How useful are ASW rockets?

[STURM]

Would welcome opinions on how useful ASW rockets like the ELMA, Bofors 375mm and Russian RBU series are, given that these are short range weapons and are useful mostly in littoral conditions? Were these rockets actually designed to deal with subs in shallow waters or, as has been mentioned in a defence blog, to be used to against incoming torps? ASW rocket launchers were confined mostly to navies that had to work in littoral enviroments like the Soviet navy and Swedish navy and by navies that wanted a basic ASW capability but did not or could not afford to spend on torps.

 

[Pendekar]

Almost all russian major surface combattant carry and can launch full size 533mm wire guided torpedoes. So RBU is more likely a purely defensive weapons. A sort of like CIWS.

 

[STURM]

Almost all russian major surface combattant carry and can launch full size 533mm wire guided torpedoes. So RBU is more likely a purely defensive weapons. A sort of like CIWS.

And the IN has followed the Russian practice of still having RBU launchers on their latest vessels despite having heavyweight 533mm torps. As you know, the RMNs Kasturi class is having their Bofors 375mms replaced by 2 triple torp tubes, but the TNI-AL is still maintaining its 375mms on the Fatahillah class. For Western navies like Sweden, I think the main role of ASW rockets was to to actually destroy subs in shallow waters or to force them to surface, rather than as a CIWS to engage torps.

 

[Todjaeger]

Would welcome opinions on how useful ASW rockets like the ELMA, Bofors 375mm and Russian RBU series are, given that these are short range weapons and are useful mostly in littoral conditions? Were these rockets actually designed to deal with subs in shallow waters or, as has been mentioned in a defence blog, to be used to against incoming torps? ASW rocket launchers were confined mostly to navies that had to work in littoral enviroments like the Soviet navy and Swedish navy and by navies that wanted a basic ASW capability but did not or could not afford to spend on torps.

The best answer I have is it depends. It is worth noting though that anti-submarine rockets/mortars did see widespread service with the USN, RN and other Commonwealth navies during and after WWII. The US ended up using AS rockets until the 1960's when ASROC entered USN service. The RN and various Commonwealth Navies kept A/S mortars in service into the 80's and 90's in some cases.

As I understand, A/S mortar or rocket systems remain useful in some specific circumstances. The first is that such systems are not especially useful for engaging deepwater targets, but are good for targets on or near the surface. Secondly, they can engage targets close to the launching vessel, with the max range ~6 km, but many of the systems only have a range of 1 km or less. Lastly in areas where there are 'difficult' sonar conditions (the Baltic for instance) which can interfere with the sonar aboard a LWT, then the ability to volume fire upon a contact can be useful.

A/S mortars and rockets still have a place in the inventories of some navies, but that is due to the environment in which their respective warships operate in.

-Cheers

 

[STURM]

T The RN and various Commonwealth Navies kept A/S mortars in service into the 80's and 90's in some cases. -Cheers

As always, I appreciate your feedback .

Do you know if the RN operate any other ASW rocket after the LIMBO or was LIMBO the last to be operated?

A/S mortars and rockets still have a place in the inventories of some navies, but that is due to the environment in which their respective warships operate in. -Cheers

Apart from a handful of littoral navies like that of Sweden, and other non-European or NATO navies like Russia, I can't think of any that still operate ASW rockets.

I find it interesting that a blue water aspiring navy like India, unlike China's navy, still arms it latest vessels with the RBU series. Perhaps there might be some truth to the RBUs being intended for use not only against targets of opportunity but also to disrupt or destroy incoming torps.

 

[alexkvaskov]

Can anyone provide a quick overview regarding a torpedo's advantage beside an anti-sub rocket.. hope that didn't sound too newbie

 

[tatra]

I suppose ASW rockets can be usefull in circumstances where it is difficult for a lightweight ASW torp to run a search pattern e.g. shallow water + rough/uneven seabed conditions.

 

[STURM]

Can anyone provide a quick overview regarding a torpedo's advantage beside an anti-sub rocket.. hope that didn't sound too newbie

For one, unlike rockets which are meant to be fired in salvos and are saturation weapons, torps, even non wire guided ones launched from ships or aircraft, are more precise. The advantage rockets have is their shorther reaction time, they can't be decoyed and are cheaper to buy and maintain, for navies that want a basic ASW capability, than torps.

 

[alexkvaskov]

For one, unlike rockets which are meant to be fired in salvos and are saturation weapons, torps, even non wire guided ones launched from ships or aircraft, are more precise. Rockets have a shorter reaction time, can't be decoyed and are cheaper to buy and maintain than torps.

Is there room for both in a modern navy?

 

[STURM]

Is there room for both in a modern navy?

As mentioned, earlier, the Indian Navy still equips it latest vessels with RBU rockets and heavyweight torps. The Russians still use the RBUs - their doctrine probably calls for both to complement each other. As the RBUs have a range of a few kilometres and are multi barreled, they can probably be used against incoming torps. It all depends on doctrine and operational requirements.

 

[Todjaeger]

As always, I appreciate your feedback .

Do you know if the RN operate any other ASW rocket after the LIMBO or was LIMBO the last to be operated?

The A/S Mk 10 mortar (Limbo) is the last one I am aware of.

Apart from a handful of littoral navies like that of Sweden, and other non-European or NATO navies like Russia, I can't think of any that still operate ASW rockets.

I find it interesting that a blue water aspiring navy like India, unlike China's navy, still arms it latest vessels with the RBU series. Perhaps there might be some truth to the RBUs being intended for use not only against targets of opportunity but also to disrupt or destroy incoming torps.

Honestly, I think India has retained the RBU because they have not eliminated it from their doctrine and conops, and not because it has a tactical relevance. I cannot really foresee something like an A/S mortar or rocket system being used as an anti-torpedoe CIWS. It would have too few tactical applications, since the system already has a limitation of only being effective vs. surfaced or near-surface targets. In the case of an inbound heavyweight torpedoe launched in blue water, I would expect them to remain too deep for successful targeting almost until detonation beneath the keel of the targeted vessel.

-Cheers