Submarine Aircraft Detection
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious
I'm yet to see a wine bottle shatter, and I've done this demo yearly for over 25 years
The vaccum isn't the important thing, it's the temp that counts. The same goes for the pressure cooker demo, as its hard to accurately gauge pressure whereas the temp is much easier.
I'm yet to see a wine bottle shatter, and I've done this demo yearly for over 25 years
The vaccum isn't the important thing, it's the temp that counts. The same goes for the pressure cooker demo, as its hard to accurately gauge pressure whereas the temp is much easier.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
BS, I am not sure but I presumed the pressure cooker provided 1.33, 1.67 and 2 atm pressure based on the valve weights.
Regarding shattering wine bottles that was TIC and based on the differential expansion of glass from boiling water. Just a little play on the lack of H&S in those days.
The sulphuric acid instance was very real. His blazer and shirt instantly dissolved as he ripped them off. He was very lucky as I don't remember his getting as much as one drop on him. No gloves, no goggles, no face mask in those days.
Regarding shattering wine bottles that was TIC and based on the differential expansion of glass from boiling water. Just a little play on the lack of H&S in those days.
The sulphuric acid instance was very real. His blazer and shirt instantly dissolved as he ripped them off. He was very lucky as I don't remember his getting as much as one drop on him. No gloves, no goggles, no face mask in those days.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that the answer is the simple one of 30,150 feet.
But I would say that height does not have a negative component, when we dig a mine we don't say that it has a height of -600 feet, we switch to depth as with submarines. Therefore the true difference in height is 30,000 feet.
But I would say that height does not have a negative component, when we dig a mine we don't say that it has a height of -600 feet, we switch to depth as with submarines. Therefore the true difference in height is 30,000 feet.
Thread Starter
Well we have been having fun, haven't we?
I do however have to sadly point out that almost no-one on here has bothered to address the task they were assigned, tut-tut.
Go stand in the corner Barnstormer.
And Ponsy Nav, I expect 100 lines to be on my desk by Tuesday morning, "I must not attempt to blow up the Science Lab".
And don't give me any feeble excuses about jeopardising your MoD Pension.
A gold star does however go to Basil, go to the top of the class Basil!
Teacher
I do however have to sadly point out that almost no-one on here has bothered to address the task they were assigned, tut-tut.
Go stand in the corner Barnstormer.
And Ponsy Nav, I expect 100 lines to be on my desk by Tuesday morning, "I must not attempt to blow up the Science Lab".
And don't give me any feeble excuses about jeopardising your MoD Pension.
A gold star does however go to Basil, go to the top of the class Basil!
Teacher
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Midwest
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if any former/present MRA boys on here might care to comment on the following.
Helping the next door neighbour's boy with his maths homework, the following question was posed:-
A submarine at a depth of 150 feet detected an aircraft flying at a height of 30,000 feet. What is the difference in height between the two?
So simple was the answer of 30,150 feet, we suspected a trick question.
But moreover, I was left wondering at the premise of the question. I am aware that subs have acoustic capability, but can subs actually detect aircraft at such altitude from such depth?
Bearing in mind that this is a public forum
, anyone care to enlighten me on rough parameters?
I do recall once receiving nothing but a funny look upon querying a P-3 flyer on the range of his MAD boom
Cheers
Cooch
Helping the next door neighbour's boy with his maths homework, the following question was posed:-
A submarine at a depth of 150 feet detected an aircraft flying at a height of 30,000 feet. What is the difference in height between the two?
So simple was the answer of 30,150 feet, we suspected a trick question.
But moreover, I was left wondering at the premise of the question. I am aware that subs have acoustic capability, but can subs actually detect aircraft at such altitude from such depth?
Bearing in mind that this is a public forum
, anyone care to enlighten me on rough parameters?I do recall once receiving nothing but a funny look upon querying a P-3 flyer on the range of his MAD boom
Cheers
Cooch
UWB Impulse SAR, mounted on an aircraft as small as a Cessna 172, can look through several hundred feet of ice and sometimes rock to find voids where there might be a P-38 or a cache` of chemicals decidedly more nasty to your health than Sulfuric Acid. It is most commonly used in FOPEN to track tanks and people.
I would not be at all surprised if modern 'periscope wake tracking' ISAR modes did not incorporate a bit of this capability as there is a suprising amount of garbage on the ocean surface, especially in the inshore littorals. None of which is 350-370ft long.
Could a similar system be made to work from beneath the waves, going the other way? You certainly would have your choice in terms of parabolic antenna area as wavelengths to operate with as the entire bow of the submarine is a 20-30ft wide dielectric fiberglass dome. The problem would be knowing the Doppler variances and range gated PRF scales likely to be occupied by a high flying ASW platform like the P-8 without losing water penetrability on the returns.
IR is another option. Da used to work for an oil company and they were using LWIR geosurvey stuff way back in the 1970s. Once, looking at an ocean map, they spotted a pair of wakes and 'doing the math' (which see: Teacher's Pet and Spherical Trig) they figured the tracks were around 800-900ft down and moving in excess of 30 knots. Parallel to each other about 20nm apart.
Not whales.
This definitely works the other way 'round too, given a buoy could mount a camera and IRST (ADADS is small enough to be manpacked) package.
The biggest problem with submarines being the emission source of anything of course is that they are sluggish and huge, to say that they turn like a truck is rather an insult to Mack. You skulk or you die.
Since dragging a tail really doesn't do much, other than increase your silent speed noise threshold, the key would seem to be to employ air dropped atmospheric sensor buoys (faster, wider, network setup) and long-line acoustic transducer networks, together with munitions carrying (missiles in box) CAPTAM mines. Leaving the SSN to play spider-in-her-web games.
Now your apertures can float which, by itself, would radically change the LOS horizon nature of submarine warfare from 1-2 CZs out to perhaps several hundred nm distant from the operational area, using point to point laser or directional microwave (possibly bent through a satellite) which would be LPI relayed back down to perhaps 1-5 master nodes which could then talk to the sub via a digital Gertrude or bluelight lidar at minimal hull risk, well outside the combat area. Even if they intercept the up and down link, nobody would know /precisely/ where the sub was.
This would indeed (IRST as much as radar) let you see an airliner at FL300 without exposing the 2 billion dollar hull to push up a mast, near the surface.
Taking the majority of sensorization and particularly heavy AShM and LAMs off the sub would, in turn, let you reduce the size of the sub to perhaps half it's present state, taking manning ratio down to say 50 or so (three shifts of CIC crews and a galley service) while employing a much smaller RTG/battery stack in a sealed motor room instead of a noisy, dangerous, steam kettle while retaining only defensive weapons with things like SCav interceptor torpedoes or possibly even 'gun' turrets to kill inbound shots. You would still likely have to escort or barrier the sub with a small 'school' of UUV, roughly the size of an ASDS. But since these robots would be cheap, they could use active sonar in sprint-drift packs to cover very large volumes of protected seaspace, kamikaziing threat subs, much farther out.
Nobody has ever sunk a sub with a DF-21D but playing stalking games with an 8,000 ton hole in the water is stupid...
Last edited by Glaaar; 11th Oct 2016 at 14:35.
Getting back on topic...
Sound in the atmosphere doesn't couple well into the ocean. That just means that you can't hear things in the sky very well whilst under water. But if it's a loud enough aircraft, it will be detectable. I've no idea how loud it'd have to be though.
It's the same physics behind the reason an ultrasound scan needs a gel between the scanner probe and the missus' belly. Without it the sound energy coming from the probe would have to travel in part through the air (unless the operator presses really hard). The gel ensures that there's a good impedance match between the probe and the belly. Same for the physio's ultrasound massager. Apparently those used to break quite easily if switched on without being gelled up and in contact with skin. The impedance mismatch reflects a lot of power back into the probe, and it cooks itself and no one's the wiser...
It's the same physics behind the reason an ultrasound scan needs a gel between the scanner probe and the missus' belly. Without it the sound energy coming from the probe would have to travel in part through the air (unless the operator presses really hard). The gel ensures that there's a good impedance match between the probe and the belly. Same for the physio's ultrasound massager. Apparently those used to break quite easily if switched on without being gelled up and in contact with skin. The impedance mismatch reflects a lot of power back into the probe, and it cooks itself and no one's the wiser...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the workshop, Prune-whispering.
Age: 71
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Something like a P3 will leave a visible mark on the acoustics suite of a submarine. It's very much dependent on things like ambient noise in the sea, sea state, type of acoustic processor or towed array and acoustics operator experience. A typical detection range for such things may be around 1nm radius and up to as much as 10,000 feet. A jet aircraft however will not usually be detectable on the submarines acoustic suite but could be audibly detected by the operator at similar ranges.
PDR,no, using the world, take a plane from the poles along a circle of longitude. The angle between the axis from the centre of the earth to the pole and a line of longitude at the pole is 90. The angle between the axis and a radial to the equator is also 90 which gives 3 internal angles summing to 270.
The issue is not that it is 3-dimensional, it clearly isn't, but that Euclidean geometry, where the internal angles of a triangle sum to 180, is based on straight lines.
The issue is not that it is 3-dimensional, it clearly isn't, but that Euclidean geometry, where the internal angles of a triangle sum to 180, is based on straight lines.
The *full* definition of a triangle is a plane (2-dimensional) shape comprised of three straight lines which meet at three corners. It is a subset of the group called "polygons" which have the same definition with the exception that the words "a finite number of at least three" are substitutes for the word "three". Something cannot be a polygon if it has curved sides because it cannot be fully described by just the ordered co-ordinates of its corners.
With this definition the sum of the internal angles of a triangle will always be 180 degrees and from this is can be shown that the sum of the internal angles of any polygon of n sides will always be 180x(n-2).
Applying 2-dimensional triangle properties to 3-dimensional shapes with curved sides is about as meaningful as defining the stalling speed of the surfaces of a trimmed airship.
PDR
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
PDR, the point was the teacher did not know the definition and could not explain the difference. 'Twas my father, a far more experienced navigator thani ever was that spun me that one.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coochycool
As you are handing out good stars you must think you know the answer.
Before we progress can you answer a very simple question:
Let's say the sub in question was 31 feet tall. If it was at a depth of 150 feet below the waters surface as per the question (and for simplicity we'll assume the sub was in blue water) how far from the waters surface is top of the submarine?
As you are handing out good stars you must think you know the answer.
Before we progress can you answer a very simple question:
Let's say the sub in question was 31 feet tall. If it was at a depth of 150 feet below the waters surface as per the question (and for simplicity we'll assume the sub was in blue water) how far from the waters surface is top of the submarine?
Depth in a submarine is measured from the lowest point of the keel, because it's actually quite important to know if they are seeming at a depth where the keel would be lower than the rocks ahead on a chart!
PDR
PDR
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BS, I am not sure but I presumed the pressure cooker provided 1.33, 1.67 and 2 atm pressure based on the valve weights.
Regarding shattering wine bottles that was TIC and based on the differential expansion of glass from boiling water. Just a little play on the lack of H&S in those days.
The sulphuric acid instance was very real. His blazer and shirt instantly dissolved as he ripped them off. He was very lucky as I don't remember his getting as much as one drop on him. No gloves, no goggles, no face mask in those days.
Regarding shattering wine bottles that was TIC and based on the differential expansion of glass from boiling water. Just a little play on the lack of H&S in those days.
The sulphuric acid instance was very real. His blazer and shirt instantly dissolved as he ripped them off. He was very lucky as I don't remember his getting as much as one drop on him. No gloves, no goggles, no face mask in those days.
And it worked! drawing a line of nylon out of the mix! Stuff with acids etc, it was great fun.
Thread Starter
Barnstormer
Your impertinence is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that the sub is in straight and level trim.
See me after class
For me the fun stuff was demonstrating sublimation with Potassium Dichromate, you made your own little volcano!
And who could forget the film of Potassium being introduced to water (too violent to try for real we were advised), it blew the not insubstantial glass turine in 2!
Flooding Q in readiness
Cooch
Your impertinence is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that the sub is in straight and level trim.
See me after class
For me the fun stuff was demonstrating sublimation with Potassium Dichromate, you made your own little volcano!
And who could forget the film of Potassium being introduced to water (too violent to try for real we were advised), it blew the not insubstantial glass turine in 2!
Flooding Q in readiness
Cooch
Home made mortar.
Take one banger .... the most powerful available to a schoolboy. Take one empty baked bean or golden syrup tin. Drill hole in tin near the open end, insert banger [fuse outside], tamp with clay or putty.
Make small earth mound ridge at right angles to target. Place bomb angled towards target.
Place additional bombs at varying angles to give a spread.
Light fuses.
Unwise to await fall of shot if the target greenhouse was hit.
Take one banger .... the most powerful available to a schoolboy. Take one empty baked bean or golden syrup tin. Drill hole in tin near the open end, insert banger [fuse outside], tamp with clay or putty.
Make small earth mound ridge at right angles to target. Place bomb angled towards target.
Place additional bombs at varying angles to give a spread.
Light fuses.
Unwise to await fall of shot if the target greenhouse was hit.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
6LB, how primitive. What was wrong with carbon, sulphur and potassium nitrate. Mix any quantity required and pack the container including a suitable length of Jetex ignitor cord. Place as required, light fuse and retire nonchalantly to a safe distance, say a 100 yards, where "it wasn't me Sir," had a slight chance of being believed.
Our chemistry teacher did sodium in acid...... Sodium in oil in test tube, pour acid on top verrrry carefully, hold at arms length, then drop into a bin.
Then evacuate the chemistry lab due to clouds of choking white smoke.........
Also let us all do sodium in water, but seal conical flask with bung of cotton wool in case sodium jumps out. Slight flaw, sodium fizzes around a while producing hydrogen, so at the end there is a 'pop'... and 30 balls of flaming cotton wool fly across the lab, chaos ensues as the box of cotton wool sets afire and has to be quickly doused in the sink, etc. Health and safety..... er, what?
Then evacuate the chemistry lab due to clouds of choking white smoke.........
Also let us all do sodium in water, but seal conical flask with bung of cotton wool in case sodium jumps out. Slight flaw, sodium fizzes around a while producing hydrogen, so at the end there is a 'pop'... and 30 balls of flaming cotton wool fly across the lab, chaos ensues as the box of cotton wool sets afire and has to be quickly doused in the sink, etc. Health and safety..... er, what?
"Boris" Holt showed us the principles behind the mess cannon, large tin with a hole in the bottom to accept the Bunsen tube, and a small hole in the lid. Turn on gas, light the gas at the small hole and then withdraw the Bunsen tube. He also told us about the potassium, carbon and sulphur mix but no demo, we had to find out for ourselves, and we did.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TO, one of our Rotarians is an explosives engineer. In his job talk he brought some black powder. He lit it and it fizzled.
Then he got a second batch. I can't remember the ignition process or the tamper but it blew a foil dish 6 feet. Impressive in the dining room.
Earlier, at Waddo we had an IED demo, litre of petrol, thunderflash and tin hat. That made 50 feet and blew the rim off.
Then he got a second batch. I can't remember the ignition process or the tamper but it blew a foil dish 6 feet. Impressive in the dining room.
Earlier, at Waddo we had an IED demo, litre of petrol, thunderflash and tin hat. That made 50 feet and blew the rim off.