What uses an underwater antennae array???

I think there might be some confusion here. My sources tell me that the translation from Russian to English for this technology is not precise, and that a more appropriate word for this "antenna" would be the english word "array".

This is a Russian passive acoustical system, pure and simple. Its been around for years and is a well-know capability that the old Soviets installed a long time ago. No biggie.

Originally posted by robbie414
Hi JIMC,

Yeah I do agree with you, my use of the terms VLF really covers ELF too www.fas.org...

Sorry about that little outburst btw, apologies to other forumites! FYI Ludo I am a British aerospace engineer.

Simon, HF transmission may allow higher data transfer speeds but it has no water penetrating properties. VLF/ELF is used as a bell ringer, the sub can receive small messages and come to a lesser depth to gather further information. My point was that placing the transmitter underwater would reduce refraction losses. The simplest explanation is that this net was either a fishing net or a sosus style receiver, the interesting part of this for me at least is that maybe the russians have taken a different approach to ELF/VLF transmission by placing the antenna under water. I agree that the effective length of this would be extremely long, perhaps long enough to entangle a sub!

Just a thought though.

It's probrably just a fishing net!

Cheers

Rob

Well as of yesterday's news they are back to calling it a fishing net. If you believe that I have a couple of bridges in New York City for sale.

Could this be part of a transmitter system? I mean the Russians have some of the best Physics people in the world. Could it be something like the US Navy's ELF transmitter except that it transmits thru water? I am looking at a map of where this took place and I really can't see the need for a SOSUS type array there.

The latest story I heard was that a fishing net got stuck on the antennae so the mini sub was sent to try and free the antennae, but they also got stuck in the fishing net. It sounds believeable, and would explain why the story went flip flopped from an atennae to a fishing net.

Originally posted by warpboost
The latest story I heard was that a fishing net got stuck on the antennae so the mini sub was sent to try and free the antennae, but they also got stuck in the fishing net. It sounds believeable, and would explain why the story went flip flopped from an atennae to a fishing net.

This I'll buy. This mornings news states that the Russians are doing a criminal investagation into the mishap.

www.startribune.com...

I wonder what they are looking for.
Could it be who lost the fishing net? Could it be who sent the sub in the first place? Could it be how the media found out that there was an antennae array there?
There are reports that the crew were going to be abandon to die, but someone from the military called a radio station in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky with the news. The Russians changed their mind after the news got out.
www.channelnewsasia.com...

I cant get those links to work, but the story I read about the criminal investigation made it sound like they are looking into who sent the sub in the first place as it broke procedure by sending a lone sub, and not 2 together.

Which it could be ... whoever U2U'ed me on this I believe did not interpret the correction properly. I was pointing out that it COULD be an antenna array, not that it could not. It actually could be a very low frequency array.

But, recent news reports to me suggest that if it is NOT an antenna array, it is perhaps more of a fishnet ... literally to grab subs by touch or contact and then sending off an alarm signal, which is why earlier reports thought it was in fact a fishnet.

Originally posted by warpboost

Originally posted by ludo182
let's go back to basic physics.... : electromagnetic waves are stopped by a few millimeters of water, the width of this "barrier" depends on the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. Thus, all of your antenna story is crap

So could you survive an initial nuclear blast if you were underwater??

If you were underwater near the blast the shockwave would kill you unless you were in some sort of insanely armoured bunker. The radioactive contaminents could filter through the water.

However, the E&M blockage spectrum does not include very high energy waves. Sufficiently bove the ionization frequency of the material (sufficient energy to extract electrons from the molecule, in this case H2O plus ions) there is a transparency ... in other words gamma rays will pass right though all of us.

It is the very high energy radiation that is most damaging to the human body as far as mutations go. The high energy radiation will burn but this is only temporary. Higher energies kill cells and screw up the DNA and other sensitive cells, it's quite devastating. These effects can take months to appear. This is why avoiding the use of these weapons is very important.

Originally posted by warpboost
The latest story I heard was that a fishing net got stuck on the antennae so the mini sub was sent to try and free the antennae, but they also got stuck in the fishing net. It sounds believeable, and would explain why the story went flip flopped from an atennae to a fishing net.

Could be or else the device looks like a fishing net. The passive acoustic system is plausible, could be used to pick up unusual "noises" (like listening to whale songs). A submarine would have it's own noise signature. Clanking on metal with hammer for example would carry very well.