'' Researches in remote control started in 60's at Central Research Institute for Automatics and Hydraulics (Moscow). "A wire line was adopted basing on simultaneous doubled paying out of cable from two spools located in torpedo and towed by a submarine. Such telecontrol system was applied in SET-53M type torpedo commissioned in 1969 under the index
TEST-68. In 1971 torpedo
TEST-71 was designed on the basis of more advanced torpedo
SET-65; then – torpedo
TEST-71M and helicopter-based remote-controlled torpedo
VTT-1 on the basis of torpedo
AT-1" ("60 years of CRI Gidropribor", St. Petersburg, 2003).
In contrast to western telecontrol systems providing both directional and depth control of several torpedoes for maximum consideration of hydrology, decreasing of torpedo's noise, and alteration of target class (for example, while submarine's "dolphin jump" surfacing), telecontrol system of our Projects 641B and 877 diesel electric subs provided only horizontal guidance of only one torpedo. Submarine-towed telecontrol spool is still used. Influence of water currents on torpedo's speed leads to spool curling and wire breakage. Application of long conducting ropes to decrease this effect excludes use of telecontrol at shallow depths and makes multiple launches impossible.
Late 60's Western designers developed umbilical telecontrol spool; after launch, it remained on breech door of torpedo tube. Cable slippage was provided by protective "hose" to compensate submarine's post-launch maneuvering. Umbilical telecontrol enabled to increase reliability of cable connection, reduce limitations in speed and maneuvers, and ensure multiple launches including those at shallow depths. Consequently, torpedo weapons became more effective, and distances between launch site and targets were significantly increased.
In 70's Soviet Union also had everything to adopt umbilical spools; however, the Navy hindered that innovation. The necessity of post-launch removing a spool and a "hose" from torpedo tube required manual operations. Navy Technical Development Plan involved automatic reload of torpedo tubes which was possible only with towed spool. So, the Navy rejected "hose" telecontrol systems; moreover, it was widely believed that "we don't need it", since our subs and torpedoes were less silent and so forth. USET-80, basic torpedo of 3rd generation nuclear submarines had never obtained homing system prescribed in Technical Development Plan.
By the way, in real conditions even brief telecontrol considerably increases effectiveness of torpedo launch against submarine; moreover, successful launch against surface ships performing anti-torpedo zigzag maneuvers at a distance over 11-13 km is possible only with telecontrol. The main thing is that up to mid-80's telecontrol remained the only effective interference resistance method in conditions of high sonar countermeasure. Till early 80's there were no homing systems with required interference resistance worldwide. So to provide effective fire, the US Navy has been using telecontrol as indispensable condition since 50's; their surface ships are equipped with broad range of ASW means to maintain capability of multiple attacks upon submarines.
All Western heavy torpedoes and even new Chinese torpedoes use umbilical telecontrol. Towed spool applied in our torpedoes is a 50-year old rudiment. In fact, this places Russian subs in the crosshairs of enemy's weapons having much more effective firing range.
The situation is that, for example, none of Russian torpedoes presented at international defense show
IMDS-2009 had umbilical telecontrol spool, even the most advanced UGST! Only towed spools... ''
This is an extract from an article i found online, it discusses the flaws of Russian torpedoes. Since a majority of our torpedoes are Russian, are our torpedoes too limited by the same problems?
If our torpedoes are limited by the same problem, what procedures/tactics are used to minimise this handicap?
Also, are the Ship and sub launched versions of the varunastra limited by the same problem?
Article source
http://rusnavy.com/science/weapons/underseaweapon/index.php?print=Y&ei=i2n01bwm&lc=en-IN&s=1&m=681&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1475580932&sig=AF9Nedntole3bdSEbMPSNWWXrk7x8EwIPA