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.

Comments

marine life?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:marine life?

[Carnildo]

Neither a sonic blast nor a torpedo exploding will cause the harm of a ship sinking. Which would you expect to be worse: short-term, localized effects of a pressure wave, or a massive oil slick from ruptured fuel tanks?

Re:marine life?

[ScentCone]

Except in this case you get both.. ( even the summary stated this ).

Sure, but when you do get both, what you don't get is a giant ship sinking, spilling fuel oil or nuclear waste, weapons (er, and potentially thousands of lives) into the ocean. An economical, strategic, tactical, and ecological bargain.

Re:marine life?

[Futaba-chan]

Or, worse, an entire nuclear reactor....

Re:marine life?

[SEAL]

Two comments here:

1) Large torpedoes... say, the Mk-48 variety as opposed to Mk-46, are not really designed to explode on a target. They explode near the target, displacing a lot of water. The ship then gets drawn into the void, possibly breaking in half in the process. So there's not really an issue of the reactor withstanding a large torpedo explosion: it won't.

2) The radiation is more or less irrelevant. Even if the rods were not dropped and the reactor was not stopped, deep ocean is about the best place for it to be. Water is a very good radiation container. In fact, most nuclear subs don't shield the bottom part of the reactor compartment's hull at all, since people don't walk beneath the reactor. Anyhow, the radiation is not much of an issue unless the boat sunk in a shallow area, in which case it could be cleaned up.

Re:marine life?

[helix_r]

For every time that particular countermeasure is used in combat, it will have been used thousands upon thousands of times in open water testing and war gaming. That really could have an adverse effect on wild life.

It would be very irresponsible to develop this weapon without clear data on what effect it has on wildlife.

Re:marine life?

[schotty]

So some whale is more important than the men and women on the subs?

Somehow I cant see that as being the case. If its Joe Blow or Shammoo, I'll vote for Joe.

Re:marine life?

[efuzzyone]

It is very unlikely that any of the big major countries will go for a conventional war with each other, because they know that no one is going to emerge victorious. The reason why they spend money on such useless so called defence projects is to fill their own pockets (via kick-backs). And the environmental question asked by the editor is important, because these devices though won't be used in war (because I doubt if there is ever going to be one) are going to be used in naval-exercises and testings, which will further damagae the already frail eco-system of out oceans.

Re:marine life?

[raddan]

It would be very irresponsible to develop this weapon without clear data on what effect it has on wildlife.

That's silly. What if we have data that says that our potential weapon obliterates wildlife? Should we toss the idea and move on? Let's look at what we have now: Nuclear weapons obliterate wildlife. Fair enough, nuclear weapons are grossly indiscriminate; toss 'em. Conventional explosives obliterate wildlife. Ok, toss those too. Artillery isn't very green, either. In fact, machine guns aren't particularly enviro-friendly. Get rid of 'em. And let's just forget about a whole platoon of soldiers tramping through the forest, crushing wildlife, shooting guns, and throwing grenades.

I guess we don't have many options left, do we?

I'm most certainly not a big supporter of war. It's fair to say that I am probably a bit of a peace-nik, and rather left-leaning. I'd say I'm rather environmentally-conscious, too; I hang my clothes to dry, my house is full of compact fluorescents, I try to avoid meat and eat a diet that consists primarily of organically-grown vegetables, fruits, and legumes, etc, etc, etc.

But war is a tradeoff. We survive. We harm the environment.

Don't get me wrong. Environmental damage is regrettable, and hopefully avoidable. But despite the fact that our politicians love to cry wolf, I do believe that malice really exists in the world. Sure, we haven't waged a legitimate (aka, just) war in 50 years. But we need to make sure we're prepared for that. If there's one thing that humans are good it, it's killing each other.

Re:marine life?

[Anonymous Coward]

So some whale is more important than the men and women on the subs?

a) Given that there's thousands of men and women on this planet for every whale and no shortage of replacements, who knows?

b) If the people of this world really thought that each man and woman is so damned important, they wouldn't routinely put them in situations where they're ordered to try slaughter each other. Duh. Throughout human history, those men and women's lives have never been as important as the egos and hubris of their leaders, which is to say, not very important at all.

Re:marine life?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Some whale is more important than the men and women on the subs.

The whale represents a larger proportion of its species' genetic heritage, and thus is much more valuable when some species are at endangered levels. The men and women on the other hand are an insignificant fraction of a 6 billion-and-growing population (not to mention being volunteers for a service that they knew was risky before they signed on).

Whale trumps submariner.

Re:marine life?

[DaltonRS]

[sacasm]

Let us reiterate.

On one side we have "Oh no, what about the whales?! It's bad enough the military(hereafter to be referred to a baby-killers) exists in the first place, but now you are harming natures own creatures! There must be some way to make the death of every dolphin and whale the fault of Bush, his cronies, and all his baby-killers."

And on the side where the common sense resides we have this; "Hmm, while it may be harmful to aquatic life, there is no way it is more harmful than sinking a nulear or diesel vessel, spilling untold tonnage of nuclear products and byproducts, diesel fuels, various toxic chemicals stored on ship, aircraft fuels, aircraft, aircraft ordinance, standard ordinance, not to mention the loss of human life."

Now, it becomes a simple matter of determining which is more important to prevent. A potential ecological problem, or a guaranteed one.

[/sarcasm]

Re:marine life?

[mjtg]

Sound travels tremendous distances underwater, and whales and dolphins have very sensitive accoustic receptors. This allows some whales to communicate over distances of hundreds of miles, I've heard that humpbacks can even communicate with each other thousands of miles away.

If navies start using these toys, then it wrecks the sea creatures' hearing, making survival (hunting, avoiding predators) impossible. In the worst case, the damage done can kill them outright. And not just in the immediate area, but for hundreds of miles around. Never mind Japanese whalers, the US navy could wipe out whole speices of whales overnight with this stuff if they decided to us it on a big scale.

This problem has been around for some time now: 1 2 3 4 5.

My question, though, is - WHY does the US need this shit ? I mean, how much does the US really rely on its navy these days for national security. Its not like Al Quaeda or even the Iranians/Syrians/North Koreans/[insert-this-weeks-axis-of-evil-member-her e] could do any conceivable damage to a US warship (unless maybe a suicide bomber managed to sneak onboard). Maybe the Chinese or Russians, but really, does the US really NEED this new level of naval capability with the technological lead it already has ?

Re:marine life?

[Stickerboy]

>>That's silly. What if we have data that says that our potential weapon obliterates wildlife? Should we toss the idea and move on? Let's look at what we have now: Nuclear weapons obliterate wildlife. Fair enough, nuclear weapons are grossly indiscriminate; toss 'em. Conventional explosives obliterate wildlife. Ok, toss those too. Artillery isn't very green, either. In fact, machine guns aren't particularly enviro-friendly. Get rid of 'em. And let's just forget about a whole platoon of soldiers tramping through the forest, crushing wildlife, shooting guns, and throwing grenades.

>>I guess we don't have many options left, do we?

>Sounds like a nice situation to me. A guy can dream, can't he?

"I can imagine a perfect world, a world without hate, a world without war. Then I can imagine us attacking that world because they'd never expect it."

Re:marine life?

[iamhassi]

"proclaiming their right to explode weapons willy-nilly, at the expense of other large, intelligent animals, then I'd say that those arseholes just forfeited their right to life."

settle down there sparky, so let me get this straight, when given the option to:
A) Use technology to save the lives of men on ships, along with dumping tons of oil that'll kill marine life for years to come from the ship and the BILLIONS of dollars it costs to replace the ship.
to...
B) MAYBE saving whales, with no absolute proof these shockwaves are going to travel hundreds of whatever to injure the whales, not to mention they'll be running along either side of the hull below the waterline , not at the very bottom of the ship mind you, just right below the waterline where torpedos travel, and most whales dont hang out on the surface too often.

you'd chose option A, killing all the men, spilling all the oil and blowing the billions of dollars to save the whales that MIGHT be killed?

Re:marine life?

[MacGod]

The possibility of Marine effect is quite real. Past Navy experiments have had serious deleterious effects on marine life.

As to why, because whales, dolphins et al. are intelligent, endangered creatures. It doesn't mean you give up everything (or even that you give up this technology) to protect them, but it sure as hell means you consider the ramifications and at least look for alternative methods that don't kill some of the most advanced creatures on this planet.

Re:marine life?

[Frantactical Fruke]

"I actually AM what many would call a bible-toting religious nut, but I'm tired of seeing mindless pacifism advocated. Pacifism is utterly naive and foolish in every sense."

You might want to read that Bible some day, instead of just toting it. You may be a religious nut, but you are definitely not a Christian, since Jesus Christ was exactly the kind of wuss who advocated absolute pacifism. You know, "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek", "do not meet evil with evil" and "thou shalt NOT kill". No if, when or but to any of these statements.

Jesus figured that if everybody was the same kind of wuss as he was, there would be peace on earth. And yes, he got crucified for it, so maybe he was naive and foolish. It takes balls of steel to lay down your arms and take whatever the world dishes out, which is why there are fairly few Christians in the world and most of them are women.

Me? I'm a Sumutian. Naive and foolish would be putting it mildly.
Nobody's gotten around to crucifying me yet, though.

And didn't whales communicate over hundreds of miles with each other? So we might assume that a strenuous testing schedule of this system might render plenty of whales deaf or suicidal. Like sharing your home with a guy who runs a leaf blower indoors at any hours of the day. Bit rude, no?

Who cares?

[Lt.Hawkins]

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.

Re:Who cares?

[ptbarnett]

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.

Reading TFA, the concern is not over the effects of sonic blast vs. sinking ship.

The concern is the effect of open-water testing of the sonic blast against simulated or dummy threats in the ocean.

Ecological effects?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 for one...

[Keebler71]

When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.

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?

Against Who's Torpedoes?

[copperheadclgp]

I may be showing my ignorance here, but when was the last time a surface vessel was attacked using a torpedo? Back in WWII? And who has the capability to launch torpedoes? My educated guess is they are worried about China, but even our aging Los Angeles class attack boats far outstrip their old Soviet hardware.

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?

Re:It works because....

[Stripe7]

Does it work in the lab, possibly. Does it work in deployment? Hooked up to a ship that has been out of port for 8 months, corrosion barnacles etc.. will it work at that time? Pretty much do not care about ecological effects, those are mitigated by the far more disastrous effects of a damaged/destroyed ship. What concerns me is the cost of deploying a high maintenance system that becomes ineffective when deployed for long durations.

Re:I'll comment

[The Evil Couch]

you sound like one of my privates bitching about having to carry food, water, batteries and nightvision for a day mission.

the principle behind this tech is the same as most when it comes to military planning: It's better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it and not have it.

Re:Easy counter measures, not worth killing whales

[John Hasler]

> 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?

On the other hand

[davmoo]

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.

Re:It works because....

[Burz]

Pretty much do not care about ecological effects, those are mitigated by the far more disastrous effects of a damaged/destroyed ship.

Don't eat or breathe much... do you?

Re:It works because....

[Anonymous Luddite]

>> barnacles etc..

Doesn't the U.S. Navy paint all its' hulls with a really nasty paint to kill off/prevent encrustation? If my faded memory serves it was a cost saver - smooth hulls require less power to go the same speed...

As For Environmental Concerns

[MCTFB]

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.

Re:This is brilliant.

[Detritus]

If you are maneuvering at flank speed with active sonar, trying to dodge an incoming torpedo, it's safe to say that stealth is not one of your hallmarks.

[OT] Nuclear powered surface ships

[RetiredMidn]

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.

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.

the military had no comment

[SengirV]

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.

Re:Environmental Impact? Please...

[ultramk]

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-

Says who? What makes human life so valuable?

[Joce640k]

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.

Re:It works because....

[mrmeval]

Are OTTO fuels, diesel fuels, atomic fuels all nice and safe when exposed to sea water and sea life?
Submarines are a fact and will be for quite some time, keeping them intact is a good thing.

Re:My cousin is in the navy

[CommieLib]

Let me point out that the potential alternative here is a broken nuclear sub, which probably ain't so great for the dolphins either.