Talk:Spearfish torpedo

Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Appearance in Red Storm Rising

This article says the contract was placed in 1994, but Red Storm Rising has a copyright date of 1986. Is the Spearfish in the book really the same as this torpedo, or is the naming of the torpedo a coincidence or perhaps a homage?

sneakums 10:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on Spearfish development in the 1980's, so the 1994 date may refer to an initial production contract

It's perfectly possible Clancy read about a weapon in development and decided to include it on the grounds that his book was set a few years in the future. BobThePirate 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a quote from the book: "That's one of their new Spearfish. I didn't know they had any in service yet." If my calculation that Storm took place in 1990 was right, it's conceivable that Clancy envisioned Spearfish entering emergency service by that year, since there's a good six months between the novel's start and its use. Sandy of the CSARs 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Defence Suppliers Directory [1] quotes an in service date of 1994 for the Initial Production Order weapons. In an emergency IPO weapons could have been at sea a number of years earlier, lets say from 1990 the start year quoted for the Reliability Assurance Programme (you can't assure the reliability of non-existant weapons). How effective they would have been, who can say? LarhamR 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

Article states: "The torpedo is driven by a pump-jet coupled to a Hamilton Sundstrand 21TP04 gas turbine engine using Otto fuel II and hydroxyl ammonium perchlorate as oxidiser."

The Otto fuel II article states that this fuel does not require an oxidiser as it is self contained. 86.144.90.137 (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otto fuel doesn't require an oxidiser, but its specific energy and peak power output (for a given motor configuration) can be increased by its use.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the largest ship that these torpedoes can take out?

What's the largest ship that these torpedoes can take out? Could one take out an aircraft carrier or would more than one need to be fired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.57 (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest torpedo ever made?

The article says "It is said to be one of the most advanced torpedoes in the world, and also the fastest torpedo ever produced." This isn't attributed (who says so?), and then we have the Russian VA-111 Shkval, whose maximum speed is over 200 knots. And which would seem to be the fastest ever produced. Cyberherbalist (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]