Talk:VA-111 Shkval

message: Does it seem reasonable to include a mention that the torpedo may have been aptly named for sounding somewhat similar to how a squall sounds to a hydrophone operator?  Obviously hard to reference since it is an implication of the name itself.  Any Russians out there who read something re this? Petlif (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shkval / Squall name

message: Germany started working on Supercat's since WW-II, and has been on and off since then... Ralph 7Feb06
- any references to this desirable, anyone have any? Petlif (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: German Supercavitating torpedo Developments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Its not cutting close, because the nuclear warhead has a variable dial-up yield. Yes Shkval has capability for both warheads the conventional and the nuclear. And also becuase an underwater detonation absorbs energy by far more than an atmospheric detonation. It is also not a "suicide launch due to loudness" because of the speed; excess of 200kn, even though an enemy can detect the launch, there is not much to do in terms of evasion; primary targets being capital ships i.e. carriers. Alse term torpedo - is not exactly accurate - due to fact that shkval flies inside a vapur bubble and propulsion is a jet engine, it is more accurate to say an underwater missile rather than torpedo. Also why USN has not a counterpart to Shkval - is because other countries have not invested so much in super-capitalships such as carriers, the shkval is a hard counter to carriers. Also because an underwater missile cannot be countered with any sort of countermeasures, some of which are really sophisticated against an airborne missile.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuclear removal

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'll have to agree with Petlif. What is notable is, the US does NOT have a close in, fast acting, "knife fight" weapon, but the USSR and currently, Russia does. Simply put, Russia have some very, very, very clever engineers, as has been proven many times.
As for Iran, no need for Clancy novels, only a purchase of an export model and local reproduction and approximation, then re-brand it. IF the thing exists.
That said, it IS an ideal weapon for the Persian Gulf, where range is extremely limited. Minimal to no guidance, quick time to target overriding that limitation.
As for the other post about it being lethal to submarines, the poster obviously forgets how submarine weapons work. Contact is rare, damage from shockwave or loss of water density in one region being effective, not punching a hole somewhere. Indeed, that is how the MAJORITY of naval underwater weapons operate.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shkval Update 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know about ultimate weapon, but when an effective nontraditional weapon comes along, usually it is something to have hype about. This thing travels unhealthy fast for underwater object. Some experts say that with this thing, it is useless/suicidal to shoot soviet/russian subs equipped with it head on. But let's leave russian/soviet subs out of picture, any sub will do. Assume submarine A is equipped with Shkval, while submarine B is equipped with MK-48. Suppose they fight head-on at range of 8 km, submarine B gets a bonus, it gets to detect A first (we are assuming scenario where A is at disadvantage), it detects A, launches MK-48, speed of MK-48 is 55 knots (highest estimate), which is 100 km/h = 27.7 m/s, Shkval travels about 4 times as fast, i.e. 370-400 km/h = 88 m/s. It will take 288 seconds for MK-48 to reach target, for Shkval - 91 second. Also, warhead: MK-48 - 300 kg, Shkval - 210 kg. BUT, Shkval travels at 4 times the speed, hence the impact will be sensibly more powerful. Even if we assume that captain or weapons officer on A has lunch or sleeps, we give him 2 minutes to finish lunch, or 2 minutes snooz time, :) you know, to wake up (in reality, launch is detected almost immediately :( ). So, for whatever reason, Shkval is launched only 2 minutes later, even considering that, Shkval will still destroy B before  MK-48 impacts, which means B's torpedo does not receive guidance, which means it might not even hit A. This was very simplified, but was designed to show how much speed matters in such a fight. this was scenario when soviet subs were much  louder than american ones. However, with things like Kilo class (NATO calls it Black Hole, I assume you get why), or Akula class (http://www.subsim.com/ssr/akula2.html). Those have a chance to launch Shkval first, without being detected. This turns situation upside down, everything equal, but a much superior weapon, puts soviet/russian subs at an advantage. Germans, however, allready created something like Shkval. As for guidance, ok, it turns, touches water a little, slows down, but then goes straight, accelerates again. Or turns slowly, not touching water. But that is speculation. I am sure scientists thought of something. Sorry for long post.99.231.46.37 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's put it this way, there were few defenses against traditional propeller torpedoes and they were considered a top threat against CBG. This torpedo can probably shred any fleet within range so it's completely true to the hype. You are aware that a guidance system with a box of these torpedoes can be dropped on the sea floor to strike as a mine (such as the PMK2)? It is called a rocket mine and its main feature is that it can be placed very deep and still strike faster than normal mines. I think this is the main method of deployment of Shkval by the Russian Navy, not sure about Iranian but it would make sense... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ultimate Weapon 

message: "Launch Speed: 50kt"? I presume that's the speed it leaves the tube, not (as implied) the necessary minimum to shoot...  TREKphiler hit me ♠  13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel the need for speed 

message: I'm a general reader, not a military expert, and this sentence left me with more questions than answers:
Guidance was nonexistent in initial designs, as the missile was intended for nuclear warhead delivery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.208.72 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SLIGHTLY incorrect. Either a target of significance OR an "invisible" submarine. During the 1960's, when this was initially being developed, nuclear tipped torpedoes were the norm, rather than the exception. Sanity returned to military planning a lot later (OK, still waiting, but they're MORE sane today).Wzrd1 (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Describe the the implications of a nuclear warhead?

message: Considering that the nose creates the hollow "bubble", tilting the nose plate should affect the bubble's position relative to the body, and/or (one would think) control the torpedo's depth. It's obvious that the plate tilts on a horizontal axis (or nearly so) -- note the pushrod. Not so obvious at first is what looks like a spherical seat for the plate; that doesn't seem mysterious, just worth noting.
There are several details at the nose that one would want to know more about, such as that hollow in the middle of the nose, and the array of ports slightly aft.
I was quite surprised to see a photo, and more surprised to see an excellent photo of the nose; I would have thought both would be classified.
Regards, 66.92.74.189 (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the other side wasn't illustrated. Hence, is the adjustment one plane or two? Also, you fail to consider the fact that it isn't an airplane, it rotates whilst moving.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tilting plate on the nose?

message: The Kursk was believed to have been sunk by an explosion of the 65-76 torpedo.
Also checking the links concerning use in the PMK-2 system doesn't mention any use of the Shkval. Having looked in a reference book that has the same illustration as those linked it is for a different type of rocket torpedo more likely the APR-3 type.  NotJohnWayne (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph on Kursk sinking and reference as part of PMK-2 

message: This system was originally developed as a underwater missile with nuclear warhead. Any non-nuclear variants came much much later. Under these circumstances calling it a "anti-torpedo countermeasure" is nonsense, to say the least. Where did that come from? It is like saying that SAM system are developed primarily to protect ozone layer from being damaged by airplanes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calligrapher (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countermeasure? 

message: I have removed the paragraph referring its use in a moored PMK-2 mine system. The references did not mention or refer to the shkval apart from saying rocker torpedo. Shkval isn't the only rocket propelled torpedo in the Russian arsenal. Therefore given the sources don't explicitly back up the claim it has been removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.197.65 (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph concerning use as part of a moored mine system 

message: Someone needs to undo the last edit, as I suspect vandalism. I tried to find Communism as a propulsion system from the 1260s-70s, but I couldn’t find anything. Maplesyrupcan (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism