We often associate depth charges with the War in the Atlantic but even in an age of guided weapons it seems the MoD still has an identified need.
Weapons, ammunition and associated parts. In support of conventional munitions manufacture and stock management the Defence General Munitions Project Team (DGM PT) has a possible future requirement for the manufacture and supply of a Depth Charge that is compliant with current UK Insensitive Munitions policy. Included in the future requirement the following items will be required in any future contract.
- Drill and Instructional variants of the Munition,
- User and Maintainer Training package to allow future training to be undertaken,
- Weapon preparation and handling documentation,
- Maintenance documentation,
- A full Munition Data Pack, for all variants,
- Explosive Hazard Data Sheets for all of the energetic materials,
- Management of Safety and Suitability for Service (S3) trials required to be undertaken,
- Creation of Safety and Environment Case Report
- Post Design Contract.
The current in-service Depth Charge comprises of a main body Fuze and tail. The fully prepared weapon is approximately 1.4m long and 280mm in diameter and weighs 145kg.
Contractors should note that the Depth Charge offered shall as a minimum, be compliant with all UK MOD Policies. It must be capable of carriage and release from Rotary Wing platforms (specifically Merlin Mk1, Mk2 and Lynx/Wildcat Helicopters using the Mk 22 Electro-magnetic Release Unit) and have the potential for carriage and release from fixed wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the future.
The Depth Charge is required to have the equivalent explosive performance as the current in-service variant which comprises of 80kg of Torpex 8/2B. It shall have the fuzing functionality to initiate the main charge at 8.2 and/or 21m (±0.6m) with the ability to self sterilise (Make Safe) in the event of a blind.
Contractors should declare whether any components within their expression of interest are covered under ITAR.
The procurement of these capabilities shall, if the programme proceeds, be conducted on a competitive basis, using an incremental assessment programme to determine product compliance against the Departments requirement.
Those who express an interest in this possible future purchase shall be invited to complete and submit a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ), the results of which shall be used to down-select to a potential of a maximum of 10 candidates who will then be selected to be taken into the first Assessment Phase (AP1). AP1 is the technical compliance assessment and IM characterisation testing of candidate products; successful products from this phase, where appropriate, shall then be taken into Assessment Phase 2 (AP2). AP2 is the qualification of these natures to the Departments manufacture to target disposal sequence (AOP15).
An ITT will be issued to a maximum of 6 companies those that are down selected from AP1. The collective outcome of the PQQ, AP1, ITT and AP2 phase, shall result in the award of a contract for the manufacture/supply of this nature for an as yet undetermined term but will be invited at the ITT stage to submit prices for 3, 5 year supply/support arrangements, for the estimated quantity between 400 – 1000.
Potential Suppliers candidates should note that their product offerings should be at a suitably high level of product maturity to enable the Department to test and procure these capabilities within a very demanding exploitation window. All expressions of interest should state any previous work conducted for the MoD and any ISO accreditation.
So there you go, the contract estimate is £2-5m but of course there is no guarantee it will be placed.
TD and others
“It must be capable of carriage and release from Rotary Wing platforms (specifically Merlin Mk1, Mk2 and Lynx/Wildcat Helicopters using the Mk 22 Electro-magnetic Release Unit) and have the potential for carriage and release from fixed wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the future.”
Rather a naive question perhaps. So this weapon will be released from helicopters but what I want to know is why depth charges are not still used from ships (destroyers and frigates). You see I am old enough to associate depth charges with, as TD suggests, the Battle of the Atlantic and the immediate post-war period. I still remember the old Limbo(?)launcher on board some post-war destroyers (The “Daring” class, I think).
@Mike W
Id imagine it’s because a helicopter is infinitely more manoeuvrable and can cover a much wider area than a ship, and given this it isn’t worth doubling up with the same capabilities on both platforms.
That and the fact that with modern homing/wire guided torpedos, getting a ship in that close is suicidal. If the weapon is self guided, even a snap shot is not likely to miss at close range, and all you need is one to kill a ship. In WWII, it worked as torpedos were often dumb straight line weapons, which meant that a ship had a chance to close in. Now, just as long as you give the torpedo time to aquire the target, it can home to hit. You can try to decoy it away, but at minimum range, reaction time is very short.
You want a ship depth charge? Use the ASROC. Much safer to persecute at range.
What I found interesting was the limited fuse settings, 8.2 meters or 21 meters. This would mean they are usable only against very shallow submarines, either on the surface, snorkeling, or near periscope depth.
It is also a relatively light depth charge at only 145 Kg (319 lbs).
Are they thinking about all those Iranian mini-subs?
@Challenger and Observer
Well, thanks chaps, for clearing that one up. I have a much better understanding now. I would just like, though, to ask Challenger whether there are not times when, because of adverse weather conditions,it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to launch your helicopter. Would not a back-up ship-borne system be useful, perhaps as a last-ditch defence against a nearby sub? In the light of what Observer has said, though, this might seem a pointless question.
How did ASROC work? Wasn’t some kind of missile/rocket involved?
Mike
The surface ship ASW weapon of last resort is the light weight homing torpedo, in RN service the Stingray.
Chuck – i suspect these depth charges are fairly light because they are not meant for a ‘one shot’ kill, but to damage and force to the surface, or scare away a sub in situations less than all out war, where throwing a Stingray down a bearing might result in a sinking.
@Mike W, ASROC is still around. Now it is fired from a VLS. It is a light weight torpedo boosted into the area of the submarine contact by a rocket. S. Korea also makes something similar, as do the Russians.
@Chuck Hill
Many thanks. I used the wrong tense. I was confusing ASROC with Ikara, (I think!) I don’t know whether the latter is still around. Almost certainly not, I would imagine. However, as I have said many times, I am a landlubber and don’t know very much at all about naval systems. Some would say I don’t know much about land systems either but that’s another matter!
Completely random question: With advancements within HiFi equipment (namely noise control) how effective would dropping a depth-charge be in disabling/destroying nearby, sub-surface, passive sonar-equipment? Also, considering water does not compress, could dropping one near a Shkval divert/deflect it’s course (thus acting as a deterrent)?
Seems like a rather cheap counter-measure tool to me. Oh, and could damaging a few of those litoral submersibles to boot…!
There is the SLAT anti-torpedo defence. It won’t destroy equipment, but it generates a lot of noise and bubbles to totally mess up any homing and sonar readings.
Is the “Mk 22 Electro-magnetic Release Unit” the same unit used to fire Sea Skua? If so, maybe the small size/weight of the depth charge is to match Sea Skua’s size/weight so they can be carried on the same rack?