Military Review

On the appearance of modern submarine torpedoes

37
An interesting article by Maxim Klimov "On the appearance of modern torpedoes of submarines" was published in the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" No. 1 (15) for 2015 a year. With the permission of the author and the editors of the journal, its text is offered to readers of the blog.


On the appearance of modern submarine torpedoes

Chinese 533-mm torpedo Yu-6 (211ТТ1 developed by the Russian Central Research Institute Gidropribor), equipped with a Russian telecontrol boat hose reel (c) Maxim Klimov


The real performance characteristics of foreign torpedoes (deliberately underestimated by some domestic “specialists”) and their “complex characterization”

The mass-dimensional and transport characteristics of modern foreign torpedoes of caliber 53 cm compared with our export torpedoes UGST and ТЭ2:



When comparing domestic and foreign torpedoes, it is obvious that if for the UGST there is some lag from the Western specimens for the performance characteristics, then for this TE2 the lag in the performance characteristics is very large.

Given the secrecy of information on modern homing systems (CLS), control (CS) and telecontrol (STS), it is advisable for their evaluation and comparison to identify the main generations of the development of post-war torpedo weapons:

1 - straight torpedoes.
2 - torpedoes with passive CLS (50-ies).
3 - the introduction of active high-frequency CCH (60-s).
4 - low-frequency active-passive CCH with Doppler filtering.
5 is the introduction of secondary digital processing (classifiers) with a massive transition (heavy torpedoes) to hose telecontrol.
6 - digital CCH with an increased frequency range.
7 - ultra wideband CCH with fiber optic hose telecontrol.


Torpedoes, which are in service with the Navy of Latin America


In connection with the closeness of the performance characteristics of new Western torpedoes, it is of interest to evaluate them.


Torpedo Mk48

The transport characteristics of the first modification of the Mk48 - mod.1 (see tab. 1) are known.



Since mod.4 has been modified, the length of the fuel tank has been increased (430 kg of OTTO II fuel instead of 312), which already gives an increase in the range at speed 55 knots over 25 km.

In addition, the first design of the jet engine was developed by American experts at the end of 60 (Mk48 mod.1), the efficiency of the jet engine developed a little later, our torpedo UMGT-1 was 0,68. At the end of 80s, after a long haul of a new torpedo “Physicist-1”, the efficiency of its jet engine was increased to 0,8. It is obvious that American experts carried out similar work, with an increase in the efficiency of the water cannon of the Mk48 torpedoes.

Given this factor and increasing the length of the fuel tank, the developers' statements about the achievement of the 35 km range at 55 speed knots for modifications to the torpedo with mod.4 seem to be reasonable (and repeatedly confirmed in the line of export deliveries).

The statements of some of our specialists about the “compliance” of the latest Mk48 with the early characteristics (mod.1) of transport characteristics are aimed at masking the lag in the transport characteristics of the UGST torpedoes (due to our tough and unreasonable safety requirements, which led to the introduction of a limited-capacity fuel tank).

A separate question is the maximum speed of the latest modifications of the Mk48.

It is logical to assume an increase in the speed of 70 knots achieved from the beginning of the 55-s to “at least 60”, at least due to an increase in the efficiency of the water jet of new modifications of the torpedo.

When analyzing the transport characteristics of electric torpedoes, it is necessary to agree with the conclusion of the well-known expert of the Central Research Institute Gidropribor, A.S. Kotov "electric torpedoes exceeded thermal characteristics in transport characteristics" (for electric ones with AlAgO batteries and thermal fuel-powered OTTO II). The computed data check performed on the DM2A4 torpedo with the AlAgO battery (50 km at 50 knots) was close to that declared by the developer (52 nodes at 48 km).

A separate question is the type of batteries used in DM2A4. “Officially” AgZn batteries are installed in DM2A4, in connection with which some of our specialists accept the design characteristics of these batteries as domestic ones. However, representatives of the developer stated that the production of batteries for DM2A4 torpedoes in Germany is impossible for environmental reasons (plant in Greece), which clearly indicates a significantly different design (and characteristics) of DM2A4 batteries compared to domestic AgZn batteries (which have no special production limitations on ecology).

Despite the fact that AlAgO batteries have record levels of energy, today a steady trend has emerged in foreign torpedoism to use much less energy-consuming, but providing the possibility of mass torpedo firing universal lithium-polymer batteries (Black Shark torpedoes (53 caliber cm) and Black Arrow (32 cm ) WASS), - even at the cost of a significant reduction in performance characteristics (decrease in range at maximum speed approximately doubled from DM2A4 for Black Shark).

Mass torpedo firing is an axiom of modern Western torpedism.

The reason for this requirement is the complex and changing environment in which torpedoes are used. The “unitary breakthrough” of the US Navy — the adoption of the Mk60 and Mk70 torpedoes with sharply improved TTXs at the end of the 46's — the beginning of the 48's — was associated with the need to shoot a lot to develop and master new sophisticated homing, control and telecontrol systems . According to its characteristics, unitary fuel OTTO-2 was frankly average and inferior in terms of energy to the peroxide-kerosene pair already successfully mastered in the US Navy by more than 30%. But this fuel has greatly simplified the device of torpedoes, and most importantly - dramatically, more than an order of magnitude to reduce the cost of the shot.
This ensured the mass shooting, successful development and development of new torpedoes with high performance characteristics in the US Navy.

By adopting the Mk2006 mod.48 torpedo in 7 (approximately at the same time as the “Physicist-1” state tests), the US Navy managed to produce more 2011 torpedo shots Mk2012 mod.300 Spiral 48NNXX years. modification of the software 7-th model of the torpedo). That's not counting the many hundreds of shots (for the same time) of the previous “mods” of the Mk4 from the modifications of the latest model (mod.4 Spiral 7-48).

The British Navy during the testing period of the StingRay mod.1 torpedoes (a series with 2005 g.) Conducted a 3 series of firing:

The first, in May, 2002 at the AUTEC (Bahamas) 10 torpedoes trap of the Trafalgar-type PLA (with evasion and the use of CRPD), 8 hoverings were received.

The second is September 2002 on submarines at medium and low depths and lying on the ground (the latter is unsuccessful).

The third is November 2003, after the software was finalized at the BUTEC test site (Shetland Islands) according to the Swiftshur PLA, 5 was obtained from 6 hoverings.

In total, over the test period, 150 was fired with a StingRay mod.1 torpedo.

However, here it is necessary to take into account that when developing the preceding StingRay torpedo (mod.0), about 500 tests were conducted. To reduce this number of firing for mod.1, the system for collecting and recording data of all firing, and implementing a “dry landfill” on its base for pre-testing new CCH solutions based on this statistics, allowed.
A separate and very important issue is the testing of torpedo weapons in the Arctic.

The US and British navies conduct them on a regular basis during the ICEX's periodic exercises with the execution of mass torpedo shots.

For example, during ICEX-2003, Connecticut's PLA released 2 weeks, and ICEX-2003 station personnel removed ADAR torpedoes from under the ice of 18.

In a series of tests, Connecticut submarines attacked the target simulator provided by the US Navy Underwater Warfare Center (NUWC) with torpedoes, but in most cases, the submarine used the remote control of the weapon as a target for its own torpedoes.



A certain “anomaly” with low firing statistics among Western torpedoes is the MU90 mini torpedo of the EuroTorp consortium (Italy, France).

During the tests (sea qualification tests from the middle of 1994 until July 1996 - 100 launches, 1997 – 2001 still 50 launches) and during combat training (shooting mainly mock-ups).

When studying the issue (according to the materials of the Western media) “it suddenly turns out” that at the official “beginning of deliveries from 2001” in the French Navy, the torpedo was adopted only in 2008. Numerous MU90 photo shoots on the Internet actually, in most cases, turn out to be torpedo fired shots.

Even more interesting details were contained in the documents on the Australian torpedo tender. Formally, in terms of performance characteristics, MU90 is “the best small-sized torpedo in the world” and significantly exceeds the American rival Mk54.

However, the position of the supporters of the Mk54 was - before believing in the characteristics of MU90 (and “reports on the shooting of other fleets without translation to English”) to conduct test shooting. With their fulfillment, it turned out that not everything in MU90 is as good as “advertising promises”.

However, the most important argument in favor of the version of the existence of a number of problems for MU90 is the termination of the activities of the EuroTorp consortium and the independent development of MU90 (new modification) Black Arrow by WASS already with a lithium-polymer battery, which provides large shooting statistics. Probably a number of problems MU90 forced to take such a step (at the cost of significantly reducing the performance characteristics).

Thus, economic indicators of the operation of torpedoes are a very important requirement, and directly affect the quality of development and development of torpedoes on navy, and, accordingly, the possibility of disclosing the complete TTX incorporated in the design.

The foundation of mass torpedo firing in the US Navy is the low cost of the shot and the participation of the fleet in the operation (reprocessing) of torpedoes. The latter is a matter of principle. Some of our specialists, still in 90x, put forward an unfounded thesis that "in the west, the Navy does not exploit torpedoes, but industry does everything." The falsity of this thesis is confirmed by the documents of the US Navy, most clearly - a textbook torpedo 2 class (is in the public domain).



Page of the textbook "Class 2 Torpedist USA Navy" with a description of the equipment and technology perepodgotovleniya torpedoes Mk 48

In the US Navy, a huge amount (in comparison with us) of torpedo firing is provided not at the expense of financial expenses (as stated by some “specialists”), but precisely because of the low cost of the shot.

Due to the high cost of operating the Mk50 torpedo from the US Navy ammunition. The figures for the cost of the Mk48 torpedo shot in the open foreign media are not available, but it is obvious that they are much closer to $ 12 thousand - Mk46 than to $ 53 thousand - Mk50, according to 1995.

The principal issue for us today is the timing of the development of torpedo weapons. As the analysis of Western data shows, it cannot be less than 6 years (in fact, more):

United Kingdom:

• Sting Ray torpedo upgrades (mod.1), 2005, development and testing took 7 years;

• Spearfish torpedo upgrades (mod.1) are being upgraded from 2010, planned for use in 2017.

The timing and stages of the development of torpedoes in the US Navy are shown in the diagram.



Thus, the statements of some of our specialists about the "development capabilities" of the new torpedoes for 3 of the year are without any serious grounds and are a deliberate deception of the command of the Navy and the Armed Forces and the leadership of the country.

Extremely important in the western torpedo building is the issue of low noise torpedoes and shot.

Comparison of external noise (from the stern) of the Mk48 mod.1 (1971) torpedoes with the noise level of nuclear submarines (probably Permit, Sturgeon types of the end of 60x) at 1,7 kHz:



Thus, it can be seen that in terms of broadband noise in the direction of the stern of the torpedo, the Mk 48 mod.1 torpedo on the low-noise driving mode (28 knots) approximately corresponded to the noise of the Perm and Sturge submarines at 10 knots speed, was very quiet for its time.

Today, in foreign GAS, along with the noise-finding mode in a wide frequency band, the main search mode is the detection of characteristic discrete components (DS), the reduction of which, taking into account the small diameter of the hulls and high power of the power-generating installation (ESA), torpedoes is a significant difficulty.

This allowed in the west to develop a number of compact OAS detection torpedoes with a compact long antenna.

Promotional materials from Rafael show the 80's end torpedoes detection distance - the beginning of 90-s DM2A3 (electric) - more than 5 km and NT-37C (thermal) - more than 14 km, armed with the Israeli Navy.

It should be borne in mind that the noise of the new modifications of the Mk48 torpedoes on the low-noise driving mode should be significantly lower than the NT-37C and be much closer to DM2A3.

The main conclusion from this is the ability to perform covert torpedo attacks with modern foreign torpedoes from long ranges (over 20 – 30 km).

Long-range shooting is impossible without effective remote control (TU).

In foreign torpedo building, the task of creating an effective and reliable telecontrol was solved at the end of 60 with the creation of a TU hose reel, which ensured high reliability, a significant reduction in restrictions on maneuvering submarines with TU, and multi-torpedo salvos with TU.


Telecontrol hose reel of German 533-mm torpedoes DM2A1 (1971 g.)


Modern western hose telecontrol systems have high reliability and practically do not impose restrictions on submarine maneuvering. To prevent the telecontrol wire from getting into the screws on many foreign diesel-electric submarines on the stern rudders, a protective cable is stretched. With a high probability, it is possible to assume the possibility of telecontrol up to full stroke of diesel-electric submarines.


Protective cable on the stern rudders of the Italian non-nuclear submarine Salvatore Todaro of the German 212 project


The telecontrol hose reel is not only not a “secret” for us, but at the beginning of the 2000's, the Gidropribor Central Research Institute developed and delivered the Chinese Navy for the 211ТТ1 product to a LKTU.

Half a century ago, in the west, it was conscious that the optimization of the parameters of the components of a torpedo complex should not be carried out separately (components), but with a view to ensuring maximum efficiency just as a complex.

To do this in the west (as opposed to the Navy of the USSR):

• work began on a sharp decrease in the noise of torpedoes (including at low frequencies — working for the GAS PL;);

• high-precision control devices were applied, which ensured a sharp increase in the accuracy of torpedoes motion;

• Requirements for the performance characteristics of the SJC PL were clarified with for the effective use of remote-controlled torpedoes over long distances;

• the automated command and control system (ASBU) was deeply integrated with the SJC or became part of it (to ensure the processing of not only "geometric" information of firing tasks, but also jamming)

Despite the fact that all this has been introduced into the Navy of foreign countries since the beginning of the 70s of the last century, we have not realized this yet!

If in the west a torpedo is a high-precision complex for covertly hitting targets from a long distance, then we still have “torpedoes - melee weapons”.

The effective firing distances of western torpedoes are approximately 2 / 3 telecontrol wire lengths. Taking into account 50 – 60 km on torpedo coils, common to modern Western torpedoes, effective distances are obtained up to 30 – 40 km.

At the same time, the effectiveness of domestic torpedoes, even with remote control at distances of more than 10 km, is sharply reduced due to low remote control performance characteristics and low accuracy of outdated control devices.

Some experts argue that the submarine detection distances are supposedly small and therefore “large effective distances are not needed”. One cannot agree with this. Even during a collision at the “dagger distance”, during the maneuvering process during the battle, the distance between the submarines is very likely to increase (and the US Navy submarines specially worked out the distance gap with the care of effective torpedoes).

The difference in the effectiveness of the foreign and domestic approach is a “sniper rifle” against the “pistol”, and given the fact that the distance and conditions of the battle are not determined by us - the result of this “comparison” in battle is obvious - in most cases we will be shot (including in the presence in the ammunition of our submarines "promising" (but with outdated ideology) torpedoes).

In addition, it is also necessary to dispel the misconception of some experts that “torpedoes are not needed against surface targets, because there are rockets. " From the moment the first missile (ASM) emerges from the water, the submarine does not just lose stealth, but becomes an object of attack aviation enemy anti-submarine weapons. Given their high efficiency, a salvo of anti-ship missiles puts submarines on the brink of destruction. Under these conditions, the ability to carry out a covert torpedo attack by surface ships from long distances becomes one of the requirements for modern and promising submarines.

Obviously, serious work is needed to eliminate the existing problems of domestic torpedoes, first and foremost R & D on the subject:

• modern noise-resistant ultra-wideband CLE (at the same time, joint testing of CLE and new countermeasures is extremely important);

• high-precision control devices;

• new torpedo batteries - both powerful disposable and reusable lithium-polymer batteries (to provide high firing statistics);

• fiber optic high-speed telecontrol that provides multi-torpedo salvos at a distance of several tens of kilometers;

• stealth torpedoes;

• integration of the "board" of torpedoes and GAK PL for complex processing of interfering signal information;

• development and verification by firing of new methods for the use of remote-controlled torpedoes;

• testing of torpedoes in the Arctic.

All this undoubtedly requires a lot of shooting statistics (hundreds and thousands of shots), and against the background of our traditional “economy” it seems at first glance unreal.

However, the requirement of submarine forces in the Russian Navy also means the requirement of their modern and effective torpedo weapons, which means all this great work needs to be done.

It is necessary to eliminate the existing lag behind the developed countries in torpedo weapons, with the transition to the generally accepted ideology of the world torpedo submarine weapons as a high-precision complex that ensures the defeat of secretive targets from large distances.
Author:
Originator:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1318378.html
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tanarri
    Tanarri 31 May 2015 07: 18 New
    13
    I didn’t know that everything was so bad. Thanks for the interesting article.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 50 New
      10
      Quote: Tanarri
      I didn’t know that everything was so bad. Thanks for the interesting article.

      As the commander of the ground forces Varennikov once said, the main problem of the Soviet army was a large nomenclature of weapons, and he cited the example that in the USSR at one time there were 18 types of torpedoes in service, while the Americans had only two types (mk-48 and small-sized mk-50). In 1990, the budget of the Soviet army was 290 billion Soviet rubles, it would be possible to reduce the budget by reducing the range of weapons
      1. Throw
        Throw 12 June 2015 15: 59 New
        0
        What is it that turns out, crashed by sorcerers ?! am
    2. Malkor
      Malkor 3 June 2015 00: 30 New
      0
      A lot of speculation in the article, pulling Western standards on our realities and vice versa. I’m afraid the assumptions about the speed of foreign torpedoes of more than 60 knots are not true, at this speed they will make a lot of noise due to water friction (which is why our high-speed apl 661 Anchar refused, at 35 knots 100 dB).
      The article is felt biased.
      I would like to read a more mature analysis, without phrases like "Russia has achieved this, aaa means the Americans have already developed better", and "if the Americans have been developing for 6 years and fired 1000 torpedoes, then ours must develop for 60 years and launch 10000 torpedoes", or is it "unreasonable security requirements in Russia are too high." This is not analysis - this is bullshit.
      I understand that everything is a little different with us, but this co-operation is not necessary.
      I repeat I would like to read an article from a competent author.
      1. mine
        mine 3 June 2015 12: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: Malkor
        I'm afraid the assumptions about the speed of foreign torpedoes over 60 nodes are not true, at this speed they will make a lot of noise due to water friction

        afraid correctly :) there are more :) :)
        (on thermal)

        Quote: Malkor
        I repeat I would like to read an article from a competent author

        "well, very competent authors" :) :) :)
        An example of unfounded criticism (response from Gidropribor officials)
        http://vpk.name/news/46529_primer_neobosnovannoi_kritiki.html
        and their flogging
        http://vpk-news.ru/articles/6997

        Quote: Malkor
        unreasonable security requirements are too high in Russia. ”This is not an analysis - this is bullshit.

        Monsieur, if you wipe the monitor away from saliva, but see the section of the UGST camorfor fuel (which is not on the Mk48), and if you have saved the rest of your brains, you can estimate how much fuel "minus" this comor has cost
        1. Malkor
          Malkor 3 June 2015 23: 08 New
          0
          Monsieur is you, but comrade contact me.
          I know my IQ, he's high.
          I do not splatter the saliva, unlike you, do not judge by yourself.
          I don’t figure it out, I think a lot depends on my calculations.
      2. Denis_469
        Denis_469 18 June 2015 08: 12 New
        -1
        The article greatly overestimated the characteristics of the western torpedoes, but the characteristics of the Russian as a whole are true. A complete comparison is unlikely anyone will write. Just so as not to make the country worse. I rounded off my website in 1960. And he did not write later, either, for this reason.
  2. saag
    saag 31 May 2015 07: 45 New
    +5
    The Germans certainly tried
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: saag
      The Germans certainly tried

      The British Spirfish have a range of 54 kilometers, a speed of 80 knots, a warhead of 300 kilograms (a torpedo was created to attack Soviet submarines like Lear, with a maximum speed of 41 knots). Everyone is far from such indicators.
      1. mine
        mine 31 May 2015 14: 04 New
        +9
        Well, at 70uz, "Spearfish" has no 54 km, and what's more - the solution that provided them with such energy, IMHO - a dead end.
        OTTOII - shitty in energy (including because it just does not burn out), the Angles added an oxidizer (ammonium perchlorate), got the energy, and together with it a bunch of troubles with practical firing (acid eats away the "hot" heat paths)
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 14: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: mina
          Well, at 70uz, "Spearfish" has no 54 km, and what's more - the solution that provided them with such energy, IMHO - a dead end.
          OTTOII - shitty in energy (including because it just does not burn out), the Angles added an oxidizer (ammonium perchlorate), got the energy, and together with it a bunch of troubles with practical firing (acid eats away the "hot" heat paths)

          Now the torpedo is being modernized and, apparently, the modernization will affect the fuel system. English-language Wikipedia article (translated by Google translator):
          On December 15, 2014, the UK Department of Defense was awarded a £ 270m contract with BAE Systems to upgrade the Spearfish torpedo. The update includes a new insensitive-ammunition warhead from TDW, [7 fuel system changes to improve safety, full weapon digitization and a new fiber optic guidance line to improve performance. [8] Upgraded torpedoes will enter service between 2020 and 2024 "
          1. gjv
            gjv 31 May 2015 20: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            Now the torpedo is being modernized and, apparently, the modernization will affect the fuel system. English article

            After completion of the design phase, the existing torpedoes will be upgraded by BAE Systems at Broad Oak's production facilities in Portsmouth (Broad-Oak-Business Park, Portsmouth, England, UK), with the start of the first deliveries of the new design in 2020 continuing until 2024.
            The contract provides 100 qualified engineering jobs for BAE Systems Maritime Services in Broad Oak Business Park, and supports over a hundred throughout the supply chain. Forty new qualified engineering staff will be recruited for the program at BAE Systems.
            The upgrade known as Spearfish Mod 1 extends the life of the torpedo, improves safety by introducing insensitive (to vibration) warhead munitions and using a single-fuel system and provides a wider communication (data) channel between the weapon system and the ship’s launch system. This leads to opportunities for improvement for the Royal Navy, as well as a significant reduction in operating costs over the entire life cycle.
            Spearfish anti-submarine and anti-ship torpedoes are currently deployed on the Trafalgar (Trafalgar) and Vanguard (Vanguard, Russian avant-garde) submarines designed and built by BAE Systems, as well as Astute-class submarines (Astute, Russian insightful, cunning, tricky, dexterous, insidious). Spearfish can be used in defensive and offensive situations and their advanced design provides maximum warhead efficiency at high speed with outstanding maneuverability, low emitted noise, additional homing and sophisticated tactical reconnaissance.
            The torpedo can work autonomously from the moment of launch and allows variable speed over the entire range of operating modes. The high specific power of its engine allows to achieve exceptional sprinting speed in the terminal stage of the attack (approach area to the target). As a result, underwater weapons provide a decisive advantage against the full range of underwater and surface threats in all operating conditions. Extensive underwater research will demonstrate consistently high performance and high reliability.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. gjv
            gjv 31 May 2015 20: 29 New
            0
            Quote: Lt. air force reserve
            Now the torpedo is being upgraded

            The contract provides 100 qualified engineering jobs for BAE Systems Maritime Services in Broad Oak Business Park, Portsmouth, England, UK.
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 31 May 2015 07: 46 New
    +7
    A very interesting topic and poorly lit on NVO ... the very appearance of torpedoes filled with hundreds of kg of powerful explosives evokes respect for this type of weapon.
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      A very interesting topic and poorly lit on NVO ... the very appearance of torpedoes filled with hundreds of kg of powerful explosives evokes respect for this type of weapon.

      I agree, it would be interesting to read an article about anti-torpedo weapons and acoustic traps.
      1. gjv
        gjv 31 May 2015 20: 33 New
        +2
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        It would be interesting to read an article about anti-torpedo weapons and acoustic traps.

        Maybe there is something thematically interesting in this article.
        Domestic torpedo weapons on the world market
        http://kanchukov-sa.livejournal.com/3133476.html

        The torpedoes SET-65E with the sapphire homing system, SET-53МЭ with the passive homing system 2050 and the torpedo with the homing system “Ceramics” in the Indian Navy Training Center (c) Maxim Klimov
  4. sevtrash
    sevtrash 31 May 2015 08: 51 New
    +1
    First awareness of the problem - then its solution. Another question is whether it is necessary to solve this problem as a priority. The question goes into the plane of the possibility of detecting nuclear submarines or access to the space where these nuclear submarines (RKPSN first of all) are. Although, if / when robots are planted with nuclear submarines, they will have to switch to some new basing options - inland waters, placement of cruise missiles in containers, etc.
  5. VALERIK_097
    VALERIK_097 31 May 2015 08: 54 New
    +3
    Overview only on 533 mm devices, and why did 650 mm drop out?
    1. Victor the Great
      Victor the Great 31 May 2015 10: 40 New
      +5
      Maybe because there are no analogues to the Soviet "Kit" in the West?
      Not so long ago, on the "military review" site there was an article entirely devoted to this product, but the conclusion is the same as that of the rest of our torpedoes, hopelessly outdated.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Victor the Great
        Not so long ago, on the "military review" site there was an article entirely devoted to this product, but the conclusion is the same as that of the rest of our torpedoes, hopelessly outdated.

        It is much more reasonable to build submarines with 650 mm torpedo tubes in order to fire missiles through them. For a 533 mm torpedo tube for a rocket with a conventional warhead weighing 450 kg, the maximum range is 1600 kilometers, and it is unlikely to be possible to increase it (with a nuclear warhead, which is lighter, the range can reach 2500-3000 km, but no more).
        If you develop a rocket for a 650 mm torpedo tube, the range in the conventional version can reach up to 2500-3000 km, and in the nuclear version up to 4000-5000 km.
        1. Victor the Great
          Victor the Great 31 May 2015 20: 22 New
          0
          Through 533, you can perfectly launch "grenades", "calibers" and "tomahawks", but more is not needed.
    2. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 51 New
      +2
      Quote: VALERIK_097
      why did the 650 mm drop out?

      Now no country in the world is armed with torpedoes with a diameter of 650 mm (the Soviet torpedo Kit was removed from service).
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 31 May 2015 15: 34 New
        +8
        Israel ordered 650 mm torpedo tubes
        in Dolphin-class submarines that were made in Germany
        by special order. Of these, you can launch cruise missiles,
        send mini-devices with saboteurs, put mines.
        And use any torpedoes, and smaller calibers, like
        subcaliber.
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 16: 01 New
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And use any torpedoes, and smaller calibers, like
          subcaliber.

          + besides, when using a conventional 533 mm torpedo in a 650 mm torpedo tubes, stealth of attack is increased, since a torpedo can start engines directly in the torpedo tubes and leave it itself (the U.S. has 8 torpedo tubes with 660 mm caliber on Sivulf, and the principle is implemented self-propelled torpedoes of their torpedo tubes.)
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Of these, you can launch cruise missiles,

          Cruise missiles of standard sizes or specially designed for 650 mm?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 1 June 2015 12: 22 New
            +1
            Our KR Popeye 533 mm diameter,
            Delilah is even less than 330 mm.
            I think 650 mm torpedo tubes ordered
            "just in case" for the future, so to speak,
            if you need to equip submarines with more powerful RC
            or BR.
        2. Victor the Great
          Victor the Great 31 May 2015 20: 36 New
          0
          Israeli (and in general any) missile launchers are launched from 533, Israel does not produce large torpedoes and does not plan. If you believe "jane's information group", the presence of large torpedo tubes is necessary for the landing of sabotage groups, and this is the only logical explanation, it seems to me.
          1. Mister22408
            Mister22408 31 May 2015 22: 52 New
            0
            This is if the problem of "cramming" is solved laughing Israeli SBN in the Kyrgyz Republic up to 533mm with the possibility of flying to the target at launch, which is very unlikely ... Groups exit normally through 533 TA.
  6. Wedmak
    Wedmak 31 May 2015 08: 57 New
    +2
    But how effective is this type of weaponry now? After all, 20 km is quite small when modern weapons of surface ships are taken into account.
    And why did the author ignore missile torpedoes?
    1. Victor the Great
      Victor the Great 31 May 2015 10: 36 New
      +3
      The maximum range for almost all of the above is> 50 km, and this is already quite enough, 20-30 km, this is the telecontrol distance, after which the torpedo continues to move in automatic homing mode (or set in advance).
      Rocket torpedoes have too short a range for their real and non-nuclear combat use.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Victor the Great
        Rocket torpedoes have too short a range for their real and non-nuclear combat use.

        The "waterfall" has 50 kilometers, the "wind" has 100 kilometers, and torpedoes have a cruising range of about 13-18 kilometers.
        1. Victor the Great
          Victor the Great 1 June 2015 16: 17 New
          0
          I'm not talking about that, I meant torpedoes with jet thrust of the "squall" type and the German "barracuda".
          1. Lt. Air Force stock
            Lt. Air Force stock 1 June 2015 16: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: Victor the Great
            I'm not talking about that, I meant torpedoes with jet thrust of the "squall" type and the German "barracuda".

            The "squall" and "barracuda" have an even bigger problem in addition to their short range, they are not controllable and can only be launched in a straight line.
    2. Vladimir 23rus
      Vladimir 23rus 31 May 2015 11: 11 New
      +3
      Torpedoes are now basically a self-defense weapon of submarines. Because it’s even 60 km to join the ships. problematic. And we have had problems with torpedoes for a long time.
      1. mine
        mine 31 May 2015 12: 44 New
        +3
        Quote: Vladimir 23rus
        Torpedoes now it is basically a self-defense weapon submarine

        no, about that and the article
        and for self-defense we need PLUR

        Quote: Vladimir 23rus
        Because it’s come to the connection of ships even at 60 km. problematic

        really
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 14: 01 New
        +3
        Quote: Vladimir 23rus
        orpedo now is basically a self-defense weapon of the submarine. Because it’s even 60 km to join the ships. problematic. And we have had problems with torpedoes for a long time.

        The German submarine type 212 and the Swedish type "Gotland", during the exercises, broke through the defense of the AUG and conditionally sank the aircraft carrier and several escort ships.
        In addition, multi-purpose submarines that graze the enemy’s sailboat, in which case torpedoes will sink them.
    3. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 13: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      But how effective is this type of weaponry now?

      To combat enemy submarines, there is no alternative to torpedoes, missile torpedoes also attack a submarine with a small torpedo. The difference is that a cancer torpedo will overcome the distance to the target faster than an ordinary torpedo. An ordinary torpedo when firing at 50 kilometers will go up to the target for 30 minutes, which is quite a lot to detect it and take countermeasures.
  7. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 31 May 2015 11: 43 New
    -5
    Once again I draw attention to the fact that the TTX of VN products in an open press is, in my opinion, unreasonable to publish. Especially if this product is inferior to foreign counterparts. I believe that those who need to know about the problem and are engaged in solving this problem.
    Otherwise, unnecessary excitement around this or that problem seems to him to be almost the end of the world.
    1. mine
      mine 31 May 2015 12: 48 New
      +4
      Quote: evge-malyshev
      they know about the problem and are engaged in solving this problem.

