Can SOSUS locate the implosion location and depth of an submarine? Like
>Have multiple points
>Hear the implosion at multiple locations
>Just triangulate the position based on speed of sound + distance
Since sound travels at different speeds and signal might bounce around couldn't they just test this by dropping thousand depth charges at different depths/locations and form a precise grid of things?
Wouldn't you want to know, Ivan?
Yeah man having on-topic discussions is for PIDORS and VATNIKS and COMMIES! Go back to another Ukraine thread fricking dork
reminder there are trolls that just reply to "ok vatnik" and stuff like that to derail
sound in the sea is weird
t. rp33 enjoyer
You would need to do that, just triangulate the position. The old SOSUS from the 50s ran along the eastern seaboard - plenty of microphone locations to triangulate from.
Yes. The CIA located and recovered part of a sunken Soviet sub way back in the 1970s using this tech. The Soviets had no fricking idea where it was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian?wprov=sfla1
Methinks satellites have a range of underwater capabilities we don’t know about.
>satellites
>underwater capabilities
EM signals and water don't go along, so I doubt it.
>he doesn't know
There's more than plain radar, with good enough resolution IR will give you the shadow of submarines anywhere but low depth.
There's plenty of work done on Neutrino detectors to basically detect ANY nuclear powered submarine, anywhere in the world, regardless of the position of the detector (which is a big ass room).
And ever since computers do the work of identifying sounds you can reach a precision good enough to detect basically everything. I doubt much stealth remain outside of hiding within the noise of a civilian ship.
>IR schizobabble
IR is higher frequency than radar so technically even worse for the job, not like it matters since both of them surpass 100db of attenuation within ten meters of depth.
Take meds then study electronics engineering.
>>IR schizobabble
https://www.ussjpkennedyjr.org/the-different-methods-of-tracking-submarines/
>A nuclear submarine can be tracked in a number of ways. One is by the noise it makes as it moves through the water.
>Another is by the heat it emits, which can be detected by infrared sensors.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-submarines-and-non-acoustic-sensor-technology/
>Heat. Nuclear submarines use large quantities of seawater to condense the superheated steam and cool the reactor. It may be possible to detect the trail of slightly warmer water pumped out by the submarine for some hours after it has passed by, although the effectiveness of this method could vary greatly depending on the ambient sea temperature.
I do recognize it's definitely lacking in precision and is more a first step before confirming with other detection method.
It also work better for nuclear submarine but diesel electric can't dive anywhere as long as nuclear submarine.
>detect submarine wakes from space and track targets based on that?
See above do it from aircraft, doing it from space is just a mater of sensor sensibilities
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a34716703/navy-detect-submarines-with-airborne-radar-p8-poseidon/
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-submarines-and-non-acoustic-sensor-technology/
>Yes it's possible to detect nuclear reactors emission of anti-neutrino. No it's not possible to locate them, it's a case of "we know where this emission of neutrino comes from because we know there is a nuclear fission reactor there" rather than the opposite.
It's just a matter of triangulation and determining if the particle come from artificial source.
>it may be possible to detect the trail of slightly warmer water
>MAY
You vastly overestimate how practical such methods are, same deal for neutrinos.
Radar were not that practical either at first.
Being able to detect every nuclear sources on the planet would easily be worth a few big installation.
It's could also be a matter of making more sensible sensors or making an algorithm which find a pattern in what looked like white noise.
Military forces are the ones seriously looking into neutrino & wakes detection.
Hell not a few hours ago I heard some force are tuning their sonar to detect the sound of one particular fish who is always very noisy anytime something enter his territory.
>There's plenty of work done on Neutrino detectors to basically detect ANY nuclear powered submarine, anywhere in the world, regardless of the position of the detector (which is a big ass room).
Neutrino detection is a fricking meme.
Yes it's possible to detect nuclear reactors emission of anti-neutrino. No it's not possible to locate them, it's a case of "we know where this emission of neutrino comes from because we know there is a nuclear fission reactor there" rather than the opposite.
What about the DoEgay here that says we can use SAR satellite constellations to detect submarine wakes from space and track targets based on that?
If we do they need to share that shit with me so I can get regional bathymetry data for my project
This isn't thje warthunder forums or discord, we don't leak military secrets here.
And war thunder doesn't have modern subs yet, so you gotta wait a few more years for sombody leaking the sonar stuff.
The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is that it's complicated and the ocean is a pretty fricking noisy place. Telling the exact depth of things is also difficult which cna in turn frick up range estimates.
But triangulation stil works, and they probably have a frickhuge supercomputer sifting through the data.
The real world answer is that even if they did, they would never come out and go 'We heard what was quite possibly an implosion in the right area, but we can't tell you any real details because that is all secret.
They're probably all dead, but we aren't really certain, and we can't tell you what our actual data sources are, so you can't actually quote us and use any of our material in any court of inquiry investigating the accident. Thanks and have a nice day!'
>But triangulation stil works, and they probably have a frickhuge supercomputer sifting through the data.
Do you really though? Like I'd love to know at what frequency explosions happen, using simple Fourier transforms it might be actually really simple to do (like they did with detecting nuclear explosions)
>Telling the exact depth of things is also difficult which cna in turn frick up range estimates.
This is true but I imagine you can solve the problem using maths. Like imagine explosion going off at the surface or the bottom, the signal will be different in both cases as the signal will bounce. Like with cellphone signals bouncing around that should result in recognizable multipath propagation
>Like with cellphone signals bouncing around that should result in recognizable multipath propagation
The problem with doing this underwater is that changes in salinity and temperature (thermoclines) affect how the sound propagates. It's clearly possible to do this, they did it in the 1960's with the wreck of the K-129, but it's not easy.
It's classified.
>Be a sonar tech monitoring the SOSUS net
>see a sound on the waterfall display and hear a "crump!"
>look to your partner next to you "I think I just heard an implosion"
>talk about it with the supervisor, who agrees with your assessment
>see the news about missing sub
>tell superior officer about it.
>who tells his superior officer, and so on...
>Chief of Naval Operations calls Coast Guard Commandant
>"Hey, we think we heard an implosion about the time that sub lost contact at the Titanic."
MFW
>dropping thousand depth charges at different depths
Seems likely that they calibrate it that way. But I don’t think that there is much elevation in the Atlantic that could lead to sound waves bouncing