Slashdot Mirror
Sonic Torpedo Defense
dylanduck writes "How do you defend a ship against torpedoes? According to the US Navy, you line the hull with loudspeakers and blast the incoming missile with such a devastating blast of sounds that it explodes." When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
"This one goes to 11"
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
We care... why? My guess is that a large sonic blast is going to be a lot less harmful than a torpedo detonating. But that's just me.
We need to be cautious, as Britney Spears at 200db could have a devistating effect on the entire oceanic ecosystem.
Same thing happens to my brain whenever I hear some people speak.
Speaking is NOT communication
as if the explosions, leaking fuel, strong currents, and risk of nuclear waste exposure weren't enough, now marine wildlife have to deal with loud sounds! oh, the humanity!
all pantera, all the time!
Everyone on the ship will have all you can eat seafood for weeks.
Bonus if you get some giant squid.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
Who cares? Fish vs. people, and not in an abstract, "this could hurt the environment long term, for mere economic benefit" way. Either a few fish will die, or a ship full of hundreds or thousands of sailors could be damaged or destroyed.
And then theres the ecological damage from a sunken ship (petrol fuel, nuclear reactors possibly) that would also harm the environment long term, plus the explosion itself will be pretty darn loud.
-- My Sig is a P228.
To get best results they need gold power cables at 1000 for each speaker :)
Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
I would think the ecological effects of a sunken ship laden with fuel and other nasties would be the ones you really want to worry about.
I predict 3 types of comments
1. "Won't someone please think of the Whales!!??"
2. "I bet they'll be playing *insert flavour of the month popstar here* LOLS!!"
3. "REPOST!!!" (Regardless of whether this is a repost or not).
I think a torpedo exploding would do more damage than playing some Britney Spears to scare it into suicide.
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
What are the ecological effects of sinking a nuclear sub? Strikes me this is a better option.
Uh, yeah. Good point. Because a sinking ship (full of people no less) has no environmental impact. If you don't care about the dead people, at least the diesel fuel? That works for you?
If they have to kill dolphins to save sailors' lives, it's fine with me. Yes, even if they're endangered dolphins. It's not like they're going to be driving through the waves blasting all the time; it will only be when they're in severe danger.
It's all dead anyway!
Cus there's no way that a torpedo exploding against the side of an Aegis cruiser might be a tad on the loud side too.
Just like the military, screamming out theyre lugs to make others #S#$$$$"W theyre pants.
I am portuguese. If you think my written english is bad, try posting in portuguese!
They should train dolphins and manatees to ram the torpedoes head on far enough away from the ship that no damage is done. Oh yeah, and some sea turtles to clear the way through mine infested waters!
Well here are the option.
Some noise and a torpedo detonating.
Or a ship sinking, leaking fuel and crap into the water after detonation.
I would guess that some noise would be far less harmful in the long run than oil spills, and ships sinking and damaging the aquatic environment (coral, ect).
I'd guess it has less of an impact than a nuclear submarine blowing under water, eh?
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
"Well, they die....you stupid liberals..."
OEÉæÁÄZÝÈA OEÉæé_CX
Neat idea, but doesn't it seem like it would be easy to program torpedoes to ignore? Ok, if it crushes them that's one thing, but false-detonation seems easily avoidable. Either way it seem like a fairly easy thing to engineer around, so I question how long a lifetime it would have.
p.s. to PETA, etc: Sure, take care in testing it, but if my sub is about to be hit by a torpedo, the whale can kiss my ass.
If I had the choice of being dead or killing fish, I'd save myself.
Its not like they will be using the sound needlessly.
Well, as a Naval Officer who has spent much of my career on ships, I can tell you that I wouldn't give a damn about the "possible ecological effects on marine life" if a torpedo was heading at my ship. Would you put your life at risk to swerve while driving to miss a squirrel? Does that make you a hypocrite?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
In other news, when asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life from an exploding submarine, the military had no comment.
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
The only other thing I can think about would be fast PT boat style torpedo-carriers, but even so, with all the firepower they have now, you think that a destroyer couldn't swat one of those away easily enough before it even got within range?
Crewman: CAPTAIN! INCOMING TORPEDO, T-20 SECONDS UNTIL IMPACT!!!
...
Captain: Prepare the loud speakers!!!
Crewman: Loud speakers on standby!!
Captain: Fire!!!!
**insert unimaginable noise here**
Crewman: Success!! Torpedo destroyed!
Captain: What?
Crewman: What?
-coward
The Navy only uses HI-FI Monster Cable, it provides clearer sound to explode those torpedos!
but if I was a sailor on a ship under torpedo attack, I wouldn't be thinking about the whales.
My rights don't need management.
Active defenses (such as counter-exploding tank armor) aren't there to avoid damage - they're there to mitigate against the worst impacts of damage against catastrophic losses. A REAL explosion underwater is going to generate catastrophic noise, and will directly kill and otherwise fatally affect a lot of native life - a counter-blast of sound isn't much to compare, even in select "false alarm" situations.
It may help to think about it this way: Automobile air bags cost a lot of money to install and repackage in the case of false alarms. They're even dangerous in many circumstances. Despite that, we still install them as default. Even if they had to emit nature-destroying toxins as part of their operation, we'd still be using them by default - because the mitigating costs of not using them would be a much worse environmental impact for most every person involved.
If the effect became pronounced to the point of actually permanantly damaging large ammounts the sea-landscape that torpedoes themselves would not cause, then we'd have something to protest about - but the proposed use is a very good one, presuming it actually works technically.
What we may want to worry more about is the potential misuse of "torpedo-invulerable" nuclear submarines, if it ends up that there's no realistic way of attacking them otherwise... I think this is only a temprary tool anyway, until better submarine-destroying tools are invented.
Ryan Fenton
Sounds like Disaster Area.
So anyway, can I get these with 7.1 sound?
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
Press: What comment do you have on the ecological effects of this technology?
Military: Eh? Can you speak a little louder? I see your lips moving but I can't hear anything.
When I was in college, I lived in a big house with a bunch of other people, and we had a lot of squirrels that would run across the roof. There was one girl who lived in the top corner room one summer who got annoyed by the squirrels making a racket every morning around 5am, especially because she usually went to bed around 3-4am. (She wasn't a hacker, but literature majors often keep similar hours.) So one night about 3am she turned her stereo speakers against the wall and cranked up the bass to wake up all the squirrels. After a couple days of this, they stopped hanging around for a while.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Environmentally "sound."
:D
You win.
As far as the ecological impacts are concerned, you are running the risk of blowing up a NUCLEAR (republicans read nucular) submarine if the loudspeakers don't do their job.
The military had no comment because the spokesperson narrowly resisted calling the reporter that asked that question a "fucking inbred"
When was the last time a US ship was hit by a torpedo?
Not even considering the more important human lives saved, if the ship shinks FAR more marine life would be harmed than if a very loud noise is made for a few moments (Think oil and debris). The Navy has a strong disinsentive to running this more than absolutely needed because it broadcasts far and wide their exact location to those who previously may not have know and who can now launch stand-off weapons.
--- Andy
...ONLY the oceanic ecosystem?
"Oops, I Did It Again" could hurt the ears of foreign spies for months!
Good call, America!
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Sounds like it would have a lot the same effect as "Redneck fishing"....throw a stick of dynamite in the water!
If I'm correct, the effects on marine life are already well-documented.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
:)
I think the whole point is to protect the lives of the marines on the ships.
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
Of course they had no comment, because the intention is to stop the dolphins with dartguns on their head!
"Scientists have proof without certainty; Creationists have certainty without proof" -Ashley Montagu
So a few fish get their brains scrambled. Big deal, they just swim around and bite at things anyway, not much to lose out on there.
Ahhh... but you probably didn't address the human interest part of the story.
From now on please add either "Won't someone please think of the children (conservative, read with self-rightous accent)" or "Won't someone please think of the environment (liberal, read in nasally, whiney voice)."
Do that and you'll have the karma whores throwing their panties at you in no time.
Vuja De: That sinking feeling that this is going to happen again. Often occurs in meetings with Product Managers.
Would this damage submarines sonar or other listening devices?
Of course, as you say, the Navy would rather avoid having lots of sailors killed also, and sunken ships are a toxic mess, but the amount of sound it takes to trash a torpedo is a lot more than the amount you get from the torpedo's explosion.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
will it stop a suicide bomber like the boat that damaged the USS Cole?
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
The last attacked ship I can remember was the General Belgrano during the war in the Falklands or "Malvinas" in Spanish.
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
I bet those would sound a lot better with a gold CAT5 cable. :P
João Pinheiro
This defense may work fine against conventional torpedos, but probablly won't work against a torpedo equiped with a nuclear warhead....the cuban missile criss, the soviets had submaries equipped with nuclear torpedos...who says that the chinese don't allready have these. I expect that any country that allready has a nuke program, if they want to go to sea in subs, will get nuclear torpedos eventually...
Because nobody at Slashdot ever bothers to read the article or know anything about the various issues involved before commenting, let me point out that the system is NOT for submarines, but for surface ships.
Also, the impact of high energy sound waves is significantly greater than most people here seem to think. They carry for miles underwater, and can cause severe problems in all manner of marine life. It's something to consider.
Actually, being an acoustician, I would be willing to bet that they would use a phased array of loudspeakers. With the correct phasing of the speakers, some pre-determined "point" in the water could be driven to very high sound pressure levels, while the remaining ambient noise, while still loud, may not be all that dangerous. This would occur as a transient excitation from the various loudspeakers propagates away from the source and coalesces at the point in the water where the torpedo is located, the point where a very large pressure spike is generated. There are plenty of smart researchers in the navy and I have my doubts that they would use anything other than a phased array. And by the way, this is the same methodology that they use to destroy kidney stones.
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
Is a nuclear reactor really worse? Or is that just the knee jerk reaction?
not to troll,
but in the days of terrorism and backpack-sized nuclear bombs,
how vital is research in speakers to protect submarines?
I don't see submarines as a major player in future battles.
I'd much rather see money spent training secret agents in anti-terrorism techniques.
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
As much as I dislike the military's utter disdain for animal^H^H^H^H^H^H life, I have to admit that the ecological effects of the torpedo hitting the hull and sinking the (nuclear) submarine are probably at least as bad.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Why not drop a net over the side and just entangle the torpedo? You could be a little smarter than they were in WWI. You could run in a straight line from the torpedo, drop some exploding (deploying) net over the side and just snag it. Even if you didn't explode the warhead the sheer drag will keep the torpedo from catching you. Ever try to swim with a parachute on? Even if getting the net in front of the torpedo is not as easy as I make it out, it can't be as complicated as the sound wave thingy.
Fine, but I have the patent on this counter measure, earplugs for torpedos. :)
And this covers all the variations, ear muffs, fingers in ears, scarfs, saying "na na na na na na", etc.
So how much does this system cost per ship vs. some simple counter measure? Really think this will see wide spread deployment?
No mention of range. I wonder if this could be used against a sub - if so, I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it. The wave would probably not have as much force in air, so it would likely affect any submerged system with little to no air gap. I wonder if it's powerful enough to knock out a sub's (sensative) receive transducer? That would certainly remove a sub's effectiveness - blinding it.
Though, as mentioned already on this page, torpedos and subs aren't our #1 threat - it's the single suicidal person, perhaps a diver with a bomb. Sonar can be deadly to a diver, I assume the Navy would love to augment this effect. Also I'd bet that if this were fired at a mini-sub, life would not be comfy for the occupants.
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
So this is what they were testing a few years ago off the West coast. At the time people thought it was a new sonar system that was causing whales and dolphins to beach themselves. They were test firing this system and seeing how well it did against a torpedo! How would you have liked to be the Navy seaman playing air guitar as a torpedo came at your ship?
How long till they start making torpedos smart enough to tell the difference between powerful sound waves and a physical object?
Technoli
So after the incoming MISSILES have been exploded, what do we do about the TORPEDOES?
Ninth Grade Band recordings.
DYWYPI?
"dead fish or dead sailors? It's all chum to me, chum " -- Jaws
In Soviet Russia, pop-star whales think of YOU!
(Especially in reposts)
I wonder what the range is....
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I _need_ one of those, oh wait, RTFA, not regular tansducer. Fuck, oh well. At least the industrial ones are cheap. And according to my audio friend they are about the equal to real transducers as Ghetto blasters. That's okay, it's just for movies anyway.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
The possible ecological effects? Only liberal leftist red-commie gay pinko tree-hugger types would ask such a rediculous question, or even care. We're talking about saving the lives of human beings, but of course humans serve no purpose other than polluting and ruining the ecosystem of an otherwise perfect world, so they should be killed, right? Especially those red-blooded patriotic American military humans -- they're the worst kind, you know!
Never mind that the torpedo exploding would make a lot of noise, too, but so long as we can kill some humans in the process, that's an acceptable trade-off, right? Yeah, we get it: animals good, people bad.
You people are sick. My better idea is to strap together a bunch of liberals and line the perimiters of the ships with them to server as a cushion/barrier. Let the libs give their lives in the process of "saving the wales" if they really believe in that so much. If the libs think its such a good idea to sacrifice human beings in order to save the precious ecosystem, let it be the libs who are sacrificed!
So that's why the whales and other mammals beached themselves... they were playing rap music!
Or you could get both camps.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the environment... for our children???????!!
The real interest is that this will obsolete all the surplus munitions that terrorists might access.
HA! Sonic torpedoes! That'll show those damn dirty frickin' laser-beam-packing dolphins!
You'd be just the type of fu*ktard that would reject it.
All your dot point are wrong, with the one exception of the capital "T" in turn. I don't see any problem with the FREE being capitalised. Whing Cunt?? This is the first time I've said anything.
Keep posting anonymously to you coward.
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
...we use the Britney on 'em this time Capt'n
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058230/
Ladies and gentlemen, the prosecution rests.
Apparently reporters are still stuck on stupid.
Uh, just in case people didn't RTFA (I know, this is slashdot), we're not talking about a "loud sound" -- this is a shock wave. Think explosion, and you'll be close.
Essentially what they intend is a accoustic phased-array that allows them to focus the output of all 360 kilowatt (?) class "speakers" into a very small area. Imagine 360,000 watts of stereo sound brought to a focus _inside_ your head.
As for the environmental effects:
One must always consider the sailor's lives, and the diesel etc. But it does deserve some serious thought from someone who is qualified. Note this does not mean a representative from the fishing industry.
So did you wake up today saying "I'm going to proove myself to be an idiot today - not once but twice over!"
I hope that was your goal because otherwise you really didn't get much done today.
On "Shiny missiles". How do you make a perfect mirror? Oh you can't? The mirror material has to absorm some percentage of the energy coming from a laser whcih thus vaporises said material (an dmissile skin), not to mention teh issues with keeping the object perfectly shiny in flight?
On your "Nerf Missile". At what point do you tell you've hit somehting if you're behind enough layers of foam to pad yourself against running into something that feels like a brick wall? What wall is real and what is not when the impact of hitting it is the same? Do you just simply not explode ever and hope the ship you were aiming at becomes Rather Alarmed at the hurling of nerf objects at it? I guess that's cheaper than real torpedos.
And tehre are at least two moderators out there that can hang thier heads in shame as well. I'll see y'all in Metamod along with the rest of the people that udnerstand basic physics.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is no such thing as a perfect mirror or perfect sound absorbing material. If you make a strong enough laser or a strong enough sound source it will overcome the mirror/sound absorber almost instantly. That is the goal of anti-missile laser systems and this kind of anti-torpedo system. Not to mention, in the case of the mirror, if there is any kind of smudge or dirt on the mirror where the laser hits then the mirror becomes absolutely useless. What are the chances that a missile can be stored and launched in an absolutely clean-room conditions (every missile launch I've ever seen has involved large clouds of smoke and debris). Every time I've heard someone suggest coating a missile with mirrors to overcome anti-missile lasers I've seen it soundly debunked by someone that knows the magnitude of the actual forces at work.
-GameMaster
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Your comment is on the spot. What a bout the people being saved?
In general, a submarine will not stand a single torpedo hit. Such a thing normally means death for the whole crew.
I would like to add that, if the U.S. gets a war with any torpedo capable nation, then, we have better things to worry than deaf whales and killed sailors.
In the other hand, discovering a way to make ballistic missile submarines invulnerable is like having missile bases all over the world... forget about space based antimissile rockets, this will be the ultimate deterrent.
If it were for environmentalist, we would still have the U.S.S.R., missiles in Cuba and Saddam would be king of Kuwait.... I rather have deaf whales, sorry, IMHO.
-Vmax
"No Comment" ... perhaps having to do with the Navy being forced by U.S. Court order
...
...so this is basically already ruled illegal,
to promise not to use it's ultra-power sonar-array system
(which aimed to createvery large area-of-effect zones to target and destroy enemy subs [such as the great Satan China])
(exceptions for "national emergency", of course, being a demoncracy)
these effects have already caused mass killings of whales and dolphins
(and other sea-life) whenever it was tested before in opean seas.
(think sonically ruptured eyeballs and brains)
as well as injuries and sickness among humans in the ocean
NEAR the area of effect.
but hey, who wants to lay bets on a 'national emergency'?
just be sure to tell my pal Jim-Bob, he doesn't keep up on this site as much,
between his day job at Airforce Nuclear Command and Bible-thumpin'...
If the Navy can make this practical, they can also do plenty with [active noise suppression] or [noise cancellation] (google these phrases for a start). And they probably are, as a stealth measure.
Have a friend whose dad did ASDIC in WWII. The old man told him the ocean is now roaring with screw noise where in his time it was spookily silent and you could hear for tens of miles.
In future we'll be stealthing all kinds of craft with hull-mounted near-field stereos. Marine ecology can only benefit.
The question about sea life wasn't environmental at all. FTFA:
...
"So, like, if a shark gets in the way, does it totally exlode or what? Is it cool?"
Okay, actually, the question has to do with testing in the open ocean, and the "stupid liberals" are wondering about the testing phase, to which they had no comment. Which is to say, "we're going to play with our new toy and nobody cares whether it tears up the local sea life." It doesn't say specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if the "stupid liberal" question was something like "Have you considered the implications for local sea life and taken appropriate precautions in designing your tests?"
That's the typical argument that goes on, rather than the idiotic "human life vs. animal life" that everyone wants to snark about.
"When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment."
The big BOOM when the torpedo hits would be lot worse for the marine life, and a whole lot worse for THE PEOPLE involved. Pardon me for being speciesist, but I'd sacrifice a whole lot of fish to save A PERSON!!!!.
The environmental argument is bunk.
We are talking about a multi-billion dollar platform and US lifes at stake.
Not to mention tactical and military superiority.
IMHO the comparativley small risk of environmental damage is worth it.
They've had this tech for years! Or had henry gone off to play with "lady fish?"
:D
was a fave movie of mine as a kid
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058230/
"How do you defend a ship against torpedoes?"
Just send some dolphins equipped with poison darts against them!
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
1000+ men and women aboard a Navy ship, or a 1,000,000 dead sea animals. I hope that's an easy choice.
The RAN's Collins Class submarines have been known to get within torpedo range of a US Carrier without detection. These are armed with the Mk 48 torpedos.
Dialectician. Archology.
I wonder if it will be loud enough to draw the attention of the unknown creature that makes the Bloop noises.
I'm wondering who would win in a fight between an Aegis Cruiser and some cheap Cthulhu knock of from 6 kilometres down
You must ROCK THE BOAT! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Now every LA class sub will come fully equipped with Nazareth's "Hair of the Dog".
We shall own these seven seas, and the larger lakes.
97 / 9 = 10.777...
98 / 9 = 10.888...
Implies 99 / 9 = 10.999...
99 / 9 = 11 / 1 = 11
Therefore 10.999... = 11, so whatever approaches 11 approaches 10.999...
(Now, spot the logical flaw... if there is one.)
Wouldn't the effects of a scuttled modern warship (oil slick, hot reactor core on the bottom...) be fairly disastrous for nearby marine life as well?
Could someone in the know please comment on how the above could affect marine life, vs. one pulse that saves the ship?
How wide an area could be affected by both types of events (i.e., what is the range of the shockwave weapon?).
> This is like shooting down missles with lasers; just make a shiny
> missile and the light bounces off without damaging it.
Utterly ineffective. At intensities high enough to be useful the electric field of the laser pulse rips electrons out of the surface of the target. This creates a plasma which absorbs more energy from the pulse, explodes, and blows a piece out of the surface. It makes no difference at all what material the target is made of or how it is polished. This effect has been experimentally verified.
It's also how LASIX works.
> You can probably render the sound blast torpedo killer worthless
> just by skinning the torpedos in cheap appropriately sound
> absorbing material. Perhaps a derivative of foam or rubber.
Failed freshman physics, did you?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Nuke the whales!
Sound waves of high explosives under water are at a considerably lower frequency than this counter is likely to be. The eco damage of oil or a small bit of uranium from a successful attack that is never going to happen is far less than the constant drills that subs will be conducting.
Easily circumventable + highly expensive + damaging to fisheries + close to useless + massive deficit spending = more national debt per citizen than the mean income.
The USA is hell bent on spending itself out of existence. I just wish they would just get it over with without messing up the rest of the world.
Who gives a shit about a bunch of dumbass sea creatures (besides tree hugging hippy activists)? If this thing saves the lives of the people on a Navy ship, let the animals die.
What do you know! I just so happen to work on a US Navy Submarine! Too bad that sort of thing is classified isin't it?
So what do we build multi-billion dollar nuclear powered air craft carriers for if the Russians, and whichever army they sell to, can destroy them with these things?
From FAS (Federation Of American Scientists) - NOT a conspiracy site:
VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket
Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.
There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage. One such scenario is a rapid attack situation wherein a sudden detection of a threat submarine is made, perhaps at relatively short range, requiring an immediate response to achieve weapon on target and to ensure survival. Apparently guidance is a problem, and the initial version of the Shkval was unguided However, the Russians have been advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search.
Which ships will be outfitted with this device? Will our carriers have them, even though they'll likely be far out of range from a torpedo launched from land or small boat (the most likely scenario given the technological state of current threats to the U.S.)?
Will the devices be mounted in such a way as to deafen the crew of the vessel to which they are attached? Will they create significant drag or cavitation, if not?
Will the device be used in war games or open-water tests?
What frequencies will be used?
Will the system be computer-controlled or human-controlled? If the former, what might be mistaken for a torpedo? If the latter, do humans have sufficient reaction time?
Too many questions and too little information given by the article.
I bet those of you making the "but what about the animals" comments would care less about the animals if you had friends or relatives serving on a ship that could be a torpedo target.
I love animals, I'm all for ecology and protecting wildlife, etc etc. I own a big chunk of land, and I don't cut a bush or move a bolder without thinking about what it might do to the animals...and 99 percent of the time, I let the animals win. But when the choices are limited to 'humans live but animals die' and 'humans die but animals live', I'll take choice number one every time, and with no regrets what so ever.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The USS Cole was hit by what you could call an "improvised torpedo". I would imagine if someone had access to military weapons, they might be able to do a better job. As torpedos are big, expensive things they are therefore easily sold on the arms market. Everyone wants to have happy arms customers, so I am sure if the US isn't selling them, some other European country is.
before we get to the damage to wildlife, what about the humans on board?
I supose that this just make the mechanical (or sonnar) trigger to set, It has to be very easy to desing a trigger that uses both mechanical contact (or sonnar) and, lets say electrical propeties of the surraunding (distance to the metalic hull has to be very easy to mesure this way (I supose)) Sorry for my english, but Im getting better...
Wonder what PETA has to say about this...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Think of it like a ported subwoofer sending a low frequency wave, trying to trick the torpedo into thinking it has run into something solid. If the wave doesn't hit anything to reflect it back, it'll continue the path of least resistance (e.g. why subs suck in convertibles).
This will probably keep those pesky military dolphins away, too.
This sig is false.
Won't someone think of the plankton!?!
God spoke to me.
The torpedoes in the next war won't be WWII slow: Supercavitation or Warp Drive Underwater
(||) Nehmo (||)
As a former naval submarine lieutenant, this is pretty interesting... Indeed, our modern torpedoes (ADCAPs) travel at high speed, track on both passive and active acoustics, and rely on active ranging to detonate at an ideal distance under the ship. That's right, under -- torpedoes do the most damage by detonating a small distance (on the order of a couple dozen feet) below the center of a hull. The void formed from the detonation causes the target's hull to buckle/crack/shatter inward due to its own weight. A single ADCAP can in theory sink an entire carrier, but sub captains typically shoot two b/c the carrier is typically the primary objective. The kind of acoustics described in the article would be tough for even an ADCAP to work around, not to mention it takes our contractors many years to turn around software upgrades to the weapons that would filtering to increases its chances. Then again, good this is a DARPA project, meaning it'd take 5+ years to see any deployment in the fleet anyway.
The most cost effective anti-torpedo weapon a surface ship can have is the nixie. It's a towed (inflated, I believe) thing that trails the ship with ship-signature acoustics running on it, sucking up any torps on the ship's trail. Given their low lost, low maintenance, and (extremely!) high effectiveness they're the best deal in town.
G-Force music visualization
I am a former sailor in the US Navy, my particular job was working with the Aegis weapon systems. Just because the system is installed on board doesn't imply that it gets used during a simulation or exercise. We have missiles and guns but very rarely ever fire a live round during training. We have electronic counter measures but those do not get set off either. Why waste the equipment and materials if they can be simulated via computer instead? But then how do you know the stuff works? Every bit of equipment has a planned maintenance schedule that is closely followed. This includes tests based daily, weekly, monthly, yearly etc. They are also very aware of the potential dangers, more so than you that is clear. The Navy is very careful about operating withing specific guidelines when it comes to the environment, they observe all of the whale habitats along the US costal waters and any other environmentaly sensative areas.
Everyone who is attacking this post is a FOOL!!!! This guy clearly meant a SHINY NURF Torpedo!!! For gods sake, that is WAY BEYOND freshman physics!!! And yea, SEA ANIMALS AND SEA VEGATABLES don't have COUNTERMEASURES!!! ( Why, they can't even count, much less MEASURE!!! )
Insesitive clods!!!
I've asked him about how powerful the sonar was and to give you an idea how dangerous it is he told me about some standard submarine procedure. Basically, if a submarine comes under threat from enemy frogmen or divers, the defence the sub has is to turn the active sonar on and start pinging. If a diver is underwater and within a couple hundred yards, he will die from the intensity of the sound under water. In other words the sonar is VERY powerful. Trust me a 200db blast will likely give someone a very bad day if they are near by.
They're the military! And ecological harmony is the last thing they'd do!
It's like asking Microsoft if they'd adopt open source!
DUH!
This all invovles using ACTIVE SONAR. Any defense designed into the torpedo to protect against the *sound pulse* would likely render its sonar dome useless as well.
He failed freshman physics AND Tropedos 101.
And when you install the silent propulsion system to your torpedo, you would quickly realise that perhaps you should have put it on your submarine instead.
C'mon McFly.
Why not use it as an offensive weapon? Why not use the transducers to deliver a huge amount of pressure to the enemy ship and directly (or by inducing resonance) cause a hull breach? A big boat seems an easier target than a fast-moving torpedo.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
We like the boats. The boats that go boom.
If they have devices that emit sound waves powerful enough to travel through water and trigger a torpedo imagine what it would do in air. No doubt the next Command and Conquer will feature an Accoustic Tank.
and currently stationed by iraq. While I say the more defensive weapons the better, if we have to do it at the expense of making all the whales extinct I say its not worth it. This isnt about saving plankton here, this is about not accidently blowing away the eardrums and thus killing thousands of whales and other marine creatures. There have been experiments with this technology and coincidentally there were massive beachings as the marine mammals could no longer navigate correctly. There are billions of us, I can't say the same for the whales.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
The point of the Shkval is that the envelope that makes it so fast (as the torpedo is never actually touching the water) also makes it pleasantly silent, as almost all of the sound it produces doesn't make it through the air barrier around the torpedo.
There is, however, no real evidence that these things work in a warfighting situation. It's pretty widely accepted that the Kursk was test-firing one of these when it exploded, and that it blowing up/having an early rocket start is what did it.
Cue The Sun...
"Bonus if you get some giant squid"
The flesh is full of ammonia, so it'll taste like floor cleaner or urine.
have you seen so many +5's in recent memory?
.
First of all, it's pretty obvious how this array generates its destructive power: constructive interference. The strongest effect will only be felt in a very small area where all the waves amplify one another.
Second... how is this any worse for marine life than if the torpedo explodes?
So shut face now. Thanks.
is it worth driving an entire class of mammals to extinction over?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
...how do you counter nuclear depth charges and torpedoes? Hope the range on this system is decent...these bad boys kill with the same shockwave principle...they don't need to impact a ship/sub at all to be effective.
It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
The only thing you need to worry about is infrasound which can travel long distances and can disrupt the communication signals of many marine animals (after all how do you think whales communicate with each other).
As for the higher range of frequencies (ultrasound) which have shorter range because the energy of the waves is absorbed faster can perhaps theoretically be effective against targeted projectiles. One of the main problems with acoustic weapons is aiming, but with this system the idea is to basically have an array of boom boxes around the ship shooting out sound in all directions.
Also, sound travels faster in water because it dissipates slower than in air so that is why this technology could have some potential underwater, while a weapon above ground would not exactly be a counter to an ICBM nuclear missile attack.
create live by acting as artificial reefs for coral and other marine life to grow on. for more information see all up and down the coasts of florida or note all the colorful sponges growing all over the arizona in pearl harbor. also life has learned to deal with oil to a degree because afterall oil is a natural chemical and small oil spills occur naturally every now and then.
a huge sound blast is about as unnatural as it comes, followed only behind "cleaning" up after the exxon valdez by washing the oil away with scalding water. the areas they scalded took many times longer to recover than the areas they left alone covered in oil.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
I say a whale or two can be sacrificed for 200+ human lives, and maybe a strategically important vessel.
Just about anyone with a relatively big boat has to repaint the hull with antifoul paint every couple years. Not really that nasty, now, it's simply marine paint mixed with a bunch of (correct me if i'm wrong) aluminium dust. The older stuff used primarily copper, which had a few adverse effects on sea life.
Apparently some of the Cajuns down south use cayenne pepper, and they claim it works the best, but hey, to a cajun, cayenne pepper's good for damn near anything.
The navy these days has actually been using some pretty wierd coatings for ships, although mainly subs, in order to reduce friction.
My other Sig is
If this is to blow torpedoes out of the water, I've got one question. If anyone's running sonar, and you blast a torpedo out of the water, wouldn't you tend to alert everyone else around you??
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
its the animals fault they haven't joined our navy and offered their lives as dolphin bombs or tuna scouts... oh... wait
. . .MANIMAL!!!
When asked the question a second time the military man looked up and said loudly "what, did you say something?"
Oh, right. Because we would *hate* to have a loud noise in the ocean instead of thousands of gallons of fuel oil or a ruptured nuclear reactor from a sunk ship.
Brought to you by the same retards who nixed nuclear power for environmental reasons, forcing the country to depend on burning coal.
I don't know much about sound, so this might be way off, but...
Sound is a wave. So can't waves can be canceled out using an inverse wave?
If so, what is to stop someone from figuring out the sound wavess used for this, and configuring the torpedo's sonar system to use an inverse sound to cancel the effect?
I would guess that the torpedos active sonar system could be configured to alternate the canceling wave with the sonars own wave.
I, for one, hope that the sound that is used is the opening of the "Ride of the Valkyries." Scares the hell out of the gooks.
All I know about naval warfare, I've read from Tom Clancy books, but...
Isn't blasting the ocean with a massive sound wave a pretty good way to advertise yourself to every submarine and ship within 5,000 km? Obviously, at least one enemy has a good track on you at that point, but we're talking about basically shooting up a flare for any interested parties. Wouldn't that completely compromise any convoy that a navy ship might be protecting, to say nothing of a valuable carrier group? Even sending an identifiable signal in just one direction would be pretty inscrutable behavior from one of todays stealthy ships.
Seems to me that this system is not likely to be used any time soon. Of course, tested is another matter...
If so, what is to stop someone from figuring out the sound wavess used for this, and configuring the torpedo's sonar system to use an inverse sound to cancel the effect?
Apart from the fact that to cancel out a wave you need a wave of exactly the same intensity and 180 deg out of phase.... so you'd have to measure the incoming sound, process it, invert it and output it at the same (or high enough) intensity.
I don't think a pissy little torpedo is going to be able to carry around enough sound transducers to make a disaster area concert look like the parade of pink faries...
I drink to make other people interesting!
To say nothing of the sonarman's eardrums.
I was about to post that there were only two nuclear powered non-carrier surface ships in the Navy (the two my father helped build), but my favorite source indicates there were nine nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers (CGN's), the last of which were decommissioned in 1998.
IIRC, the US built one proof-of-concept nuclear-powered merchant ship (the Savannah) in the 60's, and the Soviet Union built at least one nuclear-powered ice-breaker.
Slashdot: a convenient dumping ground for the trivia that clutters our minds...
P.S. I have to add that pausing to contemplate environmentally safe warfare is laughable; this is a classic case of wanting to treat the symptom instead of the disease.
Just remember, if you feel a building pressure in your ears, drive west as fast as you can!
...if my armchair admiral's tactics might be a scosh off, but seems to me that if the large ship had just had a torpedo attack, and had defended against the attack, wouldn't they now be..uhh, "pissed off" is the phrase.. and go hunt down and destroy the attacking sub, thereby causing leakage of submarine nuclear reactor fuel and/or mass quantities of diesel oil and various other whatnots of the hazardous to marine life stuff?
I guess the environmental whackjobs think it's better to have a nuclear reactor smashed into a million pieces instead. Not the mention the conventional fuel, and all the other non envionemntally friendly material on a ship spilling into the ocean.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
SCREW THE FISH! I would rather see one HUMAN saved and see ALL the marine life in the world wiped out than one HUMAN killed to save all the marine life.
Ask yourself this question; if you were given the choice between being killed and having all marine life preserved or living and having all marine life destroyed, which would you pick? How about if the question was changed a little to replace you with your wife/boyfriend/lover/daughter/son? Would you make that sacrifice of the person you love the most to save some freaking fish? I know I WOULD NOT.
I find it pretty sick that people could even ask "what about the marine life" when the only other alternative would be to sacrifice HUMAN lives. Men and women that have mothers/fathers/girlfriends/boyfriends/children that LOVE and NEED them.
When will our world be free of these idiots that put plants and animals above HUMAN life?
I will tell you my opinion. I would rather live in a world where no human ever suffers again that is void of ALL other life, than live in a world where non-human life flourishes and HUMAN life suffers. Yes, life would suck without other natural species, but I would do it to save HUMANS. Note: for the PETA-tree-lovers; I have personally owned: cats(5), dogs(8), spiders(50) (including the largets species Goliath Birdeater), snakes(~200) ([albino]Burmese python, African rock python, blood python, corn, rat, green boa, emerald tree boa, rainbow boa, boa constrictor, anaconda), Anoles, Chameleons (Oustelet's, Fischer's, Veil), Gecko (African Fat tail, Crested Gecko, Giant Day, Tokay), Iguanid(Blue Spiny Swift, Brown Basilisk, Emerald Swift, Texas Spiny Swift), Monitors(Black/Golden Tegu, Nile, Savannah) and Bearded Dragons. I don't think _anyone_ could call me an animal "hater".
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I'm 90% sure I know what this is for. I'm not a naval warfare specialist, but I am a scientist with an interest in these things.
In the 1990s, the Russians developed the prototype for what would later be termed the Shkval or Squall supercavitation torpedo. Knowing the Russians, the Chinese probably have them too.
Cavitation is a phenomena where a body moving through the water pushes the water out of the way so fast that it creates bubbles around the object (fast = lower pressure = water vaporization = bubbles). You may have heard of propellers cavitating - that's where small bubbles of water vapor form then burst on the low pressure side of a prop blade, causing lots of noise and even damage to the blade when they implode.
Supercavitation, on the other hand, is an intentional phenomena where a blunt-nosed object is shot through the water, creating low pressure vortices on the sides. Air or exhaust gases are injected into these vortices, creating a static "bubble" around the object that drastically reduces friction - perhaps up to an order of magnitude. You have to fire these things at about 50mph or greater to start the supercav effect going, effectively "handing off" the bubble to the torpedo, which then sustains it.
The numbers on these torpedoes are incredible: we're talking about a 300mph torp carrying a 460lb warhead with a range in excess of 7000 yards. That's the tame version - others carry nukes. In other words, carrier-killers.
Supercavitation torpedoes, as you can imagine, are incredibly noisy and easy to detect - you just can't get away from them because they're so fast. This sonic projector essentially sends a high-energy single pulse through the water directed at an incoming torpedo. That pulse probably wouldn't be able to crack a torpedo - you'd probably need on the order of 250-500PSIG overpressure to do that, (scuba tanks contain 2000PSIG regularly). You wouldn't be able to detonate the high explosive, because you need a wavefront speed above the detonation velocity, which for C4 is about 7000m/s (much slower than the speed of sound in water, 1482m/s).
I don't have the time right now to spin the equations, so I could be wrong.
However, you would be able to disrupt and dissipate that bubble around an incoming supercavitation weapon with a high-energy sonic pulse. Break that bubble, and the torp stops dead in the water because it can't reform the bubble around itself. If it mistakes that sudden stop for a ship hull - boom.
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
Reminds me of a scene in the Hunt for Red October.. Watson: Seaman Jones here is into music in a big way, and he views this whole boat as his own personal, private stereo set. Well, one day he's got this piece of Pavarotti...
Seaman Jones: It was Paganini.
Watson: Whatever.
Seaman Jones: It was Paganini.
Watson: Look, this is my story, okay?
Seaman Jones: Then tell it right, COB. Pavarotti is a tenor, Paganini was a composer.
Watson: So anyway, he's got this music out in the water, and he's listening to it on his headsets, and he's just happy as a clam. And then all hell breaks loose. See, there's this whole slew of boats out in the water...
Seaman Jones: Including one WAY out at Pearl!
Watson: Including one way the hell out at Pearl. All of a sudden, they start hearing, Pavarotti...
Beaumont: Pavarotti!
Watson: Coming up their asses!
area concert look like the parade of pink faries
And now folks, you know why they have "Don't ask, don't tell".
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
hmm... never actually studied Submarines have you?
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the Interoceanal Federation of Dolphins said, "Eeeep eeeep eeep eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep" (Don't sail near sharks with fricken lasers).
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
is an example of when they do "fire a live round during training" that has been proven to have dramatic effects of whales. As a result the Navy has taken measures to avoid it's use in known sensitive areas. I suspect they'll be willing to do the same in the case of testing this system.
"Drive up to X point real slow, with sonar off, so the ship doesn't realize you're coming, then, go active, hunt it down, and blow it up. I torpedo in the water sounds like a lawnmower... They are going to hear it. The idea behind a torpedo is to lock onto the target and get the F*** out as quickly as possible. He failed freshman physics AND Tropedos 101. Aparently, so did you.
Funny comment, but the physics of this is fairly complex... particularly the mathematics.
Basically you are generating an interference pattern that will result in an incredible intensity at one position and time.
That said, just basic interference from freshment physics should give someone the vague general concept, but without knowing how Fourier transforms work either in optics or acoustics, I could see it being tough to believe that a sufficient shock wave or interference pattern could actually harm, deflect, or destroy a torpedo.
So this must be the reason why my dolphin seem to be experiencing an unexplained hearing loss. You should see him try to do sign language now with those flippers!
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
They got asked this because of the concern with low frequency sonar. But the comparison is probably not all that relevant. Low frequency goes for ever, hence the humpback whale's use of it for communication. So a low frequency sonar can hurt a whale that's quite some way away.
The anti-torpedo weapon, on the other hand, uses shock waves. Shock waves are mostly made of high frequency components which die out quickly. So probably only those whales in the immediate vicinity are in trouble. Just do all the testing in a "desert" part of the ocean, where there's no life.
You're old... Modern high schools don't teach physics 'till senior year. (Freshman science is learning what volcanoes and atoms are.)
Yes, those nasty pulses of noise are sure to disrupt the ecosystem!
Which is why the navy should do the ecologically sound thing, and let their submarines be exploded spreading nuclear material all over the ocean!
Also, I thought that particular weapon wasn't suited to non-nuclear use because it can't steer well inside it's bubble and it's so noisy it can't home on a target. Ah, I see from this article initial versions were unguided, current versions have an autopilot, and future versions will slow to conventional speeds for terminal guidance.
marine life are not threatened by this sonic weapon
a les.sonar.ap/
the reason is that this sonic weapon won't be used very much (only when a modern vessel is fired upon... how many times is that over the next century?)
even then, the effect is localized... and any marine mammals in the area of naval warfare have a few other things to worry about than deafness (any regular fish close by might have their swim bladders ruptured, but it is deaf marine mammals over a greater distance that is the real issue here)
the whole naval sonic weapons=dead fish meme has to do with a naval program the us navy isn't even pursuing anymore:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/13/wh
this program, SURTASS-LFA:
http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/
the idea behind this program is simple: rather than detect enemy subs and ships passively, with ambient noise or noise from directed pings or from the enemy vessel's own noisemaking, why not bathe the ENTIRE ocean in a glow of sonic noise?
you can see why this raised issues about marine mammals then: the us navy wanted to turn the entire pacific basin into a disco on ibiza. this would obviously deafen marine mammals and kill them as they depend on noise to find mates, food, etc.
http://www.environment-hawaii.org/801will.htm
but with that program dead, there is nothing to worry about, and all reactions against this sonic weapon because of dead fish, or even reactions for the weapon, in spite of the dead fish (see one particularly funny hyserical comment below to see what i mean), are just misplaced hysteria: most mammals will be swimming far away from naval vessels at war, and the numbers actually threatened in any way by this weapn are tiny and pointless to talk about
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i kid, i kid.
but at a certain point, Joe Blow, along with billions of people like him, need an intact ecosystem full of functioning flora and fauna to survive. just something to keep in mind, when making [so far] small-scale decisions like this. taken to the logical extreme, immediately voting for the sake of A Man can lead to his ultimate doom. it's the dilemma of responsible resource management. it's a slippery slope, even though it seems like such obviously good solid tread right up until you get to the end.
maybe everything useful in the ocean will have been overfished to oblivion though, by the time the BF-noiseblaster becomes standard issue. hey.
The thing is, you need to do a cost/benefit analysis.
Answer these questions:
When was the last time a US ship was hit with a torpedo? Vietnam maybe? Korea?
How often would this system be tested on various vessels, during war games and such? (Answer, a lot. The navy doesn't usually have a lot of work to do, so they practice. A lot.)
What's the impact on marine mammals, and over what range? (they have a long history of being injured by loud noises, sensitive auditory systems and all)
Ok, so if you make half or 2/3 of an already endangered whale population so deaf that they can't find a mate or beach themselves on rocks they can't "see", pushing them over the edge to total extinction, is that worth protecting a few of our ships from a weapon type that hasn't even been deployed in 30-40 years?
I don't know the answer, but caution is never a bad idea.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Try and get a clue before mouthing off about things beyond your knowledge, and making an utter fucking ass of yourself in a public forum, you massive dumb shit.
Your foam rubber plan is also ignorant and flat out stupid.
I wasn't commenting at all on the viability of the tech or the advice of using same in a war scenario. On cursory glance it looks like it might work..perhaps. The opponent could harden the torpedo most likely, or use it in concert with any number of other simultaneous attacks as part of a swarm. Or, like you opined, in a suicide type attack, it would make it difficult.
I personally don't think any smaller group would even bother using anything but assymetrical and force multiplying tactics, but that's an entire other conversation..
Anyway... I was commenting on the possibility that the fight would most likely continue after the first round of torpedoes,i.e. that it wouldn't stop there with both parties steaming away from each other IF the deterrent values had been deemed by the opposition to still be worth risking. So, as such, my point was there would be loss of ship(s) in this theoretical encounter with the resultant *whatever* spilled into the ocean. It was that simple.
as to politics with regards to these conflicts we always seem to get involved with lately.. or are likely to..if you want the cliff notes version of my views... here ya go
I believe in personal and national self defense. Got the T shirt a long time ago, thanks...
I don't believe in being a moronic arrogant international bully based on greed driven megalomania. I think that is "bad form". I expect it of a loon like kim ill dung heap, but not of any so-called civilized leaders.
I very rarely am naieve or uninformed enough to swallow most official-brand federal government wild assed political (or economic) conspiracy theories as promulgated by their official spokesmodels and shills, and over the years historical retrospect has shown (to beyond my satisfaction) that I made the correct decision in developing and maintaining that default position and viewpoint. They are at best chronic serial liars with CYA as their primary goal, and at worst are actively engaged (in some very limited but command-powerful circles) in outright traitorus and harmful actions.
Next time I'm on a submarine under fire though, I won't be wishing a torpedo away based on some ideals of pacifism.
I will satisfy your request by calling you short-sighted. Humans on submarines are an expensive luxury. Humans have sailed these subsurface warships for over a hundred years, but it is unlikely they will sail them for a hundred more. I think we all hope that whales will be around for at least the next hundred and more years. Technology that threatens their existence while preserving something we won't need much longer is an unacceptable tradeoff.
Submarines' primary value is providing an unpredictable launch location for missles. In short order, we should be able to accomplish the same with drones more cheaply and effectively. Without life support overhead, these drones should be able to operate indefinitely underwater without surfacing. This acoustic detonation project is a waste of tax dollars supporting a system that has a limited lifespan.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
College
...doesn't make it Flamebait.
Personally I welcome our acoustically insensitive overloads
I dont think it works by killing aquatic life, I think it would work by creating a surface too smooth, or in the case of a sharkskin like coating too rough, of a surface for sealife to attach itself to.
Not everybody is a Carl Sagan or Martin Luther King. These people are volunteers who climbed onto a war ship of their own free will. If you care so much about them then why didn't you talk them out of it?
There's no shortage of replacement for human beings. A species or environment on the other hand can be lost forever.
No sig today...
You're right. I air-to-surface torpedos are kind of over these days. It's all about air to surface missles now.
My big complaint on this is it's an example of the military's tendency to spend where there isn't a real-world problem. This problem climbs all the way up into the executive branch. In his first term, George W. Bush decided to pull the US out of the ABM treaty. This was because our government wanted the freedom to develop technology to destroy ICBMs. Even after Sept. 11th, the US government wasn't convinced that low-tech is the more plausible threat. The entities who will actually do us harm aren't going to invest in complex systems that send explosive material guided by computers and lasers.
In Iraq, our blind eye to low tech has been exploited with roadside bombs that penetrate the thinly-armored underbelly of our troop transport vehicles. Same with the tens of thousands of RPG launchers menacing our soldiers. More recently, the military has improved the shielding beneath these vehicles and figured out better ways to protect against RPGs. The current method is to erect galvanized tin around tanks and APCs so that the RPG will detonate outside the vehicle. It's a directed charge, so without an impact, it causes exponentially less harm when exploded beside the vehicle. Here's a description of an electric force-field concept to protect against RPGs.
Anyway, I hate to see money misdirected at defending against implausible scenarios while very real threats abound. And to sacrifice whales for the cause is icing on the cake of waste.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I'd love to hook-up a Synthi AKS (http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/EMS/O verview/synthia.gif) to that thing!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Russua also have "revun" anti torpedo system
Let's not forget the fact that when it is pointless to fire a torpedo at a ship because it doesn't do anything except waste very expensive torpedos, then there is no damage to ecology whatsoever.
and thanks for all the fish!
>This is like shooting down missles with lasers; just make a
>shiny missile and the light bounces off without damaging it.
The known defence against anti-missile lasers is to coat the missile in ablative (evaporating) materials AND to rotate the missile inflight around its longest axis. This way the heating effect of laser(s) cannot focus on a single point, but is dispersed around the circumference of the rocket and simply blow off some useless wax from the shiny ballistic missile.
To spin a flying rocket presents a difficult problem in flight controls and engine management because of the need to preserve accuracy at the target impact. It requires advanced electronics and gyroscopes, but I think it has already been solved and implemented. The new russian Topol-M can rotate I once read. Teller died in vain for good!
>>> that particular weapon wasn't suited to non-nuclear use because it can't steer well inside it's bubble and it's so noisy it can't home on a target.
Sure, because missing by 50 yards makes a nuke useless.
You should definitively see the "Kursk: A Submarine in Troubled Waters" documentary which tries to link the russian torpedoes with the Kursk tragedia.m l
Here's one reference on a Russian newspaper. http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/362/14809_.ht
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
I think it would be better to kill a few things with a short blast from loudspeakers and a torpedo, than to let the ship take a hit so that it spills lots of nasty chemicals into the sea.
Oh, there's also the plus-side that you'll save the lives of the people on the boat.
Just a small thought to add: even Germany has those torpedoes. Perhaps not ready to deploy, certainly without the WMD-part, but they added steering-ability and homing-ability AND they tested it (successfully). That means that soon the whole of NATO will have it, and we all know how good the security measures in the new (eastern) participants are...so expect being shot from a speedboat with one of those fuckers in the near future (like...10 years?). good luck in the middle east/gulf/whatnot, Mr. Supercarrier.
For those who doesn't speak Russian: "revun" means "roaring" or "howling".
This system was not designed to physically destroy torpedoes, but to make it lose acoustic radar lock.
s\acoustic radar\sonar
Come on guys, the answer to this one is really easy:
If you want to protect marine life, then don't fire a torpedo at a US warship armed with accoustic defenses.
You needn't postulate a security breach. Just assume that the US sells them to a friendly group, and then later on decides that group is in fact the enemy. Remember how the Afghan mujaheddin got all those Stingers?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Sure, because missing by 50 yards makes a nuke useless.
You may want to look up the meaning of the phrase 'non-nuclear'.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"Exactly how the system works is shrouded in military secrecy." Its simple: lithotripsy. Its a non-invasive treatment used to remove Gallstones.
Check out: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/5556/
Quote: "Shock waves are produced by a sophistiated machine called Lithotripter by passing a high voltage electrical discharge through a spark gap under water. The shock waves thus produced are focussed on the stone inside the patients body, which is localised with the help of a machine called C-Arm Image Intensifier. The shock waves produce a compressive force and the brittle stones start to crumble into small sand like particles which are passed out in urine."
Beef up the size of the machine 50 or 60 fold and you have a nice underwater weapon.
I actually thought of this idea ages ago. Should have patented it, ohh well.... back to writing my Formal Test Plan.
Unfortenutly military( != researchers) are not preparing the next war, but most of the times the previous war. In response to the 2nd world war russian preparared to fight the war ships & the -abomb as insurace against the a-bomb. Lot's of bomb's created as response for the 1991 iraq war because a lot of the hardware was not created for a dug in enemy. lot's of non-lethal weapons are created in repsonse to to somalia like invasion. If i really was interrested in this sort of thing I could go on, but you really can see that the biggest investments are made in weapons that would have been great if they were used in last war.
HMS Conqueror sank the Belgrano in 1982, the only time a nuclear submarine has officially fired a torpedo in anger. There wasn't some great environmental disaster at the time.
The Brits lost half a dozen warships/troop transports and logistics vessels to the Argentines in 1982. The cause was a mix of french exocet missiles fired in stand-off mode and dumb-iron dropped from low flying fighter bombers. The brits in a report afterwards suggested the best defence would be barrage balloons (the argies already knew the brits were in San Carlos water so there was no need for 'stealth'. The environmental damage has not been significant. In fact nature has simply built a new environment around it.
The primary use would be against sea mines - cheap, and not much of a signature - if you don't mind hosing the local fishlife.
But modern stuff is not that dumb, or if they were, they wont be for long. Decoys have a short shelflife.
No sane nation will use torps - any that got close enough to fire - will not be leaving. Cruise missiles have made most subs obsolete.
So they should take this white elephant and stick it in New Orleans to kill breeeding mosquitos, carp and the rat population. Locals may try to swipe panels some to fit under their car for custom auto sound competitions. Someone is taking their car sub-woofer fantasy to the extreme and scamming some research payments.
Next time I'm on a submarine under fire though, I won't be wishing a torpedo away based on some ideals of pacifism.
So, what happened the last time you were on a submarine under fire? I guess now and then you just get teleported over onto a submarine inexplicably under fire, and get a quick choice to use gizmos or die. Wow, the public has to be warned about this terrible hazard.
You know, wars tend to be somewhat dangerous things. Bad things happen in a war. People get killed. The intent of military technology is to ensure victory, but some people seem to think that it is to sanitise war into a situation where it has no risk. Did someone say that this technology is to protect human life? What are our submariners going to do once they shoot down that incoming torpedo in their nuclear submarine armed with 50 megaton ICBMs?
Oh yeah.
Being prepared is fine. But you need to judge the likelihood of what you are preparing against happening - because there is an infinite number of potential threats. Submarines being attacked by torpedos is not a reasonable threat. The purpose of modern submarines - which is to be a global, hidden deterrent - is not helped by torpedo defenses. Submariners sign up in the full knowledge that their lives are decided by a bunch of civvies in a boardroom, and may well be at risk at any time.
Each million bucks spent on protecting a few hundred sailors for a few minutes in the rather unlikely occurance of a global nuclear armageddon could have saved 30 or so US households from extreme poverty, paid for several hundred critical operations, allowed a few hundred talented students to go to college, or ensured the survival of several thousand currently starving villagers in Africa - possible ensuring long term stability, and preventing the aforementioned armageddon from taking place. Is it really worth it?
Another example: can people ethically participate in the DARPA Grand Challenge if the vehicles could be adapted in the future beyond their role in supplies transport to roles as attack vehicles? Might not a robot vehicle accidently kill innocents even more than human combatants do?
So why build robot attack vehicles? Because if war must happen, then we want to save our guys while defeating the enemy. We aren't winning when we're dying.
The question then becomes: when will they be used? In Iraq there was enough problems with collateral damage and families accidently mowed down in the streets by Marines. This happened in part because the Marines went in understaffed. If the policial leadership in the US had used sufficient troop levels, and if the leadership had the communication skills to bring more allies on board, our Marines wouldn't have to be fighting on their heels, afraid of everything, and shooting everything that moves. We could of instead focused on SECURING the country, something that still hasn't happened to this day...
So I would not want George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld to have access to a military robot attack vehicles, but I would want our military to have access to this technology under the right leadership. As for killer shock waves coming from underwater super-transducers it sounds like a potential life saver. Of course hopefully only used in a just conflict, but that depends on just and moral leadership.
Most torpedos don't just charge in any more, when they're going at full speed they make a bunch of noise which a) gives the enemy more time to react, and b) tells them right where you are. If you drive in slowly, you make less noise, give them less reaction time, and don't give away your position.
This knucklehead just admitted to the fact the he is intends to perform an act that is not only illegal (a federal felony see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking) but also intentionally endangers innocent people lives. You and others like you are the ones who give environmentalism a bad name. You are a terrorist, an eco-terrorist nut, who is no more deserving of human rights than osama bin laden himself . I can only hope that some federal official reads this and throws you under some secret jail for the rest of your miserable life before you have a chance to harm an innocent man who is only trying to make a living for himself and his family.
These people are going to die if they don't stop the torpedo. In this context, fuck aquatic sealife. It's not as if they're travelling the countryside blasting this thing because they're bored!
It's been a long time.
...and whales are (arguably) sentinent animals, along with dolphins, chimps, elephants and so on.
Even though whales may not be tool-using animals, they are still considered to be 'self-aware'. Even if these sentinent creatures have only the intelligence or understanding of a 3, 4, 5-year old child, we should treat their place in the eco-hierarchy on a par with a human child.
Human adults use tools to defend themselves against animals, but neither human children nor sentinent creatures can defend themselves against either animals or adults. That's why we should protect both.
Oh my god! Even the germany! Maybe even the France and the UK! It's pretty stupid to think that the major weapon sellers in the world (Russia/US/France/UK/Germany) don't all already have those...
As a reminder, the US Army is that powerful not so much because of a technological advance, but by the sheer size of it.
It's nuclear fuel was remove long ago, and has been making electricity in Tennessee for the past few years.
Maths is never offtopic on a nerd site. The parent post deserves +5 QED.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Because a large warship getting blown up, sunk and leaking fuel and armaments all over the place is so very good for marine life.
Idits.
When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.
Here we have 2 nuclear subs launching high explosive torpedos at each other and someone is worrying about the noise coming out of a speaker? *shakes head*
I find being offended by me offensive.
I can already picture these smart warheads hearing 50-Cent and turning around to go blast the ships that play Barbara Streisand instead.
So when will this power struggle come to an end already ? We have so many ways to blow stuff up, and so few ways to stop people from wanting to blow each other up.
I guess it's easier to patch the symptoms than actually solve the underlying problems. Welcome to earth.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Hey! Congrats on all of your wonderful NROTC experence. I'm currently active duty navy ON subs. Yeh... I think I know what I'm talking about... While you are right that they do vary speeds... its usually loud, louder and really loud. Modern SONAR systems are able to pick up the AC units onboard sound proofed subs... I don't think detecting a torpedo is going to be *that* difficult. oh, and btw, your speeds on the torpedos are off aswell. While the actuall speeds are classified, they go *way* faster than that.
You know... I was thinking... what about sound cancelling technology (wave-opposition or something) placed out past the target to tamp down the effects of open-ocean testing?
See? That's why I don't call myself Christian anymore. Sufficient interpretative hoop jumping renders it utterly meaningless.
Jesus may have lost His temper in the temple, but He did not ever kill anybody. Christ protect us from Christians!
The US Army doesn't have much of a numerical superiority, compared to say, China's troops on hand.
Now the US Navy on the other hand...if we assembled the entire US Navy in one spot for maneuvers with the rest of the world navies, there's a pretty good chance we'd just run them over and nobody would notice.
Well, until some poor slob of an ensign had to clean up the mess it'd leave on someones hull.
I'm not saying nobody else has nifty ships, it's just we've got boatloads of armed vessels from crappy to cutting-edge to play with. Yes the pun was intended.
Hey! Congrats on all of your wonderful NROTC experence. I'm currently active duty navy ON subs. Yeh... I think I know what I'm talking about...
Active duty ON subs doesnt qualify you to know anything about the sonar or weapons systems if you are say...a cook. I note you left out what position you currently enjoy serving as, but now that I pointed that out, Im certain you will turn out to be the chief officer of sonar operations or somesuch.
Is there a single country in this world stupid enough to launch a torpedo attack against an American navy ship? I mean, you guys spend half the world military budget already, why on Earth would you need this? I believe the last naval battle is quite some time ago, is this technology really useful? How can the marines in Iraq, Afghanistan and you local NY subway benefit from this?
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
2. Of course it would be tested frequently.
3. This would be a high-frequency sound wave - they tend to dissipate over a much shorter range than low-frequency waves do, so the only deafness would be caused by whales already stupid enough to be swimming near a massive boat (and that were not already scared away by the screaming noise of the torpedo prop).
The issue, which you do not understand, with low-frequency radar and long-range sonar tests, is that they are so nonlocal that they damage whales in an enormous radius. The high-frequency sonar required to detonate a torpedo would have a very small area of intensity - furthermore, the waves would be directional, so they'd focus on the area of the torpedo and be far less coherent (concentrated) elsewhere.
but now that I pointed that out, Im certain you will turn out to be the chief officer of sonar operations or somesuch.
*shrugs*
Believe what you will... I don't do that sort of shit.
I'm an ET Navigator btw however, every one has to learn the basics of every one elses jobs on the boat so I know the basics behind the Mark 48 ADCAP... enough to know when some one doesn't have the complete picture
I can see someone attaching this to their car - that would be the first subwoofer I've seen that could physically flip the car over with a single bass hit.
BHWOMP!
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
is a amazing insulator against radiation. Strangely it is also taken up by corals and deposited in their skeletons without harm. There are reasons nuclear fuel is stored in submerged containers at power plants and there are space scientists with designs using a thin layer of water around a crew vehicle compartment to insulate astronauts from solar radiation. Dolphins and whales can deal with radiation just fine, radiation handled much easier by nature than industrial chemicals. See the lush forest around chernobyl for more information.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Anybody with money can buy these and almost any other non-NBC Russian weapon. This is a revelation?
That's one thing I wouldn't worry about as a carrier captain. This kind of torpedo needs lots of sensors and expertise to work properly. Not something terrorists have in great quantity. Besides, if they do, this is much more likely to be a concern, since you don't have to be on top of the ship to use it.
Hmm. Who put the word 'non' in there?
More accurately, why didn't I read it. Doh.
Anyone wondered that the loudspeakers are on the side of the ship, so they can't really make shockwaves lengthwise? A torpedo coming from the front or rear can not be destroyed by this system.
Hear hear! My favorite is the tortured explanation of how Christ would approve of Christians imposing the death penalty.
p.s. How many of our likely enemies in the next 20 years own a military submarine with torpedoes? I count approximately zero.