Virtual Earth Exposes Nuclear Sub's Secret 355
NewsCloud alerts us to a story a few months old that has been getting a lot of play recently. A Seattle blogger, Dan Twohig, was browsing in Microsoft's Virtual Earth when he accidentally came across a photo of a nuclear sub in dry-dock. Its propeller is clearly visible — this was a major no-no on the part of someone at the Bangor Sub Base. The designs of such stealth propellers have been secret for decades. Twohig blogged about the find and linked to the Virtual Earth photo on July 2. The debate about security vs. Net-accessible aerial photography has been building ever since. The story was picked up on military.china.com on Aug. 17 — poetic justice for the Chinese sub photo that had embarrassed them a month before. On Aug. 20 the Navy Times published the article that most mainstream media have picked up in their more recent coverage. Twohig's blog is the best source to follow the ongoing debate. No one has asked Microsoft, Google, or anyone else to blur the photo in question. Kind of late now.
Probably not significant (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:0, Insightful)
This is not such a big deal. Let the Chinese try to copy this. Then they'll only have to build the aircraft carriers, fighter jets, support ships to protect it.
God Bless America, and God Bless the US Navy.
Interesting for average joe, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting for average joe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Probably not significant (Score:5, Insightful)
They are.
It did.
It almost certainly is real; it's too similar to other known quiet props, with some interesting variations that the 2-D satellite image did in fact usefully reveal (blade advance angle), from the sun angle and shadows.
Those in fact tell a professional in the field something useful about the operating capabilities of the sub, in terms of its relative optimization for different types of operations.
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Probably not significant (Score:5, Insightful)
It's older than that... (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality, if they censored the images the only people who wouldn't be able to see it are people not willing to spend money to see images of a classified submarine. Any country/organization with it's own program for developing nuclear submarines or technology to detect submarines likely has the financial/organizational resources to aquire this imagery without depending on a free website.
Re:Interesting for average joe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mentionthis [slashdot.org] really good post on the subject that I found much more persuasive than your own.
Re:Probably not significant (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to agree just because otherwise it would presume a really complicated hoax with a low chance of success (such as fooling a foreign government.) You'd have to replace the propeller, then make Microsoft or whoever takes pictures to take them, then you'd have to activate your agent to post the photos on a blog, and even then you'd still not know if the photo fooled anyone or not, since your adversary wouldn't be a complete idiot, so the fake must be realistic and mostly working.
With regard to the photo, what you have there is effectively one blade photographed from seven different angles. This allows the "other side" (whatever that is) to combine them to get a higher resolution.
But the main issue here is there are not too many countries in the world that would even care about such things. NATO countries probably don't need this photo, they have the real stuff. Russia is rumored to have procured such propeller designs about 25 years ago, and likely has enough computing power to improve on them as needed. China probably has many agents everywhere as well, you can't possibly keep such large things secret for long. What other countries then would want to know how to design a silent propeller, considering that even milling machines required to build the blades are not sold over the counter to anyone who asks, and they are not cheap either, and you have to have a solid manufacturing base to even produce the metal for the blades. So it's an expensive, high-tech business that only a handful of countries have the need and the money to get into. Not all major countries build submarines, many prefer to buy.
It's been seen before... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I dunno, some 500 years of British naval combat experience perhaps? Plus the Brits had the numbers on their side. Technology will only help you so far, but numbers win every time.
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:5, Insightful)
The German U-boat fleet rarely engaged the Royal Navy. And with the occasional exception, when they did this, they were sunk. The U-boats were used as commerce raiders, and had great success. For a year or so. Now please look up the statistics on how many u-boats actually survived the war, and talk to me about "success". It was a disaster, like almost everything else Germany did after taking France.
Re:Interesting for average joe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Behind the times (Score:5, Insightful)
The props haven't been as jealously gaurded recently as in times past - in fact, I saw pictures openly published of them as early as the late 1990's. Though the less knowledgeable may drool over seeing them at all - the pictures on Virtual Earth are not particularly high res, nor particularly useful. The fact that the US uses scythe blade propellers has been openly acknowledged since the early 90's.
Or, to put it even more simply, these pictures show nothing not already publically known and acknowledged.
Ditto for the weapons magazines - there is nothing classified about the exteriors, existence, or location.
This article is however a interesting point on the problem of getting your news from blogs; sometimes the author knows what he's talking about. Usually, when it comes to specialized topics, he doesn't.
Re:Google Cache (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, it will also prevent our own citizens from learning too much of science and engineering -- but if you think about it, our own citizens are more likely than anyone to be the true enemy in disguise. So it's really a win-win situation.
Re:The real secret (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, then you find out that "gayness" isn't something you can "drive out", it's just something you are. Then you become a jackass self-hating prick with a special chip on your shoulder about fags. Man, I tell ya' the USMC is rife with them.
They fucked up. (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue here isn't that "Google or Live didn't blur it out". It's that the base people didn't care much for the eyes in the skies. I'm sure the Chinese (or Martians) have seen the secrets.
Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret (Score:3, Insightful)
Their orders are a bit messier though. "Go there and shoot only the guilty - they look just like the innocent. Make everyone love us!"
I'd hate to be in the army now. It's an essential service, but it's being pissed away on a mission that it can't win by people who don't respect the use of the institution or the sacrifice made by those who serve.
The only time the "hearts and minds" of Iraq were available might have been directly following Gulf War 1, if we (the world) had removed Saddam. Everyone who would have helped in GW2 had been executed after GW1.
Re:Google Cache (Score:1, Insightful)
If the US has to become like China to win, that's not much of a victory.
Re:Pay attention to the missiles, not the propelle (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, quite a demanding exercise to be able to convince the opposing leadership that they will be specifically targeted, and that they will be successfully eliminated within the first few hours of any conflict. When it comes to autocrats the reality is that if they believe they will definitely be killed, they will comply, as long as they believe they will continue to survive with their power over their own populace largely intact.
Democracies are a little bit trickier because the power is more widely distributed, and a lot of the players involved have no qualms about stabbing each other in the back ie. quite content for the majority of the leadership to get eliminated as long as they survive and can gain power. So technically autocrats require more weapons than democracies, as the autocrats need to target the population as a whole, whilst democracies only need to target the autocrats (the autocrats will target their own internal back stabbers with a vengeance).
Re:Pay attention to the missiles, not the propelle (Score:5, Insightful)
Google says you're not the first, but what the hell...
That's almost precisely backwards. These submarines exist to ensure that never happens. They're part of the Mutually Assured Destruction balance. Neither side is going to launch a first strike unless it knows with absolute certainty that it's going to come out sufficiently ahead in the ensuing trade-off to survive as a viable state. Nuclear subs completely screw with any certainty you might think you've got in launching that attack, because it's damn near impossible to know that you'll be able to kill enough of the opposition's subs before they can launch. Stealthy propellers are a big part of that, helping to ensure that the enemy can't get and keep a lock on your position. These submarines aren't designed as first-strike weapons, but as an assured second-strike. To say that this technology cannot be used completely misses the point. In just existing, they are being used - as an insurance policy. If they were ever to launch, humanity would already be dead.