|
Author
|
Topic: faster than sound submarines
|
darthbob
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 02:17 PM
   
i read about this the other day and it sounds intriguing, by creating a layer of gas around a sub it eliminates friction with the water apparently and lets the sub go faster than sound. any more info would be nice, and if this is old news please say, IP: Logged |
JG3_Jetlag
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 03:06 PM
Oops.[This message has been edited by JG3_Jetlag (edited 04-30-2001).] IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 04:31 PM
I've heard about this in the context of torpedos - the rumor was that the Soviet Kursk submarine was test firing some supersonic torpedos when it blew up.This technique doesn't seem to make sense to me. It would seem that it would require a HUGE amount of energy to move all of that water out of the way so quickly. Think of how heavy water is, and how much displacement a submarine or torpedo has to have. Then consider moving that weight of water many times a second. Consider the fuel required to do that. Seems fishy to me  IP: Logged |
JT
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 04:57 PM
Not to mention the fact that for an object moving that fast in water, even a small failure in the "gas bubble system" would probably be catastrophic. IP: Logged |
darthbob
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 06:36 PM
thats what i've been thinking, it sounds to far fetched for the moment but i love technological advances be it in space, sea or air. it just sounded really cool.IP: Logged |
Stark
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 08:07 PM
Hmmm... the more I think about it the more I think it may be possible.My line of reasoning goes like this... A sufficiently strong enough EM field can repel water very forcefully. Applied correctly to the hull of a ship or torpedo it could indeed repel all the water away from the hull. You could then use shifts in the EM field as a form of propulsion (kind of like a maglev train or a rail-gun). Now, assuming that the EM field was strong enough to repel the water in the first place you could then move very quickly because you would not be dealing with drag from the water. It's kind of like drafting behind a truck but you create your own wind shadow (only it's a water shadow). This would indeed require alot of energy to do but for a weapon it would only need to last for a few seconds at most considering engagement ranges under water are usually less than 8000 yards.... and it doesn't take something going supersonic very long to travel that far. Also, if it was a weapon you could make it much smaller than a conventional torpedo as it's kinetic energy would be more than sufficient to do extreme damage to anything it hits... the smaller size would reduce the power required to propel it. In all reality though, this is probably far from being ready for testing even if it does exist as a concept. Also, as for the matter of the Kursk testing a new weapons system... there are far better places much closer to Russia to conduct such tests than where the Kursk sank. -Stark Just thought of something else, a system like this on a sub would allow it operate without the use of ballast systems as you could control buoyancy via EM field strength, forcing the ship down or up via shifts in field strength the same way as you do to create forward thrust. Potentially (not too sure on this, have to think it out more) you could greatly increses the maximum dive depth of the boat as well. [This message has been edited by Stark (edited 04-30-2001).] IP: Logged |
ArgonV
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 08:38 PM
Wouldnt the surrounding water pressure around the "air bubble/field" cause some sort of "drag" or cause friction?IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 04-30- 10:13 PM
Stark, the rumours I heard about the torpedo was that the impact of the nose of the torpedo was designed in a way that it vaporized the water, creating a continously regenerating bubble that the torpedo traveled through.Here's a quote I found, it may help you track down some more info Western experts believe the missile to be the most effective submarine weapon available. This is a misnomer since it is not a question of a missile but a torpedo which travels twice as fast as anything the West has. Western intelligence has been seeking it for several years and it's called "Shkval" (squall; see "Torpedoes - Double Speed with Porous Second Skin", INT, n. 18 7). What is known is that it produces a high-speed and high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin which coat the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and allows it to travel at extremely high speeds, for an object in the water. Apparently its propulsion system is rocket-based -- not propeller-driven -- and guidance is a problem, particularly at 360 kph underwater.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b8bb1573d8.htm IP: Logged |
Pachy
Pilot
|
posted 05-01- 04:37 AM
From what I've read it is based on a phenomenon called cavitation - hence the name "super-cavitating missiles".
Cavitation is the formation of small vapour bubbles, caused by local depression that occurs for example along ship propeller blades. In general this is an effect you want to avoid as it enhances corrosion and produces a lot of noise. This is particularily problematic for subs.
On this missiles, they rely on a huge cavitation bubble surrounding the whole missile to reduce friction effects.IP: Logged |
Da Wing Waxer
Cadet
|
posted 05-01- 07:06 AM
The only problem with an EM based propulsion system is it would make a boat a sitting duck for a magnetic anomaly detector (an ASW detection device in use for a number of years now.)Plus, the bubble stream would make it easily detectable from the air. Actually a magnetic propulsion system was the basis for the book "Hunt for Red October" Funny though, the oldest technology is still the quietest. Ain't nothing sneakier than a diesel electric boat running submerged on her battery. IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 05-01- 09:20 AM
I was watching the discovery channel and they
were advancing a theory about the Bermuda
Triangle. It amounted to a sudden release of
sulphur gass from the earth underneath the
water would, of course, cause a large amount
of bubbles to rise to the surface. If a ship
were to be in the path of these sulphur
bubbles the gas would replace the water
around the ship and cause the ship to sink.
They did this in a test tank with a model
ship and sure enough it sank low enough
to take water and sink after the bubbles
disapated. I would think a gas bubble around
a sub would cause it to lose bouyency.IP: Logged |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
