Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RUSSIAN "ROCKET" TORPEDO ARMS CHINESE SUBS
Newsmax/Softwar ^ | 4/24/2001 & 10/8/2001 | Charles R. Smith

Posted on 10/08/2001 4:56:04 PM PDT by Fighting Irish

Russia has developed new submarine-launched torpedos that travel at incredible speeds – perhaps as fast as the speed of sound underwater.

Scientific American reports in its May edition that these supersophisticated weapons have been linked to the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk last August, and even to the arrest and imprisonment of Edmond Pope.

Pope, an American businessman, was charged by Russian authorities with spying, specifically that he had sought to buy plans for the "ultrahigh-speed torpedo."

The magazine reports that "evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour – in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water. The swiftest traditional undersea technologies, in contrast, are limited to a maximum of about 80 mph."

The new technology that allows for these incredible speeds is "is based on the physical phenomenon of supercavitation."

According to Scientific American, the new generation of torpedos, some believed capabale of carrying nuclear warheads, are surrounded by a "renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag" on the torpedo.

The new technology "could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles."

In 1997 Russia announced that it had developed a high-speed unguided underwater torpedo, which has no equivalent in the West.

Code-named the Shkval or "Squall," the Russian torpedo reportedly travels so fast that no U.S. defense can stop it.

In late 2000, after the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, new reports began circulating that the Chinese navy had bought the Shkval torpedo.

The modern Russian weapon in Chinese navy hands has sent alarm bells ringing through the halls of the Pentagon.

"China purchased the Shkval rocket torpedo," stated Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.

"The Shkval was designed to give Soviet subs with less capable sonar the ability to kill U.S. submarines before U.S. wire-guided anti-sub torpedoes could reach their target. The Chinese navy would certainly want to have this kind of advantage over U.S. subs in the future. At the speed that it travels, the Shkval could literally punch a hole in most U.S. ships, with little need for an explosive warhead."

"This torpedo travels at a speed of 200 knots, or five to six times the speed of a normal torpedo, and is especially suited for attacking large ships such as aircraft carriers," stated Fisher.

The report that China purchased some 40 Shkval torpedoes from Russia in 1998 has been confirmed by U.S. intelligence sources. Pentagon officials also confirmed that a Chinese naval officer was on board the ill-fated Russian submarine Kursk to observe firings of the Shkval.

The Shkval rocket first came to light in the Western press in April 2000 when Russian FSB security services charged American businessman Edward Pope with spying for the U.S. According to Russian intelligence sources, Pope obtained detailed information on the rocket-powered torpedo.

A FSB statement said it confiscated "technical drawings of various equipment, recordings of his conversations with Russian citizens relating to their work in the Russian defense industry, and receipts for American dollars received by them."

The 6,000-pound Shkval rocket torpedo has a range of about 7,500 yards and can fly through the water at more than 230 miles an hour. The solid-rocket-propelled "torpedo" achieves this high speed by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the weapon in a thin layer of gas. The Shkval flies underwater inside a giant "envelope" of gas bubbles in a process called "supercavitation."

The Russian Pacific Fleet held the first tests of the Shkval torpedo in the spring of 1998. In early 1999, Russia began marketing a conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi.

The Shkval is so fast that it is guided by an autopilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes. The original Shkval was designed to carry a tactical nuclear warhead detonated by a simple timer clock. However, the Russians recently began advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search for its target.

There are no evident countermeasures to the Shkval and, according to weapons experts, its deployment by Russian and Chinese naval forces has placed the U.S. Navy at a considerable disadvantage.

"We have no equivalent, its velocity would make evasive action exceedingly difficult, and it is likely that we have no defense against it," stated Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

According to the Jamestown Foundation's Richard Fisher, China is acquiring a fleet of blue-water submarines armed with the deadly Shkval. In a recent defense report, Fisher noted the Chinese navy is arming itself with a deadly combination of silent submarines, supersonic nuclear tipped Stealth missiles and Shkval rocket torpedoes. Fisher warned that the new Chinese navy is capable of operating far from Asian shores.

"There are reports that the Chinese navy's current subs do not have tubes large enough to fire the Shkval. The Chinese navy has completed the acquisition of four Russian Kilo-class conventional submarines. The Kilo 636 is said to be nearly as quiet as the early version of the U.S. Los Angeles class nuclear submarine," noted Fisher.

"This very high speed torpedo would provide the PLA with the technology to build their own version, and this is a looming threat," stated Fisher.

"The next few years may also see China produce a new class of nuclear-powered submarine, the Type 093. Again benefiting from Russian technology."

The Chinese Type 093-class nuclear attack submarines are similar to Russian Victor III class first produced at the Leningrad yards in the 1970s. Each Chinese Type 093 weighs more than 5,000 tons and is over a football field in length. The Chinese type 093 submarines are armed with eight 21-inch torpedo tubes that are large enough to fire the super-fast Shkval.

"The Type 093 is projected by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence to have a performance similar to the Russian Victor-III nuclear attack submarine. By one estimate, four to six Type 093s should enter service by 2012," concluded Fisher.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2001 4:56:04 PM PDT by Fighting Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Good catch, Mr. Irish. And welcome aboard! V's wife.
2 posted on 10/08/2001 4:59:54 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
I would hope that we have clearly stated to China and Russia that the use of one of these that sinks a carrier equates to the use of nukes.
3 posted on 10/08/2001 5:01:58 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
I will bet that our Navy isn't sitting on its hands. We know that the Russians have accomplished supercavitation. What keeps us from doing likewise?
4 posted on 10/08/2001 5:04:12 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
"The new technology "could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles."
5 posted on 10/08/2001 5:05:16 PM PDT by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
bump
6 posted on 10/08/2001 5:16:43 PM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ole Okie
We have a supercavitating torpedo in development. and research has starterd on a supercavitating submarine.

One of these torpedoes will not take out a carrier unless it is a nuke. Six would probably not do it. Our carriers are very well built.

So9

7 posted on 10/08/2001 5:17:02 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
>>...and it is likely that we have no defense against it," stated Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.<<

Translation: "Please don't throw me in the briar patch!"

8 posted on 10/08/2001 5:21:55 PM PDT by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
I'm sure we've got these by now. We knew about these way back when.
9 posted on 10/08/2001 5:27:45 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
A bit hyperbolic, but the description of the technology sounds feasible. It's likely that reliability is a problem (Kursk?). Let's hope the R&D guys are on this one if it's real.
10 posted on 10/08/2001 5:31:12 PM PDT by 6ppc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
We have a supercavitating torpedo in development. and research has starterd on a supercavitating submarine.

Wonder how much noise they make? Speed vs. stealth.

11 posted on 10/08/2001 5:32:19 PM PDT by 6ppc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 6ppc
On the same note, is it really worth the detection risk to give up stealth? If they don't know you're there, they can't shoot you right? The East relies on brute force, the West on speed and stealth. It will be interesting to see which wins out...
12 posted on 10/08/2001 5:41:36 PM PDT by AntiKev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
an interesting note on the name Shkval - this was the name of a soviet elint trawler that was of the coast of cuba on October 28, 1962...

probably no connection but interesting just the same...

13 posted on 10/08/2001 5:43:33 PM PDT by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Posted way back here Russian 'Rocket' Torpedo Arms Chinese Subs


14 posted on 10/08/2001 5:43:45 PM PDT by It'salmosttolate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
I would hope that we have clearly stated to China and Russia
that the use of one of these that sinks a carrier equates to the use
of nukes.

Inasmuch as it doesn't, one doubts it.

 

15 posted on 10/08/2001 5:46:54 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Clinton knew about this when it was in development and I'm sure he knew about it before. But he didn't give a damn. He spent his 8 years raising money for RATS, getting BJs, lying to grand juries, assaulting women, and covering his crimes. He had no time for the defense of this nations. My son in law in on a carrier in the Middle East right now. One more big salute of thanks goes to Bill Clinton.
16 posted on 10/08/2001 5:47:27 PM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
The Chinese navy has completed the acquisition of four Russian Kilo-class conventional submarines. The Kilo 636 is said to be nearly as quiet as the early version of the U.S. Los Angeles class nuclear submarine," noted Fisher.

Let's see, the Los Angeles class is divided into two groups, 688 and 688I. Kilo is "nearly" as quiet as a base 688 (most of which are being retired). The 688Is are significantly quieter, with the Seawolf and Virginia-class subs being much quieter still. And, all other things being equal, the USN and RN submarines are unmatched when it comes to the electronic wiz-bang necessary to detect and kill other submarines (Kilos may be quiet, but they are also completely deaf when compared to US subs).

Soooooo ... the chances of a Kilo with this torpedo getting close enough in to a US carrier (all US carriers travel with at least two Submarines riding shotgun) to take a shot (my understanding is that supercavitating torps are notoriously short ranged) is limited. In a shooting war, those Kilos would be sunk long before they had a chance to open their outer torpedo doors.
17 posted on 10/08/2001 5:47:41 PM PDT by gkidman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish

BA-111 Shkval underwater rocket


18 posted on 10/08/2001 5:49:29 PM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
6,000-pound Shkval rocket torpedo has a range of about 7,500 yards... The Chinese Type 093-class nuclear attack submarines are similar to Russian Victor III class first produced at the Leningrad yards in the 1970s... 5,000 tons and is over a football field in length....

***Yawn***

Big deal. A fish with a range of 7,500 yards, installed on a boat that you can hear (and kill) from well over three times that range... Victor boats are about as stealthy as a cat-burgler who, while trying to break into your house, is carrying two tin 50-gallon garbage cans...

He'll be rather lacking, with regard to the element of surprise...

FReegards,

19 posted on 10/08/2001 5:50:22 PM PDT by Capitalist Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Let's see. On the one hand we have the Shkval with a speed of about 230 miles per hour and a range of 7,500 yards. On the other hand we have the U.S Mk 48 ADCAP with a top speed of 55 knots and a range of 42,530 yards, or a max range of 54,685 yards if you limit the speed to 40 knots. Can anyone else do the math here?
20 posted on 10/08/2001 5:56:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
I heard about these torpedoes months ago, durring the surveillance airplane fiasco. While it's said there's no defense, these weapons have no guidance, the supercavitation prohibits the use of sonor guidance. So the fish is more like a bullet, unless the attacking sub uses active sonar to guide the torpedo(a sure death sentence). If the supercavitating torpedo doesn't give away your position, active sonar certainly will. Submarine warfare places a premium on stealth, anything that gives away your position will get you killed. An unguided torpedo thats 3 times faster but reveals your position, doesn't make up for the sneaky fire and forget type that leaves you alive to try again if you miss. I have heard that counter-torpedoes are under development, to be fired from exsisting countermeasures tubes.

Faster than the speed of sound? I don't think so, the speed of sound increases with density, the speed of sound in air at sea level is ~700mph, it's much faster in water.

21 posted on 10/08/2001 5:59:34 PM PDT by Eagle74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish ; ChaseR ; Mudboy Slim ; Ragtime Cowgirl ; goldilucky
Thank you for the thread Fighting Irish .
22 posted on 10/08/2001 6:00:55 PM PDT by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Scientific American had an interesting piece on the "Squall" torpedo. Turns out it has trouble steering, and the "slapping" of the torpedo on the interface between the cavity and the water causes major aiming problems. The U.S. equivalent will be able to steer.

As for the speed of sound in water:


Speed of Sound in Water

R. J. Wilkes, 11/5/97

 

The literature on sound speed in water (freshwater and seawater) is rather confusing. There are 6 primary references in the literature (refs. [1]-[6] below). Treating them in chronological order, their content can be summarized as follows: 

Greenspan and Tschiegg (1959): Tables of c vs T for distilled water, 0 < T< 100 deg C; no pressure is given and it is presumably standard atmospheric P. Also given is a ploynomial fit with standard deviation 0.026 m/sec or 17 ppm. 
Wilson (1960a): Tables of c for seawater, -3 < T < 30 deg C; 1.033 (=1 atm)< P < 1000 kg/cm2; 33 < S < 37 ppt. Note that P is absolute pressure. A polynomial fit is reported with standard deviation 0.22 m/sec. 
Wilson (1960b): Tables of sound speed in distilled water, for 0 < T < 100 degC, 14.7 < P < 14,000 psia (ie, 1~1000 atm). The accuracy is 0.1 ppt. 
Wilson (1960c): A brief note giving an updated fit equation covering a wider range of parameters (especially salinity): -4 < T < 30 deg C, 1.0 < P < 1000 kg/cm2, 0 < S < 37 ppt. 
Del Grosso (1974): Provides a fit formula and tables of differences relative to results of previous formulas. Ranges are not given explicitly but tables in the paper cover 0 < T < 35 degC, 0 < S < 43 ppt, 0 < P < 1000 kg/cm2. Note that he uses gauge pressure, ie P=0 corresponds to 1 atm = 1.033 kg/cm2 absolute. 
Chen and Millero (1977): Tables and fit for 0 < T < 40 deg C, 0 < P < 1000 bars, 5 < S < 40 ppt. Note pressure is gauge pressure (P=0 corresponds to 1 atm). Standard deviation of fit is 0.19 m/sec. 
 

Attached is source code for Fortran-77 functions to compute the sound velocity for specified S,T,P using the fits described in refs. [1], [4] (which covers [2] and [3]), [5] and [6] within their valid ranges. The functions have been arranged for uniform input (T in degC, P in kg/cm2 absolute, S in ppt) and return c=-1 if input parameters are out of the range of validity for the fit coded. Naturally there is no warranty express or implied for the use of these functions!

 

Following the source code is a table of c vs T according to the various authors, for fresh water, and one point for seawater at T=1 degC, P=500 kg/cm2 abs, S=35 ppt.

 

References

[1] M. Greenspan and C. Tschiegg, (1959), JASA 31:75.

[2] W. Wilson, (1959), JASA 31:1067.

[3] W. Wilson, (1960a), JASA 32:641.

[4] W. Wilson, (1960b), JASA 32:1357.

[5] V. Del Grosso, (1974), JASA 56:1084.

[6] C. Chen and F. Millero, (1977), JASA 62:1129.

 

Fortran-77 functions to calculate sound speed in water

	double precision function greensp(T,P,S)
	implicit double precision (a-z)
c	calculate c(m/sec) in fresh water at 1 atm given t(degC)
c	according to m. greenspan and c. tschiegg, JASA 31:75 (1959)
	if (s.gt.0.or.p.gt.1.033) then
		greensp=-1.0
		return
		endif
	c=1402.736
	c=c + (5.03358)*t +(-0.0579506)*t**2
     #     + (3.31636e-04)*t**3 + (-1.45262e-06)*T**4
     #     + (3.0449e-09)*t**5
	greensp=c
	return
	end

	double precision function wilson(t,p,s)
c	find c(m/sec) in water with (T(degC), P(kg/cm2 abs), S(ppt))
c	according to wilson, JASA 1960
	implicit double precision (a-z)
	logical notok
c	test for in-range
	wilson=-1.0
	notok=.false.
	if ((t.lt.(-4.0)).or.(t.gt.30.0)) notok=.true.
	if ((s.lt.0).or.(s.gt.37.0)) notok=.true.
	if ((p.lt.0).or.(p.gt.1000.0)) notok=.true.
	if (notok) return
c	ok
	c0 = 1449.14
	ct1= 4.5721e00
	ct2=-4.4532e-02
	ct3=-2.6045e-04
	ct4= 7.9851e-06
	cp1=1.60272e-01
	cp2=1.0268e-05
	cp3=3.5216e-09
	cp4=-3.3603e-12
	dcs=1.39799*(S - 35.0)+1.69202e-03*(S - 35.0)**2
	cstp1=-1.1244e-02
	cstp2=7.7711e-07
	cstp3=7.7016e-05
	cstp4=-1.2943e-07
	cstp5=3.1580e-08
	cstp6= 1.5790e-09
	cstp7=-1.8607e-04
	cstp8=7.4812e-06
	cstp9=4.5283e-08
	cstp10=-2.5294e-07
	cstp11=1.8563e-09
	cstp12=-1.9646e-10
	dct=t*(ct1+t*(ct2+t*(ct3+t*ct4)))
	dcp=p*(cp1+p*(cp2+p*(cp3+p*cp4)))
	dcstp=(s-35.0)*(cstp1*t + cstp2*t**2 + cstp3*p
     #        + cstp4*p**2 + cstp5*p*t + cstp6*p*t**2)
     #        + p*(cstp7*t + cstp8*t**2 + cstp9*t**3)
     #        + p*p*(cstp10*t + cstp11*t**2)
     #        + p**3*cstp12*t
	c=c0+dct+dcp+dcs+dcstp
	wilson=c
	return
	end

	double precision function delgros(t,pa,s)
	implicit double precision (a-z)
	logical notok
c	returns c(m/s) in water with (T(deg C), P(kg/cm2 abs), S(ppt))
c	according to V. Del Grosso, JASA 56:1084 (1974)
c	convert kg/cm2 absolute to gauge pressure
	P=Pa-1.033
c	test for in-range
	delgros=-1.0
	notok=.false.
	if ((t.lt.0).or.(t.gt.35.0)) notok=.true.
	if ((s.lt.0).or.(s.gt.43.0)) notok=.true.
	if ((p.lt.0).or.(p.gt.1000.0)) notok=.true.
	if (notok) return
c	ok
	c0=1402.392
	ct1= 0.501109398873E+01
	ct2= -0.550946843172E-01
	ct3=+0.221535969240E-03
	cs1= 0.132952290781E+01
	cs2= +0.128955756844e-03
	cp1= 0.156059257041e00
	cp2= +0.244998688441e-04
	cp3= -0.883392332513e-08
	c1= -0.127562783426e-01
	c2= +0.635191613389e-02
	c3= +0.265484716608e-07
	c4= -0.159349479045e-05
	c5= +0.522116437235e-09
	c6= -0.438031096213e-06
	c7= -0.161674495909e-08
	c8= +0.968403156410e-04
	c9= +0.485639620015e-05
	c10= -0.340597039004e-03
	dct=t*(ct1 +t*(ct2 + t*ct3))
	dcs=s*(cs1 + s*cs2)
	dcp=p*(cp1 + p*(cp2 + p*cp3))
	dcstp=c1*t*s + c2*t*p + c3*(t*p)**2 + c4*t*p**2
     #       + c5*t*p**3 + c6*p*t**3 + c7*(s*p)**2
     #       + c8*s*t**2 + c9*t*p*s**2 +c10*t*s*p
	c=c0+dct+dcs+dcp+dcstp
	delgros=c
	return
	end


double precision chenmil(t,p0,s)	
c	* sound speed according to Chen and Millero (1977) JASA,62,1129
implicit none
double precision s,t,p0
double precision a,a0,a1,a2,a3,b,b0,b1
double c,c0,c1,c2,c3,p,sr,d,sv
c	convert from absolute to bars
	p = p0 - 1.033
c	test for in-range
	wilson=-1.0
	notok=.false.
	if ((t.lt.0.0).or.(t.gt.40.0)) notok=.true.
	if ((s.lt.5.0).or.(s.gt.40.0)) notok=.true.
	if ((p.lt.0).or.(p.gt.1000.0)) notok=.true.
	if (notok) return
c	ok
	sr = sqrt(s)
	d = 1.727e-3 - 7.9836e-6 * p
	b1 = 7.3637e-5 + 1.7945e-7 * t
	b0 = -1.922e-2 - 4.42e-5 * t
	b = b0 + b1 * p
	a3 = (-3.389e-13 * t + 6.649e-12) * t + 1.100e-10
	a2 = ((7.988e-12 * t - 1.6002e-10) * t 
     #    + 9.1041e-9) * t - 3.9064e-7
	a1 = (((-2.0122e-10 * t + 1.0507e-8) * t 
     #    - 6.4885e-8) * t - 1.2580e-5) * t + 9.4742e-5
	a0 = (((-3.21e-8 * t + 2.006e-6) * t 
     #     + 7.164e-5) * t -1.262e-2) * t + 1.389
	a = ((a3 * p + a2) * p + a1) * p + a0
	c3 = (-2.3643e-12 * t + 3.8504e-10) * t - 9.7729e-9
	c2 = (((1.0405e-12 * t -2.5335e-10) * t 
     #    + 2.5974e-8) * t - 1.7107e-6) * t + 3.1260e-5
	c1 = (((-6.1185e-10 * t + 1.3621e-7) * t 
     #   - 8.1788e-6) * t + 6.8982e-4) * t
		 + 0.153563
	c0 = ((((3.1464e-9 * t - 1.47800e-6) * t 
     #   + 3.3420e-4) * t - 5.80852e-2) * t
     #	 + 5.03711) * t + 1402.388
	c = ((c3 * p + c2) * p + c1) * p + c0
	chenmil = c + (a + b * sr + d * s) * s
	return
	end

 

Sample output

Fresh water, surface
  T,degC        Greenspan       Wilson          DelGrosso
       0         0.14027E+04     0.14024E+04     0.14024E+04
       1         0.14077E+04     0.14074E+04     0.14073E+04
       2         0.14126E+04     0.14122E+04     0.14122E+04
       3         0.14173E+04     0.14169E+04     0.14169E+04
       4         0.14220E+04     0.14216E+04     0.14216E+04
       5         0.14265E+04     0.14261E+04     0.14261E+04
       6         0.14309E+04     0.14306E+04     0.14305E+04
       7         0.14352E+04     0.14350E+04     0.14348E+04
       8         0.14395E+04     0.14392E+04     0.14391E+04
       9         0.14436E+04     0.14434E+04     0.14432E+04
      10         0.14476E+04     0.14475E+04     0.14472E+04
      11         0.14515E+04     0.14514E+04     0.14511E+04
      12         0.14553E+04     0.14553E+04     0.14550E+04
      13         0.14591E+04     0.14591E+04     0.14587E+04
      14         0.14627E+04     0.14628E+04     0.14624E+04
      15         0.14662E+04     0.14664E+04     0.14659E+04
      16         0.14697E+04     0.14699E+04     0.14694E+04
      17         0.14731E+04     0.14734E+04     0.14727E+04
      18         0.14764E+04     0.14767E+04     0.14760E+04
      19         0.14795E+04     0.14800E+04     0.14792E+04
      20         0.14827E+04     0.14831E+04     0.14823E+04
Seawater, p=500, s=35
  T,degC        Greenspan       Wilson          DelGrosso
       1        -0.10000E+01     0.15364E+04     0.15358E+04

In other words, the speed of sound in water is roughly 1500 meters per second; that is 4920 feet per second or 3356 miles per hour.

--Boris

23 posted on 10/08/2001 6:06:34 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
I read here infowar.com that the russians have, "...a new highly secret weapon known as the 100-RU Veder missile, NATO code-named: SS-N-16A Stallion.

It utilizes silver battery driven propellers to send it out from the submarine to a safe distance before a liquid fueled rocket engine kicks in to send the missile to the surface.

From there it flies under rocket power at supersonic speed until just above its target, where it ejects a lightweight-torpedo with a parachute and a 200 pound explosive warhead, that slowly drops into the water, which then homes in on the submarine.

It can be armed with a mini-nuclear warhead and can engage targets at depths of up to 500 meters."

24 posted on 10/08/2001 6:13:47 PM PDT by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
Nothing really new here. I read about this idea in the sixties. It was a two stage torpedo. The first stage was a 'conventional' electric torpedo that approached stealthily until close enough to launch the rocket powered second stage which closed at high speed. As I recall, the idea of venting gasses to reduce friction on the second stage was discussed at length in the article.
25 posted on 10/08/2001 6:24:32 PM PDT by athiestwithagun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: athiestwithagun
I sure hope you're right...
26 posted on 10/08/2001 6:25:59 PM PDT by krodriguesdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish
"The Kilo 636 is said to be nearly as quiet as the early version of the U.S. Los Angeles class nuclear submarine,"...

We can thank Toshiba for this.

And many stupid Americans continue to buy their products!

27 posted on 10/08/2001 6:30:02 PM PDT by Bill Rice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
With respect, I didn't specify the ranges (w/speeds) of the '48, simply because I felt it was one more advertisement as to our capabilities... No sense parading our "goods," if you get my drift... And, assuming that can't find a Janes' Fighting Ships anywhere...

FReegards,

28 posted on 10/08/2001 6:31:16 PM PDT by Capitalist Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: boris
In other words, the speed of sound in water is roughly 1500 meters per second; that is 4920 feet per second or 3356 miles per hour.

Yes, that's about right. For an easier way to do it, see: http://www.npl.co.uk/npl/acoustics/techguides/soundseawater/content.html. It provides several alternative equations -- just press the "Interactive version" link next to your preferred one and punch in the parameters, it'll calculate the speed of sound for you.

I got 3,300 miles per hour using one equation.

So I'm very skeptical of the claims in the article. At the very least, it would take ENORMOUS forces to shove aside water fast enough to travel at 3000+ mph in the water. Not only is water quite heavy, by volume, but it's practically incomprehsible -- unlike air, you can't just "squeeze" it out of your way, you have to shove it aside, plus all the water that's all around it. That's why jumping off a bridge into a body of water is almost always fatal -- at high speeds, water is about as "hard" as concrete.

29 posted on 10/08/2001 6:31:54 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
As Louie Armstrong would say......what a wonderful world.........

Cue the Nuclear Explosion image.

30 posted on 10/08/2001 6:38:56 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Capitalist Eric
Don't forget these are also "dumb" straight line weapons. Which means you need to be close in and lucky.
31 posted on 10/08/2001 6:39:16 PM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Fighting Irish, Travis McGee, dukie, Lurker, harpseal
PING!

Amazing! This is getting scarier and scarier ... and uncanny. Breath of Fire is about to hit the street, and this (albeit and much improved model of the supercavitating weapon), it the lynch pin.

Should have to available for sale in the next 2-3 days.

32 posted on 10/08/2001 6:55:07 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
speed of sound underwater. I was going to say 5,000 ft per sec. Glad I didn't.
33 posted on 10/08/2001 7:00:03 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
Which means you need to be close in and lucky...

Compared to the Mk-48 (with snapshot capability), no amount of luck will be enough, with one of these russki fish.

It simply won't matter...

BTW, nice screen name.

FReegards.

34 posted on 10/08/2001 7:03:06 PM PDT by Capitalist Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
Thanks fer the heads-up, although much of this thread is simply over this CountryBoy's head.

How long do y'all reckon it'll take our Counter-Intelligence to get the specs on this torpedo...oooops, I fergot, Clinton gutted our Counter-Intelligence capability seein' as there was no longer any threat to the U.S. and all!!

LOL & FReegards...MUD

35 posted on 10/08/2001 7:15:04 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Uh, Jeff...this thing can go 7,500 yards, tops, and it's a straight-runner without any guidance. US torpedoes may not be as fast, but they can reach out a LOT further, AND they are just about unbeatable in the endgame. Kinda like blazing away with a shotgun at that sniper 800 yards away while he calmly lines up the crosshairs on your chest...not a move designed to enhance your longevity.
36 posted on 10/08/2001 7:23:26 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Snow Bunny
Yes, a very interesting thread. Especially post #23!

We should be building this same technology.

37 posted on 10/08/2001 7:28:11 PM PDT by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Read the Scientific American article - several months old by now.

We are way behind in development.

And if it's traveling faster than the speed of sound, who the fcuk cares how noisy it is??? (You're dead before you hear it.)

38 posted on 10/08/2001 7:33:45 PM PDT by Ross Amann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Wrong Doug.

Clinton was not indifferent to this. He was delighted by it. He never got more of a thrill then he did when crapping on anything American.

39 posted on 10/08/2001 7:38:24 PM PDT by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ross Amann
We are way behind in development.

Finally we've got some adults in the White House. Hopefully this will help speed our development.

40 posted on 10/08/2001 7:50:37 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
I stand corrected.
41 posted on 10/08/2001 8:04:49 PM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bill Rice
We can thank Toshiba for this.

And many stupid Americans continue to buy their products!

I will never forget that betrayal nor will I ever knowingly buy anything they market. No American should.

42 posted on 10/08/2001 8:40:22 PM PDT by abolitionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: athiestwithagun
i'll admit i know jack didley about naval warfare.
is there such a thing as a stealthy torpedo?
are these 2 stage types you a reality?
sounds like this could be a devastating.
43 posted on 10/08/2001 9:19:24 PM PDT by LinnKeyes2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

This is actually a fairly old story, this from Scientific American: Feature Article: Warp Drive Underwater: May 2001

By traveling inside drag-cutting gas pockets, new subsea systems can move much faster underwater than their conventional counterparts on the same amount of energy


by Steven Ashley

When the Russian submarine K-141 Kursk sank last August, rumors rapidly arose that the mysterious blasts that sent the big boat to the bottom of the Barents Sea were connected to testing of an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Several months earlier, when American businessman Edmond Pope was arrested in Moscow on charges of espionage, it was said that he had been trying to buy the plans for an ultrahigh-speed torpedo. Although the details surrounding both the tragic naval accident and the celebrated spy case remain unsettled, evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour - in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water. The swiftest traditional undersea technologies, in contrast, are limited to a maximum of about 80 mph.

overview

Of late, it has become increasingly apparent that the world's major naval powers are developing the means to build entire arsenals of innovative underwater weapons and armadas of undersea watercraft able to operate at unprecedented speeds. This high-velocity capability - a kind of "warp drive" for water - is based on the physical phenomenon of supercavitation. This fluid-mechanical effect occurs when bubbles of water vapor form in the lee of bodies submerged in fast-moving water flows. The trick is to surround an object or vessel with a renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag. Supercavitating systems could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles.

Although current funding levels for supercavitation research are said to be modest (around $50 million in the U.S., for example), the list of potential supercavitating weapons and naval vessels is extensive and altogether startling. It includes high-speed underwater bullets aimed at mines, homing torpedoes, boats - even low-flying aircraft and helicopters - from submerged gun-pods that look like the turrets on World War II–era aerial bombers. Other possibilities include high-velocity antiship and antitorpedo torpedoes and "midrange unguided engagement breakers," which are larger weapons intended to force an end to a conflict between two submarines. Also envisioned are small, superfast surface craft as well as nuclear-capable subsea missiles designed to neutralize entire aircraft-carrier battle groups.

Some naval experts believe that supercavitating systems could alter the nature of undersea warfare, changing stealthy cat-and-mouse stalking contests between large submarines into something resembling aerial combat, featuring noisy high-speed dogfights among small, short-range "subfighters" shooting underwater bullets at one another after having been launched from giant "subcarriers."

Other experts point to the possibility of fielding long-distance, multistage supercavitating torpedoes/ missiles fitted with nuclear warheads ("long-range guided preemptive weapons") that could prove to be a relatively cheap and effective counter to future "Star Wars" missile defense systems. These devices could dash in from many miles out at sea entirely underwater, pop out of coastal waters close to their targets, and drop their lethal payloads before any aerial or space-based defenses could react.

Surprisingly, we now know of at least one supercavitating weapon that has existed for many years. In 1977, after more than a decade of research and development, the Soviet navy secretly introduced a rocket-powered torpedo called the Shkval (Squall) that can "fly" through water at 100 meters per second (about 230 miles per hour) or more inside a self-generated gas cavity. Although this nuclear-tipped underwater missile is in some ways a bit crude and less than entirely effective, news of it in the early 1990s forced the Western military powers to take notice of supercavitating technology.

There's no doubt that many significant challenges beyond the merely technical would have to be addressed before any of these next-generation technologies achieves reality. Environmental concerns as well as navigation issues would have to be considered, for instance. Probably the biggest barrier to advancement would be finding sufficient capital to develop and build supercavitating marine systems. Nevertheless, history shows that military technology often finds financial support when money for other purposes is scarce.

"Since very few of these things have been built so far, in many ways we're at a stage similar to that of the airplane right after the Wright brothers first flew," says Robert Kuklinski, an engineer and hydrodynamics research scientist at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Division Newport in Rhode Island, the lead U.S. Navy laboratory investigating supercavitating systems. "But unlike then, we know a lot more about the underlying physics and technology than those early aerial pioneers did."

Supercavitation Fundamentals

Propelling a body through water takes considerable effort, as every swimmer knows. Speeding up the pace makes the task even harder because skin friction rises with increased velocity. Swimming laps entirely underwater is even more difficult, as water produces 1,000 times more drag resistance than air does.

shkval

RUSSIAN SQUALL. The Russian Shkval torpedo (in cutaway) is thought to feature a flat disk cavitator at the nose to create a partial cavity that is expanded into a supercavity by gases injected from forward-mounted vents. Small starter rockets get the weapon moving until the cavity is formed, whereupon the large central rocket kicks in.

Naval architects and marine engineers vie constantly with these age-old problems when they streamline the shapes of their hull designs to minimize the frictional drag of water and fit their ships with powerful engines to drive them through the waves. It can come as a shock, therefore, to find out that scientists and engineers have come up with a new way to overcome viscous drag resistance and to move through water at high velocities. In general, the idea is to minimize the amount of wetted surface on the body by enclosing it in a low-density gas bubble.

"When a fluid moves rapidly around a body, the pressure in the flow drops, particularly at trailing edges of the body," explains Marshall P. Tulin, director of the Ocean Engineering Laboratory at the University of California at Santa Barbara and a pioneer in the theory of supercavitating flows. "As velocity increases, a point is reached at which the pressure in the flow equals the vapor pressure of water, whereupon the fluid undergoes a phase change and becomes a gas: water vapor." In other words, with insufficient pressure to hold them together, the liquid water molecules dissociate into a gas.

"Under certain circumstances, especially at sharp edges, the flow can include attached cavities of approximately constant pressure filled with water vapor and air trailing behind. This is what we call natural cavitation," Tulin says. "The cavity takes on the shape necessary to conserve the constant pressure condition on its boundary and is determined by the body creating it, the cavity pressure and the force of gravity," he explains. Naval architects and marine engineers typically try to avoid cavitation because it can distort water flow to rob pumps, turbines, hydrofoils and propellers of operational efficiency. It can also lead to violent shock waves (from rapid bubble collapse), which cause pitting and erosion of metal surfaces.

Supercavitation is an extreme version of cavitation in which a single bubble is formed that envelops the moving object almost completely. At velocities over about 50 meters per second, (typically) blunt-nosed cavitators and prow-mounted gas-injection systems produce these low-density gas pockets (what specialists call supercavities). With slender, axisymmetric bodies, supercavities take the shape of elongated ellipsoids beginning at the forebody and trailing behind, with the length dependent on the speed of the body.

The resulting elliptically shaped cavities soon close up under the pressure of the surrounding water, an area characterized by complex, unsteady flows. Most of the difficulties in mathematically modeling supercavitating flows arise when considering what Tulin calls "the mess at the rear" of cavities, known as the collapse or closure region. In reality, the pressures inside gas cavities are not constant, which leads to many of the analysis problems, he says.

However they're modeled, as long as the water touches only the cavitator, supercavitating devices can scoot along the interiors of the lengthy gas bubbles with minimal drag.

U.S. Supercavitation Efforts

Although supercavitation research in this country focused on high-speed propeller and hydrofoil development in the 1950s, the U.S. Navy subsequently opted to pursue other underwater technologies, particularly those related to stealth operations, rather than high-velocity capabilities. As a result, experts say, the U.S. Navy currently has no supercavitating weapons and is now trying to catch up with the Russian navy.

weapon

PROTOTYPE WEAPON. A future supercavitating torpedo based on U.S. Navy design concepts could feature a range of innovative cavitator, sensing, control and propulsion technologies.

Supercavitating weapons work in the U.S. is being directed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Arlington, Va. In general, the ONR's efforts are aimed at developing two classes of supercavitating technologies: projectiles and torpedoes.

The first class of weapons is represented by RAMICS (for Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System), a soon-to-be-requisitioned helicopter-borne weapon that destroys surface and near-surface marine mines by firing supercavitating rounds at them. The 20-millimeter flat-nosed projectiles, which are designed to travel stably through both air and water, are shot from a modified rapid-fire gun with advanced targeting assistance. (The fielded RAMICS projectiles are expected to be enlarged to 30-millimeter caliber.) Raytheon Naval & Maritime Integrated Systems in Portsmouth, R.I., is the chief contractor for RAMICS, and engineers at C Tech Defense Corporation in Port Angeles, Wash., developed the projectiles. The U.S. Navy is also considering deploying a surface ship–borne, deck-mounted RAMICS-type close-in weapons system that could destroy deadly wake-following torpedoes.

The next step in supercavitating projectile technology will be an entirely subsurface gun system using Adaptable High-Speed Undersea Munitions (AHSUM). These would take the form of supercavitating "kinetic-kill" bullets that are fired from guns in streamlined turrets fitted to the submerged hulls of submarines, surface ships or towed mine-countermeasure sleds. The sonar-directed AHSUM system is hoped to be the underwater equivalent of the U.S. Navy's Phalanx weapons system, a radar-controlled rapid-fire gun that protects surface vessels from incoming cruise missiles.

The other supercavitating technology of interest to the ONR is a torpedo with a maximum velocity of about 200 knots. Substantial technical and system challenges stand in the way of the desired torpedo in the areas of launching, hydrodynamics, acoustics, guidance and control, and propulsion, to name a few, according to ONR program manager Kam Ng. NUWC Newport is doing the applied research and some of the basic research work as well. The effort is supported by the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University (ARL/Penn State), the University of Florida, Anteon Corporation and Lockheed Martin.

With regard to the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) work on the torpedo being done at ARL/Penn State, "we're trying to simulate the conditions in which the torpedo would operate, which is the so-called two-phase flow regime where there's both water and gas," Ng says. "We want to know what the water is doing, what the gas cavity is like, and how we make sure the gas cavity encloses the body at all times. Remember, once the cavity is disrupted, the wetted surface increases and the speed is going to drop off very quickly.

guns

SUBSEA GUNS. The U.S. Navy is developing underwater launchers for rotating gun turrets that would be fitted below the waterline to fire "kinetic-kill" projectiles at mines, obstacles, surface craft, homing torpedoes - even low-flying airplanes and helicopters.

"So far the CFD is doing a fairly good job, but it's not yet to the point that we're happy with it," he continues. "It's both a matter of computational issues and our fundamental understanding of the physics. This is not a Newtonian fluid we're working with here; it's much more complex than a single-phase flow."

Profile of a Supercavitating Torpedo

As the foremost existing example of a supercavitating device, the Russian Shkval underwater missile is ideal for the purpose of illuminating the basic parts of a first-generation design. The torpedo, which is reportedly 27 feet long and weighs 5,940 pounds, is "really a big projectile with a rocket on the end," jokes Yuriy N. Savchenko, who directs the research group at the Ukrainian Institute of Hydromechanics in Kiev, where most of the fundamentals of supercavitating weapons technology were first developed.

In general, the weapon consists of a large cylindrical hull containing a solid-rocket motor that tapers to a cone enclosing the warhead. The wide aperture of a rocket nozzle protrudes from the center of the aft end encircled by eight small cylinders, which are said to be small starter rockets. These get the Shkval moving up to supercavitation speed, whereupon the main engine cuts in. Nestled between two of the starter motor nozzles is thought to be a spool of guidance wire that unravels as the torpedo makes its way through the water. The wire would allow submarine personnel to control the weapon's operation and warhead detonation.

Up front, things get a bit more speculative. Experts believe that the nose of the torpedo features what is likely to be a flat disk with a circular or perhaps elliptical shape. This is the all-important cavitator, which creates the gas cavity in which the craft moves. The cavitator disk will be tilted forward at the top, providing an "angle of attack" to generate the lift needed to support the forebody of the device. The cavitator's edge is apt to be sharp, which hydrodynamicists say creates the cleanest or least turbulent gas/water boundary, what they call a "glassy" cavity. Just aft of the cavitator sit several rings of ventilation ducts that inject rocket exhaust and steam into the cavitation bubble to enlarge it. About two thirds of the way back from the nose are four spring-out cylinders angled toward the stern. Although they loosely resemble fins, these spring-tensioned skids actually support the aft end of the torpedo by allowing it to bounce off the inner cavity surface. Western experts believe that the Shkval actually "precesses" slowly around the cavity's circumference, repeatedly ricocheting off the walls as it makes its way through the water.

The Shkval is considered to be somewhat unrefined because it can travel only along a straight trajectory, but future supercavitating vehicles are being designed to maneuver through the water. Steering is possible through the use of cavity-piercing control surfaces such as fins, and thrust-vectoring systems, which are directional nozzles for jet exhaust. Extreme care must be taken to keep the body inside the cavity during turns, however, because should it stray from the cavity, the force of slamming into the surrounding wall of water would abruptly turn it into "a crushed Coke can," according to Ivan Kirschner, an engineer at Anteon's Engineering Technology Center in Mystic, Conn.

mine

ANTIMINE PROJECTILE. Supercavitating projectiles shot from above the ocean surface must fly stably in both air and water - a difficult engineering task. The RAMICS round (partially visible) was developed by C Tech Defense Corporation.

"Three-dimensional pitch and yaw maneuvers could also be accomplished by moving or rotating the nose cavitator in two planes simultaneously," Kirschner continues, "although such devices would be more complicated." Researchers have also considered using forward-actuated canards.

Supercavitating vehicles could be highly agile if the control surfaces were coordinated correctly, says NUWC's Kuklinsky. The idea is to skew the cavity to one side to create the desired side forces with an articulated nose cavitator or with control surfaces and then track the vehicle in it. If the fore and aft control systems operate in phase so that the "back end keeps up with what the front is doing, very fast turns can be accomplished," he notes.

Part of the solution to the control problem is to install a reliable, real-time feedback control loop that can keep abreast of cavity conditions in the rear of the craft and make the appropriate response to measured changes. As supercavitating systems travel unsupported inside low-density gas bubbles, their afterbodies often bang off the inside wall of cavities. Specialists call this the "tail-slap" phenomenon, which is regularly observed in high-speed test photography of supercavitating devices. The ONR has sponsored the development of a "tail-slap" sensor - a monitoring system based on microelectromechanical components that will track intermittent afterbody contact with the cavity.

An important point regarding future supercavitating vehicles is the fact that transitions from normal underwater travel into the supercavitating regime and back out again can be accomplished by artificially ventilating a partial cavity to maintain and expand it through the velocity transitions. Thus, a small natural cavity formed at the nose (at lower speeds) can be "blown up" into a large one that fully encloses the entire body. Conversely, braking maneuvers can be eased by augmenting the bubble with injection gases to maintain and then slowly reduce its size so as to gradually scrub speed.

Advanced Propulsion Systems

Most existing and anticipated autonomous supercavitating vehicles rely on rocket-type motors to generate the required thrust. But conventional rockets entail some serious drawbacks - limited range and declining thrust performance with the rise of pressure as depth increases. The first of these problems is being addressed with a new kind of high-energy-density power-plant technology; the second may be circumvented by using a special kind of supercavitating propeller screw technology.

point

NEUTRALIZING MINES. Everyone has seen action-movie heroes avoid fusillades of bullets by diving several feet underwater. The bullets ricochet away or expend their energy surprisingly rapidly as a result of drag and lateral hydrodynamic forces. When the Office of Naval Research was asked to find a cost-effective way to stop thousand-dollar surface mines from damaging or destroying multimillion-dollar ships, they turned to supercavitating projectiles. The result was RAMICS - the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System, which is being developed for the U.S. Navy by a team led by Raytheon Naval & Maritime Integrated Systems in Portsmouth, R.I. Operating from helicopters, RAMICS will locate subsurface sea mines with an imaging blue-green lidar (light detection and ranging) system, calculate their exact position despite the bending of light by water refraction, and then shoot them with supercavitating rounds that travel stably in both air and water. The special projectiles contain charges that cause the deflagration, or moderated burning, of the mine's explosive.

"Getting up to supercavitation speeds requires a lot of power," says researcher Savchenko. "For maximum range with rockets, you need to burn high-energy-density fuels that provide the maximum specific impulse." He estimates that a typical solid-rocket motor can achieve a maximum range of several tens of kilometers and a top speed of perhaps 200 meters per second. After considering propulsion systems based on diesel engines, electric motors, atomic power plants, high-speed diesels, and gas turbines, Savchenko concluded that "only high-efficiency gas turbines and jet propulsion systems burning metal fuels (aluminum, magnesium or lithium) and using outboard water as both the fuel oxidizer and coolant of the combustion products have real potential for propelling supercavitating vehicles to high velocities."

Aluminum, which is relatively cheap, is the most energetic of these metal fuels, producing a reaction temperature of up to 10,600 degrees Celsius. "One can accelerate the reaction by fluidizing [melting] the metal and using water vapor," Savchenko explains. In one candidate power-plant design, the heat from the combustion chamber would be used to melt stored aluminum sheets at about 675 degrees C and to vaporize seawater as well. The resulting combustion products turn turbine-driven propeller screws.

This type of system has already been developed in Russia, according to media reports there. The U.S. also has experience with these kinds of systems. Researchers at Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory are operating an aluminum-burning "water ramjet" system, which was developed as an auxiliary power source for a naval surface ship. In the novel American design, powdered aluminum feeds into a whirlpool of seawater occurring in what is called a vortex combustor. The rapid rotation scrapes the particles together, grinding off the inert aluminum oxide film that covers them, which initiates an intense exothermic reaction as the aluminum oxidizes. High-pressure steam from this combustion process expands out a rocket nozzle or drives a turbine that turns a propeller screw.

Tests have shown that prop screws offer the potential to boost thrust by 20 percent compared with that of rockets, although in theory it may be possible for screws to double available thrust, Savchenko says. Designs for a turbo-rotor propeller system with a single supercavitating "hull propeller," or a pair of counterrotating hull props that encircle the outer surface of the craft so they can reach the gas/water boundary, have been tested. He emphasizes, however, that "considerable work remains to be done on how the propeller and cavity must interact" before real progress can be made.

Fears for the Future

bullet

SUPERSONIC BULLET. In 1997 a research team at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport in Rhode Island demonstrated the fully submerged launch of a supercavitating projectile with a muzzle velocity of 1,549 meters per second, which exceeds the speed of sound in water. Another underwater projectile test conducted at NUWC (below) shows the "tail-slap" phenomenon, in which the afterbody of the projectile rebounds off the inside surface of the cavity.

tailslap

Whatever the years ahead may hold for supercavitating weapons, they have already exerted a strong influence on military and intelligence communities around the world. Indeed, they seem to have spurred some reevaluation of naval strategy.

For example, when news of the Shkval's existence emerged, a debate soon ensued regarding its purpose. Some Western intelligence sources say that the Shkval had been developed to allow the noisy, low-tech diesel subs of the then Soviet Union to respond if suddenly fired on by ultraquiet American submarines lurking nearby. On hearing the screws of the incoming conventional torpedo, the Shkval would be launched to force an attacker to evade and thereby perhaps to cut the incoming torpedo's guidance wire. In effect, they say, the Shkval is a sub killer, particularly if it is fitted with a tactical nuclear warhead.

Other informed sources claim that the missile is in fact an offensive weapon designed to explode a higher-yield nuclear charge amid a carrier battle group, thereby taking out the entire armada. During a nuclear war, it could even be directed at a port or coastal land target.

"As there are no known countermeasures to such a weapon," states David Miller's April 1995 article "Supercavitation: Going to War in a Bubble," in Jane's Intelligence Review, "its deployment could have a significant effect on future maritime operations, both surface and subsurface, and could put Western naval forces at a considerable disadvantage."

In recent years, cash-strapped Russia has openly offered the Shkval for sale at international arms shows in Abu Dhabi and Athens, a development that causes grave concern in the Pentagon. Well-placed sources say that several Shkvals have been sold to Iran, for example.

Of equal worry is an August 1998 report that China purchased around 40 Shkval torpedoes from Kazakhstan, raising the possibility that Beijing could threaten American naval forces in a future confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. News from China (reportedly confirmed by U.S. Navy sources) that a Chinese submarine officer was on board the sunken Kursk has also raised alarms. He was there, they say, to observe the test of a new version of the Shkval.

U.S. intelligence has received several indications that the Russians were working on an advanced, much longer-range Shkval. For example, Russia's Itar-Tass news agency reported in February 1998 that tests of a "modernized" Shkval were scheduled by Russia's Pacific Fleet for that spring.

The Kursk incident, the Pope trial and the ambiguity surrounding both reinforce the fact that the end of the cold war has in no way halted the clandestine arms competition to secure an edge in any future conflict. Clearly, the secret storm over the Shkval rages on.


All Illustrations: PHILIP HOWE; black and white image of supersonic bullet: U.S. NAVY/NUWC; color image from High-speed imaging of supercavitating underwater projectiles, J. Dana Hrubes, Experiments in Fluids 30 (2001) 57-64; Springer-Verlag.

Related Links:

www.onr.navy.mil

www.nuwc.navy.mil

www.raytheon.com/es/esproducts/dssrmcs/dssrmcs.htm

www.ctechdefense.com

www.arl.psu.edu

www.deepangel.com



44 posted on 10/08/2001 9:27:01 PM PDT by Blackyce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce
Oops, here's the link: http://www.sciam.com/2001/0501issue/0501ashley.html
45 posted on 10/08/2001 9:30:11 PM PDT by Blackyce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AntiKev

46 posted on 10/08/2001 9:52:05 PM PDT by klpt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
One of these torpedoes will not take out a carrier unless it is a nuke. Six would probably not do it. Our carriers are very well built

The average navy ship has to be filled 3/4 full of water to actually sink, due to compartmentalization. I'm sure hangar bays mess that up a bit, but all the waterline and below spaces are sealable.

47 posted on 10/08/2001 9:52:16 PM PDT by Britton J Wingfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LinnKeyes2000
My real world engineering experience was Aerospace up until 1991 and Systems after that so I am not an expert on Undersea Warfare either.

I first read about this idea back in the sixties and about 1975 or so when I was in college our "study group" (a fancy word for a bunch of college kids sitting around drinking beer and brainstorming) kicked the notion around for a while. The idea was a slow moving torpedo that was launched from several thousand yards away which stalked its prey. When close enough the rocket stage makes a last minute sprint to make the kill. Think of a cheetah that stalks until close enough and them runs the prey down in one burst of speed.

There were two real problems then.

First was miniaturization: There just wasn't enough processing power in small chips to make the tracking and stealth work. That is no longer a real issue.

Second was the size of the warhead needed to cause enough damage to make it worthwhile. This could be worked around by targeting a critical exposed system like the rudder or the props. This would leave a ship vulnerable to more powerful ordnance like the Exocet missile. It was a hit by a torpedo to the rudder on the Bismark that left it vulnerable to smaller lesser armed English battleships and heavy cruisers during WW II.

It is not a brag but a fact that two masters theses and a few patents come out of those discussion. Whether anyone pursued the idea of the two stage stealth torpedo? I don't know. If the FBI shows up at my door in a few days I may know the answer :-)

48 posted on 10/08/2001 10:06:43 PM PDT by athiestwithagun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ventana
Maybe they still need us to suppress the fundamentalist Islamic threat which is more on their back door than we are.
49 posted on 10/08/2001 10:18:44 PM PDT by vox1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Fantastic. I am still going through that web site you sent. It is looking good. I will freep mail my comments later today.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

50 posted on 10/09/2001 7:08:30 AM PDT by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson