USN Antitorpedo tested

moonbeamsts

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
5 March 2010
Messages
44
Reaction score
11

Attachments

  • CAT-Launch-from-CVN77.jpg
    CAT-Launch-from-CVN77.jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 967
Last edited by a moderator:
Not based on Mk46. As the slide notes, CAT is a 6.75-inch (171mm) diameter weapon. That's much smaller than the Mk46, although they are similar in length.

Penn State ARL has been working on this for a while now. Nice to see they're making progress.

 
No worries. There apparently was an earlier attempt at a torpedo defense system based on Mk46, but very little information has emerged on it.
 
TomS said:
No worries. There apparently was an earlier attempt at a torpedo defense system based on Mk46, but very little information has emerged on it.

I'd always wondered if that's what the Mk32 tubes that US surface ships were really for as they seemed pretty outgunned if meant to deal with submarines that all pack longer ranged 21" torpedoes.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
No worries. There apparently was an earlier attempt at a torpedo defense system based on Mk46, but very little information has emerged on it.

I'd always wondered if that's what the Mk32 tubes that US surface ships were really for as they seemed pretty outgunned if meant to deal with submarines that all pack longer ranged 21" torpedoes.
I've seen the lightweight torpedoes described as 'the world's best depth charge'.
 
sferrin said:
I'd always wondered if that's what the Mk32 tubes that US surface ships were really for as they seemed pretty outgunned if meant to deal with submarines that all pack longer ranged 21" torpedoes.

No connection -- the SSTD version of Mk 46 dates to sometime in the 1990s. Polmar says 172 conversion kits were procured, but it does not seem to have been a success. Mk 32 tubes showed up briefly on one or two US carriers, possibly in connection with SSTD, but they disappeared very quickly.

The logic for over-the-side tubes in escorts is that they don't cost much or have much impact, they use the same torpedoes already carried for helicopters, and they might be useful as a last ditch weapon or in conditions where detection ranges might be low enough that the lightweights can reach. Plus, high-speed screws in the water might spook a sub driver even if they aren't actually in range.

It's worth noting that a submarine might well prefer to shoot from much less than the nominal maximum range of its torpedoes. Given enough time, a fast warship might outrun a long-range heavyweight torpedo in a stern chase.
 
My father was involved in those tests in the 1990s when he was XO of a FFG-7 in California. They were designed so that CVs and big deck amphibs could carry a pair of standard Mk-32s and as a result have an active self defense capability other than just a passive NIXIE. From what he said they worked extremely well and they fired a large amount of them up in a range near or off of the western coast of Canada. They looked like a normal Mk-46 but they were longer so they wound up sticking out of the tubes a few feet. He never knew why it was canceled. Glad to see them revisiting the concept. Hopefully this time it will take.
 
Recent events should help concentrate minds at the Pentagon a bit (well, one can always hope anyway!): https://blog.usni.org/2016/09/07/asw-abundans-cautela-non-nocet

As, rightfully, much of our ASW discussions should only take place behind the cipher door, it’s helpful to find something in open source as a reference point. In The Economist last month, there is a great article on modern ASW challenges, Seek, but shall ye find?

Some nice points to ponder a couple decades post-drift;


DURING war games played off the coast of Florida last year, a nuclear-powered French attack submarine, Saphir, eluded America’s sub-hunting aircraft and vessels with enough stealth to sink (fictitiously) a newly overhauled American aircraft-carrier, Theodore Roosevelt, and most of her escort. An account of the drill on a French defence-ministry website was promptly deleted, but too late for it to go unnoticed.

Nor was this French victory a fluke. In 2006, in what was very far from being a war game, a Chinese diesel-electric submarine surfaced near Okinawa within torpedo range of another American carrier, Kitty Hawk, without having been detected by that carrier’s escort of more than a dozen vessels and anti-submarine aircraft. And, from the point of view of carrier-deploying navies, things are threatening to get worse. Saphir, launched in 1981, hardly represents the state of the art in underwater undetectability; in the decade since the Okinawa incident diesel-electrics have become even quieter. For an inkling of the silence of the new generation of such subs when they are running on battery power alone, without their engines turning, Jerry Hendrix, a former anti-submarine operations officer on the Theodore Roosevelt, asks: “How loud is your flashlight?”
"


The always quotable Jerry!


…submarines are spreading. Since the cold war ended, the number of countries deploying them has risen from a dozen or so to about 40.


While we have rested some, tinkered with “new” ASW search methods a bit, the world continues to build.


Worse, for those trying to defend ships from submarine attack, Western powers have routinely cut anti-submarine spending since the end of the cold war. American carriers retired the S-3 Viking submarine-hunting warplane in 2009, leaving shorter-range helicopters to compensate. Since the Soviet Union’s demise the average surface escort of an American carrier has shrunk from six vessels to four. … Many carry anti-ship guided missiles as well as torpedoes. One such, the CM-708 UNB, was shown off by China in April. It packs a 155kg warhead and, after popping out of the water, flies at near the speed of sound for about 290km. An export version is available but, if you prefer, Russia’s submarine-launched Kalibr-PL missile offers a bigger warhead and a terminal sprint at Mach three.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Recent events should help concentrate minds at the Pentagon a bit (well, one can always hope anyway!)

I'm not holding my breath either. Every time I think I couldn't be anymore disappointed they manage to lower the bar. :'(
 
Grey Havoc said:
Recent events should help concentrate minds at the Pentagon a bit (well, one can always hope anyway!

Penn State's Anti-Torpedo Torpedo efforts began years before even the earliest event listed in that blog post.
More to the point, they've been fielding Prototype versions on the CVNs for years now and the program is
entering Milestone B this year with LRIP scheduled for FY 2019.
 
I didn't realize they are already deploying this system.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1711759-us-carriers-deploy-new-torpedo-defense-system

US Carriers Deploy New Torpedo Defense System
KRIS OSBORN
The Anti-Torpedo Defense System, currently installed on five aircraft carriers and deployed on one carrier at the moment, is slated to be fully operational by 2022.

The Navy is arming aircraft carriers with a prototype high-tech torpedo defense technology able to detect, classify, track and destroy incoming enemy torpedoes, service officials said. The Anti-Torpedo Defense System, currently installed on five aircraft carriers and deployed on one carrier at the moment, is slated to be fully operational by 2022.

The overall SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind "hard kill" countermeasure for ships and carriers designed to defeat torpedoes, Navy officials said.
The emerging Surface Ship Torpedo Defense technology includes the Anti-Torpedo Defense System, or ATTDS and an SLQ-25 Acoustic Device Countermeasure; the ATTDS consists of a Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo program and Torpedo Warning System.

“The ATTDS is designed to detect, classify, track and localize incoming torpedoes utilizing the Torpedo Warning System leading to a torpedo hard-kill by employing the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo,” Collen O’Rourke, spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command, told Scout Warrior. Thus far, the ATTDS has completed three carrier deployments."
 
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20161011-torpedo.html
Posted: October 11, 2016 3:15 PM
USS Nimitz Fifth Carrier Armed with Anti-Torpedo Weapon

By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor

ARLINGTON, Va. — When the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz emerged from an extended period in a shipyard last week, it featured a new installation of an anti-torpedo system.

Nimitz is the Navy’s fifth carrier to have the Anti-Torpedo-Defense System installed. The system includes the Torpedo Warning System, an acoustic sensor that detects an incoming torpedo; a tactical control station; and the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT). The CAT, a small torpedo designed to intercept an incoming torpedo, was developed by Pennsylvania State University’s Applied Research Lab.

Compared with air- or ship-launched cruise missiles, anti-ship torpedoes are much more difficult for a ship to defend against because the medium of water is more opaque and distorted to sensors.

The anti-torpedo defense system was one of several improvements added to the ship, including two Mk38 25mm guns and the Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Services system, according to an Oct. 5 Navy release announcing the Nimitz’s commencement of sea trials following a 20-month Extended Planned Incremental Availability at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash.

An engineering and development model (EDM) of the anti-torpedo system was tested in May 2013 from USS George H.W. Bush and deployed in 2014. A roll-on/roll-off model was deployed on USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. A second EDM was installed on USS Harry S. Truman. The Navy plans to equip all aircraft carriers and other high-value ships with the system by 2035.
 
Sadly the system has already been cancelled and is being removed. Awesome. :mad:
 
Years ago, there was a project in development we (at the time) affectionately nicknamed the "Penn State mini torp", as that's where it was being developed: main campus has had a naval development center for decades, including a torpedo test center.... pretty odd being so far from applicable bodies of water for untethered testing, but more than adequate for all the controlled-environment testing one could ever desire.

No profiling intended, but the obvious predominance of Chinese students attending the main campus, including access to the Innovation Park facilities, does give one cause for concern with regards to industrial espionage and potential holes in matters of projects of national secrecy...

Nevertheless, the "flyweight" mini torp had a lot of "quart in a pint sized container" hard kill capability.
 
I do wonder if the USN is looking at that Nammo 30mm(?) Swimmer shell with a Lidar system.

They already do have a Lidar in proper service as a Mine hunter, with a detect depth of almost 50 feet appereantly according to some sources. The AN/AES-1 laser mine detection system. Apparently civilian versions can go down to 200 feet in mapping of the sea floor.

With that swimmer shell able to go down to 30 feet accurately, I imagine that an ANTITORP gun will be a thing in the future for someone...
 
...They never though about doing it the simple way - installing back the rocket depth charge throwers? Seriously, Soviet Navy have hard-kill anti-torpedo capabilities for decades, using RBU salvo launchers with proximity charges set on "simultaneous detonation" (i.e. when one charge set off, the rest detonated simultaneously, creating the lethal zone of intersecting pressure waves). Our modern RBU-12000 system is specifically equipped with both soft-kill (decoy) and hard-kill (explosive) charges in its ten barrels. The probability of destroying the torpedo is 0,9 for coming straight on the ship, to 0,76 for maneuvering.

1596355790967.png

Sometimes the best solution is a simplest solution.
 
I do wonder if the USN is looking at that Nammo 30mm(?) Swimmer shell with a Lidar system.

They already do have a Lidar in proper service as a Mine hunter, with a detect depth of almost 50 feet appereantly according to some sources. The AN/AES-1 laser mine detection system. Apparently civilian versions can go down to 200 feet in mapping of the sea floor.

With that swimmer shell able to go down to 30 feet accurately, I imagine that an ANTITORP gun will be a thing in the future for someone...

That Nammo round was originally developed for the USN's RAMICS mine clearance system, where it was coupled with a laser line scanner. That was cancelled some years ago for reasons that were never entirely clear. The round remains in service on the Mk46 mounts, because it stays on a straight path after penetrating the water surface and might hit target surface vessels below the waterline if a burst falls just short.

Nammo have demoed it against a torpedo-like target, but the challenge of creating a whole anti-torpedo gun system is (at least) two-fold. One, LIDAR is not great at trying to look through the air-water interface at low grazing angles (especially through turbulence like ship wakes), so its ability to detect torpedoes from a surface ship at useful range is limited. Two, Swimmer's underwater trajectory may not be enough to get down to under-keel torpedoes when the round is travelling at a shallow angle (if you hit the water at 10 degrees, a 30-foot straight line path only gets you about 5 feet under the surface).
 
I liked the look of the German Sea Scorpion, wonder if it's still going. Heard that instead of a separate hard kill MU-90 they looked at merging the function into the stanard round but not sure if the project continued. Also the Turkish Tork? was doing the rounds but not sure of it's status.
 
I liked the look of the German Sea Scorpion, wonder if it's still going. Heard that instead of a separate hard kill MU-90 they looked at merging the function into the stanard round but not sure if the project continued. Also the Turkish Tork? was doing the rounds but not sure of it's status.

You mean SeaSpider? SeaScorpion seems to be a fictional version from Reddit.
 
...They never though about doing it the simple way - installing back the rocket depth charge throwers? Seriously, Soviet Navy have hard-kill anti-torpedo capabilities for decades, using RBU salvo launchers with proximity charges set on "simultaneous detonation" (i.e. when one charge set off, the rest detonated simultaneously, creating the lethal zone of intersecting pressure waves). Our modern RBU-12000 system is specifically equipped with both soft-kill (decoy) and hard-kill (explosive) charges in its ten barrels. The probability of destroying the torpedo is 0,9 for coming straight on the ship, to 0,76 for maneuvering.

View attachment 638657

Sometimes the best solution is a simplest solution.

Turkey is developing an Anti-Torpedo Torpedo, but also have similar ASW rocket depth charges - I don't think Turkey would be developing ATT if a simple solution existed. Although, I'm sure such a system could be included in Torpedo Countermeasure system for surface vessels, less so for underwater applications.

Tuzla-Class ASW patrol boat equipped with Roketsan ASW warfare rocket.
ce10fd77-846e-4721-b715-4b4cf905c68d.jpg

I liked the look of the German Sea Scorpion, wonder if it's still going. Heard that instead of a separate hard kill MU-90 they looked at merging the function into the stanard round but not sure if the project continued. Also the Turkish Tork? was doing the rounds but not sure of it's status.

Tork is progressing well, latest news is that it's currently in the integration phase with HIZIR a Turkish Torpedo Countermeasure System and will be set to enter service along with Turkish LHD and U214TN submarines.
 
I liked the look of the German Sea Scorpion, wonder if it's still going. Heard that instead of a separate hard kill MU-90 they looked at merging the function into the stanard round but not sure if the project continued. Also the Turkish Tork? was doing the rounds but not sure of it's status.

You mean SeaSpider? SeaScorpion seems to be a fictional version from Reddit.


Old age and brain fade to blame -)
 
The CAT project was canned and the launchers that were installed are to be removed as the ships go through refit. However there is a new program for a mini torpedo. This one seems focus on SSNs as the launch platform, using the external countermeasures launchers. The goal is to have an anti torpedo capability, but also I could see this as being very useful for hunting UUVs that don't warrant a full sized torpedo and are so quiet they aren't detected until they are close aboard. Changes are a direct hit would still cripple an SSK as well - the warhead weight isn't given, but the all up weight is 220lbs so presumably 20-40 of that is warhead. It also looks like a HEAT arrangement, so at a minimum it should be able to breach a compartment from most impact angles. Hopefully this attempt works out; there would be a lot of other platforms that could benefit.

 
In lieu of starting another thread for USN anti-torpedo torpedoes...

Once upon a time when I had closer access to my city's main library and I could spend my days with my nose in whatever the latest edition of Jane's Fighting Ships was at the time, I remembered seeing a note about how the Nimitz class were being fitted with Mk32 SVTTs for firing Mark 46 Mod 7 anti-wake homing torpedoes. I managed to track down an edition available for online borrowing that had the info in it (the 1995-96 edition, it may have been in the 94-95 edition as well because that's the one I remember my library having);

mk46mod7.png

The internet appears entirely silent on the Mk46 Mod 7 torpedo, however. Does anyone know any more about this?
 
sferrin said:
I'd always wondered if that's what the Mk32 tubes that US surface ships were really for as they seemed pretty outgunned if meant to deal with submarines that all pack longer ranged 21" torpedoes.

No connection -- the SSTD version of Mk 46 dates to sometime in the 1990s. Polmar says 172 conversion kits were procured, but it does not seem to have been a success. Mk 32 tubes showed up briefly on one or two US carriers, possibly in connection with SSTD, but they disappeared very quickly.

The logic for over-the-side tubes in escorts is that they don't cost much or have much impact, they use the same torpedoes already carried for helicopters, and they might be useful as a last ditch weapon or in conditions where detection ranges might be low enough that the lightweights can reach. Plus, high-speed screws in the water might spook a sub driver even if they aren't actually in range.

It's worth noting that a submarine might well prefer to shoot from much less than the nominal maximum range of its torpedoes. Given enough time, a fast warship might outrun a long-range heavyweight torpedo in a stern chase.
Subs prefer to get in close, so that even if a surface ship does manage to detect the incoming torpedo, they can't just turn away from it and go to Ahead Flank to out-endure it.
 
Putting several short range torps in the water likely can still make a firing sub cut its wires to aid the ship in evasion. If the attacker gets to keep control of his torpedo he can walk it onto the target or switch guidance modes at will.
 
Last edited:
Putting several short range torp in the water likely can still make a firing play focus its wires to aid the ship in evasion. If the attacker gets to keep control his torpedo he can walk it onto the target or switch guidance modes at will.
Very true.

One of the primary uses of the Russian Shkval supercavitating torpedo was to be the "snapshot" weapon for when a sub suddenly detected launch transients. Slam a 200kt torpedo back down the bearing of the launch noises and you'd likely force the enemy sub to cut the wires and try to run.
 
So what's the latest on the anti-torpedo negation front? I'd just like to keep abreast on the current countermeasures escalation developments...
 
So what's the latest on the anti-torpedo negation front? I'd just like to keep abreast on the current countermeasures escalation developments...

It’s out of service on surface ships and being removed. The CRAW is going to be added to SSN external countermeasure systems, but it isn’t clear it will actually have an anti torpedo capability. It might serve instead as a quick response or counter UUV weapon.
 
So what's the latest on the anti-torpedo negation front? I'd just like to keep abreast on the current countermeasures escalation developments...
Basically lots of people working on anti-torpedo torpedoes...with few sold or operational.

But when the Navy with the most money struggles to get one operational, and in fact removes it from vessels, with issues around localising the enemy torpedo to be targeted despite having the best Torpedo detection sonar system on the market and best soft kill, you have to wonder how credible a lot of the claims are from manufacturers...
 
So what's the latest on the anti-torpedo negation front? I'd just like to keep abreast on the current countermeasures escalation developments...
Basically lots of people working on anti-torpedo torpedoes...with few sold or operational.

But when the Navy with the most money struggles to get one operational, and in fact removes it from vessels, with issues around localising the enemy torpedo to be targeted despite having the best Torpedo detection sonar system on the market and best soft kill, you have to wonder how credible a lot of the claims are from manufacturers...
There was a report from 2017 that I found while I was looking around for info on active torpedo defenses where one of the points made was that the system tested well against the actual tests, but....

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97...017sstd_tws_cat.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113709-537 (page 3)
  • The contractor tests showed that the TAAS meets the technical performance specifications set forth in the Navy’s System Requirements Document. Although TAAS in water and pinging test time is too limited to predict its reliability for deployment, completed testing shows that the developers made significant progress in correcting over-current conditions, which had caused amplifier component failures, and in improving TAAS reliability.
  • The October 2017 combined QRA and contractor tests demonstrated the ability of the TWS and its operator to successfully alert on an inbound threat torpedo under optimal but operationally relevant conditions, and the CAT system’s ability to engage a threat torpedo. The contractor test events also demonstrated the ability of the TAAS to detect moderately quiet and slower torpedoes.
    • Due to reliability problems with test target surrogates, test equipment, and CAT hardware, and the limited scope and number of CAT test events, it is unknown if the CAT systems can defend against a salvo of threat torpedoes. Detailed results and analysis for each event will be provided in DOT&E’s Early Fielding Report.
[...]
  • Safety considerations, implemented to prevent a collision between the threat torpedo surrogates, the ATTs, and the deep draft tow ship prevented assessment of TWS alertment capabilities for threats operating at representative depths and limited the assessment of the ATTs’ ability to complete the target intercept. Testing and data collection near the surface is necessary to develop torpedo defense capability. The Navy could accomplish this testing safely by using a shallow draft tow ship. Likewise, ATT to target intercept data near the surface could be safely collected, but would risk the ATTs colliding with the surrogate targets.
 
Wooden outriggers would not do since torps explode under ships now, I gather.
 
Wooden outriggers would not do since torps explode under ships now, I gather.
correct. An explosion under the hull is more likely to break the keel and sink the target, compared to hitting the side of the hull and putting a hole below the waterline.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom