Why there isn't any anti ship missile with torpedo warhead?

[Vanessa1402]

We have many systems to intercept anti ship missile such as surface to air missile, Ciws, laser defense system, HPM system. But almost nothing can intercept torpedo, the hard kill measure options against torpedo are very limited and there isn't any soft kill measure options against wave homing torpedo. So why there isn't any anti ship missile that can release torpedo at final phase?. Like ASROC but for anti ship?.
The small torpedo can be carried by stealth cruise missile in mid phase to increase range and speed, in final phase near target they can be released to make the interception harder.

 

[Dilandu]

We have many systems to intercept anti ship missile such as surface to air missile, Ciws, laser defense system, HPM system. But almost nothing can intercept torpedo, the hard kill measure options against torpedo are very limited

Limited in NATO navies, unlimited in Russian Navy.






The RBU-12000 Udav is a trainable ten-barrel depth charge thrower, designed mainly for anti-torpedo defense. The incoming torpedo detected by ship's acoustic, and RBU-12000 mount trained toward the threat vector. Then the layered defense is set.

* Firstly, two dual 111SO decoy rounds are fired. They set a decoy field of four acoustic decoys in front of the torpedo, to confuse the torpedo seeker.

* Secondly, four 111SZ barrier rounds are fired. They set a floating minefield of influence mines with proximity fuses behind the decoy line. If the torpedo came close enough to mine, it would explode, disabling the torpedo.

* Thirdly - if the torpedo penetrated first and second defense layers - the RBU-12000 mount is aimed and fired four 111SG destruction rounds trying to put them over the torpedo. Those rounds are depth charges, designed to destroy the torpedo.

According to Soviet tests, the system have 90% interception probability against straight-running torpedo, and 76% - against homing one.

Recently the system was refitted with new 111SO2 decoy rounds, and multi-purpose 111SZG rounds (which could work both as second and third layers of defense, i.e. both as floating mines and depth charges).

 

[cattalonX]

Almost all missiles carrying torpedoes are used to attack submarines
If you want attack surface ship···········
maybe·········Improve this thing？

 

[Dilandu]

Almost all missiles carrying torpedoes are used to attack submarines
If you want attack surface ship···········
maybe·········Improve this thing？

The old KsSH anti-ship missile, with diving warhead. I suspect it was based on data about AUM-N-6 "Puffin" missile, obtained from USA. There are a lot of similarities, and the early version of KsSH - the RAMT-1400 - was almost a copy of "Puffin".


- AUM-N-6 Puffin


- RAMT-1400

 

[Archibald]

We have many systems to intercept anti ship missile such as surface to air missile, Ciws, laser defense system, HPM system. But almost nothing can intercept torpedo, the hard kill measure options against torpedo are very limited

Limited in NATO navies, unlimited in Russian Navy.

View attachment 660220
View attachment 660221

View attachment 660222

The RBU-12000 Udav is a trainable ten-barrel depth charge thrower, designed mainly for anti-torpedo defense. The incoming torpedo detected by ship's acoustic, and RBU-12000 mount trained toward the threat vector. Then the layered defense is set.

* Firstly, two dual 111SO decoy rounds are fired. They set a decoy field of four acoustic decoys in front of the torpedo, to confuse the torpedo seeker.

* Secondly, four 111SZ barrier rounds are fired. They set a floating minefield of influence mines with proximity fuses behind the decoy line. If the torpedo came close enough to mine, it would explode, disabling the torpedo.

* Thirdly - if the torpedo penetrated first and second defense layers - the RBU-12000 mount is aimed and fired four 111SG destruction rounds trying to put them over the torpedo. Those rounds are depth charges, designed to destroy the torpedo.

According to Soviet tests, the system have 90% interception probability against straight-running torpedo, and 76% - against homing one.

Recently the system was refitted with new 111SO2 decoy rounds, and multi-purpose 111SZG rounds (which could work both as second and third layers of defense, i.e. both as floating mines and depth charges).

