Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Share

    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:55 pm

    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance,  50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    Thanks for the explanation but if you look at some of the low-intensity conflict in third world countries until 80s they are kind of like 19 century.... most of the opponents are small combatants with few having capabilities of sophisticated antiship missiles and even then they only carry 2 to 4 missiles which when expended makes these small craft very vulnerable even to basic weapon systems esp since  most of their battles are in the littorals

    I get your point that it's an area defense weapon not a point defense weapon I assume you mean it cannot be aimed very well against surface ships and that's why maybe it is useful against static targets during shore bombardment

    miroslav

    Posts : 62
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2016-11-16
    Location : Land of Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miroslav on Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:10 pm

    nastle77 wrote:
    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance,  50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    Thanks for the explanation but if you look at some of the low-intensity conflict in third world countries until 80s they are kind of like 19 century.... most of the opponents are small combatants with few having capabilities of sophisticated antiship missiles and even then they only carry 2 to 4 missiles which when expended makes these small craft very vulnerable even to basic weapon systems esp since  most of their battles are in the littorals


    Dont get mo wrong I like the idea of a close up an dirty fight with ships, guns, speed and maneuvering.

    Here is the RBU-6000 one the Talwar's, same set up on the Adm. Grigorovic I presume, probably a better sonar and overall fire control, start at 3:56, it has 90R grenades as part of a standard load, active seeking ones, and 48 of them as a total combat load, including the standard RGB60 ones, they mainly use the RGB60 for mines and torpedoes and keep the 90R for submarines. Wikipedia says that the Indian ones (RGB60) have a range of only 1500m, very down graded.

    This sort of indicates that a ship like the Adm. Grigorovic has solid ASW capabilities, all included.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpjbdP6CHo

    miroslav

    Posts : 62
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2016-11-16
    Location : Land of Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  miroslav on Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:20 pm

    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    miroslav wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    nastle77 wrote:Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    They will explode its very simple arming fuse, however why would you target surface ship with it? I dont see the situations for it myself. For shore bombardment sure, it would act like mortar but why against surface ships?

    Why not !  if it's close to you you fire with everything you have  to take advantage.
    Exactly was thinking of low tech littoral warfare involving small ships that routinely carried this system but didn't have submarine opponents and might end up fighting other smaller surface combatents  

    Theoretically this is all possible, but the system is not designed for it at all. This is essentially an area target weapon not a point target one. If you want to engage surface targets (sea or land) there are far, far more effective weapons like the main gun, as some one mentioned before, most ships equipped with RBU-600 will have at least a 57mm universal gun. Using an RBU-6000 up an close against an enemy ship is well, 19 century style.

    As far ass the fuse goes, its a dual one, it can be activates by contact and set to detonate at a certain depth, the minimal difference in depth that the grenades are set to is 5m. So a volley of 12 grenades will cover the dept from, for instance,  50 to 105 with detonations at every 5m, roughly. The fuse can be set manually or automatically, meaning, as an example: first three at 50, 70 and 80, second three at 100 120 140 and so on.

    The new versions of the grenades, like the ones on Adm. Girgorovic and I supose on the Udaloy class, have an active seeker head, basically a small sonar, the warhead is smaller (shaped charge for point contact) but that is a small drawback compare to the gains of having an active seeker head.

    Thanks for the explanation but if you look at some of the low-intensity conflict in third world countries until 80s they are kind of like 19 century.... most of the opponents are small combatants with few having capabilities of sophisticated antiship missiles and even then they only carry 2 to 4 missiles which when expended makes these small craft very vulnerable even to basic weapon systems esp since  most of their battles are in the littorals


    Dont get mo wrong I like the idea of a close up an dirty fight with ships, guns, speed and maneuvering.

    Here is the RBU-6000 one the Talwar's, same set up on the Adm. Grigorovic I presume, probably a better sonar and overall fire control, start at 3:56, it has 90R grenades as part of a standard load, active seeking ones, and 48 of them as a total combat load, including the standard RGB60 ones, they mainly use the RGB60 for mines and torpedoes and keep the 90R for submarines. Wikipedia says that the Indian ones (RGB60) have a range of only 1500m, very down graded.

    This sort of indicates that a ship like the Adm. Grigorovic has solid ASW capabilities, all included.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpjbdP6CHo

    This is better, and I am suppose to be working as a programmer.


    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:04 pm

    Thanks
    I wonder why western navies did not retain similar weapons ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:35 am

    Re RBU 6000
    Will it's rockets not explode if they hit surface ships or land targets ? Are they designed to explode only under water ?

    You talk about the system like it has only one type of rocket.

    The anti sub rockets are guided and will use sonar to actively home in on a submarine.

    The mine rockets will float in the water and if anything comes close or touches them they will explode.

    the anti diver models will detonate at a preset depth and can also be used against subs.

    And the decoy rockets make sounds and move away from the area to distract subs or torpedoes.

    I would say most of the exploding models have an impact fuse as well as a depth fuse or proximity fuse.

    Why not ! if it's close to you you fire with everything you have to take advantage.

    Because the RPK-8 anti submarine weapon is not cheap and only has a range of about 4.3km... at that range a burst of 30mm cannon shells would probably be more effective.

    Any medium gun would be vastly more accurate and more effective too.

    I was thinking of very low tech warfare
    This system is carried by parchim poti petya class ships which also are the major surface combatants of smaller navies in 80s so maybe this RBU can be used as a weapon against offshore patrol vessels minseweepers coastal merchant shopping etc too esp against opponents who might not have much of a submarine fleet

    The mine rockets would be useful to lay in the path of an incoming small boat or torpedo and would also be useful against enemy divers.

    A medium gun like a 57mm or 76mm gun would be vastly more useful most of the time.

    RPGs and even ATGMs on board could easily also be more useful too.

    Thanks
    I wonder why western navies did not retain similar weapons ?

    No profit in cheap and simple...

    Torpedoes are used against enemy subs now... mostly mini torpedoes of small calibre.

    Of course in the US Navy they had ASROC and SUBROC and there was a replacement but it got cancelled because the chance of detecting a Russian sub at 50km was becoming almost impossible... so it was quietly dropped... I believe it was called Sea Lance or something...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:55 pm

    Sweeden has something like that. I don't remember the name but you can found it easily.

    Because the RPK-8 anti submarine weapon is not cheap and only has a range of about 4.3km... at that range a burst of 30mm cannon shells would probably be more effective.

    Any medium gun would be vastly more accurate and more effective too.

    Well it's cheaper than replacing a radar because the enemy fired an guided rocket on it. However I agree with what you say, it's better to use canon.

    Their main role was to intercept torpedos and the Pk was like 0.8 against one torpedo with a 1 salvo. Their range is very small to attack subs.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:09 pm

    http://rusnavy.com/science/weapons/underseaweapon/index.php?print=Y

    Any improvment in torpedos since this article ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:24 am

    Well it's cheaper than replacing a radar because the enemy fired an guided rocket on it. However I agree with what you say, it's better to use canon.

    Not really because to hit a point target like even a medium sized ship you would need to launch volleys of rockets only a few of which will actually land on the target.

    The whole point of the system is to scatter rounds around a point of aim to increase a chance of a hit.

    For the anti sub round with the sonar seeker precision is not important as while it dives it homes in on the target so it can miss by hundreds of metres and then swim towards it target is it descends in the water to get a hit.

    In terms of killing divers a volley of rockets each detonating at different depths in a scattered pattern makes a kill almost certain even against a group of divers... humans are horribly vulnerable to underwater explosions... the shockwaves move rapidly through water but air pockets collapse... think about what that means for a diver in the water when an explosive goes off nearby... a humans lungs are two large air pockets inside the body...

    In terms of an incoming enemy torpedo the system needs to drop a spread cluster of mines so that the torpedo will pass by a few to ensure their proximity explosion defeats the torpedo in question.

    The RBU and other similar Rocket depth charge launchers evolved in Soviet and Russian service over time to make them more flexible and useful and effective.

    In most western countries they remained cheap and very simple and to be honest not hugely useful most of the time.

    The Soviets developed them to the point where they were useful for a range of uses other than just attacking submerged vessels (ie anti frogman etc) but also rather capable at the job.

    Old story of the west replacing simple systems with more sophisticated systems (ie small calibre torpedoes) while the Russians/Soviets expanding the capabilities of systems to make them multipurpose.

    Any improvment in torpedos since this article ?

    I believe if you read through the earlier posts in this thread there were reports about brand new Torpedoes entering service this year and next that are state of the art...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:56 pm

    Thanks for the explanation GarryB first time I really understood RBU

    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    RPK-2( SS-n-15) and RPK-6 and RPK-7(ssn-16)

    Post  nastle77 on Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:10 pm

    were these torpedoes missiles operational on the Yankee and Delta class submarines ?

    Assuming they were for self-protection as both SSN-15 and SSN-16 were ASW missiles , to protect the SSBN from SSN

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:59 am

    The SS-N-15 and SS-N-16 were for ASW use both in defence and in attack.

    In many ways they were super fast torpedoes that delivered torpedoes into the vicinity of enemy Subs at supersonic speed (mach 2.5) but without the noise of underwater travel to warn the target.

    The first the target knows of the attack is the torpedo dropping into the water nearby and starting actively seeking the sub...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:33 am



    In many ways they were super fast torpedoes that delivered torpedoes into the vicinity of enemy Subs at supersonic speed (mach 2.5) but without the noise of underwater travel to warn the target.

    Do you know how much noise the lunch makes ? The booster is pretty noisy so a enemy sub could detect it a very long distances. It woun't be able to track it but it will know it has been lunch and it will know the position of the sub.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:41 am

    Do you know how much noise the lunch makes ? The booster is pretty noisy so a enemy sub could detect it a very long distances. It woun't be able to track it but it will know it has been lunch and it will know the position of the sub.

    The launch of any weapon makes noise... not sure you will care about a launch 40km away... they can be launched by ships as well too...

    Most of them move through the water like a torpedo and it surfaces and then the booster rocket motor fires to drag them out of the water... the launch noise would not be that much different from a sub launched Harpoon or Calibr.

    BTW I remember seeing a missile being fired from a surface ship... the torpedo tubes are turned to the side and the missile leaves the torpedo tube on the ship and splashes into the water... then a few metres further away from the ship the rocket motor fires and the missile leaves the water on a ballistic path to the target.

    they could have adapted it for the ship... there is also the Medvedka, but by using the torpedo based system they can launch torpedos at long range targets rapidly and without modification needed.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:11 am

    Was the SSN 16 a dual role weapon ? ASW and ASUW
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:19 am

    I guess it is possible, but the ballistic path on the way to the target area would make it rather vulnerable to interception by SAM... SS-N-16 is a 65cm weapon... I would say a 100km shot with a 50 Knot torpedo would be more likely than a 30-40km shot with a much smaller torpedo with a much smaller HE payload...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Dec 31, 2016 4:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:I guess it is possible, but the ballistic path on the way to the target area would make it rather vulnerable to interception by SAM... SS-N-16 is a 65cm weapon... I would say a 100km shot with a 50 Knot torpedo would be more likely than a 30-40km shot with a much smaller torpedo with a much smaller HE payload...
    Makes sense , You are referring to type 65 76 torpedoes which were high speed wake homing and long range >50 km?
    Could they be carried by any sub with 65 cm tubes?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:18 am

    Could they be carried by any sub with 65 cm tubes?

