Why there isn't any anti ship missile with torpedo warhead?

[Dilandu]

Is anyone still using unguided torpedoes outside

The last ship sunk by submarine was sunk by unguided torpedoes in 1982.

 

[Grey Havoc]

ACM, or Acoustic Counter Measures, is often considered a subset of ECM, so the latter term tends to get used as a catch all.

 

[DWG]

I've been doing some thinking about the effectiveness of RBU-12000 UDAV.

The first issue is the limited fitting of it through the fleet, only Pyotr Veliky and Admiral Kusnetsov currently have it, with Admiral Chabenko and Admiral Nakhimov maybe back in service in 2023.

We'll take the 76% Russian figure for effectiveness vs a homing torp as a baseline, my own feeling is it'll be somewhat lower.

Second, let's assume a three Mk 48 salvo from a Los Angeles or Virginia, (keeping one in the tubes for self-defence). That's at the low end, Seawolf would be up to seven, while Triumph or Astute, using the significantly faster Spearfish would be four or five respectively. Given RBU-12000 is limited to large, high value units it's safe to assume a multi-round salvo will be used by anyone who comes across them.

Mk 48 reportedly runs at 55kts, meaning it covers the 3000m range of RBU-12000 in less than two minutes. (Spearfish, at 80kts, covers it in 80 seconds). Meanwhile the target will be doing 30kts plus and covering about a kilometre of water a minute, which is significant as it extends the area the RBU-12000 mines and decoys have to cover when facing an multi-torpedo salvo, and with a 50Kg warhead the lethal zone for the mines, vs even a torpedo, is going to be limited.

We can discard the likelihood of multiple kills with one salvo, any competent sub-driver will have his torpedoes closing across a wide range of headings, and slightly staggered in time-on-target.

So assuming that 76% kill rating
vs 3 torpedoes = 76%^3= 48%
vs 4 torpedoes = 76%^4 = 33%
vs 5 torpedoes = 76%^5 = 25%
vs 7 torpedoes = 76%^7 = 14.6%

The problem for UDAV is it can't simply assume it gets a complete separate shot at each target, the decoys may have some effectiveness against most of the salvo (limited by probably being taken out by any torpedo they successfully decoy), but the mines will be lucky if they intercept more than one, and the last ditch four round destructor salvo then runs into the problem of just how fast you can reload to engage the second, third, or more incoming torps. Which means 76% is optimistic vs the second or later shots of a salvo.

It's significantly better than nothing, but the limited rollout across the fleet, with even the newer corvettes going for RBU-6000 instead, suggests that it has recognised limitations.

 

[DWG]

Is anyone still using unguided torpedoes outside

The last ship sunk by submarine was sunk by unguided torpedoes in 1982.

The Belgrano was 40 years ago. And Conqueror's skipper chose Mk 8 simply because of reliability issues with early Tigerfish. Not only is Mk 8 long gone from service, but so is Tigerfish.

 

[Pioneer]

Almost all missiles carrying torpedoes are used to attack submarines
If you want attack surface ship···········
maybe·········Improve this thing？View attachment 660224
View attachment 660225

So what's this weapons designation pleasec attalonX ??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

It's significantly better than nothing, but the limited rollout across the fleet, with even the newer corvettes going for RBU-6000 instead, suggests that it has recognised limitations

Mostly because upgraded RBU-6000 with modern rounds almost as good as RBU-12000, but much more compact.

 

[Ronny]

Funny enough, China literally just tested a cruise missile armed with torpedo as a warhead
All currently known is that it replaced the rocket engine previously on ET80with a turbofan engine for turbofan engine

 

[Sherman Tank]

Is anyone still using unguided torpedoes outside

The last ship sunk by submarine was sunk by unguided torpedoes in 1982.

That's if you don't count accidental rammings.

 

[DWG]

Funny enough, China literally just tested a cruise missile armed with torpedo as a warhead
All currently known is that it replaced the rocket engine previously on ET80with a turbofan engine for turbofan engine

It's still an ASW torpedo as the warhead, so think ASROC, or Red Shark, or perhaps more closely Ikara, Malafon and MILAS or SS-N-14/15/16.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Against surface targets where's the advantage of having a torpedo launching missile? Imagine it this way: You fire a missile at a distant ship target. The missile is closing at say 600 knots. It releases a 50 knot torpedo at some distance from the ship to separately home in on it and torpedo it.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to pack a big warhead on the missile and have it slam into the ship and detonate? Eliminates the complexity of launching the torpedo, having separate guidance and propulsion for the torpedo, increases (greatly) the velocity of the approaching weapon, and is likely no more vulnerable to countermeasures either way.
It just adds unnecessary complexity and weight to the missile system.

The other advantage of a conventional missile with warhead is it can be used against other targets than a ship. You can fire it against land targets with only minor additions to guidance, or use it as a HARM against electronic targets again with minor changes to guidance. That makes it more flexible.

Now, as an ASW weapon, a rocket that boosts a torpedo out to some distance without separate guidance that then releases the torpedo near the submerged target to attack it makes sense. You can't use a missile with any ease against such a target. So you need the torpedo. But the delivery system doesn't require complex guidance as it is simply a ballistic means to get the torpedo close enough to the target to allow it to home on it.

 

[iverson]

Against surface targets where's the advantage of having a torpedo launching missile? Imagine it this way: You fire a missile at a distant ship target. The missile is closing at say 600 knots. It releases a 50 knot torpedo at some distance from the ship to separately home in on it and torpedo it.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to pack a big warhead on the missile and have it slam into the ship and detonate? Eliminates the complexity of launching the torpedo, having separate guidance and propulsion for the torpedo, increases (greatly) the velocity of the approaching weapon, and is likely no more vulnerable to countermeasures either way.
It just adds unnecessary complexity and weight to the missile system.

The other advantage of a conventional missile with warhead is it can be used against other targets than a ship. You can fire it against land targets with only minor additions to guidance, or use it as a HARM against electronic targets again with minor changes to guidance. That makes it more flexible.

Now, as an ASW weapon, a rocket that boosts a torpedo out to some distance without separate guidance that then releases the torpedo near the submerged target to attack it makes sense. You can't use a missile with any ease against such a target. So you need the torpedo. But the delivery system doesn't require complex guidance as it is simply a ballistic means to get the torpedo close enough to the target to allow it to home on it.

I believe that the problem with missiles that rely on a large warhead is that they burst above the waterline. This causes severe damage, mainly by fire. But it is not guaranteed to destroy the target ship. A torpedo, however, can detonate below the waterline or even under the hull, in which case the shock will break the ship's back. During WW2, torpedo bombers could sink the ships that dive bombers could not. But they were proved far too vulnerable to be successful except when very lucky. So, post war, high-speed missiles carrying torpedoes seemed like the perfect replacement. But, as you say, the idea was too complicated.

 

[shin_getter]

Broke: Use a rocket powered missile to drop a turbine torpedo

Woke: Get rockets to work underwater
Supercavitation is neat trick
Or even just plain pushing the thing along~, like APR-2E

Imaginatively, one can even think of dual mode fly-sub munitions that dodges fire by diving underwater while increasing travel speed and working long range sensors by breaking surface again. In a very high pk one pass intercepter regime this may be interesting.

I believe that the problem with missiles that rely on a large warhead is that they burst above the waterline.

Just have it dive underwater if that is desired. May need some money for accurate ranging seeker and hardening the structure to survive water impact with water: all fairly cheap.

 

[Archamus33]

I believe that the problem with missiles that rely on a large warhead is that they burst above the waterline. This causes severe damage, mainly by fire. But it is not guaranteed to destroy the target ship. A torpedo, however, can detonate below the waterline or even under the hull, in which case the shock will break the ship's back. During WW2, torpedo bombers could sink the ships that dive bombers could not. But they were proved far too vulnerable to be successful except when very lucky. So, post war, high-speed missiles carrying torpedoes seemed like the perfect replacement. But, as you say, the idea was too complicated.

The basic logic here is that you don't sink ships by letting more air in, you sink them by letting water in. There's also the fundamental issue that anti-ship torpedos like Mk.48 CBASS or its contemporaries are heavy, like 4000lbs heavy. Its hard to bring that payload out to a useful anti-ship range. Admittedly a lot of that is fuel, and you wouldn't need as much if you're dropping it close to the target, but it's still rocking a 1000lb warhead.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Against surface targets where's the advantage of having a torpedo launching missile? Imagine it this way: You fire a missile at a distant ship target. The missile is closing at say 600 knots. It releases a 50 knot torpedo at some distance from the ship to separately home in on it and torpedo it.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to pack a big warhead on the missile and have it slam into the ship and detonate? Eliminates the complexity of launching the torpedo, having separate guidance and propulsion for the torpedo, increases (greatly) the velocity of the approaching weapon, and is likely no more vulnerable to countermeasures either way.
It just adds unnecessary complexity and weight to the missile system.

The other advantage of a conventional missile with warhead is it can be used against other targets than a ship. You can fire it against land targets with only minor additions to guidance, or use it as a HARM against electronic targets again with minor changes to guidance. That makes it more flexible.

Now, as an ASW weapon, a rocket that boosts a torpedo out to some distance without separate guidance that then releases the torpedo near the submerged target to attack it makes sense. You can't use a missile with any ease against such a target. So you need the torpedo. But the delivery system doesn't require complex guidance as it is simply a ballistic means to get the torpedo close enough to the target to allow it to home on it.

I believe that the problem with missiles that rely on a large warhead is that they burst above the waterline. This causes severe damage, mainly by fire. But it is not guaranteed to destroy the target ship. A torpedo, however, can detonate below the waterline or even under the hull, in which case the shock will break the ship's back. During WW2, torpedo bombers could sink the ships that dive bombers could not. But they were proved far too vulnerable to be successful except when very lucky. So, post war, high-speed missiles carrying torpedoes seemed like the perfect replacement. But, as you say, the idea was too complicated.

With WW 2 and more modern ships, a tactical kill--that is one that takes the ship out of immediate combat--can be had pretty easily with one serious hit. The radar and other sensors go down, the combat systems drop off-line, and the ship is engaged in fighting fires and flooding. That's sufficient to produce a tactical kill and that's really all you need in the short term. Sinking the ship outright isn't necessary.



That's what a Talos SAM does to a 1950's vintage destroyer without a warhead. It nearly tore the ship in half. Single hits by Exocet missiles rendered every ship they hit combat ineffective.



That's what a NATO Sea Sparrow missile--a small SAM does when it hits a destroyer. It wiped the bridge out completely. Imagine what a large SSM designed for ship killing would do.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I believe that the problem with missiles that rely on a large warhead is that they burst above the waterline. This causes severe damage, mainly by fire. But it is not guaranteed to destroy the target ship. A torpedo, however, can detonate below the waterline or even under the hull, in which case the shock will break the ship's back. During WW2, torpedo bombers could sink the ships that dive bombers could not. But they were proved far too vulnerable to be successful except when very lucky. So, post war, high-speed missiles carrying torpedoes seemed like the perfect replacement. But, as you say, the idea was too complicated.

The basic logic here is that you don't sink ships by letting more air in, you sink them by letting water in. There's also the fundamental issue that anti-ship torpedos like Mk.48 CBASS or its contemporaries are heavy, like 4000lbs heavy. Its hard to bring that payload out to a useful anti-ship range. Admittedly a lot of that is fuel, and you wouldn't need as much if you're dropping it close to the target, but it's still rocking a 1000lb warhead.

The reality is you don't care if the ship sinks. You care that it's rendered combat ineffective. Demolishing the topsides and taking out every sensor is more than sufficient to do that.

 

[Archamus33]

Oh yeah, huge difference between removing it as a fighting ship and sinking it.

 

[Archamus33]

Hence why regular AShMs that simply destroy everything above the water line (like the apocalyptic AS-4), are perfectly acceptable ship killers. Also, AShMs absolutely can do enough damage to outright sink ships, see the INS Eilat for what happens when a WW2 destroyer eats 3 Styx missiles.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, there is truth in here; underwater damage are more efficient. While damage to upper hull and superstructure may not immediately knock ship out of action (with some luck, of course), any underwater damage would be much more threatening and hard to contain. Especially for blows under bottom, which threatened hull integrity.

That's why there was a lot of interest toward diving warheads in 50s. American "Puffin" missile and its Soviet derivative (at least I think so - they are quite similar in even small details) KsSH were equipped with narrow, cone-shaped detachable warheads, that were supposed to fell in water, continue to move under inertia, and hit enemy warship in the side or bottom. Unfortunately, the whole concept didn't exactly worked fine; the detachable diving warhead was a constant headache on KsSH, and the experience was not repeated on subsequent Soviet missiles. Moreover, dual-purpose anti-sub missiles like "Metel" actually have separate anti-submarine warhead (a small electric homing torpedo) and anti-ship warhead (shaped charge HE) in their under-hull blister.

 

[muttly]

Taking a ship out of action may be all that is needed at the moment, but sinking it means to lose of the ship the crew and morale.

 

[Dilandu]

Taking a ship out of action may be all that is needed at the moment, but sinking it means to lose of the ship the crew and morale.

And also a guarantee that this ship is not suddenly sprang back into action, either faking being disabled, or suffering easy-to-repair damage.

 

[DWG]

Taking a ship out of action may be all that is needed at the moment, but sinking it means to lose of the ship the crew and morale.

Sinking a ship requires a bigger warhead, meaning fewer missiles able to be carried, meaning fewer missiles for the defences to defeat. It's much more complex than "bigger is better".

And above water hits don't necessarily mean you don't let the water in, I've seen at least one picture of an ASM warhead that strongly implied it had multiple radial firing shaped charges

 

[GARGEAN]

Was 91R1 mentioned here?

As for defence: why discuss RBU efficiency if Paket-NK is a thing?

 

[Ainen]

It's significantly better than nothing, but the limited rollout across the fleet, with even the newer corvettes going for RBU-6000 instead, suggests that it has recognised limitations.

Newer(Russian) ships use paket-nk instead.

Was 91R1 mentioned here?

As for defence: why discuss RBU efficiency if Paket-NK is a thing?

This pretty much. RBU-12000 was a late Soviet solution to the problem, only for the most valuable (or exposed, in case of Chabanenko) units.
Now there are antitorpedoes.

 

[iverson]

I was not making any claim as to whether a missile armed torpedo was a good idea or not. I was merely expressing an opinion on why such a complicated delivery system might have been considered. In WW2, the torpedo was considered THE ship-killing weapon. So I suggested that, once defenses rendered torpedo boats and torpedo bombers ineffective, a missile like Petrel may well have seemed like the natural next step.

Experience/prejudice can drive requirements for a long time. I recall reading quite a lot at one time in the trade publications about the supposed need for terminal-diving antiship missiles capable of underwater attack to insure kills. The premise may not be true. But neither are the premises that drive most military, naval, economic, and political planning.

 

[DWG]

I remembered there'd been an article on hard-kill anti-torpedo defences in Naval Sitrep (house magazine for the Admiralty Trilogy naval wargames) and finally got around to looking it up (Naval Sitrep 56 if anyone is interested, but there's barely half a page).

In addition to Paket NK/E and the US SSTD, it mentions Germany's SeaSpider, a rocket-powered ”interceptor torpedo” successfully demonstrated in 2017 and Turkey's TORK, a 300mm torpedo announced in 2015 and in test in 2019 (when the article was written).

It says reliable information on them is so scarce they aren't even going to try and quantify their performance (and one of their main guys is a recently retired senior naval analyst, so if there was anything open source, he'd know).

 

[Dilandu]

And above water hits don't necessarily mean you don't let the water in, I've seen at least one picture of an ASM warhead that strongly implied it had multiple radial firing shaped charges

Exocet, I presume?

 

[Dilandu]

was not making any claim as to whether a missile armed torpedo was a good idea or not. I was merely expressing an opinion on why such a complicated delivery system might have been considered. In WW2, the torpedo was considered THE ship-killing weapon. So I suggested that, once defenses rendered torpedo boats and torpedo bombers ineffective, a missile like Petrel may well have seemed like the natural next step.

The main reason behind Petrel and other Swordfish torpedo-carrying gliders/missiles was simplicity of terminal guidance. Direct-hit glide bomb - like ASM-N-2 Bat - required 3D guidance to hit the surface ship. But homing torpedo required only 2D guidance for the same purpose. Much simpler; much more reliable. So a powered/unpowered glider, that drop the homing torpedo near enemy ship, was simpler and more reliable solution.

 

[DWG]

And above water hits don't necessarily mean you don't let the water in, I've seen at least one picture of an ASM warhead that strongly implied it had multiple radial firing shaped charges

Exocet, I presume?

Russian or Chinese I think (or I suppose possibly an Iranian copy), I'm trying to remember where I saw it, but the first couple of possibilities came up blank. Essentially the standard cylindrical charge to fit in a missile body, but with dished areas spread around the circumference in a staggered pattern that suggested they were shaped charges - though whether the fuse would selectively detonate the main charge, or one or more of the shaped charges, or all of them at once I don't know.

 

[Dilandu]

Russian or Chinese I think (or I suppose possibly an Iranian copy), I'm trying to remember where I saw it, but the first couple of possibilities came up blank. Essentially the standard cylindrical charge to fit in a missile body, but with dished areas spread around the circumference in a staggered pattern that suggested they were shaped charges - though whether the fuse would selectively detonate the main charge, or one or more of the shaped charges, or all of them at once I don't know.

Hm. I saw the same pattern on Exocet warhead photo:


As far as I know, Soviet/Russian and Chinese missiles opted for the one big shaping cavity, angled downward in front - so when missile hit the deck from shallow dive, the jet would be sent down into ship bowels almost vertically.

 

[DWG]

Hm. I saw the same pattern on Exocet warhead photo:

That's definitely similar to the picture I'm thinking of, but the one I saw had fewer and smaller dished areas - more of a staggered band around the mid-section of the charge than covering the whole surface area,

 

[SeaslugMk2]

HMS Glamorgan remained operational despite being hit by an Exocet; there is no sign of any directional warhead effects -my notes are here.
This picture :-



was taken the following day with repairs well under way; her Seaslug system was restored to operational status that same day.

SRJ.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Was the enhanced warhead not part of the sale to Argentina then?

 

[SeaslugMk2]

Was the enhanced warhead not part of the sale to Argentina then?

Apparently not but I'd never heard of it until now.

SRJ.

 

[Firefinder]

FOr the warhead it also needs to be pointed out that there are how many different version of the Exocot again in just French service?

Let alone all the knock offs.

Like lets take a look at something more modern.

The HSV-2.

Apperantly this thing hit by a Chinese Knock of the the Exocot, the C-802 in 2018

Now this version of the missile does use a multiple EFP warhead, you can tell by the damage pattern on the hull. SO at least some ANTI SHIP Missiles do use that type of warhead.

USS Mason Fired 3 Missiles to Defend From Yemen Cruise Missiles Attack

The crew of guided-missile destroyer USS Mason fired three missiles to defend themselves and another ship after being attacked on Sunday in the Red Sea

news.usni.org

Also should be noted that the HSV2 made it back to port. ANd was apperantly repaired as well before being sold off to a Ferry company.

Ships are hard to kill news at 1100.

As for using Missiles with torpedo's...

Had it usage, apperantly there was to be a Tomahawk model with a torpedo for warhead, but it is limited mainy in range and payload cause you are going to have to give one of those up. There is a limit to the unkeel explosion trick welll, and basically more boom the better, with hybrid weapon like a MissileTorp going to have limit explosive ability.

Unless you make it Granit Huge, then the question comes in as why not use the Granit?

Also elf guide torps can be spoofed, and most warships worth a torp has a sonar more then able to hear a straight running torpedo allowing the ship to take evasive. You Torpedo needed to be FAST to if you its not guide in someway.

I can see a Tomahawk style cruise missile with a Shval, the russian super cativation torpedo, as the warhead being very deadly. Through the question is if it is worth it.

And honestly I dont think so any more, the Navy's are rapidly closing in on a working Active Torpedo defense system and even field a model a few years back that they yank for reliablity reasons. But they have kept at it with that Very Small Torpedo they just tested. If a TomaShval came out in the 90s I can see it being the next Terror Weapon for the USN, but it coming now it just going to see that anti torp system get bloated with money to come online faster.

Mind you that is for surface ships, FOR ASW WORK HOWEVER...

I can see it still being useful.

 

[Stargazer5]

The HSV-2.

Apperantly this thing hit by a Chinese Knock of the the Exocot, the C-802 in 2018

Now this version of the missile does use a multiple EFP warhead, you can tell by the damage pattern on the hull. SO at least some ANTI SHIP Missiles do use that type of warhead.

USS Mason Fired 3 Missiles to Defend From Yemen Cruise Missiles Attack

The crew of guided-missile destroyer USS Mason fired three missiles to defend themselves and another ship after being attacked on Sunday in the Red Sea

news.usni.org

Also should be noted that the HSV2 made it back to port. ANd was apperantly repaired as well before being sold off to a Ferry company.

No way HSV was hit by an internally detonating anti-ship missile. Such a detonation on an aluminium ship of this design would have taken the bow off.

The Kinetic Energy damage caused by the TALOS is the result of the weapon disintegrating on impact. If it stays together which is much more common in anti-ship missiles the result is a cartoon outline of missile in the side of the ship with most of the missile and its KE exiting the far side. To be effective the warhead needs to detonate.

As to the warhead the "P" charges were a German concept deployed on Kormoran missile while the horns on the front are French anti-ricochet design. The Germans used a complete ring for the same purpose. The Chinses C801/802 and its Iranian copies combine the two. French did not believe in "P" charges but were willing to adopted small ones in ANS.

 

[TomS]

No way HSV was hit by an internally detonating anti-ship missile. Such a detonation on an aluminium ship of this design would have taken the bow off.

It's really hard to judge since there was clearly massive fire damage after the impact but given the large empty volume in the bow of a trimaran ferry like Swift, a lot of the blast may have been wasted. But there sure does seem to be good evidence for fragmentation.

Also should be noted that the HSV2 made it back to port. ANd was apperantly repaired as well before being sold off to a Ferry company.

She was towed to port. She showed up in Greece, still clearly in inoperable condition with the bow utterly burnt out. Rumor had it the Seajet folks bought Swift for parts; there's certainly no evidence that she returned to service.

The Kinetic Energy damage caused by the TALOS is the result of the weapon disintegrating on impact. If it stays together which is much more common in anti-ship missiles the result is a cartoon outline of missile in the side of the ship with most of the missile and its KE exiting the far side. To be effective the warhead needs to detonate.

Crap.

The USN frigate Stark was hit by two Exocets. One detonated nearly at the surface and gouged out a crater in the side of the hull. The second did not detonate (we know because the warhead was recovered from the wreckage). The body of the undetonated missile disintegrated and tore a gaping hole through the hull with fragments exiting like a shotgun blast. The burning rocket fuel scattered along its path may actually have done more damage than the warhead that actually detonated.

 

[Stargazer5]

Crap.

The USN frigate Stark was hit by two Exocets. One detonated nearly at the surface and gouged out a crater in the side of the hull. The second did not detonate (we know because the warhead was recovered from the wreckage). The body of the undetonated missile disintegrated and tore a gaping hole through the hull with fragments exiting like a shotgun blast. The burning rocket fuel scattered along its path may actually have done more damage than the warhead that actually detonated.

You are moving the debating point from kinetic energy damage to that of missile fuel.

Exocet is subsonic missile so will struggle to get out other side of vessel if it hits other structure on the way, which was the case of the first missile. It entered 60man berth of this on the port side at an angle of 30degree to the ships heading and then struck the aft bulkhead at 60degree from the normal. The warhead penetrated, but was detached at that or the next bulkhead from the rest of the missile. The warhead probably severed the fire main on the starboard side before failing to penetrate the starboard side. It is not certain that the missile rocket and its fuel made it through the aft bulkhead of the 60man berth as the wrench of the warhead horns biting into the aft bulkhead probably broke the clamp at the rear of the warhead or that at the front of the rocker section. The rocket motor would have then hit the bulkhead at a different point and a greater angle so could have remained in the 60man berth. If it remained in the original compartment or got though it's aft bulkhead the rocket motor debris and fuel would have been spread on the starboard side of the vessel.

As ships do not move very fast it was accepted practice, at the time, for anti-ship missiles to coast unpowered but guided on their terminal approach so fuel left would not simply be range run divided by max range. The origin of missile fuel being as deadly as warhead came from HMS Sheffield hit in 1982 as explanation of why damage was so severe despite the board of enquiry concluding that the warhead had not detonated. That was the official position for many years in the UK, but it was overturned in the 2000's following a review. The conclusions of that review was that with evidence which has become available since the original board of enquiry shows that the warhead did detonate. That detonation caused structural damage and dumped blast products into the ship.

As the explosive detonates it converts from a solid to a gas which at normal pressure would take up a volume 800 time larger that the solid occupied. If the detonation is in open air giving it access to sufficient oxygen the gas will be an opaque white. If it is oxygen starved by detonating inside a structure it will be a sooty black. This initial contribution to the smoke from battle damage was not understood at the time and is still often overlooked. Initially the blame for the rapidly expanding smoke in both Sheffield and Stark was attributed to the missile fuel.

The detonation of the second Exocet warhead inside the 60man berth caused an area of devastation in the port forward quarter of the berth. It also generated smoke which would have passed under pressure through the penetration aft bulkhead into the compartment aft. As personnel within the 60man berth then aided their colleges from the 60man berth below and themselves to evacuate, smoke would also have entered the aft compartment through the doors as they were opened and closed. The level of smoke in that aft flat mean it also had to be evacuated before fire fighting efforts could be started. The seats of fire from bombs or missiles hitting ships is never at the point of detonation. This is because of a lack of oxygen to sustain fire growth following the detonation, Rad Adair owed his career to this effect. We know this was also the case in USS Stark as several men fell out the port side hole in the hull as they attempted to evacuate from the smoke logged compartment by feeling their way down the port side of the compartment.

So fires start at the periphery of volumes damaged by a detonation, in this case the starboard side of the original 60man berth and with hot gas products passing though the hole in the bulkhead it would quickly have spread aft. I am not going to say it was not accelerated by unspent missile fuel only that it is not certain which side of the bulkhead that fuel was.

 

[TomS]

Not inclined to engage a wall of text but the point I was responding to was this: "If it stays together which is much more common in anti-ship missiles the result is a cartoon outline of missile in the side of the ship".

That's just not so. An AShM hitting a solid structure like a ship's hull is generally going to fragment and dump KE and fuel inside the hull. I can't think of a single operational example where a missile exited intact out the far side of a real ship.

 

[Hood]

I can't think of a single operational example where a missile exited intact out the far side of a real ship.

Only those Acme Anti-Ship Missiles used by Admiral Wile E. Coyote.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why is that?. What on a torpedo make it noisier than a submarine?. If you can make a submarine quiet, why you can't do the same to a torpedo?

It takes a lot of space to quiet a sub, torpedoes don't have the internal volume for that.

You can hear a Mk48 start up with your bare ears inside the hull after it gets impulsed out.

Nowadays the USN use towed torpedo decoys but I wonder in a surface group could the Torpedo decoy like the Nixie work together with the towed Sonar arrays?

There's no problem streaming two towed arrays (other than maneuver restrictions so you don't drag the tail through the screw).

My concern would be the Nixie making the torpedo detonate relatively close to the towed array and cutting the tail off!