Russian imagination and sophistication as its best. Multi-layered defense - impressive system.
Decoys AND mines AND depth charges: the torpedo stood no chance, as they took no risk trying all approaches to wreck it !

 

[Dilandu]

Russian imagination and sophistication as its best. Multi-layred defense - impressive system.

Yep. As far as I know, in 1950s Britain and USA also tried to develop the active anti-torpedo defense based on depth charge throwers, but in late 1950s it was assumed that any kind of torpedo launched in future wars would most likely be nuclear, and therefore would not need direct hit. So, Western countries lost interest to such defenses. USSR, on the other hand, thought that conventional torpedoes would still be the main threat, and thus continued to perfect the depth charge throwers. The RBU-6000 system of late 1950s already have some anti-torpedo capabilities; subsequent development eventually lead to RBU-12000 and modern systems.

 

[CV12Hornet]

We have many systems to intercept anti ship missile such as surface to air missile, Ciws, laser defense system, HPM system. But almost nothing can intercept torpedo, the hard kill measure options against torpedo are very limited and there isn't any soft kill measure options against wave homing torpedo. So why there isn't any anti ship missile that can release torpedo at final phase?. Like ASROC but for anti ship?.
The small torpedo can be carried by stealth cruise missile in mid phase to increase range and speed, in final phase near target they can be released to make the interception harder.

Because small ASW torpedoes aren't going to do a whole lot against targets that merit an antiship missile. A 100-lb torpedo warhead is going to cause some flooding but it's not big enough to cause catastrophic damage. Even the 21" AT-2 torpedo the Soviets used as payload for the Metel complex maxes out at 300 lbs.

Because small torpedoes don't have the range to keep a missile out of range of anti-missile systems - the aforementioned AT-2 has a range of 8000 yards.

Because heavy torpedoes with the range and warhead to actually be worthwhile lead to very, very large missiles if you want any sort of standoff range. Metel weighed 4 tons to deliver a 2300-lb torpedo 50 kilometers. Mark 48 is half again as heavy, which leads to even heavier missile, proportionally.

Oh, and because a torpedo's acquisitional range is much less than its launch range. According to public-source estimates the Mod 0 Mark 48 torpedo had a range of 35,000 yards but could only acquire a target in the final 4000. Earlier guidance was dependent on the submarine launch platform.

So you could build a modern Metel, which would probably weigh 5000-6000 lbs, deliver 300 lbs of explosives, and still needs to fly into point-defense range, or you can buy the 900-lb Naval Strike Missile for the same explosive yield.

 

[Dilandu]

Even the 21" AT-2 torpedo the Soviets used as payload for the Metel complex maxes out at 300 lbs.

To be exact, torpedo was part of payload. In the payload blister under the missile hull, there was a HE/shaped charge warhead, placed right in front of the torpedo. It was supposed to be used in launches against surface ships.

 

[Ronny]

We have many systems to intercept anti ship missile such as surface to air missile, Ciws, laser defense system, HPM system. But almost nothing can intercept torpedo, the hard kill measure options against torpedo are very limited

Limited in NATO navies, unlimited in Russian Navy.

View attachment 660220
View attachment 660221

View attachment 660222

The RBU-12000 Udav is a trainable ten-barrel depth charge thrower, designed mainly for anti-torpedo defense. The incoming torpedo detected by ship's acoustic, and RBU-12000 mount trained toward the threat vector. Then the layered defense is set.

* Firstly, two dual 111SO decoy rounds are fired. They set a decoy field of four acoustic decoys in front of the torpedo, to confuse the torpedo seeker.

* Secondly, four 111SZ barrier rounds are fired. They set a floating minefield of influence mines with proximity fuses behind the decoy line. If the torpedo came close enough to mine, it would explode, disabling the torpedo.

* Thirdly - if the torpedo penetrated first and second defense layers - the RBU-12000 mount is aimed and fired four 111SG destruction rounds trying to put them over the torpedo. Those rounds are depth charges, designed to destroy the torpedo.

