In the sea they can not hide. About radar detection of submarines

Common in the article "Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse" information that a submarine in a submerged (submerged) position can be detected by means of radiolocation caused a certain stir, and even a response - the article "On the collapse of the Russian Navy and new methods of detecting submarines".

It is necessary to clarify the situation with this effect once and for all, so that the question of whether a submarine can be found in the submerged state using surface or airborne radar will no longer arise, as well as the desire to call this method "new."

Information handling techniques require that all data sources be divided into groups according to the degree of verifiability, after which, if possible, their cross-checking is necessary. In our case, the amount of available information is large enough to make such a check.

Scientific substantiation of the possibility of detecting an underwater object using radar.

Blog author shoehanger did a great job collecting references to scientific publications, justifying the possibility of such a search. In order:

1. Stefanic, Non-Submarine Submarine Detection Techniques, 1988 Year, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24989015?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

2. Potter, Various promising non-conventional submarine detection methods, 1999 year, http://arl.nus.edu.sg/twiki6/pub/ARL/BibEntries/Potter1999b.pdf.

On the physics of turbulence determination:

3. George and Tantalum, Measurement of turbulence of mixed currents in the ocean using a synthetic aperture radar, 2012 year, https://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/9/2851/2012/osd-9-2851-2012-print.pdf.

4. Tyunal, Bernoulli Hump, Submarine Created, 2015 Year, http://www.london-research-and-development.com/Bernoulli-Hump.pdf.

5. Here are links to the works of Tyunali: http://www.london-research-and-development.com/Ship-Wake.html.

6. Modern Chinese article. Liu and Jin, Mathematical modeling of registration using radar of the synthesized aperture of the wake of a submerged object, 2017 year, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7887099 (not available just for downloading).

Of course, you need knowledge of English.

It is worth noting that a really simple search using scientific terminology yields dozens of scientific papers, experiments, companies, etc., related to the detection of underwater objects using radar surface observation.

Then we return to the already published report for the US Navy: "A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES".

It also lists the theoretical rationale for what may be behind the effect of the appearance of anomalies on radar screens. The report lists one theory of the appearance of atmospheric effects above the PL location and four theories of the appearance of anomalies on the surface of the water, moreover, each of them is said to be “well-known”, that is, the authors of the report mention them as well-known.

The simplest headline cross-check shows that, for example, Jake Tyunalee, whose work is mentioned in the list above, investigated the very “Bernoulli Hump”, which is mentioned in the American 1975 report of the year. That is, the phenomenon is described in the old declassified report (superficially) made in the USA and in the English scientific publication 2015 of the year. Further, looking ahead, let us say that it is the Bernoulli effect that can generate the very “standing wave” which was the subject of research on the “Window” research in the USSR of the end of 80's. To this we will return.

What conclusion should we draw from all this? Simple: the effect of the appearance of anomalies on the surface of the water above a submarine moving in the depth has scientific justifications. Either it is necessary to refute the calculations of all the above authors (which, again, looking ahead, is impossible, since they have been checked many times. But the inquisitive reader may well try and refute).

So, conclusion number one: science does not just allow the effect under discussion, it confirms it.

Picture to attract attention. Some (not all!) Wave effects generated by moving submarines, including the so-called. Kelvin disturbance. Details and the mathematical apparatus are easily on request Kelwin Wake. A picture from the site of one of the companies of the American military industrial complex (you can easily understand what it does)

Moving on.

Now we need to determine the detection of submarines by observing surface anomalies in the radar range. Since everything connected with the submarine and anti-submarine warfare in the world is carefully kept secret, we must simply answer the question of whether there are documented evidences or not, without plunging into what they are and what they are about.

Everything is simple here - the American report that was already mentioned was classified before 1988, only military and defense contractors had access to it, it was written “for their own”, and in an extremely sensitive area of ​​anti-submarine defense, and it is assumed that it lists false (not incorrect, namely false) data at least silly. If this document were the only document relating to the topic under discussion, it could be entirely rejected as misinformation from the enemy, but, as we see, it is far from the only one. Accordingly, the question of whether there is documented data on the radar detection of submarines in the submerged state has to be answered in the affirmative: at least the US Navy has it. You can, of course, build a theory that the scientific articles listed above are correct, and the report is fake, but who would have thought of doing this and, most importantly, why?

So, conclusion number two: with a high degree of probability, the US Navy has a lot of behind-the-box statistics about the detection of submersibles in a submerged state using surface (and air) radar.

Moving on.

Anyone who has investigated or investigated, knows that unconfirmed documented rumors, stories, etc. may matter. At least some of them can be verified and subsequently documented (if they have access to the documents). In addition, the very fact of a large number of personal testimonies, even if inaccurate, which describe a phenomenon or something in a more or less similar way, is so-called. "Informational trail", and indicates that, with a high degree of probability, but the described phenomenon or event actually took place, in one form or another.

That is, in the documentary unconfirmed, but similar evidence, we are in a sense dealing with the stories of "wise men who felt the elephant blindfolded." They, these evidences, could be challenged, but, only if there were no “solid”, above-mentioned evidences, documented. And they are, and are mentioned above.

In the original article, the statements of Lieutenant-General Sokerin and the captain of the first rank Soldatenkov were given. In fact, such evidence at times more. There is no way to quote them, the format of the article simply does not provide for the placement of such an array of data.

Instead, we give a certain “amount” - something that can be established by assuming that the undocumented evidence is correct, and by creating one short “story.” Naturally, it is very difficult to collect the "squeeze" from the stories of US Navy veterans, especially given the frenzy with which the US Navy is still "dusting their eyes."

Therefore, below, the reader is offered a "squeeze" of what the officers of the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation said.

A few decades ago a case occurred in the USSR. The calculation of the air defense system for training "led" moving in the surface position of the Soviet EPTL (this is technically feasible). At a certain moment, the fighter, who was sitting at the radar screen and reporting on the movement of the “target”, heard in the headphones: “It’s already fifteen minutes since I plunged!” To which he had to answer with surprise: “I see it ...”

So the effect became known in the Soviet Union. Around the same years, strange marks on the water began to be detected by new ZGRLS. Analysis of the reports of the radar operators and comparing them with the reports of the crews of the Air Force and Navy aircraft located in the same areas showed that in some cases, and aviation observes strange toroidal or ring signals on radar screens. Aviators reported this as a radar defect and demanded to be eliminated, because nothing was visually detected on the water.

It is difficult to say who first “spliced” the data on the position of the submarines with the statistics of the detection of radar anomalies, but since the beginning of the 80-s, research on the radar search of submarines is called “made a move”. Presumably, even before this, a successful experiment was conducted to find its submarine in the ocean from space (it seems like it was K-14 in 1972), and in 1982, based on the data obtained during the "analysis" of anomalies and new satellites, Space Intelligence was able to track the US submarine in a submerged position.

For further development of the spaceborne detection radar systems, a flying laboratory was created on the basis of the Tu-134 aircraft, but unfortunately, this aircraft, together with a group of scientists involved in the issue, crashed. In domestic stories this catastrophe is known and even eat on wikipedia, there is not only the fact that it was a modification of a fallen aircraft - Tu-137IK (IR - "measuring complex"), it is also "aircraft-laboratory №400".

Only the following is mentioned.

As service passengers aboard the plane were specialists who participated in the creation of a system for tracking submarines installed on it, including the chief designer:
• F. A. Kulev.
• V. A. Frolov.
• V.P. Kalachev.
• V.M. Alekseev.
• V. A. Archakov.
• V.I. Kharlamov.

In fact, in the USSR, at the same time, all the leading specialists who worked on the topic together with a single instance of the experimental "board" died. This seriously slowed down the work on the concept and very “distorted” them.

Only in the middle of the 80-ies the work in the direction was restored, now by the forces of the MA of the Navy. For an understandable reason, sea pilots could not influence the space program of the USSR, and their efforts were concentrated on searching with the help of airplanes. Radar anti-submarine Tu-142 could not detect surface anomalies, but they were seen by the naval Tu-95, which were numerous in the USSR Navy. Soon, the tactics of searching for submarines using a radar signal from the surface were tested. A pair of planes, one Tu-95 and one Tu-142 took off to search, after which the Tu-95 spotted anomalies on the surface, and the Tu-142 immediately checked for the presence of a submarine anomaly.

It is not known exactly how frequent the “contacts” are, but in the 1986 year, the author of this method, V. Kravchenko, received the Order of the Red Banner. For this, yes.

Such results already required scientific development, and in the depths naval research institutes launched two research projects (R&D). R&D "Window" and R&D "Echo". Both set themselves the task of testing the reality of radar search of submerged submarines. The work was hard, the head of the topic was even attacked (repulsed) by forces, presumably by an American special group, with the aim of seizing documents on research and development in Vladivostok, but in the end, the topic "went". According to the program, at least one Be-12 from the Pacific Fleet's naval aviation was re-equipped, and "thrown" to solve real problems.

The result exceeded all possible expectations. The crew of the Be-12 just saw the submarine under water. The number of detections increased dozens of times, the Soviet submariners got the opportunity to play with the Americans in the same games that the Americans had played with before, for example, to recover lost contact for several hours, to hang on the tail for Americans for days on end data on the tactical situation for hundreds of miles around, chasing them as you please.

The basis of the method used in the “Window” program was the detection of a toroidal wave structure described by A. Semenov, already mentioned, who called it “Standing Wave”, and which, apparently, is generated by the very “Humpback Bernoulli”, mentioned as in the American report, and in the scientific works of Jake Tyunaly.

The results obtained were to form the basis of a new search and sighting complex, but the USSR soon collapsed, and the leaders of the new Russia did not have time for the fleet ...

It is worth believing Lieutenant-General Sokerin. Most likely, Americans have advanced much further in studying this effect. After all, they did not have a collapse, similar to the collapse of the USSR, and most importantly - they could "prop up" their radar equipment with their computing technology, in which they were in the lead and in the lead.

Soviet pilots were forced to peer at the concentric marks on the radar screens and decide whether it was or not.

The Americans, having accumulated detection statistics, could easily create computing equipment and software capable of “filtering” the anomalies generated by the submarine, from those that could occur for other reasons (for example, because of a large school of fish). in the USSR, they were held in Kamchatka in 70-x), and it was easy to display on the screens of a tactical situation approximate areas where the underwater target was located, in order to really just drop the buoy there and check everything.

Actually, something like that happened.

Today, these methods are polished by them so that they even no longer need to have a magnetometer on board the PLO aircraft. On the Poseidon, produced for the US Navy, it is simply not there, it is not needed, the submarines are perfectly and accurately detected without it. But on the export vehicles, with simplified avionics, Americans put a magnetometer. It is not in their interest to spread the technology that makes it possible to open the entire underwater situation over the water area the size of the Black Sea in a matter of hours.

The "squeeze" of undocumented messages is over.

Those who are involved in intelligence, naval aviation, the Navy, who fly to the interception of Americans from the structure of the VC, etc. competent people can confirm - The US Navy Basic Patrol Aircraft has gone to medium altitudes. It is a fact. They no longer need to go down in order to accurately set the buoy field, or a few buoys - this is left at the beginning of 80's. Now everything seems to be faster and easier ...

Such a shaft of information can not be ignored. The banal mention of the theme “Window” on the “Military Review” revealed a lot of people who were well aware of it, studied it in military schools, searched for submarines, using radar methods. Many were noted in the comments.

Russian pilots of naval aviation do not just know about the effect - they study it and use it as much as they can. The problem is extremely outdated search and targeting systems, many times inferior to those used by Americans at the end of the 80s.

Younger submariners often also know about this problem. Many submarine commanders know this.

But here, “several levels higher,” problems begin — those responsible for fleet development, for choosing what to finance, and so on. behave as if the described method of detecting submarines simply does not exist, and the boat is not enough to make noise so that it cannot be detected.

What is it fraught with? The fact that during combat operations, submarines will receive tasks based on the conditions of their non-detectability, and from the same conditions will be assigned to ensure the implementation of combat missions - aviation, for example.

And they will be completely detected, and it will not be very difficult.

Further understandable?

And we must understand that the capabilities of the basic anti-submarine aviation of the US Navy are "propped up" by satellite intelligence. And this is also their secret. True, it turns out sometimes funny:

New York Times, 11.05.1999

Since the beginning of the space age, most of the satellites have observed the Earth with cameras, which in principle are similar to those of any tourist. However, in 1978, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA launched A new satellite that took pictures of radio waves reflected from the surface of the planet.

Known as the Seasat, this satellite radar saw the land and the sea in a new way, his pictures revealed narrow lines in the ocean - traces left by the passage of ships and submarines. Somehow, it was possible to distinguish signs of deep turbulence from regular foam and waves of the sea.

The feats of Seasat suddenly ended in 1978, when the spacecraft unexpectedly descended 100 days, and the Pentagon became deeply ambivalent about its discoveries.

Well, of course, the fleet immediately lost interest in their discoveries, but of course. How could they have done differently? And of course we will believe them.

More (including new satellites) - Shoehanger, with reference to the original.

I would like to finish by quoting Sergei Gennadievich Roslyakov, the captain of the first rank, the former commander of the K-455 nuclear submarine, the former commander of the submarine division.

Back in 1985, I could not understand: WHY our submarine in the Pacific Ocean goes under the screws of civil 10 transport at the speed of 15 nodes (28 km per hour with a displacement in 5500 tone) and right to the speed in 5 nodes before the session. And above us "Orion-P3". At first I thought that this was the result of the operation of the US Navy low-frequency BPU buoys, which were in service with the BPA (Orion-P3c). But then there were other cases that disproved my opinion. And this is all in the sea, where ANYBODY will not help.
... Amerikosy "see" our submarines everywhere ...

So the captain of the first rank S.G. Roslyakov commented article “Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse "where radar detection of submarines was mentioned.

As they say, smart enough. And the rest can continue to pretend that all is well.

PS There are ways to combat the phenomenon and reduce the probability of detecting submarines in this way, but, for obvious reasons, no one in their right mind will talk about them. However, it is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to the problem. The time is almost over.

Comments

[Same lech]

The author raised an interesting topic, I agree with him in almost everything ... but here only specialists in this matter can say something substantial ... read scientific special articles, and even in English ... and even with mathematical calculations ... I have not grown to this yet.
Thanks to the author for a clear presentation of this topic.

[timokhin-aa]

Please

[Romario_Argo]

our Canopus spacecraft are just in this path and work on detecting nuclear submarines
1. in optical mode at depths up to 200 met
2. radar mode to depths of 400 meters
3. the mixed spectral mode determines the atomic footprint of the nuclear submarines, I don’t know the depths of the cooling system of nuclear submarines.

[timokhin-aa]

You don't write about good things, such sites not only read their own. The shortcomings must be revealed, the strengths, on the contrary, must be hidden. "War is a way of deception" (c)

[Alex_59]

Quote: timokhin-aa

You do not write about the good, such sites not only read their own. Weaknesses must be revealed, strengths, on the contrary, hidden.

Duck he is busy with it. Such a misfortune pushed about a civilian satellite photo that all enemies are in shock))))

[Starover_Z]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Weaknesses need to be revealed

"Once such a booze has gone ..." - detection of a submarine, its trace, by air radar, it means that it is necessary to change the shape of the boat, its geometry, in order to disturb the water less. And it is necessary to do this for specialized institutes, with calculations, testing of models! You can't figure it out in the kitchen!

[timokhin-aa]

First you have to say out loud that the king is naked.

[zenion]

When you read the article, it becomes clear that these methods can detect Russian submarines and no others.

[gunnerminer]

In order to create waves such as in the picture, the crew needs to ensure maximum speed, not paying attention to the noise, and therefore indifferent to stealth. And not paying attention to the type of hydrology, maneuver along the route at depths as close to periscope as possible.

[timokhin-aa]

No.
There is a range of depths at which the characteristic impedance is zero and the water remains calm.
But it is not deep, and from it the emerging wake trace is detected in the IR range.

Hydrology influences, yes, and there are options with it, excitement on the surface affects, on 5 points, for example, nothing can be traced to the surface, but in general it’s already dancing on a rope.

In fact, there is only one way - the boats must keep "in the shadow" of the surface compound with the AB and URO ships, where the URO is able to prevent the enemy's UUV from working, and the URO ships are able to knock down the radar reconnaissance satellite.

Inside this zone, they can only be threatened by enemy submarines, which, in turn, must "nightmare" their own UUVs and carrier-based PLO aircraft (which must be).

Under these conditions, secrecy will again be realizable, but - in the zone of control of its NK.

In principle, Americans lose our submarines, and often. But we must understand that these are still episodic losses, that is, at some points in time they maintain contact with each of our submarines, and in the course of the database can destroy it. Plus, you need to make a discount on the peacetime mode - they use 1-2 aircraft instead of 50-60.
In short, there are still options, but in general, everything is bad, and the solution is not yet visible.

[gunnerminer]

-Hydrology affects, yes, and there are options with it, excitement on the surface affects it, at 5 points, for example, you can’t track anything on the surface, but in general it’s already dancing on the rope.

When diving, the crew of the boat, every 10 meters, measures the speed of sound to determine the type of hydrology. In order to maneuver at a depth, depending on the problem being solved. For stealth and to increase the detection range of nadovidnyh or underwater targets. And not to create or reduce waves on surface of the sea.

[gunnerminer]

-In fact, there is only one way - the boats must keep "in the shadow" of the surface connection with the AB and URO ships, where the AB is able to prevent the enemy's UUV from working, and the URO ships are able to knock down the radar reconnaissance satellite.

The shadow should be the size of the city of London.

[timokhin-aa]

Deck aircraft can have a very large control area.

[gunnerminer]

Large relatively, and in a specific area. In a relatively short operational period. Around the clock and constantly, deck aircraft can not hang in the sky.

[timokhin-aa]

Can not. But in any case, there are simply no other options. Against a serious opponent of the level of the United States or Japan.

[jjj]

In that case, why do we bast shoes need a boat at all. But somehow we build and build. And we go where necessary, and do what we need. And do not panic

[timokhin-aa]

We go under the gun and do not panic.

[Starover_Z]

Quote: timokhin-aa

We go under the gun and do not panic.

This means that anti-aircraft missiles floating in containers are also needed for the "X hour". Received the signal "Y", released 2-3 containers and the maximum stroke in 5-10 minutes, to the start zone!

[timokhin-aa]

In the West, anti-air missiles launched from the submarine are being developed, and one such IDAS missile is already in service with the German Navy.
In our country, this is still perceived as a heresy.

[hydrox]

Quote: Starover_Z

Received the signal "Y", released 2-3 containers and the maximum stroke in 5-10 minutes, to the start area

Well, well, they released the containers, and who will set the current coordinates of the Poseidon-Orions (it is assumed that this is an all-knowing satellite), who will determine the initial coordinates of the launch containers (someone must give the command for this action) - and if all this happens in a busy area civil air traffic (and Poseidon-Orions are not at all inclined to shout to the whole district "Here I am!") ??
So set the task is also not one of the simplest ...

[vlad_2018]

... or use distortion tools as well as simulators to create a similar picture of the pressure distribution in the aquatic environment. Somehow, all this is strange .... I am directing with friends PLO-shnikov what they heard. But, because before none of them spoke about such passions, then this is most likely another conspiracy theological element. And they see tracking with classic means - hunter boats, a HUGE network of buoys, and no one canceled the means of reconnaissance reconnaissance.

[timokhin-aa]

Helping with friends PLO-Schnick that they heard.

Circular or toroidal interference on the radar screen, Netradiation.

However, many of those who have not tried this search method themselves are skeptical about it. Although in some places in the Russian Federation it is already being used in series (but very little).

[Vita vko]

Quote: timokhin-aa

There are still options, but in general, everything is bad, and the solution is not yet visible.

Don't be so dramatic. Indeed, due to the perturbation of the wake and the presence of an anomaly such as the Bernoulli Hump, radar systems can detect the presence on the water surface of certain inhomogeneities with a high Doppler component, which allows the SDC radar systems to trigger and detect underwater targets. Similar effects are often observed in the atmosphere, called "Angel-echo". I am sure that the Navy Research Institute has long had data at what depth and at what speed these unmasking signs appear, but most likely we are talking about the submarine's periscope depth, up to a maximum of 100 m at high speeds.

[timokhin-aa]

The depths at which submarines can be detected by such methods depend on hydrology, wave conditions, etc. The fact is that there is a method and it works. And seriously limits the actions of submarines.

I am sure that the NII scientific research institutes have long had data at what depth and at what speeds these unmasking signs appear

Well still, if still in 80-x to the plane they screwed the equipment that detects these things ...

The problem is that the Navy "as a whole" ignores the existence of such a threat. It does not affect combat training, nor does it affect the type of ships under construction. Given that the effect is known.

[Svateev]

Quote: timokhin-aa

The problem is that the Navy "as a whole" ignores the existence of such a threat. It does not affect combat training, nor does it affect the type of ships under construction.

Likewise in the Ground Forces. The effects are known, they are taken into account in the manuals of the US Army, and the command of our ground forces responds "We are constantly improving ..." and ... does nothing.

[Usher]

It’s a little off topic, but I agree, everyone knows the vulnerability of tanks in the tank and feed and on top, but they don’t even put simple screens. What is it? LAZINESS?

[Svateev]

Quote: Vita VKO

I am sure that the NII scientific research institutes have long had data at what depth and at what speeds these unmasking signs appear

I would like your confidence ...
And then why:

in the words of Sergey Gennadyevich Roslyakov, captain of the first rank, former submarine commander K-455, former commander of a submarine division.
... Amerikosy "see" our submarines everywhere ...

?

[timokhin-aa]

Roslyakov described the events just when the Navy began to investigate the method.

[Vita vko]

Quote: Svateev

I would like your confidence ...
And then why:
in the words of Sergey Gennadyevich Roslyakov, captain of the first rank, former submarine commander K-455, former commander of a submarine division.
... Amerikosy "see" our submarines everywhere ...
?

Because there is even a joke on the topic of pension psychology of big bosses:

He slept calmly before the army, he knew that they were guarding! He slept poorly in the army because he was guarding. I don’t sleep after the army, I know how they guard!

But seriously, relying on the opinions of an officer who completed his service 20 years ago, and even at a time of collapse when the entire fleet was confined to the berths, was at least not clever. Of course you can listen, but given the fact that he spent all his life in command positions, i.e. versed in technology and weapons at the push-button level. And when such people express personal opinions that even the Western media do not have, not just intelligence, then such opinions should be taken critically.

[timokhin-aa]

I wouldn’t believe him at all if he were the only one who approves such things. But when there are dozens of such people, and those unfamiliar with each other and from different fleets, then questions arise, so to speak.

[ccsr]

Quote: Vita VKO

Of course you can listen, but given the fact that he spent all his life in command positions, i.e. versed in technology and weapons at the push-button level.

I agree with your conclusion, because I know how the knowledge of such commanders differs from the knowledge of those officers who work in scientific and technical committees or in specific research institutes, and therefore I am critical of such information.

[VVAU]

You are not entirely accurate. Remembering they refer to the mid-80s, and then the combat strength and activity of the forces of the fleet was very high. Especially at the Pacific Fleet, when Ohio began to arrive.

[VVAU]

There is data on KOH, partially there is an assault on depth. But you need to look at each boat.

[vlad_2018]

here it is possible to believe. It is enough to recall at what range it is recommended to use torpedoes with guidance on the wake of the wake.

[Soho]

Have you thought about the interference of vibrations in different media formed by layers of water with different densities?

[Mih1974]

Forgive me, I'm not an expert and I will only quote the words of one captain "we were in pursuit of the American AUG using a layer xxxxxx (I don’t remember what the name of the roofing felts was of different density, or temperature) were invisible, but we could hardly distinguish them either. with his eyes in a perskop, so as not to run into them, he asked the navigator "what is the depth of the xxxx layer", having received an answer of 58 meters, he decided to ascend to the overscopic depth. But the navigator was mistaken and the depth of the layer was yes 30 meters and remaining invisible and deaf we surfaced almost under our very nose the aircraft carrier going straight at us "well, there they barely dodged and only slightly" scratched "on the bottom of the avik, but could actually be cut.
I think I will not reveal a secret about these incomprehensible "words" of water to me, but I think somewhere in this area there is a "game" going on with them and with us.
Again - for any cunning anus there is something with the correct thread, I can sense in my gut that all this "seeing through water" is actually eliminated by some simple but unfortunately ingenious (not yet found) solution.
How many merikases have boasted of their "invisibility" of aircraft - and sho "did your Poles help you son?"

[mashinist]

her multibook

[timokhin-aa]

Brilliant comment.

[oleggun]

Very interesting and informative. But anxiety in my heart appeared ...

[Vladimir1155]

I didn’t read all and didn’t find 1 and one number 2 not a single fact 3 found, “one person saw, the other heard”, by the way, they finally found an Argentine submarine .... they were looking for something for a long time

[Vladimir1155]

The
maximum peak-to-peak disturbance for a large submarine can reach about 17 centimeters
when it is traveling at high speeds at shallow-depth; otherwise at normal patrol speeds
and depths, the maximum peak-to-peak disturbance is of the order of a millimeter or less ........ so only for boats at periscope depth ...... and the key phrase is usually
difficult to detect.

[timokhin-aa]

Shallow depth is not periscope depth))))

And "Bernoulli's hump" is not the only unmasking sign. As the depth of immersion changes, some unmasking signs grow, others decrease.

[Vladimir1155]

literal translation "shallow water", that is, this is the periscope depth,

[timokhin-aa]

Shallow water is not periscope depth. Calm down already.

[Evgeniy667b]

How many times, while fishing, I saw a trace on the surface of a passing pike, although it does not appear on the surface and has a body with excellent hydrodynamics. But this is because of its speed of movement. If it moves slowly, there will be no such marks.

[Mih1974]

Well, now try on Okiyan and tell me - is a submarine floating on Khrean like "sleepy carp"? Again, nuclear submarines cannot swim slowly or stop altogether, as if they are taking water by gravity)). They are like sharks "suffocate" if stopped. Hmm, although how are they then at the pier

[merkava-2bet]

For this, there are centrifugal seawater pumps, or flow-through condensers on the thermal effect (hot-cold water) on newer boats. At one time in the USSR there was even R&D <Fin), a pumpless supply of seawater into the cooling circuit, but only on the move, and then we added flow-through coolers.

[Vladimir1155]

However, despite the current
results being preliminary, there is sufficient evidence of the feasibility of measuring
turbulence with SAR in the context of future developments of spatial resolution, sensitivity
and noise reduction. The techniques developed here provide a tool for optimizing
measurement techniques and parameters, indicating the necessary requirements to
15 observe small-scale turbulence in the upper ocean.
However, despite
preliminary results, there is sufficient indication of the possibility of measurement
SAR turbulence in the context of future changes in spatial resolution, sensitivity
and noise reduction. The methods developed here provide a tool for optimization.
measurement methods and parameters indicating the necessary requirements for
15 small-scale turbulence is observed in the upper ocean .... in short, in the upper ocean * periscope depth "and then in the future, when we learn to filter out noise and get supersensitive equipment, which contradicts itself, because the more sensitivity, the more noise ... It is difficult to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if other black cats are present

[Vladimir1155]

the Chinese are looking at the wake of the track ....... from a boat submerged 200 meters? * that is, the trace height is less than a millimeter ... well, well

[Svateev]

Quote: vladimir1155

* that is, the trace height is less than a millimeter ... well, well

Where does the figure "less than a millimeter" come from? And where does the data come from that in this case they are looking for the Bernoulli Hump?

[Vladimir1155]

from the texts cited by the author of the article, I read there in English, if you can’t use the auto-translator

[timokhin-aa]

Once again - Shallow depth is not a periscope. This time. There are many signs of unmasking. These are two.

[Operator]

Shallow depth - how much will it be in meters?

[NKT]

Up to about 30m, then deep marine

[Operator]

Then Vladimir is right1155 - the height of the "circular" wave from the submarine on the sea surface will be about one millimeter.

[hydrox]

Quote: Operator

Then Vladimir is right1155 - the height of the "circular" wave from the submarine on the sea surface will be about one millimeter.

By the way, Doppler is able to catch this difference, and Fourier is well calculated and beautifully drawn ...

[Operator]

In conditions of natural roughness of the sea with a wave height several orders of magnitude higher than the height of the "circular" wave?

[hydrox]

I already wrote that the natural wave of any amplitude is noise, but having its own statistical picture, and the emitted signal has a circular wave profile.
No one says it's simple but possible ...

[Operator]

Only a supercomputer the size of a cottage with an area of ​​1000 sq.m will cope with this task, and then only with sea waves not more than 2 points.

[hydrox]

Let it be your way ...

[timokhin-aa]

This is 200 meters.

[Svateev]

Quote: vladimir1155

it’s very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if

Especially if you do not want to search!

[Svateev]

Quote: vladimir1155

17 centimeters

It has long been possible to track a wave in 17 centimeters by radar. Even from space, and not just from PLA aircraft.

Quote: vladimir1155

and the key phrase is usually difficult to detect.

But "difficult" is not "Impossible". Difficult, but possible.
So your comment confirms rather than disproves the article.

[Vladimir1155]

if there was ipossible, then there would be no article, the author had to write a scientific article, and nothing is impossible at all, but not everyone succeeds in overcoming difficulties, la la vie .... usually if they write hard, they should indicate the percentage of probability of finding PL, it is not in the article there, which means the issue is not resolved and the result is uncertain. You know, you can simply poke your finger into the ocean and find a submarine, only the probability of a correct finding is negligible.

[timokhin-aa]

So you click on the links)))

[Alex_59]

To date, they have polished these methods to such an extent that they no longer need to have a magnetometer on board the PLO aircraft.

nobody needs a magnetometer for a long time for more prosaic reasons. With its help, a submarine is found only in a very narrow strip directly below the aircraft, and the aircraft should also fly at a fairly low altitude - 300-500 meters. All aircraft on which there is a magnetometer originally from the 60-s - at that time it was set up with the expectation of a significant increase in performance characteristics in the future. No growth occurred, and now on new types of aircraft it has turned into ballast. Marine aviators themselves have written more than once about the low efficiency of the magnetometer.

Base patrol aircraft of the U.S. Navy went to medium altitude. It is a fact.

But at the same time, the Americans themselves indicate a completely different reason for this behavior. http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/07/asd_07_09_2015_dossier1.pdf
And they did not stop carrying and throwing buoys. Although it would seem that the need for them should disappear. On the contrary, new methods have been developed for processing information from them, etc.

However, in 1978, NASA's National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched a new satellite that took pictures of radio waves reflected from the surface of the planet.

What is so new about the Americans? Our US-A suffered from 60-s. Probably should have seen the same thing that the Americans saw.

[timokhin-aa]

Nobody needs a magnetometer for a long time for more prosaic reasons. With it, the submarine is detected only in a very narrow strip directly under the plane, and the plane must also fly at a sufficiently low height - 300-500 meters. All airplanes on which there is a magnetometer come from 60-ies - at that time it was set for a significant increase in performance characteristics in the future.

Then why is it on export Poseidon? Are they from 60 too? The real thing is that some search tools are simply not available for export planes, so sometimes you have to resort to a magnetometer.

And they did not cease to carry and throw buoys. Although it would seem the need for them should disappear.

Radar anomaly can be caused not only by a boat, reread the article. And better comments to the past (links in the beginning) there is an 64 Flyer, he used this effect when searching for a submarine and studied it in school.
The detected anomaly is checked by buoys; without them, neither the fact of the presence of a boat is reliably established, nor the target command center for torpedoes is obtained.
But with the selection of zones where the buoy throw method helps hoo how.

What is so new about the Americans? Our US-A suffered from 60-s. Probably should have seen the same thing that the Americans saw.

And they saw. And as if not forward, than they.
Read the article carefully.

[Alex_59]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Then why is it on export Poseidons?

You have to ask the customer. I suppose that the magnetometer still plays an important role in the customer's "system of life values". It would of course be interesting to know the statistics - with how many real submarines the aviators made initial contact with the magnetometer, but according to the data of some domestic pilots who flew on the Il-38 and Be-12, with its help the initial contact with the submarine was established in the amount of zero integers, zero tenth times. I doubt that magnetometers on Poseidons or Orions are much more effective than ours.

The detected anomaly is checked by buoys; without them, neither the fact of the presence of a boat is reliably established, nor the target command center for torpedoes is obtained.

I have no doubt that such an anomaly may be. I doubt that the anomaly from the submarine can be reliably and accurately determined using existing technologies. We are faced with the task of creating an incredibly sensitive, but at the same time, extremely jam-resistant radar. And then to develop algorithms for data processing from such a radar that reliably separate the submarine trail from traces of other natural origins. And so, to build accurate calculations and plans based on the fact that this phenomenon somewhere was sometimes noticed by someone ... What is this anomaly? It must be "something" from which the radio waves are reflected. That is, something with a high refractive index that has radar opacity. If it is a wave or an inhomogeneity on the water, then this is understandable, the radio signal is reflected precisely from the water inhomogeneity at the air-water interface. Well, what will it be in the atmosphere? Other density of air? Opacity of the atmosphere? Saturation with water vapor? And in sufficient quantities so that the reflected signal was perceived by the radar receiver and was not rejected as noise. And all this must be guaranteed to work in a wide range of climatic, weather, hydrological conditions. If we have radars capable of clearly detecting such phenomena, then the issue of reducing the RCS of aircraft can be removed from the agenda - any aircraft or rocket becomes visible as a steam locomotive's searchlight in the night.

[timokhin-aa]

Our task is to create an incredibly sensitive, but at the same time unusually noise-proof radar.

Enough radar Be-12, just with some additional systems.
The point is not to detect anomalies - both the Mi-14, the Tu-95, and the Be-12 "saw" them. The problem is to turn all this into a working method, to create a system that filters out all unnecessary, and converts the signal from the radar into an image on the tactical display.
For this, it is not the radar that needs to be improved, but a system for processing the information received from it, software, "splicing" data that can be pulled from the radar channel with the IR channel, etc.
So that as a result, the operators saw on the screen just a zone into which they need to throw a buoy.

If this is a wave or inhomogeneity in water, then this is understandable, the radio signal is reflected precisely from water inhomogeneity at the air-water interface.

In the end, this is it, basically.

[Alex_59]

Quote: timokhin-aa

The problem is to turn all this into a working method, to create a system that filters out all unnecessary

Well, yes, I’m talking about this. Almost any radar can be used as a weather radar, one way or another it detects all these atmospheric phenomena and inhomogeneities. Not new. But as I understand it, the anomaly from the submarine has an extremely low level of visibility against the background of the environment. And we need not only to occasionally occasionally detect this trace, but always, guaranteedly and reliably to detect them. There should be difficulties and not small ones.

For this, it is not necessary to improve the radar, but to make a system for processing the information received from it

Well, the radar is responsible for the processing of data from the radar, it consists not only of antennas with a transmitter and receiver, but also of equipment for processing the received information. )))

[timokhin-aa]

The radar removes the primary data, then you have to drive them into the on-board computer, process it with an algorithm, combine it with what is going on with the IR cameras, add everything up and bring it to a tactical grid screen so that the crew knows where to throw the buoy.

With everything after "next" we have problems.
And the radar and the old came up.

[Simeonov]

Onboard computer is onboard. You can't drive anything there, the program is so primitive there. Theoretically, it is possible, but it will stop working in other modes as well. The PLC engineer was ready to kill me, because at the TECHi 5 people then corrected for a week what I clocked in a couple of minutes on the "Flame". Thought I was the smartest. The plane is not BG. How to fix ? H.Z. Call specialists from the factory.

[VVAU]

Yes. There was such a sad case :-)

[Svateev]

Quote: Alex_59

But in the atmosphere, what will it be?

"Weather" radars detect vortices, and special radars in the complex of ground-based aerodrome equipment track the wake of an aircraft taking off or landing so that the next one taking off or landing does not fall into these eddies.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Svateev

"Weather" radars detect eddies

I know it. But vortices, thunderstorms and so on - these are pronounced phenomena. We do not doubt the radar’s ability to detect flying Boeings - such carcasses as passenger airplanes with EPRs of a hundred square meters are not a problem for radar. What about sparrow detection? For EPR meteo radars, thunderstorms or whirlwinds are sufficient for their clear detection. And in the case of submarines, we are dealing with the phenomenon of very low contrast. If this trace were so easily detected, it would long ago become a hindrance in the work of many radio engineering means, including during exercises. And here we need firstly to find this light, barely noticeable fog, which is not easy even for meteorological radars. Secondly, do it at a decent distance, otherwise the meaning is in such an arms system? And thirdly, having discovered it, to be firmly convinced that it is this detected fog that indicates the presence of a submarine, and not caused by a natural phenomenon, for example.
If we are talking about the water surface - then the same thing. The wave from the submerged submarine (or water hump) is obviously of very low height, without sharp contrasting signs, otherwise all submarines would have been easily detected for a long time. Well, then try in the sea (where there is always swell) to find exactly what is required, and make sure that it is not just a wave or a natural phenomenon, namely a boat. The task is frankly not trivial.

[Svateev]

Quote: Alex_59

But vortices, thunderstorms and so on - these are pronounced phenomena.

I also gave an example of a radar tracking a satellite track of an airplane during takeoff / landing. Minor local twists are tracked.
It would be a physical phenomenon, as well as the desire and perseverance to use it - and the result will be obtained.

[Alex_59]

Quote: Svateev

I also gave an example of a radar tracking a satellite track of an airplane during takeoff / landing.

This is not a radar, but a lidar. A similar principle of work, but not the same thing. The satellite stream is primarily the vortices on the wing as a result of wave drag. They are even visually visible regularly, and not just with special equipment. There will be high humidity - you can stand under the glide path and see them. So, firstly, disturbances are clearly and very contrastingly different in shape from the surrounding space. In nature, such twists do not occur by themselves. Secondly, a strictly defined area of ​​the glide path is monitored by the lidars, and the expectation of the occurrence of a target (satellite stream) is known by time and place. Thirdly, all this is observed at ranges ridiculous on a military scale. It is very difficult for me to imagine that the submarine going at a depth squeezes the air above itself so that its transparency or the angle of refraction of electromagnetic waves in this zone change as much as that of aircraft on the wing. )))

[Svateev]

Quote: Alex_59

It’s very difficult for me to imagine

Me too. But there are numerous reports of this. So what needs to be done: check or brush off?

[hydrox]

Quote: Alex_59

The task is frankly not trivial.

Swell is an irregular disturbance and you can always rebuild from it. A useful signal from the hump is a structured rise in the water level, the radar sees this line of rise (the image should also be wave-like), and the software enhances and gives a well-contrasted image in area, but a computer for these purposes should be very capable, maybe in the army and do not apply such ...

[NKT]

A magnetometer is usually used with a doublet with a gravimeter. Is there a last one on the Poisedon? If there is, I would not have so categorically deleted it.
Poisedon has a so-called "reference map" of the area of ​​work with which he also compares his current observations. These maps are updated several times a year.

[Svateev]

Quote: Alex_59

nobody needs a magnetometer for a long time for more prosaic reasons. With its help, a submarine is found only in a very narrow strip directly below the plane,

So, after all, the author of the article says the same thing: a more effective way has appeared. Otherwise, they would not have refused the magnetometer.

[VVAU]

The magnetometer was used for the Echo methods. And the Americans throw the RSL to confirm and record the noise of the boat. Well, for the accuracy of the place, because non-tradition does not allow the use of weapons. Location accuracy up to 5-7 km.

[VVAU]

I’ll clarify, it’s possible to ches with a magnetometer traditionally. He identified the area, and declined and tacks. Unsubscribe, omab, ring, if it worked, then it is. But for a long time.

[brn521]

It’s bad that there are no numbers. It seems that the effect will affect the periscope depth maximum.

[timokhin-aa]

The links various calculations are given. At the periscope depth a periscope is visible, nothing more is needed.

[brn521]

Quote: timokhin-aa

At the periscopic depth, the periscope is visible, nothing more is needed.

Not necessary. There were also articles about Latin American submarine submarines of drug dealers. Which the US Coast Guard allegedly could not track.

Quote: timokhin-aa

Under the links, various calculations are given.

Nevertheless, the article would not hurt to mention the results of these calculations. And then it may be in the extra hundred meters of immersion, so that surface effects go beyond the resolution of any radar. Or reduce the speed to some 5 knots. Unpleasantly, but still does not put an end to existing projects.

[Simeonov]

More depth - stretch the track. At 100 meters and 6 knots circle. At 250 and 12 nodes, an ellipse ..

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

That is, it turns out that the author of the article is right about the fact that neither depth nor speed will help to avoid the appearance of unmasking signs (effects)?

[Simeonov]

And what to do with the very fact of changes in the boat's physical fields? The question is in fixing them. And on what the article takes time. From the immersion of the pl at a point until the appearance of a "standing wave" to one hour. Sometimes more. Time needs to "rock" the environment. Well, the important thing is the knowledge that it is here - I'm talking about polygon work. There is a giveaway element)))
Anti-submarine warfare. A look from the SS.S.R.

http://samlib.ru/editors/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/protivolodochnaioborona.shtml

[VVAU]

Depends on the displacement of the object.

[VVAU]

In the entire range of depths. Well, up to 300 meters exactly. Excitement up to 5 points, did not fly for more.
Tor occurs 3-5 hours after the boat moves 150 m. Speed ​​is 12 knots.
The greater the depth, the longer the formation of the donut. If the pl takes many hours, then it’s normal. Less speed and depth-trail formed worse. Again, it depends on the project. 667AU are visible best, BDR is worse, Varshavyanka is even worse.
In general, find the article "Standing waves who are they." I put everything there.

[Larum]

But what about the endless boast that our boats are the very best? are quiet?

[timokhin-aa]

It's not about noise, it's about the non-acoustic method of detection.

And they are not the quietest.

[NordUral]

And just like almost everything else.

[Skay]

I watched as predatory fish in the lake chasing young animals. The predator itself was not visible, but its position was easily determined by the Kelvin disturbances described here.

[garri-lin]

Two questions. Depths? Speed?

[timokhin-aa]

One depends on the other, we need a certain balance between depth and speed, so as not to run into it, for different depths it is different. Plus, there are purely acoustic limitations on the speed of the stroke, and in the end everything ends with a fight with tied hands and blindfolded eyes.
And the enemy has his hands free and he is sighted.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: garri-lin

Two questions. Depths? Speed?

Correctly raised the question!
The greater the depth, the greater the lowest noise speed possible. I think the same law applies to the hump of Bernoulli.
But you need to talk about something else. On the shape of the hull submarine.
At one time, the submarine of pr.1710 SS-533 "Mackerel" was at the KChF. So she had a perfect, spindle-shaped light body and a retractable limousine railing. It will be difficult to find such a boat by unmasking signs.
IMHO.

[timokhin-aa]

Well, in general, the acoustic visibility of the submarine is growing with depth, although other external unmasking signs, on the contrary, decrease. Regarding speed - the lower the speed, the less disturbance, but the problem here is that the American submarines of the hull are smaller, the speed of the low-noise stroke is higher, and they work together with the control unit.

That is, hiding from aircraft, we increase our vulnerability to their submarines.

[Simeonov]

Looking from whom. Under the wedge, if the hydrophone is at the top, it is not very audible.
On hovering 1-2 knots, the boat makes more noise than on the move 6-7.
Amers have no corps less. They are ONE-BODY.
The last sentence did not understand)))

[Simeonov]

We remove some, others appear. And where is she now this boat 1710?

[Eremin AB]

All 3 articles are very interesting, but the first one says that there is a possibility of detecting a sub under the ice, this one says that the boat was sailing under the propellers of a civilian ship and therefore was not visible from space and there can be no question of any "hump", again wake the trail coincided with the civilian, but it was still found (on the other hand, as the submarine commander found the ORION in a submerged position). But one way or another, it means that not all phenomena are described, and most likely the detection does not occur on the described phenomena.

[timokhin-aa]

Under the screws, the point is most likely that ours have been practicing this method of camouflage for many years, but the Americans are well aware of this, and, perhaps, on their submarines and ships they learned to distinguish waves from a surface ship from waves created by a pair of ship-submarines. In addition, in the 80s, there were a lot of "moles" at the Pacific Fleet headquarters who were leaking information to the Americans. Anything can happen here.

Orion at low altitude can be heard with the help of GUS.

[Eremin AB]

it was a matter of they connected to our underwater secret television line and listened to it for several years until ours came to their senses. just somewhere in the region of Kamchatka in my opinion and just in the eighties. so yes, they were more likely watching the ship than the boat

[Simeonov]

Do not come to your senses. The agents gave information, otherwise they would have listened for many more years. Just do not TV.)))
"Dear program, on Monday I was almost crying ..."

[Simeonov]

Moles? )))
Does not hear. For "Orion" does not work on small ones. Or very rarely. 800-1500. Here is its height. 150 with MAD .. I have never seen.

[Eremin AB]

There is also such a thought. Let's compare a boat with saboteurs. how can saboteurs be detected - visually, by loud sound, flashes of light and radio broadcast. and then the saboteurs are dressed in camouflage and camouflage coats. and they move stealthily at night and very slowly, on the weapon mufflers and flame suppressors and of course radio silence. how can they be found? only by occasional face-to-face confrontation with the patrol. but time goes on and they invent night vision cameras, thermal imagers, and now saboteurs at night like a white day. conventional camouflage means are powerless. and with pl. she floats quietly in the depths of the sea, keeping radio silence and no one sees her by ordinary means and everyone knows about it. Hence the conclusion is that new means of detection must be invented. and they are being invented, or at least being worked on. on what physical phenomena only responsible scientists know, but not us. And if there are so many facts of detection by the Americans of our planes, then apparently they have such a "thermal imager". Do we have a question.

[timokhin-aa]

Do we have a question.

There is, but firstly, it is necessary to finish, and secondly, the submariners should stop behaving as if nobody has anything.

[Eremin AB]

there is propaganda and there is a secret infa. first for the people they say do not be afraid all right eat burgers watch a movie. and the second for the initiates, and we do not belong to them. and those there have long known everything and would like to believe that they are preparing an answer. the arms race never ended and never ends.

[timokhin-aa]

They know, but they do not cook otvetku. Moreover, the float behaves as if there is no problem.

[Svateev]

Quote: Eremin AV

she swims quietly in the abyss of the sea keeping the radio silent and no one sees her by ordinary means and everyone knows about it.

No, well, how poetic!
But in fact, everything is correct: who is looking for ways to discover - finds. And in this paramount issue, we cannot sit "on p.p. exactly" in any way!

[NordUral]

Thanks to the author! The topic is scary, if you do not hide your head in the sand. But the situation can and should be developed at 180 degrees. After all, we too can (or can no worse) track their boats, which is actually much more important in their sudden attack than the fact that they are tracking us. Yes, and if you make a few hundred mini-submarines, let them crawl quietly and quietly on the 500-1000 up to hour X across all oceans and seas.

[Vladimir 5]

First, you need to move on to new generations of submarines with new performance characteristics. The first appearance: to abandon the protruding cabin, a continuous smooth rhombic (or polyhedral) body (aquastels) with worked out corners for the endings. Secondly, make of non-magnetic materials (carbon fiber) with a protective coating. Thirdly, to minimize the size, gigantomania in all respects is poorly correlated with invisibility. To reduce the crew to the minimum with full automation of warhead operations. Fourth, use a large-diameter propeller (rotor wheel-like non-axial slow-speed propellers in large increments (to support large volumes of water). (Double rim-type screws to compensate for reactive moments). Bear warheads in towed separate submarines with the ability to put in standby mode at the bottom or anchor (except nuclear weapons). And most importantly, today the submarine is becoming the base-command station for the flotilla without crewed submarines with network-centric control ... In the future, the transition without crewed submarines to autonomous flocked actions based on artificial intelligence. (Dreaming is not harmful ...)

[NordUral]

In the future, the transition without crewed submarines to autonomous flocking operations based on artificial intelligence. (dreaming is not bad ...)

It is necessary to dream, and turn dreams into reality.
And just as the USSR put on the submarine fleet, so Russia needs to do this. But only with emphasis on automatic mini submarines.
With rockets in relation to the States, everything is complicated, there is an option that can achieve them very little or very little.
And it will be very difficult to find and destroy small machines, in dozens, or even several hundred, that will slowly and at good depths move across all oceans.

[Evgeniy667b]

Vladimir 5 (Vladimir) The thought is very good, the gigantomania that exists in our fleets is a very dangerous phenomenon, fraught with bad consequences .. It is better to have a flock of small, but toothy piranhas, than one big pike.

[Vikentiy]

The article is like misinformation. Radio waves at the media boundary are reflected. In liquids, the speed of sound is small, although a dolphin is audible for 5 km. Work is underway and we have good results. The search for the Argentinean submarine showed the level of intelligence equipment. People sell more often!

[Glory1974]

Radio waves at the boundary of media are reflected.

It all depends on the wavelength. There are waves penetrating into and out of water without any problems.
The sound can detect a ship over a thousand kilometers, but the exact location cannot be determined and no weapons can be pointed.

[Svateev]

Quote: Vincent

In liquids, the speed of sound is small,

You are mistaken. In water, the speed of sound is greater than in air.

[Svateev]

Quote: Vincent

The search for the Argentinean submarine showed the level of intelligence equipment.

Yes, our intelligence did not find it. Found not ours.
Not suggestive?

[Rzzz]

Not ours either. She herself was suddenly found in a somewhat strange way.

[timokhin-aa]

Radio waves at the boundary of media are reflected.

Did you read exactly what you were commenting on?

[VSrostagro]

Quote: Vincent

Radio waves at the boundary of media are reflected.

Learn to read. No one wrote that the water is radiolucent.

[Sirocco]

Quote: Vincent

People sell more often!

I think that in detecting our submarine, complexes of measures, including espionage, aeronautical reconnaissance, are just effective, well, maybe they have surrounded us with "flags" around the perimeter and listen to us day and night, and our brains are powdering us with something heavenly and space. That is to say, they distract from what is under our noses.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

It is worth noting that the really simplest search using scientific terminology gives dozens of scientific works, experiments, companies, etc., related to the detection of underwater objects using radar surface observation.

Yes. Only there is one caveat - as a rule, it is not indicated chance detecting objects in a similar way. No one argues that submarines can be detected by radar in the underwater position, because such facts are quite numerous. But whether it is possible to build on this a system that will continuously identify submarines is unclear.
Let me explain "on the fingers" - if, for example, a submarine with the help of a radar in an underwater position can be observed in 5-10% of cases, then today not even hundreds - thousands of such cases should be recorded. But the submarine search system on this will be very difficult to build.

It also lists the theoretical rationale behind the effect of anomalies on radar screens. The report lists one theory of the appearance of atmospheric effects over the location of the submarine and four theories of the appearance of anomalies on the water surface, and each of them is referred to as "well-known", that is, the authors of the report refer to them as well-known

It is noted that all of them are not suitable for reliable detection of submarines

So, conclusion number one: science does not just allow the effect under discussion, it confirms it.

Science confirms the presence of an effect, and not the possibility of its use on an ongoing basis. The report of Americans DIRECTLY says that the effect manifests itself from case to case and cannot be confirmed at the request of the operator

Everything is simple - the American report already mentioned was secret until 1988, only military and defense contractors had access to it, it was written “for its own”, moreover, in the extremely sensitive sphere of anti-submarine defense, and to assume that it lists false (not false, namely false) data is at least stupid.

What kind of false data are we talking about? :)))) Everything is true there. And the truth is that
1) Radar submarine detection effect exists
2) It is so unstable that the US has closed work in this direction
3) The author of the report does not have an exact understanding of the mechanism that leads to the detection of submarines, so he puts forward hypotheses and believes that work should be resumed.
Everything:)))
As for me, at least it’s stupid in such discussions to use the distortion of what opponents say.

In the original article, the statements of Lieutenant General Sokerin and Captain First Rank Soldatenkov were given. Actually, such evidence is many times more.

Which, in view of the foregoing, cannot indicate the effectiveness of the method. I repeat, if this effect works in 5% of cases, then these 5% of detection cases in DECADES are hundreds and thousands. A method may not be.

The banal mention of the topic “Window” on “Military Review” revealed a lot of people who are well aware of it studied it in military schools, searched for submarines using radar methods.

One of them is Vice Admiral Ryazantsev, an article “Once again about sea tales and naval storytellers”:

I would like to ask today those who squandered huge sums of money: “Where is the new equipment that would allow detecting foreign squares?” Where is the plane or helicopter on which this equipment is installed? There are no planes, no helicopters, no equipment. And there is no money. The theme “Window” turned out to be a soap bubble, “Potemkin village”, a dummy. ”

Well, the last

As they say, smart enough. And the rest can continue to pretend that all is well.

"A wonderful" way to "shut up" an opponent :)))) But I thought that after kindergarten people stop using it

[timokhin-aa]

Yes. Only here there is one nuance - as a rule, the probability of finding objects in a similar way is not indicated. No one argues with the fact that the submarine can be detected by the radar in a submerged position, because such facts are quite numerous. But whether it is possible to build on this system, which will permanently identify submarines - is unclear.

Even Sokerin's original quote was that Orion used buoys. Just because the anomaly MAY indicate that there is a sub, or maybe not. But at least the chances of finding her there are just the same higher than outside the anomaly.

The author of the report does not have an accurate understanding of the mechanism that leads to the discovery of submarines, so he puts forward hypotheses and believes that work should be resumed.
Everything:)))

On the 1975 year, that's all. And in 1978 already from the satellite, the wave traces detected, and this is the article. Did not see?

I repeat, if this effect works in 5% of cases, then these 5% of cases of detections per decade are hundreds and thousands. A method may not be.

You just have to justify 5%. Note that, for example, the details of the "Window" topic are still classified. Even more so among the Americans. Where does 5% come from? Is it relevant "for now"? Or at the end of the 80s?

The “Window” theme turned out to be a soap bubble, a “Potemkin village,” a dummy. ”

You see what's the matter. You read "Non-Tradition", and I talked with the author, there was a case. And, well-known to you, perhaps M. Klimov too.

And we have a different opinion with him for a couple, different from that of Vice Admiral Ryazantsev. This time.

"Window" has gotten some development for itself, to what extent such things can develop in our country, but of course I cannot write about it. We are, so to speak, far from the Americans. We must catch up. But the topic did not die, and gave some results.
What is the problem with "Window" in our conditions? The fact is that in addition to the radar of the required range, a computer with the appropriate software is needed, so that it can process the entire signature that the aircraft sensors receive in flight - from the radar, and from the optoelectronic turret, and from the magnetometer, if any, cut off " noises ", and tell the crew" is it "or not.
This also requires a huge statistics of educational detections, again using computers to process the results.

And we still use photofixation of the image from the radar screen, there are "eyes" (radar), but there are no "brains" to process what was seen.
However, Netradiation is very far from dying and where it is used.

[gunnerminer]

The picture does not take into account the real hydrometeorological conditions in the sea. Especially in the autumn-winter period, for example, in the North Atlantic. The slightest increase in wind or change of current eliminates this whole theory of the use of radar.

[timokhin-aa]

Guaranteed to eliminate "5 points or more". About 4, I'm not sure that EVERYTHING will be liquidated.

[VVAU]

Andrey, where does 10% come from? :-) If a trained navigator, a permanent airplane and natures. Radar, then with excitement up to 5 points, I would give a probability of more than 80%.
Well, if you later confirm with buoys, then you need an excitement of no more than 3. Or confirm with a magnetometer.
We have 12 navigators, two for the "Window" were prepared. If the boat is in an area with depths of more than 500 meters, detection is guaranteed.
And Ryazantsev can read a lot of things, especially since he did not personally engage in non-traditional activities.

[END]

I'll correct myself)))
Detection (presence) of an underwater object is also possible at shallower depths. For example 200 meters. But as a fact, there is something. But determining where to throw the RSL is hard.
In addition, the boat should stay there for some time, more than 2-3 hours. To "pump" the water volume.
Yes, two navigators were trained. Molchanov Valentin and Danilov Boris.
Borya is better because he flew more. According to the crew (call sign) there was a "through" application for departures. That is, the dispatcher of the operational duty officer of the 317th regiment extended it every day. This is done on board located in the DS, for example.
That is, he could take off at any time.
As they said, all navigators of the 122nd OPLAE (these are positions and titles) were ready to "cut", but not everyone was given the opportunity. Kravchenko made a bet on the Biryukov-Danilov Crew and Kamchatka. Since there are many strategists in Rybachye, it means that there are many enemy boats. Depths acc. and hydrology norms (1,6 types). Compared to SF, the working conditions are ideal.

[MrFox]

It is interesting that in the American article "A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES" in the list of references appears the link "Anisimova, Kononkova, Kuznetsov, Orlov, Popov, Speranskaya - Formation of a wave structure of wind over the water surface", apparently the article was published in Meteorological Journal in 1974.

And there is also a link by a famous author on Skolnik radar dedicated to Soviet radars.

[timokhin-aa]

Skolnik there was a ringleader.

[MrFox]

This suggests that the study used a serious resource.

[timokhin-aa]

Well, still, on the NIDAR project a significant proportion of the scientific resources of the Navy worked.

[malyvalv]

I think that the presence of a wake trace in a submarine is far from news. The fact that it can affect the sea waves on the surface and be detected by radars is quite logical.
But if you know that the submarine is visible along the wake, then the fight against this kind of detection can also be effective. It is enough for the boat to slow down to a minimum, change course and move some distance before again moving to full speed. The farther the better if time allows.
So I would not get rid of magnetometers but PLO planes.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: malyvalv

It’s enough for the boat to slow down to a minimum, change course and move some distance

ABC truth. 10 degrees to the right, diving to a depth ... Hunters also know this.

[malyvalv]

And if 20 and to the left? What will hunters know?

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: malyvalv

And if 20 and to the left? What will hunters know?

A left-handed person is likely to turn left. It is in the subconscious. 20 degrees, as I was told, cannot be turned at speed if the tail hunter sits down. If I'm wrong, correct, I’m land-based, I just talked like that with a submariner over a cup of vodka. Well, right or left, it doesn’t matter, they’ll find one hell on the trail. Only at a depth you can hide, hunters do not dive low.

[malyvalv]

It was about finding submarines from aircraft. And of course you can’t get away from the underwater hunter. Simply torpedo him.

[timokhin-aa]

Only in depth you can hide, the hunters do not dive low.

If they pass the contact to the aviation or NK, those with Tripwire will reach at any depth.

[Indifferent]

I think that if the boat goes at a depth of more than 400 meters and at a speed of no more than 8 knots, there will be nothing on the surface! That's just the boat commander should know for sure that he can be spotted at the top.

[gunnerminer]

Sea weather is changeable, especially in the winter-winter period. The currents are also not constant. The coastal man came up with this idea about finding a boat using radar.

[VVAU]

It's all about time. If with a constant of 8-10 knots, from 400 meters the torus will become noticeable in 8-9 hours. Well, if the boat suddenly appeared, or came to the area in the water position and immediately plunged into 400. This is a vibrator, piston, plunger. And this phenomenon is nowhere to be left. And since the boat even came to the area in the underwater, you can see its trace earlier. This is not a wake trace, I repeat again. Kil. Trail behind, torus around the boat with a radius of up to 20km.

[gunnerminer]

In the pictures the weather is shown as on a lake. In summer. The theory was invented by a cabinet man who did not see the sea. Especially in the ocean.

[Robin - Bobbin]

If it would have been so easy to find a submarine in the water column, they would have ceased to be built long ago.

[timokhin-aa]

It is not simple. In fact, it turns out only from the Americans, the Japanese are questionable, and we, as usual, were pioneers, but we ourselves abandoned everything halfway through.

[Civ333]

Thanks to the author for the topic. I would like to note that radar methods are only one of the tools of a complex, expensive and integrated system for monitoring the state of the dual-use marine environment. The system includes not only radar methods, but also a serious grouping of buoys (Argo systems, tsunami warnings, etc.) - more than 6 in positional areas of interest to NATO, orbital component (satellites equipped with the same radars, as well as a segment space communications - Iridium, providing data transfer from buoys), coastal component - data processing centers and modeling of the state of the marine environment. Since the 000s, due to the influx of brains of Russian oceanologists, Americans and Europeans have taken a big step in the development of operational oceanography, the tools of which together allow you to fix anomalies (passage or even freezing of the sub) in a given area. Of course, they don’t see the whole ocean like that, but only individual positional areas, but as a means of ensuring the first effective strike, leveling one of the parts of our triad, everything is very decent. For 90 years, NATO has invested more than $ 25 billion in this technology, and the European Union has actively participated in co-financing this topic, implementing programs for Copernicus, May Ocean, etc. In Russia, serious funds for this topic have not yet been allocated.

[Kostadinov]

Everything was lost dear comrades. The USA sees everything with a radar both under water and under the earth.
People say that the small North Korean boat the United States was not noticed from space because it was carried by the sea current and it drowned the South Korean corvette Chonan.
Question of medium difficulty:
- who will find whom the first radar boat or radar boat?
- what will the boat do after detecting the radar?

[timokhin-aa]

The radar will find the boat first, the boat cannot detect the radar in principle.

[Kostadinov]

In principle, what prevents the boat from raising the antenna or does the buoy release?
Or even better, they will receive information from another overhead, surface, air or space reconnaissance source.

[barbiturate]

A very interesting article and everything is logical. The testimonies of our submariners are numerous and all in one direction - the Americans see us. Our boats are huge and can perfectly create "anomalies" for surface radar. For decades, our boats were the main striking force of the fleet, and even now they are, so it is not surprising that the enemy has brought to mind very effective means of detection.
I saw an anomaly from a distance of tens of kilometers, threw a buoy there, made sure and flew on. Everything is simple and clear.
Well, we, in addition to research in various fields, need to stop building giant boats "hunters", 14 tons of underwater displacement, and think that such a boat will go unnoticed.

[timokhin-aa]

Now it’s too late to minimize dimensions. We must act differently.

[barbiturate]

In another way - 120% !!! But how? It is obvious that we will expand our research in the development of various means of detecting submarines, so that at least in "our" waters to ensure the sight and safety of our ships, but after all, we will not refuse submarines and their construction, we will build, only which parameters are now to be put in priority ? Personally, I see a promising Russian nuclear submarine - hull, displacement and general view of the type of project 705 (k) BUT! with other priorities - low noise and minimal physical fields, well, and other buns for stealth, such as self-exit of torpedoes and launched underwater unmanned reconnaissance. A small displacement of the boat can just greatly reduce the creation of various kinds of "anomalies" in the water and, with the proper immersion depth, can be removed altogether, no?

[timokhin-aa]

To begin with - research on the real visibility of our submarines in these ways, working out tactics of joint actions with ships, working out actions to restore stealth, determining for each type of boat evasion methods from detection in this way, etc.

There is already thinking what to do.

Personally, I see a promising Russian nuclear submarine - hull, displacement and general view of the type of project 705 (k) BUT! with other priorities - low noise and minimal physical fields, well, and other buns for stealth, such as self-exit of torpedoes and launched underwater unmanned reconnaissance. A small displacement of the boat can just greatly reduce the creation of various kinds of "anomalies" in the water and, with the proper immersion depth, can be removed altogether, no?

Do not remove, but you can reduce. However, we must learn to act with what we have.

In the future, I think, and the sizes will be smaller, and they will think about wave resistance.

[frog]

While there will be no personal responsibility and allocating funds and developing them - you can do something, here you can not think about the result ....

[Alceers]

Again these nonsense .... TS if you somewhere over a glass of tea heard nonsense then drag them into the bikes section. If you were at least for a second in the subject, then you would simply have considered the probable performance characteristics of your quasi-wunderwafers and figured out the search performance of the forces they armed. Shamefully, they would cover themselves with a palm and wander back to the sandbox to mold cakes.

[Dzafdet]

Quote: gunnerminer

In order to create waves such as in the picture, the crew needs to ensure maximum speed, not paying attention to the noise, and therefore indifferent to stealth. And not paying attention to the type of hydrology, maneuver along the route at depths as close to periscope as possible.

When moving under water, any boat moves a column of water above itself, up to its surface. Since the boat does not move strictly in a straight line, it constantly steers to maintain heading. then there is a standing wave (Bernoulli hump). More details can be read on VPK.namem, articles of the Lexin brothers ..

[timokhin-aa]

Here about Leksiny few people in the course)))

[takr54]

Until the end of the 80s, Soviet military scientists created a physical model of phenomena used in the unconventional detection of submarines. And information on the use of non-traditional Americans was received in 1990.

[njkznjkznjkz]

Gorbachev at one time handed boat detection technologies to the states.

[PavelT]

Quote: timokhin-aa

, and with it there are options, the excitement on the surface affects, on the 5 points, for example, nothing can be traced to the surface,

So I think the same way. Most likely, these complex methods with traces on the surface work only for ideal conditions (without wind and waves). Are there often such conditions in the Barents Sea or in the ocean opposite Norway, Greenland, off the coast of Iceland? I doubt it ...
Maybe it's all just disinformation from the other side?
But in fact, the Americans may have improved the networks of their underwater hydrophones in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean (new types of hydrophones, new cheap ways of exposing them to the bottom closer to our shores), refined filtering of signals against noise, added the recognition of the noise of submarines using neural networks (other tricky processing methods that 20 has gone far ahead in recent years) and calculate the location of the submarines from such noises from different hydrophones.

[Mih1974]

Everything is very cool and informative and someone is "scared", but let me not this summer or last summer, the merikas themselves were scared when SUDDENLY two Chinese submarines of a new generation surfaced a hundred kilometers from their aug (which they themselves considered the destruction of their AUG)? That is, it turns out - they See us, but the Chinese are "invisible" for this method, or what?

[VladVlad]

Well done by the author, professionally made an excellent review of submarine detection systems and technologies! The developers would have it! Experts and real engineers have long known that the United States monitors our strategic submarines around the clock! And this means that the United States can destroy all our submarines at any time. Why don't our admirals understand this? Do they listen to "experts" because they themselves do not differ in "intelligence and ingenuity"? Or the laymen? Can only voice commands? And to think .... give it to "experts - professionals" ???? In NTs Krylov, the technology of invisibility of submarines was offered. But the director listened to the "imbecile experts"! As a result, the country will not even be able to respond to the enemies of the aggressors. Because they behave arrogantly and aggressively!

[Carib]

Digital methods of summing, overlapping, digital filters can clear the signal from interference so much that it will be possible to see if the excitement is more than 5 points, as it is now less than 5 visually on the radar screen.
But from the depth, from the deep layers, I think it is much more difficult, it is necessary to experiment, on the "home" seas.

[Saxahorse]

Good article. A fairly convincing review of sources confirming the reality and great danger of the new submarine fleet problem.

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

The articles are interesting, they make you think, but ... There are certain inconsistencies and some ideas of the author, which, in my opinion, are delusional. I already wrote about some inconsistencies in the comments to the first article, the author did not react in any way. There is one more point. If anti-submarine aircraft are so effective as can be seen from these articles, then why did the Americans remove the Vikings from their armament and leave only PLO helicopters on the AB? I do not believe in the extreme deterioration and old age of these aircraft. The same Hawks are no newer and the raid on them is probably much more, since not one AB campaign is complete without AWACS aircraft.
How to explain this? A change in the political situation, the weakening of the Russian Navy? Hardly. If there was this reason, then they would be removed immediately after the collapse of the USSR. As a result, Amer’s ABs now began to surprise even Chinese submarines. With such effective methods of detecting submarines, then the Americans would not have written off the Vikings, or at least would have worked to replace them with a promising carrier-based submarine PLO

[Alexey Vasilievich I]

"Same Hawks"
Typo
Of course hokai

[Simeonov]

It has nothing to do with Bernoulli and Kelvin. A circle, an Oval, a boat in the center. Kelvin and Bernoulli are several hundred meters from the object. Here, the radius is up to 20 km, depending on the displacement.

[VVAU]

And from the move. The higher the speed, the larger the torus, somewhere up to 15 knots, then if the speed is higher, the torus does not increase.

[Simeonov]

[quote = timokhin-aa] None.
impedance is zero

Water is incompressible.
Hydrology influences, yes, and there are options with it, the excitement on the surface affects 5 points,
Difficult, but possible.

In fact, there is only one way - the boats must keep "in the shadow" of the surface compound
Different vibrations. The submariner wrote about this. Follows our ship, just jumped out - "Orion2" hangs.

Inside this zone, they can only be threatened by enemy submarines, which, in turn, must "nightmare" their own UUVs and carrier-based PLO aircraft (which must be).
Must ... And where to get them?

Under these conditions, secrecy will again be realizable, but - in the zone of control of its NK.
Stealth or there is or not. The word "realizable" is not appropriate here.

In principle, Americans lose our submarines, and often.
Everyone is losing. This is not a 100% chance.
But we must understand that these are still episodic losses, that is, at some points in time they maintain contact with each of our submarines, and during the database they can destroy it. Plus, you must make a discount on peacetime mode - they use 1-2 aircraft instead of 50-60.
All the same, there will be ONE plane. The remaining 49 smoke on the sidelines.

[Sckepsis]

The main mistake of a person is to believe that he is smarter than everyone. The author really believes that we, ordinary forum users understand everything, but admirals, MO officials, intelligence, Malachite / Rubin designers, senior management are all donkeys? This is already about childish naivety. They put on a submarine, and even on the issue of strategic nuclear forces, that means the submarines have not yet died out. Otherwise, instead of a series of Boreevs, they would have fallen into the land, even the very same Barguzin.

a) perhaps there is a method / technology of counteraction.
b) radar capabilities to detect submarines are seriously limited.

[VVAU]

Everything has already been invented and implemented on an Israeli boat. From non-tradition 3 part:
"Most likely, a system was used on the new Israeli boat that was not related to the regulation of the amount of water. It was during the movement without strong fluctuations in depth. The idea was taken from the balancing system of the Harrier aircraft. Only there due to the reactive effect, but here due to low-speed water-jet engines In order to reduce noise As the submarine's speed increased, the role of water-jet engines decreased, but the rudder efficiency increased, and vice versa.     
The speed of the calculator played a significant role in the quality of this process. I still didn’t understand what gave the boat the “source” of depth keeping. Or an inertial system, or a pressure sensor. In the first case, the boat could move at a depth relative to the given coordinates. And in the second, relative to a given water pressure at a specific depth. The role of an echo sounder, or other emitting device (such as an echometer), counting only from the surface of the water, of course, was excluded, because this influenced the secrecy of the submarine. As a result, the boat practically did not make vertical vibrations, or they were smoothed out. However, what is usually called the Bernoulli effect remained. Conclusion: the disturbance on the water surface no longer had the shape of an ellipse (circle, torus), but was pointed (Waves Kelvin.) But he still needed to be found.

[kosovvskiy]

Perhaps the Poseidons, as our boats discover, but certainly not by the effects described in the above articles.

For example, from a British article of 2015.

"The
maximum peak-to-peak disturbance for a large submarine can reach about 17 centimeters
when it is traveling at high speeds at shallow depth; otherwise at normal patrol speeds
and depths, the maximum peak-to-peak disturbance is of the order of a millimeter or less.

The maximum amplitude (of a similar wave) can be about 17 centimeters when moving at high speed at a shallow depth. However, at standard speeds and depths of patrol, the amplitude is less than one millimeter.

[VVAU]

And you need to understand that the basic anti-submarine US Navy Aviation 
Patrol.

[VVAU]

[quote = Alex_59] [quote = timokhin-aa] Then why is it on export Poseidons? [/ quote]
You have to ask the customer. I suppose that the magnetometer still plays an important role in the customer's "system of life values". It would of course be interesting to know the statistics - with how many real submarines the aviators made initial contact with the magnetometer, but according to the data of some domestic pilots who flew on the Il-38 and Be-12, with its help the initial contact with the submarine was established in the amount of zero integers, zero tenth times. I doubt that magnetometers on Poseidons or Orions are much more effective than ours.

In theory, with the APM, the probability is low, depending on the height, size of the area and depths.
About 0,1.
However, in practice they were often found. Area 50 to 80 km in two hours, up to 0,3 was.
Amers have better magnetometers, because our APM-60 is a clone from the Trekker, which fell into the sea and was raised by ours. Back in the 60s.