Could a chain of them just off the continental shelf detonated just ahead of a tsunami reduce its impact?
Would using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
ASTORWould using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows. Killing an aircraft carrier at sea with >3000 people on board would be a hell of an escalation, and there would be strong temptation to nuke the base where the subs came from. Likewise if someone when SSBN hunting with nukes, there would be a strong use-or-lose calculus at play. Best not to introduce that level of uncertainty.
As for survivability, the "joke" about the US Mk45 ASTER torpedo was that it had a Pk of 2, the target and the shooter. The only scenario I can imagine where it would have been used is to kill an SSBN during its launch sequence.
ASTORWould using them count as a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons used in response?
I would think that the torpedoes themselves would be dangerous to the target and user.
There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows. Killing an aircraft carrier at sea with >3000 people on board would be a hell of an escalation, and there would be strong temptation to nuke the base where the subs came from. Likewise if someone when SSBN hunting with nukes, there would be a strong use-or-lose calculus at play. Best not to introduce that level of uncertainty.
As for survivability, the "joke" about the US Mk45 ASTER torpedo was that it had a Pk of 2, the target and the shooter. The only scenario I can imagine where it would have been used is to kill an SSBN during its launch sequence.
Could a chain of them just off the continental shelf detonated just ahead of a tsunami reduce its impact?
Truth is, nobody really knows whether using nukes on land would 'count', either.There all sorts of theories about whether using nukes at sea would "count" for the purposes of escalation. No one really knows.
ASROC was widely used by Western nations and featured on a US warship in the Bedford Incident movie.
Did other nations have nuclear ASROC or were they reserved for the USN?
The US Mk45 ASTOR was command guided and detonated, if the wire broke the torpedo went inert. (and it's depressingly easy to break the wire...)Atomic tipped torps have the least negative controls, except for free-fall munitions, correct?
Also, the VA-111 Shkval supercavitating torpedo was originally nuclear tipped, since they didn't have a way to guide it at the time and a snapshot return fire weapon doesn't have an accurate fix on where the enemy is. Sonar calls a rough bearing when they hear the launch transient and that may not be very accurate. The idea was to slam that supercavitating shot down the same bearing as the incoming torpedo to force the attacking submarine to maneuver and break the guidance wire, which raises the chances of the attacked sub for spoofing or whatever the seeker in the incoming torpedo.As far as I know only the US and USSR developed nuclear torpedoes and the former employed only one type rather briefly (previously mentioned ASTOR/Mk45). I believe it actually required command detonation and guidance. I think the Russian version(s) would self guide/detonate and might still be in inventory. Both were tactical weapons to be used against other ships and submarines.
In addition both sides had rocket delivered nuclear depth charges for both surface and submerged launch. For the USN these were called ASROC (which had a conventional torpedo option) and SUBROC (which didn't). These left US service decades ago; I suspect the Russians still maintain a small number of both types.
Had a long debate here about it actually being a carrier group delete button, because strategic use just doesn't make sense. It has no way to be recalled or stopped, and it would take 3+ weeks to get from the patrol bastion to NY Harbor or Virginia Beach. The whole war could change in that amount of time.Status 6/Poseidon is a completely different class of weapon that is a strategic delivery system of much higher yield designed for use against a port target. I don't believe it has entered service yet and only one special one off GUGI submarine can employ it, though Russia plans to build a class of dedicated carriers for the weapon.
They initially claimed 100 knots, but that's BS. The fastest an underwater body can go without supercavitating is 80.Poseidon is large enough that I would think it could be targeted by torpedoes, although that is more difficult if 80 knots can be achieved. But I rather doubt that top speed - do the Russians claim 80knts?
Where do we put active/retired naval weapons?Since there doesn't appear to be an ASROC thread if I do open one which would be the appropriate forum to post it in?
Where do we put active/retired naval weapons?
Any ideas towards detonating torps against any hydrates/clathrates that might be beneath naval assets? Brief shock-waves are one thing—a blow-out turning the sea under a carrier group into foam quite another.So the next test they put high speed cameras inside the sub. You could see the sub changing shape as the shockwave moved down the length towards the cameras.
Any ideas towards detonating torps against any hydrates/clathrates that might be beneath naval assets? Brief shock-waves are one thing—a blow-out turning the sea under a carrier group into foam quite another.
I don't think you'd get low enough pressure to get the hydrates to dissociate and/or burn.Any ideas towards detonating torps against any hydrates/clathrates that might be beneath naval assets? Brief shock-waves are one thing—a blow-out turning the sea under a carrier group into foam quite another.
In fact, I can’t recall any nuke shot off at the sea floor…unless shallow
Very interesting! Could you get a link at this video?One of the nuclear test shots had some submarines at various distances, and they discovered water in the escape trunks etc after the test. So the next test they put high speed cameras inside the sub. You could see the sub changing shape as the shockwave moved down the length towards the cameras.
It's not one I've seen personally, only heard described from one of the submariners who was there. Unfortunately. (Not many people wearing both a Submarine Combat Patrol Pin and a Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pin, this guy was one of them.)Very interesting! Could you get a link at this video?
Operation Wigwam, (only a single test, not two as claimed, or water in escape trunks) Only two of the three, submarine test hulls were successfully submerged on test day.Very interesting! Could you get a link at this video?
Operation Wigwam, (only a single test, not two as claimed)
View: https://youtu.be/ku7R1TSBfjI?si=m5mKjL7VnB0axYry
I'm pretty sure it was actually Op Crossroads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CrossroadsOperation Wigwam, (only a single test, not two as claimed, or water in escape trunks) Only two of the three, submarine test hulls were successfully submerged on test day.
Operation Wigwam - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
View: https://youtu.be/ku7R1TSBfjI?si=m5mKjL7VnB0axYry
I'm pretty sure it was actually Op Crossroads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads
One above-water detonation, one underwater detonation.
Operation Crossroads used eight submarines but I understand all were on the surface.