3 ms·

According to the article this uses plasma explosions and a working medium of metal particles. Wouldn’t both lead to easier traceability (sound, metal)?

40112328 3y ago
[dead]
Staple_Diet 3y ago
In comparison to conventional nuclear sub this method would be much quieter. But also much faster over long distances. You have two issues with subs, stealth and positioning. If you know, or have high confidence, that a combatant sub force is in X pos, and have Intel on its AVG speed then you can plan accordingly. Tech like that described above means a sub force can be more quickly repositioned, or deployed. You have Intel that X vessel was docked two days ago? Well it could be in the south pacific today. One thing to keep in mind, there is a reason this is published publically. PLA want this out there for a reason, either to sow worry and concern or to mislead.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > this method would be much quieter Source? Cavitation on propellers is a major source of uncloaking. This sub sounds fast but traceable—perhaps more ideal for a weapon than a vehicle.
  - Staple_Diet 3y ago
    The method described in the present article doesn't rely on rotating propellers that produce vibrations, thereby reducing one of the major sources of noise.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > method described in the present article doesn't rely on rotating propellers that produce vibrations, thereby reducing one of the major sources of noise The main source of “hull vibration and noise” from propellers is cavitation [1]. Laser propulsion directly cavitates. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549849/
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      It sounds like it's basically a gigantic cavitation noise generator, so yeah, I'm not imagining that it could possibly be quieter. Today's submarines go to great lengths to avoid cavitation for just that reason. Typically there's a velocity beyond which the vessel does not go if it wants to remain stealthy, as going faster than that drastically increases the cavitation noise.

40112328 3y ago

[dead]

Staple_Diet 3y ago

In comparison to conventional nuclear sub this method would be much quieter. But also much faster over long distances. You have two issues with subs, stealth and positioning. If you know, or have high confidence, that a combatant sub force is in X pos, and have Intel on its AVG speed then you can plan accordingly. Tech like that described above means a sub force can be more quickly repositioned, or deployed. You have Intel that X vessel was docked two days ago? Well it could be in the south pacific today. One thing to keep in mind, there is a reason this is published publically. PLA want this out there for a reason, either to sow worry and concern or to mislead.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> this method would be much quieter Source? Cavitation on propellers is a major source of uncloaking. This sub sounds fast but traceable—perhaps more ideal for a weapon than a vehicle.
- Staple_Diet 3y ago
  The method described in the present article doesn't rely on rotating propellers that produce vibrations, thereby reducing one of the major sources of noise.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > method described in the present article doesn't rely on rotating propellers that produce vibrations, thereby reducing one of the major sources of noise The main source of “hull vibration and noise” from propellers is cavitation [1]. Laser propulsion directly cavitates. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549849/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549849/
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    It sounds like it's basically a gigantic cavitation noise generator, so yeah, I'm not imagining that it could possibly be quieter. Today's submarines go to great lengths to avoid cavitation for just that reason. Typically there's a velocity beyond which the vessel does not go if it wants to remain stealthy, as going faster than that drastically increases the cavitation noise.