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

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Dayton3, Aug 24, 2017.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What if you're out of anti-ship missiles? IIRC most U.S. surface warships typically only carry 8 Harpoons.
     
  2. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are close enough to use a tube-launched ASW torpedo, then you are close enough for guns, and guns will be more effective.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A single five inch gun is more effective than torpedoes impacting?

    And what if the gun mount has suffered battle damage?
     
  4. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A 5 inch gun is going to be considerably more effective against most surface targets than an ASW torpedo.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  5. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I just came across this article. It's about anti surface ship torpedos that todays warships no longer have. It touches on the 5" gun.

    Surface Ship Torpedoes

    In a previous post, we touched on the subject of anti-surface torpedo tubes in surface ships. Yes, many ships today have torpedo tubes but the majority are intended for anti-submarine use and utilize lightweight torpedoes. The US Navy’s standard surface ship torpedo armament is the Mk32 triple tube launcher with Mk46/50/54 lightweight anti-submarine torpedoes. These torpedoes may or may not have an anti-surface ship mode but they are not ship killers. The ship killing torpedo in the US Navy is the Mk48 ADCAP (Advanced CAPability) heavy torpedo and even this is intended primarily as an anti-submarine weapon.

    Mk 48 Mk54 Mk50 Mk46

    Range, yds 35000 ? 16000 12000
    Speed, kts 55 (63?) 40+ 50+ 45
    Diameter, in/mm 21/533 12.75/324 12.75/324 12.75/324
    Length 29’2” 8’11” 9’6” 8’6”
    Weight, lbs 3450 608 800 508
    Warhead, lbs 650 95 100 95
    Cost $2.4M(FY88) $0.8M(FY14) $1M(FY02)

    For comparison, here are a couple of the main Russian Torpedoes.

    Type 65 Type 53 UGST (2)

    Range, miles 62@35mph 25
    Speed, kts 50 26-45
    Diameter, in/mm 25.6/650 21/533
    Length 30 24’
    Weight, lbs 10450 3800
    Warhead, lbs 990-1225 801

    The Mk46 was designed for open ocean, deep water anti-submarine use and had problems in shallow water. The Mk50 was developed as the replacement for the Mk46 but encountered problems. The Mk54 was developed to rectify the problems identified in the Mk50 but does, itself, suffer from shortcomings against shallow water non-nuclear submarines. A Mk54 Block Upgrade (BUG) program was initiated to address the problems but DOT&E still assessed the torpedo as not operationally effective in its intended role in a 2014 Annual Report and reiterated that assessment in the 2016 Annual Report despite additional upgrade efforts.

    According to Polmar (1), US surface ships had anti-ship torpedo tubes until the late 1950’s. During the 1960’s the Mk48 was intended to be fitted to surface ships for long range, wire guided ASW use but that never occurred.

    Polmar also notes that a dedicated anti-surface torpedo was proposed by the Navy in the mid-1980’s (1). The torpedo was envisioned as a low cost ($200K in then year dollars vs. $2.43M per Mk48 in FY88), no frills alternative to the Mk48. The program was cancelled in the late 1980’s.

    As a brief historical reminder of the use of anti-surface torpedoes on surface ships, here’s a list of the post-WWII ships that have had large, anti-surface-capable torpedo tubes installed.

    • Garcia/Brooke Class FFG 2x 21” fixed, stern tubes, Mk37 Torpedo
    • Sherman Class DD 4x 21” tubes
    • Mitscher Class DL 4x 21” tubes
    • Gearing Class DD 10x 21” tubes, twin trainable quintuple mounts, Mk15 Torpedo

    That brings us to today. The US Navy has no surface anti-ship torpedo capability and only a marginally effective submarine launched anti-ship torpedo, the Mk48.

    The next question, and the main point of this post, is, does the US Navy need a surface anti-ship torpedo launch capability?

    To better frame the question, consider that currently the Burke class DDG probably cannot sink a large ship such as a tanker or large cargo vessel. If the US attempted a blockade and wanted to sink enemy merchant shipping, the Navy’s surface ships would be hard pressed to accomplish the task. Small 5” guns are incapable of sinking a ship bigger than a patrol boat and Harpoon or Standard missiles in anti-ship mode will only damage superstructure, not sink a sizable ship. Smaller ships such as the LCS which would be expected to perform most of the blockade and merchant shipping attacks have zero ability to sink a large ship. A heavy weight anti-ship torpedo would go a long way toward providing a credible anti-ship capability.

    Thus, the main argument for a surface anti-ship torpedo capability is lethality. Compare the warhead weight of the Mk48 (650 lbs) versus the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (276 lbs) which is, apparently, going to be the Navy’s standard anti-ship weapon for smaller ships. The difference is significant and, while simply comparing warhead weights is fraught with irrelevance, it nonetheless gives some idea of explosive power and concomitant lethality. Clearly, a heavy torpedo packs a much more potent explosive punch. Add to that the fact that torpedoes explode on or under the hull and let water in while missiles let air in, and the lethality of torpedoes is accentuated. Smaller ships such as the LCS would gain a huge increase in lethality by mounting heavy anti-ship torpedoes.

    The Mk48 warhead is lighter than the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) (1000 lbs) which may become a standard anti- ship missile for larger ships. Again, though, the underwater location and nature of a torpedo explosion magnifies its explosive effectiveness. Thus, even a Burke equipped with the LRASM could benefit from a heavy anti-ship torpedo. We should also note that the vertical launch version of the LRASM may or may not ever happen and, if it does happen, takes away VLS cells from the ship’s main purpose which is anti-air warfare.

    Another argument for torpedoes is their inherent survivability. Currently, there are no effective active countermeasures to destroy attacking torpedoes and it is debatable how effective acoustic decoys, such as the US Nixie, will be given the Russian development of wake-homing torpedoes. Unlike anti-ship missiles which are susceptible to electronic countermeasures (ECM), decoys, anti-air missiles, and close-in weapon systems and, therefore, need to be launched in large numbers to ensure sufficient hits, torpedoes can be used in relatively smaller numbers since they are largely immune to countermeasures.

    On the other hand, one of the drawbacks to anti-ship torpedoes in the past has been the limited range, at least compared to anti-ship missiles. The standard WWII Mk15 torpedo, for example, had a maximum range of around 8 miles. That kind of range is unsuitable for today’s long range, over the horizon type of warfare where anti-ship strike ranges need to be 20-100+ miles. However, modern torpedoes have greatly increased ranges that bring them in to the low end of anti-ship missile ranges. For example, while the actual range of the Mk48 is unknown, the often cited range is around 20 miles. The Mk48 upgrades have increased the fuel load and improved the propulsion so it is reasonable to assume that the range has significantly increased. 30 miles? 60 miles? Who knows? The point is that the torpedoes’ range is beginning to approach, for example, the Harpoon range of 60 miles.

    Certainly, modern torpedoes outrange the ship’s onboard sensors which makes them effective to the limit of the ship’s sensors.

    Speed is another drawback. Torpedoes are very slow compared to anti-ship missiles. A fast torpedo has a speed of 50-60 kts versus even slow anti-ship missiles which have high subsonic speeds. Thus, the travel time from the launching ship to the target allows for a great deal of movement by the target which complicates the targeting probability of success. Further, the long travel time allows the enemy the opportunity to strike the launch platform before the torpedoes arrive. Even if the torpedoes arrive and sink their targets, the launching ships may be destroyed in the interim!

    Some of the arguments against torpedoes are valid due to the limitations of US torpedoes whose design and development has languished for decades compared to the advances in Russian torpedoes. If the US were to develop a completely new anti-ship torpedo, many of the limitations would be eliminated or reduced.

    Consider these improvements to torpedo performance.

    Range. Range could be 60-90 miles, matching the low to mid range for anti-ship missiles. The old Russian Type 65-76 had a range of 60+ miles at 35 mph (2). The German Navy’s current DM2A4 Seehecht (export designation "SeaHake mod 4") has a reported range of 87 miles (2) with GPS waypoint capability and carries a warhead of 572 lbs.

    Speed. Speed could be 60+ kts. Russia’s VA-111 Shkval is the extreme example of high speed, reportedly capable of 200+ kts via supercavitation although the high speed comes at the cost of a reduced range of about 9 miles. The US Mk48 is capable of around 60 kts.

    Guidance. Currently, the US has no wake homing torpedo but there is no technical reason why we could easily develop one. Thus, a new torpedo could use multiple modes of guidance including passive and active acoustic, wake homing, and GPS/Inertial. Wire guidance is probably not feasible for a surface ship due to the ship’s maneuvering and near surface turbulence but it’s worth looking at.

    [​IMG]
    WWII Destroyer Torpedo Tubes - Time To Return To The Past?

    A modern, new design, anti-ship torpedo could offer a lethality option for surface ships that is currently lacking. Heavy torpedoes would not negatively impact VLS inventories although deck space and/or internal volume would have to be allocated. Such a weapon would offer a relatively low cost increase in tactical options to the ship commander and ought to be part of every surface ship’s standard armament.

    source -> http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2017/06/surface-ship-torpedoes.html
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  6. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why sink the enemy tanker when you can disable it and then VBSS and keep the oil for yourself?

    Again, what is with this obsession with sinking ships? You destroy the bridge of a supertanker with 5 inch shells and then light it on fire with more shells, how effective will that ship be?

    Mission kills are kills.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
  7. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because "mission kills" are not the same as "kills". A ship that is towed into port might be out of action.

    But it can be put back into action. Difficult to do if a ship breaks in half and sinks in 1,000 feet of water.

    I feel everyone is too invested in the idea of any future major conflict being a very brief spasm of combat that's over in two or three weeks.
     
  8. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any ship that comes out to tow a disabled tanker at a blockade line is itself going to be attacked and disabled.

    Any major conflict isn't going to last more than a few weeks because economies will start collapsing at that point.
     
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You know that was a recurring belief about World War One don't you?

    "the war can't last long. Not enough money in Europe. Not enough munitions. For that matter not enough men to replace infantry".

    The entire belief that a major war would be "all over by Christmas" wasn't just based on the Franco/Prussian War being relatively short. It was a common belief because everyone thought a protracted European conflict would be physically and financially IMPOSSIBLE!!

    But wars find a way.

    Remember in 2005 it was a very common belief that the U.S. was going to have to pull out of Iraq before long because the "U.S. Army would collapse".

    Needless to say that didn't come close to happening.
     
  10. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I have this feeling that in the near future sinking a tanker full of crude oil will become politically incorrect and will go the way that napalm, sub munition bombs and the M-16 A1 M193 5.56 X 45 MM round went, politically incorrect.

    I just don't remember Charley ever complaining by being shot by a M-16 A1 using the M193 round.


    If the U.S. Navy were to sink an oil tanker the environmentalist who go berserk bigly.

    VBSS - Visit, Board, Search & Seizure -> http://www.military.com/video/forces/navy/vbss-visit-board-search-seizure/2745802031001
     
  11. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The "Tanker War" part of the Iran/Iraq War of the late 1980s showed that large tankers are very difficult to sink or destroy.

    If they are full of oil, IIRC the oil tends to "cushion" the explosive impacts of anti ship missiles.

    If they are empty, often the tanks are filled with carbon dioxide (to prevent fires of course) which makes them difficult to set on fire.

    Even if you set a tanker on fire, many of the more recent ones have very formidable onboard firefighting systems for obvious reasons.
     
    Bear513 and APACHERAT like this.
  12. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And rightfully so.
     
