New mini-torpedo for USN?

It mentions the diameter is 6 3/4" and that part of the contract is an update to the external counter measures launchers on USN boats - I thought those were 6.25"? But I'm assuming that it is a typo and that the intent is to have a weapon that can fix inside existing countermeasure tubes as an option against miget submarines and USVs, and potentially as a hard kill torpedo countermeasure. The warhead would be to small to be effect against most SSKs.
 
Looking at the warhead it appears to have a 2-stage warhead, with a shaped-charge precursor and a blast follow up.
 
Looking more carefully I see what you mean. I didn't see the forward section; there seems to be some kind of electronics between the primary and secondary warheads. It still wouldn't be that much boom for a full sized sub target, but it probably would hurt enough to to wreck the hydrodynamics and flood a compartment/section.
 
Looking more carefully I see what you mean. I didn't see the forward section; there seems to be some kind of electronics between the primary and secondary warheads. It still wouldn't be that much boom for a full sized sub target, but it probably would hurt enough to to wreck the hydrodynamics and flood a compartment/section.

I wouldn't think it an antisub weapon either FWIW. If a sub was close enough to use it on you've probably got a 21 torpedo or antiship missile headed your way.
 
I suspect it would only be used in that fashion if nothing else was ready to fire. I think the main target set is future USVs, with an eye to being a hard torpedo countermeasure some time in the future. The defending boat would probably have to have a TMA on the incoming fish for that to be remotely feasible, so I'm not sure how practical that is given the failure of the system on the Nimitz class.
 
I suspect it would only be used in that fashion if nothing else was ready to fire. I think the main target set is future USVs, with an eye to being a hard torpedo countermeasure some time in the future. The defending boat would probably have to have a TMA on the incoming fish for that to be remotely feasible, so I'm not sure how practical that is given the failure of the system on the Nimitz class.

Depends why it failed. (Or if it failed. We just know they got rid of it.)
 
Something to drop in a row in front of Status-6? Or will it be too slow/short-legged to stand a chance of getting in front of it (even if distributed like a wall, so that Status-6 has to pass close)?
 
Something to drop in a row in front of Status-6? Or will it be too slow/short-legged to stand a chance of getting in front of it (even if distributed like a wall, so that Status-6 has to pass close)?
Or just to get it out there quick, and further away. Large torpedoes almost certainly outrange this small one. May as well give it some range to go after them as soon as possible. Have some in a horizontal launcher, with no booster, for 0 to X, and some in a couple VLS cells for further out.
 
I think the main usage of this sized weapon initially will be the external decoy launchers on SSNs. Part of the contract specifically mentioned updates to the software and hardware of that system and they seem to be sized correctly. I think they likely will also see use in drones; there are already test ASW stores for MQ-9s including sonobuoys; what they currently lack is any method of attacking a target. CRAW might be a little sub optimal for a full sized boat, but I suspect a hit would still send a D/E homeward bound and screw its hydrodynamics enough to make it much easier to track.
 
I think the main usage of this sized weapon initially will be the external decoy launchers on SSNs. Part of the contract specifically mentioned updates to the software and hardware of that system and they seem to be sized correctly. I think they likely will also see use in drones; there are already test ASW stores for MQ-9s including sonobuoys; what they currently lack is any method of attacking a target. CRAW might be a little sub optimal for a full sized boat, but I suspect a hit would still send a D/E homeward bound and screw its hydrodynamics enough to make it much easier to track.
"The RFP will be for taking the non-production-designed VLWT prototype — designed by Penn State Applied Physics Lab (APL) — into a production design. and develop it as an All-Up Round it to be suitable for manufacturing. Other Transactional Authority will be used to deploy the torpedo to the fleet.

APL developed the Counter Anti-torpedo Torpedo (CAT), a defensive weapon for use by aircraft carriers to defeat incoming submarine-launched anti-ship torpedoes. Five aircraft carriers were fitted with CAT launchers. The Cat was the first new-design U.S torpedo since the 1980s with the development of the Mk54 Lightweight Torpedo.

Early in the CAT design process, its potential as a multi-mission torpedo was noticed, said David Portner, Northrop Grumman’s senior program manager for undersea weapons, in a July 28 interview with Seapower magazine.

The offensive variant that will be the subject of the RFP, the Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW), involved a software change to make the CAT into an anti-submarine weapon, Portner said.

The hardware-enabled, software-defined VLWT would be equipped with advanced electronics and processing power, with the software enabling the same weapon to serve in an offensive or defensive role.

The nine-foot-long VWLT is one third of the size of the Mk54 — the Navy’s most advanced light-weight torpedo — and weighs just over 200 pounds, compared with the 608-pound Mk54. With this weight advantage, a platform can carry more torpedoes or carry the same number at longer ranges and give the platform more endurance. The VLWT could be carried by surface, airborne, and undersea platforms, manned and unmanned. "
 
I thought the CVs had those launchers pulled when that program was deemed unsuccessful?
 
I thought the CVs had those launchers pulled when that program was deemed unsuccessful?
Presumably they didn't outfit them with unguided torpedoes.
I'm confused, is the VLWT CAT the same as the CAT used in the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo Defense System? Or is this a completely new torpedo development in a similar caliber? The ATTD system was deactivated on the five carriers that it was installed on, though per drejr above, it's launchers probably are still retained.
 
I thought the CVs had those launchers pulled when that program was deemed unsuccessful?
APL designed the CAT itself, the guided mini torpedo. The overall program was Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) system, CAT and the Torpedo Warning System (TWS) together were known as Anti-Torpedo Torpedo Defense System (ATTDS). It was ATTDS which was killed and is gradually being pulled, but much of the blame seems to have been focused on TWS' troubles clearly identifying and tracking threats in complex real-world environments. The primary complaint against CAT at the time seems to have been that it had very limited testing.

VLWT is a program focused on developing the weapon itself, which is an update/continuation of the CAT's development, with the hope that it will get plugged into multiple roles after it has been developed into a full production round.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom