Talk:VA-111 Shkval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


This article should be moved to Shkval torpedo or Shkval, and have other redirect to it. There's no point in having, say, VA-111 Shkval torpedo and Shkval 2 torpedo in separate articles.

Germany started working on Supercat's since WW-II, and has been on and off since then... Ralph 7Feb06

Contents

[edit] Nuclear removal

Yooden removed references to the Shkval having a nuclear option in this edit. Per this and many other references, I'm adding it back. If it was removed for another reason, well, then I guess Yooden should have used an edit summary gosh darnit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we have two conflicting statements here, the one I removed: "The VA-111 may also carry a nuclear weapon instead of its typical conventional payload." and the one left in the text: "Fitting a nuclear warhead appears possible, however thus far no VA-111s have been proven nuclear-equipped." So either the nuclear head is common warhead for the weapon (as in "may carry") or it is unproven.

Neither the reference you mention nor FAS makes a definitive statement here ("The Shkval can also be equipped..." or somesuch), so I wanted to err on the conservative side. Now I don't really care much either way, but the two statements should be brought in line.

Hope that explains it, and sorry I missed out on the Edit Summary the first time. --Yooden

Just a question, but how would a nuclear warhead work on a torpedo with a 7000m range? Isn't that cutting it close no matter how small a warhead you are using, particularly if the primary purpose of the weapon is defensive? Epstein's Mother 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's cutting it close, but the defensive deployment would need to be in a pretty serious situation to start with. Offensive deployment against a carrier group might make the risk worth it in wartime, but this is all speculation. The soviets had nuclear tipped conventional torpedoes during the cuban missile crisis that were almost deployed, and the range there was comparable, so it's within the realm of reason. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian torpedo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060402/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile;_ylt=Ajx.T9q43Jnuj6DSj2px7WSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

This thing has to be based on the Shkval. Anyone agree? Joffeloff 21:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My first thought as well when I read about it this morning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
It's got its own article now, at Hoot (missile), and the article makes that suggestion. Wdfarmer 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shkval Update

See http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_060420_shkval,,00.html for an interesting up-to-date analysis of the VA-111. The information provided presents compelling arguments against some of the claims in this article.

1. The Shkval was developed by the Soviet Navy, not the Russian Navy.

2. The Shkval "are considered far deadlier"...by who? Although very fast, they have a short range (5 miles, vs. 30 miles for a US Mark 48) and old technology guidance system, at best. An underwater rocket is also extraordinarily LOUD and immediately detectable from its launch site, meaning the launcher just commited to a suicide mission.

3. The Shkval was first deployed in 1977, not the early 1990's.

4. The US is keeping an eye on the technology, but if it wanted supercavitating underwater missiles it would have deployed them 40 years ago. The point being is that the article is implying some technology gap exists.

Actually the Shkval would be fine for defense. Many countries aren't as keen on war as the USA - which likes to come up with a "War against XYZ" at every opportunity. A fair bit of the USSR military technology makes sense from a "defense vs the USA" POV.

Actually, I'd say a fair bit of Russian military technology makes sense from an export POV. I hadn't heard that the Russians were being directly threatened by the US recently. (Though maybe their clients are.) Epstein's Mother 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well Military.com is sort of biased, so I don't trust them that much. Also, the US couldn't deploy its own counterpart because they are developing one which can break the speed of sound, but have problems with it. AllStarZ 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Any US "counterpart" would have to be a substantial improvement over the MK 48 ADCAP to justify the development and deployment costs. Something akin to the Shkval just wouldn't cut it. It's range is just too short, and it has an inadequate guidance system. Essentially, the US counterpart would need to have the same range and accuracy as the Mk 48, plus the speed of the Shkval, for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine it could be justified from the Russian navy's perspective, particularly if you have an advanced diesel sub and are basically using the sub as a manned mine--sit on the bottom, running on batteries, waiting for somebody to come by. In that case, an extremely fast (albeit short-ranged) torpedo might work well, since you have the chance of making a kill before you yourself are killed (which is typically the result of that type of tactic, since launching a torpedo generally lets everyone know where yhou are). But that isn't how the US uses its submarines.

Also, as for the technology--if the Iranians can develop their own copies, it's hard to imagine that the Americans couldn't, if they wanted to. Epstein's Mother 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so biased, who knows, what a guidence system Shkval has, and what it is capable for? And how can it be obsolete if it is used in newer version, of the torpedo. Seems it was sad in the Military Parade magazine, that in 60's or so USSR intelligence learnt about facts of developments of cavitating weapon in France and USA. That is how Shkval program begins in USSR. It is just that in USSR it turns into a working weapon system. Personaly I'am never heard about WORKING prototypes in USA or France, or some where else, so its not like "we just don't want it" (when Soviets launched first sattelite one american high ranked military also commented it for the press like "We can do it before Soviets, but we just don't want it" ;-)). And then no need, to compare Shkval and MK48 - they are different type of the weapon, Shkval is an addition to the usual weapon, already exist on a submarine and in certain situations it will mean the difference between victory and failure/death. Also I've removed reference to the article "An assessment of the Shkval's lethality by a submarine expert". This "expert" simply sad a few wrong things, like "vacuum around missiles hull" vacuum in the water - damn, it is impossible vacuums space in the water will be immidiatly taken by waters vapor (sorry donno eng. terminology), but it is vice versa - this bubble is formed by gasm from the gas generator. And other stuff like "slightlty change depth" and how much seconds tergeted submarine captain will have to change his depth? And why slightly if it is homing missile now? Or his phrase "Nobody knows about sound more than US NAVY". It's just to name a few such facts... Oleg_Str, 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying this is technology within the reach of the Iranians, but not within the reach of the United States or Western Europe? Seems a little unlikely, don't you think? Epstein's Mother 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? There is nothing comparable to "Shkval" any where in the whole world. Iranians can recieve their "Skvall" from Russia (strange why Tom Clancy didn't wright a novell where Iranian terrorists would buy "Shkvall" from the corrupted Russian KGB/militarys wanting to use it on statue of Liberty ;-)). Together with certain technical documentation. So it's Russias choise to sell it to Iran (if it's true). On the other hand a few years ago an American spy was arrested in Moscow. Former military from NAVY /that's him B-)/ he was trying to buy "Skvall" documentation from Russian scientist/engineer /and that's him $-)/. The importance of documentation is that there you will find answer to the question "Why it works?". Why exhaust tube should have that diameter, why it sould be that long and what it would be if it was different - it is for example, of course... --Oleg Str 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly there is a torpedo in development mentioned on the German Wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda_%28Superkavitationstorpedo%29 , but I am not quite sure how to integrate the info into this artic.e

Oh, of course, it's not dangerous or anything. After all, it's just a piece of scrap metal flying about at 250 (or even 300?) knots underwater... They'd probably be better off just ramming our wonderful American subs with it. Ooops - wait - that's actually a valid option. Nuclear charge? What for?! If that thing *crashes* into a sub WITHOUT even exploding, that sub's already not coming home. Dodging it? Oh, right, by accelerating to maximum speed and praying a lot. Except THAT tends to make submarines somewhat noisy, making it all the more easier to pop off a few more of the various torpedoes in the OTHER torpedo tubes. IF that's even necessary. Detectability? Well, yes, sure, people are going to notice. Question is, are they disciplined enough to get around to firing off a torpedo without panic, while death is barrelling towards them at 250 knots? In any case, they're not highly likely to still be alive to know if their torpedo(es) connected or missed. Also, large amounts of noise can be quite useful in masking lots of other, sneakier things, coming in for the kill. Oh, and hey, at least the 13 km range is pretty puny, right? We can kill them lots of times before they get in range? Uhm, you still have a high rate of incidents of subs crashing into stuff, including each other and Japanese tankers, by ACCIDENT. Things don't exactly see (well, hear, to be more exact) each other over large distances too well underwater. In what kind of pipe dream could you imagine any use whatsoever for an antisub torpedo with ranges beyond the HORIZON?! It's not like you'd KNOW if anything or anyone was there... or have any chance of hitting them if you did. Conclusion? Hunting someone who is armed with that would be akin to hunting a sniper while armed with a slingshot. The US Navy must be real happy that its current role is mostly confined to happily lobbing cruise missiles at suspected terrorist hideouts, without much underwater cat-and-mouse against people with stressful jobs, low salaries, and supercavitating underwater missiles. 128.195.186.38 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu

What need would the USN have of developing a supercavitating torpedo? Most surface forces are eliminated by ship or airborne missile systems. Submarines are better off using silent-launch torpedoes, as opposed to something with a rocket motor on it. --Popoi (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit arrogant to believe that the US is on the forefront of every technology... For example when it comes to hydroacoustics I would just like to remind you that for the last two years a Swedish submarine (of Gotland-class) have sailed in circles around the US N Pacific fleet ASW specialists. There is no reason why the Iranians couldn´t be equally superior to the US at for example underwater rocket propulsion and subsonic hydrodynamics as the Swedes are when it comes to submarine tactics and hydroacoustics.... Well, well arrogance is the stuff future losers are made of ;-) // Dilitium 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC +1)

The logic there doesn't follow. Nobody is saying the US is on the forefront of every technology, just that this bit of technology isn't indigenous to Iran. Your argument is a bit like saying that because Germany has developed automobile technology that is better than comparable American technology, there is no reason to believe that Botswana hasn't done so as well. The issue here isn't whether someone out there has better torpedo technology, but whether the Iranians did and whether they developed it on there own. Nobody really believes they have (just as nobody believes the new Iranian IAMI Saeqeh isn't just an F-5E with a new tail, regardless of what the Iranian government says). Epstein's Mother 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Since we're flinging mud already, remember when the Swedish Navy were chasing sea otters for a decade? --Popoi (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Weapon

I heard some retired USAF talking about this weapon this morning as the "big scary ultimate weapon that would dominate the USN in the persian gulf", but I wonder if it's just the usual hype that surrounds non-traditional weapon systems that are in testing and mostly classified. As mentioned before in the chat page, surely a deployment platform (capable of carrying this weapon - read: not Zodiacs) that had to get within 10 miles of a group of USN warship would be responded to.

Also, what kind of guidance can you get from a missile with minimal control surfaces traveling at these speeds? Wouldn't the supercavitating principle be void/disturbed if you had anything but a straight trajectory?

--Popoi (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)