Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Submarines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New submarine detection methods
Iano    12/31/2004 7:19:28 AM
I once heard somewhere a while ago that a system was under development, a type of radar I think it was, that could sense the miniscule "wake" left on the surface of the water by a dived submarine. Any truth to this? Also someone I know mentioned to me that perhaps people could try looking for nuclear submarines by looking for the hot coolant water they expel using infra red. Although this seems daft to me, water is so dense I'm sure it would obscure the heat at even a shallow depth and if infra red signature is a problem then surely just increase the volume of coolant intake/output, more volume = less heat energy added to a certain volume. So are there any ways to look for boats other than sonar? Ian
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
DouglasE123       2/24/2008 2:14:36 PM
I recieved a gas canister from the original Teledyne Isotopes submarine tracking experiment. After sucessful testing the program was transfered to the Mitre Corp because the small size of the Teledyne unit, was to small.
 
The technique was a basic method.  A one to 7 day delay time before track sensing was found for higly stable water.
 
It is obvious after the fact how it works.  A submarine pulls up under the suspected water area and the gas is allowed to difuse into the water above.  And then the track is imaged with good old night vision.  A kind of chemical luminescence is a fairly usable technology.  The russian have the same technology, likely indepednently developed.
 
The exact gas to cause stimulation of emission is the secret I guess. Any ways, the first USA canister to image trails is for sale.  It is an oddity of technology.  The original inventor Dr. J was the real thing genius. I figure it is worth 10K or so maybe.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

welly    hydrodgen detection   11/12/2010 4:24:53 PM
u can detect submarines from hydrodgen discharge on submarines i was on hms spartan when we did the first test the hydrophones were fitted to the conning tower and were aqquired off a russian and it works under water
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/12/2010 6:33:47 PM

u can detect submarines from hydrodgen discharge on submarines i was on hms spartan when we did the first test the hydrophones were fitted to the conning tower and were aqquired off a russian and it works under water

there has to be  a loss in translation or this is missing something in the description.


you can't use hydrophones to detect gaseous discharge - the sub would have to be farting like a sperm whale with the worlds worst case of gastro for it to happen.

 
Quote    Reply

2012jammERall       11/14/2012 1:03:04 AM
First when I started my hobby of metal detecting, I do not know that there is a device called gold metal detector... that can help me to have easier access to the gold metal and helps me sava time, then one of my friends told me about this device, I am so curious and want to find a good equippment to help me so I search the internet and find the one that I am satisfied with and by now everything goes on well and I have find some gold coins by using such kind of gold metal detector.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       11/18/2012 8:49:50 AM
Lol ^^ 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 4:59:03 PM

The Russians apparently have a non acoustic detection system that as far as I am aware from the small scraps of info I have found relies on measuring the turbulence in the water by the wake of a submarine that has just passed. Very little info is available public domain. What I do know was told to me by a serving RN submariner and he couldn't or wasn't able to elaborate more.

Basically get a photo of an Akula class sub and you will see three pods infront of the sail. I think those are the system.

The original patent publication of said system was that the submarine's wake would be detectible from LEO using space based sensors. They are not the only one looking into it and it does work, on several different levels and methods.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 5:49:38 PM


I have no doubts that USN has far most advance sonar than all the countries around the world put together. The budget for R&D for sonar is larger than the rest of the world put together.

But sometime i do ask myself this question. Assuming US know the exact location of most of the Russian sub, does it has the tool to attack them in short notice or to make sucessful attack?

Officially the most commonly use torpedo from ship and ASW helicopter or P-3 aircraft is MK-46, MK-50 and MK-54. Such torpedo is so small. Between 517 to 775 plus pounds. Yet many Russian sub are double hull monster that is between 9000 to 33000 ton and these sub has quite good speed and a comprehensive array of decoy or even anti torpedo torpedo.

I have a feeling that those SH-60 seahawk may be able to locate these sub but these sub could also easily destroy seahawk or even P-3 with moderately sophisticated SAM.

On the other hand, MK-46 (exist in largest quentity) is only good for attacking slow SSGN and SSBN and diesel sub. It its no escape range is greatly diminish when used against sub that can travel between 30 to 43 kt. Akula could manage 35 to 36 kt and even the huge OScar 2 could manage a respectable 30 to 31 kt. A stern chase from a MK-46 greatly reduce its effective range. PAPA/ALFA could even out run a mk-46.

Alright PAPA and ALFA are all decommision. But we could say that there is no effective light weight torpedo from ship and helicopter for most of 1970s and 1980s against ALFA/PAPA. Things only change when MK50 and the latest MK-50 is produce. But thats in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

P-3 could easily carry torpedo weighing 2000 pound or more. Why no such torpedo is produce for the 300 plus P-3 in 1970s/1980s ?/

SH-60 could actually carry torpedo as heavy as 1000 pound. Why MK-50 is so small ??

MK-50 and MK-46 has very small warhead. For a huge double hull sub with heavily compartmentalised inner hull eg Typhoon, Oscar 2 and Akula 2, such torpedo probably could not destroy/disable the sub with one hit if it fail to hit critical area like the torpedo room or missile tube or countrol room or nuclear reactor compartment.

The same kind be said of stingray from UK.

Now I have no doubt that the sharp charge warhead could penetrate even the huge double hull of OScar 2 or Typhoon. But the impact will be weak and the flooding will probably be isolated to a few compartment. The HOLES of the damage will not be too big. The sub could still move on.

What can a 100 pound PBNX or sharp charge do ? At most equal to the damage power of 150-200 pound of TNT. If Typhoon is in low pressure shallow water, it could probably survive a direct hit from MK-50 if it is not hit at places which contain fuel or ammo.
Put a hole in any sub in the ocean to let the water in. Compartmentalization is all well and good, but it dose not hold pressure and a sub that can not go deep is helpless!

Mk-50 has the ability to catch any submarine it is fired at. The faster the target goes, the easier it is to track and kill. The small warhead is more than large enough to put a hole in any sub, even the giant Typhoon. Subs running near the surface are very easy to find, by more than just sonar. Just fly over one at 100' depth to see what I mean.
As to "over whelm"ing the single DD, that is just one more silly idea espoused by those not familiar with VLS. Surface ships have large volume reserves in which to store many weapons. A 7-8,000 Tonne Nuc Sub on the other hand has what, 24-36 total weapons, Diesel-Electric boats less than half that and most of those weps are also smaller too. Not that the DD has things all it's own way, far from it, but it is a far from certan thing for the Sub and the DD guys have many tricks up thier sleves now and the trend is moving slowly, but inexaustibly in favor of the surface ship.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 6:07:28 PM

There is more to detect from an underwater vehicle then noise.
The domain that brings more hopes today is definitively on beamforming nowadays (and US are not leading the research here, dispite higher spendings), concerning the accoustic field.
What??? The US is not leading Beam Forming R&D??? Name one other Navy that has put to sea with "Spherical" sonar aray.
The Russians tried a low orbital electromagnitic detection system also, with some success, but in too much particuliar sea configuration unfortunatly.
That is why accostic still have nice days to come.

The Mk-46/50/54 are the size they are because that is all the larger they NEED to be to get the job done! Subs are terribly fragile ships with many single point bottlenecks and they operate in very hostile environments. If the first hit does not sink any Nuc boat, it will sure as shooting cripple it to the point it has only two options, surrender, or try to run for home and with a 3.2M hole in the exterior plating, just how far do you think it will go, IF it is large enough to have TWO reactors so it can try to move on one?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/8/2013 6:12:00 PM


Every nuclear reaction, produces billions of antineutrinos particles. Physicians knew this since 1930 and detected them in the 1950's. But, progress in detection can now allow the manufacture of detectors (mobile or not) that could trace the origin of bursts of antineutrinos. This was said by Michel Cribier from CEA (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique). I bet in the future that even the most silent nuclear sub can be detected as well as illegal atomic testing. I've red this in Science et Avenir, february 2008 edition. Probable or not?

Don't hold your breath waiting!

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Idiocy...   2/9/2013 12:00:10 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics