NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a 100% OOC declaration - what follows is the description of Mauiwowee's newest "secret weapon" I'm not IC'ly (as of yet anyway) revealing the existence of these to anyone. If you have a constructive critcism of the design or specs. post it and I'll reply and if need be adjust something to make these fully acceptable to all or explain something. Please also note, for those who have seen "Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow" that unlike their "submersibles" mine do not claim to be airplanes and subs. They are subs and limited ability surface ships only.

Mauiwowee's new dual man "Sub-Fighters"


Screws/propellers 2
Engines Jet fuel powered, liquid oxygen injected, modified Rolls-Royce V-12's (2)
Depth 150 feet max tested (250 feet theoretical)
Speed 40 knots max - average cruise 15 knots
Submersible Time Limit 6 hours
crew 2
Weaponry 3 super-cav or standard torpedos (two launchers) / 20mm nose mounted machine gun/cannon (useful only when surfaced).
Range 120 miles submerged at max speed - 250 miles at average cruise speed
Skin "Silicon wax" friction reducing coated "samuri folded" HY-142 steel

Detection Evasion/Systems
a. Thermal signature: -0- at greater than 1/2 mile;

b.Sonar signature (when submerged) as tested against the ship's own sonar system:
1. -0- at greater than 12 miles out at average cruise speed or less,
2. 100% at 5 miles out and average cruise speed or less
3. 100% at 25 miles out at max speed;

c. Lockheed Martin BSY-5 "Lite" Combat Data system (adapted from Mauiwowee Bud Class Submarines);
d. BPS 19 Navigational Radar;
e. Bow and Stern mounted active/passive wide flank sonar arrays;
f. computer aided, sonar guided, targeting system for torpedoes;
g. High intensity focused xeon lights for pilot visibility; and
h. Ejectable sonar decoys (2)

Pilot Safety pilot eject capability with scuba gear (worn by pilots during operations).
Cost $45 Million/ea.
Size 40' long, 35' Wingspan
Arial Capabilities none
Surface Capabilities similar to a patrol boat - max speed is 25 knots - detection evasion, same as average surface PT boat - functional machine gun and torpedo launch ability.

Single Fighter Views

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/4820/singlefighterprofile9cz.jpg

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/4334/singlefighterprofile24oj.th.jpg (http://img235.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img235&image=singlefighterprofile24oj.jpg)

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/928/singlefightervstorpedoes5md.th.jpg (http://img235.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img235&image=singlefightervstorpedoes5md.jpg)

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/6503/underwatershot1rear6yv.th.jpg (http://img235.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img235&image=underwatershot1rear6yv.jpg)

Squadron Views

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/8559/squadron29lc.jpg

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/695/squadron0ky.th.jpg (http://img235.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img235&image=squadron0ky.jpg)


http://img235.exs.cx/img235/6972/squadronattackrearview0uz.th.jpg (http://img235.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img235&image=squadronattackrearview0uz.jpg)

Close up of Torpedo tube

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/131/torpedotubecloseup3mk.jpg

Launch of Sub-Fighters

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/3460/fighterslaunch3le.th.jpg (http://img235.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img235&image=fighterslaunch3le.jpg)

Super Cavitating Torpedo Specs

Based on the 1977, Soviet made skval supercavitating torpedo - enhanced by research to provide guidance (the soviet torpedo was a "straight line" model that once fired could not change course).

Speed: 350 mph
Max Effective Range: 20 miles
Optimum Range:12-15 miles
Targeting: Advanced ADCAP-CBASS( Advanced Capabilities, Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System) adapted from the US MK48 Series of torpedoes currently in use in RL and placed on the sub-fighter which relays guidance commands to the torpedo. 45 Degree course change capability/limit.
Propulsion: Liquid Hydrogen Rocket Engine
Guidance: Thrust Vectoring with cantalevering fin tips that project out of the supercavitation bubble and enhanced cavitation using exhaust gases. Dual plane moveable cavitational surface with closed loop computer controlled coordination between all control surfaces and thrust vectoring to effect course changes for torpedo and cavitational "bubble."
Operational Depth: To 1,500 feet.
Cost: $4.2 Million per torpedo - Concussive Exploding head with 425 lbs. high intensity concussive explosive.

cool, any chance you'll be selling these?

Nice! I am looking for a permit to produce an Omega version, with the appropriate royalty charge-back to you, for use in our own fleets. We are willing to negotiate the exchange for one of our units.

Nice! I am looking for a permit to produce an Omega version, with the appropriate royalty charge-back to you, for use in our own fleets. We are willing to negotiate the exchange for one of our units.

We are considering your request and will reply soon.

OOC: One suggestion: Get rid of that useless surface cannon and replace it with a AHSUM (Adaptable High-Speed Underwater Munitions) gun, preferably chambered in 20mm. I would normally use 30mm, but the resulting size would render it pretty useless on a vessel of this size.

A couple of issues. First, the torpedos should either be unguided or wireguided... it is currently impossible to see through a supercav bubble, as far as I know. You need actual hull contact to use sonar effectively, and the turbulence would render both laser and acoustic guidence impossible. Magnetic IS possible, but only at short range.

The torpedos are also too long ranged... I kinow modern torpedos can go a long ways, but you need to consider the launch platform. These subfighters aren't going to be able to carry any meaningful number of even small ASW torpedos... expecting them to carry a giant long range supercavitating torpedo that has a large warhead is unreasonable.

I also suggest you add more crew. Say, a weapons officer, sensor operator, pilot/commander, and engineer. Treat them as WWII bombers rather than modern fighters.

The range of the subfighters at max speed should be much shorter than the range at cruising speed. Aditionally, these weill be very very loud little subfighters... you don't have the space or mass for the acoustic muffling on larger ships and because of it's size, the propellers/waterjets are going to have to be working at a much higher RPM. They'll be louder than an Alpha...

To be honest, this reminds me of a design P&T and I did... we had a submersable hydrofoil (I wanted a fast attack boat, he wanted an SSK, we comprimised and giggled for a long time. It was fun, but not practical). The thing could make 50 knots on the surface and could carry 4 missiles or torpedos, and could dive to about 50 feet in 14 minutes. Unfortuneately, it's maxiumum speed underwater was only 5 knots, and it sounded like a sprinting Alpha with a perforated hull. You may want to consider our tactics... advance on the surface until you get into detection range, then dive and drift... fire your torpedos and sprint away. Or if you want to replace the torpedos with missiles, sprint in on the surface, fire your missiles, and dive to avoid the return fire.

Just some ideas =)

OOC: some other things to note

The machine gun is a bit odd, and with a bit of a typo. 1 cal = 1 inch, so a 20 cal weapon is the same as a 20" gun. For small arms, you'll note that there's always a decimal point before the number, denoting the fact that it's less than an inch. For example: .357 magnum, .45 ACP, .223 Remington, .50 BMG.
Now, a .20 cal weapon isn't very useful. This is smaller than any current common small arms round (only 5.08mm), and is useful only in an antipersonnel role. If you want to get something out of the weapon, it should be .50 cal, or maybe even a 20 or 25mm automatic cannon. There's little use for a gun that's only good at nailing swimmers and RHIBs.

Regarding the torpedo, that is indeed a bit too far. Most sources agree that the Shkval doesn't even pull half that range, and has only a little over half the speed (another problem here - the speed is a bit much even for a supercav. I doubt you'd get sufficient engine power and fuel to maintain that).
Additionally, you seem to have fallen into a pricing trap on the torpedo. The basic Mk.48 was listed as costing $2.5 million in 2000. However, the current version is the Mk.48 mod 5/6 (aka ADCAP), which was introduced in 1988, and had a estimated cost of $3.5 million in 1998.

OOC: Yes, the modern Shkval only has a range of 10 kilometers (making it rather less than then miles)... however, what I did was put a NiAl coating at the end to make it "stronger", or make it last longer, and give it an additional 20 kilometers..the problem with doing that is if you miscalculate the range it basically "dies".

And as Verdant Archipelago says, it is impossible to guide a SuCav...any manuevering renders it destroyed.

My friend and I, actually more like my friend with just random internet information from me and the German/US pamphlets and publications on LIDAR and SuCavs and such, developed a "hybrid" which involves a regular torpedo which in the end begins to Super Cavitate... hehe, we used it on my model U-boat..but of course the range was a measly kilometers, or less...however, applying military standards to it it would probably give it a range similar to that of an ADCAP torpedo using the normal propulsion and then around a mile of SuCav before it "died".

Looks cool.

When it comes up in IC, I'm sure Risban will pay handsomly to have production rights.

It's not so much the coating of the torp I was worried about, it was the amount of fuel. Though supercaving lets you go quickly through water, it's still far far less efficient than traveling through the air. Supercav guns have ranges well under 50m, and rockets would be similarly inconvenienced.

It's not ENTIRELY true that supercavs are unguidable. Experiments are being done where by altering the shape of the cavitator and by venting exhaust to change the shape of the cavitation bubble you CAN stear them... but it's impossible to see out of them, so any guidence would need to be done remotely. And manouvers would need to be REAL gentle for fear of disrupting the bubble and crushing the torp.

And yes, I did a multistage torpedo as well =) Supercavitating submunitions, got to love them.

OOC: You couldn't use SONAR, most likely, since all the noise the torpedo would be creating...but perhaps a blue-green LIDAR laser?

In theory, you could "manuver" a super-cav, simply program it to cease cavitating on operator command, then redirect the weapon towards the new vector.

OOC

Macabees: I doubt it... the water's actually boiling, and the beam is going to be incident at totally random angles which means it would be impossible to tell exactly how miuch it's diffracted and refracted (both due to the mist and the water). The beam would get through, but it would be really diffuse and you wouldn't know what you were looking at. You'd even get periods of total internal reflection... a mess. Since no one's been able to accuretly predict exactly what will happen at a given moment in a cavitation bubble, there's no way to screan out the noise either. I'd stick with either magnetic or wire guidence... and you'd need to be close to use magnetics and not be manouvering violently (the launcher or the torp) to use wire.

Tyranids: But then you need to reaccelerate it, and it's the acceleration that takes the most fuel. You'd need to have liquid fueled booster rockets instead of solid, and that means more mass and mess and danger... Very tricky, supercavitation.

OOC: According to others the navy has tested blue and green lasers quite effectively (according to Scandinavian States)... I guess that would include the refraction is decreased. I would have to look into my LIDAR manual, but that's into my dad's house and would be quite time consuming... (it's about two thousand to three thousand pages long).

I'm not saying it doesn't work underwater... it does. But not if you need to have it penetrate a cavity full of water vapor into diffracting-bubble-filled turbulent water when you can't calculate the angle of incidence. I'd imagine that the lasers work best when they are submerged, so you don't need to take into account the irregular effects of the surface.

And refraction can't be decreased... it's a physical law. If light of such and such a wavelength hits water at this angle, then it bends this much. If you don't know the angle the beam hits at (like if the laser were in a supercavitation cavity) then it's useless, as far as I understand.

OOC: Ah I see what you're saying..however, LIDAR works better at low altitude on Earth's atmosphere I believe... so, perhaps better used as a last minute detection, Range Finder LIDAR?

OOC Yes they work best in the atmosphere, but if they are going to go underwater and you need a good, clean return, I'd imagine it would be best if they started underwater. Just eliminates some difficulties. And though you probably could do that, it would be just as easy to use magnetic sesors. They don't need to be in contact with the water, are unaffected by the turbulence of the cavitaiton bubble, and are a relatively mature peice of technology (magnetic detonators were used back in WWII, though there were some reliability issues.)

OOC: Ohhhh, I see what you're saying now...my mistake...

WOW! What a great set of thoughtful replies and constructive criticisms - thanks. Let me address them in 2 posts, one for the sub-fighter and one for the torpedos (they seem to have generated the most discussion).

Sub-Fighter issues

1. Range issue - my bad, I was having a dyslexic moment, got the numbers backwards. I'm editing the original post to fix that issue.

2. Yes they are noisy as hell - I never indicated they weren't, I said they were 100% detectable at 25 miles away with sonar if traveling at max speed and 100% detectable at 5 miles traveling at cruising speed with detectability on sonar gradually increasing from 12 miles away on down - 50/50 shot of accurate detection on sonar at 8.5 miles away when cruising. Sonar works, simply put, by picking up the noise made as the props cause cavitation bubbles as they spin in the water. The longer the blade, the slower the spin can be and the less cavitation it will cause and concurrently the chance of detection goes down. As seen in the pictures, I use airplane size propellor blades, not tiny ship screws so they can spin slower and cause less cavitation to aid in reducing detection, but miminal, if any, sound dampening possibilities beyond that would be available due to the size and design. I think I "guesstimated" a reasonable detection range, if not, steer me to how to do so or post the info. needed to help me get this right.

3. I thought about an AHSUM gun, but decided against it for now since for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I don't see it as being exceptionally useful unless I'm in a "dog fight" underwater. It's not going to sink a carrier or battleship and it would require more room than a standard surface gun which I can use more effectively than an AHSUM gun when surfaced. Secondly, range is only going to be about 100-200 feet max underwater - I want to sink ships and get away quick, not hang around. In a sense, it is more of a bomber than a fighter as someone noted. Sub-Fighter is just a name based on the look and the fact it sounds better than Sub-Bomber

4. The gun, yes, that should be a 20mm cannon - my bad again.

5. This kind of relates to #2 above and was not directly pointed out or critisized, but the reason their max suface speed is slower than their max submerged speed relates to the fact that the props are larger than small ship screws and on the surface, as the ship travels, a portion of each of the blades on the props extends out of the water during each revolution.

6. Crew - I debated on making it a 2 person crew and I still might, still under consideration.

7. Torpedoes - I don't see 6 as too many - look again at the size of the nose of the craft - 3 on each side seems reasonable. I'll discuss this a bit more in the torpedo post in a bit.

The Torpedo

1st - Sources for the specs. for my torpedo were derived, in most part (though not all, I read a few scientific papers on it that I could only partially understand and discussed it with an engineer friend of mine as well) from the following:

First appearing in 1977, the original VA-111 Shkval is some 26 ft (8 m) long and is thought to have a range of around 5 miles (8 kms). Believed by some to be unguided, sources differ on whether the torpedo is nuclear capable. The Shkval is propelled forward by a solid rocket motor. Traveling at over 300 mph (500km/h) the Shkval is so fast that (despite being equipped with one) it does not even require a warhead! Its sheer mass and velocity is enough to sink an opposing submarine.

Development of the Shkval has continued through the 1980’s and 1990’s to the present day. Very little information is available about the Shkval II, the existence of which was made public by the Russian government in 1998. Rumours state a top speed of possibly 450+ mph (720 kph/h) and a vastly improved range, believed by some to be in the region of 60+ miles (100 km). The fact that the Shkval II is guided renders it vastly superior to the original Shkval. The Shkval II is thought to be able to supercavitate, then if need be slow down and reacquire its target, before speeding up and homing in for the kill. Yet newer techniques developed by Ukrainian scientists are believed to offer the possibility for high speed supercav guidance and maneuvering.

Source (http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html)


supercavitating vehicles are being designed to maneuver through the water. Steering is possible through the use of cavity-piercing control surfaces such as fins, and thrust-vectoring systems, which are directional nozzles for jet exhaust. Extreme care must be taken to keep the body inside the cavity during turns, however, because should it stray from the cavity, the force of slamming into the surrounding wall of water would abruptly turn it into "a crushed Coke can," according to Ivan Kirschner, an engineer at Anteon's Engineering Technology Center in Mystic, Conn.


"Three-dimensional pitch and yaw maneuvers could also be accomplished by moving or rotating the nose cavitator in two planes simultaneously," Kirschner continues, "although such devices would be more complicated." Researchers have also considered using forward-actuated canards.

Supercavitating vehicles could be highly agile if the control surfaces were coordinated correctly, says NUWC's Kuklinsky. The idea is to skew the cavity to one side to create the desired side forces with an articulated nose cavitator or with control surfaces and then track the vehicle in it. If the fore and aft control systems operate in phase so that the "back end keeps up with what the front is doing, very fast turns can be accomplished," he notes.


the nose of the torpedo features what is likely to be a flat disk with a circular or perhaps elliptical shape. This is the all-important cavitator, which creates the gas cavity in which the craft moves. The cavitator disk will be tilted forward at the top, providing an "angle of attack" to generate the lift needed to support the forebody of the device. The cavitator's edge is apt to be sharp, which hydrodynamicists say creates the cleanest or least turbulent gas/water boundary, what they call a "glassy" cavity. Just aft of the cavitator sit several rings of ventilation ducts that inject rocket exhaust and steam into the cavitation bubble to enlarge it.

Source (http://www.diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/Warpdrive_underwater.htm)

2nd - Range issues - Note I went from solid rocket as in the original Skhavl to liquid hydrogen - more power and effeciency (note the range of 60 miles for the Skhavl 2 noted above as well). Note also the effective range of 20 miles is tempered by noting an optimum range of 12-15 miles - the torpedoes, as I envision them, will burn their fuel quickly and would run out of fuel to burn at about 12-15 miles depending on whether they are "flying" in a straight line or manuvering. For the last 5 miles or so, they would be "coasting" on the previously established momentum and at 20 miles out, before they started to sink due to a -0- momentum, they would have to hit something to detonate. You want to hit your target while at super-cav speed for maximum destructive ability, so you wouldn't fire your torpedo, in normal operational directives, unless you were about 10-12 miles away at max. I think this is reasonable.

3. Explosives - don't need too much - the idea is to use the speed alone and the kinetic energy to cause the damage. Also, explosives have come a long way since the original Skhavl which used straight TNT - I'd use plastic explosives (say C-5 or something) and use a lesser weight of them than the original torpedo's over 1,500 lbs. of TNT.

4. Guidance - Actually, this is two issues -
1st - steering - note the articles above - I posted that the torpedoes have a nose (a cavitating surface) that rotates in 2 planes at once, uses thrust vectoring, fins that extend beyond the cavitational bubble with cantalevering surfaces, exhaust gases to enhance the bubble size and an AI computer system that coordinates all of these things so as to provide the ability to steer the torpedo and the bubble at the same time.

2nd - "homing" or "targeting" ability. I did not RP that very well other than mentioning sonar. So, I've got a couple of ideas.

A. The "pilot" of the Sub-Fighter that launches the torpedo feeds a sonar "signature" of the intended target into the torpedo's computer guidance system before launching. The Fins on the torpedo that extend out of the cavitational "bubble" for steering purposes, also have sonar sensor arrays on them and the torpedo's onboard computer guidance system has discrimination capabilities to "screen out" the turbulence noise of the torpedo itself and "lock" onto the "sonar signature" programmed into it at launch time. It sounds reasonable to me.

B. The cavitational surface on the torpedo's nose does the same as the Fins in "A" above or operate in tandem with the fins on the same principal

C. The fins and/or the nose use laser guidance systems instead of sonar with the initial target position, again, being fed into the torpedo at launch time.

D. Magic :D

Note also that the bulk of the targets fired on are going to be rather large and not fast or manuverable enough to evade the torpedo - a carrier going 30 - 35 knots will not be able to completely dodge a torpedo traveling 400+ mph that can cover a 10 mile distance in 1 minute or so.

OK, I'm done for now with responses - any rebuttals? I do appreciate the thoughtful comments received so far. I Think the basic idea is highly feasible and would be useful - imagine a Carrier group made up of a Carrier, 2 Battleships, 2 Destroyers, 3 support ships and 5 troop carriers getting attacked by 40 or so of these from 10 miles out with torpedoes that can hit the ships in a minute or less after they have been fired - way to protect a coast line or launch a sneak attack on an enemy fleet.

Thanks for that! Very interesting!

Thanks for that! Very interesting!

You're welcome.

Bump?

bump - any more comments? criticisms?

WOW! What a great set of thoughtful replies and constructive criticisms - thanks. Let me address them in 2 posts, one for the sub-fighter and one for the torpedos (they seem to have generated the most discussion).

Sub-Fighter issues

1. Range issue - my bad, I was having a dyslexic moment, got the numbers backwards. I'm editing the original post to fix that issue.

2. Yes they are noisy as hell - I never indicated they weren't, I said they were 100% detectable at 25 miles away with sonar if traveling at max speed and 100% detectable at 5 miles traveling at cruising speed with detectability on sonar gradually increasing from 12 miles away on down - 50/50 shot of accurate detection on sonar at 8.5 miles away when cruising. Sonar works, simply put, by picking up the noise made as the props cause cavitation bubbles as they spin in the water. The longer the blade, the slower the spin can be and the less cavitation it will cause and concurrently the chance of detection goes down. As seen in the pictures, I use airplane size propellor blades, not tiny ship screws so they can spin slower and cause less cavitation to aid in reducing detection, but miminal, if any, sound dampening possibilities beyond that would be available due to the size and design. I think I "guesstimated" a reasonable detection range, if not, steer me to how to do so or post the info. needed to help me get this right.

3. I thought about an AHSUM gun, but decided against it for now since for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I don't see it as being exceptionally useful unless I'm in a "dog fight" underwater. It's not going to sink a carrier or battleship and it would require more room than a standard surface gun which I can use more effectively than an AHSUM gun when surfaced. Secondly, range is only going to be about 100-200 feet max underwater - I want to sink ships and get away quick, not hang around. In a sense, it is more of a bomber than a fighter as someone noted. Sub-Fighter is just a name based on the look and the fact it sounds better than Sub-Bomber

4. The gun, yes, that should be a 20mm cannon - my bad again.

5. This kind of relates to #2 above and was not directly pointed out or critisized, but the reason their max suface speed is slower than their max submerged speed relates to the fact that the props are larger than small ship screws and on the surface, as the ship travels, a portion of each of the blades on the props extends out of the water during each revolution.

6. Crew - I debated on making it a 2 person crew and I still might, still under consideration.

7. Torpedoes - I don't see 6 as too many - look again at the size of the nose of the craft - 3 on each side seems reasonable. I'll discuss this a bit more in the torpedo post in a bit.

Detectability: Ok, I missunderstood what you were saying. Fair enough.

Torpedos: Six is too much unless they are tiny. You aren't merely going on what looks like it would fit, remember. Supercav torpedos are big, heavy, complicated, and fragile; even more so now that you've decided on a liquid fuel. Unless... I was assuming you'd be carrying them internally. If yoiu choose to carry them externally, you'll suffer from major drag problems. No 40 knots if you're carrying six large torpedos underwing. And no, they need a warhead Probably about half a ton of modern explosive would do the trick, if you want a ship-killer. Supercavitation designs make for lousy penetrators since you need all kinds of equipment up at the nose... also, ships designed to take a ton of explosive going off at the waterline aren't even going to flinch when your supercav dart tinks off of tihe outer torpedo bulge. The torpedo needs to detonate in water to do any good... either making a high pressure wave that smashes the hull or a low pressure cavity that breaks the ship's back. Punching through the outer torpedo bulge and detonating in an empty space would do far less damage.

If you re-read the Sci-Am article, you would notice that it claims the Shkval only has a maximum speed of 230 miles per hour and that they are working on, but have not yet solved the problems of, a 200 knot torpedo. (I really don't trust Deep Angel as a source... it's a game site, not a scientific one)

Coasting is interesting, but remember the drag... bullets under water have very short ranges, and once the engine burns out, the torpedo is simply a very expencive bullet.

Don't call the guidence system AI... even though I wish AIs were modern-tech because I love the Culture series and want to have my ships give officers verbal lambastings, it's futuretech. As for extending fins outside of the bubble, that's possible, but sonar will NOT survive that, there isn't room for a sonar system in sharp narrof fins, and the sonar will be deafened by the engine. Sonar's a no go with supercav. I'd use them the same way torpedos were fired prior to guidence. Load a series of instructions into the torpedo about where it should go, give it magnetic terminal guidence, and fire all six in a 'spread' at a single target.

Okay, some things here:

2) Don't even bother with such concrete numbers. They are completely worthless because all sonars are not created equal. Even at maximum range, a sufficiently sensitive sonar could pick it up with an extremely high chance of success, while some wouldn't catch a 50 knot commercial speedboat 10 miles away.
If figures like that are given, you must state a specific sonar that you're comparing too. Otherwise, you render the figures completely worthless.

6) This vessel should have at least a 2 person crew, probably 3-4. I'd want an independant weapons, countermeasures, and possibly sensor officer. This thing's going to need all those features in a big way, and if you put too much work load on a single individual, you lose the boat.

7) 6 torpedoes is actually quite a lot when you think about it. Assuming these are in the size range of the Shkval, that would indicate that they're taking up around 10m3 of space, which is A LOT on a ship this size. Add to that the fac that you mentioned only two launchers, which means a loading mechanism, and you're really pushing things. You could mount the weapons externally, but that's going to cause all kinds of problems.
My advise is either smaller torpedoes, or only 2, possibly 4, max. Consider that a 2000+ ton submarine only carries 12-18 torpedoes.

The other big thing I have here is that the price is way too low for a combat vessel. A simple ASDS submersible can cost over $100 million, so this is certainly going to be an expensive unit. You might get away with as low as, say, $50 million, but $11 million would indicate something that's seriously lacking in just about everything this boat needs. I'd personnally say $75-100 million easy.

Thanks, I'll get some replies up Friday, it's too late now, but your additional, reasoned criticisms are appreciated.

OK, finally time to reply to the 2nd round

1. Crew - I'm going to up it to 2 - Pilot and weapons/navigation person;
2. Cost - Most of the equipment is relatively available and inexpensive, but I will agree $11 Million is too low - up the cost to $55 Million for the fighter and $4.2 million for the torpedo;
3. Capacity - cutting the torpedo capacity to 3;
4. Detectability - referenced to the Lockheed Martin BSY-5 Combat Data system and BPS 19 Navigational Radar;
5. Torpedo Explosives - 1,400 lbs. of plastic explosives & White phosporous (not sure if this would work well - idea though is a nice explosion that keeps burning and melting away at the metal of the ship after the initial detonation).
6. AI system - "AI" is just a name, I don't claim "real" artificial intelligence - just a coordinated system to analyze the data and output guidance instructions. I'll clear that up in the first post along with other stuff.
7. Torpedo Speed - the Sci-Am article is discussing the first, 1977 generation, Shkval, not the newer ones that the Deep Angel site references. I don't think 450 mph is out of the range of possibility with newer technology and rocket engines - stuff that didn't exist in 1977 that does now.
8. Drag/coasting - I understand that when the rocket fuel gives out, all I have is a big, expensive, unguided bullet that will gradually slow down, drop out of super cav speed and then sink. Again, the goal would be to fire them at a range of about 10 miles so they hit the target while still powered, rather than having them "coast" into something as they slowed down.
9. Guidance - think I solved it - a target is acquired and direction is programmed into the torpedo before launch. The torpedo then uses a blue-green laser system and radio control, projected back to the fighter and receives directional/course change instructions from the weapons officer on the fighter that fired the torpedo. The fighter actually tracks the target and sends the torpedo a continual stream of data for course correction purposes - the torpedo itself just goes where the fighter's crew tells it too.

I won't argue on the guidance and speed any more, though those are still issues in my book. It would still be nice if you could at least drop it from 450 mph to 450 kph. That would certainly be better.

However, the torpedo's payload is indeed way too high. You're simply putting too much increase in the performance of the other areas to have the space for that kind of warhead. In fact, a 1400 lb warhead is three times that on the Shkval, and is quite overpowered, and is extremely high even for a heavier 25.6" torpedo. Assuming similar size to the Shkval, I would think this should have maybe 400-500 lbs of actual explosive, tops (which, I should point out, is not much lower than conventional 21" torpedoes). I'm being quite generous here, as the massive speed boost should cut into the warhead size significantly, and the Shkval only has a 463 lb warhead. The only way I would accept any higher would be a major performance drop somewhere else.
Keep in mind that modern explosive fillers can be twice as powerful as TNT, so you could still be getting the equivalent of, say, a 700-1000 lb warhead.

I won't argue on the guidance and speed any more, though those are still issues in my book. It would still be nice if you could at least drop it from 450 mph to 450 kph. That would certainly be better.

However, the torpedo's payload is indeed way too high. You're simply putting too much increase in the performance of the other areas to have the space for that kind of warhead. In fact, a 1400 lb warhead is three times that on the Shkval, and is quite overpowered, and is extremely high even for a heavier 25.6" torpedo. Assuming similar size to the Shkval, I would think this should have maybe 400-500 lbs of actual explosive, tops (which, I should point out, is not much lower than conventional 21" torpedoes). I'm being quite generous here, as the massive speed boost should cut into the warhead size significantly, and the Shkval only has a 463 lb warhead. The only way I would accept any higher would be a major performance drop somewhere else.
Keep in mind that modern explosive fillers can be twice as powerful as TNT, so you could still be getting the equivalent of, say, a 700-1000 lb warhead.

OK, 450 KPH = about 280 mph, how about a speed of 350 mph, a 100 mph drop?

warhead - note I posted I wasn't sure about this idea - 375 lbs. sounds good, is white phosphoreous OK or is that just stupid?

Guidance - you don't want to argue the issue anymore, I'm not trying to argue, I'm looking for advice and information. I posted several ideas, I think having it guided by the weapons officer on the fighter makes the most sense, but I would like your feed back on the idea.

Thanks CSJ, you're helping make this right. I'm not some n00b trying to tech wank, I'm someone trying to make something cool, that is "unassailable" as a realistic and possible idea with more or less modern technology that is only lacking some RL R & D or it'd be here or at least "easily" built if some RL nation decided it wanted to do so. Also, surely in the almost 30 years since the Skhval was first introduced, technology has advanced enough to make some of my proposed ehancements reasonable.

Edit as an addendum: I have no plans at all to even do so, but I'd like to set it up so that if I ever were in a war with you, either opposing or supporting, I could "whip these out" and avoid a cry of "god-mod" and the ignore cannons. :)

Why use WP when Thermite makes much larger gaping holes, burns FAR hotter (eats through engine blocks in minutes, where WP will just sit on one), pressurizes better and is more stable (WP will ignite with air, thermite needs ignition)?

You have to decide if you want more kinetic energy or more explosive - replace the warhead with a nice DU penetrator, put a charge behind the penetrator (to drive it into the target) with a shaped shotgun charge of thermite behind that, and you have gone from an "ouch" to a "oh sh*t" weapon.

Oh yes - thermite can be made 'tacky' where WP can't. Meaning the thermite will stick to metal surfaces underwater. WP will slide off.

The problem is that a DU penetrator isn't going to do that much damage, and even if it's a small ship that such a hole could actually sink, the vessel will be combat capable for some time while it's sinking.

A destroyer would be damaged by such a weapon, but would not be in that much trouble, as the damage is actually minimal and quite localized. On the other hand, a simple explosive torpedo might be enough to finish it off due to widespread damage and loss of structural integrity. Underwater warfare is about shockwaves, not penetration (though many people think like with ground warfare, failing to see. This is simple common sense based on the advantages and disadvantages of water's higher density. Energy is transmitted better, but the higher friction places major restrictions on speed.
Additionally, solid penetrators are always of very limited value against ships because ships are big. A 120mm APFSDS round will wreak havoc in the cramped confines of an MBT, but even a much larger round could pass right through a warship without disturbing anything critical.



Now, as for WP/Thermite/a few other things I could name, the only real value in that is to interfere with damage control attempts (like with the Potassium warheads that were once used against me). Now, such a role is only useful with penetrating weapons, therefore I would see them as being possibly equipped on missiles and shells, but torpedoes, mines, and depth charges would be out. Even a supercavitating weapon shouldn't have them, since it's actually not likely to penetrate a larger combat ship's hull.

You're missing the point - rather then an exterior shockwave, I'm going for an interior shockwave with significant collateral damage. More of a "penetrate the armor and open a hole".

Most ships in NS have a significant armor belt, which modern naval vessels do not. As such, it becomes necessary to deal with that belt - to create weaknesses - in order to sink the vessel. A Mk 48 torpedo which would sink a modern ship will do far less against the armored things we see daily here. As such, it becomes necessary to weaken the internal structure to sink the vessel.

Consider a submarine - which does more damage, an external explosion, or an internal one? Both of the same initial charge.

As to the usefulness of WP or thermite - a carrier deck covered in thermite is a pitted wreck, rendering the carrier useless for landing planes on. In addition, fuel and ammunition made vulnerable to the flames becomes an explosion - and furthermore, the heated weakened deck is less able to resist another attack because of that pitting and penetration.

And why shouldn't a supercavitating weapon attempt to penetrate the hull???

Yes, a shockwave does damage - and to a submarine or surface ship can be fatal, depending on location of hit. Water transmits vibrations very well, which is why depth charges and ASu mortars work well - you don't need to hit, you just need to make the water near hit hard, increase the pressure, and crunch-crumple-smush. Yet it stands to reason, something with the ability to resist the shockwave compromised is more likely to sink afterwards.

Consider the difference between a torpedo hitting the side of a vessel, and a torpedo with a penetrating head hitting the side - putting a hole - then exploding. The latter at worst is exploiting a weakness - the armor there is now unable to resist - on top of the shockwave.

Always willing to learn more, if you would.

Thanks again, I obviously don't know much about explosives, so thanks for the thermite info. As to the penetrating vs. explosive concussion - it seems to me that both have their advantages and draw backs - so a compromise is in order - Each sub-fighter carries (now) 3 torpedos, with 2 launchers. The initial launch would be one torpedo with a DU penetrating head and "shotgun" blast of thermite as described by Vastiva and the second would be a concussive explosion per CSJ - the idea being the first penetrates and weakens the hull and the second one finishes the job by taking advantage of the damage done by the first. I can't envision a time when the sub-fighters wouldn't fire less than 2 torpedos at a target - one of each design would seem to be advantageous and increase the chance of sinking the ship. It would be a simple matter to have the first fire 5-10 seconds before the 2nd one so they arrive at the target in the proper order. Also, at the speed envisioned for the torpedo, the chance of sucessful penetration would seem to me to increase. The 3rd torpedo would be loaded as a reserve and could take whatever form the pilot chose - penetrating or concussive - it's purpose is to be a "reserve" torpedo giving the pilot one more shot if he feels it needed or a single shot at yet another target.

Thoughts on that idea?

Oh, any other thoughts on my guidance idea?

Just so you know, such technologies is not able in 2010-ish range (which is what I hear when I see MT in the title, meanning it's tech level).

If you mentioned somewhere it was a later tech (around 2050-2090) I am sorry, very tierd and skimmed the stats.

Just so you know, such technologies is not able in 2010-ish range (which is what I hear when I see MT in the title, meanning it's tech level).

If you mentioned somewhere it was a later tech (around 2050-2090) I am sorry, very tierd and skimmed the stats.

Which technology are you speaking of - super cavitating torpedos have been around since 1977. And I see nothing outstanding about the sub-fighter that makes it FT at all. Just cause no one has ever built one doesn't mean it couldn't be built. check the specs and debate closely.

I am sorry for ym deep outburst, I thought this was one of those "Creates a bubble around it" things.

This is actually simular to my Asaisand-class SSF (Submercipal Ship - Fighter) that is ran off of a hydropump and resembles an F-14. It is not designned for air operation, however.

Sorry again, and after re-reading everything mroe clearly, nice designs. And yeh, I know about the torpedoes.

EDIT:
As to your last comments, you might want to read up on my Subliminal Generater, which is an example of what you have just said. And as a side note: It ICly is no longer accepted until I get it straight on how it EXACTLY does what it does, I just know the basics and am very dumbfounded in that field. Maybe you could help me with that.

I am sorry for ym deep outburst, I thought this was one of those "Creates a bubble around it" things.

This is actually simular to my Asaisand-class SSF (Submercipal Ship - Fighter) that is ran off of a hydropump and resembles an F-14. It is not designned for air operation, however.

Sorry again, and after re-reading everything mroe clearly, nice designs. And yeh, I know about the torpedoes.

EDIT:
As to your last comments, you might want to read up on my Subliminal Generater, which is an example of what you have just said. And as a side note: It ICly is no longer accepted until I get it straight on how it EXACTLY does what it does, I just know the basics and am very dumbfounded in that field. Maybe you could help me with that.

Thanks. yeah, except for the torpedo, nothing creates a bubble around itself and the sub-fighters don't have air operation either. You got a link to your subliminal generator stuff - I'd like to know more, maybe it is something we can help each other with. Often the devil lies in putting theoretical possibility into practical useage.

I still don't like the guidence... I can't see how you're going to get a laser to penetrate the highly disturbed water around the torpedo and still retain enough transmission quality to guide the torpedo... Just use fiberoptic cable =) Simpler.

Supercavitators shouldn't try to penetrate the hull because they can't be capped (since all the expencive cavitation tech needs to go in the nose), travel too slowly (if a shell going at 600m/s can't penetrate main belt armor, what makes you think that a torpedo going one sixth as fast can?) and because almost any torpedo can crush the outer armor of any torpedo bulge. Bulges are DESIGNED to crumple and absorb the impact, but are stikk thick enough that any underwater KE strike will bounce off... if it didn't crumple, the torpedo would break the ship's back. Everyone is underestimateing the velocity of shockwaves in water, and the incompressability of water. A penetrator would not be useful. Neither would the thermite, as it would quickly melt the bit of hull it was attached to and drop into the water... Now DROPPING thermite on the ship might be more effective =)


Two good essays on torpedo damage:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-026.htm

you should cut that HUGE picture on the front page down to a more managable size cause its making the entire first page hard to read. (what with having to scroll back and forth to read a single line)

also, I'd like to know about visibility, maneuvering and guidance. even with high intensity lights visibilty at any practical depth (depth from which a surface observer could not see said high intensity lights) visibility in see water is crap, why even have windows? RL submarines don't have them, they're hihly vulnerable to nearby shockwaves and lower survivability in any actual engagement without any true combat advantage. And about maneuvering, I hope you aren't expecting that these will be able to pul maneuvers that even just look like something an air fighter could do.water is a much thicker medium than air and attempting that kind of maneuver would rip your subfighter apart unless it was properly reinforced which would negate most of your ordinance capacity. If you have some answer to that then HOW does it maneuver? aircraft esque flaps would have to be pretty strong, and if you're using screws then rediricting thrust is pretty much out of the question.
And Guidance. How ecatly does it decide how to get from point a to point b? GPS doesn't work underwater. RL subs use large charts, gravitational anomaly detectors and gyroscopic compasses, you can probably fit the compass in something this size but the GAD and the charts are almost out of the question, an inertial tracker is an iffy proposition as well. so how does this thing figure out, while under water, where it is and where its headed.

on a side note, how exatly does the third 'reserve' torpedo change between pentreating and concussion? is it the crews choice upon load out, is there some complicated device that can change out the warhead in action or what? I would just have it be a second concusion war head to increase damage against larger ships.

you should cut that HUGE picture on the front page down to a more managable size cause its making the entire first page hard to read. (what with having to scroll back and forth to read a single line)

also, I'd like to know about visibility, maneuvering and guidance. even with high intensity lights visibilty at any practical depth (depth from which a surface observer could not see said high intensity lights) visibility in see water is crap, why even have windows? RL submarines don't have them, they're hihly vulnerable to nearby shockwaves and lower survivability in any actual engagement without any true combat advantage. And about maneuvering, I hope you aren't expecting that these will be able to pul maneuvers that even just look like something an air fighter could do.water is a much thicker medium than air and attempting that kind of maneuver would rip your subfighter apart unless it was properly reinforced which would negate most of your ordinance capacity. If you have some answer to that then HOW does it maneuver? aircraft esque flaps would have to be pretty strong, and if you're using screws then rediricting thrust is pretty much out of the question.
And Guidance. How ecatly does it decide how to get from point a to point b? GPS doesn't work underwater. RL subs use large charts, gravitational anomaly detectors and gyroscopic compasses, you can probably fit the compass in something this size but the GAD and the charts are almost out of the question, an inertial tracker is an iffy proposition as well. so how does this thing figure out, while under water, where it is and where its headed.

on a side note, how exatly does the third 'reserve' torpedo change between pentreating and concussion? is it the crews choice upon load out, is there some complicated device that can change out the warhead in action or what? I would just have it be a second concusion war head to increase damage against larger ships.

1. The 3rd torpedo is decided on load out, no way to switch war heads "on the fly" so to speak.

2. up/down manuverers are done via flaps on the wings, side-to-side turns via a vertical tail flap - However, I do not claim air fighter type rapid turns and climbing type manuverability, clearly not possible for the reasons you mention.

3. Guidance - GPS location and initial heading are programmed in at launch and the computer then tracks speed and manuvers executed to keep track of where the ship is via the gyroscopic compass- and that information can be accessed by the crew on a computer screen.

4. Windows make it look cool - this is for NS fun - realistically, yeah, impractical and not a real good idea - ICly, the pilots demanded them.

5. VA - I'm still thinking on the guidance for the torpedo and the penetrating vs. concussive torpedo debate is still under consideration by me as well.

I still don't like the guidence... I can't see how you're going to get a laser to penetrate the highly disturbed water around the torpedo and still retain enough transmission quality to guide the torpedo... Just use fiberoptic cable =) Simpler.

Supercavitators shouldn't try to penetrate the hull because they can't be capped (since all the expencive cavitation tech needs to go in the nose), travel too slowly (if a shell going at 600m/s can't penetrate main belt armor, what makes you think that a torpedo going one sixth as fast can?) and because almost any torpedo can crush the outer armor of any torpedo bulge. Bulges are DESIGNED to crumple and absorb the impact, but are stikk thick enough that any underwater KE strike will bounce off... if it didn't crumple, the torpedo would break the ship's back. Everyone is underestimateing the velocity of shockwaves in water, and the incompressability of water. A penetrator would not be useful. Neither would the thermite, as it would quickly melt the bit of hull it was attached to and drop into the water... Now DROPPING thermite on the ship might be more effective =)


Two good essays on torpedo damage:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-026.htm

As your own essays point out, if the explosive bubble can reach the other side of the bulge, it makes no difference as "no metal wall can withstand such a blast".

However, RL does not equal NS. Considering the radical advances in metalurgy and armor design, your two essays (which concern WWI and II vessels) are not as applicable. The incompressability of water is not the issue - the resistance of the ship is.

Secondly, your own essays argue against your "penetrators suck" stance. Assume the explosive behind the penetrator. The explosive wave would force the penetrator into and through the armor using the incompressability of water - and force further damage on the ship itself because of the bubble being able to penetrate that much further into the ship. The blast creates a water ram, forcing the penetrator through the ships armor by the same mechanism. More damage is more damage, the resulting explosion is that much more destructive as the bubble can reach deeper into the ship.

As to thermite - hey, he wants it, let him put it there. My use of thermite is to dump it on top of a ship.

As your own essays point out, if the explosive bubble can reach the other side of the bulge, it makes no difference as "no metal wall can withstand such a blast".

However, RL does not equal NS. Considering the radical advances in metalurgy and armor design, your two essays (which concern WWI and II vessels) are not as applicable. The incompressability of water is not the issue - the resistance of the ship is.

Secondly, your own essays argue against your "penetrators suck" stance. Assume the explosive behind the penetrator. The explosive wave would force the penetrator into and through the armor using the incompressability of water - and force further damage on the ship itself because of the bubble being able to penetrate that much further into the ship. The blast creates a water ram, forcing the penetrator through the ships armor by the same mechanism. More damage is more damage, the resulting explosion is that much more destructive as the bubble can reach deeper into the ship.

As to thermite - hey, he wants it, let him put it there. My use of thermite is to dump it on top of a ship.

There have been equivelent advances in explosives, though I admit modern composites would hold up better than standard steel armor. There's no argument about that... but the forces involved are so large that I would argue it would be impossible to armor a ship to completely resist torpedos without making the vessel too hidiouisly expencive to be practical... and you missunderstood the purpose of the bulge... the bulges are meant to be destroyed... but they absorb the force of the explosion and prematiurely detonate the torpedos, allowing the interior hull to withstand the blast. A big enoiugh torpedo, however, will always blow through.

And what you're talking about isn't using a penetrator at all... that's designing a shaped charge that forces the water forward to penetrate the hull... which some torpedos do already. That's exactly what I'm arguing FOR. As I understood you earlier, you wanted the torpedo to physically punch through the side of the ship and detonate inside.

:rolleyes:

Bilges are meant to be destroyed but if the bubble reaches the far side of the bilge, the space is meaningless as it will rip through both sides.
Thank you, I know what a bilge is for.

On penetration - using the water ram to push a penetrator through armor which was not obliterated by the initial explosion causes further damage from the same blast. It could be a rock for all it matters - you are using the force of the water to shove a solid object through internal armor. Solids being of greater penetrating force then liquids, this increases the damage the shockwave and water ram cause.

Sorry =) Safer to overexplain and avoid missunderstandings... I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what bulges are for... just that it was possible that you, or someone else reading the thread wouldn't. Wasn't trying to be condicending. I get irritated when people overexplain to me too... I know exactly how you feel. Sorry. But better safe and sorry.

Hmm. Use the explosion to shoot a solid projectile into the hull? Why not just use the water itself, the bulge will itself act as the projectile. And at best, your way you poke a small hole in the hull... not enough damage to warrent the effort, in my opinion, but it could work It would also decrease the explosive damage, as some of the energy is used to accelerate the projectile, and the projectile would disrupt the pressure bubble.

Sorry =) Safer to overexplain and avoid missunderstandings... I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what bulges are for... just that it was possible that you, or someone else reading the thread wouldn't. Wasn't trying to be condicending. I get irritated when people overexplain to me too... I know exactly how you feel. Sorry. But better safe and sorry.

Hmm. Use the explosion to shoot a solid projectile into the hull? Why not just use the water itself, the bulge will itself act as the projectile. And at best, your way you poke a small hole in the hull... not enough damage to warrent the effort, in my opinion, but it could work It would also decrease the explosive damage, as some of the energy is used to accelerate the projectile, and the projectile would disrupt the pressure bubble.

No, because the water doesn't care what happens on any side of it, the expansion will be the same (reread the documents you noted).

And I am using the water to drive the penetrator into the ship.

Place the penetrator at the nose. Proximity fuse, with a second delayed charge. Explosive "warhead" is placed about midway down the torpedo.

On proximity to target, charge one sends the penetrator towards the target. Charge two is the main charge, which uses the water as a water ram to spear the penetrator through the target by force of the shockwave, in front of the pressure wave.

Complicated, yes, but it serves to open further gaping holes in the enemy craft.

No, because the water doesn't care what happens on any side of it, the expansion will be the same (reread the documents you noted).

And I am using the water to drive the penetrator into the ship.

Place the penetrator at the nose. Proximity fuse, with a second delayed charge. Explosive "warhead" is placed about midway down the torpedo.

On proximity to target, charge one sends the penetrator towards the target. Charge two is the main charge, which uses the water as a water ram to spear the penetrator through the target by force of the shockwave, in front of the pressure wave.

Complicated, yes, but it serves to open further gaping holes in the enemy craft.


Penetrator in water....hahahaha. I just had to say, thanks for the laugh. You do realize that the very same properties of a liquid that you are arguing will propel the "penetrator" will also be acting AGAINST it, don't you? As in, the water it's "pushing" out of the way to make room for its continued path?
There's a reason why water is such an effective barrier against projectiles, and is even used in ballistics labs for rapidly decreasing a projectile's velocity without damaging/deforming it.
All you'd end up doing is putting a nice little dent in the ship's hull, and potentially DECREASING the effectiveness of the expanding bubble (albeit in the fractions of a % range, but it's still amusing).
Try shooting a bullet into a pool, see how far it goes. Now try using that same gun (assuming it's designed for underwater use) and fire it from underwater. The range is significantly reduced both ways, but ridiculously so when started underwater.

Summary: Any "projectile" that could be effectively propelled would have to be so small as to cause little to no damage when impacting the target. Not to mention it would add a whole mess of extra equipment and weight to your torpedo.

Sorry for ripping on you, I've been reading along for a bit and finally had to comment before losing my grip on sanity. :headbang:

No, because the water doesn't care what happens on any side of it, the expansion will be the same (reread the documents you noted).

And I am using the water to drive the penetrator into the ship.

Place the penetrator at the nose. Proximity fuse, with a second delayed charge. Explosive "warhead" is placed about midway down the torpedo.

On proximity to target, charge one sends the penetrator towards the target. Charge two is the main charge, which uses the water as a water ram to spear the penetrator through the target by force of the shockwave, in front of the pressure wave.

Complicated, yes, but it serves to open further gaping holes in the enemy craft.

The kinetic energy has to come from somewhere, unless you're suggesting that you've developed perpetual motion, which is against my religion. In this case, it woiuld come from the expanding bubble of gas. While you're right, the far side of the bubble would be unaffected, the side towards the ship would be deformed and reduced in energy because it needs to accelerage the projectile. And you want to accelerage an explosive INSIDE a penetrator? Are we dealing with a 2000mm torpedo here? The shear mass of the thing you want to accelerate THROUGH WATER... I thought you were talking about a small longrod penetratod, but you want to get explosive in? Javea is right... No way you can accelerate it fast enough to do the kind of damage you want.

If I understood it correctly vastiva wants to have an initial charge that sends the penetrator in front of the torpedo, and then a secondary (considerably higher yield) to create an expanding bubble that the penetrator can "ride" into the target.
While the water itself is a great medium for transferring energy into the side of the ship, you have to remember: the only portion that would directly affect the penetrator would be immediately following it (affecting a very small surface area). If you want this penetrator to be able to (potentially) do damage without just instantly crumpling, it's going to be something DENSE. Like depleted uranium.
For what you propose you would need a material that comes close to the density of water (1 g/ml before water superheats from explosion), and there's not a thing that could pull that off :-\
A charge large enough to propel a depleted uranium penetrator with enough force for it to penetrate inside a ship would probably destroy the ship in the same act.

OK, I've followed the debate and read the articles (thanks for those) and decided - they will have to be concussive type torpedoes and not penatrative. The need to have the gear to control supercavitation in the torpedo's nose would significantly affect the ability to use a penatrating type torpedo, even if a penetrating torpedo made sense and would work. Since I need to have electronics and the neccessary micro-hydraulics gear in the nose of the torpedo to adjust the cavitational surface, the explosives are going to have to be back a few feet from the actual tip of the torpedo making a penetrating head a logistical nightmare to design effectively. So, 425 lbs. of high yield explosives in a concussive configuration only.

Torpedo Guidance, still being worked out.

1. The 3rd torpedo is decided on load out, no way to switch war heads "on the fly" so to speak.

2. up/down manuverers are done via flaps on the wings, side-to-side turns via a vertical tail flap - However, I do not claim air fighter type rapid turns and climbing type manuverability, clearly not possible for the reasons you mention.

3. Guidance - GPS location and initial heading are programmed in at launch and the computer then tracks speed and manuvers executed to keep track of where the ship is via the gyroscopic compass- and that information can be accessed by the crew on a computer screen.

4. Windows make it look cool - this is for NS fun - realistically, yeah, impractical and not a real good idea - ICly, the pilots demanded them.

5. VA - I'm still thinking on the guidance for the torpedo and the penetrating vs. concussive torpedo debate is still under consideration by me as well.

kewl, just had to make sure, cause some ppl on here purpoting to be moderntech have done some pretty crazy things. I'd like to know if a licensing arangement can be made for some sort of specifically anti submarine version b/c most modern subs would beparticularly unsuted to fightig this sort of threat

kewl, just had to make sure, cause some ppl on here purpoting to be moderntech have done some pretty crazy things. I'd like to know if a licensing arangement can be made for some sort of specifically anti submarine version b/c most modern subs would beparticularly unsuted to fightig this sort of threat

Yeah, I'll probably license or sell them at some point, as soon as I get the kinks worked out, like the penetrating vs. concussive explosion issue on the torpedos (now figured out and decided). And I agree, the average sub could have some trouble with these their best defense to submerge deeply since these couldn't follow them down as deep as the sub could go.

If I understood it correctly vastiva wants to have an initial charge that sends the penetrator in front of the torpedo, and then a secondary (considerably higher yield) to create an expanding bubble that the penetrator can "ride" into the target.
While the water itself is a great medium for transferring energy into the side of the ship, you have to remember: the only portion that would directly affect the penetrator would be immediately following it (affecting a very small surface area). If you want this penetrator to be able to (potentially) do damage without just instantly crumpling, it's going to be something DENSE. Like depleted uranium.
For what you propose you would need a material that comes close to the density of water (1 g/ml before water superheats from explosion), and there's not a thing that could pull that off :-\
A charge large enough to propel a depleted uranium penetrator with enough force for it to penetrate inside a ship would probably destroy the ship in the same act.

Should, but right now I'm figuring a torpedo able to damage the innards of a Doujin-class or equivalent SuperDreadnaught.

The initial charge does not have to penetrate the ship - it only needs to propel the "DU Rock" in the direction of the ship. The second explosion and the water ram caused by the blast wave does the rest - the penetrator is literally rammed through the armor by the force of the water pressure wave.

If you make the penetrator a sphere (hell, make it a box), it will still be affected by the blast wave directly behind it. If it hits directly or off to one side, does not matter - the incompressabiliy of water will crush it through the ship, preferably out the other side of a bilge the pressure bubble was not wide enough to reach.