supercavitating torpedoes

The RUssian Shkval(Squall) torpedo goes 230mph. Reportedly the Iranians and Chinese bought some. I'm wondering if the chinese even have a platform to launch these new torpedoes from.

Anyone know if they have overcome the steering problem..controlability in these torpedos. I understand they are so fast that steering is a problem with them at high speeds.

Thanks,
Orangetom

not to mention very shot range probably about less than 10,000 yards.

The steering problem didn't so much have to do with the speed but rather the difficulty with the cavity, making any control surfaces useless. If the fins are extended through the cavity then the cavity will collapse.

At the moment these weapons are pretty much useless, they hvae no guidance and a short range, even the warhead is only 200kg.

I never thought too much about these, but had known that work was being done in this area.

I looked around a bit and found one very informative link to some of the stuff the russians are working on and who they've sold them to. Also has some stuff about American research.
www.ocnus.net...
Quote '
When the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk sank last August, rumors rapidly arose that the mysterious blasts that sent the big boat to the bottom of the Barents Sea were connected to testing of an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Several months earlier, when American businessman Edmond Pope was arrested in Moscow on charges of espionage, it was said that he had been trying to buy the plans for an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Although the details surrounding both the tragic naval accident and the celebrated spy case remain unsettled, evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour - in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water."

They have one drawing that shows a guidance-wire spool. (but just how long of a wire would you need on something going 230 mph ???)
One other thought on steering: Could the cavity be vectored in some way as it is being formed. This should achieve steering control without collapsing the cavity by extending fins beyond the gas envelope.

Does anyone know of a full size sub that uses this for short bursts, for a quick approach, or a speedy getaway.

I doubt any submarine would use this technology as the power soi\urce would have to be immense.
The Russian weapon has to use a rocket motor to achieve the speeds necessary to form a cavity.

This has all been covered in previous threads, try looking there

Ive heard that too about the Kursk and the incident in the Barents Sea. I also heard that several Chinese observers were onboard to observe the testing. Something appears to have gone horribly wrong. Some of this may account for why the Russians were in no hurry to have outsiders assist with the recovery of personel.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Orange, etc,

I will have the latest information available at the start of June as i am attending a conference that covers supercavitation next week!

Yes Paperplane,
Look foreward to it..thank you ..

Orangetom

What conference is this?

Is it open to the public?

Who are the parties involved?

May 25th today, and looking forward to a report on what you find out.

The Russian Shkval torpedo is not in serial production nor will it anytime in the near future [5-10 years],and since the Kursk incident, the Russian project on testing and implementing supercavitating torpedoes has come to a halt.

The US program has slowed, as well.
Research: does your subs good.




seekerof

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Seekerof]

I get CBC (Canadian) on my tv. They did a show that claimed Canada was able to buy some Shkvals from Russia and pass them onto the US. They also claimed that it was a Shkval that blew up the Kursk.

Lockheed Martin has a prototype supercav torpedo.

It was the 2nd International Symposium on Seawater Drag Reduction and covered such things as supercavitation, polymer/microbubble drag reduction. complient coatings and surface morphology (riblets)

aserc.pusan.ac.kr...

will say more when i recover from jet-lag.

to a response earlier about having full-sized subs going over the speed of sound in water- that is completely insane- the power source would have to be frickin massive, not to mention bulky. And to the comment about how to steer a weapon like this without having the fins break the "bubble." Well my idea is that the weapon would have side air thrusters that would send a stream of air a little to the direction the weapon was turning, insuring that the torpedo's fins would not touch the outside of the "bubble of air"

Incorrect... Both Russia and China have equiped their submarine fleets with the weapon for some time now.

He's right there, Russia has been using them for a long while.

Furthermore, whoever said anythign about stearing: they don't need to. They go at such a speed that it's hard for a ship to move out of the way. Which was the point of them, also from what I have been reading the BA-111 Shkval is the old version. They have already been working on an upgraded version that can carry a nuclear warhead. I'll hunt out the link ASAP for you guys.

The concept of speed in submarines is always in the forefront of the minds of engineers and designers. New ways and methods are always being sought .
The number one problem is not always the speed...but the controlability factor ..even with non supercavitating techniques. Think it through guys..about speed...the main problem is that in high speed ...you need controlability so that you dont go below crush depth ....quickly. At high speeds ..it will happen before you know it if you dont know what you are doing or have a failsafe method..of control. It would be the same with a torpedo. At very high speeds it would only take a couple of seconds and it would be all over. Speed is very nice and very attractive...yes..but it is really riding the edge of the razor blade..dont let anyone kid you. The margin for error below the surface is close to zero at any speed. Think it through guys..carefully.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Hey guys, I am back after taking a week to recover from jet-lag and a rather dodgy stomach after some 'local' food while away. I talked to both the US and Russian Guys (including the US team that broke the sound barrier underwater) doing cavitation research about where they were and where the research was headed. The US research at the moment is mostly looking into using the technology as a sort of underwater machine gun (tiny projectiles) to protect ships from mines etc. They are not specifically running research into subs, but are refining the mathematical models of supercavitation that will allow larger objects to make use of this phenomena in the future (at least thats all he would tell me). The russians are mostly concentrating on similar computer simulations, though they also see the end uses in larger craft. They have both looked at maintaining the bubble in a turning situation, and have some success with a steerable nosecone on the projectiles. One big problem they are investigating is the projectile 'bouncing' of the insides of the bubble wall but are solving it by refining the shape of the bubble (yes they can design the bubble shape to suit their needs, by changing the nosecone shape). Research is continuing.

Some also might be interested that the US are definatly fielding a polymer based drag reduction system to one of their test ships in the near future. This was discussed in another thread as a possible reason for their subs being reported as being able to achieve larger speeds than thought.

All the other methods i mentioned (riblets, complient coating etc) are looking good for drag reduction (in fact they pretty much eliminate turbulence) but are still at the lab stage and have not yet reached the stage where practical designs for ships are possible.

Please note this infomation based on what they have put in the public domain and through personal conversations with the scientists involved. They could be a lot further on but are restricted from discussing it for national security reasons.

Hope this has cleared up some questions.

Paperplane_uk..

Edited to correct my rubbish spelling!

[edit on 6-6-2005 by paperplane_uk]

Lucretius and Odium....
As to those claims that the Russians and the Chinese have been using supercavitating torpedoes for some time, how about provide something remotely credible saying that what you both assert is indeed a fact?

My outside real world Naval or military sources indicate doubt and continued 'uncertainty' with slight "maybe" on what you both say is otherwise true/certain, and the best internet military and naval sources [FAS or Globalsecurity] on this subject only claim the "possibility" or "might" or may" and none of them confirming at the levels that you two are here. And yet, according to the both of you, having no before mentioned relations or interactions with the military/defense/naval/intelligence industry at levels considered to be in the 'know' [assuming here--please correct me if I am wrong], you both assert with near-100% sureness that what you believe and assert is a military industry fact? Ironic, huh?

2002 Article: Russian Assistance for the Type 093 Nuclear Attack Submarine


2003 Article: China's Subs Lead the Way

Help me out here gentlemen. Developing the technology does not necessarily equate to such being implemented for military use or application. As mentioned, one of the theories surrounding the Kursk incident is that they attempted to arm and fire a SHKVAL supercavitating torpedo and it malfunctioned causing the submarines destruction. A number of military and naval analysts and sources have suggested that the Russians have come to a virtual slowdown on this program [research & development and implementation]. This is undoubtedly inconclusive but serves to illustrate my point: no credible source is stating empirically what you two are doing here.





seekerof

[edit on 6-6-2005 by Seekerof]