140 km Heavy Torpedo

[Kirkhill]

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

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











BREMEN, Germany --- Atlas Elektronik has increased the reach of its torpedoes substantially, setting a new range record for torpedoes. At a test-firing in March 2012, the heavyweight torpedo SeaHake mod4 ER (Extended Range) achieved a range of over 140 kilometres.

SeaHake mod 4 is the latest advancement of the DM 2 A4 heavyweight torpedo, which is in service with the German Navy as well as the navies of Turkey, Pakistan and Spain. By fully exploiting the system’s unique propulsion and battery technology, it became possible to surpass the maximum ranges usual for modern heavyweight torpedoes in the global market by considerably more than 50%.

“With this record, Atlas Elektronik has set a new benchmark in torpedo technology. Until now, such ranges were hardly even conceivable. We are very proud to have made such a significant advance in torpedo technology, thus giving our customers new possibilities for sea defence,” said Kai Pelzer, Executive Director Naval Weapons at Atlas Elektronik.

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. The SeaHake mod4 ER can be deployed from seagoing platforms as well as from special land-based platforms.

The sea trials took place in cooperation with the German Armed Forces Technical Centre for Ships and Naval Weapons in the Eckernförde Bay.


The Atlas Elektronik Group stands for maritime and naval solutions above and below the ocean surface. The company holds a leading position in all fields of maritime high technology, from command & control systems including radio & communication systems for submarines, surface combatants and mine warfare systems and ranging to heavyweight torpedoes, coastal surveillance systems and in-service support. The electronics specialist is a joint company of ThyssenKrupp and EADS and has a workforce of 1900 highly skilled employees.

-ends-

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

Or even new Captor mines.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I gotta ask:

How heavy is a "heavy" torpedo?

 

[Dissident]

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]

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]

OK I gotta ask:


How much does a M48 ADCAP torpedo weigh?

How much wood can a woodchuck....

 

[mariomike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the info!

 

[a_majoor]

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....