# 140 km  Heavy Torpedo



## Kirkhill (17 May 2012)

SeaHake mod4 ER: Modernized DM 2 A4 with Range of More Than 140 Kilometres



> (Source: Atlas Elektronik; issued May 16, 2012)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



AOPS + UUV + Sea Hake = ? re NW passage.

Or even new Captor mines.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 May 2012)

Kirkhill, the SeaHake is a heavy torpedo. Nowadays, these are used from submarines only- not from surface ships or aircrafts, which use light torpedoes. The handling equipment for heavy torpedoes would be too large. Follow the link to pics of old fashion heavy torp set up for a surface ship (in this case HMCS Haida).Pairing a SeaHake with a UUV would result in a UUV that is way too big and difficult to launch and recover, which would be counter productive.

I do agree that some form of UUV operating from the AOPS would be of use however - but not necessarily an armed UUV. Something more along the line of a extension of underwater sensors to "look around the corner" would be usefull.

http://hmcshaida.ca/torptub.jpg


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2012)

While ship or UUV mounted heavy torppedoes might not be practical, the press kit also says specially equipped shore stations can use this torpedo. Having such stations at the entry and exit points of the NW passage (and maybe at other choke points or outside of Canada's major ports) would go a long way to "layering" Canada's sea defenses.

This would also increase the utility of many fo the RCN's lighter ships, a Kingston class (say) could be equipped with the proper sensor and communications gear and prosecute a target if it is in range of the "shore battery".


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2012)

I see your point clearly OGBD.

And I can also see the value in the AOPS having the ability to deploy UUVs.  

I guess the questions for me are:
- could it deploy UUVs that would lie dormant on the bottom for periods of time;
- could some/all of those UUVs incorporate a warhead (or submunitions - Sorry :nod;
- at what point would such a system be analogous to the Captor mines - but with a heavier payload, longer range and an important recce function?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 May 2012)

Shore stations might be of interest, but we must ask ourselves what they would seek to achieve as a part of our defence mix. First of all, shore based stations (and while the SeaHake article mentions them, it does not indicate that anyone is currently interested) are by definition fixed, and thus a target themselves. They also need, on top of their own self defence systems, all the associated sensor and communication suites that permit them to effectively perform the defensive aspect they are supposedly there to provide. With a range of 140 Km, the sensor suite would have to be fairly impressive - unless you rely on a warship nearby, but then why not just acquire proper weapons for that ship?

So what "defensive aspect" would a heavy torpedo station provide Canada?

First of all, it would be effective only at choke points as our coastlines are otherwise too extensive to completely cover at a reasonable cost. These could include the entrances of the NW passage, but they would only be useful when ice free (not all year), and what protection from the harsh elements would be required in winter, with subsequent "spring start-up" time and costs? In view of the high level threat they are meant to deal with, they would be IMHO just as inefficient a use of resources at other choke points such as the entrances of the Gulf of St-Lawrence or Juan de Fuca Strait. 

Second, I doubt it would be efficient use of resources for the limited threat it could be used to deal with: such torpedoes are NOT a policing weapon - if you fire one at a Merchant ship, you obliterate it, and chances are you would do the same to a warship - should a warship ever make it to within 140 Km of one of our maritime choke point, which would be scary in itself. Thus, a lower set of weapons to deal with ship intercept and arrest is more appropriate and can already be found on ... warships - even the Kingston class in the case of  Merchant ships arrests.

As for UUV, we must remember that , at this point in time, their development is much less advanced than that of UAVs, on the one hand and on the other hand, it is much more difficult to develop UUV that can be "remote-controlled" unless tethered to a ship: EM waves simply do not travel well underwater save at very low frequency and extremely high power and then with limited signal content. So UUV such as the ones Kirkhill seem to envision have to be much much more autonomous than their flying brethren and this means AI systems (expensive), long life power generation capability (also expensive) and extreme resistance to harsh environmental conditions (water ingress, very high pressure, cold and rusting or such other deterioration) again all very expensive. It is not inconceivable, but has not been done (that I know of) at this point. Do we want to become the proof of concept people on that one?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2012)

You survey in the locations, buy a few sets of mobile launchers, make a big fuss about them, do a few exercises and quietly mothball the system without telling anyone. Then everyone feverishly takes into account your ablity to target them and factors that into their plans. should buy you extra security for about a decade.  8)


----------



## Privateer (23 May 2012)

Interesting historical tangent re fixed torpedo battery:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscarsborg_Fortress

The torpedo battery at Oscarsborg Fortress in Norway fired the torpedoes from underwater tubes.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 May 2012)

I may have missed something, but to this Pongo a surface or air launched cruise missile seems to be a lot simpler and more flexible solution.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 May 2012)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Interesting historical tangent re fixed torpedo battery:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscarsborg_Fortress
> 
> The torpedo battery at Oscarsborg Fortress in Norway fired the torpedoes from underwater tubes.



I believe Sweden and Soviet Union did the same.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 May 2012)

I gotta ask:

How heavy is a "heavy" torpedo?


----------



## Dissident (23 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I gotta ask:
> 
> How heavy is a "heavy" torpedo?



If you are asking the same guys who came up with the C16 being man portable: 2 man crew should be sufficient to man pack the heavy torpedo across slightly hilly terrain.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (23 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I gotta ask:
> 
> How heavy is a "heavy" torpedo?



Around 2-5 tons, depending on who's torpedoes you're talking about. The ones in the article would be towards the lighter end.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 May 2012)

OK I gotta ask:


How much does a M48 ADCAP torpedo weigh? 

How much wood can a woodchuck....


----------



## mariomike (23 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> How much does a M48 ADCAP torpedo weigh?



According to this source: 1,814 kg
http://web.archive.org/web/20010401035621/http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/juws/juws010202_1_n.shtml


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2012)

Jim, that may answer the question about the man-portable C16 if 2 tons is considered light weight.

Were there any Naval types on the C16 design team?

Old Sweat, for surface stuff even an F35 would get the job done.  The question is what to do about all those nasty Brit, Yank and French subs stooging around our inner passages.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Jim, that may answer the question about the man-portable C16 if 2 tons is considered light weight.
> 
> Were there any Naval types on the C16 design team?
> 
> Old Sweat, for surface stuff even an F35 would get the job done.  The question is what to do about all those nasty Brit, Yank and French subs stooging around our inner passages.


1814 kg? Why I have a section of guys who could hump that baby all day.......kidding

So is the M48 ADCAP and heavy torpedo?

What exactly do you submarinee guys call light?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (23 May 2012)

Lightweight torpedoes are around 500-750 pounds, but most submarines don't carry them. Normally they are moved around ships by a rail system pushed by a bunch of large weapons tech types.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 May 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> 1814 kg? Why I have a section of guys who could hump that baby all day.......kidding



And with 225 seaman on a frigate, I am sure we could do the same - in harbour!

The trick is handling that at sea, in the confines of a ship (so not all people in the section fit in the compartment at the same time), on a deck rolling 15-20 degrees from side to side, pitching 5 to 10 degrees fore and aft, hitting seas at high speed and making radical turns unexpectedly.

That is why in the old days of heavy torps on destroyers (an era that ended with the old Tribals), they were tube loaded in harbour and you did  not carry reloads. Same goes for submarines nowadays (even more confined spaces and even with the specific handling equipment, reloading the tubes with the 48's is a dangerous operation carefully executed that could easily result in seaman being crushed to death in case of mistake.).

Also, he light weight ones we use in Canada (type 46) are the ones loaded on the ASW helicopters. This way a single type serves both purposes and can be switched from one weapon system to the other. In an ASW patrol, you would typically keep all four ship's tubes loaded, two torps in ready use location for the Helo (if not pre-loaded) and the other 18 in regular storage.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2012)

Thanks for the info!


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2012)

Suddenly occured to me; remove the warhead and add a sensor package and you have the UUV you always wanted. If the UUV finds something you don't like, load the next one _with_ the warhead into the tube....


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jun 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Also, he light weight ones we use in Canada (type 46) are the ones loaded on the ASW helicopters.



....and the CP-140 Aurora, which can carry 8 of them.


----------



## Baz (7 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Suddenly occured to me; remove the warhead and add a sensor package and you have the UUV you always wanted. If the UUV finds something you don't like, load the next one _with_ the warhead into the tube....



Good idea, but in a large part already the case.

Most heavyweight torps do something similar (quotes from Janes UnderWater Weapon Systems):
Sweden Torpedo 45 (Tp 45)
Multipurpose Lightweight Torpedo
"... can be wire-guided from a flying or hovering helicopter..."
"The wire link enables more than 80 different types of messages to be transmitted in both directions.  This information control the weapon's parameters and targeting, supervises homing procedures, and so on."
"The weapon can track several targets simultaneously, classifying target signals and rejecting all false signals..."

I know that is not a UUV per se, but it acts as a remote sensor.

A large problem with UUVs is comms links, as water is not the best medium for tradition means.  Although using a torp casing makes sense as we have the means of launching it, the propulsion systems are generally designed for high speed and short endurance, which is not the best combination for a more general search platform.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Jun 2012)

The 46's, on the other hand, are "fire and forget" weapons. They do not have wire for guidance and hence, no capability to send signals back.

Also, a proper UUV needs to be a "recoverable" piece of gear. If you expend it as it is used and have a limited storage capability (think current frigates: a stock of 24 torps), then it better double as the weapon at the same time. Heck, it's a torpedo then!


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (8 Jun 2012)

Setting up an active fire control solution is considered extremely provocative to other submarines. Actually firing something "torpedo-like" would go well beyond that, and would probably trigger a counterfire from other naval units.

This device is an ad to "Buy German" and is probably aimed at the RAN/RCN for their new Klasse 216 boats. It isn't remotely like an actual capability.


----------



## Virtuoso (25 Jun 2012)

Honestly, I don't think that a 140 km torpedo is any better than firing a torpedo from close range from a silent submarine. Torpedoes make a hell lot more noise than our Victoria class SSKs and if acoustic stealth is the emphasis here than closing in a submarine to 10 km of the enemy surface combatant would make a lot more sense.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

Virtuoso said:
			
		

> closing in a submarine to 10 km of the enemy surface combatant would make a lot more sense.



No, it doesn't.

If a submarine fires its torpedo within 10 Km of a ship, my search area (around the ship that just blew up) is much smaller that if the ship fired it from 140 Km away.

An AOP with a radius of 140Km is huge, Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a needle in a stack of needles ?


----------



## cupper (25 Jun 2012)

Here's a question, wouldn't a shot 140 km out from the target give a fairly early warning to both the target and the follow on hunters?

This would give time for the target to deploy countermeasures. And if the shooter had to hold station until the target is hit, it give the hunters (and possibly the target) time to try and get a fix on the firing point.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Here's a question, wouldn't a shot 140 km out from the target give a fairly early warning to both the target and the follow on hunters?



Depends how the weapon functions. Remember that it doesn't operate in isolation. There are other things in the water making noise.



> And if the shooter had to hold station until the target is hit,



Who says it does ?


----------



## cupper (25 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Who says it does ?



Does the shooter need to hold station if the torpedo is wire guided?

I know that this wouldn't apply for a fire & forget fish, but wouldn't a wire guided fish preclude the shooter from making evasive maneuvers?


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Does the shooter need to hold station if the torpedo is wire guided?



The article does not state it is wire-guided. But, AFAIK, the answer to your question is no.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (25 Jun 2012)

The Germans use fiber-optic cable, not wire. I doubt they have enough for a fish to actually travel 140 km.

A 21" torpedo going 140km would need to go pretty slowly. A targets best move would probably be to just run like hell.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The Germans use fiber-optic cable, not wire. I doubt they have enough for a fish to actually travel 140 km.



The original article quoted states:



> The new version of the SeaHake mod4 is also fitted with innovative navigation and communications technology, enabling extremely precise navigation and control of the torpedo over the entire distance.



Given that the weapon has achieved a range of 140 Km, their new guidance system is probably either purely internal or is hybrid between wire-guided and internal.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2012)

Although it is not states in the article, I would suspect such a weapon would start off slowly to clear the launch platform without making a lot of noise, then move to the target location being "talked onto" the target by the launcher, then sprinting the final portion of the distance once the target is pin pointed or the target starts to make a run for it. If done correctly, the target hears the motor go to sprint speed from a fairly close distance, so even if they are very lucky and manage to evade they will have an incorrect idea of where the torpedo actually came from.

For that matter, with 140 km of range, the torpedo could, in theory, circle around the target and come in from any arbitrary heading, totally confounding the search for the launcher.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Although it is not states in the article, I would suspect such a weapon would start off slowly to clear the launch platform without making a lot of noise, then move to the target location being "talked onto" the target by the launcher, then sprinting the final portion of the distance once the target is pin pointed or the target starts to make a run for it. If done correctly, the target hears the motor go to sprint speed from a fairly close distance, so even if they are very lucky and manage to evade they will have an incorrect idea of where the torpedo actually came from.
> 
> For that matter, with 140 km of range, the torpedo could, in theory, circle around the target and come in from any arbitrary heading, totally confounding the search for the launcher.



It is much more complicated than that.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is much more complicated than that.



But I is infantry...how much do you want my head to hurt?   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> But I is infantry...how much do you want my head to hurt?   ;D



ASW can make anyone's head hurt.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Jun 2012)

ASW is just a game of really high stakes, three dimensional chess.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jun 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ASW is just a game of really high stakes, three dimensional chess.



... that you play blindfolded and with one arm tied behind your back.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Jun 2012)

Pretty much.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (26 Jun 2012)

And you don't know if your opponent is still in the game until they take your queen.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2012)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> And you don't know if your opponent is still in the game until they take your queen.



Well, when the sub explodes, you know if it is still in the game.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (26 Jun 2012)

Technically, that unlikely event would be an implosion.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2012)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Technically, that unlikely event would be an implosion.



My initial indication that a target submarine is possibly out of the game is a Mk46 exploding. The result of that explosion could very well be another explosion by the submarine itself.


----------



## cupper (26 Jun 2012)

Wouldn't it be easier to watch for all the ladies undergarments that rise to the surface after the sub breaks apart? ;D

And can a 140 km Heavy Torpedo sink a truck?

http://youtu.be/eaeaeJc2Cz8


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And can a 140 km Heavy Torpedo sink a truck?



Only if the truck is wading through water, between the shore and the landing craft that dumped it 100 yards short of the beach, in four feet of water.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (27 Jun 2012)

> Wouldn't it be easier to watch for all the ladies undergarments that rise to the surface after the sub breaks apart?



One guy...ONE GUY!....says at dinner he likes to wear his wife's underwear, and suddenly we're all labelled.  :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2012)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> One guy...ONE GUY!....says at dinner he likes to wear his wife's underwear, and suddenly we're all labelled.  :facepalm:




Now you know how The RCR feels ...


----------

