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: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
UK-SubFan    RE:New submarine detection methods   12/31/2004 9:00:02 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.
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:New submarine detection methods   12/31/2004 9:08:05 PM
you aren't going to get much of a discussion going on this topic I'm afraid to say.. ;)
Quote    Reply

UK-SubFan    RE:New submarine detection methods   1/1/2005 6:10:46 AM
Yep the RN guy said pretty much the same. As regards to the wake sensor he made it very clear that he wasn't going to say any more than what I posted due to the obviously highly classified nature of any such system. Maybe in about 20 years we will know more...
Quote    Reply

radio    RE:New submarine detection methods   1/2/2005 4:06:24 AM
while I know this stuff is highly classified, by my knowledge and experience, it seems tracking by sound is still the best and most efficient way of tracking boats. It certainly appears to be the best way of classifying any contacts. Even if you could locate 'vapor trails', as I've heard them called, it would seem to be difficult to tell anything about the contact that made them.
Quote    Reply

Adamantine    special sound   1/6/2005 3:50:38 PM
the key in long distance detection lies in generating wide band frequency sounds at random with special wave form and long wavelength and using Low Probability Intercept technique to broad cast it----JUST LIKE THE RADAR IN F-22, BUT this is acoustic form. Use a DSP to reintergrate the erratic sonar returns and reintegrate a picture out of it. It can be done. Using wide band low energy but long wavelength sound, contacts can be found without much give away of your own location. But you will only know the general location. To pin point, you need to PING in a way that makes you more detectable. Studying WHALES bio sonar system will yield very advance long range and low detectable sonar. Again the west has an edge due to powerful computer and advance active sonar module and membrane/magnetic technology needed for advance sonar
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:special sound   1/6/2005 5:14:29 PM
"Studying WHALES bio sonar system will yield very advance long range and low detectable sonar. Again the west has an edge due to powerful computer and advance active sonar module and membrane/magnetic technology needed for advance sonar" The USN discovered a new species of whale recently - identified purely on acoustic transmissions, nobody has seen the whale, but they have been able to narrow it down to a particular species - and have even concluded that it me be the result of being a hybrid between two species by the footprint. They've also established that it's the only one in the world due to it's "calls" and tracking habits. This whale was first picked up 2.5 years ago IIRC. This is all with a degraded capability ;)
Quote    Reply

Adamantine    Useless even if detection is successful   1/7/2005 5:00:32 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. By the way a PAPA has a very good change of out running a stern chasing MK-46 (45kt max). For Mk-46 to successfully destroy a PAPA or ALFA from a stern chase, MK-46 must be launch at least 80 meter away from a PAPA (44.7kt max) or 534 meter away from a ALFA (43kt max). When used againt a 30kt victor, MK-46 must be launch within 4000m away from it. While a SH-60 must really get very close to a ALFA to kill it, it is so easy to launch a SAM againt a target that is less than 1 km away and flying at such low altitude !!!!!! US build many destroyers, especially the Spraunce class in 1970s and 80s. But this highly sophisticated ASW destroyer with its superior electronics only has very TINY and SMALL torpedo. Its either the mk-46 launch from its tiny 2x3 tube or the old ASROC which has range 28km. Assuming the SH-60 LAMp is destroyed, the huge 6000 ton destroyer could only destroy a Oscar or Victor when it is within 28 to 32km away. BUT a Oscar could destroy a Spruance at 500km max using one of its 7 ton S-N-19 SHIPWRECK. Okay most of you may say OScar cannot acquire spruance at such long range. But i reckon that a Backfire performing reconnaissance coul easily past the target info to a Oscar. A Oscar could probably accurately destroy any US destroyer at 100 km away (FAR AWAY from asroc). Without he LAMP heli, US destroyer simply dun have long range ASW weapon. EVEN the cancelled SEA LANCE could only deliver a MK50 to 65km and a nuclear depth charge to 180km. Compare this to a SAND BOX or SHPWRECK missile which has range between 400-600km, its nothing. Even LAMP dun have much endurance beyond 300km. Its far more easy to detect a non stealthy surface ship than a submarine (a moderately quite one). Satellite or Recon aircraft could easily detect destroyer that is not escorted by aircraft carrier aircraft. Such info can be past to OSCAR at shallow water patrol and OSCAR could comfortably launch 24 very high speed RAMJET SS-N-19 and over whelm the meagre AAW capability of many 1980s US destroyer or frigate operating independently without the AEGIS protection. One hit from the giant SHIPWRECK missile and you are sure gone. 7 ton, thats 13 t
Quote    Reply

UK-SubFan    RE:Useless even if detection is successful   1/9/2005 3:48:06 PM
SUBROC was taken out of service years ago. There was the Sea Lance project but that too was cancelled.
Quote    Reply

   RE:New submarine detection methods - Wake?   1/9/2005 4:09:47 PM
A submerged submarine doesn't leave a wake (not even a small one). And since there are no waves under water, there can be no wave phenomenon, or wake (to be fair, you can theoretically have underwater waves, but the conditions needed to create them don't happen often and usually or perhaps even exclusively only in smaller closed systems, like large lakes). So a wake detector wouldn't be very useful for hunting submerged subs..
Quote    Reply

   RE:New submarine detection methods - Correction   1/9/2005 4:11:12 PM
First sentence should read "A submerged submarine doesn't leave a surface wake (not even a small one," to read more sensibly..
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT