SUBROC range
thom...@flash.net
do, and could do, here's a datum. Note Fig.2.
The document also gives a little insight into how safety mechanisms
were implemented in those long-gone days.
United States Patent 5,886,284
Will , et al. March 23, 1999
Missile safety system for assuring minimum safe distance
Abstract
An arming and safing system for a missile having an acceleration
responsive mechanism for actuating a timing device upon launching to
insure arming only after the passage of a predetermined period of time,
and an omnidirectional impact switch for activating a dudding switch in
case of missile impact at a distance less than a minimum safe distance
from the launching vehicle.
Inventors: Will; Albert S. (Bethesda, MD); Wilson; Robert R.
(Chillum, MD)
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary
of the Navy (Washington, DC)
Appl. No.: 423640
Filed: December 28, 1964
[snip]
The invention to which the present application is directed was
developed as part of the SUBROC weapon system although it will be clear
from the detailed description to follow that it may be employed with
any ordinary missile using delay arming. The SUBROC missile is an
antisubmarine weapon provided with a nuclear warhead and designed to be
launched from a torpedo tube of an attack submarine, to thereafter
emerge from the water and go through an air boost phase depending upon
the selected range, during which it is directed to the target area by
terminal guidance, and then to re-enter the water in the vicinity of
the target.
Since such a warhead may have a lethal radius which is relatively
close to the minimum operational range of the missile it is obvious
that even slight missile malfunctions at any point in the trajectory,
particularly in those cases when a short range is selected, could cause
the re-entry body of the missile to enter the water at a location less
than the minimum safe distance away from the launching submarine.
For this reason and in order to assure a high level of safety for the
launching submarine, it became necessary to incorporate as one of the
many safety features of the weapon a positive and reliable safety
system for preventing arming of the missile, or for dudding the
missile, if it should undergo erratic flight which causes it to impact
the water at a distance less than the minimum safe distance for the
launching submarine.
[more snip]
Derek Lyons
>The document also gives a little insight into how safety mechanisms
>were implemented in those long-gone days.
Do note that mechanisms to prevent ownship kills go back well before
SUBROC.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
thom...@flash.net
Derek Lyons wrote:
> "thom...@flash.net" <thom...@flash.net> wrote:
> >The document also gives a little insight into how safety mechanisms
> >were implemented in those long-gone days.
> Do note that mechanisms to prevent ownship kills go back well before
> SUBROC.
Yes, in ways that today's young'uns would find appallingly
mechanical, I suspect. IIRC, the Mk-45 nuclear torpedo had a little
gyro that would disarm(*) the warhead if it deviated more
than a certain number of degrees (> 90 would be particularly
bad) from the original course. One of the early nuclear
naval SAMs -- I think it was Talos, but maybe not -- armed
when a nut was released on launch and spun down a threaded
shaft to close a switch after a suitable time. Very creative
stuff.
It would be interesting to find out how far back such mechanisms
go. Did WW II torpedos or other weapons have them?
(*) Now that I'm thinking of it, ISTR that the warhead was
fuzed on propeller shaft turn count, with the hope that
there was a more or less reliable relation between shaft turns
and distance traveled. Very odometric.
Nicholas Smid
<thom...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:1105138551.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> > "thom...@flash.net" <thom...@flash.net> wrote:
> > >The document also gives a little insight into how safety mechanisms
> > >were implemented in those long-gone days.
>
> > Do note that mechanisms to prevent ownship kills go back well before
> > SUBROC.
>
> Yes, in ways that today's young'uns would find appallingly
> mechanical, I suspect. IIRC, the Mk-45 nuclear torpedo had a little
> gyro that would disarm(*) the warhead if it deviated more
> than a certain number of degrees (> 90 would be particularly
> bad) from the original course. One of the early nuclear
> naval SAMs -- I think it was Talos, but maybe not -- armed
> when a nut was released on launch and spun down a threaded
> shaft to close a switch after a suitable time. Very creative
> stuff.
>
designers probably still remembered all the things that can go wrong in
combat use when you get too fancy.
> It would be interesting to find out how far back such mechanisms
> go. Did WW II torpedos or other weapons have them?
>
> (*) Now that I'm thinking of it, ISTR that the warhead was
> fuzed on propeller shaft turn count, with the hope that
> there was a more or less reliable relation between shaft turns
> and distance traveled. Very odometric.
>
Almost from the start Torpedoes were armed by a small propeler in the nose,
so they had to run some distince before arming, for that matter the V-1
determined range by an air log. However in WWII Torpedoes did not have safty
cutoffs if they turned off course, which lead to the odd embaressing
insadent of ships torpedoing themselves when a fish went haywire, at least
on US sub scored an own goal that way and a couple of others had near
misses. An RN cruiser I think hit itself with a torpedo aimed at a German
destroyer off North Cape, ironic considering all the torpedoes the Germans
had fired at her and missed with.
Mike Swift
"Nicholas Smid" <smi...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
The term used is "safe-and-arm". Almost all munitions use some form of
safe-and-arm to prevent accidental operation or detonation. Most of
these systems are simple mechanical systems as complicated systems and
electronics have too many failure modes of both the safe and unsafe type.
I am not sure about before W.W.II, but all explosive ordinance above 20
mm have some form of safe-and-arm.
Mike
J.T. McDaniel
TANG sank herself with the last torpedo in her
inventory. There were a couple of other cases where
a circular running torpedo was believed to be the
cause of loss, but couldn't be definitely proven. The
Mark 18 electric was particularly noted for this sort
of behavior, generally blamed on corrosion caused
by battery charging making the rudder pins bind.
(Remember what used to happen to the battery
tray in your car before they started making them out
of plastic.)
The Mark 6 exploder, used in the Mark 14, 15 and
23 torpedoes, was armed by a waterwheel type
impeller in a slot machined into the exploder baseplate.
The impeller did three things. It raised the primers out
of the safety chamber into the booster cavity, rotated
an electrical safety switch that kept power grounded
until the torpedo had travelled (officially) 480 yards,
and it powered a small generator that charged the
firing capacitor used to activate the solenoid that
released the mechanical firing pin.
--
Jack
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com
http://jtmcdaniel.com
beavith
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>wasn't the Kursk sunk by a Sqvall that engaged inside the torp tube?
There's no (public) evidence to suggest this, as opposed to merely
having a propellant accident with one.
rb
>
> The term used is "safe-and-arm". Almost all munitions use some form of
> safe-and-arm to prevent accidental operation or detonation. Most of
> these systems are simple mechanical systems as complicated systems and
> electronics have too many failure modes of both the safe and unsafe type.
> I am not sure about before W.W.II, but all explosive ordinance above 20
> mm have some form of safe-and-arm.
>
> Mike
I wonder if Hedgehog rounds had these? I vaguely remember a story where
the rounds were supposedly being loaded manually, and a crew member
tripped and fell while carrying one - which landed on its nose and
detonated. Now is that a true story?
Ian MacLure
I believe there was one of those little prop things on the nose
which armed the round in flight but thats from memory.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Andy Dingley
>I wonder if Hedgehog rounds had these?
I dimly recall something about this. Supposedly there's a
flight-activated arming mechanism to the fuze. But the mechanical
construction of the fuze body was weak and if you hit it hard enough,
you simply crushed the thing and set it off anyway.