Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Earth Exposes Nuclear Sub's Secret
NewsCloud alerts us to a story a few months old that has been getting a lot of play recently. A Seattle blogger, Dan Twohig, was browsing in Microsoft's Virtual Earth when he accidentally came across a photo of a nuclear sub in dry-dock. Its propeller is clearly visible — this was a major no-no on the part of someone at the Bangor Sub Base. The designs of such stealth propellers have been secret for decades. Twohig blogged about the find and linked to the Virtual Earth photo on July 2. The debate about security vs. Net-accessible aerial photography has been building ever since. The story was picked up on military.china.com on Aug. 17 — poetic justice for the Chinese sub photo that had embarrassed them a month before. On Aug. 20 the Navy Times published the article that most mainstream media have picked up in their more recent coverage. Twohig's blog is the best source to follow the ongoing debate. No one has asked Microsoft, Google, or anyone else to blur the photo in question. Kind of late now.
Google Cache
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
Generally Posts news about 3-4 days after it has come to light, yet the picture of the propeller is still there, therefore i think we can assume the US no longer cares (because its too late, or they dont mind people knowing) about the picture
Right, that is common knowledge.
11 Carrier Battle Groups. The ability to project naval, air, and underwater force anywhere in the world The US has the mightiest navy in the history of the world, greater than every country's navy put together.
This is not such a big deal. Let the Chinese try to copy this. Then they'll only have to build the aircraft carriers, fighter jets, support ships to protect it.
God Bless America, and God Bless the US Navy.
isn't it safe to assume that all countries with satellites in orbit have been watching each others military facilities for decades?
Is this really so secret nowdays?
I think I remeber that the thechnology to make these kind of silent propellers where sold by a norweigan company to a KGB front in the early 1980:s. As I recall, it was a major scandal when the news brooke.
As I have understod it, most soviet nuclear subs had these improved propellers since late 80's and that most of the eastern block started to get access to the same technology.
Most western submarines has had these kind of silent props for years and I belive that most submarine nowdays have one.
You could try to track the Swedish HMS Gotland with passive hydrophone and see how far that takes you, for instance... she insn't even a NATO sub but she is more silent than even the american SSN subs.
A satellite photo isn't going to expose the technology that makes our propellers ultra quiet.
Hmm, do you believe that having subs means needing a big surface fleet to protect them? The US has a big navy because they have a need to be everywhere at once. Some places the US likes to get involved lack any friendly air bases so they need carrier groups. China has no need to try to match the US Navy, just as the US has no need to match the size of the Chinese Army. Additionally, any intelligence of value on current US sub programs is already in Moscow and Beijing: history has shown how simple it is to buy information in a debt driven economy.
It's no secret that women and seamen don't mix.
Remember, if we don't keep everything secret, the terrorists will win!
A submarine does not need a carrier battle group. The point of a sub, is a stealthy platform for launching missiles or for sneaking up on other vessels undetected. A group of effective submarines could make a carrier battle group ineffective. In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless unless their air, submarine and missile forces can be neutralized. They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.
Artificial Intelligence is preferable to Natural Stupidity.
The US is not just concerned about others trying to copy the propeller to reduce the noice made by their subs.
... the sonar signature.
... the problem is that other countries may now have a good idea what that particular sub will sound like, and may know when the US is illegally sneaking in and out of other countries waters etc with this sub, or if this sub is positioned just outside their waters with all it's nuclear WMD's ready to go.
... maybe this was an old propeller design being replaced and retired.
The submarine will still make some noise. They would be concerned because knowing the propeller design gives you an idea of what type of noise it will make in use
The signature can be used to identify classes of submarines and potentially individual subs.
So rather than other countries copying it
On the other hand, maybe the US doesnt care at all
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
... In the age of Google Earth, Virtual Earth, etc. (not to mention Google), there are no secrets. Welcome to the new world.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Wow, you can almost here the banjo pluckin in the background of this ignorant redneck's post.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Then its not that much of a 'leak' and i bet its rather old ( ie, known ) technology.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Coordinates are +47 43' 39.58", -122 42' 55.83" for the base (this can be plugged into Google Earth.)
The location of the snapshot is of the dry-dock at 4744'36.08"N, 12243'48.51"W.
This link may or may not work: http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=ryqjnb4s5 7d5&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1 0352732&encType=1
There's no propeller visible in the Google Earth imagery. All you can see is that there's what might be a sub; it's quite blurry. The Windows Live imagery shows a blurry whirly instrument of death; looks like a bunch of boomerangs.
Honestly, it's stupid. Half the shit that's classified, is just classified to impress. For example, the top speed of various US air craft carriers. Like that can't be figured out by a foreign government...? Like our *propeller technology* is that much more advanced, and other nation's subs haven't figured out what it sounds like? C'mon.
Please help metamoderate.
I found a Google Cache copy working well enough...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I served for a long time.
And I was exposed to all branches for long periods of time. You will not find a less gay friendly place than the Navy. Even the Marines are more tolerant. It's because of the hollywood archetyping of the navy as gay that the navy has had such a buildup of anger about it. The 1993 DADT policy greatly increased the problem, and violence against gays has increased by about an exponent from 1993-1999 (no idea of the exact recent statistic, but it has increased greatly up to today)
Gays int he military are usually quite good. dedicated to serve in spite of additional hassle. The Brits have been open for a while, and they are, man for man, extremely effective. I'm not implying that there is some kind of problem with gayness in the military.
But this is typical trash propaganda. Sounds ludicrously paranoid, but the fact is that there is an effort to portray soldiers as feminine weakling children or sociopathic monsters. You'll find most gays in the Army. You'll find the fewest in the Navy.
When WWII started, then the British fleet was the far most advanced, biggest and strongest fleet in the world.
Still, the German Navy almost defeated them with their much more effective submarines.
The MonsterMaritime.com entry linked to in the writeup was actually posted on July 2, a full 2 months ago. 2 months later and they haven't tried to put the horse back in the barn so while it's technically a secret, it's probably not that important of a secret. Besides, even if they asked MS to blur the image on Live they'd still have to ask other companies with access to the data to blur it, and then they'd have to go to the source of the imagery and ask them to stop selling it (which they may not have a case for).
In reality, if they censored the images the only people who wouldn't be able to see it are people not willing to spend money to see images of a classified submarine. Any country/organization with it's own program for developing nuclear submarines or technology to detect submarines likely has the financial/organizational resources to aquire this imagery without depending on a free website.
Google uncovers naughty state secrets? Oh, boy. Sure it's "tech" and "freedom" but it's a none story that nobody cares about. Seriously, this is at the level of some game forum fanboi trying to get attention from developers and their peers. Slashdot jumped the shark ages ago. This is just more of the same. Pathetic.
Will the last person out switch off the light. Thanks.
When World War II started the British Navy was probably the most outdated of any of the major powers. Their naval air arm consisted mostly of WWI era planes, most of their battlefleet was 20 years out of date, and their destroyers were totally unsuited for the kinds of roles which they were going to be employed in. Germany on the otherhand possessed a very small, but much more modern navy.
so basically the top secret propeller design is based on the blade from "krull".
Actually, this particular item is supposed to be kept a secret. These propellers are/were put onto the nuclear missile submarines, and they're designed to make as little noise as possible, so that the missile subs are undetectable, and thus in the event of nuclear war, the enemy is unable to stop our "deterent". So because of this, I'm sure the navy would rather not give out the secret of how to build an undetectable missile sub, because then the enemy (whoever that currently is) may be able to use the same tricks against us (an unstoppable "deterent").
If the British surface navy was so extremely bad as you suggest, then why was the quite good German admirals so afraid of facing it?
Very few German surface navy ships saw action against the British navy, one exception being Bismarck which coincidently was sunk mostly due to the actions of the "ancient" Spearfish planes on the British fleet carriers....
I swear to ghu that I saw a propeller like that in some sub movie- though it fails to render a name in my mind. I remember seeing a prop just like that on a cg shot of the sub driving away/up - perhaps in a torpedo sequence?
Anyway, I could be wrong, but I think I've seen one before.
I don't recall him saying anything about the British surface navy being bad. In fact, he said it was the most powerful navy in the world at the time.
Hence his point about effective use of advanced submarines.
This sonnet is often incorrectly quoted or reproduced. The most common misquotation -- "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!" -- replaces the correct "on" with "upon", thus turning the regular decasyllabic (iambic pentameter) verse into an 11-syllable verse.
Better than the leaked Keyhole satellite shots of the first Soviet Carrier.
The image is of a Ballistic Missile or "boomer" submarine, OHIO class. There are two sets of screws or propellers that they can put on them, a speed screw and a patrol screw. Obviously, the screws are named for their performance level and how quiet they are at a given speed.
The US Navy spent untold hundreds of millions in hydrodynamics and propeller research, so they don't want to make it easy for the opposition to get their grubby paws on one of the most efficient screw designs in the world.
Frankly, I would not be surprised if the NSA or the USN would step in and order the images pulled. It aint like it was taken up close and personal, with dimensional references.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
K changed my original post but I put a close up of the liveearth propeller image here. I agree the U.S. govt doesn't care about it at this point or MSFT would have blurred it.
"This is not such a big deal. Let the Chinese try to copy this. Then they'll only have to build the aircraft carriers, fighter jets, support ships to protect it."
Considering that they build everything else in the world, I'd give them 3 years.
But carrier battle groups and nation states are so 20th century. All you have to do to invade someone these days is walk over a border, set up a restaurant that serves tasty cuisine, make sure that you only buy raw materials and land, and have lots of children.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Of course I don't know what I am looking at, technically, but I know I've seen a propeller that shape before, somewhere.
I am sure, as far as efficiency and stealthiness, the devil is in the details and there is a lot more to it than seeing a clear, but distant, photo to gleen any "secrets".
In fact, if you zoom in, the third blade from the top, counter-clockwise, says Made in China right on it.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Well quoted from Wikipedia, though I'm not sure what your point was...
Closeup? It's simply a cropped part of the original image...Close up would...closer up?
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
I served too, and I had many homosexual relationships in the Navy. We always kept them a secret, but there were lots of gay guys, and they were easy to find.
U.S.A.!!! U.S.A!!!
I have no idea what any of that means in real life, but it sounds enough like Tom Clancy writing that it must be true! Words like 'skewback', 'nacelle', 'cavitate' sound s-m-art.
There are 10 types of cliches in this world. Those that are new, and those that aren't.
"In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless..."
And where did that factoid come from? One would imagine that a ship with the capability to strike at extremely long distances is always useful, if you can hit your enemy before their weapons can reach you you have an advantage. As for carriers being vulnerable to subs that's only partially true. Certain types of submarines, especially advanced nuclear subs (and diesel ones, so long as they don't surface anywhere near the carrier group and have enough battery power to get in and out) could conceivably slip through the defenses around a carrier and then it's aircraft would be useless. Given that the last major (that I know of) engagement between large groups of submarines and carriers was WWII, and that was clearly decided in favor of the carrier groups (53 u-boats sunk to less than 10 of the CVE mini-carriers) I'd say a generalization like 'Subs counter carriers' is kinda...wrong. A carrier battle group at war would typically have at least 1 radar plane (Orion?) on CAP. If the sub surfaces nearby radar has a chance of picking it up. In addition the carrier's escorts have darn good sonar and wouldn't be too hesitant to use it.
So basically, 1 lone carrier vs sub is an easy win for the sub, unless the carrier sees it coming from a long way off and launches anti-sub efforts. 1 carrier battlegroup is at least a match for any similar number of warships, including subs, and very good at other tasks such as beach assault, long range support etc. A carrier battle group is currently the most versatile type of navy imaginable, as such it may not be the best way to counter all threats (a pair of destroyers working in tandem with some anti-sub helicopters would be cheaper and pretty effective against small numbers of subs). It's a Jack of All Trades, master of none type of thing, a Carrier group is good at anti-surface ship, anti-sub, and anti-land combat.
Sneaking up on a ship which is fully prepared for war is a lot harder than some things would lead you to believe. Just because you're underwater and pretty quiet doesn't mean your undetectable, and if you're too quiet you can be detected that way (one possibly problem with modern US subs is that they're actually quieter than the surrounding ocean and could *conceivably* be detected that way). No amount of noise-reduction is going to save you if even 1 enemy ship is using active-sonar, you're going to be detected unless it's a cloak-and-dagger fight which is something aircraft carriers rarely engage in, they're more 'Hey look, I'm right here, I don't need to hide because I'm that much better than you' style fighting, and in that arena (when radars are at full and sonars are active) subs lose all stealth benefits, and an unstealthed sub vs a carrier group is just asking for trouble.
So to sum it up, no, a carrier battle group is not useless. Subs are easily countered (unless you're trying to be stealthy as well) and missile blocking is what Aegis (common in CBG's) class destroyers were partially built for. Aircraft carriers are built for show, and are good against weaker enemies, but also against equals, it's against stronger enemies (few and far between at this moment) that they begin to look impossibly weak and fragile.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
An interesting point, all power fades. Completely pointless in usage since the quote was not saying 'The US has, and will always have...' but rather pointing out that, as of now, the US has the best navy. The quote does nothing to disparage that and in reality only seems to emphasize the original poster's point as the quote is commonly believed to be referencing Ramesses the Great (wikipedia) who pretty much was the world power at his time. Of course that power faded but it doesn't mean that it never existed in the first place.
Just thought I'd add something to the discussion. I'm not a big fan of the 'US has the biggests [insert military type] in the world and could crush all the other [insert military type]' as the logistics are nigh impossibly to accurately compute (one after the other? All at once? etc.) but responding with a quote like that, one that in reality reinforces the original post but seems at first to disparage the original post just irked me a little.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Perhaps the U.S. Navy put a fake propeller on the sub.
U.S. Navy: "Hey you guys do the aerial photos for Google and Mircosoft, right?"
Acme Aerial Photos: "Yip."
U.S. Navy: "When are you guys next flying over our base?"
Acme Aerial Photos: "Next Tuesday. Weather permitting."
U.S. Navy: "Thank you. You have been very helpful. <evil laugh>"
I have a book (U.S. Submarines Since 1945, An Illustrated Design History, by Norman Friedman, 1994 Naval Institute Press) that shows an old publicly released official Seawolf model with a hooked propeller very similar to the one shown in that image. The same book also has a very good image of the scythe-bladed propeller of a Las Angeles class submarine, whos manufacturing techniques were at the root of the late Toshiba milling technology sale scandal) I'm thinking that the blogger who discovered this has made a few assumptions about the level of secrecy associated with the item in question as the propeller form, at least, has appeared in public before.
You completely missed the point. The original post was practically dripping with jingoism. The quote was a refutation of the jingoism.
then why was the quite good German admirals so afraid of facing it?
Oh I dunno, some 500 years of British naval combat experience perhaps? Plus the Brits had the numbers on their side. Technology will only help you so far, but numbers win every time.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Still, the German Navy almost defeated them with their much more effective submarines.
The German U-boat fleet rarely engaged the Royal Navy. And with the occasional exception, when they did this, they were sunk. The U-boats were used as commerce raiders, and had great success. For a year or so. Now please look up the statistics on how many u-boats actually survived the war, and talk to me about "success". It was a disaster, like almost everything else Germany did after taking France.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
woooo! hahahahahaha! Squeels of a forest monkey! Except of course most of the world considers the US to be the bad guys. God help the US Navy indeed. It needs a few friends (or "collaborators" more to the point)
So - you're saying that maybe the joke about a submarine being something that 90 guys go down in and 45 couples come up in may not be fair or accurate.
OK! Got it!
"God Bless America, and God Bless the US Navy."
You sound like a religious nut.
God bless nuclear weapons... sure.
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.
This made me laugh. You obviously have no idea what a carrier battle group can do. It can seriously ruin ANYONE's day. Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway? Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carriers - and not finding those carriers sealed their fate?
Carrier groups have ASW capabilities, it's what they do when they're not flying air to mud missions. Oh, and carrier groups also usually have friendly subs around them looking for enemy subs. A "group" of enemy submarines would have to be very lucky indeed to get close enough to score a hit on a carrier.
Owning carriers is not for "show". If you have a carrier group, you own the ocean, and you own the air above whatever shoreline you want, for the simple reason that you know where you are, and the enemy doesn't. You can strike at any time, from any direction on the compass. This gives you the initiative.
Oh and who else has carriers? Not many countries, and most of them have just the one.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A group of effective submarines could make a carrier battle group ineffective. In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless unless their air, submarine and missile forces can be neutralized. They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.
Just a casual glance at WWII pretty much disproves everything you claim about what a carrier is for and what it is useless against. What was it that took out the Japanese carriers in WWII? Oh yeah, carriers. Not submarines.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Source
Also read about the low amount of use China's submarine fleet gets, and the inexperience they have: Source
This basically amounts to China having never actually used their submarines as a nuclear deterrent, and since they have no ICBMs that can reach the US they have no nuclear deterrent against the US and a comparatively very limited navy. (Report)
The media loves to hype up China's military spending, but if you think China's grounded 1980's built subs, or the speculated five new Jin-class (Type 094) subs, are going to make the US Navy "ineffective", or if you think aircraft carriers (the most expensive ships of all) are just for intimidating small nations, then you're a few warheads short of a nuclear power.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Forgive my naivety but why would your god bless instruments of or an organization dedicated to perfecting death? Aren't "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" core teachings of jesus and of most Judeo-Christian religions?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
(Obligatory disclaimer but without the obligatory tortured acronym: Yes, I am a former submariner (and have been to the Delta Pier many times), and am a student of naval history and related security issues.)
The props haven't been as jealously gaurded recently as in times past - in fact, I saw pictures openly published of them as early as the late 1990's. Though the less knowledgeable may drool over seeing them at all - the pictures on Virtual Earth are not particularly high res, nor particularly useful. The fact that the US uses scythe blade propellers has been openly acknowledged since the early 90's.
Or, to put it even more simply, these pictures show nothing not already publically known and acknowledged.
Ditto for the weapons magazines - there is nothing classified about the exteriors, existence, or location.
This article is however a interesting point on the problem of getting your news from blogs; sometimes the author knows what he's talking about. Usually, when it comes to specialized topics, he doesn't.
Nah, it's not even close to accurate. Sub guys don't do the monogamous relationship thing. It'd be 400 pairs/triples/man-orgies.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
I disagree. First, carriers have great range. So you can position them far enough away that enemy forces can't be brought to bear. Missiles have no range and subs and air power can be countered especially since the carrier group would control the water around it. The only guaranteed carrier killer is a nuclear bomb, and you still have to know where the carrier is.
China's subs seem to serve two roles. As I understand it, the ballistic missile submarine (described in the original article) is meant to provide a retaliation capability against the US and Russia's nuclear capability while they have a class of subs that are meant as a foil for aircraft carriers and perhaps the US's sub fleet. The problem though is that they have insufficient numbers of the latter subs to provide a credible threat at this time. Nor does it appear that they train their sub crews to the level that would be needed to be able to seriously threaten aircraft carriers. I don't know if China has a sub that can catch up with an aircraft carrier, even for a short while. And even if they did, it couldn't be quiet while doing that. They however do have a limited ability to hinder aircraft carrier movement. If you think subs could be in a certain region, then there are certain things your carriers shouldn't be doing. Eg, they shouldn't park in one spot for several hours. You probably would expend effort to look for those subs. Carrier groups would have to plan for sub ambushes.
The point is that a few subs can make the US expend effort to counter and reduce somewhat the maneuverability of the carrier groups. For an operation that requires a serious sea presence, like invading Taiwan, China needs a much better sub force than it currently has. A few carriers can cripple supply to invasion forces on the island and the current generation of subs just doesn't have the capability, training, or numbers to force carriers away from the islands.
To answer your question in one word: No.
All that touchy-feely love your neighbor and being Christ-like stuff went out sometime before the Crusades. What you have now is a giant mass of people split up into two groups: The ones that only go to church because Ma and Pa went, and the radical extremists who are willing and eager to do almost any violent act if it spreads their religion.
If you're thinking that sounds a lot like what Minitruth says about the Muslims? Well, that's because they are.
11 Carrier Battle Groups. The ability to project naval, air, and underwater force anywhere in the world The US has the mightiest navy in the history of the world, greater than every country's navy put together.
This is not such a big deal. Let the Chinese try to copy this. Then they'll only have to build the aircraft carriers, fighter jets, support ships to protect it.
God Bless America, and God Bless the US Navy.
Ever occured to you that someone else spent time developing various types of I-will-hit-you-with-3-mach-speed-up-to-600km anti-ship (nuclear or standard payload) missiles, instead of bothering to build amount of ships to match yours? (not to mention that carrier is as offensive as it gets, and not many countries have a need to conquer the world - so they don't make/need them)
...of grownups playing hide'n'seek and thinking they're the best at it. Then when one gets caught out he throws a tantrum.
My advise: Either learn to hide better, like build a (camouflaged) roof over the thing, swap the propeller for a fake while in dock, or better yet, don't hide at all.
As for pictures, anyone can take a few homing pidgeons to a location where the target is in line with their roost, strap tiny cameras to their bellies and let them fly. No big deal, no high tech.
War is overrated anyway, there are more urgent concerns, like how to save the planet and such.
The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
That's not a close-up of the propeller -- THIS is a close-up!
That you quoted it wrong.
The Brits have always been vicious fighters on the sea, and it was never wise to tangle with them unless you had significant advantages, preferably multiple advantages.
u-boats had stealth and surprise on their side, and terrorized British naval fleets through most of the war. But once aircraft could fly over and assist in targeting it was like shooting ducks in a barrel. Submarines are not fast, not heavily armored and lack the offensive capabilities you would find in a battleship.
During WWII the submarines needed to be near the surface to target ships and fire torpedos on them, close enough that even out dated aircraft would provide a navy with a very significant means of counter-attack. Even a hot air balloon can turn the tables against a submarine.
Modern subs are a bit different, but it's not an issue in this case because the Brits have them now. Although not in the numbers or wide varieties of the American subs.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I wonder if Microsoft Visual Earth has been getting their data from Setec Astronomy??
I can see it now... tee shirts, album covers, beach towels, baby bibs, transit bus banners, etc.
No, no, no, not that, not that, not that...Yes, THAT!
All your props are belong to us (Everybody groans).
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
German pocket battleships could carry more guns than a British ship twice their size, and the Bismark took several ships to chase it down before it was sunk, it destroyed the HMS Hood, one of the Royal Navys capital ships, which was what led to the hunting of the Bismark in revenge. It only sank after sustained bombardment and repeated torpedo hits, which still did not rupture it main armour belt. The reason why the German navy was afraid to engage the Royal navy was because, although in a confonatation between 2 German and two British ships, the Bismark (geramnys best ship) was able to sink the HMS Hood (one of Britains best ships), the Royal Navy had the numbers to send 6 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 16 cruisers, 29 destroyers and 2 Aircraft carriers to hunt down a single battleship, which had only 2 Destroyers to help protect it, the only other German ships around that could try to help were weather ships and tankers.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
You obviously know nothing about submarine warfare. A modern United States Nuclear Attack Submarine is for all intents and purposes un-detectable by a surface combatant, of any type. As someone who knows, be advised there are only really two types of combatant vessels, Submarines and targets.
An aircraft carriers ONLY purpose is to launch, and hopefully recover, its air wing to attack the enemy. Post launch they are considered expendable.
A deployed SSN requires no support system. Its sole purpose is to attack enemy submarines and surface vessels. Submarines run with surface combatant groups to protect the Bird Farm first and any other vessels second.
If you are a surface ship and a modern Nuclear Powered SSN decides you are its target, unless something very drastic goes wrong on the sub you are simply dead.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
She can also run as fast as most nuclear boats for this time, so having a silent propeller is a major factor.
Err...quoth Wikipedia, "The AIP endurance of the 1,500 ton boats is around 14 days at five knots (9 km/h)"; the FAS Seawolf page reports a 20-knot silent speed, presumably with unlimited endurance.
New air-independent systems are definitely nifty and far more accessible, but still, nothing beats nuclear for subs.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
P-3s (Orions) aren't really radar plans. I'm assuming they have a radar, but they're more dedicated to dropping sonobuouys all over the place.
That said - P-3s are worse for enemy subs than radar planes are.
Seahawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-60R) are pretty bad news for enemy subs too.
A carrier group is an enemy sub's ultimate goal, but it's also probably the most dangerous place for an enemy sub to be. Lots of ship-based sonar, plus at least two types of aircraft conducting ASW operations.
FYI, the propeller image(s) was not taken from a satellite. The Bird's Eye View photography is shot from planes.
"[Carriers] primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies."
Carriers are the crown jewel of a fleet comprising various AA and A-ship vessels. Carriers command roughly one million square miles when fully operational. I've heard that a single carrier aircraft constitute a larger air force than all but the larger nations. We have more than one carrier. They are not for show. The U.S. does not engage in aggressive wars---that's for the likes of Hitler. U.S. != Nazi Germany || Soviet Union.
You don't bring a knife to a knife fight, you bring a shotgun.
I for one welcome our Naval overlords.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Weird, the link to the submarine picture from the article, depending on the browser (I tested it with IE7 and Firefox) you used, went to a different location/picture/view. Firefox seems to be the one that gets it right.
I served in the submarine community. Your comment may be true across all of the Navy (not sure, was only exposed to a certain community), but doesn't reflect attitudes in the submarine community. As ironic as it seems, my shipmates were probably among the most progressive and accepting people that I have ever worked with. You may think that close proximity would make it even more homophobic. I found the opposite. Living in close proximity forced us to be even more tolerant of each other, even if we didn't agree with each others' beliefs.
Wtf? Are you serious posting this nonsense?? Do you *really* expect people to think that, in this day and age with the latest in sattelite technology, the powers-that-be are going to service an instrument of war containing visible top-secret technology in *gasp* plain view for all to see?? I'm even more amazed that people don't stop and think for a second before posting additional comments speculating as to what all this may mean. Think people, use your damn brain... if it's out in the freaking open, it's not a secret, and in this particular case the technology in question hasn't been in ages. Friggin' lemmings...
I guess everyone on Slashdot is a military commander
Duh! We play strategic video games. That makes us a much better commander than someone who actually touches this stuff in real life.
(To paraphrase a recent issue of Adbusters.)
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
This propeller has "7 boomerangs". It needs "high rotation speed" for the great force propulsion of the "lighter" submarine.
How "lighter" is the submarine? Is it still a sensitive secret?
The submarine's head is still a secret?
The flippers are still a secret?
ALL is still a secret?
Airplanes, boats, submarines, torpedos, spacecrafts, bunkers, satellites, tanks, etc.
This missile can be launched from undersea position 290 km away from the target:
(Additional link 1 and link 2.)
I would not call 200 miles a close range. A WWII torpedo was a close range weapon; a Shkval torpedo is a close range weapon. I have no idea what is the protected area around the group, but it can't be that large, and even one such missile can give a heart attack to the carrier group commander, if it misses or is shot down. If it doesn't miss then forget the heart attack, there wouldn't be enough time left for that.
Of course, the attack does not have to occur in the air - a common 30 yr old 65-76 torpedo (designed in 1976) has range of about 62 miles - if a CG can protect even that circle it is doing better than good. Officially China and Russia have those.
f you have a carrier group, you own the ocean [...] for the simple reason that you know where you are, and the enemy doesn't.
This is applicable to submarines which may be a part of CG, but the whole group is hard to fail to notice in, say, Persian Gulf. You may not even need binoculars. The attackers found USS Cole with their eyes tightly shut. And that's one of the reasons why Iran seemingly has the following:
(quoted from the linked Wikipedia article.)
And of course we should not forget about the older hardware, Iraq has some, and Iran probably also has:
The 95 km range is more than enough to cover the whole area of interest. So the carriers are vulnerable if the incoming missiles are arriving faster, closer to the sea, or in larger quantities than the Aegis can protect against. Wikipedia lists its tracking capacity of 100+ targets (with no mentioning on how many targets can be fired upon, which may be classified, or just dependent on how many ships are available, or both.) So if an opponent initiates a land-based attack they can launch 200 missiles, or 300, all at once - and a few of them will make it through.
Okay - so I'll comment as a ten year Navy veteran (with Sub time) and as an MS Virtual Earth employee.
On the actual propeller, some of the comments above are accurate with respect to design, power, speed and cavitation issues. If it's covered by Wikipedia, then it must be true! There has always been a policy to cover the propeller whenever the boat was pulled out of the water - it's part of the secret sauce behind our submarine stealth. Not showing it in public only makes sense, but this picture from the air could have been taken by anyone flying a private plane. Shame on the Navy for not covering it, but then again, there's more to the engineering behind it than a picture could ever show.
Talk of satellite imagery and Government intervention is an interesting topic of the day, however. For one thing, the image was not taken by satellite, but rather by airplane using a unique capability for oblique imagery. In Virtual Earth, you can view the same area at 2 zoom levels and 4 compass points. The imagery comes from Pictometry, and MS uses the term "Bird's Eye" to depict areas in which it is available. It's pretty incredible imagery, truly raising the quality bar over systems using only satellite imagery.
Note that Microsoft does not manage satellite or aerial providers - we only take the imagery in, enhance it, tile it and then provide it to our customers in the form of an API. The organizations that provide the imagery have been in business for years capturing images of the earth and selling them to commercial and government organizations. If anyone should be on point to discuss the appropriate image capture time and location, these would be the organizations to do so. Since I do not work for one of these organizations, I will abstain from commenting on their data capture policies. Perhaps they have a Slashdot reader who would like to comment!
So what is Microsoft's position on this issue? A quick search (http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=justin+osme r+submarine+propeller) yields the following statement on Navy Times from Justin Osmer of the MS Virtual Earth product team:
At the end of the day, several commenters here and elsewhere have used the term "get used to it", referring to the fact that we're losing our privacy and anonymity every day via cameras in the sky and search engines on earth... Perhaps this is true, but then again, maybe it's exactly what we need at this point in our civilization.
Why U.S. Marine Force is building vulnerable lighter submarines?
How to patch this vulnerability?
Hahaha, impossible!!!
The Russian submarines don't need higher speed that charging it high number of nuclear torpedoes.
After WWI, some military strategists concluded that all surface ships were obsolete. Germany took it to heart, and while it did work pretty well early in WWII, the Allies eventually adapted their tactics to counter the threat (the shipping convoy). If Germany had taken aircraft carriers seriously, the outcome of the entire war could well have been different.
The modern carrier battle group has a bunch of fast ships with active sonar (destroyers, etc), making it difficult to sneak up on the carrier itself. After all, we have our own subs to test against in exercises. Attack subs primary goal nowadays is to track missile subs and (in theory) stop them before they launch their missiles during an attack. If you are talking about a nuclear missile attack on a convoy, then the whole thing is moot, since the war will be over soon at that point anyway (in a most unhappy way for all involved parties).
"Ducted propulsion" on a navy demonstrator vehicle...
...is this a secret?
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Am I the only one who finds the design wholly unimaginative? Granted, I'm no submarine expert, but the propeller basically just looks like a type of shuriken. Ninjas invented this propeller blade centuries ago. Aside from the basic value of knowing what type of propeller your enemy is using, I don't see anything particularly interesting about the design itself.
and since they have no ICBMs that can reach the US they have no nuclear deterrent against the US
They have missiles, mounted on mobile launchers, that can reach the west coast of the US. So they do have limited retaliation capability.Its a good thing you all posted a story about a blog. I mean, what an awesome blog! He has no comments, no facts, and a shitty BLOG! If I make a BLOG about how I hacked into the server for the Crispy Creme company will I get a Slashdot front page story?
BLOG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A sub doesn't need a carrier battle group, but naval strategists (in the US, anyway) have decided that carrier battle groups need submarines -- not for offensive capability, but as the best defense against an enemy submarine. So they pair each battle group with an attack sub in order to mitigate the risk that an enemy could sneak up, pop off one torpedo, and destroy the whole thing.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Hate to break it to you but the Swedish sub, Gottland has managed to "sink" the USS Reagan before in a war game simulation. The US Navy's defense against diesel electric sub is not that perfect.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships. The Navy knows this and is also investing in VTOL aircraft, stealth surface ships, and other survivable technology. It loves the big ships, of course, but knows they wouldn't survive if we have to face a really capable enemy.
God Bless China, and God Bless the China Navy.
God Bless Russia, and God Bless the Russia Navy.
Allah Bless Iran and Allah Bless the Iran Navy.
Why the USians hate them? Is it for God/Allah?
Yes, because the world was such a peaceful place before nuclear weapons were developed, especially those last 30 or so years. (Hint, people long ago figured out how to kill and maim large numbers of people without the use of nukes.)
If you knew all this first hand, then you wouldn't be posting it. That means you probably know it second hand, so I'd like to see you cite some evidence. I'm particularly interested in how modern subs can dodge all forms of active sonar.
I have a sneaking suspicion that China would in fact have ICBM's that can reach the US. They are making spacecraft now, and the technology isn't very different, except that instead of trying to escape Earth's gravity, you are merely trying to lob it up very high and have its return trip land on a target.
l y_effects_of_new_icbm_on_chinas_nuclear_policies_2 0060807/
Decided to do some quick research before I hit Submit...they've had missiles that could reach the US for over 20 years, just not all of it. Seems things are changing this year...
"Due to begin deployment this year is the standard Dong Feng-31, or CSS-9, whose limited range of 4,500 miles allows it to reach Alaska or Hawaii. But the more advanced and road-mobile Dong Feng-31A, due to begin deployment in 2007, will have a range of 7,000 miles, making it the first Chinese ICBM that could hit Washington, D.C., Paris or Madrid.
Also in development is the Julang-2 (JL-2), a submarine-launched version of the DF-31 that would be deployed in 2007-10. Beijing plans to build five to seven Jin-class (Type 094) nuclear-powered subs, each of which will carry up to 16 JL-2s.
Experts say the DF-31A family represents a quantum leap in Chinese ICBM capability. The missiles will replace 20 two-stage liquid-fueled Dong Feng-5, or CSS-4, rockets that entered service some 25 years ago. The silo-based DF-5s, with a range of 5,200 miles, can hit most of Europe and Australia, and the western United States. Moreover, their fixed locations makes them vulnerable to a pre-emptive U.S. strike."
http://cisac.stanford.edu/news/experts_judge_like
"Its sole purpose [sic] is to attack enemy submarines and surface vessels."
Ah..., well..., there is recon and intelligence duty you know, and special forces delivery, and interdiction detail, and S&R, and I think that, with Tomahawks and whatnot, there are maybe just a few sea/land attack capabilities as well.
So its sole purpose is NOT just to attack enemy submarines and surface vessels. Might be its primary purpose, perhaps, but a modern United States Nuclear Attack Submarine is actually a fairly flexible piece of hardware.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless"
Since there are no major enemies, only minor ones, the carrier battle group is ideal.
You never know. Maybe the entire leak is deliberate, to act as disinformation.
It doesn't. You don't have to blur such an image they aren't clear enough from an engineering perspective to show the important differences in blade shape, length, proportion and such. Plus honestly, the days of the nuclear sub are gone, while such technology is still useful it's not the cutting edge of the military anymore.
The most realistic conclusion here is that the prop tech is quite old and the USSR likely had photo's of it decades ago. In any case low res sat images are not the threat, but they do expose the fact that the sub was out there in the range of high resolution spy planes, which could produce a clear enough picture to uncover some design secrets.
In the end though, we are not investing heavy development into sub props and chances are we have a long long list of superior prop designs that have yet to be implemented. Knowing this, and knowing that our main competitors likely already have these secrets is the most likely explanation why sub props aren't really top secret anymore.
Face it, we are not in an arms race anymore and therefore the rate at which we implement new technology into the military has slowed. We have new projects and goals to waste our money on now.
"Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway?"
Wait! I know! I know! Because we didn't have the ships, men, and materials needed and positioned to do the job? Because we focused primarily on the European Theatre first?
Or for a better answer: Because Coral Sea and Midway occurred barely a year into the war? And everything by definition occurred after that?
BTW, I believe that Japan lost four carriers (1 CV and 3CVLs) in the battle of Leyte Gulf (1944), whereas your statement that "the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway" carries the implication that they had none left. Heck, even at Midway they left with two fleet carriers.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Fighting the last war? It's been the opinion of many military analysts for over three decades that carriers are "sitting ducks". This was confirmed during the Falklands War when the tiny Argentine Air Force was able to cause tremendous damage.
Umm, as far as I know the HMS Hermes (a British carrier) was nowhere near the Sheffield when it was hit. Yes the Argentines manged to sink a destroyer on an ASW patrol. What does this have to do with aircraft carriers?
A military with satellites, a large air force, and submarines would be devasting against large surface ships.
Yes, this was proven even before World War II. Airplanes are good at killing ships. That's why the carrier was invented - to get planes within range of ships to kill them. But don't forget that aircraft carriers ALSO carry airplanes that kill airplanes. Again you miss the point. There is NO WAY your aircraft will get within range of my carrier group. If my 24 hour CAP doesn't get you with its over the horizon air to air missiles, plus support from dedicated radar and jamming planes; then my dedicated surface to air missile cruisers will.
A carrier costs billions to build, billions to fill with aircraft, and billions to run/maintain. However carriers are still being built - I guess you haven't heard about the "Ford" class, with the first one Gerald R. Ford expected to be ready by 2013 and another two planned up to 2020. Considering that there are only 10 carriers active in the US fleet right now, and they are going produce 30% of that number in the next 13 years, I'd say that carriers are in no danger of being "phased out" as you claim. If anything the current fleet will be maintained, with the newer ships replacing older ones that will be decomissioned.
Just because the Navy is also investing in alternatives does NOT invalidate the usefulness of an aircraft carrier.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...I think the Russians figured out more or less the same propeller design about the same time the Americans did. People forget the Russians during the Soviet era had excellent scientists, and TsAGI (the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute) did a lot of pioneering work in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, including work on ship and submarine propeller design.
By the way, that picture confirms what I saw several times on the History Channel, where they showed a Los Angeles class submarine underwater running with a multibladed propeller (you can see the propeller blades clearly in the video).
The movie Das Boot starts with the statistic that of the 40,000 German sailors who served on U-Boats in WWII, 30,000 of them died.
meh
The U.S. does not engage in aggressive wars---that's for the likes of Hitler.
I think a few million Iraqi's might disagree with you on that one.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
True, but why would god bless such things?
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
Because his followers have a history of violence? Just kidding. Mostly because nukes raised the stakes for war a little higher than most countries are willing to go. So less war, which I figure is a good thing worthy of blessing. Nukes aren't made to be used after all. Otherwise there'd be no point in making enough to destroy the world 4000 times over.
Recent German AIP submarines (U-212/214) have the similar 7-blade screwback propeller. It looks like the secret was out long before this picture was put into the internet.
Methinks not. The misquote used 'upon', the original uses 'on'. The non-AC was correct.
'nuff said.
Allow me to introduce you to a bit of oceanography. Read and understand.
Go forth my young Padawan Learner and let the force educate you.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
All of what you say is true, but most of the cruise missile launching is for the sub captain to be able to pin another one on his chest. The ones they launch from subs are just a tad bit more expensive then the dry launch flavor.
As to the rest, well you can do your own research.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Check out the Russian Hovercraft on Google Earth. Take a look at 54o 38' 07.00 N 19o 54' 41.00 E. It's huge - with slips for about a half-a-dozen more.
Actually, the main objective was still the battleships--even Japan, ironically, did not yet realize the value of the carrier.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
lol somebody played to many RTS's...
the point of a carrier group is to get close to the enemy's homeland and exact major devastation.
A good bit of what you say is true, but there are some significant details:
Active sonar has a short detection range. The enemy sub on the other hand can hear your sonar from quite a distance, revealing your formation and its weaknesses. Also, sonar works best when moving slowly (so you can hear over your own noise), not compatible with actually trying to get somewhere. This generally results in trying to randomize the use of active sonar, sprint and crawl patterns and so forth to try to balance these negatives.
One of the biggest threats to subs is aircraft and, specifically, sonobuoys. Many ASW aircraft can cover a fair area by laying a search pattern and they cannot be attacked by the sub. The sub, on the other hand, can hear the aircraft moving and the buoys being placed and can sometimes figure a way through. Aircraft, however, burn fuel quickly, and dropping buoys all over expends supplies quickly. At some point, the formation commander has to balance the sub threat and force protection against supply expenditures.
Ocean warfare is not neat, at all. Weather and odd local features, including characteristics of the thermal inversion layer, sediment, and the topography (and depth) of the bottom can give the enemy sub many tricks to play, including good places to hide and just let a formation run over it. Bad weather can nullify ASW aircraft and make sub-to-surface attacks much more successful.
In exercises, attack subs have demonstrated that they can be a potent threat to a carrier battle group. When you look at specific areas like diesel subs with specially tuned sonars operating in shallow silty water like the Med, the contest can get interesting. In places like the stretch between Taiwan and China, where subs can operate under cover of friendly aircraft and the support of a developing blue-water navy (e.g., China's work toward deploying Udaloy class destroyers), the risk of capital ship loss may creep toward the point where the American public would find it unacceptable.
Of course, then you find out that "gayness" isn't something you can "drive out", it's just something you are. Then you become a jackass self-hating prick with a special chip on your shoulder about fags. Man, I tell ya' the USMC is rife with them.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
So are all of us who show up in this guy's IP logs in danger of being "redacted" now? I probably shouldn't have clicked on that link (or posted this with out checking "post anon" for that matter).
OK. So a commercial satellite was able to photograph this object. You can therefore assume a military satellite has an equal or better chance of photographing the same object to equal or better resolution. So suppressing the commercial image after the fact is supposed to do what?
A country, and we are talking about countries here, that has the money to spend on building a nuclear submarine also has the money to spend on satellites and propeller research. You cannot classify the laws of nature and physics. You can only make the enemy spend more money doing his own research. Once the enemy has equivalent technology you don't need to keep yours secret.
If there was a failure of security it was a failure in the drydock, not a failure to suppress and censor information.
It was only 30 miles away, near enough to dispatch a couple of planes after the Sheffield was hit--hit by a stand-off weapon they never saw coming. And the Sheffield was only the biggest ship brought down. The air cover of the Hermes wasn't enough to protect many other vessels
The defenses may have advanced a bit in the twenty-five years since then, but the stand-off attack capabilities have grown much more. What aircraft carrier is going to be able to survive the onslaught of the 2030 Chinese or Russian equivalent of the Exocet, plus hundreds of rocket-assisted, smart, gravity bombs, dozens of submarine-launched cruise missiles and long-distance torpedoes?
Wishful thinking. The range from which a carrier can be hit just keeps expanding. A sophisticated enemy with satellites and submarines won't care much about radar-jamming technology. Sure the chaff and anti-missile systems will stop a few incoming threats, but the carriers are just too big a target. Eventually one will get through, then flight operations will be shut down and sooner or later the carrier will be put out of operation long-term.
In the 1930s, navies spent huge amounts building ships that looked awesome from the viewpoint of World War I. They worked fine until some airplane dropped a torpedo or bomb on them. These behemoths have their uses, but won't last long against a sophisticated opponent. The building program we have now is more about congressional pork and admirals' egos than it is about sound budget priorities.
Yes and that nukes are made not to be used theory is a fine idea until the one time where they are actually used. That's basically going to be the end of history. I can see your point of view, and do agree that nukes are probably what kept the two superpowers from going to war during the cold war, but I can't see that an all loving god would bless either the military or weapons of mass destruction, and more so one particular nation's military.
I could be wrong though. The Bible, especially the first part does have examples of God taking sides in bloody battles. I though Jesus changed all that though.
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
"Its propeller is clearly visible -- this was a major no-no on the part of someone at the Bangor Sub Base. The designs of such stealth propellers have been secret for decades."
Whaddya mean? Everyone of us knows what a nuclear (nukular) propeller looks like.
I'll put in my two cents here, so they don't get lost in the copious amounts of typical /. noise.
The issue here isn't that "Google or Live didn't blur it out". It's that the base people didn't care much for the eyes in the skies. I'm sure the Chinese (or Martians) have seen the secrets.
> maybe, if you can get into a real he-man branch like infantry
i'm sorry, but this actually made me chuckle.
are you actually implying that 11B is "exclusive" somehow? okay, ranger school isn't easy and not everyone qualifies ("not everyone" in this case excluding those who can't do a 70 in each PT category, and if you can't do that by the time you're out of basic, you weren't trying), but come on-
being a combat arms MOS doesn't exactly require a high ASVAB. if you're colorblind, you can't do scout or engineer, but as long as you can still differentiate red/green you can do infantry.
it's not "he-man" until there's a green beret involved. the rangers get shit on by those above them too.
- anonymous 21B
Maybe the OP is confusing his radar and gaydar. :P
Pay attention to the missiles, not the propeller. Each missile has the ability to burn to death millions of people within minutes. This is more important that any propeller. Don't lose focus on what's really important.
I realize that I put myself at a risk for saying this, but here it is. These submarines exist for one reason: They exist to kill every human being on earth. That's what they do, that's all they do.
Allow me to create a word. omnicide: the act of the murder of every human being and all civilization.
This is omnicide technology. It's the legacy of the so-called cold war and the mentality of preventing the use of nuclear weapons on a massive scale by creating the military framework that ensures the destruction of any country who would use nuclear weapons in a first-strike sneak attack.
I'm not here to say that this is good or bad. Omnicide technology transcends its own evil. Having been created, it exists outside the concepts and arguments of ordinary legality and morality. But it's here, and it isn't going away.
In the long run of time, omnicide technology eclipses the governments, religions, and corporations that created it. For that reason, the people who control and oversee omnicide technology have a higher responsibility than to the governments, religions, and corporations who may believe that having funded the creation of this technology, they then can decide to use it.
They can not. Because this technology can never be used. To do so would kill everyone or nearly everyone on earth and destroy civilization. It is important that the people who oversee this technology understand this. Since it is possible that you will someday be an overseer of omnicide technology, it's important that you understand this.
In light of this reality, who gives a fuck about a picture of a propeller?
As an ex submariner, I can speak from experience when I say that there are MANY war game examples of submarines slipping into a carrier battle group and "sinking" the carrier. In one excersize I'm familiar with, the sub almost started a fire on the carrier when its signal flare (indicating "I Got You!") actually landed on the carrier's flight deck!
... you're BUSTED! This technique couldn't have been used in WWII, though, since those boats couldn't dive deep enough to take advantage of this phenomena.
In the summer, and late spring it's the easiest (for the sub).
What happens it this: The sun heats the water (usually to depth of 60 or 80 feet - sometimes even to over a hundred) and this warm layer sits on top of the much cooler iso-thermal water beneath it. If a submarine moves to a depth right in or even JUST below this layer, the active sonar pings bounce off the layer, and effectively hide the submarine. The modern ASW ships do carry a submersible sonar "sled" that can dive to below the layer and sometimes detect the sub in that case, but even then, if there is a strong thermal layer and the boat is right in it, it's just about impossible.
in the winter, however, when virtually the whole ocean is iso-thermal, the sub would have a much harder time. In cases like this, you can have the option of running deep.
When you're really deep, what happens is as follows: The deeper water (since it is compressed more by more water pressure - duh) conducts sound faster than the water above it, This tends to bend the sonar waves back up towards the surface. Thus there is a critical depth (depending on water salinity and temperature) below which you cannot hear a submarine from a surface (or near surface) sonar array.
The problem with using this approach, is that the submarine is effectively blind to the task group since the task group's sound waves get bent back up to the surface as well, and if you ascend in the wrong place
actually image, which was taken http://www.idealog.us/2007/08/is-this-what-th.html
It certainly is debatable if such photographs should not be classified. But ask yourself one thing:
Do you really worry about other big industrial nations (Russia, China, NATO partners, etc.) copying US military equipment to use it against them? Did none of you other commenting people think about the fact that the Cold War ended over 15 years ago?
The thread today is not a big nation - of course unless another two or three presidents like your current one come to power and continue this political course of self-isolation. But let's just hope for the good of mankind that this is not going to happen.
I say classify military informations, fine, but also please get real and stop suspecting every other nation of wanting to attack you.
Have a good day
Something tells me that the rest of the world has already figured out that a quiet propeller would have more blades and a twisting shape to them. I think the exact shape of the propellers would be what they want. The photos would have to be detailed enough for a computer to generate a very exact topography from.
The whole thing has a certain Cold War aspect to it. If they're so far behind in quiet propeller technology that a 20 pixel high image would help them, then they're never going to catch up with what our fluid dynamics researchers are testing for the next generation.
Maybe the photography reveals the design of the top-secret propeller..
Or maybe other countries are fed with false intelligence.
An Australian Collins class sub has also had a confirmed kill against a US carrier.
Did they change the ROE for your war games after this? (In order to make it much harder for the sub)
They've done this for the US vs AU exercises, now the exercise starts with full ASW assets deployed, and a visual fix on the sub (It must be at periscope depth)
I think they could defeat the peasants. They could probably defeat all non-microbial life in the area, if they were told to.
Their orders are a bit messier though. "Go there and shoot only the guilty - they look just like the innocent. Make everyone love us!"
I'd hate to be in the army now. It's an essential service, but it's being pissed away on a mission that it can't win by people who don't respect the use of the institution or the sacrifice made by those who serve.
The only time the "hearts and minds" of Iraq were available might have been directly following Gulf War 1, if we (the world) had removed Saddam. Everyone who would have helped in GW2 had been executed after GW1.
Just for the record.
In an NBC4 news story (transcript and video) we hear about the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland, participating in a training exercise with the US Navy:
That's sinking by photographing, btw, if I'm correctly informed.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Do they have statistics for the German soldiers invading Russia?
For added perspective, a Chinese sub surfaced within firing range of USS KiItty Hawk:
_ Stalks_US_Carrier_999.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Chinese_Submarine
Thanks for providing evidence. Your original evidence was purely an appeal to authority: "As someone who knows", and you could have just explained it there. It also appears that your first source (wrapped in diatribe) only explains an area submarines should avoid. The second one does have the information if you read through it, so thanks for that. In case anyone is wondering, the explanation is:
"In the ocean water column, the gradient of pressure, temperature and salinity vary the speed of sound such that there is a level with a distinct minimum. This creates a layer at which sonar waves both above and below that layer will refract away from it. Any sub just below that layer and at a suitable distance cannot be seen by a surface sonar."
FlyingGuy could have just explained it that way, but instead he chose to make it into a game, appeal to authority, and then go into full condescending mode when someone called him out for more information. Unfortunately he chose to end with a Star Wars reference more likely to come from someone living in his parents' basement reading "The Hunt for Red October", rather than an engineer for Electric Boat.
Very true. Sub props probably have an odd number of blades on them for similar reasons that wind turbines have an odd number of blades on them: having an even number increases the vibration and stresses on the device as a whole. It has to do with one blade being at the top and another being at the bottom at the same time, which puts an uneven load on the prop. Vibration in subs is exactly what you are trying to avoid.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
http://www.jcs.mil.kr/upload/images/weapon/B0708/s ub-29.gif
Still, quite a demanding exercise to be able to convince the opposing leadership that they will be specifically targeted, and that they will be successfully eliminated within the first few hours of any conflict. When it comes to autocrats the reality is that if they believe they will definitely be killed, they will comply, as long as they believe they will continue to survive with their power over their own populace largely intact.
Democracies are a little bit trickier because the power is more widely distributed, and a lot of the players involved have no qualms about stabbing each other in the back ie. quite content for the majority of the leadership to get eliminated as long as they survive and can gain power. So technically autocrats require more weapons than democracies, as the autocrats need to target the population as a whole, whilst democracies only need to target the autocrats (the autocrats will target their own internal back stabbers with a vengeance).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
This is old technology, still classified by regulation but long recognized as having been "compromised" decades ago, most notably from an errant sale of surplus machine tools to the PRC in the 1980's. It's about as significant as having the code for an old AN/YUK-7 computer or LINK-4 NTDS...of more use as an interesting conversation piece than of any military or scientific value. Besides, there is no credible adversary for US submarines left anyway; the few ships/subs left to the Russians generally just rust away at their moorings, and the Chinese navy is a laughingstock. North Korea and Iran are just pests from a naval warfare standpoint, and we do not regard India as potentially hostile. So who really cares?
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Unfortunately, Larry Craig has exposed the acoustic signature... [tap, tap, tap...]
oooo....this is all so interesting! Can we hear more now about the dick sucking ?
The Hood was not one of Britain's best ships, it was obsolete, badly in need of a refit and under armoured. The Bismarck was a battleship, Hood was a battlecruiser - much less armour and with a well deserved reputation for exploding.
The huge force sent out to defeat the Bismarck was not because it was extremely tough, but because it was extremely dangerous to Britain's shipping. There's also the issue of regaining prestige lost when "The Mighty Hood" (yeah right) blew up.
As for pocket battleships, there were no British warships twice the size - the closest I can think of right now is Repulse, about 2½ times the size. I wouldn't call its 9×15" guns less powerful than a pocket battleship's 6×11" guns.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Get over yourself. Some people are better at remembering generalities even for stuff they are quite knowledgable about. And your smug post about his "original" post is aimed at the wrong fucking poster. What a loser.
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
And ORP Orzel (modified Kilo class diesel submarine, extent of modifications is largery unknown, except new German batteries) "sunk" two US submarines during one war game...
One that hath name thou can not otter
THAT's why they don't want you to see it...
During my time in the norwegian military, there was also the rumour that a Norwgian sub "sunk" the Enterprise. The US navy supposedly demanded a coverup, but norwegian officers were too proud to keep quiet.
The way they did it was that they turned the engine off and waited (in a strategic place) for a big boat to come close enough.
Everybody uses broad generalizations.
Really this is a bad statement to make. Yes, theoretically numbers win every time... Or is it technology?
In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 5 to 1 at times.[20][33] The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.[29]
The F-22 is extremely difficult to defeat during dogfighting. At Red Flag 2007, RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron, commented that "The thing (F-22) denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy. It's the most frustrated I've ever been."[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F22#Comparisons
Technology allows you to defeat odds of 100 to one, or greater. Imagine a tank during the civil war, or a simple machine gun during the revolutionary war.
By the by, had Germany conducted naval operations more effectively (pursued a better strategy of submarines, not battleships early on), they could have probably completely cut off Britain from US/Canadian supplies. The spending on anti-submarine measures was a pittance, and it was only until 1942-43 that you see subs taking real losses. Also, the cracking of the German code is argued to have shortened the war by 1-2 years...
In general we should be glad WWII wasn't a much longer war than it was. It certainly could have been, and with the proper decisions to produce the right new technologies, Germany probably could have held off the US.
I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
If all we wanted to do was defeat them, we would have been home six months after the invasion. Beating the bad guys is easy on a tactical level--figuring out which ones are the bad guys and getting ONLY them is extraordinarily difficult.
Krull was one of those fond childhood memories. A "great movie" with action and romance. An all time classic for sure. Only problem with this fond recollection is that I was probably about 6 or 7 years old.
I made the horrible mistake of watching it again when I was around 20. The movie really didn't hold up to my memories. It is still an okay movie, more in line with say "Clash of the Titans" than the great epic I remembered.
The movie ending really cried out for a sequel, once Hollywood gets done raping the rest of my childhood memories, ie comics/games, maybe they will crank out the sequel to this one.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Google says you're not the first, but what the hell...
That's almost precisely backwards. These submarines exist to ensure that never happens. They're part of the Mutually Assured Destruction balance. Neither side is going to launch a first strike unless it knows with absolute certainty that it's going to come out sufficiently ahead in the ensuing trade-off to survive as a viable state. Nuclear subs completely screw with any certainty you might think you've got in launching that attack, because it's damn near impossible to know that you'll be able to kill enough of the opposition's subs before they can launch. Stealthy propellers are a big part of that, helping to ensure that the enemy can't get and keep a lock on your position. These submarines aren't designed as first-strike weapons, but as an assured second-strike. To say that this technology cannot be used completely misses the point. In just existing, they are being used - as an insurance policy. If they were ever to launch, humanity would already be dead.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
You bet...lot's of boring classes where we....uhm....experimented with the posistioning of said battleships
So as you see, when asking for gods blessing upon the Military, you are not asking for Christ's Blessing. Instead you're asking for Yahwee's/Jehova's/Zeus/Aries/Thor/Loki instead.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
OMG! Somebody should tell the Pentagon about this! It's like Sauron, but... UNDERWATER SAURON!
Go cuddle your Bertrand Russell books some more.
is a lot differenet than
"If a nation sets out to destroy your nation through deadly unrelenting force, just go ahead and let him"
Loving your enemy does not preclude loving your family, or even yourself. It does not entail abdication of your role in protecting your family. You are also confusing directions given to individuals with directions given to governors. Personal forgiveness is fine. Jesus certainly didn't intend for the courts to waive all penalty for crimes; this would lead to chaos. Rather, he taught submission to proper authority - authority placed there by God for the punishment of evil-doers and the reward of those who do right. So, on the surface it may seem paradoxical to say that you can love your enemy, and kill him too... a deeper understanding reveals it to be no paradox at all. That same misunderstanding results in parents that don't discipline their children. "Oh, I couldn't hit my precious child, I love him."
maybe they can put somethin like this on a sub:T F-8&fr=&fr2=sfp&p=propfan
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?ei=U
prolly a bitch to dry dock, but im guessing it would be super fast =]
Pride comes before a fall
Same propeller as the LA class sub.
l es/images/friedman_prop_full.jpg
Picture from a dry dock in Scotland in the 70's
http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/subs/anglesdang
They were also bragging about how amazing their navy is, veen if they only have about three subs left. In particular, the Akula class subs were designed especially to combat US Navy carrier groups in the Cold War. They are the quietest subs known, AFAIK, can dive extremely deeply, deeper than any other SSN, and they don't have to sneak up to sonar or visual range to attack carrier groups. What they do is close to missile range, and then fire the topredo tube launched SS-N-16 or SS-N-15 anti-ship cruise missiles. The missiles can be topped with anything from nucelar to toprpedo warheads.
If an Akula (or any other modern sub, since they all seem to be headed in that direction), were to launch an attack on a carrier, it would most likely launch a saturation attack against which the chances of succesful defense by point defense weapons like those of the Aegis destroyers or Phalanx gun decrease drastically.
Fortunately, back in reality, Russia and the USA are not likey to go to war any time soon. If Bush and Cheney do start (the third in 8 years) another conflict, it will be against Iran, which has some very good anti-aircraft missiles (Russian S-300 monsters) and some very powerful anti-ship missiles.
But all of this is just lunacy anyway. Haven't enough people died for vague and obscure reasons in recent years?
Uncles Navy needs surface ships to escort boomers now? All is lost, the terrorist have won! I knew it was only a matter of time after they closed the Horse and Cow!
submarines are useful tactically to the extent that they are difficult to detect through sonar/EM. Knowing what the propeller looks like makes it easier to detect, since the physical structure of the propulser can be reverse-engineered to predict what kinds of noise it makes in different situations. That's the rationale behind keeping it secret, anyway.
Of course, I completely agree w/your post.
However, you spoil all the fun of watching people carry on about the big "sekret" technology.
One night I convinced some people that we all wore wet suits just like the movies and swam around inside the boat w/trained dolphins. Anyway, big lies, big fun and amazingly nobody wondered how we could wear wet suits for an entire patrol.
Next time, instead of killing the buzz you might consider adding fuel to the fire. I dunno. Let's say that LA boats are really powered by alien technology found at Roswell. Could be fun!
"and violence against gays has increased by about an exponent from 1993-1999"
So, what? Just under 3?
Tell me about Britain's supply situation before the lend lease act and if the subs were effective then...
Um, the petrol (gas) will run out before the bomb is dropped, then we'll die slowly from lack of medicine, lack of technology and lack of food. Driving a car and owning a fridge/tv/air conditioner/playstation/x-box/computer/water bed is omnicide.
Bring it on.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
Ok, maybe a bit of an exaggeration on the size differences of battleships, but the Hood had heavy armour the same as a battleship it was only classed as a battlecruiser because it was fast and the Royal Navy classed all ships over a certain speed as battle cruisers no matter how large or heavily armoured.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
The latter is simply the former with a lot more people involved; effectively there is no difference.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
What else could it be, really? It's in the garage and you know exactly where...can't be a tool, certainly not laundry soap, etc...and all the new pron is inside.
Too easy.
How could you possibly think that?
There is an enormous difference in magnitude of offence. The first is an offence to one's dignity and a temporary and minor offence to one's physical well-being. The second is the death of millions of people. "Effectively", that's quite a bit of difference.
Secondly, there is a great difference in responsibility. Heads of nations are responsible for the well-being of their people. To say that it is the same for one man to dismiss a minor offence to himself as to allow millions of your citizens to die is utterly preposterous.
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 1 Tim 5:8
Actually, I think the real irony is that we only learned how devastating carrier attacks could be was after Japan hit our BB's at Pearl and the only thing we really had left to fight back WITH were carriers.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
You know, normally I would just let this go by, but in your case I am going to make an exception, so here it goes.
I do occasionally site references, but in many cases I do not because it tends to lead a conversation into areas in which I am forced to demure, as I am now forced to do so in this case.
As to my star wars reference, it was aimed specifically at someone I think is of an age where they would take it as an encouragement, not an admonishment. Apparently, I was mistaken.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
- anonymous 21B Very true, but even there and beyond, there's a hierarchy that echoes the rest of the military. Now go repair the house I just destroyed so I can do it again.
- Anonymous 18B
Come on, this shape is almost common knowledge. Anyone can see this frequently on Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel.
Aphorisms don't fix code. (Bart Smaalders)
Submariners are the most intelligent large group of people in the entire military. Of course they are more civilized.
The Marine Corps is pretty macho, and they call people fags a lot, but it's not like the Navy. That's just normal masculinity. I'm afraid there is a biological desire in heterosexual people to be repulsed by homosexuality. That may be un-pc, but it's also reality. IF you are straight, try to picture yourself graphically in a homosexual situation. OBviously it makes you uncomfortable.
There is a lot of stress about gays thanks to the lame policies forbidding gay behavior. But the fact that Marines say "fag" a lot does not indicate that there are a bunch of closeted gays. that's just propaganda. Like racism, there is a visceral and normal amount of politically innappropriate feelings about gays in normal people.
Well, I imagine there were a fair number of gays in the Navy, but I doubt it was as rampant as you claim (perhaps you were in an unusual situation or your account is fictive).
The Army discharges approximately twice as many gays as the Navy. The Air Force is highest per capita, but it's a small force and I don't really consider it. The idea that the Navy is where the gays are is simply false.
I don't understand. I'm talking about hundreds of incidents of violence. Thousands over the years, but hundreds per year. Some involving death.
The Army is a place of great people, but don't ask don't tell causes unnecessary problems, and the bad apples prove it.
It is apparently a Zubr class hovercraft. Only three in service in the Russian navy as of October 2006. You can see the "shadows" or the other two. Compare the photo in this article to the Google Earth image. http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/zubr.as p/
... As a veteran who served as an intelligence analyst with the US Army, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with your assessment 100%. And I'm sorry I just read that. I've been thinking about working for the gov. as of the last few weeks, I'm a very talented programmer in college - one of my biggest reasons was that I would get to work with the rest of the alpha geeks. I would give up a larger paycheck (that I could make in the private sector), to be able to walk in to an office every day and be the dumbest guy in the room. It's rather rare, lately, that I find anyone that I can both have an intelligent conversation about technology, and learn from at the same time. I was hoping intelligence was the place to be.If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.