+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 69

Thread: The Shkval: awesome new torpedo

  1. #46
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    997
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6 View Post
    So bottom line is that the Shkval is useless. And cativating weapons in general if we used the lack of a production weapon for the USN as an example.

    Just wanting to get the thread back on track...
    unless there has been a "requirements brain fart" - no weapon is useless.

    the point being made is that its not the wonder weapon that is often promoted in the press.

    cavitating weapons have not been abandoned by the USN at all (if production visibility is used as the measurement of employment success). the USN has achieved some pretty speccy outcomes with cav weapons - its just that they also don't need to go out and advertise everything they do. Ditto for the french navy who have also not been asleep at the wheel on cav weapons.
    Last edited by gf0012-aust; 07 Nov 06, at 05:28. Reason: clarity

  2. #47
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,192
    Country: United States
    found this
    Attached Images  
    Last edited by omon; 07 Nov 06, at 04:00.

  3. #48
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
    unless there has been a "requirements brain fart" - no weapon is useless.

    the point being made is that its not the wonder weapon that is often promoted in the press.

    cavitating weapons have not been abandoned by the USN at all (if production visibility is used as the measurement of employment success). the USN has achieved some pretty speccy outcomes with cav weapons - its just that they also don't need to go out and advertise everything they do. Ditto for the french navy who have also not been asleep at the wheel on cav weapons.
    USN couldn't even produce the Mk. 50 in significant quantities. Last thing I read they were trying to offset production and expense problems with the Mk. 54 hybrid torpedo.

    as for the cav weapons,

    I guess the last word on the USN's cav weapons might go something like, "lost but not forgotten".
    Last edited by Defcon 6; 08 Nov 06, at 05:25.

  4. #49
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,192
    Country: United States
    imo, we are missing something, shkval has no guiance sys, week warhead,noisy as hell, i'm thinking may be it wasn't meant to have all that stuff, probably it was made for a different reason, could it be used as underwater canon, torpedo tube is the barrel and shkval is a round, shoot 3 or 4 of them and it's like burst, at that speed it's gonna hurt even if some miss

  5. #50
    Contributor
    Join Date
    27 Apr 05
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    405

    RE: The Shkval: awesome new torpedo

    Quote Originally Posted by omon View Post
    i'm thinking may be it wasn't meant to have all that stuff, probably it was made for a different reason
    During the Cold War USN and UK SSN's would sneak into Soviet bastions that they had for their SSBM's, get within 2,000 meters and 'ping' the SSBM with their active sonar. Then sneak away with the Soviet SSN's not being able to detect the NATO intruder.
    In a war an NATO SSN getting that close to a Soviet SSBM, firing a Mk-48 or Spearfish torpedos the Soviet SSBM would have no chance of escape. Plus the NATO sub would get away.
    The Shkval would force NATO SSNs to stay back at least 10,000 meters.

    Adrian

  6. #51
    Field mechanik Senior Contributor omon's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 06
    Location
    bk
    Posts
    3,192
    Country: United States
    that makes sence,

  7. #52
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    997
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by avon1944 View Post
    The Shkval would force NATO SSNs to stay back at least 10,000 meters.
    thats only of limited value. the Skval is basically a boresight weapon with limited manouvre. that means that they have a limited aspect to even commence a shoot from. add in the factor of distance to target, speed (and hence limited time to adjust course) and a limited aspect and you have a devalued weapon. Excellent for boresight shots on slow or static targets - not much chop if the base variables change.

    there are far more useful cavitation weapons that can be developed outside of high speed limited aspect torpedoes.

  8. #53
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    devalued=useless.

    it's all the same thing.

    ^_^

  9. #54
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Whats the possibility of that technoligy being built into a 2 stage torpedo?

    First stage conventional torpedo system bringing the second stage within range and lines it up for a proper firing solution then releases the rocket powered second stage at the target?

  10. #55
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Posts
    997
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by canoe View Post
    Whats the possibility of that technoligy being built into a 2 stage torpedo?

    First stage conventional torpedo system bringing the second stage within range and lines it up for a proper firing solution then releases the rocket powered second stage at the target?
    I can't see it working. You'd basically have to sabot the cavitator at the tertiary stage - and then newtons law of motion kicks in. there would be insufficient mass to counteract the effects of "ejection".

    It would be all over the shop like a dogs breakfast IMV.

  11. #56
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,632
    Quote Originally Posted by lurker View Post
    If you are so concerned about "Shkval" rande, and noise of the russian subs - why don't you focus on RPK-7 (SS-N-16) and RPK-2 (SS-N-15)? They are still in the inventory, and execute the same anti-sub function much more effective than "Shkval", IMO.
    Hi Lurker, interesting reading about RPK-7 and 2. What is a NATO comparable weapon?

  12. #57
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    Hi Lurker, interesting reading about RPK-7 and 2. What is a NATO comparable weapon?
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/vla.htm

    As a general rule of thumb the U.S doesn't use nuclear weapons in the anti-ship/sub role anymore however. Conventional weapons are preferred to avoid the political fallout.

    I'm sure they probably still have some nuclear toys sitting in long term storage somewhere though.
    Last edited by canoe; 29 Nov 06, at 13:13.

  13. #58
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    13,519
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by canoe View Post
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/vla.htm

    As a general rule of thumb the U.S doesn't use nuclear weapons in the anti-ship/sub role anymore however. Conventional weapons are preferred to avoid the political fallout.

    I'm sure they probably still have some nuclear toys sitting in long term storage somewhere though.
    You would be surprised at whats still on the shelf from days past. All still very usable mind you.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  14. #59
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,632
    Quote Originally Posted by canoe View Post
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/vla.htm

    As a general rule of thumb the U.S doesn't use nuclear weapons in the anti-ship/sub role anymore however. Conventional weapons are preferred to avoid the political fallout.

    I'm sure they probably still have some nuclear toys sitting in long term storage somewhere though.
    Hi Canoe, it seems to me that these are bit different - ASROC is launched by surface ships while RPK-7 is launched by submarines from torgedo hatches. Do I understand things correctly?

  15. #60
    Military Professional canoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Aug 05
    Posts
    665
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    Hi Canoe, it seems to me that these are bit different - ASROC is launched by surface ships while RPK-7 is launched by submarines from torgedo hatches. Do I understand things correctly?
    There was a Mk-45 ASTOR I beleive though you'd have to be completely out of your mind to use it as it would probably take out both the enemy and the friendly sub at the same time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Supersonic Torpedo (Shkval)
    By berkut in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: 01 Jun 09,, 01:03
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02 Apr 07,, 15:33
  3. Good things from WW2
    By canadian boy in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 27 Nov 06,, 19:07
  4. Why the torpedo tube variations?
    By Horrido in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09 Dec 05,, 23:41

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts