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
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.