The Ship Model Forum

Filipe Ramires wrote:Not sure if it's reliable...let me know, Werner.

I don't know if you mean the magazine or not.

Scientific American for years had at least one major banner article sponsored by the magazine which was as odds with US policy, at odds with capitalism, at odds with the US education system and so on. Most were in favor of Russian science, some supported Lysenkoism, a few identified with Hitler's ideas of eugenics. These articles were the official position of the magazine. Quite apart from those articles were a variety of submissions covering all phases of the scientific spectrum (except creationism or intelligent design, which is to be expected from a journal of science and not philosophy). Each article would have a half-page discussing the authors, and would give the reader largely enough information to determine the author's starting point. Based on this homework, you could draw your own conclusions about an article's viewpoint. Most were scholarly enough to qualify in the highest rank of literature, no matter what you thought of the authors.

In addition, the magazine had several departments which allowed for real exposition and development of ideas at the level of the layman. They allowed the reader to ask "what if", and "why", which I am sure, lead to some real improvements in science.

In the 2000s, the magazine has been changed into one with broader appeal, which necessarily included a lot of "dumbing-down". What this says for quality I cannot say, as I no longer read it at all.

Werner wrote:I wonder if these torpedoes are not in fact responses to the new generation of active anti-torpedo weapons.

It is possible indeed. I have heard of projects for submerged turrets in the lower hull of ships that using supercavitation would fire small supercavitation projectiles against incoming torpedoes or even low flying anti-ship missiles.
Here's a link:

http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/tkirsano/Sciam.htm

Not sure if it's reliable...let me know, Werner.

We, looking at such weapons from the outside, wonder what the use is. The developer already has a plan in mind which we need to reverse engineer if we are to understand the decisions they made.

I wonder if these torpedoes are not in fact responses to the new generation of active anti-torpedo weapons.

I'm sorry but I did a Google Search on the topic and I have come across several sources and that all reveal that one of the goals of this project is that the BAA06-13 or "Underwater Express" will be STILL controlable at 100 knots.
This would make more sense then the 1000-1800 knots.

Targeting solution most likely is either an improved acoustic system compatible with the "tiny" noise of the supercavitation or it's a pre-programmed computer solution inputed previous launching...supposedly the one being tested for the Schkval. Yet, I am far from knowing most of the details regarding this technology.
What I find surprising is how come such new weapon is supposed to have some 10 times more performance then the VA-111 Schkval (namely in speeds). If it is to have a range of 35/70 miles it goes about roughly the same 10 times over the Schkval. I find this most surprising. Either the Russian technology is very primitive or the company building the Underwater Express has developed supercavitation technology a lot in very short time and at very unexpected levels. That's why I asked at the first time if the speed numbers didn't have an extra zero more.
I agree with your observation regarding firing such torpedo at a long range against a submarine target...even with a conventional torpedo firing at long-ranges makes little sense...it still gives sometime to the target to take measures, manouever, fire ECM's, and even fire back torpedoes. For such tasks submarine launched missiles carrying torpedoes make more sense. The missile simply will drop the torpedo over the target leaving less time for the target to reply in any kind.
Against a surface ship, well, a conventional torpedo is already quite dangerous for most of the surface warships and already most of them would not survive or still be battle capable after taking a hit. The best weapon to sink or cripple a ship remains the torpedo (or the mine for that matters). The vision of a "supersonic" torpedo hitting a surface ship might not be a good thing to see. Even if we include a small warhead on the torpedo the cynetic energy hitting the target ship would be simply immense.

What I don't understand is the supercavitating torpedoes imply an accurate targeting solution at much longer ranges than previously normal. If the real targeting data allows 35 or maybe 70 miles, that would be the longest useful range. Against another sub, a torpedo launched cruise missile makes the most sense and is consistent with existing doctrine and technology. Against a surface ship, I don't see what it offers as opposed to current torpedoes.

I know you would like to hang me on that petard, but in this case all you have to show for it is a bloody thumb,

US-DARPA Strategic Development Office.

http://www.darpa.mil/STO/Solicitations/ ... erexpress/

The things you have belittled me for, like SM-3 AEgis and theatre ballistic missile defense have had the nasty ability to elude your promises of failure. Perhaps you should stick to the topics. Trying to gainsay my posts is a losing proposition, whether it's ABM or Yamato.

Filipe Ramires wrote:Hmmm, 1000-1800 knots???? Isn't there a Zero too much???????

I suspect an article published in the 2001-2002 time frame in the respected popular science magazine Scientific American - lately condemned by Werner as "pacifist leaning" for its unforgivable (to Werner) hesitancy in endorsing the feasibility, not to mention the moral righteousness, of SDI and missile defense in a suitably gung ho fashion - was at the origin of the rumor Werner has quoted. The article speculating that a supercavitating, rocket propelled underwater projectile could potentially reach near-sonic or even supersonic speeds (~3000 knots) under water, and still be guided by some forward projecting acoustic sensor that penetrates the supercavitation bubble.

Hey, I don't know what you folks want - it has proven to be quite destructive, hasn't it?

Jorit

Hmmm, 1000-1800 knots???? Isn't there a Zero too much???????

chuck wrote:

JWintjes wrote:I'd prefer Shkval - it has an established kill record...

Ok, that was mean...

Jorit

What? it killed the submarine that was trying to launch it?

Sorry, everybody ... pressed a wrong button. As I was saying, I bet the Shkval killed a few engineers on shore afterward with it's 9mm submunition.

JWintjes wrote:I'd prefer Shkval - it has an established kill record...

Ok, that was mean...

Jorit

What? it killed the submarine that was trying to launch it?

I'd prefer Shkval - it has an established kill record...

Ok, that was mean...

Jorit

Something like this obviously needs another paradigm for navigation, which makes me wonder whether electrically powered ships do not also produce a series of unique signatures which can be exploited.

I think it is a huge mistake trying to make a torpedo travel theses speeds for it's entire run. it might be useful for the last 1km or less, which would actually be quite reminiscent of the "Davis Torpedo".

Sure sounds fast, but can they hit anything? Is this another reason large surface warships are due to go extinct? As an old sonar man, I'de like to know how much noise these things make. Like if I'm submerged off of Iceland, can I hear the torpedo running off of the Falkland Islands?

Bob B.

You've just seen another quote, this time for 47600 knots, per second, acceleration.

Does anybody have a link or reference to the US supercavitating torpedo, called "Supercav", BAA06-13, or "Underwater Express"? I have seen quotes of 1,000, 1,500 and 1,800 knots for the USN torpedo.