Any chance BNAS to stay open? (Auburn, Brunswick: university, live, train)

[Valley Living]

Just a suggestion. I would be very careful with any information regarding any base on this website/forum considering it is accessible by any person with internet access. I understand this is not top secret or classified information however I would still be very careful..

Remember this is JMHO

[quiet walker]

Thank You,

I was writing a post on the History, What were you doing on 9/11 thread when I thought that some towel head in a cave might be reading and enjoying the thread. Didn't post

[Valley Living]

Who knows that "cave" may be set up with a wireless router system and a ferrari labtop for his amusement. If anything, I will continue be on a personal mission to make this guy miserable. That means to protect this country at all cost even popularity.

Thank you for your support quite walker.

[flycessna]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

It was an effort to make our quiet sub to generate the level of noise that a soviet sub produces.

I've followed aviation quite a bit...both russian and us. We pretty much had it all over them as far as technology goes....better radar, weapon systems, electronics..ect...but they had some redeemable qualities too...more bang for the buck compared to us...they could produce a lote more planes that were, not necessarily great, but were good over all for a LOT less money than us. And the planes were pretty rugged. They did have great ejection seat technology early on though, and their mig 25 "foxbat" (intercepter for our bomber) still holds altitude records....could climb almost 60k in one minute. and their mig 29, su27, and hind helecopter have been impressive...but this was probably after they stole our technology

I was wondering if their approach to subs was the same....mass production of good but not great subs...and if the best way to track them..was with another sub.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by flycessna

I've followed aviation quite a bit...both russian and us. We pretty much had it all over them as far as technology goes....

I prefer to think of their tech is different not better of worse, so much as different.

When a consortium of engineers can manage to agree to any one design, then later groups of engineers want to 'up-date' that design. They can never disregard the work of the previous.

Science does this too. We have spent centuries with teachers propounding 'junk' science, because once a group of authorities agree to the junk, it takes huge piles of evidence proving they were wrong before the system can correct itself.

So it is with many areas of life.

Today our FDA has staked it's claim on one level of Iodine as being the appropriate RDA, and saying that anymore and it becomes toxic. While Japan set their RDA for Iodine at 100 times higher than ours. The difference? We have a 10 times higher rate of glandular cancers then they do, due to our lack of Iodine.

So it is with our naval engineers. Our naval engineers like the idea of sub hulls that have flex. They think that spring steel is cool. Our hulls can be four inches thick, but when diving deep they compress like the spongy springs of an old Ford. So all of our decks are suspended from shock absorbers, and nothing is solid mounted to the hulls. Because the hulls must be free to change size at will.

Since everything is suspended, they noticed that less sound gets transmitted to the hull. So they went crazy suspending things within frames that were already suspended, just to see how much of the vibration could be dampened. Then 'tuned' weights to dampen the vibrations even more. Then rubber mounts, then, ...

The idea of shrinking hulls just scares the heebies out of Russian sailors and engineers alike. They want hulls that are hard and braced and would not flex under any conditions. So they use a high Titanium alloy. So much so that they ran the world's supply of Titanium low. Their hulls don’t flex either and they mount everything solid to those hulls.

While we have Steam turbines and HUGE generators all suspended in the air and they will occasionally bounce. Theirs are encased by mounts and bracing.

We each followed totally different schools of thought in how to develop subs.

Their subs are hard [and brittle] and transmit every vibration, every door slam, and every grinding pump bearing.

Our subs flex so much that with repeated deep dives the hulls become brittle and subject of fractures.

We developed the science of sonar. We like sonar, so we put sonar on everything, including on our torpedoes.

They developed ion-tracing. Anything that moves through the water will leave a wake of 'disturbed' ions. So they put that stuff on everything. Including their torpedoes.

Our torpedoes can go into a spiral with their sonar actively looking for any target. When they discover a target, they kick into high speed and go. [Better hope it was not you that it decided to lock-onto]. So we need high-tech math to calculate where we think an enemy is. We send the fish out to that area, then let it do it's own seek program to find who is in that area.

Their torpedoes 'wake-follow'. They run in a straight line, until they cross a wake, then they turn 90degrees into the wake, they will zig-zag back and forth across that wake right up until it hits your screw.

Two completely different schools of thought.

And even though they have done wonders with wake-following, our authorities insist that it is junk science and stupid, "it will never work". Yet it clearly does.

As for our ASW, I am an ET, and while I do understand the theory of a Bernoulli hump in the water. I can not picture any SLAR radar that is honestly going to detect a hump in the water that is a 1/16 inch tall in the center, 50 meters wide with sloping sides, and that moves at two knots. My own internal B.S. meter pegs any time that I have read about that entire 'technology'. You can only see it from looking at the curvature of the earth, you must be 100 miles away from the area that you are focusing on, and you need glassy smooth seas.

Any time that an airplane wants to go down three to eight thermal-layers to listen for the sounds that are channeled in those layers, they certainly are welcome to try.

... I was wondering if their approach to subs was the same....mass production of good but not great subs...and if the best way to track them..was with another sub.

I like foil-fencing. I have competed, I have a few trophies, and I have coached a high school fencing team. When competing in ‘Olympic-style’ foil-fencing you are on a court that is roughly three foot wide and thirty foot long, and you compete with other fencers. Foil against foil. When I have practiced for a few months I become very confident in my fencing ability, and I feel that I could take on anyone.

However if I were to face someone else who is equally good with a sling-shot [me with a foil, him with a sling-shot] and we were not restricted to an ‘Olympic-style’ fencing court, then it may well be an entirely different matter.

So it is with subs.

We have team trainers, control room simulators where the entire control party of one sub can practice. The entire room looks and feels like a sub, it tilts and yaws, it shakes, it does everything. And we will go into these trainers and ‘train’ against the computer through various casualties. They can program the trainer to react exactly like your sub, so whatever you do, however you try to handle a scenario it will follow through appropriately. Or two sub crews will go into trainers next door to each other, and the computer will ‘put’ us in the same pond so we can hunt each other. It is pitting our high tech, against our own high-tech. Identical sub against identical sub. Or 688 American sub against 640 American sub.

We have developed our own styles and techniques, using our technologies.

However they play against each other too, and they have developed entirely different styles that are determined by their technologies.

When I have pointed out that we should be practicing against their subs which use their techniques, I have been reminded that I am not an officer, I am a mere peasant and we do not need to practice against that since our tech is so much superior to theirs. The aristocracy knows much better how to fight battles.

The two fleets have done a great deal of cat and mouse with each other.

Our officers tend to feel very much superior with our tech and our abilities.

However in the deep blue we do not always come out the superior.

For some reason our ‘superiority’ is not enough to gain consistent wins. In fact it rarely gains a 'win'.

I have examples though I am not at liberty to discuss them.

[Maineah]

Extremely interesting post forest beekeeper. You're extremely knowledgeable and well versed in many subjects!

[flycessna]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

I have examples though I am not at liberty to discuss them.

Would you have to kill me Very interesting stuff!!

[Zymer]

"As for our ASW, I am an ET, and while I do understand the theory of a Bernoulli hump in the water. I can not picture any SLAR radar that is honestly going to detect a hump in the water that is a 1/16 inch tall in the center, 50 meters wide with sloping sides, and that moves at two knots. My own internal B.S. meter pegs any time that I have read about that entire 'technology'. You can only see it from looking at the curvature of the earth, you must be 100 miles away from the area that you are focusing on, and you need glassy smooth seas."

Slar may be great for mapping the surface of the earth, and detecting targets on the sea surface such as oil slicks, large icebergs and ships, but I also would doubt the usefulness of it for detecting underwater targets. Using the AN/APS-135 (X-Band, 9250MHz) and the MSS 5000 for real-time recording and display (which degrades the image due to compression), not only is it difficult to distinguish whether a *surface* target is a ship or an iceberg, but has difficulty detecting targets less than 15 meters in length at all, depending on sea state, I too would have some trouble believing it could distinguish a 1/16th inch difference.

Detecting underwater targets presents even more difficulty, since different densities of the layers would have different reflectivity. While this could, perhaps, be somewhat mitigated by varying the pulse length and beam width, I doubt that it would be enough to be satisfactory.

While the newer Selex 7500 Sea Spray radar with its synthetic aperture is claimed to be "as capable" as a combination of the AN/APS-135 SLAR and the AN/APS-137 FLAR, it doesn't seem to me that it would be any improvement for underwater detection.

"...When I have pointed out that we should be practicing against their subs which use their techniques, I have been reminded that I am not an officer, I am a mere peasant and we do not need to practice against that since our tech is so much superior to theirs. The aristocracy knows much better how to fight battles."

Sounds like the Officers in the Navy are a bit different from the Army.

LOL, no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy anyway. I'm glad that, in the Army, the "aristocracy" left me alone (for the most part) so long as the mission accomplished the desired results. "How" the results were obtained was less important than the fact that they *were* obtained.

We studied Soviet tactics in-depth to learn how to best counter them.

[quiet walker]

After _long_ comprehensive and highly detailed discussion and descriptions of many sensitive DOD technologies and strategies were posted here on the World Wide Web the poster wrote...

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

...
"I have examples though I am not at liberty to discuss them."

[Maineah]

Originally Posted by quiet walker

After _long_ comprehensive and highly detailed discussion and descriptions of many sensitive DOD technologies and strategies were posted here on the World Wide Web the poster wrote...

Just think of how much more advanced they are if he can't discuss them.