Are torpedoes still relevant for naval warfare (when they aren't

>>33300931

Maybe.

>>33300931
>on submarines
Somewhat ambiguous. Do you mean used BY submarines? Or used AGAINST submarines? Both?
Other than that, not really. The only places you really see torpedoes equipped anymore in modern navies seem to be sub-to-surface, surface-to-sub or air-to-sub.

>>33300931

Of course, especially since anti-torpedo technology is decades behind anti-missile technology.

>>33300931

They're more of a self-defence capability. If you are firing traditional torpedoes on a ship you've fucked up badly, though ASROCs is generally preferred.

>>33300931
Yes.

I think there's a video somewhere about USN trying to sink a retired ship. They fired harpoon, mavs and even Paveways on the ship but it still didn't sank. It took a torpedo instead to break the ship in two

>>33301288
I think you've got the wrong idea about the actual damage in question. In most of these SINKEXs, any one or two of the hits would likely make the vessel combat ineffective. If left unattended, sure, the vessel might have a hole under the waterline and have it slowly sink. But again, that's a slow process, taking hours or possibly even days, depending on the peculiarities of the given event. SINKEXs continue during this period. However, there's one thing which causes a ship to sink nearly instantly- a Mark 48 detonating underneath the ship, snapping her keel in twain, splitting the boat in half. Understandably, half a boat is not an object very conducive to staying afloat, and they sink in minutes, not hours.

>>33300931
300kg of high explosive will fuck most shit up that floats or at least wishing they'd had an alternate career

>>33301001
Hard to train a CIWS on a torpedo

>>33300931
more than ever lmao

>>33301318
Yes but what's the point when the enemy ship is at tens of kilometers away?

>>33301001
>anti-torpedo technology

Is "turn towards the torpedo" still the dominating anti-torpedo technology?

t. WoWSfag

>>33300931
Yes. The only way to really defend against one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval is to make sure it doesn't get launched in the first place.

>>33301329
Depending on the speed, most of the larger ones will go 40-50km

>>33301329

Because you have VLS launched or helicopter launched for that.

>>33301335
Assuming you're being serious, not really, no. Modern torpedoes have guidance, so pulling a move like that isn't likely to save you. Instead, there are a couple options. There are decoys. There are anti-torpedo torpedoes (very rare). However, these methods pale in comparison to what is in my opinion the greatest defense- running away as fast as you can. While unlikely to outspeed a torpedo, all that needs to be done is to stay ahead of them for long enough to run the torpedo out of fuel.

>>33301329
Modern heavyweight torpedo has range of up to 50 km with speed of 70km or more

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EDEnhtrjR3U

Tfw when no anti helicopter torpedo.

>>33301335

Modern torpedoes often have their own internal sonar that allows them to adjust their course while closing in on a target. Merely turning is not going going to be enough to prevent a hit. Alternatively, supercavitating torpedoes are unguided and thus they can only be used at (relatively) close range, but they make up for it by being really fast. The VA-111 Shkval is launched at a speed of 50 knots, but once it is a safe distance away from the submarine that fired it, the torpedo will trigger a solid-fuel rocket to boost to over 200 knots.

>>33301305
Enemy warships will also have tons of flammable material on board to rapidly burn down to the waterline

>>33301372
Supercavitatating torpedoes are guided.

>>33301305
>>33301398
>damage control organization isnt a thing
>damage control conditions isnt a thing
>damage control isnt a thing
haha how like are floods even real haha just like close your doors

>>33301372
>>33301335
afaik it's kinda like modern air combat where the idea is to turn perpindicular to the torpedo and speed up to hopefully cause it to miss or run out of fuel before it can hit you

but also like modern air combat, it doesnt work and the best option is to just never be accurately targeted

I've heard from MARS officers that the experience of doing torpedo evasion maneuvers are Fun though

>>33301401
No, that's the new Shkval which is wire guided. Old Shkval is unguided.

File: AHKdM.jpg (219KB, 2550x1650px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 2550x1650px

>>33301335
>"turn towards the torpedo
Yes, because Russian Torpedoes use Wake-Homing. If there is no wake then there is no guidance.

>>33301437
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9NB_kENBhs

>>33301460
Almost zero white people
Checks out for the modern US navy

>>33301473
wtf i leafed through it and its mostly whites

>>33301453
So that would be a guidance system then?
Supercavitatating torpedoes are guided.

What are your sources.

The idea that you fire an unguided rocket at a target 7 km away through water and expect it to hit is daft as fuck.

It's all still secret but the commie fags put guidance in those torpedoes.

>>33301555
no they didn't
They just put nuclear warheads and probably fired more than one torpedo

>>33301453
Quick search and they all have guidance.

Early models had GOLIS systems. Couldn't find anything about wire guided.

But wire guided? At 250kn through water?

Doubt it anon

>>33301573
The Germans came up with their own supercavitating torpedo (barracuda) in the 2000s, and that ones definetly guided. I'd figure the Soviets managed to do the same considering they came up with the concept a few decades earlier.

>>33301585
>Autonomous inertial guidance

Thats not quite the same thing as actively being able to seek out a target...
These supercavitating torpedos will be 100% blind

>>33301615
ATGMs are blind too, doesn't mean they are unguided.

>>33301603
>>33301628
Looks like Baracuda is the same thing, it can actively home in but when its supercavitating it'll be blind, operating on inertial guidance

>>33301615
Hmmmm...

Okay.. so we have a semantic argument...that's fine...We are both adults..

...There was me getting all confused by it being called a guidance system, thinking that it guided the missile..thus it not being an unguided munition..

...my mistake...I'll get back to my cat videos

>>33301071
>ASROC
How does it work?

>>33301649

Anti-Submarine Rocket. (ASROC) A rocket is fired at a point where you think the submarine is hiding. When the rocket hits the water, it deposits a small homing torpedo which does the rest.

>>33301647
Or the fact that it has move able fins that interfere with the water flow to direct the torpedo towards its target almost as if was being 'directed' or 'guided' somehow meant that it was a guided torpedo.

>>33301638
It gets feedback from the launch platform I assume

>>33301725
Supercavitating torps as of today are not guided in the sense you seem to think. They do not use wire guidance like a normal fish does, they have no acoustic homing package that touches the water and even if they did manage to put one on, the flow noise generated by their speed would make it useless. The most maneuvering they do is turn to the bearing that they're targeted at after being launched.

The Russians claim they've come out with a version of the Skhval that can be guided with a stop and go method but they've never demonstrated it in testing and doing such would dramatically decrease its range.

File: Pyotr Velikiy.jpg (57KB, 700x408px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 700x408px

>>33300931

First, it is important to understand that there are two types of torpedoes, lightweight and heavy. Lightweight torpedoes (32 cm) are fired from deck-mounted torpedo tubes and they are used by surface ships to theoretically defend themselves against submarines, although in practice you would never want to do this except as a last resort. Heavy torpedoes (53 cm) are used by submarines to attack surface ships and other submarines. Heavy torpedoes (53 cm) have a much greater range, and much bigger warheads compared to lightweight torpedoes (32 cm). Very few surface warships have torpedo tubes capable of firing heavy (53 cm) torpedoes. The Russian cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great) is the sole exception that I am aware of as it possesses ten 21-inch (53 cm) torpedo tubes.

>TLDR: Torpedoes come in two sizes, 32 cm and 53 cm, and they serve different purposes.

>>33301760
I think of guided as not unguided.

If a projectile has a method of adjusting it's trajectory it is guided.

If a projectile relies on it's release positioning as to whether or not it strikes it's target it is unguided.

I do not think this is controversial.

These torpedoes are given positional information and then go to that location.

Guided

By fins

Guided

>>33300931

Been reading naval warfare for about a year, with some intensivity, to balance out my military knowledge.

>Define ye the torpedo
Does the russian shit that flies supersonically underwater count as a torpedo? Because that fucker is basically uninterceptable, and capable of screaming over to a target and either detonating a nuclear warhead, or pooping off it jet thruster and becoming le cute little torpedo tsumtsum again, buy one that happens to be 400m from your ship while YOUR standard torp is still 3 miles from his. So if you class THAT as a torp then yes.

>Anti sub work.

Its practically NECESSARY for anti sub work. And a sub will sometimes appear, unexpectedly, very close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqGKwTYg8wI&index=3&list=PLOSvzqNmdX73GFswWLk73RAeaDBQ8nXb-


>Underrated mine warfare.

A totall underappreciated aspect of naval war is MINES. Mines are far more important than in land warfare because every ship is GOING to a port at some point and ports and their entries are usually tighter than a virgin - their points of approach can be limited by naval action also.

Attach a bigger battery supply and an outercasing to a torp and let it sit on the bottom, waiting for ships and you've got a mine that can cover a nine square mile area.

>>33301781
Technically there is a third option of 40cm torpedoe used in Rastrub-B missile-torpedoe complex on 1155 and launched from 53cm torpedoe tubes on subs and Pyotr.

>>33302241
mines that launch torpedos are a thing since the 70s, the Mark 60 CAPTOR being the most prominent example

>>33301437
Mate, notice how I said "if left unattended".

>>33302241
US carriers have an anti torpedo system that can intercept non cativating torps.

>>33302241

This little shitter can place a torp just over the horizan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139_VL-ASROC

Its torp has a range of of at least 10 km.

>>33300931
>when they aren't used on submarines

What?

>>33301807
>>33301760
Actually the skhval is unguided. It's fired down a bearing and that's it. The MUH FINS are there for stability to keep it in the proper direction as determined by gyroscope and depth. The presence of fins to not mean something is guided otherwise a Hydra 70 would be considered guided.

>>33303824
It is blindingly fast by naval standards and it carries a nuke.

>>33301349
Wouldn't torpedo bulges help a little?

>>33303863
Modern full size torpedoes don't impact the surface ship at all. They explode underneath them. The ship's keel is forced upwards my the explosion. Then, with all the water having been pushed out of the region of the explosion, it is pulled back downwards to fill the low pressure zone that was the blast radius. This snaps the keel in half. A torpedo bulge is not going to help you in the slightest.

File: 090328-d40-3033.jpg (128KB, 1758x1994px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1758x1994px

>>33301336


daaaaamn... rocket powered torpedo

>The torpedo steers using four fins that skim the inner surface of the supercavitation gas bubble

>>33304055
An actual, helpful reply...... Thanks

>>33304098
I always try to be constructive when I can. Here's another helpful reply: Don't misuse ellipses, it makes you sound like a tool. Remember, our sole means of communication is through our typing.

>>33303753
the entire point of damage control conditions is that you can "leave it unattended" and you will maintain watertight integrity

even ferries do this shit. one that went down in BC last summer or so was found to have only went down because the crew was not respecting damage control conditions and not closing doors behind them as they moved through spaces and just leaving shit dogged open

>>33301460
watch the video at 0:59 and play this instead of that shit music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzTLArp6L_c
more appropriate

>>33301335
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/507/525/

>>33301001
tbqhwy anti-torpedo and anti-missile tech are not that different in some ways.
You can confuse a sonar the same way you can confuse a radar by deploying beacons and sending false pings at different intervals to interfere with reception. They both use ADC/DAC digital receiver/transmitter technology. Except radar receivers have to be in the gigasamples where sonars can get away with kilosamples (for sound).

>>33304098
You sound like a gentle menstruating woman whose cat just died. Stop using fucking ellipses

>>33303824
The fin mention was not to imply that the presence of fins denotes a guided munition. It was in reply to the anon who said it wasn't guided by fins, which it is.

In short and I do feel this has been said before, it is the guidance system that makes the Skhval torpedoes guided.

The hydra is unguided as it has no guidance system.

The Skhval torpedoes are guided.

File: 20170314_212816.jpg (1006KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

1006KB, 2048x1152px

>>33305652
And you sound like you've got a little bit of flow going there yourself.

Wrong about the cat though. Pic related, it's my cat

>>33301368
>anti helicopter torpedo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjASERYanDI

>>33301368
but why

>>33306574
and US shills are still complainging about how patrol boats with AShMs are unrealistic and shouldn't be used in wargames. Can't wait for the Nips to take out a JSF with a fucking torpedo

>>33304055
Can't the build a hull that can laugh that type of attack off though?

Like V bottoms on AFVs to protect against Mines / IEDs..

>>33306716
Proof of concept. Final design would be used by a small attack sub that normally doesn't have missiles

>>33301335
I think they've started equipping the Nimitz classes with anti-torpedo torpedos.

>>33306764
Not easily. Trying to armor the keel in ways that would defend against this backbreaking maneuver would make shitty keels. There's not all that much that can realistically be done with present technologies.

>>33301335
You turn AWAY from the torpedo, not towards it. This either causes kinematic defeat or at least buys more time for countermeasures.

>>33301457
Only some of them use wake homing, and they are most vulnerable of all to kinematic defeat because the sinusoidal track is less efficient than a direct proportional track

>>33301335

Currently the RF still has this as a plan, also fire a nuke super cav torpedo or just a nuke torp down the same bearing as the incoming. This will kill the incoming and hopefully take out the enemy.

>>33305229
Difference is displacing water takes a lot more energy than displacing air.

File: NewOrleansTulagiBowMissing.jpg (391KB, 1200x968px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1200x968px

>>33306764

Doesn't really work like that. A UTK explosion works by using the weight of the ship against its own structural integrity. The ship is designed to bear weight along its entire length. By lifting and damaging a section with an explosion, and then dropping it into a cavity, you're making the structural members above the explosion bear the weight of the ship beyond what they were designed for. The V bottom on AFVs works because it's easy to engineer a path of least resistance for an explosion to take in open air. It isn't the case in water.

The way to design around it would be to make larger ships, or build ships to have greater structural integrity. Spectacular UTK videos are all against small ships or non combat ships that would be tremendously fucked up by any kind of torpedo, and I think it overstates the effectiveness.

First of all, larger ships simply means a UTK explosion is compromising a smaller proportion of the total displacement of the ship. A torpedo exploding under a frigate that compromises 25% of the displacement of the ship is only going to compromise 5% of the displacement of a carrier.

Secondly, unlike non-combat and small warships (destroyers, frigates), armored warships almost never split in two because the armored belt and deck also bear weight along the entire length of the ship, taking on much of the structural role that the keel would normally fulfill. It's hypothesized that the flight deck on an aircraft carrier works the same, although you'd need to confirm that with a naval architect or engineer. We do know that USS America survived it's SINKEX long enough that it had to be scuttled- I don't know if more information has been published or if it was even hit with torpedoes. Historically it was a rare occurrence for armored warships or carriers to split in two from anything other than ammo explosions.

In any case, getting the bottom of your ship fucked up by a torpedo is a bad day whether it snaps you in two or not.

>>33301335
Yes, you face the torpedo and punch it to death.

>>33308003
It's not about armoring the keel, but about side armor supporting the full weight of the vessel.
Keel still is damaged, but the actual effect is minimal

So yes, there is tons that can be done, however US surface ships exist as carrier escorts first, and there is no room in the budget for purchasing armored ships.

>>33300931
A Brit sub sank an Argentinian ship in the Falklands war using WW2 torpedoes so I'd say probably, maybe less so in a full on conventional war between two world powers though (e.g. Russia and USA or USA v China once they get their naval shit together).

>>33309415
>armor can do it all
No, no it can not. You are correct that supports do help to an extent, but fact of the matter is that said armor needs to be supported itself. For all that extra tonnage, you're going to need a thicker and deeper keel, lest you negatively impact the ship's stability and seaworthiness. This in turn creates a more vulnerable keel. And if it is really such an issue, another torpedo could be added to the salvo. Having the keel broken twice over in different locations is going to make it rather difficult for an arch without a keystone to stay together.

>>33309573
Said ship was a WW2 cruiser. It was a peculiar moment in history.

>>33309673

Whether it was a WW2 cruiser or not, I think it suffices to say that filling ships with water will always be the best way of sinking them bar turning them into millions of tiny pieces via magazine.

>>33309673
Your point being? Modern ships are still built the same way as a WWII ship, just with more sensors and shit. If anything a WWII ship should be able to withstand a torpedo more than a modern vessel because things like armor and torpedo bulges were more important back then.

>>33306716
It's either Medvedka or Veter. It's basically an ASROC that fits on 533mm torpedo tubes. So you can fit it to existing configurations instead of making a new launcher for it. And you can fit it immediately on older ships. It's should be superseded by the 91R1 Kaliber ASROC which is not yet bought by the Russian Navy.

>>33310098
>>33310212
I'm just saying. The most decisive naval action of the Falklands war happened with weapons that were made 40 years prior. It's just so bizarre.