Canada tries to buy russian torpedo

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Just got the news today on the CBC:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Canadian government has confirmed that for more than two years, it's been trying to buy a top secret Russian torpedo – and the effort's still going on.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The rocket powered torpedo is called the Squall. It travels underwater at speeds of 500 km/h. That's five or six times the speed of most torpedoes. Its leading edge technology coats the weapon in bubbles so water never touches the torpedo itself. <span id='postcolor'>

Sounds pretty nifty, the Russians aren't as behind in technology as alot of people think, they just don't have the money to refine and mass produce their new kit.

Has anyone heard of this before? (Denoir, I'm looking at you )

Apparently this is the torpedo that sunk the 'Kursk' a while back, the fuel is pretty unstable. And I recall hearing that it was a fuel leak in one of the torpedos abord the 'Kursk' that caused the fire and subsequent destruction of the submarine.

I heard elsewhere that this new torpedo has enough explosives in it to sink any U.S. surface ship, even a carrier.

Source: CBC

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

Isn't that torpedo the same one some American was accused of trying to steal? (the technology behind it, not the thing itself). I remember a while ago an American was arrested in Russia for spying, it had to do with a torpedo.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember a while ago an American was arrested in Russia for spying, it had to do with a torpedo. <span id='postcolor'>

It's in the original story, the guy was aquitted.

[Tovarish 0]

P.S. Assault, not sure if you know but your avatar's been broken for a week or two now

[ralphwiggum 6]

canada had subs?

anyway, i'd suggest that Canada improve stability. if it sunk Jursk, it could happen to Canadian sub.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 15 2002,06:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">canada had subs?      

anyway, i'd suggest that Canada improve stability. if it sunk Jursk, it could happen to Canadian sub.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, we have four of 'em.

Nevermind that, our subs are leftover Diesel/Electrics from the British Navy. They can't even float as it is right now, they won't be for a few more months.

[ralphwiggum 6]

let me guess...those yellow subs they retired from Disneyland.

j/k

on serious note, I'd say that Canadian Navy needs to think about the purchase. most of arms deals, AFAIK, involves limited amount of technological transfer. so maybe Canadians should look into making a torpedo of their own. just a thought.

[pathfinder 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Nov. 15 2002,06:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">let me guess...those yellow subs they retired from Disneyland.  

j/k

on serious note, I'd say that Canadian Navy needs to think about the purchase. most of arms deals, AFAIK, involves limited amount of technological transfer. so maybe Canadians should look into making a torpedo of their own. just a thought.<span id='postcolor'>

Everyone knows their sub's are actually ice fishing shacks that sunk during an early summer j/k

As for the torpedo are they armed straight from the tube? Sounds like with that speed you'd have to take the safeties off before you could fire it.

[-TNF-The Rocket 0]

Well I hope thoose torpeds will never get used.

I hope any weapon war vehicles will never be used more exept in trainings or in OFP

[Oligo 1]

Squall is a supercavitating torpedo and currently there is no other like it as far as I know. Unfortunately, though, it is unguided, since supercavitation makes a wall for sound through which it is impossible for the torpedo to hear or ping.

[Guest]

The big difference between the Shkval and conventional torpedoes is that the Shkval is rocket propelled and not wire guided. This gives the sub that launced it the capability of immidiately maneuvering away without having to worry about cutting the wire.

As for it being unguided, nobody really knows. There is a 'light' Shkval-E (export) version that is unguided and slower. The Russian Shkval II can reach speeds of over 700 km/h.

The downside is of course that everybody within 300 km will know where the sub is after launching it. A normal torpedo running on passive sonar can on the other hand go undetected for a long while allowing the sub to reposition without detection.

Anyway, this is a necessary system for the Russians since their hydrophones are crap and their nuc subs are noisy.

[MrMilli 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1974702.stm

Canada's top of the line Navy submarines

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 15 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for it being unguided, nobody really knows. There is a 'light' Shkval-E (export) version that is unguided and slower. The Russian Shkval II can reach speeds of over 700 km/h.<span id='postcolor'>

Traveling 700 km/h underwater is possible, because the projectile creates a sheath of steam around itself. No sound can pass through that and furthermore all info from the surroundings of the torp is drowned by the background noise of the torp itself. A simple matter of signal to noise ratio.

Anyway, I read from Jane's that ruskies are selling a semi-guided Shkval, which travels to target area unguided and then slows down to conventional speeds in order to search for a target.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Nov. 15 2002,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1974702.stm

Canada's top of the line Navy submarines <span id='postcolor'>

ROFL!

What really got me giggling were the article's very last words:

"and another faulty piece of equipment had to be unjammed with a hockey stick."

Joe Canada, anyone?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Nov. 15 2002,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Traveling 700 km/h underwater is possible, because the projectile creates a sheath of steam around itself. No sound can pass through that and furthermore all info from the surroundings of the torp is drowned by the background noise of the torp itself. A simple matter of signal to noise ratio.<span id='postcolor'>

Sound can indeed pass, the question is just how much energy you need for an active sonar to break through that and finding the optimal freqency. You can send an active 'ping' through a concrete wall and get a reflection back, so this should not be more difficult. The problem is that you need very high energy and very good focal components (i.e crystal oscillators).

Edit: I might add that this would only work for a small angle right ahead of the torpedo. When you boost up the energy, you get a better resolution but you loose much in covered angle. This is usually solved by having a sweepint towed hydrophone array, and this is for obvious reasons impossible on a torpedo.

[DracoPaladore 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Nov. 15 2002,11:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Nov. 15 2002,121)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1974702.stm

Canada's top of the line Navy submarines <span id='postcolor'>

ROFL!

What really got me giggling were the article's very last words:

"and another faulty piece of equipment had to be unjammed with a hockey stick."

Joe Canada, anyone? <span id='postcolor'>

Hey, a hockey stick has alot of good uses!

[Sadico 1]

There must be some kind of guidance sistem (maybe the torpedo slows down a few times to detect the target again and make corrections) The original russian one was meant to be a nuclear weapon. The idea was, when the russian sub detects an enemy torpedo, it shoots the Shkval to the bearing of the enemy and runs away like hell. Being a nuke, it would crush any enemy sub in a radius of a few kilometers. The export version can't be a nuke, so it must have some kind of guidance system. According to FAS it has some kind of autopilot, instead of a seeker head.

[Warin 0]

Gah! I think I've finally come to the realisation that the guys in Ottawa are INSANE.

How much money are they going to spend on this monstrosity? Why not spend all this cash on new Navy helos, or more than one colour of camo? No, we need to have supercavitating torpedos to fight off an enemy we'll never have.

ARGH.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He says the idea might have been to buy the torpedo and share it with other NATO partners.<span id='postcolor'>

I think this is the most likely reason why Canada would pursue a technology like this. Most likely they're just acting as middlemen or brokers. As far as I know France has already purchased the technology, but they're notorious for keeping their FME efforts to themselves...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Nov. 15 2002,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a nuke, it would crush any enemy sub in a radius of a few kilometers.<span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear warhead torpedoes are not used against other subs: they have only one purpose - killing aircraft carriers.

The Shkval hasn't got a nuclear warhead per default but a conventional shape charge.

(Using nukes against subs has no point at all except for that it could kill the sub that shoots the torpedo)

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Nov. 15 2002,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a nuke, it would crush any enemy sub in a radius of a few kilometers.<span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear warhead torpedoes are not used against other subs: they have only one purpose - killing aircraft carriers.

The Shkval hasn't got a nuclear warhead per default but a conventional shape charge.

(Using nukes against subs has no point at all except for that it could kill the sub that shoots the torpedo)<span id='postcolor'>

So i bet we're going to see some kamikaze subs now, huh?

[ran 0]

the canada should buy the belgian "mussel" torpedo

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Nov. 15 2002,09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So i bet we're going to see some kamikaze subs now, huh?

<span id='postcolor'>

Now?

[Sadico 1]

Denoir:

Quote from www.fas.org

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes. <span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear warheads can be used against subs, for example i think the US Navy had nuclear warheads for ASROC's, other navies such as the Royal Navy had nuclear depth charges.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Nov. 15 2002,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir:

Quote from www.fas.org

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">....<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

I know, I read it. They are wrong (Wouldn't be the first time - there are numerous errors just on the Shkval page)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nuclear warheads can be used against subs, for example i think the US Navy had nuclear warheads for ASROC's, other navies such as the Royal Navy had nuclear depth charges.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a big difference. anti sub rockets and depth charges are not meant to hit the sub directly, but in the neigbourhood of the target. Torpedos are for direct hits. Why? Becuase water has much higher and more irregular density then for instance air. For instance with the Mark 48 you can count on that about 20-30% of the torpedos you fire will wander off in the wrong direction. Ant they have guidance systems! Strap a rocket engine on it in the back and you will have much less guarantee that it will travel in the right direction. So an indirect detonation (time delayed for instance) would be madness since you would be risking killing yourself.

That is why the Americans never used nuclear tipped torpedos and why the russians only have the weapon against super carriers (and the sub doing the delivery is not expected to live).

Edit: Also:

A shockwave travels much better in water then in air. Even firing a nuclear torpedo in the right direction would give the sub extremely slim chances of survival.