Even more amazing, only a month later (or before) two satellites collided in LEO. Literally astronomical odds, and the two incidents happened so soon after one another as well.
In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
41–50 of 108 posts
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a technique for finding nuclear submarines from space by using satellites to look for the hot water exhaust from the nuclear reactors.
Let me get this straight - there's a technique for detecting changes in the surface temperature of the water from a submarine that's probably hundreds of meters below the surface?
Yes.
There are also magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD) and various wake detection approaches.
Do these work all always? Probably not. But they work often enough to be researched and used.
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC9bMgCQyFNaMPsK9GtzM5dQ is a good starting point.
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#43Surprisingly, no side was assigned the blame for the collision. Unlike air traffic or surface navy accident. One had a conning tower damage, the other had a bow damage; both were supposedly slow-moving at the moment. Is there such thing as right of way for subs?
Both are western power countries. Blame gets assigned when the others are a part of it. The headline also would've read: Disaster averted as our forces save the day..
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#44Pie in the sky ideas here... but how far is active sonar effective for? Can you launch a probe that enables active sonar some 50-100 miles away, and radios the results back? Or would the depth prevent any type of radio communication...or is active sonar not that long-range?
This whole field is really fascinating to think about.
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...They're basically swimming blind. It did appear just like that. Shouldn't there be some proximity sensors to avert collisions with massive bodies? After all in the aftermath both subs were rendered mission incapable.
How would the proximity sensors work? The can’t go active sonar…
Optical, perhaps? How much light is at these depths? How do the subs avoid terrain?
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#46Are they really not detectable from space?
I won't say modern submarines can or cannot be detected from space, but this should give you some ideas about what is publicly known: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spotting%20submarines%20using%20ma...
This is fairly open secrets to the degree that it is secret at all so it probably also is no big secret that passive and active countermeasures are used to prevent these techniques.
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can hear them, they've already found you
Surely not. The submarine with the larger more sensitive instruments in a quieter environment ought to be able to detect sound levels below that which their active opposition can. If X amount of noise-energy hits the submarine, it only reflects Y Both of these weigh in favor of the submarine detecting the searcher before the searcher detects the submarine.
I'm fully willing to admit I'm talking out my ass here, but does it not make sense to assume that both a) the active drones are going to be much faster than a submarine trying to maintain silence, and b) there are likely to be many drones converging from different directions if they're searching a known submarine parking spot? Still seems like advantage drones to me
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can hear them, they've already found you
Surely not. The submarine with the larger more sensitive instruments in a quieter environment ought to be able to detect sound levels below that which their active opposition can. If X amount of noise-energy hits the submarine, it only reflects Y Both of these weigh in favor of the submarine detecting the searcher before the searcher detects the submarine.
... so the sub discovers the active buoy 0.66 seconds sooner for every kilometer of distance between them.
I don't imagine that knowing you'll be detected 40 seconds before they know you've been detected changes the tactical situation a whole lot.
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no parking spots. Ballistic missile submarines conducting deterrence patrols are assigned to large areas covering hundreds of square nautical miles. The sub then maneuvers inside that patrol area to remain as hidden as possible. They almost never stop as it's easier to maintain depth control with at least a few knots of steerageway. So a collision in open ocean is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.…
> There are no parking spots. Ballistic missile submarines conducting deterrence patrols are assigned to large areas covering hundreds of square nautical miles ... So a collision in open ocean is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. It's misleading to describe collisions as "theoretically possible" when we have evidence that these collisions have occurred. The fact that collisions have occurred makes me think…
You missed the point. The collision covered in this article occurred relatively close to port, not during an open ocean patrol.
A ballistic missile submarine's position isn't completely random, but they do move around somewhat randomly to reduce the risk of detection. They intentionally avoid repeating movement patterns or lingering in the same spot. And this also reduces the risk from spies on land. If a spy sees the patrol orders he'll only know a large general area but won't precisely know the submarine's position at any time.
Re: In 2009, Two Nuclear Submarines Collided Under the Sea (2016)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would the proximity sensors work? The can’t go active sonar…
Optical, perhaps? How much light is at these depths? How do the subs avoid terrain?
I remember (barely) from a diver friend that colors disappear below 20 meters (everything appears blue, unless a bright light is shone), and sun light disappears completely below 70 meters. You'd assume that an optical system with flood lights could theoretically work, but then it would be pretty simple to monitor for light at these depths (for counter-intelligence/retaliatory purposes)