In development since 2018, the Kingfisher munition is a novel and low-cost solution for warships developed by BAE Systems to counter underwater threats, particularly proliferating UUVs. Here we look at this weapon in detail and consider its potential selection by the Royal Navy.
Background
Kingfisher is a naval gun-launched modular carrier system. This allows a warship to use its medium calibre gun to fire a shell which ejects a carrier with an ASW payload that could include small depth charges, sonobuoys, small UUVs, data nodes, acoustic decoys, or hydrographic sensors. The project has been self-financed by BAES’ innovation fund but has involved input from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and RN the Maritime Capability (MARCAP) staff. Kingfisher has initially been developed to be fired from the 127mm Mk 45 Mod 4 gun made by BAES in the US, which will equip the Type 26 frigate.
The project began with looking at replacement options for the Mk 11 depth charge still in service with the RN, this relatively simple weapon is based on technology developed in the first world war. The latest Mk 11 Mod 3 version has 4mm steel outer case and a nose section designed to withstand entry into the water at high speed and is fitted with stabilising fins on the tail. The depth charge is retained for air-dropping against submarines in the rare event of them being detected or spotted at shallow or periscope depths. Expensive and sophisticated homing torpedos such as Sting Ray are not effective at very shallow depths and are not a good counter to small UUVs or swimmer delivery vehicles.
The carrier shell concept is not unique to naval guns and the development of Kingfisher is dependent upon ongoing work to develop this type of round for the British Army. This includes larger 155mm gun but the Army is also considering moving to 127mm calibre as part of the programme to replace its 105mm L118 Light Gun. There are arguments around the mobility versus power of bigger weapons but standardising on 127mm would improve the commonality of logistics with the RN and munition development paths. The Army has a requirement for carrier rounds that can dispense sub-munitions for illumination, multi-spectral obscurants (smoke), electronic jammers and even leaflets.
Depth charge
The most promising, simple and affordable Kingfisher concept appears to be the Depth Charge (DC) payload. Anti-submarine mortars delivering depth charges to short-range date back to World War II but gun launching is a new concept, enabled by the accuracy of modern naval guns. The Kingfisher shell is fired from the Mk 45 gun, the position of the target is pre-programmed and once at the correct point, the small expulsion charge pushes out the payload carrier which then deploys its folding fins to control the angle of entry into the water. The submunition sinks and at the pre-set depth, a depth fuze activates the 3 kg of high explosive.
The DC version of Kingfisher has 3 potential main roles; to attack submarines, attack smaller targets such as UUVs or special forces craft, and counter incoming torpedos. A sonar contact may be fleeting and hard to verify but the gun can respond in seconds and prosecute a target detected within an approximately 30km radius of the ship. Even if not sinking the submarine, a pattern of charges deployed close by would deafen its sonars and put it on the defensive giving the frigate and the ships it may be escorting valuable time.
Although the helicopter will be the first line of defence and ideally attack submarines before they get within heavyweight torpedo range, Kingfisher provides an inner line of defence and an option if the helicopter cannot get airborne due to weather or being in maintenance. As its stands, there is no current plan for the RN to acquire ASROC – a missile- that can deliver ASW torpedoes, launched from the Mk41 VLS out to around 24km. There is also no plan to fit a Magazine Torpedo Launch System (MTLS) for last-ditch close-in defence against submarines. Procuring Kingfisher would go some way to help mitigate the Type 26’s total reliance on the helicopter to prosecute submarines.
Autonomous underwater craft that range in size from small hand-launched vehicles to mini-submarines are proliferating and present a new and difficult threat to counter. These vehicles may be employed in a variety of ways to gather intelligence, attack seabed infrastructure, lay mines or trail a task group. The development of anti-UUV UUVs may be part of the answer in future but will be challenging and expensive to develop. Less sophisticated solutions could be the answer. A pattern of multiple Kingfisher charges would be a cheap and effective way to disable UUVs if detected. As small targets, a direct hit may be hard to achieve but UUVs are generally not constructed to be as robust as a crewed submarine and lacking the ability to self-repair, the shockwave from a near-miss is likely to render them useless.
When operating in the littorals there may be a need for defence against special forces combat divers and swimmer delivery vehicles. The small charges delivered by Kingfisher are ideal to provide the outer defence for amphibious operations if nefarious underwater activity is detected.
Possibly the most important of all Kingfisher’s capabilities could be in the torpedo defence role. If an inbound torpedo is detected the RN’s primary defence is provided by the short-range Surface Ship Torpedo Defence system (SSTD) which uses a passive towed array sensor. On detecting a torpedo it advises the command of the best course and speed to evade and launches acoustic decoys. Modern torpedoes may be able to distinguish between the ship and a decoy and Kingfisher also can be used against torpedoes detected at much greater range. By rapidly dumping a pattern of explosives close to the torpedo, even if not destroyed, could disrupt its fire control solution, deafen its sonars or cut the wire used for guidance linking it to the submarine. Small depth charges may also be a better counter to wake-homing torpedos that are harder to decoy by acoustic means, although this capability could be limited by the minimum range of the gun. The US Navy has abandoned its attempt to develop ship-launched anti-torpedo torpedoes due to insurmountable technical challenges and Kingfisher could provide a much simpler underwater defence option.
BAES has developed a Resonant Acoustic Mixing (RAM) manufacturing process which maximises the effect of the explosive in a small volume. By mixing the chemicals used to make the energetics using sound waves instead of mixing blades, explosive energy can be increased by up to 20%. RAM allows more viscous liquids to be used in the mixture and removes the need for solvents used to facilitate mixing blade movement. The explosive mixture is therefore more concentrated and powerful. RAM would be used in the production of the Kingfisher depth charge round and the New Generation Depth Charge intended to replace the Mk 11.
In surface actions, a flexible ladder of escalation can be used before opening fire; hailing by radio, illumination by fire-control radar, aggressive positioning or a warning shot across the bows. In undersea warfare there a very few options to discourage or deter an adversary without sinking them. Sending a burst of active sonar reveals the position of the emitter and may involve sacrificing the tactical advantage. Kingfisher offers a scaleable response to warn an adversary by laying small depth charges close by without sinking the target. As the line between war and conflict becomes increasingly blurred, having non-lethal response options assumes greater importance.
-
The Mk 45 Mod 4 gun has a maximum rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute and can deliver shells out to 36km. -
The trusty Mk11 depth charge can be carried by Merlin and Wildcat helicopters for attacking surfaced or shallow submarine targets. -
The Ultra Surface Ship Torpedo Defence decoy launcher (Seen on HMS Albion during a 21-gun salute to mark the passing of HM Queen Elizabeth). Paired with the Sonar 2170 passive towed array, when an incoming torpedo is detected the SSTD system will fire a pattern of acoustic decoys from this launcher. This is a very close-in defensive system and Kingfisher could provide an additional outer layer of counter-torpedo defence. -
BAES’ New Generation Depth Charge concept. It shares fusing technology with Kingfisher but is designed to be very simple and does not require tail fins as its orientation on entering the water does not matter. The scaled-down model on the right shows a depth charge dispenser designed for helicopters or UAVs. -
Of related interest is this containerised torpedo launch system concept shown by BAES at the Surface Warships Conference, July 2022. This could mitigate for the lack of built-in magazine TLS on the Type 26 or future Type 32 frigates.
Other payloads
BAES say they have not begun development work but have other payloads for the Kingfisher round under consideration. Anything that is fired from a gun has to be engineered to survive forces of several thousand G during the extreme acceleration between the moment the propellant charge is detonated and when the round leaves the barrel. BAES/Bofors have some experience in engineering sophisticated electronic fusing for advanced shell types from the successful development of 3P ammunition. The small size of the carrier shell (approx 400mm long x 85mm diameter) obviously limits the physical size of these expendable payloads and they would necessarily have small batteries and a very short useful life.
Standard sonobuoys have delicate parts and would need to be made robust as well as miniaturised to fit. If these challenges can be overcome, the ability to rapidly deploy multi-static sonobuoys from the ship would be very useful. The data from the sensors could be combined with the ship’s sonar, helicopter dipping sonar or sonobuoys laid by other platforms to enhance detection range and accuracy.
If it is possible to build a very small UAV that can fit inside the shell, survive the launch stresses and deploy successfully this would be another useful tool. A visual picture of a target of interest up to 30 Km away could be relayed back to the ship within seconds from a gun-launched UAV.
There is also the potential for a specialised hydrographic sensor that could sample temperature and salinity in the water column as it sinks. After a reaching a preset depth it would release a transmitter that floats to the surface relaying the data back to the ship. Knowledge of the temperature and salinity layers in the ocean is important in understanding the performance of sonar.
Finally, Kingfisher could be used to deploy a floating data node. Similar to sonobuoys but designed to receive underwater data transmissions, these nodes could act as a communications relay with UUVs or a submarine operating in support of the ship. It is difficult to send high bandwidth data over long distances underwater and relay nodes could allow UUVs to communicate back to the ship or other platforms by satellite or radio data link.
Overall it is hard to make a case against adopting low-cost, low-risk Kingfisher, especially the depth charge variant. Let us hope that development proceeds quickly and is purchased in time to to enter service with the first Type 26 frigate in 2028.
learning a lot about smart munitions and naval guns on this site. links with this from the guardian
Russia’s Black Sea flagship damaged in Crimea drone attack, video suggests | Russia | The Guardian
One of 127 round carriers that has been in use are illumination, smoke and chaff.
The issue i see with weapon is that implies active radar to determine the range.
For passive unless an advanced triangulating system by 2 or 3 ships i don’t think passive sonar would be very precise knowing the range, various antenna would not be distant enough albeit some more calculations can be made with ship moving.
You’d be surprised how much you can figure out with a long tail.
This is a 3kg charge, so it will have to be very precise to work. it seems more of a “fire suppression ” weapon in ASW setting.: let’s disturb the enemy submarine.
The advantage this round have is that if you can fire 20 rounds in a minute and they will reach the last contact information in a couple of seconds flight time.
The disadvantage is that the US 127mm have only 20 rounds ready to fire, instead the Italian one have 56 rounds in 4×14 separated ammunition drums ready to fire.
I assume it is planned that different rounds can be instantly selected either for the various tasks – anti sub, air defense or surface attack, it’s getting quite complex but much cheaper perhaps than state of art missiles and torpedoes being the only option.
The rounds i hope have digital ID being recognized by the fire control, you put one in the ready magazine it is instantly recognized, you select asw round and fires only those rounds. at least it should be that way.
Still the number available ready to fire is small. Note that WW2 Hedgehog ready to fire were 24 x (15kg warhead).
My point was more in relation to your comment:-
“For passive unless an advanced triangulating system by 2 or 3 ships i don’t think passive sonar would be very precise”
I was suggesting that with current electronics and low noise amplifiers you would be able to figure out where a noise was coming from with a tail in reasonably benign conditions.
With differential timing of sound arriving to the various sonar cells you can determine range but there will more ambiguity the more close those cells are.
Submarines have since 70-80’s the so called passive ranging sonars usually antenna put along the submarine hull maximising the distance between them. With a towed that distance can be improved and the longer the better.
That’s partly how it’s achieved, but also own SM moving at a known course and speed in relation to where the target is. The more data your sensors receive the better the target solution you achieve.
So, RAM is being used in anger.
Does the power increase come from improved mixing or binder reduction?
Binder reduction but also a more intimate (better) mixture.
You might also be able to use long chain polymeric components without the shear, caused by the viscosity and mixer blade interaction chopping up or tearing the polymer chains.
There is also the issue of some kinds of solvent denucleating some types of explosives. OK to a limited extent but every little helps as they say!
Would you ever develop that much shear mixing energetic material?
I have seen a lab scale RAM mixer in use, but I was never part of the project. I guess it would all depend on the nature of the materials being processed.
It depends on how long the polymeric chains are, the integration with the other materials and the aggression of the mixing.
It is a thing in polymer chemistry.
What polymeric chains have you been drinking and materials aggression mixing been smoking?
Can you provide an English translation please? That is a lot of science you just wrote!
The Kingfisher round has been in development for some time now. Perhaps it, along with a number of other projects, will be treated with the urgency they need to meet the threats we are facing.It’ll be interesting to see how Kingfisher compares to the Malloy T-600 quadcopter as a dispenser of sonobouys and depthcharges. The uav is also meant to be able to drop lightweight torpedoes.
It remains an ongoing embarrassment and absolute scandal that on-board torpedoes and ASROC are not both included by default on what is supposed to be a “world leading” anti-SUB ship. The ship not being able to engage the very thing its supposed to counter is just the absolute peak of MoD madness.
That’s not quite the case though, both of the systems you mention aren’t meant for / suitable for sub hunting. They’re the “sidearm” of an ASW ship at best- suitable for a last ditch spur of the moment hip shot against an enemy contact that was never meant to get that close.
Normal engagement of submarines, by all NATO navies, is carried out by helicopters well out of the range of those two onboard systems you mention. It’s not just the RN. Sure, Burkes can carry ASROC (although it’s by no means clear if they actually do, because no-one knows what their load out is in the VLS). French and Italian frigates have the onboard torpedo launchers, but they fit their vessels with absolutely everything, because the French especially view them as opportunities to pay back into the broader economy too (higher equipment list, more domestically produced product, more workshare)- but they cut order numbers almost as much as we do due to unaffordability. If you think the reduction in the number of T45 is bad, the French only ordered 4 Horizon-class (their equivalent) and then cut that order in half. They’ve had to make an AAD variant of their cheaper FREMM frigate in order to make the numbers back up.
Not having on board torpedo launchers or ASROC is not the scandal that it is often thought of. But I would say that it leaves a big scope for improvement. I’ve always liked the idea of an extended-range ASROC (50 km +), equivalent to the range of a heavyweight torpedo, so that the vessel could actively take part in offensive sub hunts. But again, knowledgeable commentators on here have pointed out that launching a Stingray 50 km is quite the feat, given its weight (~250 kg). Maybe BAE’s new lightweight replacement might be a better option.
Excellent comments
I disagree. Having an organic ASW capability onboard the ship should be a baseline feature. ASW should be viewed in concentric circles from the ship. On the outer layer, you should have helicopters armed with lightweight torpedoes. Closer in you should have ASROC, and even closer in you have ship-launched torpedoes, and finally defensive countermeasures.
There are many instances the helicopter is inoperable or unable to fly due to weather. ASROC helps in that situation and in fact the speed of ASROC helps to prosecute contracts detected at medium ranges. IMO, you don’t have an ASW asset if you have no hull-mounted sonar (like the US FFG-62 class), if you don’t have shipborne ASW tubes (like the US FFG-62 class), or you don’t have ASROC (like the Type 26).
The USN is silly for proposing an ASW-asset without both hull-mounted sonar & ASW torpedo tubes, and the RN is just as silly for not using some of their Mk41 VLS tubes on the Type 26 for VL ASROC.
absolutely. Also, other possible situations, i.e. water too shallow. In war, you really want to be ready for anything, because enemies know what you can do.
Mm, still seems something ‘uniquely British’ about T26 not having MTLS, i.e. below standard AS loadout of T23, or ASROC – though the latter in one form or another is still an option with Mk41.
Suppose we could start a sweepstake on just how quickly these become an UOR during deployment, courtesy of our pals to the East.
Rgs
It is exactly the case.
Unless you are stating “Every single major navy in the entire world are all wrong, only the UK is intelligent by not using these pointless weapons that everyone else regards as absolutely standard fit on ALL ships, even non ASW…”
No, it isn’t.
You’re stating that it is “critical” that these items are included for an ASW platform to engage a submarine. That is not the case. To “engage” an enemy is to make an attack, and I will venture to say that ALL NATO and western navies do that using their helicopters (if we’re talking surface warfare). Both of those weapons are defensive/reactionary due to their lack of range, and so my point stands.
Besides, the two systems together are only standard fit for Italian ASW specific vessels (no MILAS on French ships at all, neither on air defence ships of either nation); Burkes have torpedo tubes (specifically noted as for defence), but the Mk54 that they use is considered “not operationally effective” by the US DOD and no-one knows how many ASROC are in the Mk41s, if any; None of the other western navies have ASW firgates at all, and they carry neither (Norwegian frigates carry Stingray for their ASW helicopters); Russian and Saui Arabian frigates have torpedo launchers, but they’re for heavyweight torpedoes- which makes some sense because they can engage enemy submarines at equal ranges. Their ASW rocket launchers have an even shorter range than ASROC and would also be considered a defensive system.
So to state that these systems are “standard fit on ALL ships” is just plain inaccurate. Some navies mix and match, but only the Italians have both and -no disrespect intended- nobody goes to the Itlaian navy looking for ASW advice… I’m not saying that they’re useless, but we need to be realistic about what they’re useful for. If we’re going to be spending money on something I’d rather just get one or the other instead of both, and of the two I’d rather get something like MILAS (ASROC is no longer the gold standard- just too short ranged).
Yes the Italians have MILAS aboard their FREMM variant. So in theory they could have 2 SH90 ASW cabs in the air, have MILAS, and if Leonardo had something similar a Kingfisher like round too……..All in a hull that can throw out Aster 30 too. STWS are more a ‘torpedo CIWS’. Some say they work, many navies fit them, fewer say they don’t…….If you are in a frigate and happen to be above an enemy submarine who knows? It’s all a question of options.
Italian FREMM can get a bit better, the helicopter hangars are 1 x Merlin the other for NH90.
From ASW EW wiki for Italian and French FREMM
Yes.
Remember also the Italians have a heavy weight heliborne AShM in service too with Marte.
T26 looks a little under armed at the end of the day.
Thing is what level of fit and integration do these systems have?
It is all very well taking about fitting everything, Moskva style, but as we saw there the systems were not integrated at all.
Is it more important to have the best radar on AAW + Aster30/Ceptor load out and the best sonar on ASW and best helo and best heavy torp?
The Italians don’t have infinite budgets either and their systems are not cheaper: other compromises will have been made.
Probably enough to do the job or do you think the Italians are bolting things on to their ships for a giggle?
Are you that limited in thinking and understanding of the topic at hand that you believe a ship cannot have an AAW and ASW fit out? Really? How do say the American fight the AB’s then?
If you ASW hull is removed from the board because it cannot defend itself from the air who cares what is its capabilities? Or similarly if the ship is sunk by a submarine because it has inadequate submarine defences?
The Royal Navy has been building general purpose ships since Type 12(M). The Service understood that it couldn’t afford single purpose ships in the modern naval environment. The only difference between say T23 with Sea Ceptor and an Italian FREMM with Aster 30 is range not capability to manage the battlespace. Whereas the difference between T45 and an Italian Horizon is that one has to be escorted and the other is a true escort.
I have to admit, I remain sceptical of the depth charge thing, unless against narco subs and divers- maybe a torpedo if they’re lucky. 3 kg of explosive, even if generating 20% greater power, is still nowhere near a full size depth charge. I’ve had some trouble finding exactly how much explosive one of the MkIIs mentioned in the article carries, but they’re about 50 cm long and 30 cm in diameter, which is significantly more than a 127 mm shell. I just don’t see that being effective against an SSK, SSN, or SSBN.
The sonobuoy and data node sound most interesting to me, maybe even an airborne data relay? Some good person on here highlighted a problem with sonobuoys to me previously, that they have limited range to pass back the data, and so sometimes have to rely on an overflight by helo/fixed wing aircraft to get the data back. Having some small drones or similar that can act as repeater stations could be handy- even if only over a mile or so. If we can get reconnaissance drones that can be launched from a 40 mm grenade launcher, I imagine that we could fit something more capable in a 127 mm shell- although obviously would have to be capable of surviving the higher launch forces.
If I remember correctly from my days as a backendy Air Weapons Maintainer the Mk 11 mod 3 has around 80 kg of Torpex in it. Its a thin cased weapon so most of its weight is bang. Its prepped by fitting carriage lugs for the aircraft, fitting the separate hydro-static fuse and then attaching the tail unit. The tail unit has a spring loaded fork that engages with the fuse. As the weapon falls away a pin is pulled, the spring unwinds and the forks open the fuse hydro-static port. It hits the water and the tails detaches, it sinks to its operating depth and goes bang.
Kingfisher is going to be pretty much a noise maker in comparison. Its just not going to have an effective payload weight. Allowing for time of flight and sinking rate the sub will, in all likelihood, be out of the radius of effect by the time it arrives. I can however see its use for quickly deploying Sonobuoys. For torpedo decoys the current launcher deploys acoustic decoys as part of SSTD. There is no reason why the recently announced EW improvements work to decoy launchers could not include a rocket deployed decoy round out to a far greater distance than SSTD and it would also have a far bigger payload .
It’s that small a payload it’s insignificant… Useless. Moot.
If we’re going to have a deterrent let’s give some bang and capabilities for our bucks.
Fire a sonar bouey accurately enough and the sub is then effectively right next to a sensor.
Then fire 10 3kg shots. Would you want to be next to a fire-cracker going off 10 times next to you?
I don’t think people realise the potential this sort of thing has to really damage an SSK. They are filled with lots of wires and easily broken electronic equipment.
If the sensor is fired to a point right next to the sub and you get a good enough sonar resolution, you might even be able to target specific sub-systems like propellors. A naval gun will have this ordanance on target far faster than a sub can skidaddle. Nasty stuff.
It is more a way of saying
‘I know where you are’
‘I can track you’
It also rattles the crew having things going bang beside them!
It depends just how accurate it is and how the effector and guidance actually works. If it is really accurate and it could be if you pop out the sonar buoys first to give a really good fix then it could be a very surgical weapon.
Maybe not against double hull SSN or SSBN’s but SSK or midgets subs it could be really useful.
Serious question, given your thoughts, if this round can’t sink a sub, could it be used inside territorial waters to protect our SSBNs from prying eyes?
Read the first sentence again.
They specifically mention UUV as the target , not your normal submarine types.
I think it was in inadvertent error in the headline saying ‘submarine’ instead of UUV
Quite a lump to move around! if BAE’s new full-size depth chrage used this new 20% better explosive filler, and the same form factor, then it’d make one hell of a bang.
The idea of having a bunch of “noisemakers” go off in the path of a heavyweight torpedo, or as a kind of screen between a detected submarine and a target- does that work at all? Not sure if they’d be valuable in that sense.
You’re suggesting the SSTD for launching sonobuoys/drones via rocket assist? That’d be handier, and potentially less violent on the payload- I imagine a fin stabilised rocket is a bit gentler than a rifled shell as a delivery mechanism?
Sea Gnat fires 216 Distraction chaff rounds that are rocket powered . Seduction 214 rounds just mortar out.
Using a Sea Gnat Launcher with a rocket powered round gives a lot more payload and range. If its one of the proposed trainable launchers even better as you could point where you want a decoy to go without changing course.
Read the blessed article. No-one is suggesting using them for killing SSBNs.
I did: “The DC version of Kingfisher has 3 potential main roles; to attack submarines…”. So my comment is fair game.
You though, don’t seem to have read me. I put the SSBN at the very end of a sliding scale including smaller SSK, which I also don’t think this would be sufficient against. I also, purposefully, said “effective”- not “killing”. Even back in WW2 and before, there was just as much likelihood that depth charges would cause damage to the submarine and force it to the surface or otherwise cause a mission kill- rather than outright sink it. But 3 kg of explosive isn’t going to do any of those things either- probably not even to a WW2 U-boat let alone a modern design. A fibreglass UUV or divers in the water, maybe (although not sure if a 5″ gun can engage at short enough distances)- as I said. I believe that’s all pretty much exactly in line with what the article said? Maybe I should have been clearer and said “not effective enough to be worth buying”.
My evaluation was/is that the depth charge version has lower value than the information gathering/sharing potential uses- they have far more potential to result in the actual killing of a submarine of any size.
In WW2 30kg depth charges were called to scare submarines.
Hedgehog area weapon had a 15kg Torpex charge
So yes, absent other information 3kg don’t do much.
Yes, but after I reread the story , Is aimed more at the UUV types. Says so in first sentence
That makes sense
Maybe a single Kingfisher DC round is similar to a single Elma ASW-600 M83 grenade round? M83 round is 4.2 kg in total. Do not know how many charge is within, but may be 2-3 kg TNT equivalent?
An ASW-600 system is made of 4-units of 8-shells launcher, in total, 32-shells. It will take about 1.5 minutes to fire the same amount of depth charges in 127 mm Kingfisher.
Those are more anti frogmen, mini sub.
Elma ASW-600 is intended for SSK killing, because it is developed after “Whisky on the rock” incident (Whisky class SSK grounded within the Swedish territorial water). So, in principle, a ~3 kg charge can do something, I guess.
But, of course, it will see some difficulty in actually sinking it. Anti minisub is of course one big aim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rXc9FUGfEU
Accuracy?
These are like throwing things in the vague direction of a threat to scare or disturb it?
It is a close range weapon, the FPB will have the active sonar ON so should not be a big problem.
For operations in large islands numbers they have. A sub might be hidden and discovered at last time, the FPB might be just right over it.
They fire out a pattern and they are not terribly accurate.
Has long as the target position is correct it do not need to be, what matter is where the pattern goes.
We are talking about a weapon that do not have more than 2km range.
It is the same for Kingfisher. Actually, Elma ASW-600 is better here (although very very significantly short ranged).
There is nothing new under the sun, Hedgehog was a forward-throwing anti-submarine weapon during WW2
But it was 16kg of Torpex while our new fangled friend is only 3kg
Not to mention the’ pattern’ with Hedgehog is more like 25 fired at once to cover a larger area and of course impact fused
But as AA makes the point, down the page, these were not precision aimed weapons but a loose pattern thrown out to interdict a box that you hoped that the submarine was passing through.
Yes. They all were ‘pattern weapons’. Even the Limbo in its standard form was 2 x 3 barrel launchers which were angled to fire a pattern of 2 super-imposed equilateral triangles and the mortars fused to explode above and below the sub with the cumulative shock waves crushing the subs immensely strong hull.
It is more a way of saying
‘I know where you are’
‘I can track you’
It also rattles the crew having things going bang beside them!
When the RN did things right……..
Very heavy-weight large and man-power intensive system. Limbo is on very different approach from Elma ASW-600. And, I think Kingfisher resides in the latter side. Anyway, its size is very much (even less than) minimum to “harm” SSK/SSNs.
But it’s beautiful.
It’s an interesting idea – but does have the aura of a solution looking for a problem.
The basic issue is going to be targetting accuracy – particularly with such a small warhead.
Its going to have to rely on acoustic sensors for accuracy – at a distance of several miles. That means it’s starting with an inherent level of detection accuracy measured in tens of metres (at best!). Then one has the positional accuracy of whatever sensor picks up the target – which should be better given that most can utilise GPS or similar – but depends on what sensor/platform is being used. Then there’s the accuracy of the gun/shell combo, which is also likely to have a CEP in the low tens of metres.
That smells like an awfully wide compound CEP for 3 kg of explosive – however funky – to have much of a shock effect.
I get the idea that multiple rounds will theoretically increase p_Hit or that lots of them might confuse the submarines sonar plot – but that plays both ways. It’s always harder to find a submarine than it is to find a surface contact.
If I read this right the idea is to chuck some sonar buoys out first with a relay booster unit and then get the accurate fix off of that setup.
The explosive round then come in on the accurate local fix.
But I agree the size of the warhead is a little puzzling unless it is a direct hit in which case it could penetrate a lot of things.
Lots of error already involved in getting an accurate position, course and tgt speed – v important when attempting to lob a bomb on a moving tgt.
The biggest challenge is guessing tgt depth, there is no way of measuring it. What depth is the tgt at? PD to seabed, take ur pick. Even a is effectively guessing at tgt depth when you fire a heavyweight torpedo at it. Your biggest clue is when the weapon detects the tgt, it either stays at launch depth, dives or rises to attack the tgt. It sens back data to the SM so will know what depth the weapon thinks the tgt is at
By comparison, a depth charge warhead some 90kg, a Hedgehog warhead 16kg, what can a Kingfisher 3kg warhead do?
Something better than nothing?
Kingfishers are rather small but extremely deadly to underwater Prey. Just saying.
What? like cod, salmon, or crab? new fishing gear?
Minnows and other small fish mostly.
I can understand the reluctance to believe that the fairly small explosive charge would be of any benefit to man or beast, but someone is investing time and money in it and firing trials will ultimately determine whether it’s a goer or not. Perhaps the accuracy needed to place the explosion in a useful position is already upon us, and Bae are going with this concept in the light of that. If they consider it IS useful, then what’s not to love? Anti sub/uuv deterrence instantly available, at range.
AA
That is one of the most sensible comments on the thread.
BAE wouldn’t have bothered if there wasn’t a real world usage case!
This comment applies to every single “we don’t need heavy-weight anti-ship missiles” comment in light of the various such weapons being tested. Or the “we don’t use cruisers and battleships anymore” comments in light of the massive increase in future U.S and Chinese destroyer tonnages (Zumwalt, etc).
Or maybe not as Zumwalt was a dead end?
There is an upper limit as to the worthwhile size of a combatant for a particular function.
I’m relatively unconvinced about the Chinese overgrown destroyers. Fine while new but maintenance black holes as they age.
The U.S seems to be settling at around 12,000tons for the DD(X), so large surface combatants seem to have a use.
I generally see Chinese maintenance problems as a Chinese thing, not comparable with the greater skill in ship-care inherent in Anglosphere navies. I have heard stories about the speed with which they were constructed.
I’m struggling with you last Paragraph, thinking T45, POW.
Oh we have problems, yes, but I am willing to bet that Chinese maintenance is worse. I would be interested to see how long each individual ship lasts in Chinese service.
There are a lot of weapons that were developed and went nowhere.
There always were and always will be.
BAE are very conservative in what they finance themselves so I’d be a bit clearer there was a glimmer of light here.
As the Orcs have demonstrated so clearly you have to heft huge amounts of vaguely guided explosive around for little real tactical effect but the NATO weapons have demonstrated the one spot on shot (NLAWS or HIMARS) can cause a world of problems.
I’d prefer to see the end results personally.
Should someone be dropping explosives on top of me, I defo not want to be around for the end results – I’d be in the afterlife.
Hello can’t fly – bad weather;
Sub can’t can’t fire – see above.
A ready round in the Arabian Sea – what’s not to like.
Now, my question is calibre – T31 is going to carry which calibre…?
In shallow coastal waters, maybe. In deep open waters, no chance.
If this works then you can retire all other ASM weapons?
Yasen class submarines have safe depths 450 meters.
Well, in that Scenario, other Ordinance will be used, don’t forget WW2 and the huge array of weapons used to defeat the U Boats in whatever Theatre they were in and that includes the French Pens often hit from above.
With all the pros and cons mentioned below. The simple fact is modern nuclear boats are getting quieter.And also their underwater speeds are increasing.
“…Standard sonobuoys have delicate parts and would need to be made robust as well as miniaturised to fit. If these challenges can be overcome..”
This has been proven at least to an extent, there was a TDP run out of Fort Halstead in the late 1990’s that resulted in a successful gun firing.
IMO, that is a better use case than depth charges. The ability to create strings of sonobuoys 20-30km long, cheaply, and in any weather would, I’d have thought, be very useful ?
Why was LIMBO replaced by homing torpedoes?
And now want to go back to Kingfisher?
LIMBO in action,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3DLmg5sCFs&ab_channel=Panzerargentino
LIMBO warhead 94kg, Sting Ray torpedo warhead 45kg, and Kingfisher warhead 3kg.
With Kingfisher is like using a pistol to stop a Challenger Tank.
Use against divers this maybe useful but how do you locate divers, unlike submarines?
The containerized torpedo launcher makes more sense.
Good points.
theres also the US anti-torpedo torpedo for last ditch
Not a goer as far as I have read. Problems in almost all departments despite the good intentions.
Limbo was a fantastic thing and top notch at the time for sinking conventional subs, at the time. Would make a fantastic anti torpedo weapon…but the size of it!
I think it’s worth repeating, the Kingfisher explosive shell is not being claimed to be a SSN sinking device, but just something else in the arsenal.
When Bae produce a truly lightweight Stingray replacement, my money will be on drone delivery.
AA
I think Kingfisher and UAV-delivered light weight torpedo are very different. Former is less effective fast response system, and the latter is time-comsuming high-end system.
I guess these two issues will be selected relatively independent.
Competing aspect of “UAV-delivered light weight torpedo” is “Wildcat delivered light weight torpedo”. Kingfisher will be much more “do we need another layer, especially against UUVs and small subs” or not.
Completely different, thats what I said. I did not say that the Kingfisher should be compared to a (however) delivered lightweight torpedo. Its “in addition to” other anti sub devices..
In defence of the drone system, a drone could be sat in its container, armed with the new lightweight torpedo just waiting for the off. Sub detected….whoosh…out goes yer drone. Not disagreeing that a Wildcat would be the best choice by any means.
Kingfisher is another layer that does not take up valuable space, and has an almost instant effect. Whether you believe it has much of an effect, well, obviously that remains to be validated in trials. I would sooner have more choices to run with than less????
AA
I understand its being installed ‘discretely’ on all the big carriers ( saying it has problems just means its like all other new hardware). We would never have had missiles to defend against aircraft if the results from the first decades meant they gave up
there are other types too
https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/solutions/naval-weapons/seaspiderr.html
Its in addition to the other passive measures
Very true. Thanks for the link. Rocket powered no less.
AA
Mk10 was designed to fight a WW2 campaign against SSK’s. It easy to imagine a T12 charging about at 30kts hunting down a submarine that can only do 20kts at a sprint.
SSN’s opened up ranges. There was need to defend CBG’s further out. WW3 wouldn’t have probably lasted long enough to worry about convoying merchantmen. And helicopters changed the game. Back in the 1950’s the RN was still ASW frigate centred, 20 years later it was ASW helicopter centred with the frigate being primarily an area sensor platform.
ASROC is a very high level aspiration
Going with Mk41 means T26 could deploy VLA. I just don’t think there will be the budget nor is their the imagination.
It’s not a particularly expensive capability, it’s just a booster with a Mk54 torpedo on top, and Mk54 is now in the U.K. inventory.
The imagination is very much there and has been expressed in official papers.
You will still need the USN SQQ-89 ASW Combat System which is linked to their sonars.
or a rewrite of the RN surface ship sonar ( hull, variable depth and towed array) combat management systems …..
At least with The P-8 it came with the plane , all complete not just the torpedo.
For those reasons I cant see the RN even thinking about it.
I agree. Go up the page I am the one saying that T26 is lacking.
We shall see. But in the current economic climate no.
Add fuse direct to a payload, create a ‘shell’ shaped munition, sufficiently robust to be fired but simpler and easier to produce, with greater volume for more explosive power
It may be that the “easier to produce” part is the reason why the munition looks like it does, so it can be made on existing shell production lines?
I would hazard a guess that the casing is designed to provide the strength to be fired at maximum range as this is where it may be best employed..
Only guessing.
AA
Shells come in HE and penetrating casing design.
Hitting the water at the speeds these shells do, means its more of a penetrating casing.
More weight in casing means less explosive charge .
Volume isnt negotiable unless you change the calibre
So here the UK goes again! DSTL investment is handed over to Louisville Kentucky for them to employ people and earn money from selling our own ideas back to us with the benefit of ITAR restrictions. We obviously have given up any hope sort of manufacturing strategy or sovereign support – How does the logistics chain look on this? Of course our own ideas will subject to US Congressional approval if we want to buy what we thought up….