Submarines are becoming the new stealth weapons. Not only are they cheaper than stealth aircraft, but they potentially have a greater range. Recently USA was surprised in sea war games by not being able to detect French and Chinese submarines which could have posed a danger to aircraft carriers. China is marketing submarines to third world countries at ~ $ 350 million each. http://www.economist.com/news/scien...submarines-pushing-navies-concoct-better-ways
Interesting article, especially the part about drones becoming past of anti sub warfare. Good find. When I was living in Puerto Rico I used to go to a bar not far from Roosevelt Roads and a lot of Navy pilots would also go there. I used to ask them what they did and sub hunting was often their answer. They told me they used more than sonobuoys, they also searched for subs by looking for their magnetic field, and, check this out, the slight bulge they create in the water can be detected.
Newsflash...that was always the case. Skimmers and airdales could never find us until we shot them...not airdales but the carriers they took off from. This is not news to anyone in the know.
well not to shift this away from submarines, but I've always wondered why they never came up with nuclear aircraft that could essentially fly indefinitely... now I've always assumed the risk was, they are afraid if it gets shot down, suddenly someone has some form of nuclear power or weaponry in the form of that planes power plant, whereas sinking a submarine pretty much puts it at the bottom of the ocean and likely only current nuclear powers could every recover something like that if even possible... but its always been amazing to me I haven't seen anyone give it a try in some method that would seem to be safe by using non-weapons grade power plants, or would that just be so much bulk and weight it would effectively make the aircraft unrealistic? I remember reading old WWII literature about them experimenting with this, but nothing since...
There is sufficient info in the internet on the matter: US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft Russian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL Both ships stay in the air for 50 hours or so, afterwards you want to land and do maintenance. In-Air refuel will keep you up if you really want to It is tempting to replace 100 000kilos of petrol with 2-3 grams of uranium, but associated headache is horrible. The aircraft will crash, due to one reason or another, sooner or later. But not forgotten, rumors say US wants its nuclear powered drones, Russians want a reactor on a zeppelin, e.t.c. Ether a riteg or a reactor dont know.
if 50 hours is the longest they can justify before "maintenance" is deemed necessary, that kind of defeats the "months at sea" a nuclear submarine goes through...
In Cali DECADES ago it was common to see an Orion, with the extension for Magnetic Anomoly detector (MAD) at the tail. Newer subs try to have LESS magnetic signature but then the detectors evolved since the Orions were made 40+ yr ago. We have silent Attack Subs that can hunt + kill hostile subs. We use torpedoes and drones that can PING. subs hate to ping.. it gives away their presence and position. Sonobouys, dip probes.. let helicopters ping. While there's better defenses against ping detection...you still can't fully VANISH. Clancy's classic, Red October does a real good job explaining the tech.. and the Tech has not stood still. Military tech......often until the Shyt hits the fan you can't really compare. The Gulf war showed that. Saddams Mig 29's were supposed to be TOUGH. His sams.. Tough, his T-72's.... tough. How'd that go? It was like the Warriors playing a Junior College team.
The STUFF of a reactor is HEAVY. I doubt it's cost effective, safe, practical.. but.. maybe in the future for SOME role? Anything that FLYS.. weight matters. - - - Updated - - -
Weight is not such a big issue. The Peacemaker B-36, the Bear Tu-95 are roughly the same, they take roughly 80tons of fuel in full load. If you replace this load with a reactor, you should have around 80 + tons of weight to play with to fit the reactor in these planes. B-36 reactor was roughly 16tons, no details on Russian system but it should be the same. Soooo, if you strip B36 of fuel – 80 tons, fuel systems and tanks (no idea), and replace it with a reactor of 16 tons, and associated cooling, piping, shielding, lets say 30tons (a wild guess), you could still win around 30-40 tons… And that is an enormous win… It is doubling the payload... In the future – definitely. There is no doubt that reactors are bound to go in space. Miniaturization, new materials, drones, eventually they will be more and more accepted by public opinion. Public opinion is limiting their use much more, than technical difficulties.
There's more than just silence, speed and depth are crucial as well. The thermoclines in the Ocean dictate sound profiles. The deeper you can go the more likely you are to be able to exploit different thermoclines and "muffle" your sound. Russians preferred depth while the US preferred more silent running. Both were very versatile and viable in their own ways.
When nuclear powered satellites crash to the earth they become a major hazard and pose a risk to wherever they land. And they do land, and there are response teams to deal with them. And they are extremely deadly. I remember watching one such clean-up crew in eastern Europe in the 90s where the several hikers who found the object had died days later due to exposure. Now you want to put that (*)(*)(*)(*) on an aircraft and fly it around in combat?
so this is the one message of mine you reply to? and you ignore the dozens of other messages in direct response to threads you start and you ignore when I tackle your missing facts and incorrect statements? and this is the one you decide to respond to, when I said I was always curious why people never pursued military aircraft with nuclear power to remain in the air for weeks or months at a time? are you worried about submarines or nuclear plants scattered all over the countries of the world, or you just worried about planes which could use such a small amount it would not only be easily contained and cleaned up, it wouldn't impact more than the crash site... but I get it, attack me outside of the threads you started and were challenged within, instead find someplace outside those threads where you can make something into a dramatic moment where none exists... I'm still waiting on DOZENS of responses from emotional tirade threads you've started and conveniently ignored me on when confronted...
In peacetime, the use of active sonar is heavily restricted and regulated. In wartime, those subs would have been toast.
Look at his post history. He trolls military threads and floods it with his "firefighting knowledge". He's a sad man who was rejected by the military so he had to settle for something else.
he trolls everything, he posts threads to demonize others and provoke a response... and then when you lambaste his facts and information, he goes silent, but he'll keep attacking the others who leave the door wide open to subjective opinion... he never responds to postings that destroy the information he posted, he only responds to subjective opinion responses where he can spin and deflect quite well, he's good at ripping apart subjective responses, he completely ignores the objective, because he can't demonize and vilify you... hence why I am still waiting for dozens of replies from him on other threads he started when I confront his "evidence" on something, yet he has all the time in the world to jump on others, and almost always ignores any of my responses ripping apart his facts... he's troll of the year...
The Economist is a credible publication, and it's certainly possible that stealth has gained the upper hand over detection in recent years. But I'm always skeptical of claims that some new generation of foreign sub can magically defeat our detection methods. It's been claimed hundreds of times in the past, and never actually panned out. As someone else noted, was the fleet actively pinging? Reasonably sure they weren't in the case of the Chinese sub. Maybe in the case of the French sub -- but maybe not. Environmental concerns may have restricted its use in that training exercise -- particularly if they were training on something specific, and going all out to locate the French sub wasn't the point. I'm especially skeptical because the Saphir is 30 years old. I don't see how it would have suddenly become invisible.
I'm not here to mock or belittle him for a life or no life, it doesn't matter, what matters is he trolls subjective responses because thats how he is able to dominate and control others because he is more skilled at manipulating and steering conversations away from the claims he's made, when confronted on his claims, he's incapable of supporting or demonstrating their validity because they are based on this very style of manipulation and steering in order to dominate and control... its how he feels smart and justified in his thoughts, when he's forced to reflect on his thoughts, and realize they are incorrect, he attempts to spin and deflect rather than support and substantiate those claims, because he can't, he's knowledge is limited and his skills are only to manipulate others, so he reverts back to his skill to steer you away offtopic in order to keep the power and control... its a good strategy, many fall for it on this website, and in real life, I suspect its how he's achieved most of his gains in life...
My threads are extremely popular and receive a lot of replies from dead-beat fake soldiers. Sorry if I can't keep-up with whatever else you replied thinking deserving of more merit. You're lucky I even noticed you. Nuclear powered submarines are less of an issue because their reactor cores are buried under thousands of feet of water when there is a problem. And that in effect contains the problem. For a long time the US buried nuclear waste just by dropping cans of nuclear waste to slam into the sea floor and get embedded in the sediment. I was just pointing out an obvious absurdity to think that a Nuclear Powered aircraft would somehow be equivalent to a nuclear powered submarine in terms of safety.
I must be Obama with how much power and blame you have burdened me with over your universe. The reality is I'm just at work and reply haphazardly. I originally had more interest in THIS thread, but was unable to return to it due to the "intensity" of replies in that female soldier thread, and due to work related activities. As such this thread got totally shelved and I only now just got back around to it. I replied to the comment, and didn't even know who wrote it, I still don't even know what other comments you wrote to me, I usually don't look at the name and just reply to what is written.
