High-Altitude Torpedo Launch

The Navy has awarded LockMart a contract to demonstrate the release
of Mk-54 torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy...apability.html

The article mentions the possible future use of Mk-54 against surface
targets with this system, but would the Mk-54 (which has the Mk-46's
96lb warhead, and no under-the-keel detonation capability) really be
useful in that role?

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

On 14 Jun 2006 14:06:20 -0700, wrote:

The Navy has awarded LockMart a contract to demonstrate the release
of Mk-54 torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy...apability.html

The article mentions the possible future use of Mk-54 against surface
targets with this system, but would the Mk-54 (which has the Mk-46's
96lb warhead, and no under-the-keel detonation capability) really be
useful in that role?

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

wrote:
The Navy has awarded LockMart a contract to demonstrate the release
of Mk-54 torpedoes from high altitudes and long standoff ranges. See:

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy...apability.html

The article mentions the possible future use of Mk-54 against surface
targets with this system, but would the Mk-54 (which has the Mk-46's
96lb warhead, and no under-the-keel detonation capability) really be
useful in that role?

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

Just picking nits here, but I thought that Mk. 54 had the Mk. 50's
100lb shaped-charge warhead on the Mk. 46 propulsion system, not just
the Mk. 50 seeker. I could be wrong, though.

In any case, the question of how useful it would be against surface
targets is still valid. It'd wreck an FAC, and probably glug most
corvettes, too. Against anything much bigger, though, I'm somewhat
skeptical. Better than nothing, sure, but not as good as Harpoon or
Penguin. The advantage might be reduced chances of intercept (UDAV-1 is
the only deployed active anti-torpedo system that I know of, and it's
pretty suspect), and possibly the ability to attack surface targets
from platforms that can't fire Harpoon or Penguin. I suppose this might
give VLASROC a surface mode, too, but that's not too useful in any
case, since all the VLASROC platforms carry SM-2 anyway.

On 15 Jun 2006 09:47:26 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

wrote:

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
future.

The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.

Not only in the possible ability of the sub to engage an air target
but also in the P-3's ability to engage a submarine target without
resorting to low level tactics.

This means that the main reason might be quite mundane: safety of
flight. Operations at low altitude are a "thrill." The old S-2 was a
rather manueverable old bird, but horsing one around at 100' day (300'
night) was not for the faint of heart. That was particularly true on
a datum with a couple of other Stoofs and a Whistling **** Can or two.

The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
is not so manueverable.

I've never flown a Viking, so I can't comment on its low level
handling.

Sometimes the ability to do something from a distance is a Good Thing
for multiple reasons.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

In article .com,
"Kronoman" wrote:

....

Just picking nits here, but I thought that Mk. 54 had the Mk. 50's
100lb shaped-charge warhead on the Mk. 46 propulsion system, not just
the Mk. 50 seeker. I could be wrong, though.

That's both my recall and what Wikipedia says

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:21:39 -0400, wrote:

On 15 Jun 2006 09:47:26 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

wrote:

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
future.

The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.

Not only in the possible ability of the sub to engage an air target
but also in the P-3's ability to engage a submarine target without
resorting to low level tactics.

This means that the main reason might be quite mundane: safety of
flight. Operations at low altitude are a "thrill." The old S-2 was a
rather manueverable old bird, but horsing one around at 100' day (300'
night) was not for the faint of heart. That was particularly true on
a datum with a couple of other Stoofs and a Whistling **** Can or two.

The P-3 has a day limit of 200', but it's a MUCH larger aircraft that
is not so manueverable.

I've never flown a Viking, so I can't comment on its low level
handling.
S-3 had a "loiter" capablility that gave it a 450 knot "dash" speed
(in theory), and then could loiter on-station at around 150kts
comfortably. It was capable of slower speeds. I want to say approach
speed was around 110 to 112 KIAS. I was a back seater so my memory
isn't the best on this. With "barndoor" flaps, it was a good
low-level onstation platform.
Regards,


Sometimes the ability to do something from a distance is a Good Thing
for multiple reasons.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
wrote:

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
future.

Well, this is mostly unconfirmed, but there were rumors to the effect
that Russian Kilo-class boats (but only the actual Russian ones, not
the ones sold to India, China and Iran) have a few SA-N-8 Gremlin
(Strela) or SA-N-9 Gauntlet (Kinzhal/Klinok) missiles mounted in the
sail, for defense when they're forced to surface. This probably makes
more sense for diesel boats than nuclear ones, though. More likely they
carry Gremlin than Gauntlet, if anything at all - Gauntlet isn't a huge
missile, but it's not tiny either - see the size of the SA-N-9 VLS on
Udaloy, Neustrashimy or Kuznetsov. On the other hand, it does have the
advantage of being designed for vertical launch. Strela is normally a
MANPADS.

Juergen Nieveler
--
Don't hit me, Mr. Moderator... I'll go back on topic... I swear!

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
wrote:

The question could be answered, "yet." Technology marches on.

Not really. You have to target the SAM prior to launch, that means AT
LEAST getting one mast up (which can be detected), or you might even
have to use radar. That's not going to change, regardless of
technological advances.

Well, it is at least in theory possible to launch an IR-guided or
active-radar missile with no assistance from the launch platform. Look
at RAM, AMRAAM, Sidewinder and Penguin for examples.

Submarine skippers prefer not to be detected in the first place. In
WW2, german submarines sometimes bristled with AA guns - which were
totally and utterly useless, however...
snip

AA missiles on a sub aren't completely pointless. If you're stuck on
the surface for some reason (recovering/deploying SEALs, repairing,
etc), they might make a good 'oh crap' defense. Also, a canister that
could be quietly plopped out to bob to the surface, then launch a RAM
or Stinger or something similar might be somewhat useful for popping
helos. Probably only good in the hot-war scenario where your opponent
would risk dropping a weapon on a probsub contact, but not /entirely/
useless. Only worth anything if it's cheap, though (RAM? Stinger?
Strela?)

Or is the Navy really worried about Sub-launched SAM's?

The answer to both questions is probably "yes."

Why? So far nobody has fielded a sub-launched SAM system, and given the
difficulties found in the experiments (mast mounted blowpipe, for
example), it's unlikely that anybody is going to try again in the near
future.

There used to be a photo of a purported SUBSAM in the sail of a Kilo.
Other units were rumored to have it. I doubt it would be all that
useful, but I wouldn't want to be two MAD runs into my attack and find
out we were wrong about whether or not the system exists.

The "mine"-type SAM as described by another poster is, in my opinion, a
viable alternative that fits neatly with a suite of other
countermeasures. While the helo is stuck in a dip, their acoustic
signatures are detectible for miles and this could be exploited. I
like the idea of a high-alt drop on an unalerted sub, but I cringe to
think of the IFF issues. A torp can't tell a cowboy from an indian.

v/r
Gordon
VS-31, HS-5, HSL-33, CTG 72.8 (Diego Garcia ASWOC), COMASWWINGPAC plus
a couple other ASW units

Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
In article .com,
"Kronoman" wrote:

...

Just picking nits here, but I thought that Mk. 54 had the Mk. 50's
100lb shaped-charge warhead on the Mk. 46 propulsion system, not just
the Mk. 50 seeker. I could be wrong, though.

That's both my recall and what Wikipedia says

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

If you go to:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/...n-amerault.htm

and scroll down to the "Mine and Undersea Warfare" section, you'll get
to this part:

"The MK54 torpedo integrates the proven technologies of the MK46
propulsion system and warhead with the MK50 sonar. State-of-the-art
digital signal processing based on COTS technology will improve
effectiveness and maintainability, and reduce costs. Due to arrive to
the fleet in 2003, the MK54 will replace the older MK46 torpedo with a
far superior, upgradable ASW weapon capable of countering all threats. "