    I would expect that would be the purpose of fitting 65cm tubes on a sub... to allow the use of such torpedoes and weapons...

    Obviously you need a bigger sub to carry such tubes/weapons, but then the role of larger vessel would be to operate further from shore where enemy subs and carrier groups are more likely to be encountered...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2595
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  franco on Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:39 pm

    Are these items improved RPU's or chaff / flare devices?

    https://ria.ru/arms/20170102/1485082489.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16520
    Points : 17128
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:59 am

    Удав-1М is also known in the west as RBU-12000:

    http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/udav_1m/udav_1m.shtml

    While "Запад" — ракетный is known as РПК-8 «Запад»

    http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=7685.0

    Not exactly new systems... note the RPK-8 is the whole system designation that uses sonar and the RBU-6000 launcher and control systems...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Isos on Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:26 pm

    What is the luncher on the carrier they sold to India ? In one vdeo they show it working. It's a small luncher with 2 tubes. At first I thought it was decoys but in the video it uses ammunitions which seems to be big bullets.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  hoom on Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:19 pm

    If it looked like this it's DP-64 anti-diver grenade launcher

    Edit: Probably this

    Which is apparently a ZiF-121 decoy launcher http://www.aame.in/2013/07/ins-vikramaditya-testing-its-zif-121.html
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:37 pm

    hoom wrote:If it looked like this it's DP-64 anti-diver grenade launcher

    Edit: Probably this

    Which is apparently a ZiF-121 decoy launcher http://www.aame.in/2013/07/ins-vikramaditya-testing-its-zif-121.html

    ПК-2 Decoy launcher

    nastle77

    Posts : 195
    Points : 255
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:06 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Could they be carried by any sub with 65 cm tubes?

    I would expect that would be the purpose of fitting 65cm tubes on a sub... to allow the use of such torpedoes and weapons...

    Obviously you need a bigger sub to carry such tubes/weapons, but then the role of larger vessel would be to operate further from shore where enemy subs and carrier groups are more likely to be encountered...
    Right so the standard ASUW torpedo of soviet subs during the cold war was the type 53 65 ?
    It was wake homing? And it's effective range was 10 miles?
    avatar
    Benya

    Posts : 528
    Points : 532
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Benya on Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:25 pm

    Russia developing Khishchnik high-speed torpedo to replace VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo

    The Elektropribor Design Bureau in Saratov is developing a high-speed torpedo dubbed Khishchnik (Russian for ‘raptor’) and designed to replace the Shkval, expert Vladimir Tuchkov writes in an article with the Svobodnaya Pressa online news agency. The blog of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) has reported that Elektropribor is soon to complete the development of a sophisticated high-speed torpedo. The weapon is designed for replacing the famous Shkval capable of accelerating to 200 knots under water. CAST learnt about that when Elektropribor applied for participating in the 2015 Aircraft Maker of the Year Competition held by the Union of Aviation Industrialists of Russia (UAIR).


    Artist Impression: A Shkval torpedo is launched from a submarine

    Two applications have been submitted, with one of them dedicated to "the execution of the state defense order for developing components of advanced underwater vehicles." The application continues: "Since 2013, the company has been developing and manufacturing prototypes and testing a component of the underwater missile embodying advanced boundary layer control principles."

    The weapon in question is the Khishchnik, of which very little is known due to the program being very hush-hush.

    The torpedo is under development by the company developing components for military planes, and the weapon has been submitted for the competition to be held by UAIR. The thing is, the type of weapons is called rocket-assisted torpedo, and Elektropribor is developing electrical units for its rocket motor and the control systems.

    The NII-24 Research Institute (now the Region State Research and Production Company, a subsidiary of Tactical Missiles Corp.) kicked off Shkval’s development in 1960. The requirements specification called for a torpedo with a cruising speed of 200 knots and a range of 20 km for launch via the standard 533-mm torpedo tube.


    Shkval nose cone

    The first prototype was made as soon as 1964. The same year, it launched its tests at Lake Issyk-Kul followed by tests in the Black Sea near the city of Feodosiya. The tests failed. The designers developed one model after another that kept on failing to meet the stringent requirements specification. It is the sixth prototype that passed the tests and was cleared for full-rate production. The torpedo entered the Soviet Navy’s inventory in 1977.

    Its high speed resulted from cavitation. Research into this field was started by a TsAGI affiliate in the Soviet Union in the late ‘40s. In the late ‘50s, the scientists came up with a harmonious theory of cavitation movement and issued recommendations for applying its principles to high-speed underwater vehicle development. Cavitation boils down to an object (a torpedo in this case) moving inside an air bubble, overcoming the drag caused by the air, rather than by water. A combined-cycle gas turbine unit in the nose section creates the air bubble enveloping the torpedo.

    The weapon is propelled by a jet from its solid-propellant rocket motor, rather than by a screw or a waterjet. The Shkval’s power plant is two-stage. First, the solid-propellant motor accelerates the torpedo to the cavitation speed. Then, the sustainer - an underwater ramjet - kicks in.


    Shkval rear, showing the guidance fins and the electronics connector

    The development of the underwater ramjet proved to be as difficult as that of the cavitation generator. It is radically different to the ones used in planes and rockets. It uses seawater as actuating medium and oxidizer, while hydroreactive metals are its fuel.

    The speed requirement was met, but the range proved to be a mere 13 km. The torpedo’s launch depth was 30 m, and the weapon dashed to its target at 6 m below the surface. Initially, its warhead was nuclear and had a yield of 150 kilotons. The torpedo weighed 2,700 kg and measured 8,200 mm long.

    While having a huge speed, the torpedo lacked a seeker. There were two reasons for that. First, maneuvering worth mentioning is impossible at such a speed, because the air bubble will disintegrate. Second, the torpedo is very noisy and it vibrates, which will make the seeker hear nothing but the motor.

    Naturally, the heading of the enemy ship subject to sinking as well as its speed and other factors is taken into consideration prior to the Shkval’s launch, i.e. a lead is allowed for, but it is short, because the Shkval covers 13 km inside 130 s - a bit more than 2 min. The torpedo’s baseline model carried a 150-kt nuclear warhead. It was replaced with a high-explosive one weighing about 250 kg, when the time came to slash the nuclear stockpiles. However, the launch of the torpedo exposed the submarine, for the Shkval’s wake gave its position away lock, stock and barrel. The torpedo’s short range was fraught with another problem: to attack an aircraft carrier or other major combatant, the submarine had to enter its antisubmarine coverage area, which reduced its own chances for survival. In other words, although the designers produced high technical characteristics, the weapon proved to be of little use in practical terms. The Shkval was removed from the inventory.

    Designers in two more countries echoed the ideas embodied in the Shkval. In 2005, Germany announced the development of the Barracuda supercavitating torpedo with a speed of 400 km/h, and, two years ago, the Iranian chief of naval operations mentioned a torpedo travelling at 320 km/h. However, these are not weapons ready for combat, rather prototypes undergoing the trials.

    The Khishchnik is not a version of the Shkval. Serious money has been set aside for its development. The two contractors alone - Elektropribor and the SEPO-ZEM plant in Saratov - co-pursuing the Khishchnik-M program have received more than 1.5 billion rubles ($25 million).

    Therefore, it is possible that the torpedo will have a seeker and be able to maneuver and its range and stealth will increase, expert Vladimir Tuchkov writes in the article on the Svobodnaya Pressa news website.

    Source: Arrow http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/january-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4791-russia-developing-khishchnik-high-speed-torpedo-to-replace-va-111-shkval-supercavitating-torpedo.html
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10509
    Points : 10986
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  George1 on Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:47 am

    Completed field tests of the modernized naval artillery installation AK-176MA



    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2467332.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:06 pm