Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jon Ekdahl 2026
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups





















« More Weird Stuff: "Numbers Stations" | Main | Michael Moore Wins "People's" Choice Awards »
January 09, 2005

Penn State University Researching "Patriot Missile For Torpedoes"

Harvard University banned military research, so the Pentagon found a university whose sensibilities weren't quite so delicate:

Engineers from Penn State University's Applied Research Laboratory and the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center prepare the anti-torpedo torpedo prototype for sea trials in 2000 at a test range off the coast of Keyport, Wash. The second generation prototype is undergoing land-based testing and will face another set of sea trials in 2006.

A landlocked university in Central Pennsylvania seems an unlikely birthplace for the first new torpedo in about two decades.

When the anti-torpedo torpedo begins defending U.S. warships in about six years, however, the weapon system will be a Pennsylvania native.

"For about 10 years, we've been working on the underwater equivalent of a Patriot missile," said Tom Goodall, a researcher working on the Penn State University project. "If a Navy ship should be fired on, this anti-torpedo torpedo will go out and destroy the incoming torpedo."

The Navy started looking in the 1980s for a torpedo that could pinpoint the whisper of an enemy torpedo in the water. The Navy picked Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory in 1992 to come up with the technology that would make such an anti-torpedo torpedo possible.

In this budget year alone, the lab is getting nearly $16 million for its work.

The lab has been a naval research center from its inception in 1945.

When Harvard University restored its prohibition against doing classified scientific research at the end of World War II, the Navy started searching for another university to house Harvard's successful Underwater Sound Laboratory.

In a handshake deal, Penn State agreed to accept the laboratory, and about 100 scientists responsible for developing the first acoustic homing torpedo moved to Pennsylvania.

Originally called the Ordnance Research Laboratory, the facility is now known as the Applied Research Laboratory and studies just about every aspect of naval technology.

A challenging prospect

Building a torpedo that can intercept an enemy torpedo offers a noisy challenge, says Leo Schneider, director of the Applied Research Laboratory's Torpedo Defense Program.

To do its job, the anti-torpedo torpedo must first hear the sound of a torpedo in the water -- and an ocean is far from quiet.

In addition to an ocean's normal clicks, whistles and other background noises, naval combat throws in propeller noises, sonar pings and bubbling countermeasures specifically meant to confuse torpedo homing systems.

Schneider compares the underwater chatter of naval combat to attending a rock concert where three bands are playing at the same time.

"Do it in a tunnel, so it's all bouncing around," added Goodall, the liaison between the lab and private companies working on the project.

Amid all of that noise, the anti-torpedo torpedo must pick out the faint sound of a torpedo's propeller.

"You have a friend (at the concert) in a seat 25 feet away from you, whispering and trying to have a conversation with you, and you're trying to pick that whisper out of that cacophony," Schneider said.

Schneider says the lack of direct ocean access isn't much of an obstacle. On the anti-torpedo torpedo project, the lab fed nearly six decades of underwater data into computer simulations that helped it test several ideas.

"The model allows you to do the preliminary sorting," he said.

Picking a few of the best ideas, the lab started turning them into hardware. Even then, most of the testing is land-based -- in the tanks that are the naval equivalent of wind tunnels.

The project is in a land-based testing phase that will run through next year. The next round of sea trials will start in 2006.

So far, the lab's design has passed all of its tests.

But for every advance in defense there's an advance in offense, and the offense generally has the advantage. Whether this is true or simply Russian disinformation I of course can't say, but this 2001 Newsmax article claims that the Russians have created a "supersonic" torpedo-- or, if not quite supersonic in water (where sound travels 4.5 times as fast as in the air), then at least incredibly fast:

Russia has developed new submarine-launched torpedos that travel at incredible speeds – perhaps as fast as the speed of sound underwater. Scientific American reports in its May edition that these supersophisticated weapons have been linked to the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk last August, and even to the arrest and imprisonment of Edmond Pope.

Pope, an American businessman, was charged by Russian authorities with spying, specifically that he had sought to buy plans for the "ultrahigh-speed torpedo."

The magazine reports that "evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour – in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water. The swiftest traditional undersea technologies, in contrast, are limited to a maximum of about 80 mph."

The new technology that allows for these incredible speeds is "is based on the physical phenomenon of supercavitation."

According to Scientific American, the new generation of torpedos, some believed capabale of carrying nuclear warheads, are surrounded by a "renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag" on the torpedo.

The new technology "could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles."

In 1997 Russia announced that it had developed a high-speed unguided underwater torpedo, which has no equivalent in the West.

Code-named the Shkval or "Squall," the Russian torpedo reportedly travels so fast that no U.S. defense can stop it.

In late 2000, after the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, new reports began circulating that the Chinese navy had bought the Shkval torpedo.

Obviously it will be more difficult to track a torpedo's sound signature if the torpedo is travelling faster, or nearly as fast, as the speed of sound.

And hitting such a fast-mover is bound to be a problem as well.

More: Dave from Garfield Ridge has an interesting analysis of the "supersonic torpedo" -- including its manifold liabilities -- in the first comment below.


posted by Ace at 02:48 PM
Comments



The Shkval's strength is also its weakness. It travels so fast that it can't be wire-guided, and with such noise (cavitation=bad) that it can't independently seek out targets via even active sonar.

This wasn't an issue with the first generation of Shkval, as they were nuclear armed. Close enough for horseshoes was good enough for that weapon.

The problem arises with the conventional version. The target has to be detected and plotted to a reasonable location, and the rocket has to be trusted to intercept the right spot.

Against other submarines maneuvering in three-dimensions, even at the speeds the Shkval swims that's a pretty tall order unless you're doing a snapshot in a knife-fight. However, against big surface targets (think American carriers; the Chinese do), the Shkval works just fine (on paper at least). Like an updated version of unguided World War I & II era torpedoes.

The few things I've read in the open press (Janes, etc.) state that the countermeasures against this Shkval involve rapid detection (easy, as soon as the rockets kick in) followed by rapid unpredictable maneuver. The one active countermeasure I've seen considered involves firing a form of rocket mortars into the water to create a debris field in the path of the rocket-- at that speed, anything solid the rocket hits is liable to knock it off course, or destroy/damage it. Trouble there is that it's a big 3-dimensional ocean.

The Shkval and similar weapons are not something to sleep easy about, but they're not miracle weapons either (if they were, we'd have fielded something like it-- but our threats are other submarines, not carrier battlegroups. The technology doesn't fit, at least not until we can create a supercavitating cloak for an entire submarine-- offering one helluva turbo boost in combat).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on January 9, 2005 03:11 PM

It's hard to post anything after reading something by someone who knows what they're talking about. Way to kill the thread, Dave.

Posted by: Sobek on January 9, 2005 07:51 PM

Yeah, I was going to say they probably go to fast to be guided with precision, but noooooo, Dave had to go and totally blanket the entire area with excellent analysis. Thanks a lot, Dave.

Posted by: rdbrewer on January 9, 2005 09:10 PM

I suddenly remember the wisdom of Bluto Blutarsky after he smashed the hippie's guitar:

"Sorry."

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on January 10, 2005 12:02 AM

Actually, the US has already done work on it. In 1997, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island launched one that goes some 5000+ ft per second, according to here:

http://www.stratmag.com/issueMay-15/page02.htm

although googling for " 'naval undersea warfare center' supercavitating torpedo" didn't turn up that many other interesting hits. It might be that it's really a bullet (i.e. speed reached/maintained via gun but otherwise no internal propulsion) rather than a torpedo (i.e. speed reached/maintained by the projectile as well such as with an internal rocket like the Shkval), as I'm misdefining those terms. Of course, far as I know, the US hasn't deployed any operationally, so apparently the Russians were quicker on the ball than us.

One link that talked about it at some depth was:

http://www.diodon349.com/Kursk-Memorial/Warpdrive_underwater.htm

which, interestingly enough, also credits the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University for supercavitation work. Too bad for Harvard.

As a complete topic drift (but slightly related because of cavitation!), my fluid mechanics class was taught by Dr. Chris Brennen, who does a lot of cavitation work (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~brennen/resume/papers.htm), so he described how depth charges work in detail. Essentially, the explosion produces a cavitated bubble, which quickly collapses, but because of the mechanics of the collapse, it produces a jet of water which automatically seeks out any solids nearby to shoot itself toward -- and fast. So this jet of water is actually the deadly part, not necessarily the explosion that produced it. This is also why underwater propellers "age" pretty quickly, because when they're run at higher speeds, the water cavitates around them, thus producing thousands of tiny bubbles that collapse into thousands of tiny jets of water that constantly ping the propellers and dent them. Pretty interesting stuff, but don't know if it's as interesting as supercavitating torpedoes, or Harvard banning protective research (I mean, the US applications are more toward using supercavitating bullets to shoot underwater mines safely from the air, right? although it easily has offensive capabilities as well), so sorry if you want your minute of reading this paragraph back. I wanted to put something more interesting but googling "how depth charges work" only returned a single hit about Pokemon.

Posted by: Vanshalar on January 12, 2005 09:18 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: CBD and Sefton discuss the obvious incompatibility of Islam with free societies, John Bolton is a disloyal sleaze, The SAVE Act is in the muck of Senate RINOs, the crappy quality of anti-American propaganda, and more!
Some people liked Candace Owens because she was a black woman who told hard truths about BLM and black criminality. But this was always a grift. She started out as a race hustler for a grift, then hustled race the other way to grift conservatives, and now she's back to being a race-hustler for the left again. Specifically, she is now claiming that people pointing out that she is legitimately low-IQ and can't pronounce half the words her AI-generated teleprompter script points out to her is racist and just Ben Shapiro's way of saying the n-word without quite saying it. You see, you can only say that black people are smart, and if you see a dumb one that doesn't know how to pronounce simple words while she poses as an investigatory journalist, you have to pretend she's actually smart or you're a racist. Weird, that doesn't sound very conservative, let alone "#Based," to me. To prove how much she hates racism, she then says that Ben Shapiro's Jew ancestors were masters of the slave trade.
The Oscars: A celebration of thanking. Dave Barry nails it! [CBD]
Ami Kozak: Every single Tucker Carlson episode consists of him claiming he didn't say the things he said in the last episode
Also: this is the manipulation Tucker does that i hate the most. It's so cowardly. All he does is smear people (and Jews, generally), and then claim "I have nothing against [the person or group I just smeared.]" He'll even claim "I love [x], actually." Just again and again and again. It's all a lie, of course. A year ago he smeared Jews but added how beautiful he thought Israel was, and then two weeks ago, he said Israel is ugly as dog-shit and nothing beautiful has been built there "since 1948."
Just got this email from Dracula: "I love Van Helsing, actually, he's one of my personal heroes, if I'm being honest. I will claw the heart out of his belly and bathe in his blood before the children of Babylon, but I have nothing but respect for Van Helsing, actually. Love is the answer. Except for the followers of the Christ whom I am commanded to turn into my dark army of Satan. And I totally don't worship Satan, I just think we should listen to both sides. Hugs and kisses, may Van Helsing burn in the blood-red fires of hell throughout eternity, even though I consider him a close and dear friend, Vlad called Dracul."
New CPAC Treasured Guest Speaker drops
He was hard to book, given all of his current commitments, but CPAC landed the man of the hour!
Ana Navarro, on Abby Phillip's show: the terrorists attempted an attack on the Muslim Zohran Mamdani
The usually-reliable Batya-Ungar Sargon is claiming this was an innocent mistake by Abby Phillip but Phillip did not correct Navarro when she lied about the target of the attack.
Recent Comments
Bertram Cabot, Jr.: " [i]"Shipping Up To Boston"[/i] Rush Limbaugh ..."

Thomas Bender: "Pie is Apple, Blueberry and Shepard. ..."

banana Dream [/i]: "That may very well be the gayest sounding asian ma ..."

tankdemon: "Did anybody else notice that Mr. PI Day video host ..."

Hour of the Wolf: "Not from Boston, but a fine music video for a grea ..."

PA Dutchman : "Apple, pecan and I'll add shoo fly for me ..."

Huck Follywood: "I think I'll kick back and see what is on the Ocho ..."

Common Tater: "I'll take a berry pie every time but pray there ar ..."

Doof: "[I] November 1979, Capitol Center, Landover, MD. ..."

GWB: "French dude was "WTF is THAT?!" Waving his arms li ..."

San Franpsycho: "I just cannot understand anyone who likes the wron ..."

Diogenes: "Thanks for the ONT and may the wind remain at your ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives