Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Delays, Torpedos, Revitalization
The (cryptographic) wheels of government grind slowly. JOEL-V writes: "In August 2000, the United States Patent Office issued patent #6097812 to the National Security Agency, for 'Cryptographic System.' The patent application was filed in the year 1933, and this invention and patent are actually one version of the famous Enigma machine."
On a similar note, Paul Maud'Dib writes: "The Slashdot crew might be interested in checking out Enigmatic. They have java emulators for the Purple, Sigaba, Enigma, Russian Espionage Cipher and a public domain Bombe. They also have rather lucid descriptions of the various systems used. Interesting reads all."
That which does not kill him makes him stronger. You may recall that some maladjusted script kiddies threw a spanner in the works of the excellent kuro5hin a little while ago. Emmett told you more about the attack and its aftermath shortly thereafter. Looks like it's time for the (all volunteer, cool-content, graphically appealing) kuro5hin to emerge from a quick breather.
pope nihil writes: "kuro5hin.org has an update on their page. things should be back up (according to the update) by Sept 15 or so. check it out." Yes, Go there! Congratulations, guys.
88 bottles of bits on the wall, 88 bottles of bits ... NoWhere Man writes "The bankrupt Iridium venture has received another bid to save the wireless phone company's $5 billion satellite system from being pulled from space and destroyed. A California-based organization named CMC International is offering to pay $30 million to acquire Iridium's 88 satellites and other assets, according to a court filing submitted Friday."
It certainly would be nice if someone could eke out (even a meager) connection from Iridium rather than incinerating the satellites in the atmosphere, but honestly, the Will Burn / Will Fly status of these birds flip-flops enough to put a politician to shame. I'd like them to stay up, if only not to spook other folks from putting data-bouncing satellites up for our browsing pleasure.
In a nutshell, this is the problem with carrying around cavitation weapons. aleclee writes "It now appears that the Kursk was indeed carrying cavitation weapons and that she was sunk by a misfiring rocket. Supposedly, the rocket/torpedo can travel at 200 knots! Details can be found here."
Update: any port in a storm, and this one sounds nice. Patrick Ryan wrote: " Hello, I wanted you to know that CDSA [as mentioned in this slashdot story] has been updated at Intel and now includes a Linux port." Visit http://developer.intel.com/ial/security/ for more information about CDSA, and then the download site for your free-downloading pleasure.
I don't think Russia's too worried about US invasion plans in this day and age; I suspect they lose most of their sleep over their much more populous neighbor to the south and east....
--
It's not so much that you'll get in trouble, but under Article 47 Paragraph 23, they'll deny your request to have a lego submarine built.
--
You mean "death throes", I think.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
If Iridium is ultimately rescued, take a close look at the company that does it. I know that U.S. government employees are a large portion of the users, and I would not put it out of the realm of possibility for some secretive governmental agency to keep the thing afloat via a front company.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
...DDoS attacks or slashdot?
Speaking of audible noises...
The recent Newsweek article on the Kursk said that the U.S. sub's sonar operators were nearly deafened by the explosion.
Them's some high-falutin' headphones...
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
..that the Kursk was carrying any sort of "test" weapon. Loosely quoting Razor's Maxim, "All things being equal, the simplest solution is usually correct." Russia doesn't have the cash to keep most of its subs from rusting in their shipyards, much less to pour into R&D. The speculation that they fired some "new" torpedo and it either blew up in the tube, or turned back on the sub is pure bunk. It is widely known that the Russians went from stable solid fuel torpedoes, to a much more volatile, liquid fuel torpedo. What probably happened was some untrained crewmember, made a catastrophic mistake (it was a conscript, cherry crew), and the sympathetic explosion destroyed the sub. As for the notion that any one survived. Don't make me laugh. Most where incinerated in the second explosion, those who weren't had their lungs ripped out as the explosion burned up all the oxygen. If someone was luck enough to survive this, they most certainly drown seconds later. Stop all the conspiracy talk, its bullshit from "unnamed" sources.
Spazdot-1 in 10 insightfull articles, and 1 in 10,000 insightfull comments ain't bad.
The New York Times is running what I think is a more substantive article on the Kursk sinking that also supports the cavitation-torpedo-gone-bad theory.
Of course, free registration is required so they know where to find you and take your guns away.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.
And having more karma than 50 is important for....what is that reason again? Need it to motivate you to post insightful comments? Ahh..I was wondering what the big deal was ;-)
My patent lawyer friend tells me that, to his knowledge, patents take from 1 to 67 years to be approved.
A host is a host from coast to coast
but no one uses a host that's close
According to Jane's (I know most /.'ers don't have access to it, but I'll cite my source: Jane's Intelligence Review, May 01, 1995; June 01, 1995; June 01, 1998 "Homing in on Russia's approach to ASW"; November 01, 1999 "How Shkval ensured Soviet SSBN survivability") The VA-111 Shkval has been in development since 1964. It was accepted into service in 1977, and carried on Sierra, Mike and Akula class attack submarines.
It's rocket powered, and originally it carried a tactical nuclear weapon. It was intended to defend the SSBN's, Ballistic missile submarines, as a defense against the quieter US attack submarines. So it's not too out of line to speculate that an SSBN might be outfitted with them. It has no guidance whatsoever. As soon as an attacking torpedo was fired, a Shkval was supposed to be fired back along the incoming heading. It would reach a point between the incoming torpedo and the attacking sub, then detonate the tacnuke. The shockwave would destroy the attacking sub and torpedo.
Since treaties have forbade the use of tactical nukes on submarines, this role has been retired. As previously discussed, a new version of the weapon, the Shkval-E is now being made as a conventional weapon. The rocket motor has a 90 second burn time, it is 533.4mm in diameter, 8.2m long, and weighs in at 2700kg, with a 250kg warhead. Range is supposed to be about 10,000 yards, pretty short for a torpedo. It's supposed to be guided, although it would be damn hard to get it to turn very fast.
Mmm. Torpedos have save millions of lives in the last 50 years. Forget penicillin or immunisation, these men are the true humanitarians.
I don't know exactly what happened.
Then do not post your ill-informed speculations. Or if you must, write them in an e-mail and send them to Mr Putin, who I am sure will be grateful for your message of support.
If you're a jock, inflict some pain / If you're a nerd then use your brain - DAPHNE AND CELESTE
My read in the Cavitation torpedo is it is an underwater rocket/missle which moves through the water as such a rate of speed that only the nose of the missle is in contact with the water. It has, reportedly, little if any capacity for turning, but is hell-bent-for-leather fast.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
So I guess you're talking about a billion "shove it!" messages that the United States has given the U.N...
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Nit pick: the USS Enterprise (the carrier, not the starship) is the *only* one of its class. There are no other Enterprise-class carriers out there; our other CVNs are Nimitz-class. The Enterprise is also quite old.
Well, cavitation is the term for the air bubbles created when the prop(s) of a submarine spin too rapidly (or are improperly made to begin with) and create such turbulence (for lack of a better word) that it can be more easily detected by sonar systems. Surface craft can create cavitation as well, but with submarines, the idea is not to be spotted at all, while it is kind of hard to hide a surface ship.
Now, a cavitation torpedo is probably (I can't say for sure) a torpedo designed to home in on the sounds of cavitation of another craft. Mind you, this can be of limited use, especially against submarines that either turn their props slowly enough to not create (enough) cavitation, or if they stop dead in the water. Surface ships don't always have this option, of course, as it is much easier to target and destroy a surface ship.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
High-falutin headphones? Maybe they used that MIT acoustic sound source. "Boom! Hey skipper, sorry to scare you." But if the sonar techs clearly picked up the explosion, I have to think that everybody on the sub heard it. That would have to be piss in your pants scary.
Given the track record of western financial aid being siphoned off by the _wrong_ people, I'd be pretty hesitant to send money.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
He says:
.C3nZc3nZC3nXE3f3Cxv7CNnX.fHmc.Dxb1ENfZENfXD3b7.
.C3nZC3nZC3nXE3f3Cxv7CnnX.fHmc.Dxb1ENfZENfYD3PW.
.C3nZc3nZC3nXE3f3Cxv7CNnX.cGen.ENr7C3n0C3z6CNrXCG.
.C3nZC3nZC3nXE3f3Cxv7CNnX.cGen.ENr7C3n0C3z6CNrXCG.
.C3nZC3nZC3nXE3f3Cxv7CNnX.cGen.ENr7C3P1DNvZE3v3CW.
I hope that that clears things up for you.
I'll be your brown eyed girl.
I agree that they're very carefully wording the message. What I found interesting was the allegation that substantial liberties were taken with those unofficial comments. While I'm not exactly a fan of big media, I have little tolerance for people who forge evidence to support a cause.
New Scientist had an article about super cavitation weapons recently. Super cavitation works by using a flat nose to create a low pressure area around the vessel, which vaporizes the water and greatly reduces drag. Using this technology, a vessel can reach speeds of 50 m/s. The only downside is that steering is very difficult.
By the same token, it's be nice to see someone find SOME use for this. I mean, it just seems wasteful get this far, and surely someone can find a good use.
I'm just guessing, but I would ass/u/me from the name, that it somehow generates air bubbles in between the torpedo surface and the water, in order to reduce friction.(?)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If napster is killing any sales, its sales of the cassette since its a bitch to rip a cassette.
"...went disastrously wrong, igniting highly inflammable propellant and detonating missile and torpedo warheads."
hmm...prehaps their first mistake was using that damned inflammable propellant, it's always going around and igniting. Prehaps if they had used flammable propellant, all of this could have been avoided...typos baby, wohoo!
Back on-topic, I don't see this stuff becoming useful for non-military purposes though. The article briefly glanced over what see as the biggest problem: underwater sea life. If you're rocketing at Mach 2 underwater, you're going to hit some fish. They're fast, but damn, not that fast. At the very least, a fish hitting the bubble will destroy the bubble, probably the ship as well (Tuna salad sandwich anyone?) How do they propose to get the sea life out of the way??
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
OK take a deep breath. Now think. Look at Russia.
The Russian economy is *not* capitalist, nor is it a free market. It is a mix of feudalsim and fascism. The government still allows/disallows large portions of what can happen (fascisim, not free market), and private kingpins control and reap the bounties of capital, whether it belongs to them or not (feaudalism, not capitalism).
As with most claims made about the problems caused by capitalism and free markets, this one illustrates by pointing to things that are anathema to the market and capitalists.
hawk, economics professor
will figure out that the US isn't planning to invade?
Perhaps there's a strain of paranoia in the Russian soul. But it's not just their imagination. In the last 90 years they were invaded by Germany and Austria, Great Britain, France, and the US. And that was just during WWI. During WWII they were invaded again by Germany and Japan and suffered massive casulties. Something like 1 out of every 10 Russians died.
Overly paranoid? We all know that the US would never invade a foreign country to "protect national interest". Not the Dominican Republic, or Nicagagua, or Grenada, or Panama, or Cuba. Certainly not Russia. Except for that once. The US has a navy that nobody else can equal, but still hasn't stopped developing dangerous and costly new weapons.
National memories are long. In the US South, they remember "The War of Northern Agression". All over the US, there are still people who still distrust the Japanese. And in Bosnia, there are people who are bitter about an invasion that happened in the year 1389. Why would we expect Russia to trust the US?
Maybe it will have a horn.
:)
"meep meep, high explosives coming through"
As for non-military purposes though, it could make spear fishing _real_ interesting
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
The book also notes that the SS-N-19 has a 550-kilometer range, and that the OSCAR-I displaces 16,000 metric tons. There is a rather good picture of one on page 69.
Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
read the link... www.newscientist.com/features/features_224813.html
for a better explanation
clancey
No not wiggling - go here to find out : http://www.newscientist.com/features/features_2248 13.html
And here for more:
(as in aleclee article) :
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/ 08/27/stifgnrus01003.html
I do not know why they call it "squall" instead of "shkval" though - maybe an incompetent translator perhaps ? :-)
One Master - One Apprentice
Maybe it's termites for the codebooks and thermite for the rest of the stuff.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
If you go to www.milparade.com and search on Shkval, you'll find quite a few descriptive pages and detail about this system. Interestingly, the new Amur class subs are being sold to the Chinese with the Squall system fitted.
Next week on Slashdot: the Roadrunner sues Russia over patent infringement.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
I'm wondering; why couldn't they do a drop-launch of this weapon? that is, slowly shove it out the torpedo tube, let it sit and possibly self-home on the target, but not fire the main motor, move the mother ship away so as not to give away it's position, then fire the torpedoes engines at a safe distance?
Why not? well maybe their homing systems aren't that sophisticated. But ya'd think it would be safer than risking the sub.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not the CMC Int'l Record Company??? :) That would be too funny. Maybe they want to drop those bad boys a Lynard Skynard show, a spectacular firework show of sorts.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Wasn't that cryptograpy story posted already? I believe it was just last week.
//\
(o_
V_/_
Windows2000: Where do you think you're going today?
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I think I'd rather crew a Lego sub than a Russian submarine. They don't have the best track record. (400+) lost in various accidents.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
I guess it's no surprise that the Russian navy was hiding something, given that they kept the rescue crews away. But it's really sad that they seem to have sacrificed the lives of the crew to preserve the secret torpedo design, if that's why they kept the rescuers away from the damaged torpedo section.
And what were the Russians supposed to do? If your $8 billion weapon project could be compromised by foreign armies and rendered useless, the Russians had no other choice. The damages caused by delaying the rescue mission were far smaller than the potential of the whole project going down the drain if compromised.
On a not completely related note, this is unnfortunately not the first time lives of sailors have been sacrificed for a secret/new design, this one's not the Russians though... (Some people may have heard it before, the Globe and Mail carried a story on it a few weeks ago)
Seems back near the beginning (sp?) of WWII the British were testing a new sub design when it sank. The skipper managed to get an end of the sub above water, but the British Navy refused to let the rescuers cut open the end in order to rescue the crew men, the reasons for this are unknown but last I heard was that the going theory is that they didn't want to damage the hull of a such a new design... Anyways, according to one of the men who tried to rescue the crew members, they could still hear tapping noises from inside the sub when the rescue was called off... Pity that no one seems to learn from the past...
-GreenHell
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
The facts about this case (from sources that all have something to hide)
1) The Kursk didn't have any nukes on board.
This is damn rare. The only time you don't have a nuke sub armed is if you think it might sink in your backyard. Things like inital testing and say testing a new weapon that your not sure about.
2) New stuff tends to be added to flagships first. This sub was the about the same as the US Navy sees the USS Enterprise, its a flagship being the first in its class. The flag ship also tends to play with all the cool new stuff. (Enterprise, Bismark, Titanic). Its amazing how many didn't work out so well.
3) The Russian Navy was hunting for another sub in the area. It had been spotted a short distance from the Kursk just after the accident. There were 3 US subs in the area according to the US Navy.
4) The Russian goverment as well as the US goverment only did the rescue thing in a half assed PR way. I think the US govt knew there was no one alive very quicly. A sub a few hundred meters away can hear the water leaking into another sub. We heard reports about the morse code but what did they say? No one is talking. I suspect it was something like "compartments 1-4 full, leaks into 5,6,7. reactor locked down".
5) In a case where a sub is not going to come back up, the sub crew will distory all sensitve things. This includes codebooks and the like. They use termite which makes it very hard to breath.
6) Don't underestimate a sub crews willingness to go down with the ship. These people are selected for that ability. Its very difficult to find someone smart enough to understand a sub and be willing to die for a patrotic cause at the drop of the hat.
beep beep!
One of the reasons why the patent for the Enigma machine was not granted was to keep it out of the public eyes. The panent filing requires exposure of certain specific details about the invention, and Enigma was a very powerful encription tool, well after WW II.
In fact, the British government have kept all of its captured Enigma machines out of public access for decades. Enigma was a very successful tool, and for long time after WWII it was sufficent for the needs of governments and international corportaion to encrypt sensitive information.
Thus, the real reason for not granting this patent earlier is quite likely desire to keep unscrupulous individuals to crack Enigma and Enigma-based encryption systems that were in use at the time.
Oh, so THAT'S why my Karma hasn't gone up despite some positive moderations! Jeez, go on one measley two-week vacation, and you miss everything! So, there's no LOWER limit?
Damn, now I can't save up 1000 Karma points and sell my account on ebay!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Between an exploding torpedo and the Kursk.
But why is the rum gone?
Luckily for them, the U.S. military has only had limited success in developing a paper bag large enough to hold an entire enemy navy.
--
while ( !universe->perfect() ) {
hack (reality);
--
while ( !universe->perfect() ) {
hack (reality);
}
I am certainly not arguing that the U.S. Navy is superfluous. I'm not even arguing that the Russian Navy is superfluous.
I am saying that the only navies that Russia is likely to combat are currently much, much weaker than the current Russsian navy, and that furthermore, they will be that way for a while.
Accordingly, Russia should spend some of that R&D money they're using to develop these new torpedoes on economic restructuring, and the rest on maintaining that Navy they already have.
Steven E. Ehrbar
I hadn't noticed any correlation... /. readers be _working_ during business hours anyhow?
Really though, shouldn't most
Intolerant people should be shot.
Okay, arguing that the U.S. is a potential threat makes sense, which is why my original post said "Maybe now Russia will figure out that the U.S. isn't planning to invade". I know the Russians are worried about us, I just think that they're being unrealistic.
Especially since we already proved we can vastly outspend them. It's in their national interest to spend the money on their economy, because that's the only way they'll ever have enough to keep up with us.
And the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, even if it doubled in size tonight, would still be easy for the current Russian Navy to handle.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Is the U.S. going to invade tomorrow? Of course not -- not until we have a working misssile defense.
Therefore, the strategically responsible thing is to use this money to help their economy, so that in a decade they'll be able to spend much more on their Navy.
I'm not asking for Russia to trust the U.S. I just think that if Russia made a rational analysis of the balance of power, they would come up with a different view of what they have to do to secure themselves.
Steven E. Ehrbar
But what kind of turning radius do you have on that torpedo? If it's doing 200+ knots, then that's prohibitive. Far more likely is that it never got out of the sub to begin with.
Thanks, I was pretty sure it was RIAA garbage. :-)
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
You say first
:-), inside of a cylinder not resisting as well as the outside, no water to slow down the gases.
Torpedoes have 100-150kg warheads.
Then
The 100kg initial blast would almost certainly not be enough to sink the Kursk.
The actual weight of explosive is immaterial here.
I think it reasonable to assume that a torpedo striking a sub from outside would sink it; that's what they are designed to do. An outside explosion has lots to interfere with its mission: water pressure slowing down the explosion, gases dispersing in the ocean, cylindrical hull shape tending to resist the explosion.
Now imagine that same explosion inside the ship. Nice closed container (for a while
I think you are full of it.
--
Infuriate left and right
What amused me was being marked as offtopic in a story which explicitly mentions that topic.
> I seriously doubt it was a collision.
I thought inter-sub collisions were a well documented fact of the cat&mouse games of the cold war.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Check out Something Awful. They've got a suggestion of what can be done with the Iridium sats.
Yup. Every aggressor on the planet has been successfully subdued, so we can go ahead and start beating our swords into plowshares.
Would you like to explain to me what's different about THIS time we think that the world is a safe place? Seems like any student of history would realize that that is a deadly bad assumption.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
What would be a better fireworks display at the (real) end of the century of the atom bomb and the Internet, and the millennium at large, than the iridium satellites burning through the atmosphere?
Ironic, AND beautiful. It'd be perfect!
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
This is damn rare. The only time you don't have a nuke sub armed is if you think it might sink in your backyard. Things like inital testing and say testing a new weapon that your not sure about.
Sorry no. At least on the American side. SALT and SALT II made the existence of "tactical" nuclear weapons on fast attack submarines a thing of the past. I know I was there when we had to take them off our fast attacks.
I don't ever remember hearing whether Kursk was a fast attack or a ballistic missile sub. If it was a ballistic missile then yes it is rare. That's what the damned things are built for.
But please don't run around telling people that all subs carry nuclear weapons. There's enough FUD out there about submarines as it is.
Here's the complete email - I didn't copy all of it earlier:
Return-Path:Delivered-To: myinternaladdress@improbable.org
Received: (qmail 10674 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2000 16:29:28 -0000
Received: from mailgw2.sonyusa.com (209.191.156.38)
by marvin.qwk.net with SMTP; 28 Aug 2000 16:29:28 -0000
Received: from mailgw1.sonymusic.com (mailgw1.sonymusic.com)
by mailgw2.sonyusa.com (Build 98 8.9.3/NT-8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA01276
for Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:31:17 -0400
From: sonymusiconline@sonymusic.com
Received: by mailgw1.sonymusic.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.6 (890.1 7-16-1999)) id 85256949.0057F8B4 ; Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:00:51 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: SONY_MUSIC
To: sonymusiconline@sonymusic.com
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:34:15 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Steve Heckler, a Sony Pictures Informations Systems employee, was invited to
speak at an education conference on computer technology.
Nowhere in his prepared remarks did he discuss Napster. In an informal
conversation after his prepared remarks, he was quoted by a student newspaper as
allegedly making certain statements regarding Napster. The story that appeared
as a result is totally inaccurate. Furthermore, the quotes attributed to Mr.
Heckler have been taken out of context and do not represent the opinions or
strategies of Sony Pictures, Sony Music or any other Sony Company.
No thanks. Got one. Has port.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
Capital cost is not the only expense. Certainly a lot of networks (including the 19th century railways) were only profitable after being picked up at a discount in bankruptcy, but Iridium's operating expense is astronomical too.
Motorola set it up so that they wouldn't lose. They got paid for the satellites and paid to run them. Somebody else could probably run them much cheaper but Motorola doesn't want that to happen; that could make them look bad in the bankruptcy court.
Yeah, heh, you're right. And feudalism is my fearful vision of the future for America, too. With copyright and patent protections being used instead of land grants and landowning. Seriously, the entertainment industry is taking over so much else including the internet.
... they didn't) or stay under stable leadership (oh, no, wait ... they didn't) or, I mean, stay out of war (oh, no, wait ... they didn't) keep an economy... avoid hyperinflation... keep out of heavy unremovable debt... At least their ENGINEERING seems good, and they've got less RACIAL TENSIONS than usual, although that may be disentigrating.
But, seriously, Russia is in serious trouble, and anyone can tell they've been lucky to stay in one piece (oh, no, wait
Gee, wonder where we've seen this before?
-Ben
No, a cavitation weapon or submarine uses what is usually considered a problem to its advantage. Cavitation is when an airpocket (actually water vapor pocket) forms around something moving quickly through water. This causes problems with propulsion systems. However it has been specualted, (and used in limited ways) that a vehicle (or weapon) could create this pocket around the majority of its hull, greatly reducing friction fromwater, and ultimately allowing incredibly fast speeds underater.
"God is REAL
Now, mind you, if we feel that VA is being shady, we won't hesitate to tear them a new one. ;-) After all, they can't take their stuff back. The point is that VA is well aware that it, as a company, lives or dies by it's reputation and that in this community, reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose. They have a long record of stepping in and helping out sites and organizations that are in need, especially those that cater to their main customer base. This is not evil, this is simply good business, and if a bunch of folks get good hardware that they couldn't otherwise afford out of it, all the better.
When Debian gives away it's distro for free, we see them as being good memebers of the open source community. Yet when VA gives stuff away, a lot of people tend to get that "Hmmm... I don't know..." look. If you were them, what would you do? Help, or not? That's all it is.
Anyway, as always, articles bashing VA will be considered with complete equality by all the readers. Can't do much more than that.
--
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
Simon Singh wrote The Code Book which explains how the Enigma machines worked.
Pretty nerdy book actually. I read it on my honeymoon a couple of weeks ago.
People tell me I should have been too busy to read it, but I dunno what they're on about.
popey
I really don't care what my karma is (it's fun watching it drop), but those who do will probably start trolling just like eveyrone else now.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Gee Ben, does it make you the least bit nervous that the IMF's austerity regime in Russia is the 1990 equivalent of the Versailles treaty et seq., and that World history's next National Socialist government will inaugurate their new post-revolutionary regime possessing, what is it, 3,500 strategic nuclear weapons atop a wide range of decades-tested delivery vehicles?
But unlike the lifespan-robbed Russian masses who will sooner or later furiously overthrow the Yeltsin/Chubais/Putin clique, all these jokers here in /. prefer to quibble over whether or not the current Russkie kleptocracy is or isn't really a "true" capitalist economy. It may be, it may not be, that's a pointless dispute over an arbitrary semantic usage, but you can be sure that the rhetoricians of the second Russian Revolution will label their nation's destroyers and exploiters as "capitalists."
Thanks for your comment, good to know that at least someone was paying attention.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
You're insinuating that slashdot is full of idiots who only do things for ego, and that quality posts will disappear solely because of limited karma. This notion is patently rediculous.
Slashdot is a community built on a unique spirit, and there's no way that people with large amounts of karma are going to burn their karma with posts that don't say anything useful, just because they can't get more anymore.
----------------------------
:D (+1 Groupthink)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Maybe the U.S. isn't planning to invade with its Army, but even as I type the hellish, demonic IMF sits upon the neck of the Russian citizen.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the real bottom line, national mortality rates. First read the RAND institute on mortality in Russia after the "free market" set bomb on the Russian population; in particular, examine table 4.1, which shows male life expectancy in Russia declined from 64.9 years in 1987 to 59.0 in 1993. Then to be assured that the fatal trend of capitalism versus the Russian working man has not abated, much less reversed, here's the World Health Organization documenting how male life expectancy has continued to drop still further to 56.1 years in 2000! How would you feel, guy, were eight years delibertely axed off your life solely for the benefit of speculators and profiteers?
The fact is that the accursed U.S.A. and the capitaliism for which it stands have achieved a leap in the mortality rate in Russia of which even Hitler would be proud, and jealous.
And capitalism would cheerfully do exactly the same thing to you and all the members of your family and everyone you love, right here at home (wherever your home is), tomorrow, if this week's scheme seemed the slightest bit likely to increase the overall net wealth of the profit gluttons.
Sorry, reader, if I've insulted your intelligence by explicating the blatantly obvious at such tedious length.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
No it wasn't. It was the most recent of its class, commissioned eight years after the first Oscar II was commissioned. See here.
3) The Russian Navy was hunting for another sub in the area.
Um... I haven't heard about that one... Link? Sounds like someone took Hunt for Red October a little too seriously.
I don't doubt there was a weapon being tested on the Kursk, but I don't think there's a big international conspiracy going on. Something broke. It's called a risk. Yeah it sucks, but thats the military.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
And that neighbor has a navy that couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag.
Steven E. Ehrbar
"...yet they grind exceeding fine."
-JD
OSDN = Open Source Development Network.
Slashdot is owned by Andover.
Andover is owned by VA Linux.
VA Linux owns OSDN.
It's amazing what a couple clicks can tell you.
-palp
The running theory seems to be that Kursk was targeting Napster HQ with one of the missles, so that the US would pay more attention to them than Napster for a while... No comment on where that first aimed missle went though...
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
The guy on the Kursk was trying to defect! He was shot down by Tupolev before he could get to Thor's Twins!
-JD
The Kursk is an Oscar II class sub. It is not a balistic missile sub, nor is it a fast attack sub. Instad it carries cruise missiles used to attack surface ships, ports, and possible inland facilites. The cruise missiles can carry a nucular or conventional payload. A normal peacetime loadout would be entirely conventional weaponry. As best I can tell (someone who owns Janes Underwatter correct me :) it has vertical launch tubes designed to hold the cruise missiles, and then 4 torpedo tubes mostly for defense. The vertical launch tubes are similar to those found on a refitted Los Angeles class US sub, but can be reloaded at sea, while a LA has to reload in port.
This brings up some interesting questions:
1. Since the Kursk's primary mission is cruise-missile based, why was it testing a new torpedo? Wouldn't that be the job of an Alfa or some attack sub?
2. Why all the concern about nukes, when it's pretty clear that anyone familiar with the sub knew it wouldn't be carrying them?
I think the rumor of a mis-firing SSN-15 or 16 makes a lot more sense because it fits the Oscar II's mission profile a lot better. Incidently, those are fired out of the torpeedo tubes, not the special-purpose missile tubes, so it's reasonable that one could have caused the damage.
There's a difference between beating swords into plowshares and spending money on newer and bigger swords that may or may not work.
Especially since there are no naval threats to Russia. China's military power is entirely land-based. If this were an air- or ground- weapon system, that would be one thing. But whose navy is Russia afraid of?
Steven E. Ehrbar
Uh, let me just take a wild guess and say maybe the USA. Sure, we're friendly with Russia now, but we were friendly with Russia in 1915. We were (hesitant) allies with the USSR in 1944. If you want a more recent example, we were friendly with Iraq in 1989. The more things change...
Not only that, but China does in fact have a navy. Wars aren't fought only on land even if you border the country in question.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
One idiot previously mentioned about how a sub can hear water leaking into another at a few hundred meters. That's nice. But I don't think a sub CO would venture close after hearing an explosion that measured 3.5 on the Richter scale. Now that I think about it, it would have been rather strange to on board the US subs in the Barents. I believe that all the crew would have heard this last explosion regardless of their distance away from the Kurst.
I thought the NSA was created in 1952.
The Chinese do not have the ability to mount an invasion that would require them to cross the Pacific. Their entire fleet would be wiped out by the US and British before they got anywhere near Hawaii.
I think I can safely say that a Chinese invasion is *very* unlikely.
And just for the record, the nation that's told the UN to stick it more than anyone else is -guess who?- the United States! The UN routinely passes motions to condemn the US for one action or another, and we tell them to shove it.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
The Moscow Times special report has a few stories that mention another sub in the area. There are lots of other storys off the main pages.
.5mT ones. Did it have any at the time? Aparently not. Besides you don't take out a carrier fleet with conventional weapons if your in the middle of a nuke war. Remember thats why these subs exists. They are all part of the "I can nuke you better than you can nuke me" game and part of that is the ability to take out ships that can carry nukes (like big carriers).
In todays terms (I've even heard the US navy cliam it) flagship has been reduced to the marketing term. Its like which ship is more importaint, the USS New Jersy or the USS Missouri? Both are mostly pointless agasint a real navy but there was a reason that Japan surrendered on the deck of a battleship and not elsewhere.
Did the Kursk carry nukes? According to Janes it could carry 24
Who said anything about an international conspiracy? Every military likes to hide things. Thats as much a fact of life as testing new stuff can go very wrong. I kind of like the pr spin on things. Add that to the buring infastructure pr spin (just as soon as the TVs are back on) and you've got a spin doctors wet dream.
1) The kursk was not a boomer. It was an attack submarine, normally armed with cruise missiles. There is currently an agreement between the US and Russia, not to deploy nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Besides, only a submarine on patrol would carry nukes, and a submarine on patrol DOES NOT fire weapons, except to kill things. The Kursk was not on patrol, thats a given, so no way would nuclear weapons be involved.
2) Agreed, new ships try new things. That's not enough to guess what weapon was being tested though.
3) There was a live fire exercise, of course the russians were looking for other ships and subs. There's no reason to assume this was a super-secret test based on that. Also, of course there were US assets in the area, how many interesting live fire events do you think the Russians have? We wouldn't miss one.
4) There was nothing half-assed about the effort. National pride dictated the Russians try first, but they failed. Probably didn't matter anyway, by the look of things.
5) In a peacetime accident, no one is going to go blowing up equipment to secure secrets. They knew help was nearby and would have done anything they could to stay alive til help arrived.
6) Sub crews are carefully selected but they still have families and emotions, and are NOT fanatically suicidal. Those are traits you'd never let near dangerous hardware.
Interesting theories, but lacking in some real world sense. Should NOT have been moderated so highly, just based on reasonable tone. If you don't know if information is correct, don't vouch for it!
My opinions are based on 4 years experience as an analyst of the russian navy, and are about 8 years out of date, but things ain't changed THAT much!
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
The difference between a good leader and a bad leader is that the good leader won't allow his or others' emotions to influence his decisions, but will actually pick the best choice -- even if it conflicts with the majority's opinion. I am not defending Putin, because I don't know exactly what happened. However, we cannot decide for sure until the facts are known.
--
P.S. (Yes, I know you meant 400+ souls lost, but it's much easier to ridicule you this way, and it's ever so much more fun.)
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
cavitation is the term for the air bubbles created when the prop(s) of a submarine spin too rapidly
It doesnt need to be a submarine. There was a funny episode during the period of great competition between shipbuilders for the blue ribbon. They had build a new ocean liner which had enormous engines and was build to do the fastest ocean crossing ever. When they left the harbour on reduced power for the first test run it went all right. But when they applied full power in open water, the ship actually decelerated. The small and improperly designed propeller and the huge power of the engines meant that the propeller "beat away" the liquid, the water boiled and the propeller was in steam instead of liquid water.
a cavitation torpedo is probably (I can't say for sure) a torpedo designed to home in on the sounds of cavitation of another craft
No, it travels in a cavity. Others have posted the link already.
Is this email legit? I only ask because it appears to lack a Subject header. That, and the From and To lines have the same address. Why'd you forge that header?
Ryan
Probably been said before, but I can't help but write this response:
Ballistic missile subs carry around 20 SLBMs - that's "Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles", which in this time and age are meant to be used for waging unlimited nuclear war. The missiles mostly carry multiple, really big warheads. These are strategic weapons, used in deterrence, MAD and disarmament negotiations. The only thing these boats do is go out on patrol, cruise around in a big box of ocean and keep well away from everybody else in that box. If Armageddon isn't scheduled for this month, they go back to port, change crews, and go back out.
I choose to call all other submarines "hunter/killer", which is kind of an over-simplification. Bear with me. Maybe calling them "tactical" would be a better choice, since that is what mostly distinguishes them from the ballistic missile boats. These boats come in all sizes and kinds, nuclear-propelled and conventional, and all kinds of armament. Their missions can be diverse: surveillance, putting commando soldiers on a beach somewhere, escorting a surface battle group, denying sea room to somebody else, hunting merchant shipping, hunting surface warships, hunting submarines... Many of these missions are interrelated: if your sub escorts an aircraft carrier, it will most definitely keep an ear cocked for enemy submarines that are bent on killing the carrier, and do a bit of sub hunting themselves.
Looking at these missions, it's not hard to imagine that a lot of possible design solutions exist to fulfill them. The U.S. Navy, and indeed most western navies, seem to go the way of the multi-purpose boat: build a submarine that can handle submarine hunting - possibly the most demanding mission - and you get a submarine that should do all other things reasonably well, too.
Now for the Russians. Think back a dozen years or so, and remember that in those cold war days, U.S. Navy carrier battle groups roamed the high seas pretty much unchallenged by anybody else. Especially the Soviets (the Russians still were Soviets back then). And from what I remember, the Soviets had a healthy fear of those carriers, in the case of a larger conflict between the two power blocs, driving up the coast of Norway, right into the Barents Sea, back yard of the Soviets, and start pummeling the submarine and air bases located there with air strikes. Since the Soviet Navy didn't have proper carriers with which to go after the U.S. ones, they had to find something else. A relatively cheap (compared to carriers of their own) way was with submarines - a sub and its upkeep costs only fractions of a carrier battle group. Unfortunately, one main purpose of the "group" part of the carrier battle group was to keep enemy submarines from launching torpedoes at the carrier... so again, a solution was sought and found: The Soviet Navy built a number of classes of submarine dubbed, in the western naval lingo, SSG - "guided missile submarine". This indicates that these submarine's main mission was to shoot guided missiles - mostly of the cruise missile kind - at enemy ships. These missiles were built with both nuclear and conventional warheads; this is not surprising, since the Russians put both kinds of warhead on pretty much everything they built.
Back to the subject at hand: The Kursk was just such a boat - an SSGN of the Oscar II class, launched in 1994 and therefore one of the newer units in the Russian Navy. It carries as its main armament 24 SS-N-19 missiles, with a range of around 500km and either a 750 kg HE or 500 kT nuclear warhead (source: Jane's Naval Forces). These missiles, despite wearing a nuclear warhead, are classed as tactical weapons.
So the Kursk might have been nuclear -armed, but since agreements have been reached about removing tactical nuclear weapons from ships, and it is more complicated and more expensive to carry nuclear weapons, I find it highly unlikely that she was.
Having said this much, I notice that it really doesn't matter that much - unless some Baltic terrorists drive up there in a Zodiac and try to get their hands on a warhead... The only real problem in environmental terms will probably be the reactor and propulsion system - if any pipes are damaged, or corrode to an extent that they start to leak, evil things may happen. It would, unfortunately, not be the first nuclear reactor ending its life on the seafloor.
The "flagships" don't always get the "cool new stuff" "to play with". Often, new stuff is put on older units which aren't that useful in their primary role anymore, tested and tweaked, and then put on the next class of new units to be built - but in a finished state.
The USS Enterprise (assuming the aircraft carrier CVN-65 is meant here) isn't just the first in its class, but the only one! She was the first nuclear-powered carrier, and there are others newer than her, but they aren't considered to be in her class. As for the "flagship": she's probably a flagship for the admiral commanding the battle group, and maybe for a fleet, but I've never heard Enterprise being referred to as anything more than that in this context.
I have never heard of the U.S. government being involved in the rescue effort. The rescue submarine responsible for this piece of the globe is the British LR5, which was brought to the scene of the accident as "soon as possible" - this time frame being determined by Russian authorities.
-- H. Wilker
The US would do well to worry about that same country, rather than setting up preferential trade deals with them.
When -- not if -- China's government decides that it needs the resources of America, it will take them. The country has not been shy to invade Tibet, threaten Taiwan, kill its own people and tell the US and UN to shove their human rights concerns up their ass.
This is not a slag on the Chinese citizenry. I am talking about their government.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I would love to know what kind of tax break Motorola is going to get on scrapping the Iridium satellites. $30 million is a hell of a lot closer to $5 billion than $0, which is exactly what they will get if they de-orbit the birds. Pokrefke
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Kursk was an cruise missile submarine, Oscar II class, not a ballistic missile submarine. An SSGN as opposed to SSBN. They are mainly armed with anti-ship missiles, such as this type. They can be either fixed with a conventional or nuclear warhead, but the conventional warhead is more likely than a nuclear warhead.
What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?
Still not dead.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Kursk was a ballistic missile sub, not a fast attack.
Just as an FYI, the Kursk was neither a fast attack or a ballistic sub.
From Tom Clancy's "Submarine"
Armament:
Twenty-four SS-N-19s in external tubes
Six 650 mm and 533mm torpedo tubes with 24 weapons
The SS-N-19 is an anti-ship missle (NATO calls it the "shipwreck"), not a ballistic missle. Although the Oscar class submarines like Kursk were huge (actually larger than the Russan Delta SSBNs) they were not used to carry strategic nuclear missles. Their real purpose was to hunt and destroy the US aircraft carriers and other capital ships.
David
They use termite which makes it very hard to breath
Yuri! release the termite! Da, must eat wooden book before Amerikanski come. Ohhh... the termite is eating, it's farting, I can't breath.
OK, I know, you meant thermite, but it still made me chuckle when I saw it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Mccaw looked at picking it up for $500 million, a 90% discount, then said, "Gosh, we can't turn a profit on it."
Castle Harlan looked at picking it up for $50 million, a 99% discount, then said, "Gosh, we can't turn a profit on it."
Now there's a $30 million offer. That's less than 1 penny on the dollar. Or, in blue-light special terms, more than 99% off! I wonder just how little someone would have to pay to turn a profit on Iridium? Can it even be done?
I'm tempted to offer them $1,000 just for the privilege of de-orbiting the birds when and where I want. The "have your own meteor shower" feature would be worth it. And I wouldn't back out like those other bastards! :)
--
that's really funny-
...Having spent a number of years in the sub community..."
"
I immediately pictured a small village just under the surface of some ocean, with happy disney-esque subs and a slightly overweight balding mechanical engineer wearing a canary yellow short sleeved polyester button-up shirt, all of them sitting around some sort of underwater campfire, however that is supposed to work. I then chuckled to myself and decided to post the moment, even though I am after a first post and sitting here for ten minutes now hitting the refresh key, reading a paragraph from a thread, hit the refresh key, over and over until it drives me insane.
-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-
You forget, the theories were developed here (in the USA) for super-cavitation. Its probably such a mastered technology here, we are just playing cheerleader for Russia to develop it.
Or better yet, we could actually be helping Russia develop the technology.
David
First off, the Kursk was a flight II Oscar (NATO-designation) SSGN. Check Jane's for more info. In other words, it was the same type of submarine as later-mode US Los Angeles and UK Trafalgar submarines. It was an ANTI-SHIP submarine. The Oscars Don't Carry Nuclear Missiles. Although technically possible, both SALT I and SALT II forbid nuclear weapons on attack submarine cruise missiles, and generally frowed on nuclear ASW weapons such as SUBROC (this was an area of contention, but both sides generally didn't carry anti-submarine nukes).
Secondly, how reliable is the Sunday Times for stuff like this? They might be better than the Times-Mirror, but then again, I don't exactly trust people like CNN and CBS to get it right either. Smells like a reporter is making this a sensationalist story from nothing.
Another technical detail here: there were two explosions: one of about 100kg TNT force, and one about 15 times stronger 2:15 later. The first is in line with an explosion of a torpedo propeller propulsion system or a compressed-air torpedo launch system (or collision, or whatever). The second is in line with either a rocket motor or warhead cook off. A couple of things to think about:
By far the most likely scenario to date is a malfunctioned torpedo launch (regardless of what type of torpedo) which blew out the torp tube and either started a fire in the forward torpedo room or short-circuited a bunch of stuff that led to either a warhead cookoff or rocket fuel explosion in one of the SS-N-19s.
While testing a new cavitation torpedo might be the immediate cause, I wouldn't point to them as being the general problem until a lot more info comes to light (which is unlikely until they raise the Kursk, and probably not even then). Indeed, if what Jane's and others are saying, it could easily have been a bad launch system itself, and whether shooting a Cav Torp, SS-N-16, or torpedo wouldn't make a difference.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Go read a good book on naval warfare, then argue that a navy is superfluous.
h tm
As far as the US military goes, if you MUST (foolishly, IMO) cut spending, the LAST place you should cut is the Navy. Particularly Naval aviation. Aircraft carriers are and will remain for the forseeable future the A-1 best strategic weapons platform in the world.
Fortunately, CVN 75 Harry S Truman goes on patrol in the Med in November, CVN 76 Ronald Reagan is going to be commissioned in 2002, and two more are on the drawing board.
Nuclear carriers good.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3702/canset.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
innovative.. termites to eat the codebooks.. i wonder how easy it is to piece the bits back together again.. that would account for them delaying the rescue, give them time to get munching...
Please get a clue before you post.
The Kursk was an Oscar II class SSGN. It carried a couple dozen conventional crusie missiles. It was not a ballistic missle submarine.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I keep hearing this term, and was wondering if someone could give a decent explanation of how a "cavitation torpedo" works. Is it as it sounds: A torpedo that moves by wiggling?
Alternatively the kiddies they have been marketing the Bwitney Spwears swingles at for the last few decades have either a got stronger parenting that won't let them be led by the marketeers or the parents have weekened further and are giving them the dough to buy albums instead of singles.
Bottom line, they are up 1/2 billion dollars on the first six months so obviously everyone has given up buying their CDs and is pirating their IP instead.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
What the SMEG is it with the word nuclear, noone can get it right! I've almost invariably heard it pronounced incorrectly on tv / radio.
:)
However this is the first time I've seen it *written* wrongly imitating the way it's (incorrectly) pronounced, in one of the posts higher up (like I wrote it in this post's subject)
It's pronounced "new-clear" damnit, get it right!@#
there.. finally got that off my chest
Revolutionaries, schmevolutionaries..what are they going to revolt against when anarchy becomes regime du jour?
'"The weapon is very clever; it uses propellers to boost it out of the sub, then a rocket kicks in at a safe distance, burning liquid propellant," said one British expert.'
Clever? sounds like a Roadrunner cartoon to me...
AdFuel
Actually, the USN is in the process of converting four SSBN-726 class subs to SSGNs (Specifically, I believe it's USS Ohio, USS Michigan, USS Florida and USS Georgia). They will replace their Trident missile tubes with cluster lauchers that carry 5 Tomahawk Anti-Ship or Land-Attack missiles. This will make them ideal for offensive operations agains enemy surface forces or shore targets. Although this has typically been the role of the Ticonderoga-class cruiser (CG-47) and the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51), subs like these could remain on station for months at a time without logistic support, providing a strong tactical deterrent. In the event of war, they could defend themselves against enemy fast attacks (or other SSBN/SSGN-type subs like the Oscar-II) using Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes, and beach assaults would be augmented by the Zumwalt-class (DD-21) land-attack stealth destroyer.
If violence isn't solving your problems, you're not using enough of it. - MAJ Misato Katsuragi
end comment */
(end comment) */ }
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
As I understand it, the Kursk's mission was to take out U.S. carrier battle groups.
It would normally be armed with 24 supersonic cruise missiles, each with a nuclear warhead in the half-megaton range.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Nevermind. "Cavitation" doesn't mean what I thought it did (go dictionary.com!), and thus the article tells me all I need to know.
Yes. http://www.riaa.com/MD-US-7.cfm
Each time the riaa is discussed at slashdot, this guy posts this. It may be a troll, but more probably is someone with interest in the RIAA.
Even if the content is plain hard bullshit, there may be people impressed by it.
Cheer,
--fred
I think it reasonable to assume that a torpedo striking a sub from outside would sink it; that's what they are designed to do. An outside explosion has lots to interfere with its mission: water pressure slowing down the explosion, gases dispersing in the ocean, cylindrical hull shape tending to resist the explosion.
In theory, a 100kg warhead might be enough to generally sink a Soviet sub. In reality, it has been long-recognized that the 100kg warhead on the US Mark 46 LightWeight Torpedo is completely insufficient to sink a Soviet sub like the Oscar, unless you get lucking and get a stern hit which happens to pop the drive shaft seals. The multiple hull and equipment arrangement provides for quite a bit of "armor" protection. The standard US Mark 48 ADCAP torpedo used on US subs has a 150kg warhead which uses a shaped-charge director much like a HEAT round (in effect, producing a much larger explosive force) to get much better 1-shot-1-kill potential, but even then, the general feeling is that the first torp hit slows the sub down and makes it a sitting duck, then you pump an additional 1 or 2 into it to sink it.
Now imagine that same explosion inside the ship. Nice closed container (for a while :-), inside of a cylinder not resisting as well as the outside, no water to slow down the gases.
Assuming the explosion was in the torpedo tube after it had been loaded and armed (which is much more likely than while loading), the loaded torpedo tube is not really "inside" the sub. It's more like in a flooded airlock adjacent to the ship's hull. Yes, more destructive than hitting the outside of the double-hull, but nothing like an interior explosion.
Even inside, a lone (assuming no subsequent explosions) 100kg explosion in the forward torpedo room shouldn't sink the sub. It's not a big enough explosion to cause more than the first 2 (at most) compartments to flood, which comprise of about 25% of the total inside space. Oscars have a least 9, plus significant bouyancy tanks. Cripple the sub, yes. Cause it to loose the ability to surface, most likely not. Even wrecking the forward bow planes wouldn't be sufficient. The problem here would be time: the 2:15 between 1st and 2nd explosion really wouldn't be enough to regain control of the sub to start to surface.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
It'll be interesting to see what happens as a result of public fallout. For one thing it will tell us a lot about the strength of the Russian democracy.
Putin's initial political handling of the accident was very poor, and cost him dearly (perhaps they all knew the sailors were dead within minutes?). On the other hand his refusal just to paper it over by accepting a few token resignations might be a good sign.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Kursk was a ballistic missile sub, not a fast attack.
Hey, did anyone else see the idea at www.somethingawful.com for a really rich guy to play Irridium Command? That's probably the best idea I've heard yet.
It's the first article right now, and it's pretty damn amusing.
1. Kursk was a SSGN, Oscar II class.
2. Super cavitating torpedoes have been in service for several years with the Russian Navy IIRC.
3. The US has said there were 3 SSNs and a SURTASS ship in the area, still being coy about what exactly "area" means I believe. *chuckle*
I'm not sure which kind of torpedo the Kursk was packing but I heard that the Russians were using high test hydrogen peroxide in some of their torpedoes. Something the rest of the world abandoned years and years ago 'cause its just nasty...
And if anybody thinks a Oscar II, coming in at 17,000 tons displacement, can hit a Los Angeles class sub (running about 7,000 tons displacement and obviously with a nutty skipper driving his boat up on a Russian sub in a firing exercise...) with the Oscar coming away shattered and laying on the seafloor but the other sub intact enough to slink away... *boggle*
I second the toast to those no longer among us. We may not have been on the same side but a man willing to give his life for his country deserves a final respect.
The Kursk was an SSGN, which means it's a Guided Missile submarine. Its function in life was not to destroy other submarines (attack boat) or to hide and launch ICBMs (ballistic missile boat, "boomer"), but rather to launch its SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" cruise missiles at American aircraft carriers. The USA does not operate SSGN's, due to the lack of a foreign carrier threat, which is probably why Americans have such a problem understanding that the Kursk was not a ballistic missile submarine. The SS-N-19 missiles don't have the range to reach targets deep within the USA like the ones on the Delta-III and IV do.
But it's really sad that they seem to have sacrificed the lives of the crew to preserve the secret torpedo design, if that's why they kept the rescuers away from the damaged torpedo section.
If you try and think like a Russian you would see that people are a cheap expendable resource. A sub or even a torpedo is much more important and expensive than a handful of human lives. This is not a troll, I am just presenting the point of view of any high level military official.
The patent office did not take 66 years to issue this (or any) patent. With a patent on an invention that is classified, patent is issued in the eyes of the patent office once that invention is declassified.
[holds up sign: "Y I P E S !"]
--------
Didn't the nazis use that in the Me.163 with another propellant? IIRC, most of their planes blew up by themselves, than from enemy gunfire.,
I'm not sure which kind of torpedo the Kursk was packing but I heard that the Russians were using high test hydrogen peroxide in some of their torpedoes. Something the rest of the world abandoned years and years ago 'cause its just nasty...
Kursk was *not* a "boomer" or "fast attack" in the sense of the American fleet. It was an anti-ship sub. It was designed specifically to shoot anti-ship missles at American aircraft carriers because the Soviets didn't have any (non-VSTOL) carriers of their own and knew what an advantage this was to the Americans. It could be armed with tactical nuclear missles but not strategic ones. The fact that it wasn't carrying any at the time is not strange in this time of relative peace for the Russian.
Ha! I kill me!
Why on earth would they think the US isn't going to invade ?
It's only a few months since NATO pounded a Russian ally (Yugoslavia) into submission, then there's Iraq, Grenada, Panama....
In fact, the difficulty is in thinking of countries that haven't been attacked by the USA at some time or other.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
I'll assume this is RIAA propaganda pasted to slashdot, but WTH, I'll take first crack at debunking (sorry about the length):
;-).
>A typical music fan who buys a CD might use that CD at home, take that CD in the car, make a tape of that CD,
I thought the RIAA hated being able to "duplicate" music via taping. Doesn't seem right. And the idea of being able to use it in more than one place without licensing? Doesn't jive either.
>That's probably why most consumers, when asked, describe CDs as a good value.
Show me the proof.
>At the same time, when asked directly whether CDs cost too much, some consumers will say yes! Why the contradiction?
...Because your lame-ass biased study simply couldn't fudge the results enough to say otherwise legally? Again, not enough proof.
>While the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD
Must be hard to comment on the following then, huh?
>there are many factors that go into the overall cost of a CD -- and the plastic it's pressed on, is among the least significant.
But you just said you knew nothing! You say one thing then the other. Even the government has a hard time contradicting itself in the same paragraph.
>Of course, the most important component of a CD is the artist's effort in developing that music.
Very wholeheartedly agreed.
>Artists receive royalties on each recording, which vary according to their contract, and the songwriter gets royalties too.
I don't know about you, but don't most bands write their own songs nowadays? It isn't like you go to the dime shop, buy some lyrics, and put music to them, right? So that's half that price gone.
>In addition, the label incurs additional costs in finding and signing new artists.
...And if they didn't do that they wouldn't be a label. They would be bankrupt. Face it: Labels MAKE their money with signed artists, so why complain?
>Once an artist or group has songs composed, they must then go into the studio and begin recording. The costs of recording this work, including recording studio fees, studio musicians, sound engineers, producers and others, all must be recovered by the cost of the CD.
Sure, I have no problem with that. Lets say this is real expensive, $100,000. Now a lot of albums that cost that amount sell 1,000,000 copies (albums that sell less aren't likely to have authors that can or labels willing to foot a big bill). That's $0.10 per copy.
>Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today.
You mean being played at NO cost on the radio isn't enough? You mean you have to advertise like everyone else? Holy s**t! Can you imagine the horror? That must be why my RadioShack phone cost $20... without that advertising it would be like $1 right? (no... advertising really shouldn't be the LARGEST concern in price [I would hope])
>For every album released in a given year, a marketing strategy was developed to make that album stand out among the other releases that hit the market that year. Art must be designed for the CD box, and promotional materials (posters, store displays and music videos) developed and produced.
Uhh, like again, no s**t. Without a "gimmick" you can't advertise. That's the way it works. Don't whine about it.
>For many artists, a costly concert tour is essential to promote their recordings.
From what I hear this is where most artists MAKE their money. Costly? Only for the people buying the tickets. If you aren't making enough to cover the cost of the concert, charge more. That's how everyone else works.
>Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable.
Again, agreed. That's how other things work, and have worked for years (books, magazines, movies come to mind). Deal with it. Books have by providing a "cheap" way to get a book (paperback). Time to provide a cheap alternative to CDs: The internet (where box art doesn't cost so much
>Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%.
I'm willing to bet the price of TVs has fallen a lot since 1940 too. Too bad no one had a TV in 1940 [and therefore they were a speciality item, costing $$$], and no one I knew had a CD player until *I* got one in 1988 (or so). Since 1988 the price at my local shops has increased by about 50%.
>If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.
Are you telling me that the $0.75 cokes in the vending machine cost $0.25 in 1983? According to my records the price index is NOT just under 3x 1983 prices.
And if you can find me a more then 20 CDs at a local shoppe for $12.75 in 1996 (hell, or even now) then I'll show you a liar.
>While the price of CDs has fallen, the amount of music provided on a typical CD has increased substantially...
Yes, now they offer 80 Min. CDs because of higher laser tolerances. This extra 6 minutes over a 74 Min. CD is "substantial". What would the amount of music you can put on a DVD equal? Would you even have a word for it?
>...along with higher quality in terms of fidelity...
You mean my CDs now have 24 bits resolution than 16, or they now sample at 52 kHz rather than 44.1 kHz? Change in fidelity == change in standard != the same old CD format. An out and out lie.
>...durability,...
Yes, now CDs are manufactured properly and don't get laser rot. Otherwise I wonder where the difference is (they have always been made from polycarbonate, right?). Thank you for making them properly. If you are charging me more for a working product, then you are screwing me over.
>...ease of use...
A total complete out and out amazingly STUPID lie. How has ease of use improved? The CD format has remained unchanged. To make it "easier" you would have to change the format, making it not work with CD players. ie: You don't have a CD.
(And if you think that you can get away with saying players are easier to use because of the RIAA, well, show me an RIAA brand CD player).
>...and range of choices, including multi-media material, such as music videos, interviews and discographies.
Wait up a minute here. When CDs were first produced there was less room for "cover" art and no "sleeve" art. Now you have a cheap way to fit these back in (as digital data on the CD) and you think that means you can charge MORE?
>Content of this type often requires considerable production expense and adds a whole new dimension that goes beyond conventional audio.
Yep. That's what I said. Use the extra room on the CD like you would the sleeve for the records you always used to make so "cheaply".
>In contrast, CD prices are low compared to other forms of entertainment and one of the few entertainment units to decrease in price...
Decrease in price? Over what period? Since their inception or in the last decade?
>...even though production, marketing and distribution costs have increased.
Life's a bitch, huh? Looks like you have everything against you. Consumers to buy your product. People who make it for you. Radio stations to play it for you. And then they go and slap this "inflation" tax deal on ya. What a bummer. I feel for ya.
Quoted from USA Today (are they still in business? I don't live in the US): "consumers don't seem to balk at the rising price of fun in this strong, family-friendly economy."
Sounds like something one might say during the Regan or Bush administration. What is the date of this mystery article anyways? And what person wrote it?
>The prices of other forms of entertainment have risen, on average, more rapidly than has music or consumer prices, with most admission prices for other forms of entertainment having increased more than 90% between 1983 and 1996.
You mean movie theaters? Yeah, they are a rip off. But they are STILL cheaper than a CD. And movies cost a hell of a lot more to make than a CD, and are a hell of a lot more likely to fail (In my B movie experience).
>By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.
Can't agree. Proof? You have none, did I hear? Too bad.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I recommend the St Petersburg Submarine Club
.Why contribute?
EVEN A FEW BUCKS CAN HELP (shouting intended)
I'm not asking all the impoverished students etc reading this to contribute: but if even one person from Silicon valley can give 1 hour's pay, it would measureably help. Russia's a 3rd world county, even a single buck can go a long way.
Why this bunch?
It's composed of former Russki Submariners, who can be expected to know who's most in need.
It's genuine - at least 1 Australian reporter has actually visited them. No Maffya, No Bureaucracy.
These guys, on pitiful pensions, have already given what they can to transport the Kursk families to Severmorsk - sort of like getting people from Tucson, Philadelphia and Portland to Norfolk.
e-mail from them follows. After some thought, I've not included their e-mail address. Anyone interested in it can e-mail me at mailto:aebrain@dynamite.com.au.
Sorry, I just have visions of some clueless script kiddie spamming or DOSing them on a whim. At least this way, they'd have to do 10 seconds of research beforehand.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
Correspondent bank:
BANK OF NEW YORK
SWIFT: IRVT US 3N
Beneficiary bank:
INKASBANK, ST. PETERSBURG
SWIFT: INKS RU 2 P
ACCOUNT: 890-0260-963
Beneficiary: 40703840200029000028
SUBMARINERS CLUB,
SAINT PETERSBURG LINIA 9, 50, V.O.
ST. PETERSBURG
(DONATION TO THE KURSK CREW FAMILIES - DOBROVOLNIY BEZVOZMEZDNIY VZNOS NA BLAGOTVORITELNIE TSELY, PRODAZE NE PODLEZIT)
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
I agree, but I believe the birds should burn for a different reason: they wreak havoc both optical and radio astronomy. Their broadcasts are very close to a highly used radio astronomy band, and the birds themselves reflect sunlight well enough to be seen with the naked eye at certain times of night. Having a global communications system like Iridium may be cool, but it should not come at the cost of basic research.
It was poorly-designed from the get-go, it's way too expensive, and it's virtually impossible to upgrade efficiently.
Burn it and let'ss move on.
Steven E. Ehrbar
With ill-considered technology patents. If the one-click patent hadn't been granted until 2066...
Steven E. Ehrbar
The number of full-length CDs manufacturers shipped to the U.S. market is at an all-time high, growing 6.0% from this time last year, totaling an impressive 420 million units in just the first six months of 2000. ...Moreover, market momentum continues to climb as the dollar value of CD product grew 9.9% from this time last year to nearly $5.7 billion which suggests once again, that consumer demand for music in the form of a CD remains the mainstay.
Shipments of singles in all formats dropped sharply in the first half of 2000 as speculation over competing music sources continues to swirl. Singles shipments dropped 45.2% from 41.5 million units in midyear 1999 to 22.7 million in '00. Dollar value of singles shipments went from $165.5 million in midyear 1999 to $93.3 million this year.
By the way, you can contribute to a fund for the families of the crew at the Russian Embassy. Some of these folks scraped together the cash to pay for milk-run train tickets to get to the Kursk's home port, while Putin was on vacation. Only now are the authorities trying to help out, but in Russia as well private charity seems to be taking over where the bureaucrats can't seem to do the right thing.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
will figure out that the U.S. isn't planning to invade and nobody else has a navy that even equals what the currently have, so they can stop developing dangerous and costly new weapons.
Steven E. Ehrbar
I saw this info sometime ago. I thought it was here. Maybe I was wrong. To view the info click here.
General to Captain: "Implement Security Through Obscurity!"
Captain to Lieutenant: "You heard the man, kill them all."
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
What possible non-sinister context is there for that quote? Other than "What I am about to say does not represent the opinions or strategies of Sony Pictures, Sony Music or any other Sony Company. ..."
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Sure, but this thing was the size of a WWII aircraft carrier, and had an enormous outer hull at a great distance from the inner pressure hull -- enough that supposedly the boat had a pretty good chance against a torpedo strike.
If the Kursk ran into a US sub it would be like a big football lineman running into a jockey. And wouldn't have been a love tap: the impact was enough to destroy a large part of the Kursk's well protected pressure hull. We'd very likely have our own sub disaster.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Doesn't it bother anyone that he advertised there would be a blurb about Napster and then there wasn't one, yet we're all talking about it anyway?
Sheesh.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
This was supposed to discourage trolls? Whatever.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
----------
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Why is Slashback always posted after business hours in North America have ended? It seems to me that this just makes it ripe for trolling. Most of the heavily trolled articles seem to be the ones posted in the evenings...
Just wondering...
Just think what it must be like to be a Sony PR droid right now.... all that goodwill you built with the AIBO going down the drain.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I found it a little humorous that they made that comment about the Americans being hush-hush about it. If it's true that they do have a cavitation weapon of that nature (even money on that I figure) then the Americans are probably scared shitless and adopting their normal "Uh.. we can neither confirm nor deny any knowledge about the existence of that sort of weapon being owned by us or the Russians." (Did that sound bitter?) And of course the Russians aren't going to admit to having one. They may not be the Soviet Union anymore but old habits die hard. Plus there's no one else in the ocean to play with. =)
I seriously doubt it was a collision. The only ones who'd have an observation sub in the area would be the Americans. And having known a few sub captains, paranoid bunch that they are, I'm sure they stayed well away from everything.
I for one mourn the loss of the crew of the Kursk. Crewing a submarine is not easy and I respect anyone that can tough it out. Especially knowing that the consequences are like what happened.
KONala   >^..^<
"Remember who you are..."