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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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?