 |
reply posted on 23-11-2004 @ 05:19 PM by jetsetter
|
Originally posted by COOL HAND
Originally posted by jetsetter
US is developing a supercavitating torpedo right now. 
No we are not. There are too many problems and dangers that are associated with a supercavitating propulsion system.
We are going in other directions, that is all that can be said. 
We are. I have seen photos and read about it. Just go look.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 24-11-2004 @ 05:21 AM by paperplane_uk
|
Originally posted by Apollyon
about producing supercavition by charging the skin of the torpedo to free trapped gasses in the water. 
if its using trapped gasses in the water then it isnt cavitation (cold boiling of water due to low pressures). A cavitation bubble can be sustained
however by intoducing other gasses into a pre-existing bubble (the russians used exhaust gasses i believe.
WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THIS ONLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO
www.abovetopsecret.com...
[edit on 24-11-2004 by paperplane_uk]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 24-11-2004 @ 09:12 AM by COOL HAND
|
Originally posted by jetsetter
We are. I have seen photos and read about it. Just go look. 
Links?
Source?
I have seen what they had proposed, but that was all it was.
We are looking to other directions, that is all I can or will say.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-11-2004 @ 01:48 AM by jetsetter
|
external image
 Supercavitating weapons work in the U.S. is being directed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Arlington, Va. In general, the ONR's
efforts are aimed at developing two classes of supercavitating technologies: projectiles and torpedoes.
The first class of weapons is represented by RAMICS (for Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System), a soon-to-be-requisitioned helicopter-borne weapon
that destroys surface and near-surface marine mines by firing supercavitating rounds at them. The 20-millimeter flat-nosed projectiles, which are
designed to travel stably through both air and water, are shot from a modified rapid-fire gun with advanced targeting assistance. (The fielded RAMICS
projectiles are expected to be enlarged to 30-millimeter caliber.) Raytheon Naval & Maritime Integrated Systems in Portsmouth, R.I., is the chief
contractor for RAMICS, and engineers at C Tech Defense Corporation in Port Angeles, Wash., developed the projectiles. The U.S. Navy is also
considering deploying a surface ship–borne, deck-mounted RAMICS-type close-in weapons system that could destroy deadly wake-following torpedoes.
The next step in supercavitating projectile technology will be an entirely subsurface gun system using Adaptable High-Speed Undersea Munitions
(AHSUM). These would take the form of supercavitating "kinetic-kill" bullets that are fired from guns in streamlined turrets fitted to the submerged
hulls of submarines, surface ships or towed mine-countermeasure sleds. The sonar-directed AHSUM system is hoped to be the underwater equivalent of the
U.S. Navy's Phalanx weapons system, a radar-controlled rapid-fire gun that protects surface vessels from incoming cruise missiles.
The other supercavitating technology of interest to the ONR is a torpedo with a maximum velocity of about 200 knots. Substantial technical and system
challenges stand in the way of the desired torpedo in the areas of launching, hydrodynamics, acoustics, guidance and control, and propulsion, to name
a few, according to ONR program manager Kam Ng. NUWC Newport is doing the applied research and some of the basic research work as well. The effort is
supported by the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University (ARL/Penn State), the University of Florida, Anteon Corporation and
Lockheed Martin.
Rest at www.diodon349.com...

|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-11-2004 @ 01:32 PM by alpha3marine
|
We have torpedoes with nuclear warheads on , does that count?
~LCPL R. Camp Lejeune, NC
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-11-2004 @ 07:19 PM by Judge DredD
|
The Russians too have torpedoes with nuclear warheads..
They can be capable to destroy entire carrier groups.
Some of the Soviet submarines which were playing hide&seek near Cuba in 1962 were actually equipped with these. It’s not a new thing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-12-2004 @ 01:39 PM by ROTC Guy
|
If anyone played Red Storm Rising back when computers were DOS based their was a Torpedo in the US arsenal called the MK50 Sealance, I don't know
maybe its nothing but Tom Clancy has been right before. Haven't seen it sence though so it either didn't exist or got cancelled in devlopment.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 9-12-2004 @ 11:44 AM by skippytjc
|
The US is developing a mach 1+ torpedo as we speak. They have tested the speed and have broke the sound barrier already...YES UNDERWATER. They just
cant steer it yet. It ejects gasses out the noze creating an ultra low resistance bubble around the torpedo. It literally slips through the water
like a gas bubble.
I read about it in print, ill try to find some online documentation.
But imagine the possibilities!! Under water cruise missiles. How about cruise missles that traval underwater for a portion of its trip then rockets
up out of the water to strike at the last moment.
The possibilities are endless. Heck, how about craft powered this way?
[edit on 9-12-2004 by skippytjc]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-12-2004 @ 08:35 PM by Cowboy
|
Now that is quite a claim!!!
Mach 1 underwater???
I wish to know more if you can help me....
Links?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-12-2005 @ 11:59 AM by Senor Freebie
|
Thats really funny. Mach 1 underwater. The Soviets have lead the way in development of speedy underwater engines for years and have a Submarine that
goes near 40 knots and a Torpedo that can outrun that Submarine. Meanwhile the USA has no Torpedo that can keep up with Russia's fastest sub and no
submarine that can outrun their own Torpedo's. Yet somehow they go from Torpedo's that go at under 40 knots to Mach 1. I find that about as easy to
believe as claims that the aircraft in Stealth is real 'coz my dad worked on it at Boeing'. No offence intended but thats a wild and completely
unrealistic claim.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-12-2005 @ 02:13 PM by NWguy83
|
Link to the USN's website of Office of Naval Research.
Link
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-12-2005 @ 02:51 PM by xmotex
|
1) The US's Mark 48 heavy torpedo can hit at least 55 knots, considerably faster than any submarine. The UK's Spearfish can do 70 knots, and the
Japanese Type 89 at least 72 knots.
2) The US is working on supercavitating weapons. Interestingly though, the first system likely to be deployed is not a torpedo, but RAMICS, a
helicopter fired mine-clearing system. The Office Of Naval research is also developing an underwater supercavitating gun (think of a Phalanx system,
but for defense against torpedoes instead of missiles), and a 200 knot torpedo similar to Shkval.
3) The Russians continue to improve theirs, adding homing abilities and much greater range. While they've proven to be dangerous to handle, they
deserve a lot of credit for concieving and deploying such an innovative weapons system first - IIRC Shkval first entered service in 1977.
Really, we should try to look at these things realistically, without all the childish nationalistic poo-flinging. It's amazing how people's sense of
self worth somehow gets all tangled up with the performance of their country's weapons systems. It makes discussions in here very frustrating.
[edit on 12/28/05 by xmotex]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-12-2005 @ 04:05 PM by Seekerof
|
Russia has SKAVAL, any answer from USN?
Yes, there is a US response: stay out of range.
The Shkval has a range of approxly. 7500 yards, which equates to
4.26 miles or 3.7 nautical miles at max and optimal conditions. One inherent pitfall of submarines that uses the Shkval: detection, because the
Shkval is designed specifically for close-range submarine
encounters.
The US answer/response/best defense: stay more than 5 miles or 4 nm away. BTW, the US Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo range is well over 10 miles.
And to reinforce what NWguy83 linked, further information can be had here:
Supercavitation Research and Development.
And to back the mention by skippytjc--IIRC "childish nationalistic poo-flinging":
"...a fully submerged launch of a supercavitating projectile (with air injected in its nose) with a muzzle velocity of 5082 feet per second was
possible and became the first underwater weapon to break the sound barrier."

Page Six: Supercavitation
"...the US Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), in Newport, Rhode Island. ... established its own supercavitation programme ... In 1997 ... NUWC
researchers announced they had gone supersonic. An unpowered projectile, with a carefully designed flat nose and fired from an underwater gun, broke
the sound barrier in water. That's nearly 5400 kilometres per hour--or 1.5 kilometres per second. ... Already they aren't very far off the 2.5
kilometre-per-second speed record for conventional munitions in air..."

