Home » Sea » Navy Deploying New Anti-Torpedo Technology

Navy Deploying New Anti-Torpedo Technology

by Kris Osborn on October 28, 2013

Anti-TorpedoThe Navy is gearing up for deployment and a new round of tests of its Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System — a high tech system designed to protect aircraft carriers by locating, tracking and intercepting incoming torpedoes, Navy leaders said Oct. 24 at the Naval Submarine League, Falls Church, Va.

The upcoming tests, slated to take place on the USS George H.W. Bush, are designed as a follow on to initial end-to-end testing of an early prototype model aboard the Bush this past May. The Navy plans to equip all aircraft carriers with SSTD by 2035.

The SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind “hard kill” countermeasure for ships and carriers designed to defeat torpedoes, said Rear Adm. Dave Johnson, Program Executive Officer, Submarines.

The SSTD is slated for additional testing on board the USS Bush next month in what’s called  a Quick Reaction Assessment, Johnson said. The SSTD will be an Engineering Development Model of the technology, meaning it will be further tweaked and refined before deploying aboard the USS Bush in the near future.

Ships already have a layered system of defenses which includes sensors, radar and several interceptor technologies designed to intercept large, medium and small scale threats from a variety of ranges. For example, most aircraft carriers are currently configured with Sea Sparrow interceptor missiles designed to destroy incoming air and surface threats and the Phalanx Close-in-Weapons System, or CIWS. CIWS is a rapid-fire gun designed as an area weapon intended to protect ships from surface threats closer to the boat’s edge, such as fast-attack boats.

Torpedo defense for surface ships, however, involves another portion of the threat envelope and is a different question. SSTD is being rapidly developed to address this, Navy officials explained.

The system consists of a Torpedo Warning System Receive Array launched from the winch at the end of the ship, essentially a towed sensor or receiver engineered to detect the presence of incoming torpedo fire. The Receive Array sends information to a processor which then computes key information and sends data to interceptor projectiles — or Countermeasures Anti-Torpedos, or CAT — attached to the side of the ship.

The towed array picks up the acoustic noise.  The processors filter it out and inform the crew. The crew then makes the decision about whether to fire a CAT, a Navy official told Military​.com.

The CATs are mounted on the carriers’ sponson, projections from the side of the ship designed for protection, stability or the mounting of armaments.

The individual technological pieces of the SSTD system are engineered to work together to locate and destroy incoming torpedos in a matter of seconds or less.  Tactical display screens on the bridge of the ship are designed to inform commanders about the system’s operations.

After being tested on some smaller ships such as destroyers, the SSTD was approved for use on aircraft carriers in 2011 by Chief Naval Officer Adm. Jonathan Greenert, according to the Navy.

The SSTD effort is described by Navy officials as a rapid prototyping endeavor designed to fast-track development of the technology. In fact, the Torpedo Warning System recently won a 2013 DoD “Myth-Busters” award for successful acquisition practices such as delivering the TWS to the USS Bush on an accelerated schedule. The TWS is made by 3 Phoenix.

The Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo is being developed by the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory.

Share |

{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }

conradswims October 28, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Who's torpedos?


David October 28, 2013 at 5:03 pm

"Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

It is simple and serves a real word important purpose.


d. kellogg October 29, 2013 at 7:38 am

Problem is, there are a lot of good ideas out there that seem to offer a nice chunk of capability.
Issue is, which can/will we pay for, and which will we do without?

The decision making process of our military procurement system is as FUBAR as government bureaucracy gets, as 9 out of 10 times it ISN'T the personnel at the front lines who will most appreciate the extra capabilities that are the folks making the decisions on what to buy, and what we must do without.

Still, "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it"
is a better rationale than the disgraceful Rumsfeldian "you go to war with what you have, not with what you want."


Ziv October 29, 2013 at 8:23 am

d, how was Rumsfeld's observation anything but logical? He was criticized for not having enough troops in Iraq and then he was criticized for not bringing enough armor for the HMMV's. He was functioning within limits. No military gets everything it wants, and no commander can foresee every need that his army will have.


d. kellogg October 29, 2013 at 9:06 am

the Rumsfeld fail was the severe underestimation of the adversary(ies) resourcefulness at resisting us.
He (and whomever's intel he chose to consider and whose to ignore) resulted in sending personnel into an environment far too ill-equipped for what they were going to contend with.
What's the point of even having an intel community if they arer/were so inept at predicting an adversary's logical recourse,
or worse,
what's the point of a SecDef who refuses to listen to the right people?
No one is ever going to miss the days of Rumsfeld's leadership, no more than they will miss him and the hanfull of policymakers who orchestrated that mess, regardless of the outcome and whose interests it was best in (stil debatable).

This is the same issue we have with procurement: decision makers who refuse to look at what kind of warfare we've fought the last quarter century, and instead want to focus on the least likely scenarios of needing big-ticket item to fight near-peers 9China, Russia), an exchange none of us really want, except for those hardline old school warriors who still want a big war.

wtpworrier October 29, 2013 at 11:57 am

Whats the point of making anything you don't need? We have stock piles of gas we never needed, and never used. Now we are having trouble getting rid of this stuff, or can't get rid of it because we don't know how….It's best to build what we need, but make sure you can destroy it, if we never use it.


John S October 29, 2013 at 9:46 pm

That is not a reasonable comparison/analogy, IMHO. We are talking here about carrier/fleet protection. Spending a few million dollars to protect multi-billion dollar national assets from enemy torpedoes seems, to me anyway, a very worthwhile endeavor and investment. Yes, every CVBG is also protected by fast attack submarine(s). However, just like Phalanx/CIWS system protects against close-range surface and air threats that have managed to penetrate longer-range defensive screens, a similar system makes sense for underwater threats. Furthermore, SSNs are mean't to protect the CVBG from enemy subs, not torpedoes that have already been fired. I believe the USN is also legitimately worried about long-range / stand-off cruise missiles that, upon closing distance, terminally deploy a torpedo, in order to attack a CVN from below the surface.


C-Low October 29, 2013 at 9:20 am

Norks, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia

To just name a few possible contenders that have both diesel subs and torpedoes. Many others have torpedoes but not the subs. Air launched or fast boat strikes I don't really think would have a chance in a real world scenario, they would be detected and destroyed from the air well before they got anywhere near a carrier battle group.

And the scale of war continues to shift and roll back and forth from defense/offense advantage.

This is a needed advance that I imagine if things get hot many a sailor will sleep all the easier knowing this is on their ship.


anon e. muss October 29, 2013 at 5:10 pm

Ahh.. former (2000's) submariner here. Qualified passive broadband, and under-instruction narrowband and towed-array. Ever tried to track a nuclear boat? It's hard, but possible. They're like ghosts, even the ones without natural circulation reactors. And own-ship's noise (reactor steam, mostly) is reasonably loud, from the listener's perspective. Dolphins find you and swarm you for a bit.. blanking everything out. Sea state and own-ship's speed make a big difference. If a diesel boat ever sneaks up on you, and it's got juice left… well, good luck with that.

So, yes, C-Low… a fast boat could get within range of a carrier. Like everyone else, I'd like to think we'd detect them. Active sonar would help those chances, a lot.


blight_ October 29, 2013 at 5:32 pm

It's awfully reductive logic. We have CIWS and RAM to defend against hypothetical missiles, and from a comprehensive defense standpoint, active defense against torpedoes should also be on the list. I suppose if it's cheap and can be pushed as ubiquitously as CIWS and RAM it will have a place in the Navy. However, the R&D is poorly timed to our fiscal environment.


d. kellogg October 30, 2013 at 10:19 am

Unlike the actual subs themselves as anon mentioned, the torpedo is not hard to track: they are not generally slow-moving and quiet during their terminal attack, and just as with airborne weapons, a track can be established and now we have a hit-to-kill weapon to respond in kind.

My bigger interest is, obviously there is a considerable leap in "torpedo-tronics", all the innards that make the guidance, control, and propulsion of these anti-torpedoes, function. And for the comparably miniscule size when we look at even the stadard-format 12.75inch ASW type torpedoes,
much as with today'sother PGMs available to aircraft, how much more formidable could this new generation of "torpedo-tronics" create even more lethal variants of our 12.75inch and 21inch torpedoes?
Smaller electronics volume compared to earlier generations means we could create longer-ranged weapond and/or with larger warheads… Nice.

The other consideration could even be, a new class and caliber of lightweight ASW torpedo specifically built for shallower operations.


andy October 28, 2013 at 5:43 pm

I thought we have this technologies long time ago…


blight_ October 28, 2013 at 7:01 pm

Detection yes. Countering, perhaps in the form of spoofing and jamming, but nothing in terms of defeating a torpedo directly. You could try torpedo nets, but they impose drag penalties and have a tendency to break.


black October 29, 2013 at 7:22 pm

I think torpedo nets protection more or less died when torpedo's started detonating under the boat instead of trying to go through it.


blight_ October 29, 2013 at 7:48 pm

True. Bulges, torpedo belts and nets won't stop a torpedo that detonates under the keel…I wonder what the standoff distance required between the torpedo and the ship is. I suppose a net could be made "deeper", but would simply impose stupendous drag. Might not make sense on a DDG, but perhaps on a nuclear-powered CVN…?


Tony October 28, 2013 at 6:17 pm

I like the idea, just wondering how much is this gonna cost?


l_veda October 29, 2013 at 12:10 am

depending on the contractor; eg, if LM consider it your "future".


ffjbentson October 29, 2013 at 10:31 pm

I am sure less then the cost of an Aircraft Carrier replacement


@GreensboroVet October 28, 2013 at 6:26 pm

The motivation behind this technology? Chinese sub surfacing behind Kitty Hawk and all those quiet electric/diesel subs.


Rage October 29, 2013 at 4:24 am

Right, you know the USN tried fielding a Mk46 mod for this role in 1992, and the Royal Navy had an anti torpedo rocket thrown weapon in the 1950s called Ruler, as well as both fleets doing work in that era on homing weapons. The idea of an anti torpedo torpedo is very old and not prompted by anything more specific then the incredible threat homing torpedoes present to any warship. It just took until now for solid state sonar technology to become sensitive enough to make it praticable in service. Earlier test systems had such high false alarm rates that they would have rapidly run out of anti torpedo weapons shooting at nothing. Collecting and processing underwater sound information has never been so straightforward, as say, radar signal processing is.


d. kellogg October 30, 2013 at 10:25 am

Depending how credible sources are, more than one naval technology websites suggest that some of today's 12.75inch ASW torpedoes like the MU90 IMPACT can perform as anti-torpedoes should the need arise.
These Penn State developed weapons are considerably smaller, and the launch apparatus would therefore take up less volume than the familiar triple tube installations we see in numerous vessels deploying the 12.75inch weapons.

What could be an interesting future derivative could be a triple-cluster installed in a VLA (Vertical Launch AsRoc) that could provide an impressive countermeasure to small SSKs.


Tad October 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm

"Torpedo defense for surface ships, however, involves another portion of the threat envelope and is a different question. SSTD is being rapidly developed to address this, Navy officials explained."

Huh, rapidly. Torpedoes must be an emerging threat that never existed before.


Rage October 29, 2013 at 4:25 am

More precisely providing propaganda to the press to protect the program is a requirement that didn't exist earlier. People put why too much stock into little sound bite comments like this.


Big-Dean October 28, 2013 at 7:43 pm

It's about time, for the last 15 years the Navy seems to have forgotten about ASW.
When I was in, that ALL we talked about was ASW. and that's all we did, of course I was on a ASW frigate-but we don't have any of those anymore.


Bobob October 28, 2013 at 10:17 pm

That definition of sponson comes directly from Wikipedia. Nice journalism.


orly? October 28, 2013 at 11:10 pm

I recommend a better acronym.

SSTDs: only sailors have them lol.


yogiberra111 October 29, 2013 at 1:04 am

That's terrific if it works. I hadn't heard about this before. It could render obsolete a big portion of the submarine spending by potential adversaries. That's critical since so much of the game is economic.


Rage October 29, 2013 at 4:30 am

Most weapons technology counters itself. Enemy submarines could counter this in many ways, such as by firing larger numbers of smaller, quieter, torpedoes. They'd have to accept smaller warhead but that isn't so important if each one blows a screw or rudder off a carrier. Other things are possible too, this just encourages chance, not a lot has changed with submarine torpedoes in decades. They get better sure, but nothing radical except the supercativating Russian job which has fairly short range.

For its part the USN has already studied offensive options for this small anti torpedo itself, under the name Compact Rapid Attack Weapon. One proposal including making it air droppable as an ASW weapon for MQ-8B Firescout, thus making Firescout into a modernized version of the old DASH drone. Another concept that got a few million bucks of study was to put a dozen or so of them on a self propelled mine called Sea Predator as a replacement for CAPTOR that could also engage swarms of small boats, packs of North Korean or Iranian midget submarines, and similar non standard threats. All using one recoverable and reusable mine, rather then a whole field of expensive expendable ones.


d. kellogg October 29, 2013 at 7:32 am

These anti-torpedoes have been in development at Penn State for several years, under various monikers as the program(s) evolved.

Notice the dimensions mentioned in the article link below:
"As currently configured, the 200-pound ATT is 6.75 inches in diameter, 105 inches long…"

Seems perfect armament for the LCS to be used in shallower waters where the smaller SSKs can prowl, waters not deep enough for the safe passage of the bigger nuke SSNs to do the hunting.

Then again, it's been a long debate about just how deep constitutes "littoral" shallows where the LCS will operate and perform ASW and MCM but larger vessels needing ~deeper~ waters can't…


hibeam October 29, 2013 at 11:56 am

I have an idea. Why don't we build giant million ton blimps. Then we can figure out how to defend against the swarms of missiles they will attract.


hibeam October 29, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Carriers cannot be protected against real adversaries like China. Don’t waste your money. Carriers are only useful for slapping backwater buffoons like Iran around.


pzkwmkv October 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm

What exactly would the Chinese employ against a carrier battle group?


hibeam October 29, 2013 at 5:32 pm

Ballistic carrier killer warheads with terminal evasive maneuvering. I would rather be shooting such weapons at a big target than be in a big target trying to swat them down. Smart torpedoes of course. Suicide stealth drones coming out at night. Too many eggs in one basket in the age of smart weapons.


Big-Dean October 29, 2013 at 7:03 pm

nice try hibeam, but
any missile coming at a carrier battle group in a "ballistic" path would assumed to be nuclear, we would respond accordingly by sending a few "ballistic" nuclear missiles their way- and the KNOW this well!


Curt October 31, 2013 at 4:45 pm

So let's see,
Ballistic missiles require targeting and are enageable inside and outside the atmosphere.
Torpedoes require launch platforms and can be countered by decoys as well as hardkill means being addressed by SSTD.
Suicide stealth drones. OK, still require targeting and a CVN can move around. And I guess IR detection doesn't work at night.
You forgot hacking attacks, EMP attack, regiments of backfires, submarine launched missiles, sharks with lasers on their heads, etc.


Murf June 11, 2014 at 10:56 pm

That's ill tempered man-eating sharks with lasers on their heads.

lynxlead October 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm

The first time one of the big boys gets sunk we will withdraw from the fight due to public emotions.


Lance October 29, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Still don't think it do well against Nuclear tipped torpedo's. KABOOM!


blight_ October 29, 2013 at 3:00 pm

I suppose a nuclear torpedo close enough to target could fuze to detonate prematurely. Depending on the depth of the torpedo and the yield of the warhead, the shock-wave produced would be…interesting.


Curt October 31, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Still have to get close enough to hurt the ship with the blast (minimal radiation and heat in an underwater blast) and a counter-torpedo would have a some chance of causing the warhead to malfunction.


guest October 29, 2013 at 1:59 pm

China is building a blue water Navy with the ability to fight our capitol ships. Could be in waters near Hawaii. Could be in waters around Alaska. Could be in waters in the WestPac. Given the pace of Chinese ship building the US Navy will face a peer competitor within 10-15 years. Given procurement cycles as long as they are, the US Navy faces some urgency in correctly identifying the Chinese threat.


B-g-Dean October 29, 2013 at 7:04 pm

you pretty much got that right guest


Riceball October 30, 2013 at 11:02 am

What's a capitol ship? Is it anything like a capital ship?


blight_ October 31, 2013 at 10:04 am

Floating Washington DC, with laser beams.


Murf June 11, 2014 at 10:58 pm

There is a lot "could be' coming off this pst


oblatt1 October 29, 2013 at 2:04 pm

I guess if you don't do ASW anymore you have to expect a lot of incoming torpedoes.


GunnyHighway October 29, 2013 at 7:39 pm

it is also available on Submarines!


gord October 29, 2013 at 9:34 pm

hope it can stop those russian underwater missle torpedoes, does china or iran have these weapons i wonder?


Tim October 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Forget the technology, just put, "Baby Bush", on deck. Just one look at him and the enemy will, literally run out of the water, in fear………………………lol


reality November 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm

2035? Can't have it a little sooner, pretty please? Misprint I hope…


Bob Musselman November 19, 2013 at 2:02 pm

We're testing now, deploying by 2035… that's 22 years from now. And they call this a "fast-track development" program. Doesn't sound like it.


Richard Smith January 14, 2014 at 11:35 pm

As a former member of the Silent Service I know there are not enough countermeasures that can defeat multiple torpedoes targeting any large ship. I hope we have enough Black projects in production. Some one wise one said "For every measure there is a countermeasure." We need alot more subs and this is not negotiable when it come to a budget.


internet June 11, 2014 at 8:45 pm

Suppose you now have a solid hosting provider and offers amazing service but still your page speed loading time is much more.
This could, however, estrange the relationship
between the creators and the strategists or SEO. The world-wide-web is a
fantastic medium from which organizations can attain out
to a bigger client base more effortlessly and in a far more successful manner.


Seahawks jerseys cheap June 20, 2014 at 9:03 am

Direct 76ers jersey for kids with Paypal


oblivion mods August 8, 2014 at 5:42 pm

And even with a little helper spreading crumbs, the Shark can not be outdone.

People who love to cook prefer to have gadgets that will make
your life easier in the kitchen. This can be
a nifty little device that squeezes whole potatoes into perfectly cut
fries which are instantly ready for frying.


morphman.hubpages.com/hub/Best-Wok August 10, 2014 at 5:00 am

No cookware iss a perfect cookware and will last forever, but with the understanding and knowing the proper way of how to maintain stainless steel,
it definitely will help to keep the cookware last for a llong while.
Either way, you will find lots of web sites that offer discount stainlsss steel cookware
for each industrial and private use. Be sure that you dry the cookware bby hand and remove it finished
the wash cycle.


best coffee espresso machine August 30, 2014 at 11:26 pm

I’m very pleased to find this page. Ineed to to thank you for your time for this fantastic read!!
I definitely saored every bit of it and I have you sasved to fav to see new things on your blog.


best coffee maker August 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm

We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community.
Your site offered us with helpful information to work on. You have performed
an impressive job and our whole group shawll be thankful to you.


coffeebeanlovers.wordpress.com September 4, 2014 at 10:20 pm

you are truly a excellent webmaster. The website loading pace iis incredible.
It seems that you are doing any distinctive trick. Moreover, Thhe contentts are masterpiece.
you have performed a fantastic task on this subject!


professional seo services agency September 6, 2014 at 4:53 pm

This is done by measuring the conversion rate of traffic to your site over a certain period and
from this you can estimate which keyword is the most likely to have
an impact. Keeping all these factors in mind, you should shortlist a couple of SEO providers
and accordingly select the one that is most conducive to your budget.
The maximum amount of traffic among various search engines
is shared by Google.


local websites September 7, 2014 at 4:23 am

You could certainly see your skills within the article
you write. The world hopes for more passionate
writers like you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe.
All the time follow your heart.


d. kellogg October 29, 2013 at 9:07 am

…that 9 should be a "( " parenthesi


blight_ October 29, 2013 at 3:06 pm

We identified the need for better vehicles than the Humvee in the '90s. The military police had the up-armored Humvees and the ASV; but it was never anticipated that we would fight out of Humvees in cities (even after Mogadishu, which in retrospect should strike Americans as strange).

Rumsfeld inherited a military victim to budget cuts under Bush Senior and Clinton. He had 2000 and 2001 to bring the military back into shape before Enduring Freedom, and then a few more years to bring the conventional forces up to shape for Iraqi Freedom. But in the 2000's, who was seriously thinking about COIN? Chances are it was groupthink either in the Rumsfeld-doctrine-few-good-special-ops-and-B52s or legacy cold war dinosaurs, and no COIN in between.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: