Why Did Torpedoes Go Out of fashion as anti surface ship weapons?

Torpedoes can (and are) still used by submarines against surface ships.

So why did they go out of use by aircraft and other surface ships against surface ships?

Sure, we know that missiles are faster and have vastly more range but on the other hand there are numerous active and passive defenses against anti ship missiles while active defenses against torpedoes are basically nonexistent.

Or is this a case of there being far fewer "big ship" targets for torpedoes in the modern era?

 

Excerpt:

 

Range, mostly. Submarines have the stealth to approach ships close enough to use torpedoes.

For surface ships, anti-ship missiles have far superior range and speed.

 

To use a torpedo, you actually have to get close enough to use it.

Your torpedo armed ship is going to have to get through a wall of anti-ship missiles fired from dozens or even hundreds of miles away to use it torps with a range of a couple thousand yards.

 

Here are all of the U.S. Navy's torpedoes. All of the aircraft launched torpedoes today seem to be ASW torpedoes.
-> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_PostWWII.php

The Ruskies seem to have aircraft launched anti ship torpedoes.(450 mm (17.7") RAT-52;
450 mm (17.7") 45-54VT;
450 mm (17.7") 45-56NT) -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTRussian_post-WWII.php


But aircraft laid anti ship torpedo mines that were used in 1972 mining Haiphong Harbor that forced North Vietnam to conditionally surrender in 1973 were very effective. Soviet cargo ships that were in port were trapped and the Soviets couldn't enter Haiphong Harbor to resupply North Vietnam. The Vietnam War came to an end until the North violated the treaty in 1975.-> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_Mines.php


Mark 56 Torpedo Mine.

->

 

All of those Russian anti-ship torpedoes would require them to get aircraft will within the range of US aircraft and SAM systems. It would be a suicide mission at best.

 

Unlike Japan who considered merchant ships to be low value, the U.S. Navy and the German U-boats during WW ll considered merchant shipping to be high high value targets. Torpedoes weren't wasted on destroyer escorts.

The sinking of merchant shipping had a strategic impact later on while attacking warships had an immediate tactical impact.

An American aircraft carrier air wing conducting combat flight operations has to be replenished every 2 to 3 days with JP fuel from an oiler. Sink the oiler or replenishment ship and the aircraft carrier can't conduct flight operations.

 

Wasn't basically the entire Soviet Navy a "suicide mission at best".

 

They still have to get that aircraft (probably a Bear-D, which is about the size of a continent on radar) within launching distance of that replenishment ship. When we've got AEGIS radars and Hawkeyes looking for those exact kind of threats, how likely do you think it is they get those aircraft within range before they get jumped by an interceptor or splashed by a SM-2?

 

Yeah, but they have weapons with far more likelihood of success they can use instead. Like anti-ship missiles they can barrage fire from more than a hundred miles away.

 

Does it really make sense though to let fly with lots of missiles at very long ranges? Because the more range increases doesn't the time for interception increase and the likelihood of countermeasures working and plain old misses occurring increase dramatically?

Wouldn't it be better for the launch platforms to get as close to the carrier battle group as they can get without being shot down before launching?

 

It's a lot harder to hit and destroy a missile, especially a very fast missile, than it is to hit a destroy a ship that has to close to within a couple miles before it can even shoot at you.

Getting close means increasing the chance you get shot at too.

 

When I wrote that I was actually thinking of large numbers of Backfire bombers launching missiles.

Surface ships require airborne units for over the horizon targeting to launch from distances like 100 miles.

And of course such an OTH airborne unit is vulnerable. Especially if its a helicopter.

 

Soviet/Russian anti-ship missiles self guide in the terminal phase. All you really need to know is the general area of an enemy force to launch a barrage attack at them.

And that's why the Russians built the Bear-D's and H's and why they use RORSAT's.

 

RORSATs can be evaded. The U.S. found out how to do that in exercises in 1981 when a NATO force of 83 warships evaded detection by two Soviet RORSATs launched specifically to detect them.

 

Which is why the Soviet/Russians use two different systems. They also can use subs for targeting.

 

How to Hide a Task Force

An earlier discussion raised the question of how a carrier task force could hide in the open ocean and questioned whether such an operation could be successful near land.

The following discussion will be split into several parts and will remain at a somewhat top level. The reasons should be obvious. Specific references will be made to a particular operation, NORPAC 82, but details on tactics and modern systems will not be disclosed. These tactics are essentially the same as during WWII. The historical accounts of the German surface raiders, USN submarine actions, IJN surface and CV operations, and of course the USN surface and CV operations during that conflict include many examples of the following basic tactics.


The main question is: How do you hide a task force at sea? The answer in very general terms is; by not telling the other guy where you are.

This is not as dumb as it sounds.

To illustrate take the following generic situation and think of the naval environment. One actually could extend this to other environments as well.

Put two football teams in a stadium at night each on their defended goal line. Each team will provide the backfield players with rifles and the linemen all have a pistol. Each weapon is equipped with a flashlight fastened to the barrel. The quarterback is equipped with a flashing signal light.

Now turn out all the lights so it is absolutely dark.

Who wants to turn on their light first?...

continue -> http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

 

The guy who's light is several miles away or the guy who has night vision goggles and can view the scene through passive detection.

 

Well for one thing RORSATs like all satellites, follow very predictable orbital paths once they reach their established orbits. Very few satellites can actually maneuver in orbit and even these can't maneuver much.

If you know when and where the satellite looking for you is going to be at any one time it can be evaded both electronically and visually.

Another is decoys. A few minor surface ships (like some destroyers) can be tasked with putting out radio traffic and other sensor noise essentially identical to what a carrier and its escorts would. Not to mention that until the Burke class destroyers entered service, the typical U.S. destroyer (reportedly) had a radar return just about as large as that of a carrier anyway.

also, a carrier can take a diversionary course that minimizes the chances of detection of a satellite, Tom Clancy made passing reference to this in Red Storm Rising (which I've heard from other sources is quite doable) saying it was "simply a matter of geometry".

 

There are thousands and thousands of ships at sea right now. ->
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:104.9/centery:-0.7/zoom:3

Now warships rarely ever have their transponder activated for obvious reasons.

Now go to Google Earth and locate an American Nimitz class aircraft carrier that is at sea.

If you locate one it was just by luck. Your odds of hitting the Super Loto are better than locating the carrier.

 

You do know google is not actively updated and isn't real-time right? Pics are usually months out of date.

 

Well you can cheat and look up where a Nimitz CSG was located on the day that Google's satellite flew over the area.

http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html

 

Google doesn't own the satellites. They buy commercially available satellites photo composites from several sources.

 

And your point is ???