According to Soviet tests, the system have 90% interception probability against straight-running torpedo, and 76% - against homing one.

Recently the system was refitted with new 111SO2 decoy rounds, and multi-purpose 111SZG rounds (which could work both as second and third layers of defense, i.e. both as floating mines and depth charges).

To be fair though, these 111SZ and 111SG defense are not homing toward their target like a missile would, they rely on the torpedo getting close enough to detonate or accidently hit them. So I imagine they have to launch many even to intercept a single torpedo. Secondly, I think most if not all ship carry fewer of these 111SZ and 111SG round than they would normal SAM.
On the other hand, if a submarine is hard enough to detect, I think torpedo are even harder?

 

[Dilandu]

To be fair though, these 111SZ and 111SG defense are not homing toward their target like a missile would, they rely on the torpedo getting close enough to detonate or accidently hit them. So I imagine they have to launch many even to intercept a single torpedo

Well, the point is, that they are self-defense weapon. I.e. they engage the torpedo while it is moving toward the ship, thus making the solution much simpler than, say, a crossshot.

On the other hand, if a submarine is hard enough to detect, I think torpedo are even harder?

Actually no, torpedoes are noisier.

 

[shin_getter]

Torpedo on a "missile" is like, the oldest one in the book

Given the weight to range * payload constraints of torpedoes, the time where it might make sense is if surface ships give up long range air defense altogether and go for meme defense like ~400 RAM missiles (popular video game loadout) or something.

I do wonder if supercavitation, if it can be mastered, can work here.

 

[sferrin]

P-1000 Vulkan supposedly dives into the water right before impact to hit below the waterline. Not a torpedo exactly.

 

[Vanessa1402]

Oh, and because a torpedo's acquisitional range is much less than its launch range. According to public-source estimates the Mod 0 Mark 48 torpedo had a range of 35,000 yards but could only acquire a target in the final 4000. Earlier guidance was dependent on the submarine launch platform.

IIR guided missile suffered from the same issue but they are very popular

 

[Dilandu]

Torpedo on a "missile" is like, the oldest one in the book

Well, the advantages are:

* It is much simpler to aim the torpedo (which required only 2D guidance) into the target, than the missile itself (which required 3D guidance).
* The torpedo made the terminal run underwater, which made it less vulnerable to AA fire.
* The underwater hits are more destructive in general.

P-1000 Vulkan supposedly dives into the water right before impact to hit below the waterline. Not a torpedo exactly.

Hm, never heard about that. As far as I know, Vulkan (as well as its direct ancestor, P-500 Bazalt, and grand-ancestor P-35 Progress) is armed with usual HE/shaped charge warhead.

 

[Vanessa1402]

Torpedo on a "missile" is like, the oldest one in the book

Given the weight to range * payload constraints of torpedoes, the time where it might make sense is if surface ships give up long range air defense altogether and go for meme defense like ~400 RAM missiles (popular video game loadout) or something.

I do wonder if supercavitation, if it can be mastered, can work here.

I think it can work if we combining torpedo with stealth sea skimming cruise missile. The stealth and sea skimming atribute can prevent long range interception while the underwater attribute at terminal phase can prevent terminal engagement
LRASM range is above 500 km and it can carry 1000 lbs warhead.

 

[sferrin]

Torpedo on a "missile" is like, the oldest one in the book

Given the weight to range * payload constraints of torpedoes, the time where it might make sense is if surface ships give up long range air defense altogether and go for meme defense like ~400 RAM missiles (popular video game loadout) or something.

I do wonder if supercavitation, if it can be mastered, can work here.

I think it can work if we combining torpedo with stealth sea skimming cruise missile. The stealth and sea skimming atribute can prevent long range interception while the underwater attribute at terminal phase can prevent terminal engagement
LRASM range is above 500 km and it can carry 1000 lbs warhead.

It's not just weight, it's volume. A 1000lb warhead is going to be a lot more compact than a lightweight torpedo.

 

[Ronny]

To be fair though, these 111SZ and 111SG defense are not homing toward their target like a missile would, they rely on the torpedo getting close enough to detonate or accidently hit them. So I imagine they have to launch many even to intercept a single torpedo

Well, the point is, that they are self-defense weapon. I.e. they engage the torpedo while it is moving toward the ship, thus making the solution much simpler than, say, a crossshot.

You still need to use more interceptors to intercept a torpedo than a missile.

On the other hand, if a submarine is hard enough to detect, I think torpedo are even harder?

Actually no, torpedoes are noisier.

Why is that?. What on a torpedo make it noisier than a submarine?. If you can make a submarine quiet, why you can't do the same to a torpedo?

 

[Dragon029]

Another such anti-ship missile with torpedo warhead was the Australian Ikara from the 1950s:

Ikara

Ikara was an Australian-designed ship-borne long-range anti-submarine guided weapon that was developed for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and achieved international recognition.

www.dst.defence.gov.au

Ikara (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Short-ranged compared to 21st century weapons, but it's my understanding that for the time it wasn't bad.

 

[Dilandu]

You still need to use more interceptors to intercept a torpedo than a missile.

But the cost of "interceptors" is several order of magnitude lower. Depth charges are cheap, the costliest part of them are fuses. Torpedoes are much more costly.

Why is that?. What on a torpedo make it noisier than a submarine?. If you can make a submarine quiet, why you can't do the same to a torpedo?

Because torpedo need to move fast - otherwise enemy ship would just run away from it. And "speed" and "quiet" did not exactly mix well.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Oh, and because a torpedo's acquisitional range is much less than its launch range. According to public-source estimates the Mod 0 Mark 48 torpedo had a range of 35,000 yards but could only acquire a target in the final 4000. Earlier guidance was dependent on the submarine launch platform.

IIR guided missile suffered from the same issue but they are very popular

Because missiles can rely on GPS or inertial guidance to get them within acquisitional range of the target.

Now, I have checked, and modern heavyweight torpedoes do have fire and forget capability these days, so this point is moot, but all the other problems I raised remain.

 

[DWG]

What on a torpedo make it noisier than a submarine?. If you can make a submarine quiet, why you can't do the same to a torpedo?

Speed. An evading sub has the advantage of a quiet pump jet and being able to slow down and manouevre to minimise its chance of being detected. A torpedo on the other hand has to close as quickly as possible to ensure it isn't outrun by the target given its limited battery life. Which means a high-speed prop with possible cavitation noise.

Plus a submarine doesn't have the transient of splashing into the ocean to let everyone know it's arrived.

 

[DWG]

Oh, and because a torpedo's acquisitional range is much less than its launch range. According to public-source estimates the Mod 0 Mark 48 torpedo had a range of 35,000 yards but could only acquire a target in the final 4000. Earlier guidance was dependent on the submarine launch platform.

IIR guided missile suffered from the same issue but they are very popular

Because missiles can rely on GPS or inertial guidance to get them within acquisitional range of the target.

Now, I have checked, and modern heavyweight torpedoes do have fire and forget capability these days, so this point is moot, but all the other problems I raised remain.

A submarine launched heavyweight torpedo is still going to be kept on the wire for as long as possible before letting it go autonomous. Being able to operate autonomously doesn't mean it's the best option.

 

[DWG]

Another such anti-ship missile with torpedo warhead was the Australian Ikara from the 1950s:
Short-ranged compared to 21st century weapons, but it's my understanding that for the time it wasn't bad.

Ikara was very much an anti-submarine weapon, the RAN/RN equivalent of ASROC. Any anti-surface capability was very secondary if it existed at all.

 

[DWG]

The RBU-12000 Udav is a trainable ten-barrel depth charge thrower, designed mainly for anti-torpedo defense. The incoming torpedo detected by ship's acoustic, and RBU-12000 mount trained toward the threat vector. Then the layered defense is set.

This is essentially a modern day Hedgehog/Limbo. It's effectiveness is dependent on accurately ranging the incoming torpedo, maybe you'll get it, maybe you won't. And it's heavily dependent on the torpedo coming straight at you, which is a big assumption. If Type 53 wakehomers are known to take evasive courses, do you really think NATO torps won't? And as soon as the torpedo evades, there goes your entire hard-kill element. On top of which multiple attacking torpedoes significantly complicates the issue. I'm not saying RBU-12000 is worthless, simply that its success is far from guaranteed.

I'd note the USN tried the ATTDS anti-torpedo torpedo on carriers as recently as 2018, but abandoned it due to limited success. If the US can't make an active system work on a platform as big as a carrier, that suggests its far from a simple problem.

Nor are western warships defenceless against torpedos, with widespread fitting of the Nixie and other decoys.

 

[Dilandu]

This is essentially a modern day Hedgehog/Limbo.

Technically yes, but with much more advanced rounds.

It's effectiveness is dependent on accurately ranging the incoming torpedo, maybe you'll get it, maybe you won't. And it's heavily dependent on the torpedo coming straight at you, which is a big assumption.

Well, a 76% chance of stopping the torpedo for Russian ship is kinda better than 0% chance for, for example, US Navy ship I agree that it is not perfect defense, but it is compact enough to be installed.

If Type 53 wakehomers are known to take evasive courses

Er, what? 53-65? Making evasive maneuvers? Could you please clarify?

do you really think NATO torps won't?

As far as I know, no torpedo do any evasive maneuvers, because at terminal run they are useless; they would only guarantee that torpedo missed the target.

I'm not saying RBU-12000 is worthless, simply that its success is far from guaranteed.

Nobody is saying that success is not assured; I just pointed out that having SOME protection is way better than having none at all.

If the US can't make an active system work on a platform as big as a carrier, that suggests its far from a simple problem.

Nah, it just suggests that US again overcomplicated things, ignoring simple solution because they are "cheap" and would not have lucrative business contract. It is not exactly unknown practice. Recall the sad, sad story of the US army self-propelled AA gun system? All US army attempts to obtain SPAAG at least remotely comparable with our "Shilka" ended as dismal failure, because proven, cheap solutions were of no interests for the military-industrial complex (the number of planned SPAAG was not enough for quantity to compensate), and complex, "advanced" system just plainly refused to work.

 

[DWG]

there isn't any soft kill measure options against wave homing torpedo.

Western warships almost universally carry the Nixie or similar towed decoys.

The small torpedo can be carried by stealth cruise missile

Lightweight torpedoes are designed to poke small holes into a submarine - literally, the warhead is a shaped charge so you're looking at about a 30cm hole. In a surface warship that's not going to kill it, and you can't really change that. It's the big heavyweight torpedoes that are ship killers, with half a tonne of explosive detonating below the keel to break their back. And a heavyweight torpedo is 6-7m long, that's longer than most missiles - about twice as long as a Harpoon, a bit longer than a Tomahawk.

 

[DWG]

If Type 53 wakehomers are known to take evasive courses

Er, what? 53-65? Making evasive maneuvers? Could you please clarify?

Just a suggestion I saw online, which I'm happy to accept doesn't have any basis in fact, but it's not actually that difficult to implement - remember, torpedoes have had re-attack capabilities for a long time, and a re-attack is actually a bigger course adjustment than throwing in a couple of doglegs on your way in.

 

[TR1]

I'd note the USN tried the ATTDS anti-torpedo torpedo on carriers as recently as 2018, but abandoned it due to limited success. If the US can't make an active system work on a platform as big as a carrier, that suggests its far from a simple problem.

On the other hand, Paket-NK has been operational on even medium sized corvettes for well over a decade now, so an active hard kill system is definitely doable.

 

[Dilandu]

Just a suggestion I saw online, which I'm happy to accept doesn't have any basis in fact, but it's not actually that difficult to implement - remember, torpedoes have had re-attack capabilities for a long time, and a re-attack is actually a bigger course adjustment than throwing in a couple of doglegs on your way in.

Re-attack did not require making rapid turns; torpedo missed the target, run forward a bit, then circulated back and re-activated in seeker. Evasion maneuvers, though, required rapid turns, which is... not the best idea for the narrow body in dense environment. At best, torpedo trying to make evasion maneuvers would lose a lot of speed, and became easier target.

I suspect that this strange data about evasion maneuvers of 53-65 may be the result of mistranslated course angle setting (torpedo could be programmed to turn at pre-designated angle during the run).

 

[Ronny]

You still need to use more interceptors to intercept a torpedo than a missile.

But the cost of "interceptors" is several order of magnitude lower. Depth charges are cheap, the costliest part of them are fuses. Torpedoes are much more costly.

I don't think cost of intercepter is the biggest factor here. Yeah depth charges are cheap but on most ship they are carried in smaller number than missiles and they need higher number to intercept a target because they essentially can't home in target. That mean a saturation attack by torpedos will have higher chance of overwhelm target than a saturation attack with missiles

Why is that?. What on a torpedo make it noisier than a submarine?. If you can make a submarine quiet, why you can't do the same to a torpedo?

Because torpedo need to move fast - otherwise enemy ship would just run away from it. And "speed" and "quiet" did not exactly mix well.

Some small torpedo has slow silent mode to approach target, they also have pump jet to reduce noise

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah depth charges are cheap but on most ship they are carried in smaller number than missiles and they need higher number to intercept a target because they essentially can't home in target. That mean a saturation attack by torpedos will have higher chance of overwhelm target than a saturation attack with missiles

Well, the average Cold War US submarine have at most four torpedo tubes. Not exactly much to saturate with.

but on most ship they are carried in smaller number than missiles and they need higher number to intercept a target because they essentially can't home in target.

RBU-12000 mount have magazine load from 60 to 120 rounds. I.e. 6-12 reloads.

Some small torpedo has slow silent mode to approach target, they also have pump jet to reduce noise

But on distances, when RBU systems kick in - 2-3 km at most - torpedo is on terminal run, and it could not be done in silent mode.

 

[DWG]

Just a suggestion I saw online, which I'm happy to accept doesn't have any basis in fact, but it's not actually that difficult to implement - remember, torpedoes have had re-attack capabilities for a long time, and a re-attack is actually a bigger course adjustment than throwing in a couple of doglegs on your way in.

Re-attack did not require making rapid turns; torpedo missed the target, run forward a bit, then circulated back and re-activated in seeker. Evasion maneuvers, though, required rapid turns, which is... not the best idea for the narrow body in dense environment. At best, torpedo trying to make evasion maneuvers would lose a lot of speed, and became easier target.

You have a valid point about limits of rapid turns for torpedoes, but evasive manouevres only need to be rapid if you're dealing with a high agility homer, against a weapon fired at a point in space, not so much. If you set up an approach at an angle, then the speed advantage of torpedoes over surface ships means you can turn in at multiple points along that track, creating a much larger range of intercept solutions.

 

[Ronny]

Yeah depth charges are cheap but on most ship they are carried in smaller number than missiles and they need higher number to intercept a target because they essentially can't home in target. That mean a saturation attack by torpedos will have higher chance of overwhelm target than a saturation attack with missiles

Well, the average Cold War US submarine have at most four torpedo tubes. Not exactly much to saturate with.

They can launch then reload, then launch again right?

but on most ship they are carried in smaller number than missiles and they need higher number to intercept a target because they essentially can't home in target.

RBU-12000 mount have magazine load from 60 to 120 rounds. I.e. 6-12 reloads.

The depth charge launcher seem to be the same size as RIM-116 but with fewer round on launcher?Wiki said Udav-1 mount has 10 barrels and 40-60 rocket for reload, which isn't that much more missile than Kashtan mount
Furthermore since the depth charge is unguided, extremely short range and need dozens to even intercept 1 target, at best,its interception probability can be compared to CIWS such as Phalanx or Millennium rather than anti air missile

But on distances, when RBU systems kick in - 2-3 km at most - torpedo is on terminal run, and it could not be done in silent mode.

If the torpedo is propelled in silent mode then RBU might not detect it to kick in

 

[Dilandu]

They can launch then reload, then launch again right?

They can, but it took time. And the time is limited, because if torpedo salvo did not reach target, the target would start to seek for the submarine. Soviet submarine, with automatic reloaders, could maybe do the trick of rapidly releasing two salvos. US submarine with old-fashioned manual reloading - no.

Furthermore since the depth charge is unguided, extremely short range and need dozens to even intercept 1 target, at best,its interception probability can be compared to CIWS such as Phalanx or Millennium rather than anti air missile

Agreed, its self-defense, not area defense weapon.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Nah, it just suggests that US again overcomplicated things, ignoring simple solution because they are "cheap" and would not have lucrative business contract. It is not exactly unknown practice. Recall the sad, sad story of the US army self-propelled AA gun system? All US army attempts to obtain SPAAG at least remotely comparable with our "Shilka" ended as dismal failure, because proven, cheap solutions were of no interests for the military-industrial complex (the number of planned SPAAG was not enough for quantity to compensate), and complex, "advanced" system just plainly refused to work.

That's not quite the lesson I get from the Sgt. York DIVAD. Most of the parts (existing M48 hull, 40mm L/70 Bofors, APG-66 radar) were "cheap" in the sense they already existed. They just integrated poorly together. They may have gotten it mostly working by the end but it was still limited by the old M48 hull and the budget gods in Washington were demanding a blood sacrifice by that time.

Both the Russians and the US have seen need to develop torpedo defense systems more sophisticated than what is basically pattern depth charge launchers so I have to assume that "76% probability of interception" is very much an optimistic estimate, at least against modern heavyweight torpedoes.

 

[Dilandu]

That's not quite the lesson I get from the Sgt. York DIVAD. Most of the parts (existing M48 hull, 40mm L/70 Bofors, APG-66 radar) were "cheap" in the sense they already existed. They just integrated poorly together. They may have gotten it mostly working by the end but it was still limited by the old M48 hull and the budget gods in Washington were demanding a blood sacrifice by that time.

Important thing is, project failed rather miserably, and up to modern times US army armor columns have only one tactics against aerial attack: jump out of tanks and run for the bushes.

Both the Russians and the US have seen need to develop torpedo defense systems more sophisticated than what is basically pattern depth charge launchers so I have to assume that "76% probability of interception" is very much an optimistic estimate, at least against modern heavyweight torpedoes.

Do you read the description? The RBU-12000 IS sophisticated multi-layered defenses system, which rely mainly on decoys and floating mines to stop the torpedo approach.

 

[Tzoli]

Nowadays the USN use towed torpedo decoys but I wonder in a surface group could the Torpedo decoy like the Nixie work together with the towed Sonar arrays?

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

I would think that it is better to invest in electronic countermeasures against torpedoes, which one can only assume are being actively pursued by all major seafaring nations.

 

[Dilandu]

I would think that it is better to invest in electronic countermeasures against torpedoes, which one can only assume are being actively pursued by all major seafaring nations.

One problem: electronic countermeasures do not work against straight-running non-homing torpedoes.

 

[DWG]

I would think that it is better to invest in electronic countermeasures against torpedoes, which one can only assume are being actively pursued by all major seafaring nations.

One problem: electronic countermeasures do not work against straight-running non-homing torpedoes.

Is anyone still using unguided torpedoes outside of Shkval?

The other issue with ECM is that sea water tends to be fairly inimical to the passage of RF energy.