No, there are available countermeasures for wake followers.coolieno99 said:
Last edited:
Sinking an Aircraft carrier
- Thread starter corsair7772
- Start date
- Status
Hard kill is one possibility to counter a wake homer. The Type 65-76 is an enormous torpedo, weighing 4500kg. There is good reason to believe that advanced ASW torpedos such as the MK50, and MK54 should be capable of destroying a big wake homer- if it could be detected in time, and the ALWT seeker can track it.
An array of RBU-type rocket propelled depth charges might also be able to stop an incoming torpedo.
But a really simple way of stopping it, would be to trail or drop a 500kg HE charge behind the vessel, and detonate it when the wake homer is within proximity. If nothing else, such a large detonation should provide enough disturbance in the ship's wake to allow the vessel to "hide" behind the blast, and make a kick turn out of the inbound torpedo's field of view.
Of course, a modern wake-homing torpedo could also be programmed to initiate a search pattern if the target track is lost, and/or activate other seeker options, like active or passive sonar. Destroying the torpedo as far away from the ship as possible is probably the most effective means of defending against it. Particularly so, if one can remember the bad old days of the Cold War- the Soviets had wake-homing torpedos equipped with nuclear warheads for taking out an American carrier task force with a single attack. Nuclear-armed torpedos are no longer supposed to be carried by any vessel- but I'd be surprised if that was actually the reality of the case even today.
The key to defeating the threat is early detection. Fortunately, torpedo engines tend to be quite loud, and relatively speaking- the torpedo is not a very fast weapon. Passive sonar can track most torpedos from thousands of meters distance, and large torpedos could even be tracked with high-resolution ASW, and mine sweeping active sonar, or even with MAD sensors. Blue-green lasers should also be effective at detecting and tracking a large incoming torpedo. Another advantage that surface ships have against wake homing torpedos, is that the bearing of an incoming attack is already known- the weapon's approach will tend to be from the stern.
So basically, by trailing a tethered, unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with short range active sonar, blue-green laser emitters, and/or MAD- a wake-homer can be detected at least a thousand meters from the ship. That should provide ample time to launch a hard-kill device from the stern- like a shallow-detonating depth charge, or a light weight ASW/ATD torpedo.
Frankly, I think that this is a perfect application for the VL ASROC Mk50/54, if the weapon can successfully intercept large anti-ship torpedos.
A carrier should be equipped with stern-launched torpedo-defense measures that can knock out a wake homer- but if the RUM-139A/B could be used to intercept a wake homer, then the carrier's escorts are also capable of defending the group that much more effectively.
An array of RBU-type rocket propelled depth charges might also be able to stop an incoming torpedo.
But a really simple way of stopping it, would be to trail or drop a 500kg HE charge behind the vessel, and detonate it when the wake homer is within proximity. If nothing else, such a large detonation should provide enough disturbance in the ship's wake to allow the vessel to "hide" behind the blast, and make a kick turn out of the inbound torpedo's field of view.
Of course, a modern wake-homing torpedo could also be programmed to initiate a search pattern if the target track is lost, and/or activate other seeker options, like active or passive sonar. Destroying the torpedo as far away from the ship as possible is probably the most effective means of defending against it. Particularly so, if one can remember the bad old days of the Cold War- the Soviets had wake-homing torpedos equipped with nuclear warheads for taking out an American carrier task force with a single attack. Nuclear-armed torpedos are no longer supposed to be carried by any vessel- but I'd be surprised if that was actually the reality of the case even today.
The key to defeating the threat is early detection. Fortunately, torpedo engines tend to be quite loud, and relatively speaking- the torpedo is not a very fast weapon. Passive sonar can track most torpedos from thousands of meters distance, and large torpedos could even be tracked with high-resolution ASW, and mine sweeping active sonar, or even with MAD sensors. Blue-green lasers should also be effective at detecting and tracking a large incoming torpedo. Another advantage that surface ships have against wake homing torpedos, is that the bearing of an incoming attack is already known- the weapon's approach will tend to be from the stern.
So basically, by trailing a tethered, unmanned underwater vehicle equipped with short range active sonar, blue-green laser emitters, and/or MAD- a wake-homer can be detected at least a thousand meters from the ship. That should provide ample time to launch a hard-kill device from the stern- like a shallow-detonating depth charge, or a light weight ASW/ATD torpedo.
Frankly, I think that this is a perfect application for the VL ASROC Mk50/54, if the weapon can successfully intercept large anti-ship torpedos.
A carrier should be equipped with stern-launched torpedo-defense measures that can knock out a wake homer- but if the RUM-139A/B could be used to intercept a wake homer, then the carrier's escorts are also capable of defending the group that much more effectively.
I know that the USN has also focused on anti-torpedo defense with ASW torpedos, but I don't know what the current status of the USN's Torpedo Defense program is. Clearly, their research is ongoing, and I don't have the requisite "need to know." There is some info here: http://www.arl.psu.edu/capabilities/td.htmlUhu said:
There is also mention of a supercavitating gun that has fired an underwater projectile at velocities greater than 1500m/s. Apparently, this has torpedo defense implications for obvious reasons.
Finally, there have been accoustic advances made that could blind a torpedo's seeker with focused sonar energy. Though it would be useful against the majority of torps carried aboard an OPFOR sub, I doubt this would be effective against a strict wake homer, as it is guiding on the disturbed water caused by a ship's speed, and displacement. Naturally, reducing a ship's wake, and noise level, is as important to making a vessel "stealthy", as reducing it's visual, infrared, radar, and other EM signatures. Obviously, much research is going towards advanced hydrodynamic design- simultaneously reducing drag, noise, and cavitation while increasing speed, range, maneuverablity, surviveability, and seaworthyness. Bulbuous, wave-piercing bows, tumblehome hull forms, hydro-dynamic control sufaces, and propulsor technology are some areas that could greatly reduce a ship's wake.
Years ago, it was suggested to me that the Soviets had further experimented with their "wake" homing technology to include chemical "sniffers", that could possibly detect the traces of a ship that has passed. A large ship like a carrier is constantly dumping waste, or leaking some sort of chemical- regardless of how strict they are about controlling such things. If a torpedo could detect that "smell" in a ship's wake, it makes the task of hiding a ship that much more difficult, and that much more important.
Then again, I suppose destroying a sub before it can launch any kind of torpedo would have to be the best defense from sub-launched torpedoes. "Kill the archer, before he can shoot his arrows."
coolieno99
New Member
Is the Type 65-76 torpedo the same as the TT-5? It might be different designations for the same torpedo. The TT-5 is a 4500 kg torpedo, but it is propelled by a water jet. The water jet probably produced much less noise than contra-rotating propellers found on conventional torpedoes.
water jets still produce lateral torque (strange but true) - so from that perspective it doesn't provide any advantage over a CR prop equiped conv torp.coolieno99 said:
I did some work with the guy who invented the cavitating projectile (circa 2000-2001) and he had the 20mm weapon scoring one shot one kill. For some reason USN wanted 30mm instead and that had blown out the ratio somewhat.
I have no idea what percentile they'd be down to now - but certainly in 2001 they were able to penetrate a hardened target 30m down to a depth of 30cm within the casing (using a long rod rather than an expl charge)
Here's a thought: unmanned miniature submarines. Armed with torpedoes or can kamikaze. Small compact submarines are able to go to further depths than normal submarines? If so then why not make small submarines that can go down to depths far surpassing the terminal depth of normal subs?
Is it possible to go beneath a carrier and launch a torpedo straight up?
Nobody has answered my question as to why we can't make a stealth torpedo; the closest response was: because torpedo engines are too loud and the reverberations would be picked up. But if they can literally cloak full sized submarines, then how come there's no stealth torpedo? If innovatively engineered, how would you be able to tell the difference between a torpedo and a tuna fish?
Why not make an underwater bomb in the shape of a tuna and coat with organic compounds and even give it some fins instead of propellers?
Maybe i'm just crazy
Is it possible to go beneath a carrier and launch a torpedo straight up?
Nobody has answered my question as to why we can't make a stealth torpedo; the closest response was: because torpedo engines are too loud and the reverberations would be picked up. But if they can literally cloak full sized submarines, then how come there's no stealth torpedo? If innovatively engineered, how would you be able to tell the difference between a torpedo and a tuna fish?
Why not make an underwater bomb in the shape of a tuna and coat with organic compounds and even give it some fins instead of propellers?
Maybe i'm just crazy
already under developmentendeend said:
Anything is possible - the issue is whether its achievable and has benefit.endeend said:
You're not going to get complete answers on that in a public forum. Suffice to say that the smaller a platform, the louder it can potentially act - as a sub is really just a variation of a transducer. Bigger subs are able to disperse noise and vibration much easier than smaller subs. (it's an irony in itself that the bigger you are, the quieter you can be as a sub)endeend said:
the issue of a system telling the difference between biologics and metal lies in just that - different characteristics exploited by sensor systems.
There are "stealth" enhanced underwater weapons systems under development already - none in the public domain. At the last UDT conference I attended there were some 8 new torpedo concepts discussed in session - none of them have appeared for discussion in open and/or public forums yet.
The japanese have built a robotic Tunaendeend said:
Maybe.endeend said:
Last edited:
Yes it has. Considerably larger than that - and the results are not available in the public domain.jlb said:
It's kind of funny to think the US would spend that kind of money building dozens of Aegis-equipped ships for their own navy, as well as selling them to allies, if it didn't work as advertised. That would have to be the scam of the century, with a net profit of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Considering that the Soviets in their military prime didn't think they could defeat it, without losing a significant percentage of their forces in the effort- I think it would be safe to assume there is reason to believe that it's as effective as it is supposed to be.
I certainly wouldn't want to be a pilot ordered to penetrate airspace protected that system.
Considering that the Soviets in their military prime didn't think they could defeat it, without losing a significant percentage of their forces in the effort- I think it would be safe to assume there is reason to believe that it's as effective as it is supposed to be.
I certainly wouldn't want to be a pilot ordered to penetrate airspace protected that system.
Actually, during the Cold War, the US did dupe the USSR with some rather fictional weapons systems; the DIVAD (Divisional Air defence, I think it was an APC which was supposed to take out aircraft, it even got featured in Newsweek.), and of course the Star Wars program. Seems like Disinformation wasn't only practiced by the KGB.Wild Weasel said:
This is pure speculation on my part but if it seems that if the AEGIS could take out X missiles at a time, the US would only advertise that it would take 0.5X. Otherwise, it would be telling its adversaries just how many missiles it needed to send.
I wouldn't expect them to be... but thanks for the info.gf0012-aust said:
Wild Weasel: I could perfectly imagine that the largest live-fire test would have been against a dozen targets, and the results from that test then having been scaled through simulations. Live fire tests and training exercises are expensive and can be dangerous, so it can be tempting to rely on nifty computer sims. I've heard of stranger procurement decisions.
There really isn't a need to actually fire (expensive) missiles at target drones, given the computing power available. The system works, they know it works, the nations that have bought it believe that it works, ( enough to buy as many systems as they can afford ) and everyone else is scared to death of it, or has been brutalized by it.
Frankly, attacking it with anything less than an entire airforce, and navy, is probably suicide. And afterwards, the political, and military disaster of having attempted an attack ( successful or not ) is going to result in utter distruction.
But hey, I'm just an arm-chair analyst....
Frankly, attacking it with anything less than an entire airforce, and navy, is probably suicide. And afterwards, the political, and military disaster of having attempted an attack ( successful or not ) is going to result in utter distruction.
But hey, I'm just an arm-chair analyst....
Most scenarios that aircraft carriers fought in since WW2 have been when they are being used by the country that controls air and sea dominance. The best examples are in Vietnam and the Falklands Wars. In both cases the NVAF and AAF had capable pilots and aircraft but the carrier's were protected to well by their battle groups to be attacked. Neither the North Vietnam and Argentina had a navy to speak of in those conflicts. The British did learn their lesson that all of the fleet needs protection with the loss of ships to AAF. Carriers have also seen a lot action in Yugoslavia and Iraq. In both cases the mighty USN was able to project air & sea dominance so quickly that the enemy was never any real threat.
contedicavour
New Member
Agree. Chances of sending a carrier battle group against a country with a powerful navy are weak. Chances of sending it against a country with a strong air force are already higher though...LancerMc said:
Argentina's 1982 navy was pretty big as a matter of fact : an ex UK light carrier, a WW2 vintage ex USN cruiser, several destroyer escorts and several submarines including 2 Type 209s... Still no match against the RN.
cheers
powerslavenegi
New Member
A query
Well just a hypothetical question what are the chances of the reactor core of a nuke powered A/C carrier blowing up in event of a direct hit from a Bomb/missile(catastrophic explosion such as that would certainly blow up sister ships in the vicinity) ? I know that nowhere in the past such a incident has taken place so it will be intreseting to take this into account when one compares Conventionally powered ships to the ones that run on Nukes.
Well just a hypothetical question what are the chances of the reactor core of a nuke powered A/C carrier blowing up in event of a direct hit from a Bomb/missile(catastrophic explosion such as that would certainly blow up sister ships in the vicinity) ? I know that nowhere in the past such a incident has taken place so it will be intreseting to take this into account when one compares Conventionally powered ships to the ones that run on Nukes.
- Status