StevoJH
The Bunker Group
That was a 2022 figure I think? If we round to $5.5 M USD that gets 22-23 units maximum for $200M AUD.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The plan is for AUKUS SSN to use an evolved version of the AN/BYG-1 fire control system which will be capable of using British weapons in addition to the US weapons. It may be simpler to modify the Spearfish torpedoes to use the same connector as the Mk48 Mod 7 rather than having different connectors in the torpedo tubes.
SSN AUKUS to Feature AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System - Naval News
SSN AUKUS to Feature AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System - Naval News
Same diameter but MK48 has the cable etc at the rear of the weapon and Spearfish has the electrical connections about mid way in the tube.
There will also be different tube fittings. The tube fittings help locate the weapon in the tube and stop any unwanted movement.
downunderblue
Active Member
Just read it was USD 4.2 unreferenced but that may be old pricing. Inflation is a cow.
Not a lot of torpedoes, is it. Don't know (nor really care) how many AU would have but 20-30 extra almost seems like the CoA DOD had some unspent money and they had to buy something or lose it in next year's budget etc.
Almost not worth the press release too, but wait it's silly season and everyone wants to look tough on national security so maybe that's it.
Lastly, as to comments about the release of classified info, if anyone has to be reminded of that they are in trouble. No one is wanting that nor inducing (possible but unlikely), nor should need the form 5 teacher to remind everyone of their responsibilities etc.
There is sufficient in the public domain to suggest that Spearfish has extended capabilities that the Mk48. Naturally in the evolution of armament production one platform will be better than another, to be evolved and they each spur each other on, but from memory of open source, the extra range and speed of the Spearfish gave Commander more options in battle.
Does anyone know why waveform tech never made it to Western torpedo designs? I assume such a platform needs much longer range to be effective, this why it used the 633mm diameter, but as an area denial and defensive weapon, those wake forming torpedoes seemed really impressive. Maybe the lack of carriers on the other side influenced it, but I wonder with modern sensors and AI etc why some algorithm can't be devised to incorporate some of the benefits in wakehoming can't be incorporated into the 533 designs (esp if the cable is cut and the torpedo is running semi dumb on a preset pattern etc.
Clearly I digress and apologies for any random mutterings but for me there is much change going on with AI/ processing and sensor improvements that is rapidly changing the nature of ASW/ Subsurface warfare etc. The torpedo still is the primary weapon but I wonder how that is all changing and adapting.
Again apologies for the mutterings, gotto get of the couch now and head to a gin festival so that's it for me today. Ta
downunderblue
Active Member
Re Spearfish vs Mk48 etc, I assume Spearfish is much more expensive so maybe whilst having additional capability, they value isn't sufficient to meet the extra price, ie (guessing), is one swordfish better than 1.4 Mk 48s, when the Commander won't always need the additional capability and the real outcome can be met in 95% of tactical cases for cheaper effect.
The JMSDF are now fielding the G-RX7/Type 18 torpedo aboard their new subs. It's interesting that they persist with indigenous production of many weapons. Naturally some commentary suggests it's a very impressive weapon but again like the Swordfish I assume it would be much more expensive that the Mk48 purely on economy of scale alone.
One never forgets that the Belgrano was sunk with a Mark VIII torpedo which was designed around 1925. If the weapon is placed correctly it will still achieve the same result as one many multitudes of cost. The issue is getting it in that position.
The JMSDF are now fielding the G-RX7/Type 18 torpedo aboard their new subs. It's interesting that they persist with indigenous production of many weapons. Naturally some commentary suggests it's a very impressive weapon but again like the Swordfish I assume it would be much more expensive that the Mk48 purely on economy of scale alone.
One never forgets that the Belgrano was sunk with a Mark VIII torpedo which was designed around 1925. If the weapon is placed correctly it will still achieve the same result as one many multitudes of cost. The issue is getting it in that position.
A logical way forward for AUKUS would be to ensure the AUKUS SSN is as system agnostic as possible.
With political changes affecting trade and even long term alliances it makes sense to future proof ourselves as much as possible.
It will not be possible to be totally independent but we need to do the best we can.
With political changes affecting trade and even long term alliances it makes sense to future proof ourselves as much as possible.
It will not be possible to be totally independent but we need to do the best we can.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Have a gin or three for me.
I would be hesitant to compare submarine weapons based off what is in the public domain. Even if you are in the loop the exact capabilities of weapons compared to other weapons operated by other countries is hard to do.
I don't think munition cost is a huge factor either. These are expensive munitions fired by multi billion dollar platforms at other multi billion dollar platforms. $1m vs $1.4m isn't a factor. Weapon storage and maintenance may be different, as are integration costs/time. Weapon purchase prices are rounding errors in comparison.
We had a lot to do with mk48 development. It isn't just a MOTS purchase from Tesco/walmart, our needs are included in its development, to meet our threats. I'm not sure extended range is something we were particularly worried about, we are already well OTH. Discriminating a Soyoru/Collins/39A might be.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You can assume that, but from my POV, the capabilities differences which would be of value would not be available in the public domain.
From what is available publicly, the Spearfish torpedoe has a significantly higher max speed of some 80+ kts vs. the official 28+ kts speed for a Mk 48, however there are a number of other areas where the comparable torpedoes could have different capabilities which are not really addressed by the above.
For example, which torpedoe has a more accurate or sensitive sonar and guidance package? Which torpedoe is quieter in the water so that hostile subs are less likely to become aware that they are being engaged? *Note here, apparently the Mk 48 ADCAP Mod 6 had motor noise isolation added to make the torpedoe harder to detect. What other differences exist between the two torpedoe designs?
If one looks at LWT designs and generations, we can see that the MU-90 and Mk 54 LWT were bot started around the same time and have some similar capabilities. Later on though, the US had the Mk 54 LWT developed which did not have quite the same capabilities in terms of speed and depth performance as the earlier Mk 50, but also cost significantly less per torpedoe. The US still considered this acceptable because the perceived threat posed by fast and deep-diving Soviet SSN's like of the Alfa-class was not what it once had been.
No idea if the RN's Spearfish was developed as a potential counter for specific Soviet SSN classes and thus the high speed, but IMO it would not be unreasonable to think that. One area I would wonder about is whether the Otto/HAP fuel system used aboard the Spearfish was expensive like the fuel systems used aboard the MU-90 and Mk 50 LWT's, rather hard to determine without finding any contracts placed for new production.
I would therefore suggest people consider the following question, "what heavyweight torpedoes have the performance and capabilities that the RAN need, and what are the costs involved in them?" I do not really expect answers, but from my POV if Torp A and Torp B are largely the same in terms of performance specs, then if Torp A would have some additional integration costs associated because of changes to tube fittings as well as the CMS, I would expect Torp B to be fitted. Especially if the ongoing or per-torp cost for Torp A also ended up being a fair bit higher.
downunderblue
Active Member
They came in very small quantities but when you sample 5 gins from each stall and there are about 20 stalls it all becomes a blur very quickly.
FWIW I was impressed by the Emerald Fairy Gin which was a very unusual strawberry and apply sour gin. The whole market is very decentralised and there is some weird and wonderful (and rough) stuff being produced. There was even a hemp smelling gin which was very earthy/ pungent (you know that smell) and it seemed to interest the inner city greenish voters in the room ... Not for me though.
downunderblue
Active Member
I heard a sonarman once talk about the ASW cat/mouse game and the ability of a torpedo to act as a defensive weapon or denying the area to the surface platform who is hunting you. I'd never thought of it like that and whilst aviation still means the surface vessel can still reach out and touch you, the ability to scare the bejeezus out of an adversary by firing a single wake-homing 65-76A torpedo which will follow your wake at speeds of up to 50km/h for up 100km. You could just imagine the chaos and reactionary defensive posture when fired against a capital ship or similar task force.
In open source it seems the German DM2A4 and Turkish Roketsan Akya have similar wake homing modes (excluding all the Soviet/ similar client state operators). I'm assuming the capability would be useful when you want less attention and bug out quietly.
Thinking out aloud, I've always wondered why there arent (and I have no idea if or there isn't such a capability) a defensive weapon to defeat a torpedo. It's all good to run a Nixie and have bubbles around your ship, or alternate acoustic targets, but why cant we program a Mk-46 with its 44kg warhead to go after the launched torpedo threat itself? We do this for surface to surface threats with missile interceptors of CIWS etc, but why couldn't we do this with a cheap torpedo interceptor or similar?
People call me an ideas man, Daryl ... but from watching Hunt for Red October and many other and similar themes I always wondered why we don't just punch back and eliminate the risk rather than run from it? I assume many of you have had some involvement in risk management but from memory isn't elimination (especially kinetically) of a hazard or risk the highest level of protection or effective control?
The ADHD is clearly unmedicated so I may now go onto something else that catches my fancy. Just a thought as it doesn't make sense to my unmedicated mind as of now.
Considering the short range of the LWT in ship borne triple launchers, I always thought they’d evolve into the logical solution of an anti-torpedo torpedo.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I'll have to chase up the Emerald Fairy Gin. Won't touch the hemp. I may be a long haired musician but I steer clear of that stuff. Greenies, however!!!!
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Being also unmedicated ADHD I concur with your thoughts. Just be careful you don't slip into a Scot accent impersonating a Russian!!!!
European navies chase the white whale of torpedo-busting torpedoes
Germany and the Netherlands are banking on a European Union project to field a workable defensive system for surface ships by 2030.
www.defensenews.com
They've been working on it. Slow progress last I heard. One day they may be doing just that though.
downunderblue
Active Member
Thanks for that. It's dated Sept last year and states the USN trialled something in 2017 but moved away from it.European navies chase the white whale of torpedo-busting torpedoes
Germany and the Netherlands are banking on a European Union project to field a workable defensive system for surface ships by 2030.
They've been working on it. Slow progress last I heard. One day they may be doing just that though.
It also states " ... also unanswered were questions about the shortcomings that the German navy sees in SeaSpider. Defense News has learned that the depth of the envisioned intercept sequence is at issue, with the Atlas system currently limited to hits around the water surface".
Whilst I get that limited funding may be an issue, it's hardly the Regan Star Wars system, isn't it? How hard would it be to equip a wire guided torpedo and in effect guide it in?
Yes and autonomous capability would be beneficial, anything is better than nothing I would assume?
Back to the drawing board, Daryl!
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
This could go on for years. Best to sink the sub before it fires the torpedo. Geez, my name's getting out there! Lol
I'd be no good in espionage.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
P.S. The only gin I've got in the house is Darley's
Of course. I assume this is meant for those cases where that hasn't worked.