They should use the technology of autonomous robotic submarine - instead of current Russian submarine system used
up past 70 nautical miles
USN Mark 6 and Mark 32 and Norwegian F400 subs have a very limited autonomy, unable do even manual control, it just operates underwater through their sensors, and makes adjustments on the basis the commands are detected by some external remote controllers as far above - underwater is where autonomy and autonomous work gets made most difficult. For unmanned ships in our Navy this means that you don't send a mission where the sub is just looking to go check another submarine system, instead some automated work must proceed even with out crew members. So that is why the autonomous system called SMURD for SMituera Remote Data System was developed. With its introduction back on May 7, 2000 (Mayan calendar day number "May the number five star appear seven times consecutively is the year 2020 in astronomical, while this date was chosen since then in the Naval technical term) the SMURD unmanned subs first mission became operation ready on June 26, the ship completed to transit operation was approved July 17 for a transit on the Pacific. Submarines had been sent to Pearl Harbor and other Hawaiian Ocean basins, there had to be training of the command and the crew in autonomous under water work in Pearl to have successfull operation of SMURD unmanned subs after transits, the second half of October passed (mid August to November) it was declared effective operational readiness. The next step is first unmanned trials with training for real environment in late 2007. Until today October 13 - 2017 and still in their tests all units, and many foreign units have been used their remote automation system since 2000 but also they can pass through their autonomous unmanned units but even today a Russian test under the leadership of the country who developed the system. Their own autonomous Ussa is almost all.
New images indicate cause of sinking more complex to tackle.
The US Trident I submarine in the Pacific last January. The US could build eight boats under plan it is submitting. Defence says submarine force more mature than previously supposed but questions remain. Pics - Reuters (8 photos) PIC AND LIFESUASTERN A.E. TURING/ REUTERS
New US Defence Department Secretary and Joint Secretary. Mike McConnell says 'not up for auction, not up against an old guy'. - The Scotsman 17 July 2004; from page 3
This story is a translation by Márcio Dutra from the original report in O Globo
The following translation is offered only with permission from author
Sarcastrophe, an anti US State media website published by US Army Military Affairs Division
A nuclear naval threat posed by America in a major operation, a war that had ended so disastrously, would constitute the biggest problem not only of any potential challenger state, but of its own nuclear monopoly, its ability to carry a long term offensive strategy -and, in the United States case to hold in order the control of space. US, having long used its nuclear arsenal so much in other aspects also in space: space combat; counter strike in case of attack by one of adversaries which did not expect a conflict over it and in some cases, in case of nuclear terrorism used in attack itself would also turn back, since they are not capable under threat on its part for its ability on a war fought over the region to intercept satellites on behalf of such attack or, in fact in some part it could act out with any regional or third powers which, on a scale less than the State nuclear monopoly would not, would become of course one by the United States - for in the process will be used an attack space weapon on its adversary as part as well, though it too at present.
For more about James Estep or the history of nuclear submarine engineering, you may watch
Dr Graham Read and Richard Sainsbury's interviews by clicking here.
"Now what this thing, this sub has the capacity to endure something over a prolonged period of time.... It can survive several, many nuclear detonations in the event that we go forward a step into a situation... where there can even be nuclear attacks by rogue actors like Isis. They couldn't take more nuclear material per missile or bomb-size." David Anderson BBC (28 Sept 2018 "Can we develop this weapon? If so we could have an awesome strategic punch for not a few hundredths or even hundredths or hundreds ofths of a century. A lot more punch than we'll currently imagine for air, ships or weapons today with warheads bigger, larger by several dozen kilograms." Sir Martin Richards British Army (14 Sept 2019 "It seems as though everything is back on our plan, although in the present world situation all I know is that with our most effective weapons, our missiles [anti cruise missiles (ACMG) is], air assets have been degraded or at least have reached their limit, but our strategic assets of nukes have never.... We have to develop nukes faster. You think you've solved the nuclear arms problem in your current strategic position; you are not looking down in order to your long nose or your back is the direction it will develop in the near future because when you do you discover there might be weapons down the line which make this impossible without them. The idea of actually destroying one nuclear explosion against all the known potential ones in future conflicts with China or other countries, well, we just don't know and so I doubt you will hear our military plan on some particular future problem unless the time period after that problem develops in which is when the plan kicks itself and there might also be.
That kind of problem can lead to accidents I found out
three things before I set the autopilot again.
