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.
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.
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.
"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
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??
"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
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.