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.
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
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
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.
Not only an oil slick, but also the nuclear fuel of the reactor of most modern US Navy ships. Who knows if the reactor would withstand the torpedo explosion. If there are any nuclear warheads onboard the same goes from them.
Currently the only modern US navy ships with reactors are the Carriers and the Subs. The last of the non-carrier surface ships to have a reactor was a destroyer or cruiser (whichever is larger) and either has been or is being decomisioned. However, carriers still cary fuel for other ships in the carrier group. As for the warheads, they probably will withstand the torpedo blast, assuming it is not too close to them. They can generally withstand a good impact, such as has been demonstrated when a few have hit the ground/water due to mid air accidents.
The big question is whether the reactors (yes, plural) could take the hit. Although, in modern warfare the goal is generally not to hit the ship with the torpedo directly, but to explode it underneath the keel. This causes a vacuum/air bubble underneath the keel causing it to break and cracking the ship in two. The ship sinks quicker this way and with fewer "hits".
Mind you, I'm a bit biased in this due to the number of military personel I know. I'm all for this defense system if it helps keep ships from being hit.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
there's also surface ships. like aircraft carriers, that carry thousands of sailors. surface ships typically rely on counter-measures, such as the prairie-masking system, to save their asses. subs rely on stealth and quiet to avoid being heard in the first place.
I'm good with numbers -
More importantly, it isn't true that you get both a sonic blast and a torpedo explosion. The torpedo may explode-as-in-disintegrate from the sonic blast, but it won't explode-as-in-high-explosives. Modern torpedoes are detonated electronically, not by impact.
A runaway nuclear reactor from a sinking vessel is NOT good at all. That's one of the reasons for SCRAM switches. (also because such runaway reaction would melt a big hole in the keel on the way down)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
They aren't trying to trick the torpedoes into thinking they've hit the ship. The article suggests that the shock wave is supposed to be so strong that it'll cause actual physical damage to the incoming torpedo. They figure that the damage will be sufficient to either destroy the torpedo outright or at least cause enough damage to break vital components.
-GameMaster
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
I believe it mentions in TFA that some marine life, such as whales, can be killed via sound waves of high enough intensity. At the very least, disorientate them.
Maybe the US Navy is not as omnipotent as you believe. Numerous war games with their allies have proven otherwise.
e ar%20Submarine%20Really%20Invincible.htm
i on/view/categoryid/164/documentid/2873/history/3,2 360,656,164,2873
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Is%20the%20Nucl
"...and just a year ago in September 2003, in an unnamed (read "classified") exercise, several Collins Class subs "sank" two U.S. fast attack subs and a carrier - all unnamed, of course. And a month later another Collins Class sub surprised and "sank" an American fast attack during another exercise. "
FYI - Collins Class submarines are members of the Australian Navy
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/funct
"For example, in 2002 during the biennial RIMPAC, exercises involving the navies of the U.S., South Korea, Canada, Japan, Chile, Peru, and Australia, an Australian Collins-class diesel-electric submarine was able to score multiple kills against two U.S. Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines. "
There is nothing wrong with being cautious. In fact, in this area, your military would be well advised to increase its technological prowess.
I really hate to be there bearer of bad news, but there hasn't been a techonological revolution that instantaneously made all U.S. submarines and ships invulnerable to torpedos.
Yes, we have the technology, in theory, to keep taps on a ship, and to blow it to kingdom come if it pisses us off. Just becuase we have sattelites doesn't mean we have hte coverage or the manpower, though, to scan the entire Atlantic for enemy surface vessels 24/7. If you're looking at a resolution high enough to be able to spot a ship, you've got an awful lot of imagery to sift through. Even if we were to automate some of that, we still can only see where we are looking, and we can only know where to look if we have hints ahead of time. And you sure as hell can't see a submarine from space.
The military isn't arming their submarines for the present political scenario in which we have no enemies potent enough to launch a large-scale attack. They're arming against a hypothetical worst-case in which, say, another superpower gets testy, or a non-superpower gets a hold of something naughty like, say, some fancy supercavitating Russian torpedoes.
You can plug your ears and go "la la la" about how we have sattelites and space-age technology protecting us from all foes. Yes, those give us an enormous upper hand over most foes, but they don't make us invincible to basic attack. Should we remove armor plating from Abrams tanks because, hey, sattelites ought to be able to spot the Iraqi National Guard's T-72s before they get in range? Should we stop issuing body armor because hey, if our soldiers are getting shot, they aren't doing their job?
A US vessel probably hasn't been torpedoed in quite some time, you're right. Not because of mystical government powers that protect the ships, but because politically nobody with a torpedo has been engaged with us at that scale since World War II.
Defending our soldiers is all about worst-case. Getting shot is not something we hope for or desire, it's something we seek to prevent. Nevertheless, our infantry get medics and body armor, because we have to plan for a contingency that is, ultimately, pretty likely in a full scale engagement.
When was the last time a US Aircraft carrier was sunk? Should we, then, remove all anti-missile countermeasures and guns from the Nimitz and trust in magic sattelite observance to stare the missiles down?
If we have teh ability to give our submarines phased loudspeaker arrays to destroy incoming torpedos, excellent. One less incoming threat to worry about.
The torpedoes in the next war won't be WWII slow: Supercavitation or Warp Drive Underwater
(||) Nehmo (||)
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.
maybe 100 to 150 sailors onna boat, sport. Not hundreds or 1000's
I suppose this is a starship then?
...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.
Actually, a nuclear reactor sinking to the bottom of a sea is a pretty safe place for it. Water does a very decent job catching the radiation, but not of carrying it around--one of the reasons they use it as a coolant.
If the hot material from a reactor somehow escapes the sub and falls to the ocean floor, the worst that can happen is you get a tiny area of radioactive sea bed. You won't get enough fish swimming close enough to carry off much radiation. And thanks to the slow activity of plate tectonics, your irradiated sea bed should peter out long before it gets close to land.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I'm not sure why you think that just because a ship sinks that the reactor will go prompt critical and ex-p-looode (say it slowly)!
We do have data on the effects of nuclear reactors on the environment with sunken ships. We have lost USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, both nuclear powered fast attack submarines, and there was no evidence that any radioactive contamination escaped whatsoever. The reactors didn't melt down and melt a hole through the submarines. Neither did the Kursk or other Russian nuclear submarine losses (and they build theirs with a lot less care about releasing radioactive contamination to the environment).
Learning about how nuclear reactors work is not hard. But BSing about them is always easier, it appears.
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.
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.
Bullshit.
I'm a former ICBM launch officer. I've participated in numerous exercises and tests. Did I ever actually launch an ICBM? No. Have we ever actually launched active nuclear ICBMs? No. Does that mean they aren't tested or are unreliable? No.
War games, tests and simulations are just that, simulations. Equipment is tested without actually using it in an offensive manner. Critical environment equipment, military or civilian, is not tested "thousands upon thousands" of times in an active situation to prove it works.
Were "thousands upon thousands" of artificial hears and pacemakers "tested" inside people to see if they would function properly? Nope.
In my 3 years as a launch officer I never launched an actual missile but I sure ran a lot of test and simulations, multiple times per month. So did every other launch officer I knew, probably 150 people over that period. None of the solid-fuel ICBMs have been launched other than those from Vandenberg AFB in California which is a test facility. None of the nuclear warheads in use have been detonated "thousands upon thousands of times." Not a one, not once. Nor, for that matter, have nuce torpedos, backpacks, artillery shells, missiles or bombs.
If you're going to FUD, at least make it plausible.
Chances of someone I know serving on a submarine being killed in a combat situation = .0000001%
Chances of the world whale population being significantly decreased due to some stupid new sonic toy = very likely
What was your point again?
Misa no botha with yousa.
There are already some torpedoes that can be used as anti-torpedo torpedos, plus they are working on new ones... just google for anti-torpedo torpedo. In any case, something like that may have less relevance with the advent of new supercavitating torpedoes. They currently exist and have speeds in excess of 200 miles/hour (about 300 kph). Right now, they are only good for straight line running, but the U.S. (and others I'll warrant) are researching how to get them to turn at high speed.
Once one of these is fired at you from 5 miles away, you probably wouldn't have time to launch an anti-torpedo torpedo and have it intercept. That's probably why they want something like this.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Obviously, because they're like fish, aren't they, and don't need to come to the surface to breath at all. And those funny blowholes on the top of their heads are purely for decoration, right? ... Yeah right, alright!
</sarcasm>"most whales dont hang out on the surface too often"
riiight. except to, you know, breathe.
Of course there is no absolute proof of detrimental effects on wildlife. But it is rather telling that there was no comment when specifically asked about it.
My guess would be that if they hadnt bothered to test if there could be detrimental effects the answer would have been along the lines of : No effect on wildlife has been found.
If they had done even the smallest tests and found no detrimental effects then the answer would be : No effects have been found in our testing.
But the fact that there is specifically no comment suggests to me that they have let rip a couple of times and proceeded to bust out the nets and scoop up all the floating dead things to cook up for dinner.
From TFA it seems like it is a fairly focussed blast which would hopefully mean limited damage to wildlife but the fact that they wont say doesnt really inspire confidence.