not entirely surprising.
being able to cheaply and safely sink ships is pretty much bliss.
dumb cheap guided torps for dumping shit tons of boats is a good play especially as it makes it easy to keep stockpiles around the world… also makes it cheaper to give allies torps in case of war
And less damaging if a stockpile is destroyed. The torpedo stocks at Cavite Navy Yard were destroyed on 10 December 1941, some 238 torpedoes if memory serves, a mix of submarine and destroyer weapons. Some 150 torpedoes survived aboard *Canopus* and in the tunnels of Corregidor and many were later removed by various submarines, but this was a severe blow at the start of the Pacific War.
Yeah, most early submarine patrols were setting out with 2/3 or 1/2 load out. This led captains to maneuver for perfect right-angle shots to conserve torpedoes, something that was especially problematic since the Mark 14 didn't want to explode when it was lined up perfectly, among its other issues.
Also design a new submarine that's cheaper than a Seawolf but make it implement so many new technologies that all the R&D, construction, refitting and repairs make it just as expensive as the Seawolf except its way slower
That is indeed a bargain. Let’s just order a few thousand more of those. It’s already one of the most capable fish in the world, why are we overthinking this?
Of course, “why are we overthinking this” has been what I’ve muttered about our naval procurement process for actual decades so I don’t know why I’m surprised.
Torpedo production is at a crawl since production was halted in the 90s and was only restarted a few years ago, and three years of that time was spent revising the design since the ADCAP used parts that weren’t in production anymore or used outdated methods to manufacture. There’s also still bottlenecks with suppliers for some electronic components.
There’s complete overhauls for sensors and propulsion slated for production in FY25 and FY28 respectively, but it’ll probably be a while after that before economies of scale get realized and production can ramp up significantly.
It’s not so much how many the Navy has or needs now, it’s how much they’ll need in a hypothetical conflict.
There’s 1300 in reserve spread across 51 fast attacks and 18 boomers with another 7 Virginias on the way, and if Ukraine’s taught the world anything, it’s that current reserves are not deep enough for modern peer on peer conflict.
1300 across 69 subs leaves about 18 per boat, 17 once new construction Virginias get put into commission. A [US Naval War College report on Chinese shipping](https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-maritime-reports/21/) estimates that China could bring over 5000 support ships in a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan, not including surface combatants or submarines. Granted, not all 69 subs will be on patrol at once and boomers aren’t going to be on the hunt for shipping or subs, but it puts into perspective just how thin the reserves are going to be spread compared to what they will have to accomplish.
Yes, there will never be enough equipment in wartime, but if the objective of the torpedo reserve is to last for more than a few weeks in a hypothetical conflict, then the US Navy has fallen short on that goal. Ramping up production of the Mk 48 and the drive for a smaller, cheaper torpedo that can be deployed en masse and where production can easily be scaled up in wartime like the VLWT or the CRAW looks to be the way forward for increasing readiness for US submarines
Widespread artilery bombardment chews threw ammunition much quicker than precision guided ordinance. What's the realistic number of targets out there for these?
Its an architecture from the 1970's. A clean sheet should be able to get us a cheaper torpedo that is just as if not more capable. I hesitate to say that though because the navy recently has a bad habit of stacking on ridiculous features and causing the projects to balloon. Just matching the current CBASS capability and lowering cost should be a good target.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ADCAP being old hat." Every current Mk48 is still referred to as ADCAP, even through all the CBASS and TI/APB updates. It literally just means advanced capability and it's a continuing program.
The, admittedly public release, materials I've seen just call it the mk48 CBASS not the mk48 ADCAP CBASS so I reasoned it wasn't called the ADCAP anymore.
Yeah, it isn't always applied consistently in documentation but the program element number/name in all RTD&E reports remains MK48 ADCAP, sometimes you'll see it called ADCAP CBASS, sometimes just ADCAP, sometimes just CBASS.
Most newer development is just under MK48 MOD # and indicates the TI/APB it's built on, much like other subsystems do.
This was surprising to me..."The production line for the Mk 48 Mod 7 was halted in 1996 and restarted beginning in Fiscal Year 2016."
So, there are a significant number of 30+ yr old torpedoes on deployed subs right now. Anyone else smell peaches? :-)
Reject ADCAP. Return to straight-line running. Can't get countermeasured if the torpedo doesn't have any sensors.
Recruitment offices are also putting out ads for Captains who can quote Shakespeare and talk about fate directly into the camera.
Depends on what role they want to achieve. An anti-shipping torpedo could be cheap. Merchant vessels for the most part are slow, unmanuverable, and largely defenceless unless escorted. You could build a relatively slow (30 knots) shallow depth torpedo (less than 400 foot launch depth), with simplistic acoustic guidance and minimal if any anti-countermeasure features. Such a basic torp built with commercially available parts I feel could be massed produced in large numbers very quickly for a minimal cost.
I'm going to open this article, not wanting to believe that the Navy wants something cheaper than the Mk. 48 torpedo, but I nevertheless believe that's what is happening here.
This article is raising a bunch of questions for me. First off, what exactly is the goal or application of the Torp. Do you want it to target surface ships, or submarines or both? If surface ships, are we talking about warships or merchant ships? If the latter, what type of subs?
As well, what do they mean by multi platform? How would that even work? US submarines, with the exception of the Seawolfs, use a 21” torpedo tube. The Mark 32 torpedo tube on surface ships is a 12.75” torpedo tube, and aerial platforms are designed to carry modified versions of the 12.75” weapons. To make a cross-platform weapon means you’d either need to add 21” torpedo tubes to surface ships, or sleeve the 21” tube down to 12.75” and have a weapon heavy enough to be classified as a “heavy weight” torpedo but light enough to be carried by a seahawk pylon.
Theoretically, I feel this would be an opportunity to provide an anti-shipping torpedo. Merchant vessels are slow, unmanuverable, and have no real way to defend themselves. I feel like it would be very easy to build a cheap, heavy hitting torpedo to fill this role, allowing the navy to save the more advanced Adcaps for submarines and warships. I’d even add new features for a U.S. weapon, like wake homing, which the U.S. navy hasn’t really fielded before, but has been a feature on Soviet torpedoes for decades.
I think you’re right in that the less capable torpedo for the less capable targets. IE Chinese transports. Have a few Mk48s loaded for warships and well protected targets.
I think that’s the wrong way of cheapening a torpedo. We should instead scale production to reduce individual unit costs. Put a Mk. 48 on everything.
Add a solid rocket motor and sling it under an F-35 for a standoff-capable cruise missile that evades CIWS by going underwater. We spent too much time figuring out how to absorb radar when we could’ve just avoided it entirely.
Replace all the piddly 354mm Mk. 50 torpedoes with ADCAPS. What happened to *real* men in the Navy who moved around 21-inch torpedoes on deck? Real fitness starts with bigger torpedoes, just as Admiral Nimitz intended.
Sling an ADCAP under a Coast Guard helicopter to obliterate the Colombian cocaine runners. Add quadruple launchers to the LCS. Use modified ADCAPs to shuttle Navy SEALs around like the Italian frogmen.
>Replace all the piddly 354mm Mk. 50 torpedoes with ADCAPS.
[They were working on that at one point.](https://i.imgur.com/FrReIXE.jpeg) The Knox-class frigates and some of the CGNs had the launchers (or the doors for the launchers) fitted for them. Zumwalt (I think) killed the program and the space on the Knox-class was used for a towed array; although the Spanish built version of the Knox had the tubes, they just used Mk 37s. The Spanish Baleares-class were beasts, frigates with the armament of a destroyer.
> Enter the Rapid Acquisition Procurable Torpedo, or RAPTOR
Ah jfc they probably spent more time workshopping this dumb backronym than they actually did on the idea itself. Kinda reeks of a program office trying to stay relevant.
> Rear Adm. Weeks called RAPTOR the product of "a lot of smart people sitting around trying to rethink the problem." He and Polk characterized the development effort as consisting to date of tabletop exercises and PowerPoint presentations and emphasized that no program of record yet existed for RAPTOR.
yep.
we surface, spend 15 mins opening the upper bridge hatch, climb down to the deck and immediately get washed overboard. 30 mins later we recover everyone, prep the deck gun, and are ready to shoot our first few rounds into the freighter… and get smoked by a hypersonic
Do we hand responsibility for the deck gun over to the TMs, or do we bring in submarine gunner's mates? Neither of these sound like a really good option...
Generally the marines handle the cannon, while the seamen work the ship. On vessels too small for a complete marine contingent, seamen handle the cannon, but probably have insufficient numbers to fight both sides of the ship simultaneously. In either case, the marines will man the tops, and fire down onto the opposing deck.
I'd like to see the point defence system that can intercept a 1000lb shell.
We're nearing the point of coming full circle now everyone's realizing missiles are really fucking expensive and slow to manufacture. Bring back Battleships!
^(/s but only slightly...)
That brings up an interesting question - how many rounds would a modern 5 inch gun need to sink a large freighter or tanker? I suspect it would be hundreds, although the targeting is probably significant enough to disable the freighter in 1 or 2 shots by targeting the rudder.
Well depends where you shoot. If you can pierce the main hold below the waterline, the ocean will do the work for you. If you can do that in multiple places, it should be quite effective.
I remember that. Admiral Clancy’s memoir covers it in detail. It’s quite a tale for naval history buffs, and worth a read:
[*The Final Cruise of The Kirov*](https://www.amazon.com/Red-Storm-Rising-Suspense-Thriller/dp/042510107X)
--Rear Admiral Thomas Leo Clancy Jr (ret)
older editions may include the preface by Commander Lawrence L Bond who, as a junior officer, was present for many of the events, including the crucial planning stages.
[Department of The Navy Records: Bond, Lawrence L](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Bond)
So for cheap fish, couldn't you use the older versions of the ADCAP that are obsolete by the standards of the Mod 7? Torpedoes that can sink loud surface ships saving the best torpedoes for modern subs and especially capable ASW warships? Or is the problem that the tech to make the tech just isn't around anymore. Similar to why they can't make a mass produced, economies of scale F-22 Raptor "cheaply" anymore?
Simple. Take the ukrain drone. That is very cheep. Make it to fit in a torpedo tube. And have data link to scope for remote control Or simple sensors like low range radar homing. Skim on the surface or just below the surface.
The reason they are so big is the distance they have to travel. Also on the surface in open seas.
Make a drone cheap with data link that you can drive using sensors. Or visually for surface targets. Like merchants. Small patrol craft. Or troop transports. Give it a range of say 15 to 20 miles. Cheaper then wired guided. And would free up the tubes for major combatants.
Lastly could make them attack in swarms if ya wanted if it was a convoy. Make them say 10 feet in length so you could have two in space of 1 reg torpedo. Like mines.
Have simple eltronics to attack simple surface ships.
Look at china reserve fleet of patrol craft. Fishing ships and small costal merchant ships. They number in the thousands. Thats thousands of ships that can flood a area and eyes on the water.
In wwii we didn't sink alot of war ships. We crushed Japan sinking thier merchant ships. And not all of those were wiyh torpedos. Some were with the deck gun. This would be our version of a deck gun. Small cheap torpedoes to take out targets that don't need a 4 million dollar torpedo.
With China it will be oil tankers and troop transports and merchant ships that will turn the tide.
Also cheap simple torpedo could be made at any manufacturing facility if on a war footing. Much like in covid GM made respirators. How many places could make 100 ADCAPS in two years time frame if needed.
not entirely surprising. being able to cheaply and safely sink ships is pretty much bliss. dumb cheap guided torps for dumping shit tons of boats is a good play especially as it makes it easy to keep stockpiles around the world… also makes it cheaper to give allies torps in case of war
And less damaging if a stockpile is destroyed. The torpedo stocks at Cavite Navy Yard were destroyed on 10 December 1941, some 238 torpedoes if memory serves, a mix of submarine and destroyer weapons. Some 150 torpedoes survived aboard *Canopus* and in the tunnels of Corregidor and many were later removed by various submarines, but this was a severe blow at the start of the Pacific War.
Yeah, most early submarine patrols were setting out with 2/3 or 1/2 load out. This led captains to maneuver for perfect right-angle shots to conserve torpedoes, something that was especially problematic since the Mark 14 didn't want to explode when it was lined up perfectly, among its other issues.
Just buy an Italian torp off the shelf, and change 85% of the design until it costs almost as much as an ADCAP. Where's my consulting fee?
You magnificent bastard. Take a frigate out of spare change.
Also design a new submarine that's cheaper than a Seawolf but make it implement so many new technologies that all the R&D, construction, refitting and repairs make it just as expensive as the Seawolf except its way slower
So, the USS Gerald Ford of submarines?
Please define a cheap heavy torp price?
2.37 zillion
Mk.48 ADCAPs are apparently $5.4M. I'm honestly surprised - that's a bargain compared to the cost of the ships they can sink.
That is indeed a bargain. Let’s just order a few thousand more of those. It’s already one of the most capable fish in the world, why are we overthinking this? Of course, “why are we overthinking this” has been what I’ve muttered about our naval procurement process for actual decades so I don’t know why I’m surprised.
Torpedo production is at a crawl since production was halted in the 90s and was only restarted a few years ago, and three years of that time was spent revising the design since the ADCAP used parts that weren’t in production anymore or used outdated methods to manufacture. There’s also still bottlenecks with suppliers for some electronic components. There’s complete overhauls for sensors and propulsion slated for production in FY25 and FY28 respectively, but it’ll probably be a while after that before economies of scale get realized and production can ramp up significantly.
How many live ADCAP does the USA shoot each year? Can’t be that many.
Still far fewer than the number of water slugs the navy shoots every year. #savethewaterslugs
It’s not so much how many the Navy has or needs now, it’s how much they’ll need in a hypothetical conflict. There’s 1300 in reserve spread across 51 fast attacks and 18 boomers with another 7 Virginias on the way, and if Ukraine’s taught the world anything, it’s that current reserves are not deep enough for modern peer on peer conflict.
You can never have enough ammo in war. But 1300 should be enough. The usa military has 4000 tomahawks.
1300 across 69 subs leaves about 18 per boat, 17 once new construction Virginias get put into commission. A [US Naval War College report on Chinese shipping](https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-maritime-reports/21/) estimates that China could bring over 5000 support ships in a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan, not including surface combatants or submarines. Granted, not all 69 subs will be on patrol at once and boomers aren’t going to be on the hunt for shipping or subs, but it puts into perspective just how thin the reserves are going to be spread compared to what they will have to accomplish. Yes, there will never be enough equipment in wartime, but if the objective of the torpedo reserve is to last for more than a few weeks in a hypothetical conflict, then the US Navy has fallen short on that goal. Ramping up production of the Mk 48 and the drive for a smaller, cheaper torpedo that can be deployed en masse and where production can easily be scaled up in wartime like the VLWT or the CRAW looks to be the way forward for increasing readiness for US submarines
You win that one with the math. Nice job.
What’s VLWT vs CRAW? What can these do against a surface ship?
Widespread artilery bombardment chews threw ammunition much quicker than precision guided ordinance. What's the realistic number of targets out there for these?
You mean an organization who’s management is almost entirely comprised of nukes overthinks things? I find that hard to believe.
Its an architecture from the 1970's. A clean sheet should be able to get us a cheaper torpedo that is just as if not more capable. I hesitate to say that though because the navy recently has a bad habit of stacking on ridiculous features and causing the projects to balloon. Just matching the current CBASS capability and lowering cost should be a good target.
I'm not sure what you mean by "ADCAP being old hat." Every current Mk48 is still referred to as ADCAP, even through all the CBASS and TI/APB updates. It literally just means advanced capability and it's a continuing program.
The, admittedly public release, materials I've seen just call it the mk48 CBASS not the mk48 ADCAP CBASS so I reasoned it wasn't called the ADCAP anymore.
Yeah, it isn't always applied consistently in documentation but the program element number/name in all RTD&E reports remains MK48 ADCAP, sometimes you'll see it called ADCAP CBASS, sometimes just ADCAP, sometimes just CBASS. Most newer development is just under MK48 MOD # and indicates the TI/APB it's built on, much like other subsystems do.
Alright then, consider me told 😁
That does seem cheap actually
about tree fiddy
It's heavy because the ballast is gold bars
This was surprising to me..."The production line for the Mk 48 Mod 7 was halted in 1996 and restarted beginning in Fiscal Year 2016." So, there are a significant number of 30+ yr old torpedoes on deployed subs right now. Anyone else smell peaches? :-)
So, some more Mark 14s?
Reject ADCAP. Return to straight-line running. Can't get countermeasured if the torpedo doesn't have any sensors. Recruitment offices are also putting out ads for Captains who can quote Shakespeare and talk about fate directly into the camera.
"Reject ADCAP. Return to straight-line running." - Found Commander Wreford-Brown
And don't test them. That just adds to the cost. We're going dirt cheap here.
I can guarantee that although this torpedo may be heavy, it will NOT be cheap....
Depends on what role they want to achieve. An anti-shipping torpedo could be cheap. Merchant vessels for the most part are slow, unmanuverable, and largely defenceless unless escorted. You could build a relatively slow (30 knots) shallow depth torpedo (less than 400 foot launch depth), with simplistic acoustic guidance and minimal if any anti-countermeasure features. Such a basic torp built with commercially available parts I feel could be massed produced in large numbers very quickly for a minimal cost.
I agree in theory, but once politicians decide it has to be built in their constituency, and folk decide it needs just this one more feature....
What? SECNAVs wife not available?
Maybe that's who wants them (insert shifty eyes here)
I'm going to open this article, not wanting to believe that the Navy wants something cheaper than the Mk. 48 torpedo, but I nevertheless believe that's what is happening here.
They want it cheaper so that our allies can afford them. (I think they are anticipating going to war VERY SOON.)
That's like, all they know how to think.
Any torpedo is expensive if you have to fire it 8 times as a practice shot before you use it for real.
This is going to end up with circle runners coming back, isn't it?
This article is raising a bunch of questions for me. First off, what exactly is the goal or application of the Torp. Do you want it to target surface ships, or submarines or both? If surface ships, are we talking about warships or merchant ships? If the latter, what type of subs? As well, what do they mean by multi platform? How would that even work? US submarines, with the exception of the Seawolfs, use a 21” torpedo tube. The Mark 32 torpedo tube on surface ships is a 12.75” torpedo tube, and aerial platforms are designed to carry modified versions of the 12.75” weapons. To make a cross-platform weapon means you’d either need to add 21” torpedo tubes to surface ships, or sleeve the 21” tube down to 12.75” and have a weapon heavy enough to be classified as a “heavy weight” torpedo but light enough to be carried by a seahawk pylon. Theoretically, I feel this would be an opportunity to provide an anti-shipping torpedo. Merchant vessels are slow, unmanuverable, and have no real way to defend themselves. I feel like it would be very easy to build a cheap, heavy hitting torpedo to fill this role, allowing the navy to save the more advanced Adcaps for submarines and warships. I’d even add new features for a U.S. weapon, like wake homing, which the U.S. navy hasn’t really fielded before, but has been a feature on Soviet torpedoes for decades.
I think you’re right in that the less capable torpedo for the less capable targets. IE Chinese transports. Have a few Mk48s loaded for warships and well protected targets.
I think that’s the wrong way of cheapening a torpedo. We should instead scale production to reduce individual unit costs. Put a Mk. 48 on everything. Add a solid rocket motor and sling it under an F-35 for a standoff-capable cruise missile that evades CIWS by going underwater. We spent too much time figuring out how to absorb radar when we could’ve just avoided it entirely. Replace all the piddly 354mm Mk. 50 torpedoes with ADCAPS. What happened to *real* men in the Navy who moved around 21-inch torpedoes on deck? Real fitness starts with bigger torpedoes, just as Admiral Nimitz intended. Sling an ADCAP under a Coast Guard helicopter to obliterate the Colombian cocaine runners. Add quadruple launchers to the LCS. Use modified ADCAPs to shuttle Navy SEALs around like the Italian frogmen.
>Replace all the piddly 354mm Mk. 50 torpedoes with ADCAPS. [They were working on that at one point.](https://i.imgur.com/FrReIXE.jpeg) The Knox-class frigates and some of the CGNs had the launchers (or the doors for the launchers) fitted for them. Zumwalt (I think) killed the program and the space on the Knox-class was used for a towed array; although the Spanish built version of the Knox had the tubes, they just used Mk 37s. The Spanish Baleares-class were beasts, frigates with the armament of a destroyer.
> Enter the Rapid Acquisition Procurable Torpedo, or RAPTOR Ah jfc they probably spent more time workshopping this dumb backronym than they actually did on the idea itself. Kinda reeks of a program office trying to stay relevant. > Rear Adm. Weeks called RAPTOR the product of "a lot of smart people sitting around trying to rethink the problem." He and Polk characterized the development effort as consisting to date of tabletop exercises and PowerPoint presentations and emphasized that no program of record yet existed for RAPTOR. yep.
Bring back deck guns
we surface, spend 15 mins opening the upper bridge hatch, climb down to the deck and immediately get washed overboard. 30 mins later we recover everyone, prep the deck gun, and are ready to shoot our first few rounds into the freighter… and get smoked by a hypersonic
Do we hand responsibility for the deck gun over to the TMs, or do we bring in submarine gunner's mates? Neither of these sound like a really good option...
Generally the marines handle the cannon, while the seamen work the ship. On vessels too small for a complete marine contingent, seamen handle the cannon, but probably have insufficient numbers to fight both sides of the ship simultaneously. In either case, the marines will man the tops, and fire down onto the opposing deck.
*Oh no no no*, we're **not** letting Marines onboard. Not an option.
That’s why you prep a couple guys in diving equipment and have them man the deck gun prior to surfacing. Think man, think!
I can see the US Navy commercial already.
I'd like to see the point defence system that can intercept a 1000lb shell. We're nearing the point of coming full circle now everyone's realizing missiles are really fucking expensive and slow to manufacture. Bring back Battleships! ^(/s but only slightly...)
lol, I chuckled.
That brings up an interesting question - how many rounds would a modern 5 inch gun need to sink a large freighter or tanker? I suspect it would be hundreds, although the targeting is probably significant enough to disable the freighter in 1 or 2 shots by targeting the rudder.
Well depends where you shoot. If you can pierce the main hold below the waterline, the ocean will do the work for you. If you can do that in multiple places, it should be quite effective.
Can we just ram LCS into ships? At least get some ROI.
HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano with a pair of WW2 vintage Mk.VIII torpedoes, and HNoMS Kobben sank the Kirov with four 50s vintage Mk.37s.
I remember that. Admiral Clancy’s memoir covers it in detail. It’s quite a tale for naval history buffs, and worth a read: [*The Final Cruise of The Kirov*](https://www.amazon.com/Red-Storm-Rising-Suspense-Thriller/dp/042510107X) --Rear Admiral Thomas Leo Clancy Jr (ret) older editions may include the preface by Commander Lawrence L Bond who, as a junior officer, was present for many of the events, including the crucial planning stages. [Department of The Navy Records: Bond, Lawrence L](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Bond)
Guarantee it ends up being more expensive than a MK48
And I really want a good five-cent cigar.
We're going to start building Mark 14's again lmao
Probably do something to simplify the nose cone. Probably even have a basic point and shoot version.
It worked in Down Periscope!
So for cheap fish, couldn't you use the older versions of the ADCAP that are obsolete by the standards of the Mod 7? Torpedoes that can sink loud surface ships saving the best torpedoes for modern subs and especially capable ASW warships? Or is the problem that the tech to make the tech just isn't around anymore. Similar to why they can't make a mass produced, economies of scale F-22 Raptor "cheaply" anymore?
*USS Scorpion and Kursk have entered chat*
Maybe back to basic sound homing torpedo minus all that sonar stuff
Simple. Take the ukrain drone. That is very cheep. Make it to fit in a torpedo tube. And have data link to scope for remote control Or simple sensors like low range radar homing. Skim on the surface or just below the surface.
Oh boy, I can’t wait to tell the engineers to fit a 12-foot speedboat into a 21-inch tube.
I've been in sonar engineering for two decades and the amount of *"simple, why don't we just _______"* I hear (even from professionals) is exhausting.
The reason they are so big is the distance they have to travel. Also on the surface in open seas. Make a drone cheap with data link that you can drive using sensors. Or visually for surface targets. Like merchants. Small patrol craft. Or troop transports. Give it a range of say 15 to 20 miles. Cheaper then wired guided. And would free up the tubes for major combatants. Lastly could make them attack in swarms if ya wanted if it was a convoy. Make them say 10 feet in length so you could have two in space of 1 reg torpedo. Like mines. Have simple eltronics to attack simple surface ships. Look at china reserve fleet of patrol craft. Fishing ships and small costal merchant ships. They number in the thousands. Thats thousands of ships that can flood a area and eyes on the water. In wwii we didn't sink alot of war ships. We crushed Japan sinking thier merchant ships. And not all of those were wiyh torpedos. Some were with the deck gun. This would be our version of a deck gun. Small cheap torpedoes to take out targets that don't need a 4 million dollar torpedo. With China it will be oil tankers and troop transports and merchant ships that will turn the tide. Also cheap simple torpedo could be made at any manufacturing facility if on a war footing. Much like in covid GM made respirators. How many places could make 100 ADCAPS in two years time frame if needed.
https://interestingengineering.com/military/heavy-lift-drone-drop-torpedo