Tiny Torpedoes That Intercept Incoming Torpedoes

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,749
U.S. Navy Looking To Arm Its Subs With Tiny Torpedoes That Intercept Incoming Torpedoes
The compact weapons could give subs substantially greater magazine depth, a hard-kill anti-torpedo countermeasure, and more.
11 Apr 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...y-torpedoes-that-intercept-incoming-torpedoes

The mini-torpedo has a Stored Chemical Energy Power Systems (SCEPS) power system for its propulsor in the rear. SCEPS works by bathing a solid block of lithium in sulfur hexafluoride gas, creating an extremely energetic chemical reaction that, in turn, produces steam to drive a turbine engine. In use in torpedoes for years already, this helps make the smaller CVLWT accelerate very fast, reaching fifty percent of its unspecified top speed in less than 12 seconds on average.

At six and three-quarters inches in diameter and approximately 85 inches long, the CVLWT is significantly smaller than the latest variants of the Navy’s Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo, which is the standard weapon of this type for its submarines now. The Mk 48s are around 21 inches in diameter and 228 inches long. The mini torpedo’s typical weight, around 220 pounds, is also more than 16 times lighter than its heavyweight counterpart. So we are truly talking about a tiny torpedo here.

The Navy has already developed multiple variants of the CVLWT, the best known of which is the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT), also called the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo (ATT). This is a defensive “hard-kill” interceptor that is supposed to destroy incoming torpedoes by either slamming into them or destroying them with its explosive warhead.

The interceptor also features a sonar seeker capable of operating in active and passive modes, together with a guidance package that also includes an Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU). The IMU provides data that allows the torpedo to make more precise movements, making it more maneuverable and improving its accuracy.

The Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW) has much of the same hardware, the bulk of which consists of Commercial Off-The-Shelf components to help keep production costs and maintenance requirements low, according to public Navy briefings and other documentation, but is optimized as an offensive weapon against other submarines. Both variants could offer important capabilities for various American submarines.

At present, American submarines use a combination of electronic warfare jammers and acoustic decoys to defeat incoming torpedoes. This works well against threats that use active and passive sonar to home in on their targets.

More advanced torpedoes, however, which feature sensors to detect differences in water density to zero in on the wake a ship or submarine churns up as it moves, are immune to acoustic decoys and are jamming resistant. These wake-homing torpedoes have been a major impetus for the Navy to develop a hard-kill anti-torpedo interceptor in general, especially for high-value ships, such as aircraft carriers. In recent years, concerns about existing and future torpedo threats have similarly led to a push to add a torpedo interceptor capability to submarines, according to The War Zone's trusted sources.

But the anti-torpedo torpedo concept remains very much in development. In September 2018, the Navy formally halted work on the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo Defense System (ATTDS) for surface ships. The service had already installed examples of this system on five Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and is now removing all of them.


image

image

image

image

image
 
I don't quite understand why they fielded these on the Nimitz class carriers and are now removing them all while at the same time saying that they are "very much in development" but all work was halted on surface ships. Does that mean that they went back to the drawing board because they just weren't ready for prime-time yet?
 
On note on DARPA projects: If you hear about a DARPA project in the news, it didn't work. :)

As a 26 year naval veteran, I can tell you for sure that there are a LOT of projects that lead to blind alleys, and we walk ALL THE WAY down them to ensure that they're blind and dark......just to make sure. Sometimes for good reason, but mostly, it seems, because somebody somewhere had a hairbrained idea from an engineer, a damn good contracts lawyer, and a world class salesman.

Some of the projects that we worked on a 3rd grader would look at and say "That's not gonna work" and be right on point.
 
I don't quite understand why they fielded these on the Nimitz class carriers and are now removing them all while at the same time saying that they are "very much in development" but all work was halted on surface ships. Does that mean that they went back to the drawing board because they just weren't ready for prime-time yet?

I don't know, this is the first that I have read about this system. However, carriers are always deployed in large battle groups whose main purpose is to protect the carrier. Firing a torpedo from a carrier, poses a risk to all those friendly ships, and makes it harder for the torpedo to distinguish its intended target. It might make more sense to deploy the torpedo from submarines and vessels in the outer rim of the battle group.
 
German and Canadian Firms Developing SeaSpider Rocket-Powered Anti-Torpedo Torpedo
There is a growing demand for hard-kill anti-torpedo defenses to defeat newer torpedoes that are increasingly immune to existing countermeasures.
16 Apr 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...seaspider-rocket-powered-anti-torpedo-torpedo

The actual interceptor has its own sonar system that can operate in active or passive modes. The hard-kill system can then either defeat that target with its explosive warhead or by physically slamming into it.

SeaSpider’s most novel feature is the use of a rocket motor rather than more traditional chemical or electric propulsion systems found in most torpedoes. Atlas Elektronik says the resulting system is quieter, which in turn makes it easier for it to “hear” the threat and lock on. Magellan Aerospace Corporation also reaches its top speed very quickly, meaning that the interceptor sinks less after launch, making it well suited to shallower water environments. The configuration is sensitive enough that Atlas Elektronik blurred out the rear of the interceptor in the photo it released of one of the launches during the sea trials.


image

image
 

... SCEPS works by bathing a solid block of lithium in sulfur hexafluoride gas, creating an extremely energetic chemical reaction ...

The words "lithium in sulfur hexafluoride gas" are the scariest thing about this article. :)

Not as terrifying as FOOF or C2N14, but getting up there.
 
The words "lithium in sulfur hexafluoride gas" are the scariest thing about this article. :)

Not as terrifying as FOOF or C2N14, but getting up there.
It's not new:

Mark 50 torpedo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_50_torpedo

Designed: 1974

The torpedo's stored chemical energy propulsion system uses a small tank of sulfur hexafluoride gas which is sprayed over a block of solid lithium, which generates enormous quantities of heat, which generates steam.


I think I might trust a solid and a gas more than two liquids. The Kursk accident:

Practice torpedo blamed

The government report confirmed that Kursk had been sunk by a torpedo explosion caused when high-test peroxide (HTP), a form of highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide, leaked from cracks in the torpedo's casing.[2][70][71]

HTP is normally stable until it comes in contact with a catalyst. It then expands 5,000 times in volume extremely rapidly, acting as an oxidiser, generating large volumes of steam and oxygen.[10][72] The oxygen is combined with kerosene fuel in the torpedo engine to propel the missile at a very high speed and greater range than conventional torpedoes.[16]:34 Investigators concluded that the leaking HTP had catalytically decomposed when it came in contact with copper commonly found in the bronze and brass used to manufacture Kursk's torpedo tubes.[67] The resulting overpressure ruptured the torpedo's kerosene fuel tank and caused an explosion that was registered as a weak seismic event on detectors hundreds of kilometres away.[73] Once the HTP begins oxidizing, it is impossible to stop until the fuel is exhausted.[10]

Analysis revealed that when the 1,000 kilograms (2,200 lb) of concentrated high-test peroxide and 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) of kerosene exploded, the internal torpedo tube cover and the external tube door were blown off, opening the torpedo room to the sea. Salvage crews located a piece of the number four torpedo hatch on the seabed 50 metres (160 ft) behind the main wreckage. Its position, distance, and direction relative to the rest of the submarine indicated that it was deposited there as a result of the first explosion in that tube.[67]

The fuel in the torpedoes carried by Kursk was inexpensive and very powerful.[5] Torpedoes using HTP had been in use since the 1950s, but other navies stopped using them because of the danger inherent in their design.[5] HMS Sidon sank in 1955, killing 13 sailors, when an experimental torpedo containing HTP exploded as it was being loaded.[74]
 
Back
Top