight Torpedo Development' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/future-heavyweight-torpedo-development.50223/post-848884
Click to expand...
Yeah the US have been looking at that for a while, slightly sceptical they actually will on their HWT's quite yet tbh but it is one obvious way to gain some performance.

I find it somewhat puzzling the swashplate engine has been allowed to continue quite this long honestly, not very ideal from a signatures pov.

I do wonder if improving kinematics at this point gives us all that much, given the range of these weapons is already quite extreme and the speed is more than adequate though.
 
NMaude said:
What are those combustion products?
Click to expand...
Combined Response:
Yellow Palace said:
Formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, and 'polycyclic aromatic amines', according to this.
Click to expand...
I also heard cyanide and some other nastiness.



Yellow Palace said:
Plus of course a large quantity of heat, which is liable to make life in a submarine torpedo room very exciting (if short).
Click to expand...
Since the usual cause for Otto combustion products inside the hull is actually a hot running torpedo (engine running in the tube), there's plenty of water to cool the engine.
 
tychosis said:
There's really no need for a new clean-sheet torpedo design when updated mods/TIs already bring new capability to the weapon. A torpedo isn't particularly complex.


Not entirely certain what you mean here?

Honestly, despite what video games may say--modern HWTs (from all countries really) are remarkably lethal. If you get shot at, you're probably dead. (So don't get shot at.)
Click to expand...
The need for a new heavyweight torpedo is for a CHEAP heavyweight torpedo against surface ships, many of which don't pose the same kind of challenges for a torpedo to identify, track, and impact.
The goal is LESS capability, for under half a million dollars.
If you are looking at the hull numbers that China is boasting, then you need a big stockpile of anti-surface ship weapons as well as the more capable ADCAPs.
 
squireson said:
The need for a new heavyweight torpedo is for a CHEAP heavyweight torpedo against surface ships, many of which don't pose the same kind of challenges for a torpedo to identify, track, and impact.
The goal is LESS capability, for under half a million dollars.
If you are looking at the hull numbers that China is boasting, then you need a big stockpile of anti-surface ship weapons as well as the more capable ADCAPs.
Click to expand...
Yes.

IMO, something akin to a Mk37 or DM2A4 shortie would be the optimal solution for this. Electrical powered, ~25km max range.

Why Mk37s or DM2A4 Shortie? Because you can pack 2 of those into the same space as one Mk48. US Subs have a very small torpedo room, 24-26 Mk48-sized weapons in the torpedo room. Now we're talking call it 4x Mk48s for subs and 40x Shorties. That would be a lot of dead skimmer targets.
 
I do have a question here.
Is it possible to use electrical fields as a sensor yet?

We know certain creatures use this like the electric eel.
 
I honestly feel like some of you guys have played too many video games and believe that subs are going to be out there sinking skimmers like it's WW2.

This is really not how modern submarine warfare works and would be a tiny slice of submarine tasking.
 
tychosis said:
I honestly feel like some of you guys have played too many video games and believe that subs are going to be out there sinking skimmers like it's WW2.

This is really not how modern submarine warfare works and would be a tiny slice of submarine tasking.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't quite see the need for these lower cost HWT's tbh, does as far as I can tell seem to be a real project at the moment but I am not convinced you could kill that many targets without already functionally winning the war at sea lol
 
zen said:
I do have a question here.
Is it possible to use electrical fields as a sensor yet?

We know certain creatures use this like the electric eel.
Click to expand...
Been doing that since the 1940s, as a proximity fuze for passing under hull.



tychosis said:
I honestly feel like some of you guys have played too many video games and believe that subs are going to be out there sinking skimmers like it's WW2.

This is really not how modern submarine warfare works and would be a tiny slice of submarine tasking.
Click to expand...
The cheap heavyweight is explicitly for surface targets.
 
Forgive me if it was mentioned before, but heavyweight torpedoes have a lot of potential left that hasn't been published as capability of in-service HWTs for all I know.


- use of recoverable HWT as minehunting drone
- use of recoverable HWT as contact-confirming drone
- HWT jumping out of water to add more sensor information (radar/thermal) for target selection (or deploying a mast to do the same)
- use of HWT with battery-electric drive as self-deploying naval mine
- use as self-deployable mine but still under control of the sub; basically laying in wait at a strait for hours or days, then going for the target without compromising submarine location
- anti-torpedo torpedo capability (not optional, but sensible if there's an opportunity)
- recoverable HWT that destroys small targets (such as UUV) without sacrificing itself
- battery-electric HWT going silent at slow speed for 20...60 minutes before getting serious about attacking a ship, less likely to compromise submarine location
- triangulation of target locations from multiple torpedoes still with fibreoptic link
- employment of HWT as believable submarine decoy

It's very easy to hide lots of capabilities of HWTs from the public, so I suppose the technical progress in the area is likely decades ahead of what the public learns, and this it not about speed or warhead lethality.
 
Last edited:
lastdingo said:
Forgive me if it was mentioned before, but heavyweight torpedoes have a lot of potential left that hasn't been published as capability of in-service HWTs for all I know.


- use of recoverable HWT as minehunting drone
- use of recoverable HWT as contact-confirming drone
- HWT jumping out of water to add more sensor information (radar/thermal) for target selection (or deploying a mast to do the same)
- use of HWT with battery-electric drive as self-deploying naval mine
- use as self-deployable mine but still under control of the sub; basically laying in wait at a strait for hours or days, then going for the target without compromising submarine location
- anti-torpedo torpedo capability (not optional, but sensible if there's an opportunity)
- recoverable HWT that destroys small targets (such as UUV) without sacrificing itself
- battery-electric HWT going silent at slow speed for 20...60 minutes before getting serious about attacking a ship, less likely to compromise submarine location
- triangulation of target locations from multiple torpedoes still with fibreoptic link
- employment of HWT as believable submarine decoy

It's very easy to hide lots of capabilities of HWTs from the public, so I suppose the technical progress in the area is likely decades ahead of what the public learns, and this it not about speed or warhead lethality.
Click to expand...
A lot of these are only tangentially related to torpedo requirements- for example to perform MCM you generally want a system that moves slowly, as to not trigger mines and allow for accurate sonar scans/time for visual ID, a torpedo has limits on how slow it can go whilst still being controllable. This will be because the powerplant is designed for a certain RPM range.

As a mine I mean sure you could- SLMM exists for example, in principle you could but what use is a mine that still requires the submarine to be present?

Self propelled decoys exist- I don't see why that would be classified as a HWT.

Ref going "silent" this is a feature on almost every HWT out there today, Spearfish for example has several speed settings.

Like a lot of these work in principle but clash with the HWT mission a lot.
 
Some of these things could be done by a HWT with just a software change. I understand a purpose-built UUV is superior as decoy and mine detection drone, but lots of different specialised pieces of kit is a highly questionable approach for non-nuclear subs. A very versatile battery-electric HWT can help out there.

Keep in mind American insane budgets for the armed forces are an exception to the rule and the American way of war (even the Western way of war) is not affordable (much less optimal) for most countries.
 
lastdingo said:
Some of these things could be done by a HWT with just a software change. I understand a purpose-built UUV is superior as decoy and mine detection drone, but lots of different specialised pieces of kit is a highly questionable approach for non-nuclear subs. A very versatile battery-electric HWT can help out there.
Click to expand...

Just no. The sensor head of a HWT is completely incapable of performing mine survey/route reconnaissance. You need side-looking high-resolution arrays to classify mine-like contacts. No
HWT needs those or has the room for them.

Likewise a decoy needs specific noise generators to simulate the sounds of a specific submarine. That's not something an HWT needs or has space for.
 
TomS said:
Just no. The sensor head of a HWT is completely incapable of performing mine survey/route reconnaissance. You need side-looking high-resolution arrays to classify mine-like contacts. No
HWT needs those or has the room for them.
Click to expand...
We already have tube-launchable and retrievable UUVs like Yellow Moray and the (currently canceled) Razorback anyway. I think a discussion of these functions belongs over in a UUV/drone thread and not in an HWT thread.

(And sure, an HWT is arguably just a drone that goes boom but that's a debate for the WELL ACKCHUALLY nerds to take up.)
 
A HWT active sonar can detect mines in a narrow path, which is just fine for a sub as self-protection such as when entering a friendly yet unsecured port.

Likewise, it's nonsense to demand a decoy to provide full spectrum simulation of a submarine to act as decoy. A HWT is easily capable of sending a false echo within the acoustic range used by HWT active sonar. It can also generate some white noise to acoustically jam.
A tiny threat HWT sonar has no sensing abilities that would require a near-perfect decoy. A lot of the HWTs in service (likely most, albeit not in PLAN) are from the 80's with almost no computing power.
 
With the nicest will in the world, you do not sound like you know what you are talking about.
 
lastdingo said:
A HWT active sonar can detect mines in a narrow path, which is just fine for a sub as self-protection such as when entering a friendly yet unsecured port.
Click to expand...
Torpedo sonar beams are typically too wide for mine detection. A Vietnam-era minesweeping sonar has a small enough beam width to recognize fish species visually. I'd assume modern ones are better.


lastdingo said:
Likewise, it's nonsense to demand a decoy to provide full spectrum simulation of a submarine to act as decoy. A HWT is easily capable of sending a false echo within the acoustic range used by HWT active sonar. It can also generate some white noise to acoustically jam.
Click to expand...
A Torpedo sonar is highly directional, the HWT-as-decoy would need to face directly towards the incoming torpedo.


lastdingo said:
A tiny threat HWT sonar has no sensing abilities that would require a near-perfect decoy. A lot of the HWTs in service (likely most, albeit not in PLAN) are from the 80's with almost no computing power.
Click to expand...
1) No, there's basically nothing in common between the current in service torpedo and the ones I learned on 20 years ago.
2) That's why there are guidance cables going back to the sub, which has a much bigger sonar and a human to help decide which sonar contact is actually the sub.
 
Scott Kenny said:
1) No, there's basically nothing in common between the current in service torpedo and the ones I learned on 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept that there are countries other than your own one?
Frankly, communication with you feels pointless when you refuse to read properly or apply logic. Your "No" is completely unwarranted because it's NOT based on what I wrote, but either on your failure to understand a simple sentence or to apply logic. This way you're communicating with yourself (bolstering your ego maybe), not communicating with me or other readers.

The remarks about mine detection are also nonsense. It's all screaming "tunnel vision" to me. Minehunting sonars go back to the 1950's, any pretence that only top of the shelf stuff is effective at all is ridiculous.

Several replies here reeked of "99% solution" addiction to me. Total domination of American way of war (and budgeting) thinking, regardless of how military history proved that that particular way of war isn't the only one that can bring victory. The attitude that 80% solutions have 0% effectiveness is mentally crippling.

What's the point of discussing with people who can only recite whatever they were indoctrinated to think?
 
I should have been more accurate in my wording in one place or two, but I suppose that doesn't really matter.

Most navies don't even only keep their submarines in a good technical condition, so it's safe to say that they don't keep their torpedoes up to date.

Anyway, lesson learned; one member muted because I'm at a stage in my life where I really just shut out people whom I consider to be useless (or worse) in a conversation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom