Nammo has modernized a major innovation, 30mm supercavitating bullets (aka: shells, rounds, ammunition). These armor-piercing bullets could be fired from a helicopter, UAV-helicopter, small ship, patrol boat, land vehicle, water surface unmanned vehicle or LDUUV. They could be used against, mini or larger submarines, mines, incoming torpedos, boats-small ships, against other UUVs and tragically against divers.
These bullets, when fired by a LDUUV, would be much cheaper and multipe-use than if the LDUUV fired mini-torpedoes or itself exploded as a torpedo.
From the 2018 Nammo BulletIN article
https://www.nammo.com/globalassets/pdfs/bulletin/nammo-bulletin-2018_screen.pdf [PDF 3.2MB]
"While traditional ammunition is either stopped or deflected when it hits water, Nammo’s 30 mm Swimmer (APFSDS-T MK 258 Mod 1) swims straight through water, thanks to a groundbreaking design on the supercavitating projectile developed in cooperation with the US Navy [with USN developing similar 30mm bullets since 1994]. Jan Hasslid discusses the implications of this new technology" [page 8]
These bullets, when fired by a LDUUV, would be much cheaper and multipe-use than if the LDUUV fired mini-torpedoes or itself exploded as a torpedo.
Above is the 30mm Nammo supercavitating bullet penetrating the water.
(Artwork 2018 Nammo BulletIN page 8)
(Artwork 2018 Nammo BulletIN page 8)
---
11 seconds into this DSG Technology Youtube ("Norwegian Company" DSG presumably related to Norway's Nammo (?)) displays its 5.56mm and larger supercavitating bullets. Graphics about submarine use. Mention of use against submarine at end (2 minutes 55 seconds).
---
---
https://www.nammo.com/globalassets/pdfs/bulletin/nammo-bulletin-2018_screen.pdf [PDF 3.2MB]
"While traditional ammunition is either stopped or deflected when it hits water, Nammo’s 30 mm Swimmer (APFSDS-T MK 258 Mod 1) swims straight through water, thanks to a groundbreaking design on the supercavitating projectile developed in cooperation with the US Navy [with USN developing similar 30mm bullets since 1994]. Jan Hasslid discusses the implications of this new technology" [page 8]
"...Nammo, through its Strategic Alliance
Agreement (SAA) with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS),
[became] one of the main providers of 30 mm ammunition for the US Armed Forces.
[page 8]
Following the recent signature of agreements
with the US Army and the US Navy, both services are now adopting Nammo’s
30 mm APFSDS-T MK 258 Mod 1, or “Swimmer”, for use from a multitude of
platforms,..." [page 8].
"...The Swimmer round
falls into the category of sub-caliber kinetic energy penetrators. These can
most easily be described as arrows made out of very heavy materials
that use the force of the impact rather than explosives to punch through armor. Traveling
at speeds of more than 1 km per second, the energy generated by the impact
melts the armor of the vehicle into a fluid and the arrow “swims” through the
armored side of the vehicle. In the case of the Swimmer, the force of the arrow
is sufficient to defeat anything except main battle tanks [so could
penetrate a single or even double hull submarine] ..." [page 9]
"...What makes the Swimmer unique, however,
is the combination of powerful armor penetration and its ability to swim
straight through water. This effect has until now been considered impossible to
achieve by ammunition fired from air through water. As demonstrated by a number
of popular science TV programs, traditional ammunition is either stopped or
deflected when it hits water. In a worst case scenario, a projectile could hit
the surface, bounce off [richochet] and hit something else.
Thanks to the design effort for the kinetic energy
penetrator originally developed for the Norwegian Army, and perfected by
Nammo in combination with US Navy supercavitation [the
bullet's shape of nose which may shake allowing bullet to fly through a gas bubble] concepts,
the Swimmer avoids the ricochet in water problem through the use of a
supercavitation nose design. This means that the projectile creates a bubble of
steam around itself big enough to pass through, substantially reducing the
friction
[article ends on page 9].
13 comments:
This article and the previous one of LRUUV, swarm plans etc.. are useful indicators of new trends in naval warfare...
I can realistically foresee
1. LRUUVs armed with a single torpedo (sort of an underwater single shot freddy) awaiting subs or surface vessels like an ambush predator at select points along SLOCs or key entry/exit points like the Sunda Straits, mouth of the red sea etc...or a even a loitering underwater LRUUV 'cruise torpedo'is a realistic possibility..like an underwater UCAV
2. UUVs using the latest supercavitating ammo to launch swarm attacks on a surface fleet or on enemy UUVs or slow moving SSKs...
either way naval warfare might see some significantly new attack/battle tactics...
fascinating read. thanks.....
Dear GhalibKabir,
I have a problem with uncontrolled torpedoes or systems like this. For me LRUUVs are just a kind of bigger torpedoes.
SeaHake mod 4 has a range of 50 km at 50 kn and far more at slower speeds. Depending on the amount of tubes several wire guided torpedoes could be in the water at once and the submarine still controlling them. These torpedoes also enhances detecting capabilities of the submarine.
To attack any submersed unit the attacking unit can't shot further than 60 m through the water. That is shorter than most SSK are.
Main problem still remains: detection of the enemy or its weapons.
Regards,
MHalblaub
Hi Pete this time you will get a link in Norwegian but also a video when they do shot in the water.
/Kjell
Supercavitating rounds are nothing new. Here's a link to a 2009 article:
https://www.wired.com/2009/06/mine-vs-cannon-vs-torpedo-in-high-speed-underwater-arms-race/
Hi GhalibKabir and MHalblaub on Weaponizing UUVs
I take "LRUUV" to mean Long Range UUV which would implicitly be a Large Diameter/Displacement UUV to carry a heavy weight of batteries and/or fuel.
If a LDUUV was built to fire a "single torpedo" the chances of missing are high and there's no scope to fire the "spread" of 3 or 4 torpedos to enable at least 2 torpedos to hit and sink a large ship.
So a smart LDUUV/'cruise torpedo' or as MHalblaub says an existing high tech longe range torpedo may be more realistic. It may have a loiter/cruise mode then a high speed end run, several sensor types to ensure a hit and maybe twice the standard 300 kg warhead.
Certainly use of an underwater 30mm canon would need to achieve repeated hits on the same point of a submarine hull to sink it.
Yes a whole set of "new attack/battle tactics..." would be needed. Especially positive identification of hostile targets to prevent Predator-like UAV "against innocent civilian wedding party" errors.
Before torpedoing there would need to be ample scope to work to satellite or seabed line array to send an optical image or sonar signature to alert the home naval HQ to confirm the enemy ship to be sunk. Autonomy therefore has limits.
In the US Bryan Clarke has been part of a whole debate about weaponising UUVs or not because of the chances of Lusitania-like errors.
Regards
Pete
Thanks /Kjell
Thanks it is indeed an interesting article with video at https://www.tu.no/artikler/nammos-nye-ammunisjon-svommer-gjennom-vann-og-kan-brukes-mot-torpedoer/449135
Use of the 30mm ammo from surface craft against torpedos may be most useful. Also destroying surface or shallow submerged mines.
Regards
Pete
Thanks Anonymous [at 30/11/18 5:10 AM]
Indeed "Supercavitating rounds are nothing new." which is why I said in the text "Nammo has modernized" and "with USN developing similar 30mm bullets since 1994"
Thanks for https://www.wired.com/2009/06/mine-vs-cannon-vs-torpedo-in-high-speed-underwater-arms-race/
Use against (down to 50m deep) torpedos and mines may be most pressing.
Regards
Pete
You are aware of the collision with a tanker that sank the Norwegian Helge Ingstad frigate, designed and built by Navantia. In the preliminary accident report released yesterday, it was found that water did ingress through the bulkheads and hollow propeller shaft thus compromising the ship's ultimate stability. Australia's Hobart class and Spain's F100 may share the same design weakness?
KQN
No KQN
I've been writing so much about Submarines and UUVs these last few weeks that I'm unaware about Norwegain frigate matters.
I recommend you try to locate links and answers to your question. Does "Australia's Hobart class and Spain's F100...share the same design weakness?"
I'm equally handicapped by only having the Internet as a source. ie. No old boy network Aussie Defence bureaucrats or RAN talk to me.
Cheers
Pete
For awhile, the U.S. was researching a supercavitating penetrator bomb. Though I
haven't heard anything about this research in a long time:
"The missile has a blunt nose that, combined with high velocity, creates a bubble of
air in front of the weapon. The idea is that the bubble forces earth out to the
sides as the missile descends, creating a cavity that the weapon can slide through.
The warhead could thus reach much deeper buried structures than conventional bunker-
busters, the inventors hope.
The principle for the weapon comes from a new generation of high-speed torpedoes,
which create a gas bubble around themselves called a supercavity.
A Russian torpedo of this kind, called Shkval, can move through the water at 360
kilometers (225 miles) per hour because it is essentially moving through water
vapour rather than water, and resistance is thus very low.
"Lockheed Martin hopes the supercavitating missile will reach 10 times the depth of
the current air-force record holder, the huge BLU-113 bunker-buster, which can break
through seven metres of concrete (22.7 feet) or 30 metresfeet) of earth," New
Scientist says."
See:
http://www.spacewar.com/news/missiles-05zzk.html
"Indeed "Supercavitating rounds are nothing new." which is why I said in the text
"Nammo has modernized" and "with USN developing similar 30mm bullets since 1994""
==========================
Let's set the WayBack machine even farther back then:
Washington Times, 3-22-1989, Page A3:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/16/wt-02/wt-02.pdf
Quote:
"The acceleration forces at launch are strong enough to produce a sheath of gaseous bubbles that encase the projectile, enhancing stability and greatly reducing drag."
The article also discusses other neat concepts, such as underwater "vortex rings"
for anti-torpedo defense.
Hi Anonymous [[at 1/12/18 4:52 AM
Two reasons why the idea of a supercavitating penetrator bomb may be out of the news may both involve secrecy, because:
1. they are now Black Projects as likely targests are sensitive eg. hardened enemy missile silos, command centers or nuclear research centers in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, and/or
2. improvements in the timing and accuracy (4m CEP?) of gravity or rocket propelled bombs are such that after one conventional bombs make a hit over the target bunker a second (or more) bomb(s) almost immediately go into the SAME HOLE created to destroy the actual target.
Hi Anonymous [at 1/12/18 9:12 AM]
The photocopied article at Washington Times, 3-22-1989, Page A3: https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/16/wt-02/wt-02.pdf on US "Navy devises last-chance sub defenses" is indeed interesting.
Such ASW methods may not only be aimed at protecting US ships and subs against Russian SSNs and torpedos but
protecting US coastal cities/ports/bases against Putin's new-fangled "Status-6" aka "Kanyon" nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed UUV giant torpedos.
Just goes to show: if you want a "new idea" read an old "book".
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment