It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wonder how the Thresher got from the east coast to California in less than 24 hours.
Although the top speed of the subs is classified, even rumor has them going about 50 tops.
Originally posted by johnlear
Aircraft carriers go faster than that. I believe about 65 knots. The new subs go almost twice that now that they have boundary layer control.
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
People lets not forget this thread came from the guy who said holographic projecters were responsible for the 2 planes on 9/11
JRA and Defcon made some good points that were well explained, and if John doesnt want to give aus a link to where makinnon (the hacker) said that he saw a black secret space station, well that says it all really
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
dont remember the thread when John said exactly that? shame on you
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus
One of the points made particularly in THIS thread is about the underground TUBES The high speed transit tubes. Now I saw someone mention about the Nuclear powered TBM's that melt rock...
Well you don't believe John...
So
Would you believe Rand Corporation documents from 1972?
Would you believe Department of Defense documents that back up the Rand Corporation?
Would you believe Patents filed by Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Department of Energy for three Atomic TBM's? In 1972?
Would you believe people are so blind that they still don't get it even when its REPORTED in the LA Times in 1972?
Well if THAT isn't enough documentation on just ONE of the things John says, then there is no help for you and please feel free to laugh it up
And don't give me that nonsense about "Just because they issued a patent doesn't mean..."
BS!!! Just pick up the phone and call the DOE or Los Alamos... just be prepared to answer WHY you want to know
The documents are all here... if your afraid the site will bite... too bad... its where I store all the data and can organize it at MY expense and not use other peoples band width
TRANSIT TUBES
LA TIMES, JUNE 11, 1972
"L.A. to N.Y. in Half an Hour?
10,000 - M.P.H. Tunnel Train Plan Developed
By: Times Science Writer - George Getz
It made the mainstream news in 1972...
To bad people have such short term memory and no attention span to follow it up because now the information is 'underground' and hard to find
I work with a friend who is a retired spook from that era. his main assignments were as a rider on the later boats of that class. I will try to ask him when i see him in a few days. if he says no I'll have to call bs. even though i don't believe ill wait for a quote just for integrity sake..
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
That article does not mean crap, man. Think it through. It was done by a science writer, and boasted nothing but wishing thinking about a potential future possibility. Nothing different than 50 years of popular Science covers that have commercial space planes on the "horizon" for the last 40 years and other things that do not come to fruition. Must we go through each and every issue of that and say anything that did not make it, either became a secret black project cover-up and exists today, or merely that the the idea never had enough financial backing and the technological limits at the time were a little to be to be profitable?
Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
I got out of subs in '03 but I have never in my life heard of "layer control" as a propulsion..?
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
That article does not mean crap, man. Think it through. It was done by a science writer, and boasted nothing but wishing thinking about a potential future possibility. Nothing different than 50 years of popular Science covers that have commercial space planes on the "horizon" for the last 40 years and other things that do not come to fruition. Must we go through each and every issue of that and say anything that did not make it, either became a secret black project cover-up and exists today, or merely that the the idea never had enough financial backing and the technological limits at the time were a little to be to be profitable?
Thanks for your post and your opinion IgnoreTheFacts. Although I think your grammer, adjectives and vocabulary are not college level neither are mine sometimes.
Thanks again.
Originally posted by JustMike
Originally posted by DIRTMASTER
I hope Mr Lear will not mind me commenting on this, but as he said, it's "boundary layer control", not "layer control". I don't read Mr Lear's statement to imply that it is a method of propulsion in and of itself. It isn't.
To explain, "boundary layer" is simply a term used in fluid dynamics (air and water both being fluids, if you will), and it refers to the region (or layer) proximal to contact between a fluid and a surface. One of the problems that has bedevilled humankind since we first started constructing boats (and later aircraft and subs) is the turbulence that is created in this layer where the surface of a craft and the fluid interact.
"Streamlining" is a simplified concept of "boundary layer control", where efforts are made to allow the object to pass through the fluid with the lowest amount of turbulence and coefficient of friction. This has been an especially tough nut to crack in terms of subs because not only does the entire vessel spend much of its time submerged but also needs to function with reasonable stability and maneuverability when on the surface (and so only partially submerged), it is also beneficial for the sub to be able to obtain a high rate of knots when underwater in relation to its mass and the power it has available for propulsion.
After a huge amount of research, various types of improvements have been made to controlling the interaction in this boundary layer, all of which give the vessel significantly higher top speeds per unit of power input into the system and (very importantly) generate less sound.
If you search "boundary layer control" as a phrase with "submarine" you will find some very interesting documents. The ones that relate to electromagnetic and electrostatic boundary layer control systems are especially worth a look.
In regards to propulsion, it is true that older-generation methods (screws) are very inefficient; though not a lot is floating around on the web that is verifiable, it seems that vastly better boundary layer control -based propulsion systems are either in use or being tested.
In this case, the problem was not building such propulsion units. It was making them work (by pushing water backwards relative to direction you want the sub to go) in such a way that turbulence did not negate the advantages of thrust they produce, or did not produce sound that could be identified as a "fingerprint" of the vessel.
Mike
I hope Mr Lear will not mind me commenting on this, but as he said, it's "boundary layer control", not "layer control". I don't read Mr Lear's statement to imply that it is a method of propulsion in and of itself. It isn't.
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by JustMike
I hope Mr Lear will not mind me commenting on this, but as he said, it's "boundary layer control", not "layer control". I don't read Mr Lear's statement to imply that it is a method of propulsion in and of itself. It isn't.
Mind? Mind? You just stole all my stuff and you think I am going to mind?
Great post JustMike! You saved me a lot of typing and not only that you put it better than I could have.
Thanks again JustMike.
Re: the CVNs' top speed being in the 70 knot category I've heard this for over 40 years, first from an ex CPO who declared the top speed of the Enterprise was 70 knots. Yet this causes difficulty with the law of thermodynamics. To go that fast the carrier would have to on top of the water like a hydroplane. What a wild ride that would be! But performance is subject to hyperbole and wishes that it were so.
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by schuyler
Thanks for the post schuyler. As you know HS is 1.34 times the square root of the waterline for a displacement hull. So ballpark HS for the Ronald Reagan would be 42 knots.
There are several disciplines to mitigate this limitation: one is power, another is electrostatic/magnetic energy (boundary layer control), another is reduction in coefficient of friction for the hull below the waterline sometimes referred to as composite/hybrid. I don't know how far advanced WIG is with displacement hulls (as outrageous a concept as that may seem). I imagine they have done some research in that area.
Enterprise had early composite/hybrid technology.
As far as top speed figures go, there a 2. One is called ‘classified speed’ which you can find out if you have the right clearance and one is ‘secret speed’ the real top speed. The Enterprise’s secret speed is 70 knots as you said. I would imagine that the Ronald Reagan, is well over 85 knots using advanced technology of portions of all those disciplines. But thats just a guess. With the technology that the U.S. Navy has it might be 100kts.
Those new nuclear (probably fusion) subs that the seal teams use (the 40 ft. long ones) go at least 100 kts. and probably much faster.
But no. The Ronald Reagan would not have to hydroplane to obtain 65 knots.
Thanks for the post.
All of the above is my opinion.