Unmanned Sub Tracker - Testers Wanted

I personally have no idea. Other then the description of the mine and how it works there is fairly little information on it's specific operation. I think my explanation is the most accurate simply because it would make sense.

But the actual mechanisms inside of the casing are not apparent to me. I can give you a few guesstimations.

The primary example of such a mine is the US MK 60 CAPTOR which stands for enCAPsulated TORpedo.

My best guess is that it can depend. You don't need much electricity to power the crude sonar array due to it's passive nature. And it can really depend on the complexity of the computer.

You need a computer to process the data from the passive sensor. That would imply that the computer would have to be on 24/7. It needs to be able to identify target tracks.

You rarely constantly detect an enemy sub on passive, more often you detect them once on a certain bearing, create a "target track", a line from where you were at detection to the bearing. Passive can't tell you the range of a vessel, it can be a very fast vessel at 10nm or a slow vessel at 1 nm. When you detect another passive signature very close to the original bearing (within a degree or so) you create another track and put the two together. By figuring out the class of ship based on sound you can obtain the number of prop blades, then the speed of it. With some geometry you can roughly estimate the course and distance. The faster a submarine crew can do these is the more accurate, because all of these factors especially distance and bearing are time sensitive.

Once you get bearing, course, and speed you can usually get a good enough targeting solution for firing. But for anti submarine warfare you usually want depth.

Now, as I said before, this mine might actually be a lot less sophisticated then this. It could be as simple as, a sonar array hooked to a computer. When the computer can accurately determine the class of submarine then it fires the torpedo with what I call a "blind solution".

I blind solution is basically that you suspect a submarine is in a certain location, but you don't know for sure. You see, there are two detection patterns for the average torpedo. Snake and circle. Snake looks like...a snake weaving back and forth, that way the active array can cover a large area as its travelling, once it obtains lock it stops weaving and takes the shortest route.

This is used when you have an accurate solution and there is room for error.

When you are blind firing you set it to circle. When the torpedo reaches a set distance it activates the active sonar and starts pinging away while maintaining a circular path so it covers 360 degrees with its sonar.

My assumption was that the CAPTOR was made to obtain an accurate solution, the advantage is that the torpedo has vastly increased range.

But it could be as simple as:

1. Submarine passes very close.

2. CAPTOR computer identifies hostile submarine.

3. Computer activates the torpedo's computer which has a preset blind solution.

4. Steam ejects the torpedo from the casing and the torpedo engages the motor.

5. Torpedo reaches activation depth and proceeds to begin a circular detection path and starts pinging away with the active sonar.

6. Torpedo obtains target and gives chase.

You see, the difference between that and my other explanation is that my other explanation assumes that the CAPTOR would create an actual targeting solution for the torpedo based on the target. This above one has a solution that assumes that the submarine is close enough to the mine that the torpedo will obtain it on it's own without an accurate target solution.

The reason why my first explanation would have extended range is because the torpedo in the simple version never leaves the area around the casing while searching for the sub. With an accurate solution it could leave that immediate area before starting to bang away with it's active sonar.

I think that a CAPTOR's longevity would only be determined by the electrical usage of it's computer. A computer that plots a target solution uses vastly more electricity then a computer that is nothing more then a trip wire with a pressurized gas container with a torpedo strapped to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the tasks given to our sub fleet is to "acoustically fingerprint" and attach such data to a confirmed vessel. This information is then shared throughout the fleet. With the modern processing and miniturisation advances, I can see no reason why a stand-off torp couldn't be assigned a specific target. What I don't know is how long such a weapon would be able to remain dormant. Presumably, such a torp or similar weapon would be deployed in waters that the target vessel is known to frequent.
I don't think this would be hard to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is that the quality of the sonar array of the mine and that of a seawolf are very different.

Trying to fingerprint a ship is a lot more complex then it sounds, you need a fairly good sonar, and lots of recordings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Besides the fact that I hate to say it, but unless its at point blank range a single torpedo is rather useless. They may be faster then an enemy sub, but they are still pretty slow. And their constant pinging does not lend itself towards stealth.

Torpedos are not very intelligent, and trying to discern between a countermeasure and the real thing is difficult enough to do with a human, let alone a torpedo.

The strength comes in several of these mines firing on a sub. Only problem is that chances are a single sub scout could set off enough of them at once to create a large hole in the net for other subs.

 

So you would need more energy from bigger batteries then in order for any system to last long. A system that is in operation 24/7 would need a battery that would last at least for 6 months before it needed replacing or are there batteries that have allot of power today that will last even longer durations?

 

Something tells me they don't exactly publicize these things. But it is a good guess.

 

Umm...there exists in the word Nuclear Torpedoes, and I am certain it is more than sufficient to take down an enemy, the only problem is its blast radius...

 

It wouldn't seem too much of a stretch to hook up an impeller to trickle-charge a low-voltage passive system. Given that the base module is anchored, a steady tide of anything over, say 4 knots would be capable of delivering a small top-up to a Li-ion type cell almost indefinately.. but if this system was deployed, I don't think the long term is terribly important. The destruction of the target vessel would seem to be more a target of expedience than opportunity. It would be expensive and inefficient to leave loads of these things lying around in the hope they hit something I think. Then there is the risk of being detected by frigates or destroyers while laying these "mines".
Are there any examples of this tech being sucessfully deployed? I have not heard of such though I think it's been technically possible for a long time.

 

Yah, it is very efficient for taking down the enemy...along with just about everything else in a 4 mile radius.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Although the US did have for a while a nuclear depth charge.

But as any ship captain will tell you, one of the most dangerous torpedos to get attacked by are wake homing torpedos.

After that is possibly the MK 48 ADCAP because of it's mean tendency to detonate directly under the hull of ships, and if it misses it tends to turn around and try again. And its other tendency that when it attacks a submarine it will not take the shortest route, but rather come up from behind and run parallel within maybe 50-100 feet of the submarine, then midlength along the body of the submarine pull a 90 degree turn straight into the body of the submarine, hitting it at the center near it's weakest point structurally.

Then the 65 cm Russian torpedo which is the exemplar of Russian design philosophy, if it doesn't work add more explosives and if it does work, then still keep adding more explosives.

 

If you guys wanna learn all about submarines and naval warfare (or just finished Hunt for Rred Ooctober or U-571) then you really need to get this simulation game. http://www.sonalystscombatsims.com/dangerous_waters/

 

By submarine, surface ship, or plane.

Its hard to track a mine layer, namely because most minelayers are normal submarines or planes outfitted with mines, and thus look exactly like any other sub or plane.

The only easy way to tell if mines are being laid is if the enemy uses self propelled mines. Any other way is rather difficult.

Chances are a minelaying plane will run away long before you get in range to be able to watch it laying minds.

 

It is a big danger to unescorted capital ships yes, still a danger if there is anti-sub escorts and aircraft but risks are reduced dramatically.

 

Mostly submarine and aircraft however due to stealth.

 

I am thinking about reading Hunt for Red October after the Bear and the Dragon. I already read Rainbow Six and SSN.

 

Play dangerous waters. It'll teach you a lot, actually that's the game platform this thing that ULTRA linked us to is based off of.

It's really accurate, to the point where the entire manuel is like 300 pages long

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The problem with wake homing torpedos is that when they come across the wake of the ship they follow it back to the ship. The good thing is that they can't figure out which way is the back end of the wake or the end closest to the ship so it is 50/50.

But when they do there is no stopping them, they don't have any sort of countermeasures against them. Although in hindsight, why not just use a mine? You do know exactly where and from what direction the torpedo will be coming from.

 

Before I make any statements, what type of mines are you talking about?

Also, you can use manual guidance to home in on a specific target then switch to automatic.

 

Well before my mention of the wake homing torpedo we were talking about the MK 60 CAPTOR.

 

Ah okay, it is because it is after all an anti-submarine weapon. Also, it is stationary, unlike submarines. I know it has torpedoes, but it is only within a certain radius.

They can act as entrapments, and command and control aids, but not the main weapons.

Also the prices is an issue...

 

Here is an analogy, SAMs and Air Superiority fighters....

 

The thing with mines is the depth of water in the A/O. Ideally, you want one of these buggers to detonate close enough to the spine of a ship that the combination of cavitation and shock wave breaks its back.
An aquatic environment is difficult to design for when there are so many degrees of movement available to a sub. This necessitated a degree of processing beyond the crudities of the cold-war efforts. But it's safe to say that a simple low-power 16bit militarized chip and sensors would be more than good enough for stand-off weapons in shallow seas like the Mediterranean. The Bering sea where conditions are rough and depths acute, a lot of time and effort has to be made to keep these things a) at the right depth b) to not snap their tether and float into a friendly harbour!

Most warships have a ring of armour,10 metres @ 18" or more thick down to about 15 metres at 40", and that's not even a capital ship. A torp will ahve a job to sink a ship unless detonated precisely where the back is weakest. Then the whole ship will just fold up and goodnight Vienna.

Laying by plane would be potentially safer than by minelayer sub, though for absolute stealth, the minelayer sub has to be risked.

These are of course vunerabe from the air, especially in clean water and could trigger an extensive and embarrasing de-mining programme. However, the threat alone is usually sufficient. The Italians left their fleet in port as they were too scared to break out in WWII, and we sent in Swordfish's with MK42's if I remember to put the fear of God up 'em!