The Royal Navy has conducted a successful test of the next-generation Spearfish torpedo on a Vanguard-class submarine, according to a press release.

This marks the first time the updated Spearfish system has been trialed on a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, paving the way for enhanced operational capabilities against the latest threats at sea.

The Sea Acceptance Testing took place over three days off the coast of Scotland, the press release stated. During these trials, the advanced Spearfish torpedo engaged both surface and submerged targets, demonstrating its improved performance and integration with the submarineā€™s combat system.

The crew tested the new weapon’s firing capabilities and command and control systems.

Commodore Chris Goodsell, the Senior Responsible Owner for the programme and Deputy Director Submarines, praised the achievement, stating in the press release, “These firings continue to be a major step in ensuring the Royal Navyā€™s Spearfish torpedoes remain ready to face the latest threats, with cutting edge technology at the forefront of the weaponā€™s success.”

Spearfish has been a cornerstone of the Royal Navyā€™s submarine arsenal for nearly three decades, known for its ability to destroy a range of naval targets including frigates, destroyers, and hostile submarines.

The modernised Spearfish Mod 1 variant features several enhancements, including a new warhead, a safer fuel system, an upgraded electronic guidance system, and a fibre-optic link to the parent submarine for improved accuracy and lethality.

The successful trials indicate that both the Royal Navyā€™s Astute-class and Vanguard-class submarines are now equipped with this next-generation torpedo, the press release confirmed. Commodore Goodsell expressed gratitude to the collaborative efforts of Navy Command, the Submarine Delivery Agency, Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), and industry partners, highlighting their dedication to delivering this vital capability.

ā€œI would like to thank the teams from across Navy Command, the Submarine Delivery Agency, DE&S and our industry partners who continue to commit time and effort to delivering this vital capability,ā€ Commodore Goodsell added in the press release.

The ongoing transition of existing Spearfish torpedoes to the improved Mod 1 version is set to be completed by 2025, ensuring that all Royal Navy submarines will be equipped with this advanced weapon system.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

    • Probably because it’s more like a underwater cruise missile than a traditional torpedo. It Probably has some pretty classified capabilities, and very few nations operate boats of a size and capability that could operate and support Spearfish.

      • Spearfish (HWT) and Sting Ray (LWT)tech all feed into the same development path with regards to electronics, sonar, and especially software.
        Propulsion is a separate development issue as SR is a very high power dry seawater battery to maximise all up weight onboard ( no electrolyte needed) until it gets into the water. SF doesn’t have that issue for its GT power system so carries its own fuel.
        Also, its good to see an IM warhead fitted.

        Yes, its fast…really really fast even in the Mod 0 version
        I have been on a few ships that these things were shot at in trials and they do whiz past you.
        Good to see the boffins programmed the miss distances correctly so whilst looking at the target it actually flies below it.
        SR during its development and latter testing did have some issues with this where it was hitting subs, sensing no warhead detonation(exercise telemetry head fitted EVT variant) and going around again to re attack…and around yet again… A S boat we shot against surfaced with one stuck in its fin and the props still turning. Not a happy sub crew.

        • Yes, the sub crew probably had a significant number of quite unhappy/annoyed campers. The real question is whether someone managed to preserve this incident on video? Probably quite amusing to hear this being retold at the Officer’s Club and/or Enlisted Club (whatever British clubs are titled). šŸ¤”šŸ˜

    • Perhaps we do not wish to export our most sensitive technology…

      Also our offering would be up against the US mk 48 ADCAP. A similar weapon that is perhaps marketed more aggressively. Our one is better I think faster with better range. It is also very difficult to avoid. An old US sub guy on Youtube appears to think it is better. He says once it locks on it will hit.

      • Evidently the current USN baseline is MK48 ADCAP MoD 7 Common Broadband Advanced Sonar System (CBASS) torpedo. (The title really rolls right off the pen doesn’t it?šŸ˜‰). This version was developed in conjunction w/ the RAN. The latest variant is apparently the MK48 MoD 7 APB 5/5+, also developed in cooperation w/ RAN, which completed OT&E trials in May 2023. As per usual, few details re design are available in the open press.

        Purely a speculative assumption, but would anticipate that there will be a sub-initiative (programme) under the Underseas Capability Enhancement initiative of AUKUS Pillar II to develop a common next gen heavyweight torpedo to succeed both Mark 48 and Spearfish. Would anticipate a target IOC to coincide w/ commissioning of first RN SSN-A boat, so nominally late ’30s. Speculation could be totally incorrect, but the wickets appear to be aligned for a shot. šŸ¤”šŸ˜³šŸ˜

        • Damnit, all MoD references should read Mod. (Is there a method of turning off freaking autocorrect?šŸ˜¤šŸ¤¬)

        • We already agreed under AUKUS to accept US combat system for the boat that Australia seems to think they get a part in developing, as part of that we will be buying what ever torpedo the USN decides with BAE likely building one of the fins on the propellor to call it a joint program although obviously by law 100% of the torpedo will be US manufactured.

          Itā€™s increasingly hard to see AUKUS as anything other than the end of the UK submarine industry.

          Australia is virtually a US colony and it seems they have the same aspiration for the UK now.

          Like LM very kindly offering the UK a hypersonic missile if we pay for it while itā€™s built in the US or Boeing Australia charging the Australian government to develop its entry into the US drone program MQ28 while pretending is an Australian program because the wrote a few lines of code.

          • I hate to agree with you Jim. Anything done jointly with the US very quickly becomes an almost exclusive US only programme and is immediately covered by ITAR curtailing any freedom or autonomy you may wish to have with the technology. Letā€™s keep Spearfish and Stingray British for as long as possible. We finally have world leading torpedo technology in this country (after years of floundering around with Mk20 and Tigerfish) so letā€™s keep it going

          • Believe Australia and UK are slated (eventually šŸ™„) to be accorded the least restrictive ITAR agreement, equivalent to the Canadian version. Even Uncle Sugar’s minions recognize the necessity for change, in order to succeed in either/both Pillars of AUKUS.

          • Wow, you are indeed an eternal optimist! šŸ˜‚šŸ˜ An interesting perspective to construe virtually any/all joint development programs w/ allies as evidence of abject failure on the part of the UK MIC. Really don’t believe reality is quite as bleak as you portray. It would be amusing to observe your response if you should win a UK lottery: Oh woe to me, I’m rich! šŸ˜

          • Im just being realistic based on history, Iā€™m all for joint development programs just not with the USA. We have a long list of successful joint development programs with everyone else just not the USA

            Not that I donā€™t love the American people and have great respect for their armed forces I do however

            The US is too large to cooperate with, it sucks all the oxygen out of any room and as with F35 any partner is rapidly seen as nothing more than a customer/contractor.

            At the start of F35 program the UK and US were both suppose to be Tier 1 partners. After down select that went out the window with the UK now being the only tier 1 partner on an American aircraft. In the end we got bumped even for the source code which Israel mysteriously got. Do you think we keep source code from Italy on Eurofighter?

            By law America refuses to purchase a system made outside of America that makes it almost impossible to cooperate on anything. We tired to cooperate on missiles before in the 80ā€™s, we were to build ASRAAM and America AMRAAM then half way through the US changed and did an upgrade of sidewinder while we had to buy AMRAAM.

            Individual senators and congressmen have way too much power and all it takes is for one of them to have a bee in their bonnet or more likely a bribe from a US defence contractor in their state and they throw a spanner in the works. The UK gave all its weapon research and scientists to the Manhattan project in 1942 and had a joint development agreement with the US President then in 1946 Congress decided to cut the UK off and the American copy of the previous agreement mysteriously disappeared. (Being found years later)

            Given all that how would you feel about apparent joint development programs with the USA when it means having to give up your domestic capability on a vague promise from politicians.

          • Hmmm…may be feasible to dissociate from US R&D, but would suggest that it will not be successful on a long term basis on an MoD budget of 2.0-2.5% of GDP. Perhaps w/ 6-8%? šŸ¤”

          • Your pessimistic assessment isn’t over done. One of the industrial aims of the F35 programme was to shut down European military aircraft design and manufacture. I think that is admitted now. The French have always ‘got it’ despite relying on U.S. engine technology.

          • Yes the main reason for inviting the UK in as it basically stopped Europe developing a 5th Gen fighter. A European program is impossible without the UK or France.
            BAE has designed a lot of 5th Gen fighters but on the US project is a component provider.
            Expect the same on submarines. The USN spokesperson already said as much.

          • BAE have set up in Australia to help with the ship building for the Aukus boats the UK and US ship yards are already busy with there own Navy’s. But will obviously build some Aukus Subs in due time.

        • the mk48 ADCAP mod 7 is an incredible piece of kit. everything improved from the prior version- speed, range and especially sensors and automatic processing and massive target/decoy library. great channel on youtube called Sub Brief run by an ex USN submariner sonar operator who has encyclopedic knowledge on all things subs. he can’t speak about a lot of things of course but he gets pretty giddy talking about the mod 7 in his recent vid on the los angeles class, anyone interested in sub stuff should check it out (not a plug, hes pretty big :))

          a lot of people get hung up on names and don’t realize just how massive upgrades are- i doubt there is a single thing on the mod 7 that was on earlier versions lol. i imagine the RN do the same with stuff like spearfish. a lot of times its a way to get congressional funding for what is basically a brand new system “we’re not gonna develop a new torpedo, just some simple upgrades the previous one’ is a lot easier when its time to go to congress to ask for money.

          • Hmmm…so, in essence, to misquote the Bard: A MK48 by any other name runs as true? šŸ˜‰

        • Personally i think itā€™s better to have 2 weapons rather than all in on one. Sometimes weapons donā€™t work when needed, have problems etc. having the ability to pick spearfish or Mk48 is definitely something I would want the choice to make if I was charge.
          Sometimes weapons just donā€™t operate as they are meant to.

          • The Spearfish should perform perfectly adequately until the next generation heavyweight torpedo supercedes it. Brits appear to be extremely/(overly?) sensitive re workshare and IP issues in cooperative joint ventures, in contrast to the concept of being able to acquire a better mousetrap at a relatively affordable price (or Orctrap, as in this case). Observed this psychological syndrome in AF Academy grads who had a specific acronym to characterize their perspective re life: BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again). šŸ¤”

      • Aaron on Sub Brief? Very decent man. He shook his head recalling trying to dodge a Spearfish in training. It is very good two western navies can present the same ‘make my day’ to anyone who tries their luck.

    • They were a very limited use item, primarily designed to hit carriers and SSBNs. However if you fire one everyone will know it and exactly where you are… the last act you will do. So a sort of suicide weapon.

      • there was no ā€œsort of suicide weaponsā€ā€¦they had a range of around 4 miles and a nuclear warhead on the frontā€¦..they were definitely suicide weapons.

    • They are utter rubbish and only really worked if you were willing to strap a nuclear warhead on the front and die as well.

      issues:

      1) very short range..5-9 miles
      2) they cannot have their own seeker headā€¦they are a fire and Miss weapon.
      3) they can have inertial guidance systems for firing against a fixed target, but ability to manover is poor.
      4) profoundly noisyā€¦

      So you sneak up to your target, then fire an unguided weapon that puts a bullseye on you, hoping you donā€™t miss and then hopping the other side does not immediately launch a proper homing torpedo at you..which at close range with a good kill chain and itā€™s own organic senors will not miss ( unlike your dumb supercavitation torpedoes )ā€¦

      The Russians built them for 2 reasonsā€¦the first was essentially a ā€œget within 4 miles of a carrier, fire a nuclear weapon and hope you donā€™t die torpedoā€ ā€¦the second was as an anti torpedo system..in which they fire the supercavitation torpedoes at incoming torpedoesā€¦because they have already been detected and are probably dead anyway so firing such a noisy weapon is irrelevant.

      • Hmmm…for some reason, always knew about the existence of nuclear depth charges, but not nuclear torpedoes. Did RN and USN subs carry heavyweight torpedoes w/ nuclear warheads back in the day. Never really concerned or even interested in non-USAF weapons at that time. šŸ¤”

        • the USN had the mk 45 nuclear torpedo in service from 1959-1976. the soviets of course had them as well and came extremely close to firing one during the cuban missile crisis. story goes the USN was lobbing ‘practice’ depth charges at the soviet submarine (submarine was called B-59 if you want to see the story) the soviets had been out of contact with moscow for days as they were too deep to receive radio, so they thought they were at war. the captain prepared their nuclear torpedo to be fired as they were running out of air and option (diesel sub). someone ended up talking the captain out of it and they surfaced and world war 3 was averted!

          • Thanks for recounting that anecdote. Evidently there were several similar instances associated w/ the Cuban missile crisis. One wonders whether similar wisdom will prevail during the inevitable, next true crisis? šŸ˜šŸ˜³šŸ¤ž

          • sub stories are my favorite- even though we only know a fraction of them, the ones that do get out are pretty hair raising. if you’re into that sort of thing check out the book “blind man’s bluff”. when i was younger i thought being a submariner would be mind-numbingly boring, just cruising around in your tube waiting for a war. they do a lot of incredibly exciting, nerve racking stuff during peacetime. operation ivy bells is a classic! im also impressed in just how good they are at keeping so much a secret. if i could go back and do everything over i would definitely join the silent service…

        • Yes the US had the Mk45, but that was less of a death sentence to fire, as it was a more conventional propulsion and wire guided out to 8 miles. The UK did not have nuclear torpedoes, just depth bombs.

      • Isn’t one 1960s Russian (then USSR) nuclear torpedo arguably one of the most infamous weapons in history?

        As I remember the story, unbeknownst to the Americans one of the subs looking to run the Cuban Missile Crisis blockade was carrying at least one torpedo with a nuclear warhead. When US ships dropped depth charges to warn the sub off the captain and political officer on board the sub interpreted that as an attack and were it not for one of the other senior officers they were going to fire the torpedo at the US fleet.

        The officer who argued against starting a nuclear engagement was Vasily Arkhipov. He has a short entry in Wikipedia that I checked just now to make sure I at least had the basics correct. The Cuban Missile Crisis might have had a very different ending had it gone tactical-nuclear at that point and who knows how it might have escalated from there so just maybe Vasily Arkhipov is the reason many of us are still here now.

        (I was living on Long Island during the Cuban Missile Crisis and, although only 3 years old at the time, I’m pretty sure I picked up the level of tension around me at that time because after returning to the UK about 6 months later I can remember being absolutely terrified of the prospect of nuclear war for years afterwards.)

  3. The Royal Navy has conducted a successful test of the next-generation Spearfish torpedo on a Vanguard-class submarine
    From a Vanguard-class submarine surely.

      • Really? Is this fact or just social media hearsay? I suspect the latter unless there is a valid and authoritative source for the information.

          • It is unnecessarily rude to imply a certain level of intelligence is needed, in response to a perfectly reasonably question. As a former RN officer I was particularly interested to know how you could be so certain about submarine deployments that are not generally made public.

          • Google it , it was all over the news last year . Lack of dry dock upgrades for the Astute , there is also a former Royal Navy guy on x Twitter who posts the fleets status . He also gets USN status as well . This will be a problem till 2028 at least .

  5. Yet seemingly, as of the first AUKUS boats entering RN service, we’re switching to the latest mod Mk. 48, to streamline the supply chain, especially in the Pacific. It will likely be a better option in terms of cost too, with Spearfish, albeit a superb weapon, being by definition, subject to small production runs and consequently higher unit cost. Also the small matter of the combat system aboard the AUKUS boats being entirely American, according to the projected spec. I read, so that’ll influence the weapon choice, I would think.
    Unfortunate for BAE Systems torpedo boffins, but being able to have exactly the same magazine loads (thinking of Tomahawk too) on British, Aussie and American boats makes a lot of sense, when you consider resupply, and the vulnerability of the supply chain, especially if the brown stuff hits the fan…

    • Both BAES and RR have excellent rep throughout the US MIC. Both companies have and will continue to conduct business across multiple programmes (including AUKUS) either as the prime or as a subcontractor. Confident both companies are fully capable of protecting own turf and interests. Additionally, really don’t believe British interests will be harmed by competitive selection of best tech for SSN-A systems. RN Second Sea Lord stated plainly that it would be an improved design as a result of the process.

      Speculation in post above that SSN-A might employ a newly designed heavyweight torpedo, developed by an Anglo-American consortium.

      • I think an Anglo American consortium developed F35 then one day it became an America plane

        Uncle Sam donā€™t do joint development šŸ˜€

        • The case of the F35 is a slightly different issue Jim.

          The true ‘ joint’ option, was the the Bae/ McDonnell Douglas design that was knocked out in stage one.

          We then hitched our wagon LM and from then on we were only ever subcontractors to a US design.

          AUKUS SSN will be a true muti national design.

          We have to be able to spread the development costs and leverage the cost reductions of a larger production run, otherwise the next generation might be so expensive, we simply might be out of the game on cost grounds alone.

          The UK now has a solid design, development and production team in place, rebuilt over 20 years at huge cost.

          Moving from Astute, to Dreadnought has kept continuity and now passing the baton on to AUKUS SSN actually puts BAE Systems in a very strong position.

          I would rather trade some sovereignty here, but have a really solid working relationship with the US and Australia ( large order book) and hopefully ultimately, a larger fleet of SSN’s for the RN, back to 12 boats if we are lucky.

          This will be the start of a new era with AUKUS successor following on.

          • Thatā€™s certainly what the AUKUS brochure says. I have my doubts, largely on Australia staying the course and the design process becoming nothing more than a carpet bag for US components and weapons in a sub thatā€™s not even being bought by the US. Once you give up control of the command system and computers what do you have left? Weapons and sensors may as well use the American ones conveniently developed already and integrated rather than wait 10 years for ours to be integrated. This is exactly what happened with F35. America does not do joint programs, itā€™s not in their DNA.

            Better we just keep our money and not bother having a navy. Double down on Tempest, at least the RAF has woken up to this nonsense.

          • One thing that has disappointed me about the F-35 program is how/why we ended up where we did with the software. As I understand it there were some very robust discussions much earlier in the project about the UK – the only Tier 1 development partner – getting access to the source code with it even getting to the level of the UK hinting it might pull out of the program. Again, as I understand it, that bluff was called and the UK does not have access to the source code (except maybe via some sort of escrow provision) and that leaves us at the mercy of LM regarding our weapons integration schedule.

            I’m not 100% up to date with AUKUS (to say the least) but is it the case that only the USN and RAN boats will use the US CMS and the RN boats will use some other CMS maybe derived from whatever we currently use on the Astutes? If that is the case then maybe, while there are many other ITAR etc traps that we (the UK) might fall into, perhaps we might at least avoid an F35-like software trap this time around?

          • The USA doesnā€™t have access to the source code either, much of it is LM proprietary technology, especially the Data from ALIS.

            Itā€™s possible to bypass this like Israel does but it also removes much of the benefit in operating the F35.

            LM knew this and stitched it all up.

            Corruption in congress lets them keep it going.

    • Why don’t the Americans build Spearfish under license then?
      Solves all of the problems. We benefit from a larger production run and economies of scale, and the US get a better torpedo and their holy grail of commonality.
      The combat system being American was a slipped comment from one of your admirals. We seem to think ours is better and we certainly won’t choose a worse product to save American money. No tax back from offshore orders!

      • US Defence procurement rarely buys anything from anyone no matter how much benefit there is for the war fighter or tax payer.

        • Oh well
          At least I tried. How about the Australians? We just freeze the US out by heavily marketing our own systems and doing the builds Kongo style, where we build the first in class for them

  6. I remember quoting to supply parts for Stingray in 1992. We decided not too after reading clause in the T&C’s that said if the parts we supplied were faulty we would have to pay all costs associated with recovering and fixing the torpedo. Stingray was mentioned in Tom Clancy’s book, Red Storm Rising. I think that was mid 80’s

  8. Here’s a question to anyone who knows about such matters – would one of our vanguard subs attack an enemy ship/sub (with torpedoes) during a conventional war?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here