USN Anti-Surface Torpedoes

that_person

that_person

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
334
Reaction score
633
Navweaps (which I’m sure we’re all familiar with) lists something called the Mk-47 torpedo. It says the program was terminated in favor the Mk 48, so it probably ended sometime around the Mk 48 began development (1970). Furthermore, my 14th Edition of Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet (1986) lists something called the “Anti-Surface Warfare a Torpedo beint developed as a cheap way of killing surface vessels. Does anyone know anything about these torpedoes?
 

Attachments

  • BDBCCF7C-3610-41F5-BD7D-76A4BF11C581.jpeg
    BDBCCF7C-3610-41F5-BD7D-76A4BF11C581.jpeg
    151.4 KB · Views: 110
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 109
ustorpdev.jpg

There's this chart from Navweaps which suggests it's a Mk 45 development.

Norman Friedman's British Submarines of the Cold War Era mentions British attempts to join an American program for an anti-ship torpedo. I'll dig it out later and write up any details.

A Brief History of US Navy Torpedo Development doesn't mention anything more than what you have already posted here.
 
Found the relevant sections of Friedman.

The US Navy began a programme called SLAST (Submarine-Launched Anti-Ship Torpedo) or EX-13 which was to replace the cancelled Mk 47 (EX-12). In 1963 the Royal Navy sought to participate in the development of this torpedo, and in 1965, offered to design the pump-jet for the new weapon.

Initially the US decided to go with an approach offered by the Bureau of Naval Weapons, using EX-10 (Mk 48) technology, with the weapon being expected to enter service in 1970 if production began before the end of Operational Evaluation.

It was expected that torpedo would have a range of 15,000 yards at 45 knots, travelling at a depth of 50ft to reduce the wake, with provision for a 60 knot burst. Terminal homing would be passive, and the warhead would be 500lbs of PBX. The British observed that this was just EX-12 (Mk 47) with a pump-jet propulsor. The US issued a Advanced Development Objective in March 1965, but refused to describe it as an urgent program. In 1966 funding to EX-13 was cut, and the program was refocused on general torpedo development, with the program eventually being cancelled in April 1967.
 
The California class Frigates that became cruisers were design to have stern launch MK48s as well.
 
I recently bought a copy of Combat Fleets of the World, but the 1988-1989 edition. Found a brief tidbit on the late-80s "Anti-Surface Warfare Torpedo". The following attachment is the relevant section. Based on what it says, the thing seems like a piece of junk. The old Mark 8 WW1-era torpedo had a longer range. Glad we continued buying Mk 48s instead. Also, am I correct to interpret that 34 torpedoes were authorized but none were produced?


Also, this has been floating around on a Discord I'm in. It interests me greatly.


Does anyone know anything else about it? I asked a friend, who asked his friend, and he said it was canceled pretty quickly, which makes sense with the 1989 Revolutions.
 
that_person said:
I recently bought a copy of Combat Fleets of the World, but the 1988-1989 edition. Found a brief tidbit on the late-80s "Anti-Surface Warfare Torpedo". The following attachment is the relevant section. Based on what it says, the thing seems like a piece of junk. The old Mark 8 WW1-era torpedo had a longer range. Glad we continued buying Mk 48s instead. Also, am I correct to interpret that 34 torpedoes were authorized but none were produced?


Also, this has been floating around on a Discord I'm in. It interests me greatly.


Does anyone know anything else about it? I asked a friend, who asked his friend, and he said it was canceled pretty quickly, which makes sense with the 1989 Revolutions.
Click to expand...

Surface Torpedo came and went very quickly. I think it may have been related to some other efforts to increase the magazine depth of the LA class -- judging from the proposed weapons (Mk 37 without the wire spool, a shortened Tigerfish, and the Italian A184) the unspoken goal may have been to stow two weapons in place of one Mk 48 and its associated wire spool. Gould also proposed a half-length Mk 48 around the same time, speaking to the same problem.
 
No reverse depth charges for subs to use against ships above either?
 
publiusr said:
No reverse depth charges for subs to use against ships above either?
Click to expand...

No. That would be an awful idea. A modern sub has no business getting that close to its target.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom