Iran anti ship torpedo/missile, fact or fiction

[alexsa]

The article below appeared on an online defence page found at:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005444.php

My gut feeling is that Iran is providing this report the less informed outside Iran and for internal consumption givne the current polictical situation.

I find the claimed capability a little unbelievable noting that even if they got a torpedo/underwater missile up to 360 km an hour it would appear to be a little beyond belief that this wouel not be picked up by both active and passive systems. More to the point it wouel seem improbable that the weapon itself would be not be seriously effected by it own flow noise and/or the out flow of what ever is propelling it.

My feeling is this could be a bit of truth combined with a lot of fiction. Does anybody have any information on this system?

The claimed missile system at the end of the reprot seems to fall into the same category.

Iran Touts High-Speed Underwater Missile


(Source: Voice of America news; issued April 2, 2006)


Iran says it has successfully test-fired a high-speed underwater missile capable of destroying large warships and submarines - the second missile test reported by Tehran in recent days.

Iranian military authorities say the missile can reach speeds of 360 kilometers an hour, about four times the speed of a torpedo. They also say it cannot be detected by sonar.

The deputy commander of Iran's Navy, General Ali Fadavi told state media no warship can escape from the missile because of its speed.

Iran says it tested the missile Sunday during the third day of large-scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

This comes as Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency says the international community should negotiate with Tehran rather than issue U.N. Security Council statements on Iran's nuclear program.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh Sunday told the U.S. television network CNN the situation will deteriorate further the more the Council is involved in the issue. He said it is better to discuss a peaceful settlement to the dispute rather than using what he called threatening language.

Last week, the 15-member Council unanimously approved a statement calling on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activity within 30 days.

On Friday, Iran said it test-fired an airborne missile that can evade radar and hit several targets simultaneously with warheads. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli later said the test showed Iran has an aggressive military program.

 

[LancerMc]

I highly doubt Iran produced such a missile/torpedo on their own. The most probable scenario is that Iran bought Russian high speed torpedoes. I believe this weapon is called a Scval. It is the weapon that is suspected in sinking the Kursk.

The U.S. navy has been working on ultra high speed torpedo's, but as for public information they are at least another probable 5 years away from fielding such a weapon.

For these weapons to achieve these high speeds underwater requires the torpedo to produce a bubble of air around the torpedo while it is under the water. It is essentially the same way SLICBM's are launched just over much longer distances.

 

[Vital]

Fact
Iran has these torpedoes

False
Iran has never developed such types of torpedoes. (They do not have enough knowledge in this field). They have bought it from Chine, I suppose.

It was developed for the soviet Navy in 1960.
We call it "Shkval" (squall)
I think u can find a lot of info in the Internet, If u are really interested in.

 

[alexsa]

Fact
Iran has these torpedoes

Faulse
Iran has never developed such types of torpedoes. (They do not have enough knowledge in this field). They have bought it from Chine, I suppose.

It was developed for the soviet Navy in 1960.
We call it "Shkval" (squall)
I think u can find a lot of info in the Internet, If u are really interested in.

I don't doubt that Iran may have purchased Russian equipemtn what I questionis the perforamce they are claiming. Here is another claim:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18696219%5E663,00.html

I sersiouly doubt anybody has a functioning 360 km/h underwater missile that is undetectable by sonar and cannot be avoided. I doubt the thing could see where it was going and would almost need to be straight line of pre programmed which does not bode well for accuracy.

I am willing to be corrected on this.

 

[Awang se]

360kmph, i can believe. undetected by sonar, sorry, to farfetch

 

[Vital]

You are correct.
I mean to say, that of course it is detectable. There is nothing in the world that can not be detected.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That torpedo is not a Skval.

It may have some basis of heritage, but it does not look like any of the images that I have rec'd from a number of UDT Conferences.

In addition, the other images of the same weapon in a manufacturing facility are obviously not the same weapons system either.

I'm reserving judgement until I see some more concrete proof from some different sources.

But, I repeat, that missile shown in the wargames is not a Shkval - its certainly not the weapon that I'm familiar with.

In fact the initial footage of that weapon shows a design that is very very close to USN concepts that were trialled some 15 years ago (about 9 years before Russian systems were announced)

The US supercav technology was applied to other R&D weapons systems which are still under development.

It's also very very different in design from the German tech which is being touted as reaching 500kph.

 

[Izzy1]

Any indication if the Iranian weapon is guided?

If memory serves, Shkval for instance is not.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Any indication if the Iranian weapon is guided?

doesn't appear to be - esp externally.

there are a couple of things that are being ignored in the rush to announce the capability.

• missile is surface launched. that means that the launch vessel is within range of surface weapons - and if its a fleet, well within the capabilities of organic AEW&Cs for observation and thus well within the response range for CAP assets.
• if it is Shkval based - then it has a severe range limitation - and that means that with reference to my prev, that it has to close the gap before launch. think about it, 6-8km range as opposed to CAP, or a naval 5" with up to 65km range with assisted munitions.
• that it needs LOS for launch
• that its designed for exploding on contact - that raises the opportunities for an effective defense. the fact that its a contact weapon more or less shows a lack of technical finesse as a bubble weapon would be more effective.

personally, I'd have to say that although it looks impressive, when you start breaking down the capability and limitations then its far less intimidating.

The USN dropped supercav torpedoes some 15 years ago for a reason.

 

[alexsa]

What I have managed to look up on the "Squall" certainly matches GF's comments and I suspect his informaton sources are better than most.

http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml


A 5km high speed short range noisy defensive system does not seem to match the claims put our by Iran (and published by the media). If the claimed 60km range Mk II had been deveoloped i wonder why it has not been seen in regular service by the Russians?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/shkval.htm


[Admin Edit: Please avoid linking to external discussion forums, alternative links for Shkval added]

 

[Scorpius]

maybe Iran is just ...bragging.to let the Americans know that they can put up a challenge if the US invades.

 

[Viper75]

...
[*]that its designed for exploding on contact - that raises the opportunities for an effective defense. the fact that its a contact weapon more or less shows a lack of technical finesse as a bubble weapon would be more effective. ...

Hello, just a quick question: can you clarify what you mean by a "bubble weapon" here? Some type of proximity fuse (as opposed to a contact weapon)?

 

[LancerMc]

I doubt Iran has produced such a weapon, the U.S. Navy has been working this kind of weapon for years and as far in the public military domain not yet succeeded in producing such any close to what Iran claims.

The only thing the U.S. Navy has ever publicly acknowledged that has those types of capabilities is the SUBROC. That weapon was fired in the torpedo tube, a rocket lifts and flies it over water to the target where it then drops a nuclear depth charge on the target.

Personally I don't believe anything coming out Tehran. If I were president of Iran and I truly had a weapon capable of what they claim I wouldn't be telling anyone. I think this is just sabre rattling by Iran. It is just another claim to make the U.S. and it's Allies rethink about invading Iran.

To another point Iran must be claiming it can easily detect the lastest Western submarines. Though Iranian Kilo sub's due pose a significant threat in littoral warfare, but the USN is training hard to counter this threat. I think a more likely scenario that the U.S. Navy and it Allies would sink most the Iranian navy before it ever got a shot off no matter what weapon they claim to have.

*Thanks everyone for correcting my misspelling and adding some good information about the Shkval.*

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hello, just a quick question: can you clarify what you mean by a "bubble weapon" here? Some type of proximity fuse (as opposed to a contact weapon)?

A bubble torpedo =a torpedo designed to explode under the keel of a ship. The resulting air bubble lifts the vessel up and breaks its spine when it comes down.

a good example of this is the Mk48 footage seen on the web of the old HMAS Torrens getting torpedoed.

(its one of the most popular pieces of footage you see at sub warfare conferences - always guaranteed to pull a crowd. )

 

[hawa-ka-sipahi]

I believe its a Russian export weopon system (shkval-E),as i saw the video
clip of the firing ,as the report suggests that it was exported to China than China might have sold to Iran(just a sugestion!).the mk-48 torpedo has a range of 8 miles (without rocket boosting),than why the rocket propelled shkval has a lower range than mk-82 as squall has 6.6 times the speed of mk-48 or 4 times higher than other torpedoe types?

and what ever this system is................

MANY MANY CONGRATS TO IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

I believe its a Russian export weopon system (shkval-E),as i saw the video

No its not. I've got clearer images of the Shkval from a Sub Warfare Conf I attended last year - it's nothing like it

the mk-48 torpedo has a range of 8 miles (without rocket boosting),

what? the Mk48 has approx 7 times the range (minimum) and its not rocket boosted anyway

than why the rocket propelled shkval has a lower range than mk-82 as squall has 6.6 times the speed of mk-48 or 4 times higher than other torpedoe types?

I guess the fact that an ASW screen is considerably larger than 7km hasn't occurred to the iranians.

• The fact that its a surface mounted weapon also means that the launch platform is highly likely to be picked up by onboard AWACs from at least 300km - good luck closing to 7km
• The fact that its a rocket means that it's not wire guided - and thus it's a snapshot weapon - that assumes that it can breach look down radar and GTMI systems which have a 300+km range. - again, good luck to the families of the crew if they think that they're going to breach a Carriers perimeter on a war footing.
• The fact that it's a rocket means that it's also declaring where the launch platform is - acoustically thats the last thing you want to do.
• It really is a weapon that will make those who don't understand weapons restrictions go "ooh and aah" - but for the serious - it aint that flash.
• Fast, or fast-turning targets will be able to evade.
• They're a blind shot weapon when fired (because they're moving at high speed through water it makes sonar impossible - this is the reason why torpedoes have a guidance wire)
• They also blind the shooter, so the shooter will need to use radar if they want to track the target. Otherwise its a "hail mary" shot.
• They're a "Hallmark" weapon - when you send it, everyone on the mail route knows where you are.
• They profess to be able to have a nuke warhead. (apart from the fact that this particular weapon can't be fired from a sub) The nominal but accepted "effective radius of effect" of an underwater nuclear explosion is circa 8km. This "weapon" has a range of approx 10km. Guess who's going to have their last command and get whacked by the after underwater after effects?
• These things won't last 15 minutes in contested sea space - but against a tanker which can't get away. hmmmm one begins to wonder about tactical motive.

Super weapon - hardly. But all the kids will get excited.

 

[Viper75]

Oh yeah, now I get it!

A bubble torpedo =a torpedo designed to explode under the keel of a ship. The resulting air bubble lifts the vessel up and breaks its spine when it comes down.

a good example of this is the Mk48 footage seen on the web of the old HMAS Torrens getting torpedoed.

(its one of the most popular pieces of footage you see at sub warfare conferences - always guaranteed to pull a crowd. )

Roger that gf, and thanks for your patience - how dumb of me not to get it! :drunk I am familiar with the type and the operating principles, just haven't seen the term bubble torpedo before (of course describes all modern anti-ship torps that I can think of). I guess this is because most of my contact with ASW/ASUW-related subjects has not been in english

I agree re: Torrens SINKEX footage, the clip and the close-up pics are long-time favorites! I guess it must be one of the most widespread clip in navy circles. Btw, any idea what the white markings on the ship were used for? Aiming points? Optronic measurements of some type? Come to think of it I've seen them in other pics of SINKEX:es as well, but have (unfortunately!) never participated in one.

Getting back to the subject of the thread: what I fail to understand (this occurrence is common, sorry folks!) about the reported Iranian Shkval-type "wonder weapon" is: what would the Iranians use it for (except as propaganda aimed at uninformed politicians)? Especially if the weapon is surface launched. Do they (does anyone who knows US air power?) think they will ever get into launch range against any ships? What's the point if it is meant against US subs? Why would a US sub come even close to any Iranian surface units, since they can be taken out by air?

From what I understand about the real Shkval, it was intended by the Russians as a last-ditch snapshot weapon that an SSN that finds itself ambushed (by a quieter western sub) and suddenly detects an incoming torp on passive sonar can immediately either:
1) snapshoot the Shkval blindly at the torp bearing with the idea that the western sub even if at long range cannot ignore the shot and has to cut the guidance wire of her torp to be able to maneuver to evade the faster Shkval, while the SSN evades or
2) go active and hopefully detect the western sub close by followed by an "aimed" Shkval shot in the hope that the Shkval's speed will still allow it to impact before the incoming torpedo thereby cutting the wire (?) - or at least sinking the western sub as a retaliation while the SSN herself is sunk.

If the above is correct, and even if the "wonder weapon" was sub-launched, I can't see the relevance of any Shkval-type weapon for the Iranians, as in my opinion if hostilities break out, the Iranian Kilos will probably face:
1. "Hopefully but probably not" unprotected merchant shipping -> no need for the weapon, a conventional torp will do nicely
2. "Almost certainly" _massive_ MPA & helo ASW -> no use for the weapon at all (and maybe, _if_ they can get past the air searchers and get too close to a CVBG/SAG or protected convoy, then some surface ASW units -> still more effectively countered by a conventional guided heavyweight torp)
3. "Only in a very improbable, lucky situation" sub vs sub combat. If a Kilo meets an SSN (which would IMO probably be kept well offshore as Tomahawk launch platforms instead of very risky SSK hunting in the littoral) the Kilo would be the more potential ambusher! -> best done by guided ASW torp allowing the Kilo to keep its distance to hopefully stay undetected and guide the torp towards the SSN from a different bearing than her own.

So what's the point of Iran getting a short-ranged, super-fast & unguided underwater weapon?

 

[alexsa]

So what's the point of Iran getting a short-ranged, super-fast & unguided underwater weapon?

This is the trust of my orignail question: Is it all propaganda hyp by Iran? My gut feeling is that it was and judging by the comments to date it would appear to be the case. If you believe even a small propropation of the claims may by the republican guard then Iran have overtaken every other country in weapons development. I have a hard time swallowing that.

Admin Edit: Please avoid linking to external discussion forums, alternative links for Shkval added]

Sorry about that, got carried away with the discussion.

 

[alexsa]

Super weapon - hardly. But all the kids will get excited.

To take what GF said one step further a look at the math behind a rocket propelled unguided 360kph torpedo with a range of 7km suggests the rational behind its use is pretty poor. (I don’t claim to be an expert I am just looking at the apparent capability of the weapon)

For surface ships at 7km the gyro input into the weapon will need to be very accurate as every 0.5 degree error at that range will result in a 61m error down range. For longer ranges the error increases. This may not seem much of an error but where a largish ship is 250m long it can become significant if the gyro error is out by 1 (122m error) to 2 degrees and you combine any possible speed error.

Add to this the calculation of speed. For a warship at economic cruising (say 17 knots) a 5% error in speed will result in a position error in the order of 510m where the vessel is 7km away and the weapons takes 19 very noisy minutes to get there. If you are relying on radar tracking and the target is not playing ball by maintaining a very steady course and speed then speed error may be significant over these ranges and 5% may be realistic (even 10% if the target decides to use an aggressive zig zag). This is why torpedos are now guided, as you really need to get quite close to minimise the effect of such errors with an unguided shot. Fire such a weapon from 7km away the time and the noise would allow any alert target to step aside and call all goofers up on deck to watch it go by.

For submarines it gets more interesting. Bearing error is likely to be greater due to the quiet nature of the vessel and the fact you may be dealing with transient information (i.e. the occasional bearing) even after they have fired. Speed error may be reduced although event at 5 knots but unless the weapons is point black then it will still be a factor. More importantly you have to aim in three dimensions and take into account azimuth. The bearing and azimuth errors will be cumulative. It would not take much of an error to miss or much of a manoeuvre to dodge the shot.

Even where the weapon is fired in response to a discharge from a western submarine at reasonably close range this submarine will move after firing and accuracy will depend on the ability to calculate the direction and azimuth of such moves (they don’t have to be much) Even at 10 knots the sub will move 926m in three minutes. You assume a 5 knot speed and the sub does 10 you have 463m error in position.

As GF stated once this thing is fired the other sub knows where you are. Where “squall” is fired in response to a torpedo launch from another sub it would appear to have almost zero defensive benefit unless it hits, as it will provide excellent mid course guidance to the submarine that fired in the first place. Even if the wire broke the follow up snap shot will know where to go, worse still the as a result of firing “squall” you won’t know the second shot is coming.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Roger that gf, and thanks for your patience

Not a problem!

Getting back to the subject of the thread: what I fail to understand (this occurrence is common, sorry folks!) about the reported Iranian Shkval-type "wonder weapon" is: what would the Iranians use it for (except as propaganda aimed at uninformed politicians)? Especially if the weapon is surface launched. Do they (does anyone who knows US air power?) think they will ever get into launch range against any ships? What's the point if it is meant against US subs? Why would a US sub come even close to any Iranian surface units, since they can be taken out by air?

I suspect that its main potential is to be used as an overt threat against commercial/merchant shipping. If, and its a big if, they decide to threaten regional merchant shipping, then that means that the US and likeminded nations will be forced to start running escorts - as they had to do so years ago during the Iraq/Iran "tanker wars". That becomes a headache in confined waters. However, the advent of armed UCAV's like Predator/Hellfire combinations makes it all the more interesting. As a tactical weapon, I actually see minimal benefit for the Iranians.

From what I understand about the real Shkval, it was intended by the Russians as a last-ditch snapshot weapon that an SSN that finds itself ambushed (by a quieter western sub) and suddenly detects an incoming torp on passive sonar can immediately either:

In some circles thats referred to as a "hail mary" response

1) snapshoot the Shkval blindly at the torp bearing with the idea that the western sub even if at long range cannot ignore the shot and has to cut the guidance wire of her torp to be able to maneuver to evade the faster Shkval, while the SSN evades or

The launch vessel has still given away her position - at that point the chances that the enemy vessel will be dead from a counter attack is pretty good.

2) go active and hopefully detect the western sub close by followed by an "aimed" Shkval shot in the hope that the Shkval's speed will still allow it to impact before the incoming torpedo thereby cutting the wire (?) - or at least sinking the western sub as a retaliation while the SSN herself is sunk.

Except that the Iranian weapon is not sub launched. It does not look like the Shkval images that I have. It's a derivative if anything.

If the above is correct, and even if the "wonder weapon" was sub-launched, I can't see the relevance of any Shkval-type weapon for the Iranians, as in my opinion if hostilities break out, the Iranian Kilos will probably face:
1. "Hopefully but probably not" unprotected merchant shipping -> no need for the weapon, a conventional torp will do nicely

but the issue is one of symbolism more than practicality.

2. "Almost certainly" _massive_ MPA & helo ASW -> no use for the weapon at all (and maybe, _if_ they can get past the air searchers and get too close to a CVBG/SAG or protected convoy, then some surface ASW units -> still more effectively countered by a conventional guided heavyweight torp)

I think its more likely to be a UCAV in confined waters - USN policy is not to committ major capital vessels in confined waters anyway. Unless the Iranians "do a "Pearl") then the USN is unlikely to have majors in harms way.

In actual fact - the entire area could be monitored by one Global Hawk or 2 x Predators.

3. "Only in a very improbable, lucky situation" sub vs sub combat. If a Kilo meets an SSN (which would IMO probably be kept well offshore as Tomahawk launch platforms instead of very risky SSK hunting in the littoral) the Kilo would be the more potential ambusher! -> best done by guided ASW torp allowing the Kilo to keep its distance to hopefully stay undetected and guide the torp towards the SSN from a different bearing than her own.

The USN was committed in the cold war to trailing and hacking every sub threat - in an area of known volatility, I'd guess that they would be motivated to do something similar. Subs are the only naval weapons that are virtually at war 24/7.

So what's the point of Iran getting a short-ranged, super-fast & unguided underwater weapon?

I think it's more of an issue of symbolic defiance - and it's impressive for those who believe in those statements at face value.

Look at all their announcements in the last 2 weeks. They have made claims about weapons systems which when analysed very carefully are shown to be absolute misrepresentations. The average "reader" will get excited - and thats all they seek to achieve.

Cold hard military analysis of all their announcements, and analysing all those photos shows that they're telling very very big lies.

Although, I will give it to them that they've done some very very fast platform implementation. The Russians though are laughing all the way to the bank, they've sold them technology which in real terms is technically useless in the likely combat scenario envisioned - or is deliberately neutered.

The russians are the ones who've come out ahead. (and I think it is the russians as the chinese have no idea about WIG aircraft)