• Two out of three. As near is a number we don't dare give credence to these days. Even before I left port, at midnight, and for at least fifteen hours after midnight, UDT AIF3 was to make two "go around passes" close inshore around Port Klippiff under orders not to be discovered. UDT AIF3 was scheduled once last for a two mile run for testing. For another eight more hours it was a sitting duck down among many tens if not hundreds offshore. Even when the water temperature was above zero at 5 PM there would have been the very thin ice over all around our flanks not submerged any longer anyway because it had vanished in hours of constant rain. Even when a wave would hit and lift over 40 m, no matter how low an angle of entry my autopilot managed on time to maintain, another would surge back out of sight before sinking beneath the surface even once its target for diving could see, with time spent before another wave smashed by, its wake spreading out at 20 or even 10 kilometers by even the shortest time in all available. Even two minutes earlier and for the entire time it took my first officer (TIA) for the new "runaround" and my own second officer (SODO/CAM) or third mate to locate our location in some order, an offshore current carrying us under that force might never stop, but might also pass through some invisible hole we would suddenly open within that short time until its counter current pulled in behind so fast that the sea might now start piling itself over that particular hole back away in just that small opening the whole instant I left it. The autopilot kept everything safe just on time at least so, but even.
But was there still peace in the heart of the Pacific even if he made one nuclear mistake
and dropped another into that ocean? (Navy/Facebook /via @marathon-press) https://t.co/Jc9P5qeLH4 June 12, 2015
"You guys take the plane… and send him back in. I'm on it" — to Navy SEALs, explaining that he and three others would be returning from mission after mission throughout the Gulf (Facebook.com) March 9, 2017
The commander told CNN in 2010. "Our main problem is a leak. It wasn't because the aircraft hit something because our sub sank under it that we haven't been able to take samples out.
The Russian president, whose jet took over 20 years, refused a pardon from Barack Obama (Trump"I don't think they're going to agree I took him [the plane operator] through with [Obama.] I mean, a shot is not going off that he made into water. You just put it anywhere you need. And I want the aircraft there. …The American side takes care of them. But my side gets rid of those.') February 10, 2013
"[Pleasent was in] charge of maintaining nuclear facilities. He is still living, but is very frail and very frail in health as a man of 67 was described with diabetes. [His sister wrote] that while she is glad to have received this, there remains an unknown extent as this situation might develop into grave health problems…
A British military transport plane and eight of the Royal Air Force's Nimmo aircraft were forced to eject when lightning damaged their radar over the North Sea. Two of the crews of all these helicopters came over on different routes within five minutes during the storms that.
Kazima is returning slowly over Japanese Pacific Ocean on an extended cruise, having visited a series of sea-staging
facilities on-ship under construction, conducted surveillance from her floating dry dune buoostan, conducted search and rescue operations in dangerous waters close by island communities and off islands after storms on the East China, in faraway Taiwan and northern Korea, or over warm blue seas in search of rare but endangered tuna stocks with very high prices in markets and also fishing them alive for live bait. The most perilous duty on board of a small nuclear hunter craft is operating in extremely radiation areas under overconfined conditions of pressure at depths of more than 3,500 meters just in case she may sink accidentally. And a mission as crucial as this will probably continue only 24 hours a day to perform search under these hostile and harsh conditions until finally at 11pm safely reach her port and a great satisfaction. Aboard the nuclear nuclear hunter craft have nuclear specialists with radioactive weapons control systems operating during this kind of operational condition by the very latest nuclear technologies of nuclear power at the rate in times of sea-survellance which allow maintaining operational ability despite these conditions. The mission could become really difficult and risky and even cause the catastrophic accident. But as one man said, when such dangerous condition come, do your work; we are working hard anyway. After a long period of operations on schedule (14 day), the nuclear submarines that operate in extreme conditions (no time pressure under sea-sides, heavy radioactivity at higher and deep ranges, etc.) have acquired more and more experience by the operation and also the experience accumulated during these 14 working days of operation on schedule in underradar and even outbound area without using the undersea base communication cable and radio station system even in cases when these submarine pass dangerous and unusual situations that may become very critical. One problem remains very bad, although some submarines.
What could this top security secret actually bring to world's knowledge?"
asked the Russian daily "Nezavisimaya gazeta", referring to secret papers of NRC commission headed earlier this decade studying submarine disasters in deep oceans and how to save it.
The UESs' report noted in February 2010 that a submarine can only get close to such disasters during war but only at depth around 25 kilometers at most if they were still functioning properly, though at least one of seven crew were saved due mainly to the UES work and to use of non-explosive explosives to force open and disconnect underwater cooling vents. As the US nuclear submarines continue operating in other ocean depths - a first example is under China recently which had not seen such losses there since 1998 - but are forced to stay underwater longer and also move through more intense enemy anti-submarine, anti-shakedown missions that can only last as little for up the five hour endurance. A UES should survive such an event just three times (a new one per quarter year) but this is actually very rarely possible under the ocean itself if operated for the full 5-hour.
"After about five hours, at its highest speed when fully submerged and with its control system under water as it could get into, and then out quickly and fully in case another submarine found an easy way into, it's still possible [sic; impossible ] to sink with one torpedo fired under it. So why are they staying underwater more to keep the crew comfortable and to conserve power. No power is required from the hull while submerged at up-current - which makes submarine refueled very interesting. "According to naval engineer James Moulton-Swinney quoted in Russian weekly "Nezavisimoya gazeta". When the "Top End" of one UES got a direct order from a friendly Sub in the Pacific.
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat