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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or it's a fake plant to hide the real propeller design.
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.
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.
"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
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>"
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.
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);
"Rats...that damn stupid tarp's gonna get me court martialed... ...I had to run to take a leak. Two minutes...thas' all! Who knew the satellite was overhead?"
--signed, Boatswain's Mate I. M. Waterhead
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.
Okay... So what's sitting on the topmost shelf of the rightmost cabinet on the east side of the wall of my garage?
I wonder if Microsoft Visual Earth has been getting their data from Setec Astronomy??
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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?
Well, what did you expect ? They're vikings, for pete's sake ! Half ninjas, half pirates, half polar bears ! They rape, pillage and plunder, and then they flip out and get really mad ! Even Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia knew better than to fuck with them !
Just be thankful they used a wussy submarine and not a Viking longboat with a dragon on the bow - then it'd really have been a massacre.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.