Shenzhou has landed

OM wrote:

...Not totally correct. The debate regarding the Silver Surfer was
rather accurate.

OM



That's "Crimson Tide"; HBO did a movie of "Hostile Waters" but it didn't
completly follow the book.

Pat

OM wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 07:10:04 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:



ROTFLMAO. You think satellite photos are the only way we know a sub
is at sea?



...Well, we do have that radio-equipped kraken program, but I'm not
sure if that's been declassified yet. I mean, Greenpeace would be
screaming bloody murder about it by now.


OM



I still say we just bribe Prince Namor to track the things...then Russia
hires Attuma, and China gets Aquaman.... seriously, the Russians were
the ones who spilled the beans big time on one technique that we wanted
kept secret. Submarines, even when at rest, make a slight change in the
profile of the water over their position- this was noticed when
satellite radar images of the sea's surface revealed the image of the
underlying terrain was being replicated on the water's surface shape, if
only in a difference of a matter of millimeters; of course a sub
underway is going to leave both a thermal wake and a slight change on
the surface height in it's wake as it moves and displaces water.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
We also have a hard time tracking what is in our sub's baffles,

Pat; The first rule of digging yourself into a hole is to give up
while you can still get out. You've passed that point...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s.../an-bqr-15.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...s/an-bqq-9.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s.../an-bqq-10.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/tb-16.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/tb-23.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/tb-29.htm

All systems designed to make it possible to track into the baffles...
And given how well the archaic AN/BQR-15 worked when last I sat it's
console...

This isn't as easy as it sounds- the Soviet were subs were noisier than
ours, but apparently the only time we ever tracked one during its entire
cruise was Whitey Mack's 47 day trail of a Yankee class boat with the
U.S.S. Lapon; and even he lost it from time to time early in the trail.
That event was so outstanding that it earned him a Distinguished Service
Medal, and the Lapon's crew a Presidential Unit Citation.

No, that was the *first* time we so performed a complete trail. There
have been many since.

Even without a complete trail there are still the gatekeeper boats,
the northern patrols, the GIUK gap patrols, and SOSUS.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Pat Flannery wrote:
I still say we just bribe Prince Namor to track the things...then Russia
hires Attuma, and China gets Aquaman.... seriously, the Russians were
the ones who spilled the beans big time on one technique that we wanted
kept secret. Submarines, even when at rest, make a slight change in the
profile of the water over their position-

Not true at all. The Kelvin wake is only generated when the submarine
is in motion.

this was noticed when satellite radar images of the sea's surface revealed
the image of the underlying terrain was being replicated on the water's surface
shape, if only in a difference of a matter of millimeters;

Not true at all. The 'images' of undersea terrain turn out to be
because of gravitional differences caused by varying sea-bottom
terrain.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:

ROTFLMAO.

I always appreciate the specificity of your criticism...

Pat; let me put it to you gently... Your knowledge on this topic is
somewhat on par with Brad Guth's. In the face of so much boldy stated
nonsense, there is little to do but laugh.

Even a few moments research, even a single reading of Tom Clancy's
"Submarine", as putrid as it is, would clear up many of your
misconceptions. (The next thing to do is to utterly flush 'Hostile
Waters' from your mind. The book is utter trash almost completely
innocent of facts.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:


We also have a hard time tracking what is in our sub's baffles,



Pat; The first rule of digging yourself into a hole is to give up
while you can still get out. You've passed that point...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s.../an-bqr-15.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...s/an-bqq-9.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s.../an-bqq-10.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/tb-16.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/tb-23.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/tb-29.htm

All systems designed to make it possible to track into the baffles...
And given how well the archaic AN/BQR-15 worked when last I sat it's
console...

And even your "archaic" AN/BQR-15 didn't enter service until after 1970,
or about the period of time we are discussing here in regards to the
height of the cold war- most of your above cites refer to sonar systems
on Ohio and Los Angeles class boats, which is in the waning years of the
Cold War.
This brings up two interesting questions:
1.) Since Soviet/Russian boats of the 80's and 90's also carried towed
arrays, how the hell were we able to trail them at all? They should have
known we were there.
2.) How was the Augusta surprised when she encountered the trailing
Victor? She should have been able to pick it up with her towed array.
The point I was trying to make was that a Soviet missile submarine could
conceivably have eluded pursuit by it's trailing U.S. attack boat for a
period of time long enough to launch it's missiles, or at least some of
them, before being sunk. And that the uncertainty in that concept would
argue against trying a surprise attack on the Soviet Union while having
complete confidence that you could eliminate all of its missile subs
before they could launch.




This isn't as easy as it sounds- the Soviet were subs were noisier than
ours, but apparently the only time we ever tracked one during its entire
cruise was Whitey Mack's 47 day trail of a Yankee class boat with the
U.S.S. Lapon; and even he lost it from time to time early in the trail.
That event was so outstanding that it earned him a Distinguished Service
Medal, and the Lapon's crew a Presidential Unit Citation.



No, that was the *first* time we so performed a complete trail. There
have been many since.

Care to cite specifics? For your argument to work, _every_ Soviet
missile sub on patrol would have to have been successfully tracked by
air, surface vessels, or submarines from the time it entered its
operational patrol area till the time it left for home, without a break
of even half an hour- because it could get its missiles airborne in that
period of time; and that the tracking forces could have 100% confidence
in destroying it in that half hour's time for the same reason.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:


I still say we just bribe Prince Namor to track the things...then Russia
hires Attuma, and China gets Aquaman.... seriously, the Russians were
the ones who spilled the beans big time on one technique that we wanted
kept secret. Submarines, even when at rest, make a slight change in the
profile of the water over their position-



Not true at all. The Kelvin wake is only generated when the submarine
is in motion.


This isn't about the Kelvin wake, It's about very subtle differences
in the gravity field caused bya submerged sub, moving or not. When they
made the movie "The Hunt For Red October", the Navy wanted certain
things in the book left out of the movie- the most noticeable one is the
Mass Detector Gear for underwater navigation; this is interesting,
because we have been playing around with this technology for a very long
time- it's mentioned in the book "Around The World Submerged" by the
skipper of the Triton, Edward L. Beach. If the gravity field around a
submerged submarine in different from the water it is in, then this
might (stress "might") be detectable on the surface as an aberration in
the water's surface. contour, even if the sub is motionless.





this was noticed when satellite radar images of the sea's surface revealed
the image of the underlying terrain was being replicated on the water's surface
shape, if only in a difference of a matter of millimeters;



Not true at all. The 'images' of undersea terrain turn out to be
because of gravitional differences caused by varying sea-bottom
terrain.

D.


And the submarine, although having a displacement equal to the water it
is submerged in, does not have the same mass distribution as the water,
due to its being a hollow shell; that's what upset us when the Russians
started talking about radar's ability to map the sea bottom by the shape
of the water's surface above it- the subtle difference in the gravity
field above a submarine due to its different mass distribution and
closer proximity to the surface than the sea bottom it is hovering over
might be detectable. At least that is what I read into the article that
was published several years ago regarding this.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

Even a few moments research, even a single reading of Tom Clancy's
"Submarine", as putrid as it is, would clear up many of your
misconceptions. (The next thing to do is to utterly flush 'Hostile
Waters' from your mind. The book is utter trash almost completely
innocent of facts.)



I like that "almost" proviso.
You wouldn't really think the captain of the K-219 would make up things
like that; but you know how those Ruskies are...or that the Navy would
have never have given the Augusta's captain another command if he hadn't
done a little something irregular on that voyage- as well as later
passing over him for promotion to admiral rank. I assume that either he
or his heirs did sue the authors and HBO for slander considering what
they wrote about him and the incident- I just can't seem to find any
reference to the trial though...
I've read Clancy's little submarine book- I also own both volumes of the
Naval Institute's History of U.S. Submarine Design by Friedman, Jane's
Underwater Warfare Systems 196-97, Warships of the USSR and Russia by
A.S. Pavlov (lots of subs), Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies
1718-1990 by Polmar and Noot, Submarine Warfare- the Monsters and
Midgets by Richard Compton-Hall, Blind Man's Bluff by Sontag and Drew,
Modern Submarine Warfare by Miller and Jordan, Few Survived by Edwyn
Gray, Submarines Of The World by David Miller, H.M. Submarines in Camera
by Comdr.. Tall and Kemp, Midget Submarines by Kemp, The Devil's Device
by Gray, The U-Boats by Botting, U-Boats in Action by Stern (and I'd
like to take this opportunity to thank Derek for getting me ****ed off
enough to take all my submarine books off the shelf; I just found my
long-lost set of plans for German "Seeteufel" tracked mini-sub in the
U-boats in Action book.) Around The World Submerged by Beach, Running
Critical by Tyler, Axis Submarines by Watts... and of course the dread
Hostile Waters by Huchthausan, Kurdin, and White.. as well as my two
copies of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. These make up the submarine
sub-section (hee-hee) of my naval books collection; along with the other
67 naval-related books (anyone wanting a picture of this particular
bookcase with its cutaway models of the Polaris and German Type XXI
submarines, as well as the Lockheed Sea Shadow and Roman warship on a
collision course, drop my a note- I'm pretty sure I can photograph it
well enough that all the titles will be legible, and send you the jpeg.).

Pat

In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
James Nicoll wrote:
It seems to me that laser-launchers could be dual purpose,
sending payloads up in peace time and knocking stuff out of the air
during wartime, at least until the national grid went down...

Unfortunately, the laser characteristics that you want for the two jobs
turn out to be very different. In particular, the antimissile guys want
short wavelengths to damage targets more effectively, while the launch
guys want long wavelengths to make the engineering easier.

Well, damn.

Tunable launch lasers? With very strong wording to make sure that
after useing them as anti-missile weapons you remember to set them back to
long wave?

--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-

In message , Pat Flannery
writes
as well as my two copies of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. These make
up the submarine sub-section (hee-hee) of my naval books collection;

Only two copies? I hope one of them is in the original language :-) And
does "The Dragon in the Sea" rate a place?
--
"It is written in mathematical language"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.