  13. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How well do those fire fighting systems operate when the bridge is a smoldering ruin and the engineering spaces keep getting 127mm shells pounded into them?
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you have the time and weapons to continuously bombard a target it doesn't matter much what weapon you use.
     
  15. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if you don't have that much time, it doesn't take more than a couple minutes to put a dozen 5 inch shells into a tanker accurately. I guarantee damage control is going to be difficult at best after that.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How many remember this 18 years ago ?

     
  17. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    US Navy spends 12 HOURS trying to sink an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate

    THE US Navy spent 12 hours bombarding a retired warship during a missile-testing exercise before it eventually sunk to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

    The retired ship was hit with over 5,000 pounds of high explosives as ships, submarines and aircraft from the US, Canada, Australia and South Korea took part.

    The 31-year-old frigate, which was retired in 2013 was towed to an area 55 miles north off the coast of the tiny mid-Pacific island of Kaui before testing commenced.




    Video taken from a helicopter shows Australian frigate HMAS Ballarat and American cruiser USS Princeton firing harpoon missiles at the vessel.

    Thach absorbed an enormous amount of punishment, starting with a Harpoon missile launched by a South Korean submarine, the ROKS Lee Eokgi. Next, the Australian frigate HMAS Ballarat launched another Harpoon, and an Australian SH-60S helicopter shot it with a Hellfire missile. U.S. maritime patrol aircraft then hit it with Harpoon and Maverickmissiles.

    But Thach wasn't done. The cruiser USS Princeton hit it with yet another Harpoon missile, and an American SH-60S Navy chopper hit it with more Hellfires. US Navy F/A-18 Hornets lobbed a 2,000 pound Mk. 84 bomb at it, and a US Air Force B-52 bomber dropped a GBU-12 Paveway laser guided 500 pound bomb on it. A U.S. Navy submarine got into the action, striking it with a Mk. 48 torpedo.
     
  18. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did that ship have live ordinance on board or even fuel? Hell, anything flammable or combustible on board?
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  19. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wasn't that you who asked the same question the first time this video was posted a year or two ago ?

    And Mushroom pointed out that there was no crew aboard so the ship's CIW system was never activated and there was no battle damage control party aboard.

    So yes, the ship's fuel bunkers were empty, the ammunition magazines were empty and there was no crew aboard and the ship was dead in the water.

    I only posted the video because it took a Mk 48 torpedo to sink the USS Thatch.

    Should todays destroyers be armed with anti surface ship torpedoes like they were during WW ll ?

    Why not an anti surface ship torpedo launched by an aircraft ?
     
  20. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CIWS won't stop the 2,000lb bomb. The ship took that many hits before sinking because there was nothing to cause a catastrophic explosion on board. You hit a ship anywhere near the prow when its got live ordinance on board with a 2,000lb bomb and I guarantee you, there is going to be a catastrophic explosion from something.

    Should today's destroyers be armed with torpedoes? No, the range is too small. Arm them with more anti-ship missiles.

    Should today's aircraft use anti-ship torpedoes? No, the range is too small. Arm them with anti-ship missiles.
     
  21. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    On the other hand the first shot probably mission killed it.......
     
  22. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depending on the shot location, quite possible.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  23. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could an ASW helicopter routinely deployed aboard U.S. surface ships like a Seahawk carry one or two large anti surface ship torpedoes.

    That would alleviate lots of the range and speed problems with anti ship torpedoes. Sure, helicopters are vulnerable to ship based SAMs. But then again helicopters can also fly almost with their "gear in the waves" which gives them a measure of protection against ship based anti air weapons.
     
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really any more. Modern radars and SAMs are going to easily spot a helicopter and be able to shoot it down well before it could get into launch range with torpedoes. Its even more absurdly mismatched if the enemy has airborne radar.
     
  25. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If the enemy has airborne radar (and fighters) even dedicated maritime attack craft armed with stand off cruise missiles are of dubious effectiveness.
     

Share This Page