Talk:VA-111 Shkval

Shkval / Squall name
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)

German Supercavitating torpedo Developments
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)

- the linked Diehl page is gone, can anyone find a new one? 85.112.147.118 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear removal
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. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 21:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we have two conflicting statements here, the one I removed: "The VA-111 may also carry a nuclear weapon instead of its typical conventional payload." and the one left in the text: "Fitting a nuclear warhead appears possible, however thus far no VA-111s have been proven nuclear-equipped." So either the nuclear head is common warhead for the weapon (as in "may carry") or it is unproven.

Neither the reference you mention nor FAS makes a definitive statement here ("The Shkval can also be equipped..." or somesuch), so I wanted to err on the conservative side. Now I don't really care much either way, but the two statements should be brought in line.

Hope that explains it, and sorry I missed out on the Edit Summary the first time. --Yooden


 * 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&#39;s Mother 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

Shkval Update
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&#39;s Mother 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well Military.com is sort of biased, so I don't trust them that much. Also, the US couldn't deploy its own counterpart because they are developing one which can break the speed of sound, but have problems with it. AllStarZ 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Any US "counterpart" would have to be a substantial improvement over the MK 48 ADCAP to justify the development and deployment costs. Something akin to the Shkval just wouldn't cut it. It's range is just too short, and it has an inadequate guidance system. Essentially, the US counterpart would need to have the same range and accuracy as the Mk 48, plus the speed of the Shkval, for it to be worthwhile. I can imagine it could be justified from the Russian navy's perspective, particularly if you have an advanced diesel sub and are basically using the sub as a manned mine--sit on the bottom, running on batteries, waiting for somebody to come by. In that case, an extremely fast (albeit short-ranged) torpedo might work well, since you have the chance of making a kill before you yourself are killed (which is typically the result of that type of tactic, since launching a torpedo generally lets everyone know where yhou are). But that isn't how the US uses its submarines.

Also, as for the technology--if the Iranians can develop their own copies, it's hard to imagine that the Americans couldn't, if they wanted to. Epstein&#39;s Mother 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so biased, who knows, what a guidence system Shkval has, and what it is capable for? And how can it be obsolete if it is used in newer version, of the torpedo. Seems it was sad in the Military Parade magazine, that in 60's or so USSR intelligence learnt about facts of developments of cavitating weapon in France and USA. That is how Shkval program begins in USSR. It is just that in USSR it turns into a working weapon system. Personaly I'am never heard about WORKING prototypes in USA or France, or some where else, so its not like "we just don't want it" (when Soviets launched first sattelite one american high ranked military also commented it for the press like "We can do it before Soviets, but we just don't want it" ;-)). And then no need, to compare Shkval and MK48 - they are different type of the weapon, Shkval is an addition to the usual weapon, already exist on a submarine and in certain situations it will mean the difference between victory and failure/death. Also I've removed reference to the article "An assessment of the Shkval's lethality by a submarine expert". This "expert" simply sad a few wrong things, like "vacuum around missiles hull" vacuum in the water - damn, it is impossible vacuums space in the water will be immidiatly taken by waters vapor (sorry donno eng. terminology), but it is vice versa - this bubble is formed by gasm from the gas generator. And other stuff like "slightlty change depth" and how much seconds tergeted submarine captain will have to change his depth? And why slightly if it is homing missile now? Or his phrase "Nobody knows about sound more than US NAVY". It's just to name a few such facts... Oleg_Str, 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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&#39;s Mother 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? There is nothing comparable to "Shkval" any where in the whole world. Iranians can recieve their "Skvall" from Russia (strange why Tom Clancy didn't wright a novell where Iranian terrorists would buy "Shkvall" from the corrupted Russian KGB/militarys wanting to use it on statue of Liberty ;-)). Together with certain technical documentation. So it's Russias choise to sell it to Iran (if it's true). On the other hand a few years ago an American spy was arrested in Moscow. Former military from NAVY /that's him B-)/ he was trying to buy "Skvall" documentation from Russian scientist/engineer /and that's him $-)/. The importance of documentation is that there you will find answer to the question "Why it works?". Why exhaust tube should have that diameter, why it sould be that long and what it would be if it was different - it is for example, of course... --Oleg Str 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly there is a torpedo in development mentioned on the German Wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barracuda_%28Superkavitationstorpedo%29 , but I am not quite sure how to integrate the info into this artic.e

Oh, of course, it's not dangerous or anything. After all, it's just a piece of scrap metal flying about at 250 (or even 300?) knots underwater... They'd probably be better off just ramming our wonderful American subs with it. Ooops - wait - that's actually a valid option. Nuclear charge? What for?! If that thing *crashes* into a sub WITHOUT even exploding, that sub's already not coming home. Dodging it? Oh, right, by accelerating to maximum speed and praying a lot. Except THAT tends to make submarines somewhat noisy, making it all the more easier to pop off a few more of the various torpedoes in the OTHER torpedo tubes. IF that's even necessary. Detectability? Well, yes, sure, people are going to notice. Question is, are they disciplined enough to get around to firing off a torpedo without panic, while death is barrelling towards them at 250 knots? In any case, they're not highly likely to still be alive to know if their torpedo(es) connected or missed. Also, large amounts of noise can be quite useful in masking lots of other, sneakier things, coming in for the kill. Oh, and hey, at least the 13 km range is pretty puny, right? We can kill them lots of times before they get in range? Uhm, you still have a high rate of incidents of subs crashing into stuff, including each other and Japanese tankers, by ACCIDENT. Things don't exactly see (well, hear, to be more exact) each other over large distances too well underwater. In what kind of pipe dream could you imagine any use whatsoever for an antisub torpedo with ranges beyond the HORIZON?! It's not like you'd KNOW if anything or anyone was there... or have any chance of hitting them if you did. Conclusion? Hunting someone who is armed with that would be akin to hunting a sniper while armed with a slingshot. The US Navy must be real happy that its current role is mostly confined to happily lobbing cruise missiles at suspected terrorist hideouts, without much underwater cat-and-mouse against people with stressful jobs, low salaries, and supercavitating underwater missiles. 128.195.186.38 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu
 * 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)

It is a bit arrogant to believe that the US is on the forefront of every technology... For example when it comes to hydroacoustics I would just like to remind you that for the last two years a Swedish submarine (of Gotland-class) have sailed in circles around the US N Pacific fleet ASW specialists. There is no reason why the Iranians couldn´t be equally superior to the US at for example underwater rocket propulsion and subsonic hydrodynamics as the Swedes are when it comes to submarine tactics and hydroacoustics.... Well, well arrogance is the stuff future losers are made of ;-) // Dilitium 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC +1)


 * 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&#39;s Mother 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

This thread seems to be a US/Russian argument along the lines of 'mine is bigger than yours', which is not the purpose of wikipedia. So the US is superior to everyone, under God, in most aspects, but could someone just graciously acknowledge that Russia has some great engineers and be friends thereafter?Petlif (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

The Ultimate Weapon
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)


 * 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)Pavel Golikov.


 * 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)

Submarine warfare has been referred to as a knife fight for a reason. With modern submarines, ranges are VERY, VERY close, due to low acoustic signatures of said submarines. In THIS environment, a fast striking weapon is of high merit, as it is possible that a conventional explosive model would detonate close enough to cause significant damage or even destroy a submarine that is a threat OR is the current target of the launching submarine. As for the Persian Gulf, this weapon would be idea on many points as a weapon, all due to fast strike after launch.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel the need for speed
"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)

Describe the the implications of a nuclear warhead?
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)

It means that the torpedo was to be used as a last resort weapon (almost suicidal) or against a large target such as an aircraft carrier where the blast from a nuclear warhead would make pinpoint accuracy less important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.211.86 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Tilting plate on the nose?
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)


 * 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)

Removed paragraph on Kursk sinking and reference as part of PMK-2
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)

Fuel type: likely cofusion with 65-76 "Kit" torpedo
It seems that the fuel type and amount of fuel for this (Shkval) torpedo was taken from specifications for 65-76 "Kit" torpedo (Russian Кит means Whale), which is the cited as the formal reason for Kursk submarine explosion. Russian Wikipedia article for the 65-76 torpedo (not linked with the English version yet): mentions that it caused the Kursk disaster and has a source in Russian confirming that. All the Russian sources claim 65-76 as the state-commission-confirmed culprit. As for English sources there are lots of them here:

On the other hand, Russian Wikipedia arcticle for Shkval torpedo states that Shkval employs "jet engine using solid hydro-reacting fuel".

Current version of the English wikipedia Shkval article states that:

"The rocket engine uses the combination of high test peroxide and kerosene; the propellant tanks contain about 1.5 tons of hydrogen peroxide and 500 kg of kerosene.3"

The referenced source article, describes the 65-76 "Kit" torpedo and only mentions Shkval torpedo in on sentence, in comparing "secrecy" around 65-76 to Shkval:

"There are no problems with finding photos and circuits of the sophisticated and classified Shkval, but nothing on the 65-76."

The source article is of low quality, and signed "Victor Myasnikov, Vremya MN, July 4, 2002, p. 3". I was not able to find the original publication in Russian, but found news article stating that Vremya MN (Время МН) newspaper was to be discontinued in 2001.

Despite what is claimed by the source article, 65-76 Kit torpedo seems to be no secret or mystery:

This webpage easily found in Google, has the first two pictures with description:

1 - "A cut of 65-76A torpedo lies by the wall - according to the state commission it was this torpedo that had exploded inside torpedo tube number 4 on Kursk submarine, after which it sank. It is a heat hydrogen peroxide (fuel - hydrogen peroxide) anti-ship torpedo, accepted into service in 1976. Manufactured by Kirov Mashzavod (Almaty)"

2 - "Fragments of the very same torpedo extracted from Kursk submarine"

The third picture shows the Shkval torpedo: 3. The caption in Russian is:

"Ракето-торпеда ШКВАЛ. На самом деле она называется скоростная торпеда М-5 (изготовитель - ПО Машзавод, г. Пржевальск), а "Шквал" (ВА-111) - название комплекса оружия, ее использующего. Приняты на вооружение в 1977 году.

Все эти факты для нас рассекретил шпион Эдмонд Поуп - за что и был осужден на 20 лет тюрьмы, правда, почти сразу Путин его помиловал и выслал из страны.

Забавно, что система "Шквал" была разработана на основании дезинформации, подкинутой американскими разведчиками - якобы в США уже испытывается торпеда с такой скоростью. Нашим выделили деньги - мол, быстро догоняйте, и наши сделали. В США потом рвали на себе волосы."

Here is my translation of the above, some parts of which I find quite dubious (like the manufacturer):

"Rocket-torpedo SHKVAL. It is actually called M-5 (manufactured by PO Mashzavod, located in city/town of Przhevalsk)", while "Shkval" (VA 111) is the name of the weapons complex utilizing it. Accepted into service in 1977.

All these facts were deсlassified for us by Edmond Pope - for which he was convicted/sentenced to 20 years in jail, but, almost immediately Putin pardoned him and sent out of the country.

It is funny that the Shkval system was developed based on misinformation planted by American intelligence agents - supposedly a torpedo with such speed was already being tested in USA. Our scientists were given money to quickly catch up - and they did make it. In the USA they had torn hair afterwards."

The rest of the page illustrates other Russian and foreign-made torpedoes, from the collection of Murmansk torpedo museum and collection of Gidropribor research institute.

Countermeasure?
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)

Removed paragraph concerning use as part of a moored mine system
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)

Should there be a disambiguation page for Shkval?
Should there be a disambiguation page for Shkval because Shkval can apply to two things: VA-111 and an EOTS/optronics system: https://www.deagel.com/Sensor%20Systems/Shkval/a001911#001 [EOTS = Electro-Optical Targeting System]

vandalism
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)

Italics
Is the name VA-111 Shkval, or VA-111 Shkval? It is inconsistent in the article and if it is the italicized version, a page move will be needed. GoldRomean (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)