Unmanned Sub Tracker - Testers Wanted

[fedr808]

Doesn't aluminum seem like a bad idea for the hull?

[fedr808]

Lordy, I didn't know that..They'd rather duke it out with a ton of Amatol or Torpex or whatever the hell they use? But then, I suppose it's the rational alternative..You don't want a great fat torpedo running it through like a virgin on prom-night half a mile underwater, do you?
Reminds me of explosive reactive armour used on some main battle-tanks. On being hit, a flat plate of armour with a layer of plastic explosive behind it (not unlike a claymore in principal) detonates on impact with a HEAT round, deflecting the blast (in theory.)

I like armour, interesting stuff.

I believe the ADCAP was made so that it runs up along the side of an enemy submarine parallel to it before turning 90 degrees straight into the midsection of the submarine, hitting the thinnest part of it's armor.

[fedr808]

interesting fact, did you know that submarines can travel faster underwater then above?

[Shogun]

The only use for armour now is to protect against heavy guns (which are a thing of the past now) and bombs dropped by aircraft.
I found this message-board entry. With a tiny bit of searching you could find out plenty about it, it's no secret.. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-256970.html

Armor is useless in the face of modern air power.

[ULTRA]

Aluminium makes for quite a lightweight and very strong construction. Excellent for boats, but pricey. The Finnish navy have built modular ships, that can be altered for specific services. Traditional armour used to get in the way, making vessels heavier and less versatile. Now they can be made stronger, lighter, even Stealthy as with aircraft. Aluminium actually burns quite well, so they equip them with radar controlled miniguns, rockets and a heap of electronic warfare technology.
I was even asked to fit an electrically operated mortar I'd built to a boat once, you could probably spread chaff with it!

[Shogun]

Doesn't aluminum seem like a bad idea for the hull?

No, it is brilliant due to its weight/strength ratio.

[Shogun]

interesting fact, did you know that submarines can travel faster underwater then above?

Yeah, in the modern age due to its hydrodynamic teardrop shape.

[fedr808]

No, it is brilliant due to its weight/strength ratio.

Not the strength, but the radar visibility.

[Shogun]

Not the strength, but the radar visibility.

They can use geometry and anti-radar paint ( forgot what it is called ) to compromise. However, I don't believe the entire hull is aluminum, it is coated with something else, but I'm not sure.

Anyways, a ship is visible enough as is.

[ULTRA]

Heh! check out this little gizmo, $5m of boat, and cheap at the price if you ask me.. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...smugglers.html

[fedr808]

Seems like brutal overkill.

[phlogistician]

Best guess is MAD. Then the sonar equivolant of the ESM mast.

I can't think of any other passive sensors off the top of my head.

Ah, passive acoustic, and non-acoustic. I didn't say the non-acoustic was passive,.... :-)

[fedr808]

Ah, passive acoustic, and non-acoustic. I didn't say the non-acoustic was passive,.... :-)

I'm guessing by acoustic you mean sonar right?

I can't imagine a submarine using a MAD system.

Although I do think it would be prudent to outfit a tomahawk cruise missile with a MAD sensor and program it to fly around where you think the enemy sub is.

[phlogistician]

I'm guessing by acoustic you mean sonar right?

I can't imagine a submarine using a MAD system.

Although I do think it would be prudent to outfit a tomahawk cruise missile with a MAD sensor and program it to fly around where you think the enemy sub is.

Side scan RADAR and satellite imagery. Correlate data from devices in the water with those above.

Ask yourself, does the submerged bow wave from a submarine travelling a few hundred metres below the surface leave a detectable impression on the surface, or make a significant difference to the shape of the waves where it meets the surface,....

[fedr808]

Side scan RADAR and satellite imagery. Correlate data from devices in the water with those above.

Ask yourself, does the submerged bow wave from a submarine travelling a few hundred metres below the surface leave a detectable impression on the surface, or make a significant difference to the shape of the waves where it meets the surface,....

Not really no.

Most submarines can't even communicate while submerged below 20 meters without a buoy.


Even then its only a one way transmission from the surface to the submarine.

[ULTRA]

Subs used to use ultra-long wavelengths for communication as it suits the aquatic environment. These days I wouldn't be surprised if comms were digitized, coded, compressed and delivered via what we used to call a "databurst" designed to be untraceable. The systems I was familliar with used a one-time-pad for secure comms. It was a good system, I wouldn't be surprised if it was still used.

[Shogun]

Ask yourself, does the submerged bow wave from a submarine travelling a few hundred metres below the surface leave a detectable impression on the surface, or make a significant difference to the shape of the waves where it meets the surface,....

Well, it really depends on a lot of factors.

[phlogistician]

Not really no.

Most submarines can't even communicate while submerged below 20 meters without a buoy.


Even then its only a one way transmission from the surface to the submarine.

Er dude?

[fedr808]

Er dude?

Phlo, water isn't exactly the best environment to transmit radio messages in.

[phlogistician]

Phlo, water isn't exactly the best environment to transmit radio messages in.

Er dude? Did I say the vessel doing the detecting was a sub?