Sting Ray, a British designed technologically advanced lightweight torpedo, will be integrated on the RAF’s Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet.

The information came to light via a response to a Written Parliamentary Question.

James Cartlidge The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, stated:

“Integration of Sting Ray Mod 1 has commenced. The associated schedule is still being developed, but the intent is to integrate this sovereign capability at the earliest opportunity.”

Last year I reported that the Ministry of Defence had chosen the UK manufactured Sting Ray Torpedo as its future torpedo capability alongside continued use of the United States Navy Mk54 weapon on the RAF’s Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

“The RAF’s P-8 Poseidon is a multi-role maritime patrol aircraft, equipped with sensors and weapons systems for anti-submarine and surface warfare, as well as surveillance and search and rescue missions.

In-service with the Royal Navy, Sting Ray Mod 1 is capable of integration into surface and air platform mission systems. Sting Ray Mod 1 is an air-launched Anti-Submarine Warfare lightweight torpedo launched from frigates, helicopters, and maritime patrol aircraft against submarine targets of all types. It has sophisticated acoustic homing system and a highly accurate navigation system. The torpedo can detect, classify, and attack targets autonomously. It has low through life costs and requires no intrusive maintenance throughout its service life.

Sting Ray Mod 1 was designed to defeat the dual threats of fast, deep diving double-hulled submarines operating in the oceanic environment and the quiet, conventional submarine in coastal waters. The enhanced performance of Sting Ray Mod 1 is underpinned by the development of new acoustic and tactical software, drawing on knowledge gained from extensive in-water trials with the Mod 0 weapon.”

Group Captain Richard Osselton, Senior Responsible Officer, Poseidon Futures Programme, was quoted as saying:

“The use of Sting Ray and Mk54 torpedoes gives the UK Poseidon fleet flexibility and interoperability with our allies. I’m delighted to see integration of Sting Ray Mod 1 has commenced at RAF Lossiemouth.”

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

58 COMMENTS

  1. Good stuff. Now perhaps more nations will pick stingray. Would love to know the results of a shoot off between the lightweight torpedoes.
    I do wonder if a heavier torpedo should be considered for aircraft, surface ships etc. I don’t know enough about detection ranges to know if that’s a good idea.
    The sizes of torpedoes seems to be set by that’s what we used before.

    • One thing you can be assured of is that Stingray Mod 1 is as good as anything else out there, and better than Mk.54. The propulsion alone guarantees that.

      MU90 and the little fielded Mk.50 may be close to Mod 1 capabilities, but the recent upgrades probably means its the best out there.I suspect the only Torpedo out there as advanced is the Swedish Torped 47, which is more suited to litoral engagements than deep ocean. Designed to deal with different threats as well.

      Unlikely that anyone else will buy Stingray in its Mod 1 form as its an upgrade of existing weapons. Exports will have to wait for the Future Lightweight Torpedo, which will either be a new design or Stingray Mod 2.

      • I noticed this, on Wiki…

        “The increased diameter compared to the US/NATO standard of 324 mm (12.8 in), meant that RN ships equipped with STWS-1 torpedo tubes designed for the Mark 46 torpedo couldn’t fire Sting Ray”.

        Wonder if that’s why exports of Stingray to other countries are limited? I know absolutely nothing about torpedoes, but it would appear to me to be another example of UK MoD preferring home-grown kit, built to our own specs, but without thought to export possibilities?

    • This is good news, putting what sounds like the best torpedo out there (and home-grown to-boot) into our P8s which, in-turn, should open the door for other allies to consider fitting StingRay as an alternative to Mk54. I did a quick look-see on the net, Spearfish (UK heavyweight torpedo) is an altogether different proposition. Sting Ray is approx 2.4m in length, Spearfish is 7m, so I doubt the latter would fit in the bomb bay. Should such a requirement exist, it would need to be wing-mounted I guess and if we are talking about other weapons that are needed, then, on balance, I reckon we’d be better next considering the integration of an anti-ship missile. On-trend right now would be integration of NSM but I dare say we will need to wait for FC/ASW. Can you hold your breath that long? 😆

      • Spearfish will never be airborne. Not only is it too heavy and too large but to be truly effective it requires wire guidance to cruise out quietly to an intercept point then sprint at ridiculous speeds towards a target that cannot possibly evade 🙂 BOOM !

    • Certainly know that Aaron at SubBrief reckons Mk 48 ADCAP is best heavyweight. Immediately wanted to compare with Spearfish, of course!

      • Well, he is American so rightly would say that wouldn’t he. Spearfish is no slouch and is right up there with the very best mate. Being British would say that it is the best out there.

    • Its not really a problem as a torpedo of this size will still destroy the subs pressure hull and lead to her sinking. Heavyweight torpedoes are predominately the size they are in order to sink large surface ships, they are overkill for anti-sub work but have the added advantage of longer range and faster top speed and endurance.

    • In practise heavyweight torpedoes have a greater/better detection range than lightweight ones. Nothing to do with their respective capabilities, more to do with the diameter of the weapons. Stingray being 326mm versus Spearfish being 533mm – this Spearfish can accommodate more hydrophone elements, which essentially equates to a greater detection range. Having said that, both detection ranges are what we would term short ranges.

      Delivery vehicle and detection capability also play a large part in shaping torpedo sizes. SMs have large sonar systems with arguably long detection ranges, thus can accommodate a weapon that has a long range, which equates to more fuel/weight/size. Yes they are a standard size (533mm) from previous eras to achieve longish ranges.

      Lightweight torpedoes are generally air delivered weapons, the smallest of which is the helicopter, where weapon weight has a large impact on endurance. They also use sonobuoys/dipping sonars to detect SMs. They are short range systems when compared to a SM/WS system. They are required to be dropped relatively close to their target to give them a reasonable chance of gaining contact. They also don’t have the range for a prolonged chase/search if they don’t gain the target first pass.

      There may well be other considerations, but this is the gist of the issues.

    • If you look online for DoT&E (I think that’s the abbreviation), it’s the US military’s auditing department for military projects- they are way more transparent than MoD. Mk 54 does not score well in their evaluations, so safe to say that Stingray is probably better.

  3. Excellent news! Made my day. Validation of the decision to buy P8 with Mk54 as a package, rather than make Stingray integration a pre-req.

  6. Welcome news unless you were thinking of trying to push Blighty around. I note only that the Ukrainians integrated Stormshadow/Scalp onto their Russian built fighter bombers inside weeks.* I suppose there will be significant differences to work with but sometines the length of these timescales seems very drawn out.

    *During the Falkland war, an AEW capable radar was matched up with a Sea King fairly sharpish I remember.

    • No, the British Army bought Hellfire for the Apache. The UKDJ did an article on it called ‘UK yet to purchase JAGM missiles for Apache helicopters’. I think it came down to the cost of the integration of Brimstone.

      • Decision based on “cost” at the time but as it turns out now it costs more and we have not integrated to a “superior” missile/ supported own industry. OK to buy as is with maybe a small set of hellfire but we should still integrate later as a mod. Hope this is what will happen

  8. Does Stingray need any modification to allow for dropping from the higher altitude that P8 operates at? I’ve also seen plans for a wing-set to allow for increased range from drop to target.

      • Nimrod used to operate at low level to use MAD, which I don’t believe P8 is equipped with. While Poseidon could drop to lower level to drop torpedos, it would make sense if they could be dropped from higher.

  9. George/Moderator… why has my earlier post, this morning, been published then deleted? Can’t imagine it was suddenly found to be outside the guidlines.

  11. As soon as spear 3 is ready this needs to be integrated also as the P8 could then used as a bomb truck and hit land based targets as well as small attacking craft.

  12. About time too. Stingray has much better performance characteristics than the other ubiquitous NATO standard air dropped torpedo the US mark 46. Once integrated this might lead to overseas sales of stingray to other Poseidon operators, potentially.

  13. More to the point, does anyone know whether Stingray is being integrated with HAAWC? Or will the jet have to descend to drop?

    • At a guess and it is only that, torpedoes aren’t designed to be dropped from those heights, so, it either gets HAAWC or the jets need to descend to a ‘drop’ height.

      • Thank you but I said that in my question! No, Stingray can’t be dropped from more than a few hundred feet, so obviously it’s one or the other.

          • Of course it will be a problem! Do you have any idea how far it would drift if dropped on a parachute from 30 000 feet? Or how long it would take to drop, come to think of it?

          • But that’s the point: dropping a torpedo from 6 miles up will need a much larger parachute than normal: and it’s windy up there, so you’re NOT going to know where it will enter the water. That’s precisely why the US had to develop HAAWC. Believe it or not the laws of physics are universal. P-8 is designed to operate at altitude, not low down like Nimrod and it needs weapons that do likewise.

          • Hi Glen,

            I’ve a fair idea how StingRay/Mk54 and Nimrod/Poseidon works.

            Your thought process is valid; however,…

            Imagine we’ve got something like the WW2 Norden bomb site (but with 80 years worth of technological advances) in order to ascertain where things that are dropped from the aircraft end up.

            Roxy (Nimrod/Poseidon STANEVAL)

          • The amazing Norden bomb sight was really very ordinary in every respect except its propaganda: it turned out that was what Norden did best. Yes, I sure the APY-10 is very capable, but for predicting wind drift? I cannot believe Stingray is any less susceptible than Mk.54 which was, after all, designed from the outset for ASROC delivery.

          • Well, I’m not discussing weapon capabilities on here; rest assured, I have no issues with dropping either a Mk54 or a StingRay within acquisition range of an enemy submarine at any altitude in the weapon release parameters.

            Roxy

          • I’ll take your word for it. That being the case, why was it deemed necessary to develop HAAWC at all?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here