supercavitation torpedoes
Other past ATS topics that have discussed Russia and the US supercavitation programs:
New kind of torpedoes
VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket<---this link provides further links to like past ATS
topics.
seekerof
[edit on 28-12-2005 by Seekerof]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-12-2005 @ 08:52 AM by orangetom1999
|
torpedo launch.
modern submarines can launch torpedos quietly. This is not new..it could be done in older boats too. This technique has only impoved in todays
boats.
Also If I am given to understand what I am reading modern torpedos are in fact stealthy. They can be launched quietly and programmed to run slowly
to closes the gap quietly and undetected and then quickly accelerate when it doesnt matter anymore if they are loud or not. This leaves thier prey
time enough for a " Awe...Sh**.
Unlike "The Hunt for Red October" in modern boats you would be very hard pressed to know if they have even opened thier outer torpedo doors for the
shot. Hollywood!!! LOL LOL.
Thanks,
Orangetom
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-12-2005 @ 09:00 AM by orangetom1999
|
Tom Clancy
Dont get all excited over Tom Clancy. I like reading some of his books. I just know that he has certain misinformation in them. Not that he doesnt
know what he is talking about but much of what he knows he cannot speak of to the pubic.
This means that on certain topics ..Tom has handlers. To be expected in this type of techno thriller.
Thanks,
Orangetom
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-12-2005 @ 12:04 PM by xmotex
|
And to back the mention by skippytjc--IIRC "childish nationalistic poo-flinging":

I wasn't referring to skippy, he seems to have managed to avoid any poo-flinging in this thread actually
There are a bunch of posters whose posts in these threads can be summed up as "everything Russian sucks" or "everything American sucks" or the
like (substitute Chinese, Indian, whatever) and it doesn't contribute anything useful to the discussion.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-12-2005 @ 08:39 PM by TristanBW9456
|
I believe ther was an article in popular science about the gas bubble torps
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-1-2006 @ 12:08 AM by Travellar
|
Originally posted by skippytjc
The US is developing a mach 1+ torpedo as we speak. They have tested the speed and have broke the sound barrier already...YES UNDERWATER. They just
cant steer it yet. It ejects gasses out the noze creating an ultra low resistance bubble around the torpedo. It literally slips through the water
like a gas bubble.
I read about it in print, ill try to find some online documentation.
But imagine the possibilities!! Under water cruise missiles. How about cruise missles that traval underwater for a portion of its trip then rockets
up out of the water to strike at the last moment.
The possibilities are endless. Heck, how about craft powered this way?
[edit on 9-12-2004 by skippytjc] 
why pop up out of the water? underwater damage can be FAR more devastating. after all, given a choice of where you can have a hole in your ship,
where would you NOT put it?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-1-2006 @ 01:45 AM by ORIEguy
|
As someone already mentioned, it's a lot more important to be quiet with a good idea of what's going on. That's US boats all the way.
The Mk48 ADCAP is a powerful torpedo which again, can run quiet. More importantly, it can also be programmed to take an indirect course.
Sub war is slow. Impatient captains usually lose.
The stalk can often take HOURS if not days to properly fix a contact, and in littoral ops you need to have a good sense of wtf is going on with the
background noise as well.
So you quietly release two torps, run em out to the enemy's flanks, cut the wires after you program them to converge, then listen. In the endgame,
the enemy sees two torps headed from two directions, neither of them along your bearing to the target. Supercavitating whatchamhoozits don't matter
there.
This is what I call whiz-bang gadget syndrome, and it's a symptom of those unaware of operational considerations. It's quiet, and high stress stuff.
US subs REGULARLY will hide themselves off the coasts of different nations, with ELINT gear out and sniffing. These would cause an international
incident if we got caught, but we don't. And it's not just Third World nations either...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-1-2006 @ 09:34 AM by orangetom1999
|
ORIEguy
Great post. Tell it like it is.
Strategy, Patience, and Tactics
Longbow you posted:
"Maybe they found solution also for this. I don't know much about the current torpedoes, are they still ejected by air pressure?
Also the submarine will probably not go faster than is it's tactical operating speed (20knots by Seawolf, Virginia)
Think this through ..carefully. With patience Grasshopper!!
Thanks,
Orangetom
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |