The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:00 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
It is the devil in counterforce strategy that a key element may have already been defeated by the enemy, who possesses a capability he only exhibits at the onset of combat, leaving your plans in the dustbin.

Is it possible that at the outset of war, Russia could "see" the vast majority of deployed USN and NATO submarines with sufficient accuracy to take preemptive measures? It certainly is the kind of hand they would like to play.

FYI:
    Submarine Detection from Space: A Study of Russian Capabilities (Studies in Military Science and Strategy)
    by Hung P. Nguyen

    US Naval Institute Press, 1993.
    ISBN-13: 978-1557506399


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation ... /bg466.cfm

Astronautix wrote:
Article Number: 17F120. Manufacturer's Designation: US-PU. Code Name: Pirs-2. Class: SIGINT. Type: Naval reconnaisance. Destination: Surveillance Orbit. Nation: Russia. Manufacturer: Arsenal.

The Pirs-2 was the second phase nuclear-powered active-radar naval targeting spacecraft. It would be launched by the Zenit-2 launch vehicle and was planned to achieve the Holy Grail of Soviet space systems - the detection of submerged US ballistic missile submarines. Design worked started in 1978 but development was protracted and a severe dispute raged regarding competing radar systems. The project was cancelled in 1988 when Gorbachev prohibited further development of deployment of nuclear-powered spacecraft.

The RLS active-radar spacecraft had the worst reliability and quality problems of any Soviet system. It was not available often enough for good exploitation of the data. Lessons learned during trials and first operational use resulted in a TTKh specification document for a modernized next generation system. A decree to begin design of this system was issued at the end of 1978. Specifications for the second-generation MKRTs system were developed co-operatively by TZ MO, VMP, GUKOS, and TsNII Kometa (Savin) in 1978-1980. Following approval by NTK and VPK, the development was to have begun in the Eleventh Five Year Plan (1981-1985). A resolution of June 1981 called for the Phase 2 Pirs-2 to start technical development in 1982. It was to provide double the capability of the Pirs-1 to observe ships, and potentially submerged submarines.

At the beginning of 1980 the Ministry of Defense upgraded KB Arsenal to KK Spacecraft Constructor status. KB Arsenal was made the Soviet Navy's sole source for naval reconnaissance systems and Ya F Valov was designated a Chief Designer of Space Systems.

The complete Ideogramma-Pirs system was to have been deployed during the Twelfth Five year plan (1986-1990). Development of the new design required cooperation between three OKB's due to use of the new Zenit launch vehicle: NPO Energia, PO Arsenal, and TsKBM. The systems technical specification was delivered to the VMF in September 1982.

Arsenal presented the draft project to the Military-Industrial Commission on 12 December 1982 after interagency review. Pirs-2 would test the experimental Farvater system with submarine detection capability. General Designer Yu F Valov at PO Arsenal was made responsible in 1983 for the overall space system, while TsNII Kometa solved detailed systems problems. Admiral Gorshkov fiercely resisted relinquishing Navy control of the system despite the desire of the leadership for consolidation of space systems. The overall space system specification was delivered to GUKOS in September 1983, followed by a combined technical proposal.

There were two competing radar systems, from the MRP and MOM industrial sectors. No decision was ever made on Phase 2 systems; the competing institutes were instructed to conduct further research to identify the best possible technical solution. A firm program schedule finally emerged in December 1984. Phase 2 was to be deployed by 1993. This decision also finally determined the work distribution between MRP and MOM.

In 1987 two experimental Plazma-A satellites (Cosmos 1818 and 1867) were launched with new-generation Topaz reactors. The spacecraft tested new on-board systems, new elements of the orientation system, and ion engines. Use of a new high radiation-safety orbit was also demonstrated. The Topaz used a new thermo-emission conversion method to convert heat to electricity. This would also power a range of new systems including electrostatic maneuvering engines, ion orientation / stabilization engines, solar sensors, magnetic momentum compensators, multi-channel wave devices, and special plasma weapons to provide a defense against anti-satellite weapons. The Plazma-A satellites carried instruments to map the magnetic field of the earth, with an eye toward developing a magnetic navigation system. Topaz provided over 10 kW of power and had long endurance and storage in a radiation-safe orbit. A follow-on Plazma-2 would have been equipped with the even safer Topaz-2. Despite these encouraging tests, the nuclear-powered component of the Pirs system was abandoned on the instructions of Gorbachev in 1988 due to continued reliability problems and international incidents when the reactor cores of the satellites crashed to the earth.

The Pirs-2 second phase active satellite was never launched. However the Obzor solar-powered civilian satellite marketed in the 1990's used the same space platform developed for the third generation MKRTs. The solar arrays provided only one tenth of the power that would have been generated by the Topaz reactor. Nevertheless, equipped with the Travers-A radar, built by OKB MEI (Moscow Energy Institute), a swath of 250 km would be observed with a resolution of 90 to 130 m, or a 50 km swath with a resolution of 6 to 12 m. New methods of on-board signal interpretation developed by the Institute of Space Geoinformation of the Russian Academy of Science (IKGI-RAEN), Saint Petersburg, would pass only significant data to earth for further processing. An operational Obzor system would consist of three 6.5 metric ton satellites flying in 524 km orbits inclined at 81.4 degrees to the equator. The Arsenal mid-class spacecraft bus had a mass of 4000 kg and could accommodate instrument payloads of up to 3000 kg. The bus had a three year design life. Pirs-2 would have had similar characteristics but even better radar swath and resolution characteristics with ten kW of power available.

Typical orbit: 520 km circular orbit, 81 degree inclination. Mass: 6 500 kg (14 300 lb). Electrical System: Nuclear reactor. Electric System: 10.00 average kW. Associated Launch Vehicle: Zenit-2.

Nguyen says the systems were tested in prototype form on Mir, and the debugging process took place there. This system might have been deployed except for the fortuitous end of The Soviet Union.

This is the kind of "blue sky" effort which, prompted by Reagan's "Star Wars" project, bankrupted the USSR.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:36 am
Posts: 24
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...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:15 pm 
So called conspiracy "Theories" are always misnamed. There is never any pretense about their being theories subject to peer scrutiny and validation. Instead they are always taken to be received fact by their proponents, and to be passed onto the less enlightened who should count themselves lucky to be so blessed.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:20 pm 
This was a major concern for the USN and RN even in the early 70s.
Many FBM Patrols loitered under ice pack and thermal layers as a precaution.. problems arose when boomers had to go to periscope depth for periodic inbound radio communications etc...making them very easy to pick up especially with infared.. The floating wire had serious flaws in the North Atlantic and was not always as effective as they are now. One nice feature of the Posidens were greater range than the old A3s..allowing operations outside the Barents etc. and If I say anymore I'd have to kill ya...or me.. what ever. :eyebrows:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
Chuck wrote:
So called conspiracy "Theories" are always misnamed. There is never any pretense about their being theories subject to peer scrutiny and validation. Instead they are always taken to be received fact by their proponents, and to be passed onto the less enlightened who should count themselves lucky to be so blessed.

While it is true military programs are of necessity not subject to an open review, there is substantial unclassified supporting material from unimpeachable sources which tend to substantiate these claims. Those who object to the veracity of the claims have only "commonsense arguments" to support their side.

In this case we have several independent scholarly publications referring to satellite detection of submerged submarines, and no documents with any authority to refute them. This is a case where your opinion of the possibility carries less weight.

In 1986, several noted scientists wrote in august journals that an antiballistic missile program was impossible. The physics was too complex. It was like "hitting a bullet with a bullet". Later, they wrote the code to implement it was too complex and subject to error. Still later they wrote execution of the ABM project would seriously destabilize the world's military affairs. Now the programs seem to be largely successful, and the Navy's version has passed IOC. It probably does not pay to listen to "Doubting Thomases", especially when they have a political agenda.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:49 am 
Extraordinary claims deserves perfunctory dismissal unless accompanied by extraordinary evidence. That does not change merely because the gathering of evidence might be "difficult".

It is the responsibility of those who makes extraordinary claims to to provide the evidence necessary to establish the worthiness of the claim for consideration. It is not the responsibility of those who reject unsubstantiated claims to disprove any of the unsubstantiated junk interested parties might toss around.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:56 am 
Werner wrote:
Chuck wrote:
So called conspiracy "Theories" are always misnamed. There is never any pretense about their being theories subject to peer scrutiny and validation. Instead they are always taken to be received fact by their proponents, and to be passed onto the less enlightened who should count themselves lucky to be so blessed.

While it is true military programs are of necessity not subject to an open review, there is substantial unclassified supporting material from unimpeachable sources which tend to substantiate these claims. Those who object to the veracity of the claims have only "commonsense arguments" to support their side.............



You position could be boiled down to:

When claims of military capability is concerned, then the fewer the evidence in support of a claim, more the claim contradicts commonsense, the more likely is the claim to be true.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
No, I'm saying a reasonable person would not dismiss the evidence out of hand.

You are saying you will dismiss anything out of hand unless it is completely revealed. I guess in your view top secret programs cannot exist.

It seems to me you are trying to shut down this thread with your obstinacy, instead of discussing the merits of the systems.

If you don't have anything meaningful to post about the technology, please don't post more of your odd philosophy.

Chuck, even if you can't be bothered to log in, please indicate it's you somewhere on the post. There are too many anonymous posts floating around.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:11 pm 
Werner wrote:
....instead of discussing the merits of the systems.....



You just said the actual merits of the system is too secret for us to know, therefore we should just deep-six our doubts and accept that the system is just full of merit.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 3:32 pm 
BTW, the 40 or so nuclear submarines the US built since the 1980s are all undoubtedly part of an elaborate $100 billion deception operation aimed at disguising (from whom it is unclear, as the Russians must already know) the fact that submarines are just so many death traps swimming in a perfectly transparent sea.

Why has Micheal Moore not gotten onto this?

-Chuck


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 9:47 pm
Posts: 145
Location: Burnsville MN
Well it looks like th anti-satellite missile that was being researched by the US may make a comeback...

Ric

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:47 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 7581
Location: EG48
And funding may increase for USN ASW but we really know it won't.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:03 pm 
Tracy White wrote:
And funding may increase for USN ASW but we really know it won't.



What would be the point of that if we can already pin point every submarine from space?

:wave_1:


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
Chuck wrote:
Tracy White wrote:
And funding may increase for USN ASW but we really know it won't.



What would be the point of that if we can already pin point every submarine from space?

It's generally a good idea not to have all your eggs in one basket.

The Chinese have demonstrated an ability and willingness to shoot down satellites. Presumably that is not because General Secretary Hu Jintao likes to sunbathe in the nude.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:31 pm 
The reality of it all is modern SSNs and SSBNs for that matter operate at depths beyond any satellite detection most of the time. Especially spook boats and spec op boats. Virginia and Seawolf boats have defusers to cool discharge H2O greatly reduceing Boat's Heat signature which is mainly the only "target" a satellite would be searching for.. many contermeasures have been developed of which we know nothing..
When I rode the boats back in late 60s and early 70s the ice cap and thermals were always a good vail from probable satellite observation.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
The Farvater mechanism does not rely on thermal queues. It relies instead on properties of energy propagation through water which creates a "tell-tale pattern" on the surface in the vicinity of the submarine, much like the patterns of iron particles trapped in a magnetic field.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:47 pm 
So things like whales and schools of fish would also be picked up..as well as ECM bouys and transmissions.I am very sceptical that this is worth the investment. Even if it worked the Boomer would still get off several rounds before it was detected and destroyed. Knowing where they are and doing something about it are very diferent challenges.. I have done 3 Barent's Sea FBM deployments in a 598 class Boomer....Ivan knew we were out there in his pond.. But he couldn't locate us, heaven knows they tried and one time at least they did catch a boomer but lost it.. :lol_1: and if and when we had to pop the cork we still would have had enough time to get more than half our load on it's way before we were blitzed.
Hey just getting off a few was all we needed to do.. :thumbs_up_1: It's a big pond and Submarines are very small and lethal.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
You misunderstand the nature of the tool. It is intended to provide a queue like SOSUS, not a pinpoint datum on which to drop a torpedo.

This system stares at the oceans for a long time, and develops track data which will allow maritime aircraft or barrier ships to anticipate the location of a submarine. No doubt there will be some "misses", and some false positives, but the same was true of the much more complex and elaborate bottom listening stations.

As for the endless march of technology, I will remind you that when the locomotive "999" exceeded 100 mph on a particular stretch of road in upstate New York not much more than a century ago a Congressman accused the reporter of a lie: "We all know no human could survive at such a speed" was his statement on the record in Congress.

Do not disserve yourself by doubting the possibility that submarines can be detected with a clever mathematical algorithm. You certainly know that Fourier Transformations are the basis for modern passive Sonar, and without them it would all be so much random noise.

"What a fascinating modern age we live in" ~ Captain Jack Aubrey RN, Master and Commander (the movie, not the novels)
Image
No. 999, 1905

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:58 pm 
Werner wrote:

As for the endless march of technology, I will remind you that when the locomotive "999" exceeded 100 mph on a particular stretch of road in upstate New York not much more than a century ago a Congressman accused the reporter of a lie: "We all know no human could survive at such a speed" was his statement on the record in Congress.



That is completely irrelevant. The fact that some true claim of technological progress had been disbelieved does not mean most disbelieved claims of technological progress were therefore likely to have been true.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 2313
Location: (42.24,-87.81)
Chuck, I'm sorry if my attempts at hyperbole fall far short of your masterful level.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group