Is Hoot really worth worying about?

[EmperorNortonII]

So, what with the recent squabble between the US and Iran, someone I know has been trying to make a huge deal over Iran's super-cavitating torpedo. Sources I've found indicate that these things carry, at most, about 200kg of warhead and either have no guidance, or have to slow down during the terminal phase in order to find a target (rendering them vulnerable to counter-measures).

So, are these things really that big of a deal?

 

[Smokin' Joe]

Yes, they can be a big deal if used under the right conditions. Due to OPSEC reasons, that is all I will say.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes, they can be a big deal if used under the right conditions. Due to OPSEC reasons, that is all I will say.

Prove to the Mods that you are restricted by OPSEC due to employment and THEN I'll be more inclined to believe you. (I don't take kindly to people claiming to be what they are not, its pathetic, plus if its true you are identified as a defence professional in the forum)

From what the OP has posted, it doesn't seem too dangerous but i'll look into it further.

 

[Smokin' Joe]

LOL... ok how do I "prove" myself to the Mods? Resume? Do I have to take a test? :smokie

OPSEC does not have to be governed by occupation or employment, only something that you would not want to say due to how it can be used. This usually pertains to Open Source information as classified information is... well classified. Everyone knows that you cannot disclose classified information for a predetermined amount of time even after your employment is terminated, so I am wondering where your "due to employment" statement comes from.

 

[RobWilliams]

LOL... ok how do I "prove" myself to the Mods? Resume? Do I have to take a test? :smokie

OPSEC does not have to be governed by occupation or employment, only something that you would not want to say due to how it can be used. This usually pertains to Open Source information as classified information is... well classified. Everyone knows that you cannot disclose classified information for a predetermined amount of time even after your employment is terminated, so I am wondering where your "due to employment" statement comes from.

I've posted a message on your wall about it, i was thinking that OPSEC was reminiscant of the Official Secrets Act.

Well, I'm just rather confused why a regular person who isn't connected to industry would be concerned about giving out details which (if he isn't in the employment of the defence sector) must have been found on the internet or other public material. I mean lets be honest the material that governments REALLY don't want the public to know is usually deemed 'classified' and not available to the general public. I mean I could claim anything I liked and say 'Oh well I don't have to explain myself 'cus of OPSEC' so i just think its a bit silly thats all.

Overall i'm of the opinion that the statement 'but i can't/wont discuss it' or WTTE leads to the question 'why mention it then?' as it's completely pointless and lends nothing to the discussion, especially in a forum which is meant to be for discussion

But hey, thats just my opinion thats all, just in the mindset that a forum is a place for discussion.

 

[Smokin' Joe]

It's dumb to argue about OPSEC. Google search it. I am sure you will figure it out.

My point being OPSEC can apply to anyone. Not just the government.

Back to the Hoot which is believed to be a copy of the Russian VA-111, not only would it be well used in limited manueverability situation, Iran is known for fitting weapons on anything they can. If they attack something they are not going to use one torpedo. They would fire as many as they could from as many platforms in a confined area. The VA-111 was also known to be used as the PMK-2 deep sea mine. Six of those little guys in a barrel pretty much. Mines??? Hmmm... this sounds familiar. Oh yeah Iran has threatened to shut off the strait.... probably using mines.

True, in an open ocean situation they probably won't be that effective, but in the Arabian Gulf where the water is an average of 35 meters deep or the strait of Hormuz where maneuverability is slim due to many factors, if used properly it could be a helpful tool in sinking ships.

 

[RobWilliams]

It's dumb to argue about OPSEC. Google search it. I am sure you will figure it out.

My point being OPSEC can apply to anyone. Not just the government.

Back to the Hoot which is believed to be a copy of the Russian VA-111, not only would it be well used in limited manueverability situation, Iran is known for fitting weapons on anything they can. If they attack something they are not going to use one torpedo. They would fire as many as they could from as many platforms in a confined area. The VA-111 was also known to be used as the PMK-2 deep sea mine. Six of those little guys in a barrel pretty much. Mines??? Hmmm... this sounds familiar. Oh yeah Iran has threatened to shut off the strait.... probably using mines.

True, in an open ocean situation they probably won't be that effective, but in the Arabian Gulf where the water is an average of 35 meters deep or the strait of Hormuz where maneuverability is slim due to many factors, if used properly it could be a helpful tool in sinking ships.

I did figure it out, hence why i said "i was thinking that it was reminiscant to the Official Secrets Act"

My point was that it seems pointless for someone with no defence links to feel bound by OPSEC especially when posting on a defence forum.

The rest of your post is exactly the sort of thing that you should have point out before (and makes for pretty good reading)

No hard feelings bud

True, sounds pretty dangerous considering the potential damage 1 torpedo could do, i assume they're detectable by regular mine-sweeping methods?

If they are detectable, while the mines themselves may not cause mass sinkings the possibility of a potential "ambush" on these sights when ships are delayed due to them they could cause real damage. Although I doubt a vessel carrying one could get close enough undetected to a US fleet or ship as the range (from the values I could find which are not Wiki) is 6.4km [1] (Wiki puts the 'newer' versions at around 7-13km) [2]. Now I know that range isn't everything but it is an important characteristic none-the-less.

The BBC said "Iranian military chiefs said the new missile would be fired from ships with technology to avoid radar detection" [3] but how realistic is this? Not very AFAIK so seabourne threats wouldn't be a problem, however the potential for an attack on a 'vunerable' fleet or lone ship using typical assymetic methods preffered by the Iranians could cause issues

[1] Shkval torpedo (Russia) - VA-111 - Military Periscope
[2] VA-111 Shkval - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[3] BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran tests 'super-fast' torpedo

 

[Smokin' Joe]

I can't attach links but there is a youtube video titled Iranian Stealth Boats. It shows Iran doing some of their drills. Some of the boats they use have a limited radar signature and do not need emissions to navigate or fire weapons.

It sounds like you are on the right track with many factors being played out at one time with your ambush comment. These guys wouldn't deploy one of their little subs and launch one torpedo. They would try to fire a combination of attacks at the same time. Odds are that at least one will succeed.

Iran has not been one known for great technology, except I heard they have this pretty cool UAV drone (LAFFS!!!), so I challenge the idea of them strapping a torpedo tube on a small stealth boat. Any idea what type of platform fired this puppy during tests? I haven't found anything.

P.S. I never have hard feelings. Even if I do sound grouchy, I really don't care. LOL

 

[PCShogun]

Well, agreed that the 'Hoot' can be dangerous under the right conditions. It is a very fast underwater missile, but is has some severe limitations also.

Pros:
It is very fast.
it has a large warhead.
(unconfirmed) - can be launched from Iran's Mini subs)

Cons:
It is loud and therefore doubt it will not have any built in guidance involving sonar.
Because it is a super-cavitation weapon it will be essentially unguided.
(Yes, I know it has SOME guidance)
It uses a solid fuel engine. You are not sneaking this weapon up on anyone.
The submarine that launches this weapon will instantly be detected.
Short range.

I expect that, initially, this weapon will have some success against transiting tankers, assuming that the launch platforms survive for long. It would be much harder to get within launch range of a warship. however, it is possible. USS Stark got hit with a missile it failed to detect until a lookout saw it coming in.

 

[Smokin' Joe]

USS Stark got hit with a missile it failed to detect until a lookout saw it coming in.

Lackadaisical personnel...... Happens more often then what you would think.

 

[PCShogun]

Lackadaisical personnel...... Happens more often then what you would think.

True, which leads me to state that despite its shortcomings, the 'Hoot' can hit a target if conditions are right. I cannot imagine the look on a sonar operators face when a 200 knot torpedo is detected coming at them, assuming he could make that determination over the freight train of sound reverberating through the water.

 

[Anixtu]

True, in an open ocean situation they probably won't be that effective, but in the Arabian Gulf where the water is an average of 35 meters deep or the strait of Hormuz where maneuverability is slim due to many factors, if used properly it could be a helpful tool in sinking ships.

Most of the Persian Gulf is deep enough for warships to manoeuvre freely. Oil platforms are more of a hazard than shallows in most areas. There are of course exceptions up north and close in to the coast.

Although descibed as a "chokepoint" the Strait of Hormuz is actually quite broad and doesn't really impose restriction on manoeuvre in the small scale sense. It's about 20' wide at the narrowest section. Not comparable to a fjord or an estuary.

 

[Cadredave]

Yes, they can be a big deal if used under the right conditions. Due to OPSEC reasons, that is all I will say.

OPSEC is a term used by us in the Military it has a classified rating of SV or higher now unless you are a def pro then you do need to prove it to the MODs by either showing that you have served or are still serving. Thats why those with there names in blue have proved to the MODs that we are indeed def pros on a defence based web site.

Dont go using terms that you found on wiki as your time here will be very short indeed.

CD

 

[RobWilliams]

OPSEC is a term used by us in the Military it has a classified rating of SV or higher now unless you are a def pro then you do need to prove it to the MODs by either showing that you have served or are still serving. Thats why those with there names in blue have proved to the MODs that we are indeed def pros on a defence based web site.

Dont go using terms that you found on wiki as your time here will be very short indeed.

CD

He's currently having his paperwork being looked at by the Mods, whether its been ratified or not i have no idea but it was started at least 2 days ago.

 

[Cadredave]

He's currently having his paperwork being looked at by the Mods, whether its been ratified or not i have no idea but it was started at least 2 days ago.

Good another Def Pro, by the way this weapon has already been done to death on here before thats why you are not seeing any other Def pros commenting about it , try looking in the Russian Navy thread you will learn why the US & Russia gave up on this system.

 

[Smokin' Joe]

Most of the Persian Gulf is deep enough for warships to manoeuvre freely. Oil platforms are more of a hazard than shallows in most areas. There are of course exceptions up north and close in to the coast.

Although descibed as a "chokepoint" the Strait of Hormuz is actually quite broad and doesn't really impose restriction on manoeuvre in the small scale sense. It's about 20' wide at the narrowest section. Not comparable to a fjord or an estuary.

I know all about it, I have been there. A couple of times. On an aircraft carrier.

 

[Anixtu]

I know all about it, I have been there. A couple of times. On an aircraft carrier.

Haven't we all. In what capacity did you serve on the aircraft carrier?

 

[Smokin' Joe]

Electronic Warfare Officer, Torpedo Countermeasures (Tech and Operator) were my main jobs, and a few other positions. Was qualified in Operations Specialist role (Air and Surface). I was on the Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) for over 5 years so it got kinda boring and I started working on getting qual'd in other positions.

Yourself?

 

[Anixtu]

I should have been a bit clearer and said that "haven't we all" referred to being in the Gulf more than once, but not on an aircraft carrier in my case.

Navigational and warfare officer on various British auxiliaries. More than a few SoH transits as OOW/OOD.

 

[EmperorNortonII]

Well, agreed that the 'Hoot' can be dangerous under the right conditions. It is a very fast underwater missile, but is has some severe limitations also.

Pros:
It is very fast.
it has a large warhead.
(unconfirmed) - can be launched from Iran's Mini subs)

Cons:
It is loud and therefore doubt it will not have any built in guidance involving sonar.
Because it is a super-cavitation weapon it will be essentially unguided.
(Yes, I know it has SOME guidance)
It uses a solid fuel engine. You are not sneaking this weapon up on anyone.
The submarine that launches this weapon will instantly be detected.
Short range.

I expect that, initially, this weapon will have some success against transiting tankers, assuming that the launch platforms survive for long. It would be much harder to get within launch range of a warship. however, it is possible. USS Stark got hit with a missile it failed to detect until a lookout saw it coming in.

It has a large warhead?

I'll be the first person to say that I'm no expert, but a Mk 48 torpedo has a warhead that's over 15,000 kg. I've seen pictures of that blowing a destroyer escort in two, but I'm not sure even that much warhead would have that sort of effect against a US carrier.

Again, not an expert.