And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Sunday, January 1, 2023
A torpedo passing under a US Navy warship, the USS Bridget, during an exercise in 1972.
Participated in a couple of different ops, off the coast of Kauai, firing torpedoes at the target ships like this. Returned to port one time flying the broom to signify a clean sweep, with each shot a confirmed kill.
My first thought was the ship isn't moving 'cause there's no wake at all, so it must be a training exercise. If the torpedo was supposed to go under it, good. Otherwise, not so good.
The torpedo is definitely meant to go under the ship, SIGrayBeard, at least the MK48 torpedo fired by the U.S. Navy. A live torpedo is meant to explode under the ship, and one MK48 can split that ship right in two and send it to the bottom.
my first thought was, "didn't the USN ever trash the left over stocks of Mk14?" my second thought was of a successful training evolution at the fruition of the effort.
Actually, Anon, quite a bit of training happened. Though that ship appears dead in the water, it is under steam, though not that challenging as a ship making way to take out with a torpedo. As to the training, well, if it is a sub launched MK48, the entire crew was at battlestations, the FTs calculated a firing solution with input from the sonar techs, the torpedomen prepped and placed in the tube a live MK48, and then fired the torpedo and dived the tube after, etc., etc. So, actually, a whole lotta training happened.
How accurate is placement, i.e. is the targeting sophisticated enough to place the torpedo's path at a specific point along a ship's hull for maximum damage? Always wondered this - all we normally see in the movies is a hit, big explosions, twisty bits flying through the air, smoke, screaming desperate victims stuck below, and down she goes. But if breaking her back is the intent, are the targeting computers sophisticated enough to place the fish with a few feet of the most vulnerable spot? Thanks for your insights, by the way, very interesting!
Aggie, about the most I can relate about placement accuracy is that the initial fire control solution, which incorporates sonar data, fire control tracking data, periscope marking data, not to mention the targets speed, is that when the fish is in the water based on that data accuracy is pretty good. Additionally, the MK48 has 13,000 yards of copper wire trailing behind it after it is fired, which enables the torpedo to be steered after it has left the tube, so even if the target takes evasive action, the MK48 could still be turned to reacquire the target if it initially goes wide. Detonation is automatic once the torpedo acquires the target's metallic signature.
Probably an exercise with a training torpedo, and the fish isn't supposed to hit the side of the ship. As above, it explodes under the keel and the up then down surge is what breaks the ship's back and sinks the target.
The sub that launched the torpedo likely never actually saw the target in a periscope, everything was done by passive sonar from (potentially) miles away.
It's definitely an exercise with a training torpedo. I also think that the photo is a setup shot, meaning, they wanted a photo of torpedo cutting through the water under the ship, and they definitely got the photo they wanted. It is true you can fire a torpedo just with passive sonar input, but that method is rather rare.
Unless the sub is at point-blank range the attack was done via passive sonar analysis. A periscope doesn't stick very high out of the water and leaves a wake, so we don't leave it up when not needed. With a solid trace on sonar we know where the target is to get the torpedo close enough so the active sonar can steer for the final attack but by that time it is too late, the sub is a long way away to avoid a counter-attack by another ship..
And no, a modern submarine NEVER uses active sonar (pings) before attacking. Been there, done that, earned my fish.
The photo was taken in 1972, so the sensors were not as modern in those days as they are now. Also, the torpedo, if it was a MK 48, it would have been still under development at that time so it could also have been something like a MK-37. I also agree with John Venlet. The photo was probably a set up. (By the way, USS Bridget was decommissioned in 1973.)
As far as sonar is concerned, at that time we could develop a pretty good fire control solution using passive sonar only, but sometimes we would augment that with the occasional periscope observation or even take a single ping on the active set to get a refined range just before you took the shot.
Training - yes a lot of training got done even with the target dead in the water. These weapons systems even with 1972 technology were very sophisticated and required a lot of training for success. Remember, for a submarine, the entire boat was the "weapon system". Sonar, periscope, fire control, weapons handling in the torpedo room, and the ships control party all had to mesh together as a team for it to work. A lot of practice was required.
Rick, I thought everything back in engineering was fascinating. When I was qualifying on my first boat, I spent a lot of my time back there and crawled into some pretty funky places. My hats off to all of you guys. Besides, sonar doesn't work very well without power.
But the guys I admired most, believe it or not, were the cooks. To me they were the unsung heroes of the cold war. I don't know about you, but on every boat I was on we ate like kings. And that's pretty good considering the size of the galley, the number of cooks, and the size of the crew. One of my best memories is when the night baker was making bread or sticky buns and the whole damn boat smelled like a bakery. (...of course, I won't mention it's opposite - blowing and venting sanitaries.)
Participated in a couple of different ops, off the coast of Kauai, firing torpedoes at the target ships like this. Returned to port one time flying the broom to signify a clean sweep, with each shot a confirmed kill.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was the ship isn't moving 'cause there's no wake at all, so it must be a training exercise. If the torpedo was supposed to go under it, good. Otherwise, not so good.
DeleteThe torpedo is definitely meant to go under the ship, SIGrayBeard, at least the MK48 torpedo fired by the U.S. Navy. A live torpedo is meant to explode under the ship, and one MK48 can split that ship right in two and send it to the bottom.
Deletehttps://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/17/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-a-mk-48-torpedo-breaks-your-keel-video/
my first thought was, "didn't the USN ever trash the left over stocks of Mk14?" my second thought was of a successful training evolution at the fruition of the effort.
Deleteupside down contrail
ReplyDeleteCalm sea, sunny day, target DIW, how much training really happened I wonder?
ReplyDeleteActually, Anon, quite a bit of training happened. Though that ship appears dead in the water, it is under steam, though not that challenging as a ship making way to take out with a torpedo. As to the training, well, if it is a sub launched MK48, the entire crew was at battlestations, the FTs calculated a firing solution with input from the sonar techs, the torpedomen prepped and placed in the tube a live MK48, and then fired the torpedo and dived the tube after, etc., etc. So, actually, a whole lotta training happened.
DeleteHow accurate is placement, i.e. is the targeting sophisticated enough to place the torpedo's path at a specific point along a ship's hull for maximum damage? Always wondered this - all we normally see in the movies is a hit, big explosions, twisty bits flying through the air, smoke, screaming desperate victims stuck below, and down she goes. But if breaking her back is the intent, are the targeting computers sophisticated enough to place the fish with a few feet of the most vulnerable spot? Thanks for your insights, by the way, very interesting!
DeleteAggie, about the most I can relate about placement accuracy is that the initial fire control solution, which incorporates sonar data, fire control tracking data, periscope marking data, not to mention the targets speed, is that when the fish is in the water based on that data accuracy is pretty good. Additionally, the MK48 has 13,000 yards of copper wire trailing behind it after it is fired, which enables the torpedo to be steered after it has left the tube, so even if the target takes evasive action, the MK48 could still be turned to reacquire the target if it initially goes wide. Detonation is automatic once the torpedo acquires the target's metallic signature.
DeleteInteresting photo. I'm wondering ,is anyone on board ? It appears to be underway, not towed.
ReplyDeleteProbably an exercise with a training torpedo, and the fish isn't supposed to hit the side of the ship. As above, it explodes under the keel and the up then down surge is what breaks the ship's back and sinks the target.
ReplyDeleteThe sub that launched the torpedo likely never actually saw the target in a periscope, everything was done by passive sonar from (potentially) miles away.
It's definitely an exercise with a training torpedo. I also think that the photo is a setup shot, meaning, they wanted a photo of torpedo cutting through the water under the ship, and they definitely got the photo they wanted. It is true you can fire a torpedo just with passive sonar input, but that method is rather rare.
DeleteUnless the sub is at point-blank range the attack was done via passive sonar analysis. A periscope doesn't stick very high out of the water and leaves a wake, so we don't leave it up when not needed. With a solid trace on sonar we know where the target is to get the torpedo close enough so the active sonar can steer for the final attack but by that time it is too late, the sub is a long way away to avoid a counter-attack by another ship..
DeleteAnd no, a modern submarine NEVER uses active sonar (pings) before attacking. Been there, done that, earned my fish.
MM1(SS).
Rick, as a fellow submariner, I only disagree about the point-blank range need. Spent my battlestation at the Captain's side recording his orders.
DeleteYN2(SS)
The photo was taken in 1972, so the sensors were not as modern in those days as they are now. Also, the torpedo, if it was a MK 48, it would have been still under development at that time so it could also have been something like a MK-37. I also agree with John Venlet. The photo was probably a set up. (By the way, USS Bridget was decommissioned in 1973.)
DeleteAs far as sonar is concerned, at that time we could develop a pretty good fire control solution using passive sonar only, but sometimes we would augment that with the occasional periscope observation or even take a single ping on the active set to get a refined range just before you took the shot.
Training - yes a lot of training got done even with the target dead in the water. These weapons systems even with 1972 technology were very sophisticated and required a lot of training for success. Remember, for a submarine, the entire boat was the "weapon system". Sonar, periscope, fire control, weapons handling in the torpedo room, and the ships control party all had to mesh together as a team for it to work. A lot of practice was required.
Roy - STS1(SS)
I was pushing from the Engine room for all our training shots in the late 70s with mk48s, I bow to the guys who were in the plotting party.
DeleteRick, I thought everything back in engineering was fascinating. When I was qualifying on my first boat, I spent a lot of my time back there and crawled into some pretty funky places. My hats off to all of you guys. Besides, sonar doesn't work very well without power.
DeleteBut the guys I admired most, believe it or not, were the cooks. To me they were the unsung heroes of the cold war. I don't know about you, but on every boat I was on we ate like kings. And that's pretty good considering the size of the galley, the number of cooks, and the size of the crew. One of my best memories is when the night baker was making bread or sticky buns and the whole damn boat smelled like a bakery. (...of course, I won't mention it's opposite - blowing and venting sanitaries.)
I agree, Roy, the cooks on subs were good. I know I ate well. Didn't really enjoy my time as a crank, though.
DeleteBubbleheads. Meh.
ReplyDeleteMeh, indeed.
DeleteBubblehead cook here. SS347, SS410, SS420 and SS424. DBF
DeleteEvil Franklin
YIKES!!!
ReplyDeleteDeath from below.USN SSN 81-85
ReplyDeleteKlaus