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.

20 of 567 comments (clear)

  1. marine life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:marine life? by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      But, its once again a trade off.. Man or Animal.

      War isnt always fair.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:marine life? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:marine life? by Futaba-chan · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    4. Re:marine life? by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    5. Re:marine life? by helix_r · · Score: 5, Insightful


      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.

    6. Re:marine life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    7. Re:marine life? by FredThompson · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  2. Consider the consequences... by djblair · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need to be cautious, as Britney Spears at 200db could have a devistating effect on the entire oceanic ecosystem.

  3. Wires by romka1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    To get best results they need gold power cables at 1000 for each speaker :)

    --
    Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
  4. Re:Who cares? by ptbarnett · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  5. Re:It works because.... by beefypirate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exploding drummers weren't included in the final test data.

  6. Kidney stones and sound waves.... by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Kidney stones and sound waves.... by rogue555 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yup, I'd bet so too. A similar project is under development at Georgia Tech. Here they are using pieozoelectric transducers, but that may just be for the model. The real research is for supercavitating torpedoes. This is where the torpedoes form a pocket of water vapor around themselves to reduce friction. I don't know if all torpedoes use this and if the research in the article is part of the same project. This research project collapses the air bubble causing the torpedo to either detonate or its motion to become unstable. The focus here is to determine the necessary input to disrupt the vapor pocket, not the development of the phased array.

      --
      "That's not ironic, it's just mean!" - Bender
  7. Re:I'll comment by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  8. Re:Easy counter measures, not worth killing whales by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.
  9. Not even close... by DnemoniX · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Not just for the navy... by flawedgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 .40 caliber.
  11. Environmental Impact? Please... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 5, Funny
    When asked about the possible ecological effects on marine life the military had no comment.

    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.

  12. It's meant to counter supercavitation torpedoes. by jlseagull · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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