It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Torpedo defence?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I read in a book that aircraft carriers have torpedo defence systems. Actual defence systems, like the Close In Weapons Systems, but for torpedoes. Has anyone else heard of this? How on earth does it work? I'll find the book tomorrow and copy the text in if I have to.

Oops, I didn't meant to post. Anyways, I found this link, but all it says is that this system can be used to 'divert incoming torpedoes'. How?




[edit on 4/7/2006 by watch_the_rocks]




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
It's called Nixie. It's a towed array that trails behind the ship and makes noise. If the torpedo tracks on it then it hits the array instead of the ship. I'm not sure how far behind it's towed, but it's far enough that the ship isn't damaged by the explosion. The thing with it is that if you're a sonar operator and you know weather conditions, you can tell if there's a ship there. From what I've heard it sounds like rain hitting the water.

Nixie is the CURRENT defense, this sounds like a sub decoy system. Subs have torpedoes that are nothing but noise makers. They are programmed to sound exactly like the sub. Same machinery noises etc. This sounds like something similar to that.

[edit on 7/4/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Yeah yeah, I know all about asw and sw, but it was just that I'd never heard of an anti-torpedo defence being used on an aircraft carrier before. But of course towed array is very obvious in hindsight. This would be interesting to look farther into.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Umm... In a program aired on the History Channel about the CVN-21 (as of now un-named) class of carriers they were discussing using DEW systems for protecting carriers against incoming torpedoes. Future torpedoes are probably going to be much faster than the current batch and conventional means just wouldn't do.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Pretty much all of current USN ships of any significant size (DD and up) have a Nixie array.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
How about using MetalStorm technology to disable incoming torpedoes?

A General Downing, former head of the Joint Special Operations Command, said that this is entirely possible here. Any opinions?

With that many rounds per second, the rounds could probably tunnel through the water, rather than fragment and stop within the first half metre.

Now THAT would be an awesome sight.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Drag two cables through the water with paravane or equivalent 'depth holding' towbirds on each end. Use manual safing activation and automatic triggering through acoustics or EM trace (Western Navies use high energy motor drives, FSU supplied weapons are typically chemical) as the inbounds pass over the wire. Assume that each cable is equipped with a linear charge that blows, creating an enormous 'fence' effect water collumn up to the surface. Disrupting the torpedo to the extent that it breaches, goes deep or is snapped in half if your triggering is right.

Call it a 'water wall' system.

The alternative is indeed some kind of anti-torpedo torpedo (which subs now also carry I believe) though there is no real need for them to be supercavs (huge) unless you're talking one of the giant 650mm nuclear headed Russian systems (AS-15/16 IIRR). In theory, you can even go to airdrop and take converted Mk.44/.46 beyond the inner zone this way as a means to payoff the inventory while pumping up purchases of the ALWT/Barracuda.

And that's the reality of naval warfare with conventional torpedos folks. By the time you get enough range to be outside the terminal defensive envelope (i.e. have a survivable boat) and enough /speed/ to make the target terminal zone before the weapon noise can trigger 'muddy the water' defenses with decoys, maneuver or hard kill, you are into 3.500-4,000lb monster weapons /anyway/.

Leaving it vastly more intelligent to invest in a saturation attack with AShM, and defensive rollback (first the pickets, then the core group, then the goal keeper, then the capital). So long as the threat doesn't have HPM or Laser type systems, you can rapidly destroy a task force with 1,500lb Harpoon on a 3:1 traded basis. While if they DO have such weapons, you are still better to go with lightweight/supersonic systems such that, instead of hull kills, you go for mission systems destruction of radars and weapon mounts/VLS.

'There's always room at the bottom'. Said the Admiral admiring his navy with a glass hulled liferaft.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

The alternative is indeed some kind of anti-torpedo torpedo (which subs now also carry I believe) though there is no real need for them to be supercavs (huge) unless you're talking one of the giant 650mm nuclear headed Russian systems (AS-15/16 IIRR).


I heard of concepts and prototypes, but never being deployed yet. I think its to early to believe that we have such devices in the subs.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
DARPA has already developed a weapon that utilizes sonic waves underwater to detonate torpedos, but as far as I know it has never been produced outside DARPA development. The project completes this fiscal year (before Oct. 1 06) and there has been no report of additional funding. This would be a contraversial weapon development, since it would likely to kill any marine animal in range of a fired weapon instantly.

The only anti-torpedo system I have ever heard discussed is a RAMICS underwater defense system, which is basically an underwater 20mm cannon. It would basically be the underwater version of the MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS). As I understand it, the weapon is being developed for MIW UUVs, but since most UUV weapon tech is still black box stuff not much public information available yet. It was briefly mentioned as a possible anti-torpedo weapon for the LCS, DD(X), CG(X), and CVN-21 during a DD(X) discussion last July in the House Armed Service Committee, CSPAN may have that. I don't think it has been fully developed, although it may be, since the new RAMICS MIW weapons on helicopters are coming online as of last year.

The Mk-48 block 7 and the latest Spearfish block torpedos are the only 2 torpedo types I am aware of that are able to avoid decoys. It should also be noted, against a surface ship niether torpedo type is designed to strike the hull, both are "back breakers" that approach deep and come up under the center of the target, detonating underneath a target creating an enormous bubble, which 'breaks the back' of a target warship. The latest Mk-54 mods can supposedly intercept other torpedos, but that is Raytheon talking, I'll wait for the US Navy to confirm.

Most Russian and European torpedo advances have been focused around propulsion systems, like the Barracuda or Shkval. These are both direct hull penetrators, and maneuverability is virtually non existent at the cost of their incredible speed, which approach over 200 mph underwater. If these type of torpedos are fired at short range, there is virtually no countermeasure if the shot is straight and true, but at longer range virtually any ship would have time to maneuver out of the way. While cavitation is pretty spectacular technology, it is still very new and undeveloped, and maneuverability is a serious issue. The other major drawback is sensor capability for a supercavitating torpedo is extreamly limited (or non-existant).



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join