The Ship Model Forum

Guest wrote:This is true, not a "conspiracy theory". Can I prove it? No.

Ouch. I hurt myself rolling my eyes so far....

I know this is an old thread, but....

1Big Rich wrote:There were rumors that when SeaSat deployed in 1978, it could detect every submerged submarine in the world. The conspiracy theory is that the USN didn't want this capability broadcast, so the 'short-circuit' that killed the satellite after only 105 days in orbit was intentional...

This is true, not a "conspiracy theory". Can I prove it? No. I knew the man who built it though. For me, (and the rest of the family) it's fact. For the rest of the world, it's a conspiracy theory. Makes you wonder what other "conspiracy theories" are true...

Based on my understanding of the wikipedia article on inSAR and SEASAT, such a technology back in the day could have been extremely effective in calm seas, especially in shallow waters, but I'd argue they couldn't have the resolution required to accurately map areas with any significant sea state, nor the quantity of data and processing power needed to analyze large areas and to continuously track targets.

With the advances of today's modern processors it should be possible to detect any submarine surface transient at periscope depth, especially with an extended mast, with such a satellite within minutes if not seconds. I'm still not sure how much sea state & wind contribute to background noise in such an analysis, but I'd bet you could filter out all but the roughest of sea states. Reflected seabed noise might still be a noise amplifier in particularly shallow areas, though you can probably remove this 'steady' noise with normalized maps, just like with inSAR on land.

A submarine below periscope depth is a different story however, and I don't have any knowledge on the strength of such waves transmitted to the surface. At boomers "1/3rd to nowhere" speeds I'd be surprised if sufficient energy was transmitted to the surface. I'd be even more surprised if it could be distinguished from other sea creatures, but you could probably track it over long periods of time to determine it's path. Sea creatures generally don't travel in linear paths for hours at a time. I'd buy off on fast attacks being reliably detectable at cruising speeds, but I have no data to argue for or against it.

A whale or other creature near the surface would create similar signals, but using a separate microwave system you could sweep those much smaller areas for raised masts, and I don't know of any sea creature that travels in straight lines for hours at a time and turns at exacting angles. Most bird wildlife would probably create false positives similar to masts near the shore, but as far as I know most subs don't operate that close to shore due to the ease of deploying SOSUS-esque sensors there.

Floating wires could theoretically also be detected this way, but someone would need very solid numbers to determine the cost-effectiveness of such a system with a resolution capable of finding them.

Chuck wrote:

Werner wrote:
Go forth and learn; then give a considered argument. I have been patient, but right now no one has earned a "passing grade" in this thread.

What argument of any type, considered or not, have you given? The only thing you've even tried to pass off as an "argument" is some utter crap along the lines of "the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of said submarine detection system constitutes acceptable evidence that this system exists?"

The disingeniousness of such position would have been stunning had it come from anyone but you.

Chuck, I offered a scholarly paper and an article discussing the mating of the technology to a Soviet intelligence satellite. By way of dismissing my submission you have not offered articles refuting the materials I presented. In fact, you have brought nothing to the table but ad hominem, and an embarrassing lack of an open mind.

Werner wrote:
Go forth and learn; then give a considered argument. I have been patient, but right now no one has earned a "passing grade" in this thread.

What argument of any type, considered or not, have you given? The only thing you've even tried to pass off as an "argument" is some utter crap along the lines of "the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of said submarine detection system constitutes acceptable evidence that this system exists?"

The disingeniousness of such position would have been stunning had it come from anyone but you.

Werner wrote: I have been patient, but right now no one has earned a "passing grade" in this thread.

That may be true, but you would be the least qualified to judge based on the promises with which you started this thread.

That should be Aviation Leak and Space Technology than, shouldn't it?...-:)
[
You completely missed the point. Aviation Sneak is a non-classified publication that does at least get the basics right when reporting fact about public projects. Big hint: non-classified.[/quote]

The logic that this can't be right because it was covered in the disreputable AW&ST ought to be extended to climate change, which has been covered by the mainstream broadcast news and print media, who nearly always get science wrong.

The fact is the documents I referred to at the top of this thread were out of the US DOD, or were published by the US Naval Institute. I think they may have a passing level of accuracy on the issue, especially as compared to the back of the envelope knowledge of those refuting the claims.

I am the only one in this thread to present evidence for satellite detection from space. The rest of you are standing there with your hands in your pockets saying, "aw shucks - it just can't be true. It doesn't make sense".

Go forth and learn; then give a considered argument. I have been patient, but right now no one has earned a "passing grade" in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:
Their lofty but undeserved reputation aside, aviation Sneak and Space technologies has repeatedly made fools of itself by publishing sensational articles from the early 1950s to now, covering a range of military technologu related topics, that are now known to be spectacularly wrong, and were distressingly easy to rebut at the time of their publication by anyone with even the most rudimentary aerospace engineering training.

The most recent example that comes to mind involve a alleged American space launch vehicle based on B-70 technology. It can be shown that had the writter of the article believed in what he wrote (by no means an certainty), then he must either have flunked, or completely forgot about, his highschool physics.

You completely missed the point. Aviation Sneak is a non-classified publication that does at least get the basics right when reporting fact about public projects. Big hint: non-classified.

And... how made an undetectable periscope ?


Instal a fontaine system on the top of the periscope.

The sea water flow regulary & all around the body of the periscope.


Not too complicate to study & install





Jef

Ron Smith wrote:I had pretty much ignored this thread but........Werner isn't too far off for what is not only possible but probable. Can the systems be made to pinpoint subs? Probably not in our lifetime. Can the systems be made to reliably track part of a sub's course and predict the general area for more refined sensors to search? Yes. I built birds, lots of birds, some you've heard of like Hubbel, GRO, UARS, TOPEX, EUVE, FUSE, COBE, IRAS, Hotbirds 1-5, LEICA-Wind, Gallileo, ISS....many you will never know the names of.

The technologies used to start this process of development in satellite sensors began in the 1970's. One of the above named birds laid the groundwork for oceanographic surface measurement and the measurement of surface anomalies. I have a very vague grasp of how the sensors do their thing but that was not my area of expertise. Anything more I cannot tell you as you do not need to know.

What is above can be gleaned from Aviation Sneak and Space Technology.

Their lofty but undeserved reputation aside, aviation Sneak and Space technologies has repeatedly made fools of itself by publishing sensational articles from the early 1950s to now, covering a range of military technologu related topics, that are now known to be spectacularly wrong, and were distressingly easy to rebut at the time of their publication by anyone with even the most rudimentary aerospace engineering training.

The most recent example that comes to mind involve a alleged American space launch vehicle based on B-70 technology. It can be shown that had the writter of the article believed in what he wrote (by no means an certainty), then he must either have flunked, or completely forgot about, his highschool physics.

I had pretty much ignored this thread but........Werner isn't too far off for what is not only possible but probable. Can the systems be made to pinpoint subs? Probably not in our lifetime. Can the systems be made to reliably track part of a sub's course and predict the general area for more refined sensors to search? Yes. I built birds, lots of birds, some you've heard of like Hubbel, GRO, UARS, TOPEX, EUVE, FUSE, COBE, IRAS, Hotbirds 1-5, LEICA-Wind, Gallileo, ISS....many you will never know the names of.

The technologies used to start this process of development in satellite sensors began in the 1970's. One of the above named birds laid the groundwork for oceanographic surface measurement and the measurement of surface anomalies. I have a very vague grasp of how the sensors do their thing but that was not my area of expertise. Anything more I cannot tell you as you do not need to know.

What is above can be gleaned from Aviation Sneak and Space Technology.

Things have come quite a ways since 1943. The preceding link is still very much a work in progress and is merely a sneak peak for the holidays.

When IR camera is on a ship or on a aircraft, the sea is always back to the periscope. So, maintain the periscope at sea T� is better.



Jef

Tracy White wrote:Unless you are trying to mask from surface-level sensors... air won't show up, but a water-temp periscope would show up against the air.

There is nothing you can do about that. Anything that's not cooled to dry ice temperature will show up against background air.

Unless you are trying to mask from surface-level sensors... air won't show up, but a water-temp periscope would show up against the air. As I said, the main concern is most likely from airborne sensors so it would make sense (and be easier) to maintain water temperature for the periscopes and any other devices poking up (I.E. snorkels).

Tracy White wrote:Your water and air temperature will most likely be different, so do you maintain it at air temp, or water? I should think water temp most of the time as you'd be more concerned about detection from aircraft than submarines in regards to this technology.

Air doesn't show up on most IR images. So to hide the periscope head one would make its temperature the same as background water.

Your water and air temperature will most likely be different, so do you maintain it at air temp, or water? I should think water temp most of the time as you'd be more concerned about detection from aircraft than submarines in regards to this technology.

But you did say was

A precursor to the effect under study was witnessed in 18th Century British canals as a wave which would continue along the canal for miles after a barge stopped.

and there I complemented you. And informatively at that. But you seem have elevated cognitive dissonance into an art form.

Foeth wrote:

A precursor to the effect under study was witnessed in 18th Century British canals as a wave which would continue along the canal for miles after a barge stopped. This "standing wave" exhibits the properties of water exploited to localize a submarine some depth below the surface.

That was not a standing wave but a soliton wave and that does not happen on open sea. ...
Note that the waves coming from the ship aren't standing waves either, they travel but with the same speed as the ship. From the ship's point of view, that does seem like a standing wave, but not from the point of view of a fluid particle.

I did not mention Solitons, nor did I say the principle was based on standing waves or Solitons. I said the dynamics of the water which are exploited by the technology can also (primitively) be seen in these phenomena.

Try as we like to throw logical roadblocks in front of this methodology, it remains that the USSR was sufficiently confident of the process to commit a substantial satellite to it, and it may partially explain the rapid decommissioning of SOSUS in the 1980s. It might be noted that CIS Russian submarine deployments exceeded those in the last days of the USSR.