      so "they know and are engaged" that shit about which Rear Admiral Lutsky wrote in 2010. in the "Marine Collection":
      “It is proposed that the Yasen and Borey projects under construction be equipped with PTZ systems, technical specifications for the development of which were made in the 80 of the last century, the results of studies of the effectiveness of these tools against modern torpedoes indicate an extremely low probability of non-defeat of evading submarines.”
      Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8679
      is still being done and is standing (as well as the fact that the handshops did this until now in the posts)
    2. NDR-791
      NDR-791 31 May 2015 13: 44 New
      +2
      The fact of the matter is that we are accustomed to nodding at "THOSE WHO SHOULD" for a long time. It’s not news to me that we are lagging behind in the torpedo, but at the same time, before the Kursk, I did not think that everything was running like that. And then I saw the offer of the Dagdizel specialists to survey and raise the boat. Quiet horror!!! At the level of an eighth-grader-dreamer !!! Although, maybe ours, as always, overdo it with secrecy. It's just a shame that knowing we won't run to the adversaries to report, and the adversary knows what is needed even without us. And it is much easier and faster to read about our weapons in their already open sources.
    3. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 14: 03 New
      0
      Quote: evge-malyshev
      Once again I draw attention to the fact that the performance characteristics of VN products in an open press to publish

      These performance characteristics are for sure approximate. The United States has always overestimated the performance characteristics of its weapons, while the USSR and Russia, on the contrary, underestimated, in open sources.
  8. cucun
    cucun 31 May 2015 12: 47 New
    0
    As far as I understand, we have only one torpedo plant "Dagdizel" in Derbent? On it began to smell only 2-3 years ago after desolation.
    1. mine
      mine 31 May 2015 12: 51 New
      +1
      You do not understand. And in Derbent there is no torpedo factory
  9. Vilzevy
    Vilzevy 31 May 2015 14: 25 New
    -9
    "Not uninteresting article by Maxim Klimov" The very word "Not uninteresting" arouses interest in the intellectual development of the boy himself ... you don't even need to talk about the article itself ..
    1. Ladoga
      Ladoga 1 June 2015 02: 05 New
      +2
      Less ponte and ambition, no need to pose as a great diploma. ,, Interesting, "- this is exactly what is written. You, the “intellectual,” should know that the word, “intelligence,” is spelled with two, l.
      1. mine
        mine 1 June 2015 09: 30 New
        -1
        Monsieur, did you have an oculist for a long time? There is an ARTICLE, and there is a COMMENT for her by Misha Barabanov
  10. derik1970
    derik1970 31 May 2015 15: 33 New
    0
    if a big scribe and sailors happened on naked enthusiasm, obscenities will sink the enemy’s ships ...
  11. derik1970
    derik1970 31 May 2015 15: 33 New
    0
    if a big scribe and sailors happened on naked enthusiasm, obscenities will sink the enemy’s ships ...
  12. Dema46
    Dema46 31 May 2015 18: 02 New
    0
    Excuse me, is physics so bad for 2 and 3 too? Once I came across their mention once last year.
    1. mine
      mine 31 May 2015 19: 06 New
      -1
      Quote: Dema46
      physics of 2 and 3

      these are purely "virtual Internet" torpedoes
      1. Dema46
        Dema46 31 May 2015 20: 49 New
        +1
        Come on. Clearly, on a similar site it was said that physicist-2, at least with might and main in development. And it seems like some kind of comrade associated with some institute announced the progress of work.
        1. mine
          mine 31 May 2015 23: 28 New
          -1
          Quote: Dema46
          how some comrade associated with some institution announced the progress of work.

          pliz link;)

          went for popcorn :))))
  13. constantin.kiselev2014
    constantin.kiselev2014 31 May 2015 18: 33 New
    0
    I watched a TV show where our development was shown, a mini torpedo that has such performance characteristics: V = 50 knots, L = 50 miles.
    1. mine
      mine 31 May 2015 19: 08 New
      -1
      Quote: constantin.kiselev2014
      I watched a TV show where our development was shown, a mini torpedo that has the following characteristics: V = 50 nodes, L = 50 miles

      even a little ... :) (for zombies) - here are 70 bonds at 100 miles, for zombies it would be just :)))
  14. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 31 May 2015 19: 49 New
    +4
    Animation of firing a rocket through a torpedo tube:
  15. gregor6549
    gregor6549 2 June 2015 04: 25 New
    +4
    Very competent article. The author is a big plus.
    And a special thank you for the fact that, unlike many other authors, he does not set forth the facts that caress the eye and amuse the imagination, but those that should awaken someone from hibernation and prompt urgently to take a serious assessment of the situation and take all necessary measures to its corrections for the better for the Russian Navy.
    And then, being carried away by science fiction projects and exhausted from the powerlessness of his fearlessness, you can miss the harsh reality with all the ensuing consequences in the foreseeable future. Moreover, no one knows how much more time is allotted to us all to think.