Virtual Earth Exposes Nuclear Sub's Secret

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.

Google Cache

[tajmorton]

Google Cache [72.14.253.104]

Re:Google Cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Your proliferation of this information, shameless and most likely premeditated, cannot but argue for an immediate and thorough dismantling of this abomination that is the Internet.

Clearly, the citizenry's desire to be on equal terms with its rightfully appointed overseers is misguided.

What could compare to the danger of such leaks? Only, perhaps, ability of the governed to guide the acts of the governors. (But, thank God and all that is holy, we need not contend with such a possibility.)

The proper solution to this satellite photo disaster is to establish government and international bodies, whose responsibility will be to oversee the propagation of information in its early stages. Press organizations, and other legitimately licensed speaking entities, could submit all reports and articles for government approval before publication, and thus dangerous knowledge would be stopped in its tracks. All information emanating from government bodies would be confidential by default, enforced by penalties befitting treason.

It is indeed a distant dream -- such a beautiful system of bureaucratic power and unquestionable hierarchy -- yet we must do what we can to stop out-of-control communication amongst the proletariat from further endangering the established, and righteous, distribution of power.

Slashdot

[JamesRose]

Generally Posts news about 3-4 days after it has come to light, yet the picture of the propeller is still there, therefore i think we can assume the US no longer cares (because its too late, or they dont mind people knowing) about the picture

Re:Slashdot

[jmauro]

Or it's a fake plant to hide the real propeller design.

Re:

[MillionthMonkey]

The real propeller design includes a "man-sized safe".

Re:

[NeverVotedBush]

Yeah - It's like the propellor on the front of the Bell XP-59A Airacomet. Everyone knows that after we captured the Red October, we got the goods on the caterpillar drive technology and don't need props anymore...

Re:

[dbIII]

That implies Godlike intelligence and ominicience instead of intelligence agencies where those who could easily get jobs in private enterprise have left in disgust since the political appointees are the only ones that will get to the top. People might pretend they intended to make a mistake after the fact to cover the mistake but that's as far as it goes. If we are heading towards a dark future it won't be 1984 (AKA 1920's USSR) - it will be more like Terry Gilliams movie "Brazil" - a totalitarian state t

They fucked up.

[andreyw]

I'll put in my two cents here, so they don't get lost in the copious amounts of typical /. noise.

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.

It's older than that...

[JacksBrokenCode]

The MonsterMaritime.com entry linked to in the writeup was actually posted on July 2, a full 2 months ago. 2 months later and they haven't tried to put the horse back in the barn so while it's technically a secret, it's probably not that important of a secret. Besides, even if they asked MS to blur the image on Live they'd still have to ask other companies with access to the data to blur it, and then they'd have to go to the source of the imagery and ask them to stop selling it (which they may not have a case for).

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:Slashdot

[datablaster]

"Rats...that damn stupid tarp's gonna get me court martialed... ...I had to run to take a leak. Two minutes...thas' all! Who knew the satellite was overhead?" --signed, Boatswain's Mate I. M. Waterhead

Pay attention to the missiles, not the propeller

[Simonetta]

Pay attention to the missiles, not the propeller. Each missile has the ability to burn to death millions of people within minutes. This is more important that any propeller. Don't lose focus on what's really important.

I realize that I put myself at a risk for saying this, but here it is. These submarines exist for one reason: They exist to kill every human being on earth. That's what they do, that's all they do.

Allow me to create a word. omnicide: the act of the murder of every human being an

Re:Pay attention to the missiles, not the propelle

[rtb61]

It really is all rather pointless, you only need sufficient weapons to be able to guarantee that you will take out the opposing countries leadership and to be able to convince them of that fact, the rest is just the military industrial power and profit complex out of control.

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 autoc

Re:Pay attention to the missiles, not the propelle

[RegularFry]

Allow me to create a word. omnicide: the act of the murder of every human being and all civilization.

Google says you're not the first, but what the hell...

These submarines exist for one reason: They exist to kill every human being on earth.

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.

Probably not significant

[Ancient_Hacker]

Waay too many assumptions in this article:

• Our propellers are more advanced than the other guy's.
• A 2-D snap from a satellite is going to reveal significant details.
• The propeller is real and was revealed by "accident".

Re:Probably not significant

[georgewilliamherbert]

In reply...

• Our propellers are more advanced than the other guy's.
  
  They are.
  
  
  • A 2-D snap from a satellite is going to reveal significant details.
    
    It did.
    
    
    • The propeller is real and was revealed by "accident".
      
      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:Probably not significant

[tftp]

It almost certainly is real

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.

Re:

[twiddlingbits]

How do you know this is our most advanced prop? Could be 8 blades is the best now, and this is an old design. I looked at ALL angles and there ARE no shadows, there is not an exact time of day printed on the photo. You don't know the angle of the photo either. You need both of those to compute size from shadows. Disinformation is very common, this might well be exactly that. We did a lot of that during the Cold War. We'd "leak" secrets to the Soviets that they jumped on, spent millions to check out only t

Mod parent up

[MechaStreisand]

Very true. Sub props probably have an odd number of blades on them for similar reasons that wind turbines have an odd number of blades on them: having an even number increases the vibration and stresses on the device as a whole. It has to do with one blade being at the top and another being at the bottom at the same time, which puts an uneven load on the prop. Vibration in subs is exactly what you are trying to avoid.

Re:

[Ash Vince]

In reply...

        * Our propellers are more advanced than the other guy's.

            They are.

Not for long :)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Probably not significant

[georgewilliamherbert]

I know Derek (from online, for years, but not in real life), and he's been there and done that.

The general shape is not news; it's the same general shape as on a bunch of US attack sub prop pictures which have been public for 10+ years.

The photo reveals the blade advance ratio for that particular prop design, though, which is useful to adversaries, and is different than the attack sub props.

As far as I know, and I have a naval architecture degree and have followed sub and naval ship design reasonably well for 30+ years, enough details to determine blade advance ratio on Ohio SSBN props have never been public. It was widely known that they were skew / scythe props. But "It's of that general type" and "Oh, look, that's what speed it's designed for" are two different things. A smart hydrodynamicist or naval architect can use that and tell roughly how fast an Ohio can reasonably be expected to go at top end speed, and things about how much cavitation noise it will make accellerating in a sprint. Also, it can help map propellor RPM to speed.

It's important, and the blade advance angle there is very different than the previously widely known ones on attack sub props, and that will tell bad guys something.

Re:

[Lisandro]

Isn't seven blades on a propeller a bit overdone? I think three or four should be the most efficient

I'd like to think that the naval engenieers who designed that thing didn't add blades just for the sake of it :)

Anyway, the propeller looks surprisingly like... a propeller. I was kinda expecting to see something completely weird with all that secrecy.

Re:Probably not significant

[Goaway]

I'd like to think that the naval engenieers who designed that thing didn't add blades just for the sake of it

No, no, your average Slashdotter is always smarter than an entire team of engineers.

Re:Probably not significant

[Linker3000]

I suppose the Russians will now go for eight fucking blades and an aloe lubrastrip [theonion.com]?

Re:Probably not significant

[arivanov]

Probably. They were actively looking into alternative designs as far back as 80-es. Probably the coolest was using propellers with a free spinning counterpropeller. 3-5 blades on a main propeller preceded by a free spinning one with twice the number angled to rotate in the opposite direction. As a result you get the flow set up in a way where the main is considerably quieter and considerably more efficient. Loaaaaaaaaaads of caveats in getting it right though so no idea if this has made it into their nowdays submarines. Oh, and they were even more stupid than the USA Navy. The actual idea got first published in their equivalent of Scientific American at the time before the navy realised what it is and slapped top secret all over it.

Re:

[hamburger lady]

i can't figure out which joke to make, 'these blades go to eleven' or 'behold: a propellor with seven asses'.

Re:Probably not significant

[TerranFury]

Why three?

I am not a fluid dynamicist. But: To increase thrust at a certain RPM, it seems that you can either (1) increase the diameter of the propeller, or (2) increase the number of blades. The problem with increasing the diameter is that the velocity at the tips increases, which leads to effects like cavitation (which, besides being very noisy, damages propellers). So what you do is increase the number of blades.

Prop-driven airplanes produced near the end of WWII had many-blade propellers for this reason as well: They wanted a lot of thrust, but, if they made the blades any longer, then the tips would have been supersonic. (I think I got this factoid from the History Channel.)

My guess is that a quiet high-thrust propeller would spin slowly and have many, very wide and heavily-curved blades. Let's see if somebody who knows more agrees.

Re:Probably not significant

[be-fan]

That's actually an excellent answer. There is an article about precisely that subject here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0 039.shtml [aerospaceweb.org]

One thing the article doesn't point out is that increasing the solidity of the propeller disc can have it's own consequences, and there is generally an optimum solidity (depending on various other factors) which results in the highest efficiency.

Re:Probably not significant

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that a quiet high-thrust propeller would spin slowly and have many, very wide and heavily-curved blades. Let's see if somebody who knows more agrees.

This is basically the case and you can prove it by looking at any modern airliner. A modern high-bypass turbofan jet engine is really just a turbine-driven ducted propellor, and the propellor geometry is much like what you describe, with a whole ton of blades spinning at a reasonable speed.

Next time you get on a 777, just think, you are riding on one of the most advanced propellor aircraft in the world.

Re:

[stonecypher]

Wait, you think 777s are designed for noise? This isn't "keep Timmy in aisle 32 from whining about the thump," this is "holy shit where is Sean Connery since his submarine is absolutely silent." A modern high-bypass turbofan jet is designed for two things: fuel efficiency and durability. The design of a turbofan for air and a silent water propeller are going to be similar in that people who don't know what they're talking about notice that they're both curved. Guess what? So is a champagne glass. Not

Re:

[adisakp]

This is basically the case and you can prove it by looking at any modern airliner. A modern high-bypass turbofan jet engine is really just a turbine-driven ducted propellor, and the propellor geometry is much like what you describe, with a whole ton of blades spinning at a reasonable speed.

You have a pretty much completely wrong idea of jet engines. The blades spin very quickly at thousands of RPM's - in fact the tips of the blades are barely subsonic in speed. They are subjected to such high rotationa

Re:Probably not significant

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a friend who has a habit of repeating what was just said using slightly different language. Tell me, do you smoke way too much pot and work at Pizza Hut?

Re:

[srmalloy]

Research into making more efficient and quieter propellers was conducted from the mid-70s to the mid-80s, because of the greater fuel efficiency of propellor-driven aircraft in light of the Arab oil embargo. This research led to the development of the 'propfan', a turboprop engine with wider, swept-back propeller blades [aol.com]. The Advanced Turboprop Project [nasa.gov] at NASA's Lewis Research Center's developed engine and propeller designs that would spark a resurgence of the turboprop era, but socio-economic factors -- pri

Re:Probably not significant

[whoever57]

Isn't seven blades on a propeller a bit overdone? I think three or four should be the most efficient.

Efficiency isn't the only design criterion, stealth is an important design objective for a sub.

Re:Probably not significant

[mikael]

The secret bit of these propellors is what materials they are made of, how precisely they curve, and to what tolerance they are engineered. The big problem with propellors is that they tend to suffer from cavitation [wikipedia.org] at high speed, where the sudden change in pressure causes bubbles to form and collapse. Apart from being rather noisy, referred to as "singing" (which is a bad thing for a stealthy submarine trying to make a fast getaway) it also causees damage to the blades (much like desert sand on engine turbine blades).

The purpose of having an odd number of blades is no secret - it is to reduce vibration. As the submarine travels through the water it leaves a wake behind it. Above the submarine there is less water pressure than below - so having two blades above and below at the same time is a bad thing. The more blades, the less vibration, but propellors are more efficient with fewer blades. You will see speedboat propellors with three or four blades, and fishing boats can have propellors with only two blades.

There is also the problem that having different metals in close proximity in a salt water environment, can lead to an electrolysis effect where the metals and water act as a kind of battery. Lots of technical papers on Propellor design [hydrocompinc.com]

"The most frequent cure for a singing propeller is the popular "anti-singing edge". This is a chamfer applied to the trailing-edge to promote separation of the vortices."

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[slashbob22]

Isn't seven blades on a propeller a bit overdone? I think three or four should be the most efficient.

If the Gillette / Schick razor war has taught me anything - the more blades the better. Seven blades for comfort, 1 blade for those hard to reach fjords.

Interesting for average joe, but...

[raftpeople]

isn't it safe to assume that all countries with satellites in orbit have been watching each others military facilities for decades?

Re:

[TheRaven64]

That's part of the point. The sub should not have been dry-docked with its propeller visible. The fact that it made it to Google Maps is not the story, just the way we know about the story.

Re:

[sjames]

Unless the plainly visible screw in that photo has a deliberate inherent flaw that they would like other nations to waste a few years on!

If indeed, the exposure of the screw is an accident, a bunch of civillians seeing it on google isn't a problem. If civilian aerial photos exist, you can bet that even better spysat photos exist. The horse is already out of the barn, why demonstrate how important the info is by closing the door in a panic?

Re:

[xirtam_work]

Actually, the majority of the images you see when zoomed in on Google Earth and Google Maps, as well as Microsoft Virtual Earth, are from aeriel photography. i.e. taken from planes. Check with Google if you don't believe me.

Commercially available satellite imagery does not have the resolution to show you a photo of your house from orbit. Images used by the 'intelligence' communitity and the military have higher resolution, but not at the magnification that they'd like you to think they have.

Re:

[solevita]

I don't understand your point... Sure, the image in question here could be from any of a number of sources; you've chosen to talk about aerial photography. But, the OP was talking about the abilities of other nations with "spy" satellites - something you allude to in your post could have a high enough resolution to produce an image similar to this. So in effect, you only agree with the OP's point: this is interesting for the average Joe, but for nation's with spy satellite technology (and the huge amounts o

Re:

[UserGoogol]

Yes, but there's probably a Cathedral and the Bazaar-type effect going on. With enough eyeballs, all military secrets become rather easy to find out. The military can only hire so many people to look at the satellite information, but when Random Joe can play around with Google Maps on his lunch break and then report whatever looks "weird" on their blog, it becomes a lot harder to keep a lid on things.

Re:

[Dunbal]

Remember, if we don't keep everything secret, the terrorists will win!

      The "terrorists" have already won. Where have you been the past 5 years or so?

From TFA:

[dominious]

You may have to be in Internet Explorer to see this...

Firefox shows just fine! just so to let you people of /. know:)

Pubic area made available for the world to see

[Cretin de Troyes]

My favourite part from TFA (emphasis mine):

The company that took the photos made them available to the pubic (for a price) then Microsoft Live Search picked them up and broadcast them on the internet for anyone to see.

Indiscrete photos+pubic+Microsoft in one sentence... priceless.

Re:

[Osty]

Firefox shows just fine! just so to let you people of /. know:)

Windows Live Maps has a bad habit of checking user agent strings in order to support non-IE browsers. While most people won't have a problem with Firefox, there have been cases of people using Firefox browsers with the old 2.0 beta codename "Bon Echo" as the user agent string, and it's possibile that non-Firefox Firefox browsers like Iceweasel [wikipedia.org] (Firefox without the Mozilla copyright bits) may have a non-Firefox user agent. In those cases, you'

Re:

[jadin]

You may have to be in Internet Explorer to see this...

Firefox shows just fine! just so to let you people of /. know:)

Come on.. this is slashdot. Do you really expect us to think 'Oh, I guess better not try firefox or something bad might happen!'?

You clicked it. I clicked it. We are all going to click it. Probably more so since we were told it might not work.

Sorry had to vent.

Is it really so secret?

[spyfrog]

Is this really so secret nowdays?

I think I remeber that the thechnology to make these kind of silent propellers where sold by a norweigan company to a KGB front in the early 1980:s. As I recall, it was a major scandal when the news brooke.
As I have understod it, most soviet nuclear subs had these improved propellers since late 80's and that most of the eastern block started to get access to the same technology.

Most western submarines has had these kind of silent props for years and I belive that most submarine nowdays have one.
You could try to track the Swedish HMS Gotland with passive hydrophone and see how far that takes you, for instance... she insn't even a NATO sub but she is more silent than even the american SSN subs.

Re:Is it really so secret?

[ScrewMaster]

It was a machine tool made by a subsidiary of Toshiba (Toshiba Machine Co.) and a Norwegian numerical controller that were sold to Russia. This [japanlaw.info] page has a good writeup. The sale was made in direct contravention to Japanese export controls with full knowledge of the people running the company. If the numbers are to be believed, Toshiba Machine's 17 million dollar sale cost the U.S. thirty billion in lost military superiority. This technology is important, actually.

Re:

[BCW2]

Actually it was the Japanese that sold the milling machines capable of making this design to the Soviets. They could not make the the tools need to fabricate the compound curves. The USSR probably had pictures and even specs for several classes of our boats but did not have the capability of copying it. The Soviet boats were very noisy compared to all of ours in the late 70's. The pictured boat is an Ohio. They are so quiet that we have trouble tracking one. Nobody else ever has.

Re:

[Skater]

Also, I assume the real engineering in the propellers is in the blade pitch, diameter, material, etc. You're not going to get much more than rough estimates of diameter from that Live Local picture. There's still a lot of engineering to go, even if you know there are 7 blades.

Re:

[spyfrog]

If you look thing up, you would know that HMS Gotland has so called Stirling motors and thus can remain submerged for about one month without going up to snorkling deapth.

She can also run as fast as most nuclear boats for this time, so having a silent propeller is a major factor. And, I can tell you that it looks exactly like that one in the picture after having seen other Swedish sub propellers.

It's the Sound signature, not the noise level.

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

The US is not just concerned about others trying to copy the propeller to reduce the noice made by their subs.

The submarine will still make some noise. They would be concerned because knowing the propeller design gives you an idea of what type of noise it will make in use ... the sonar signature.

The signature can be used to identify classes of submarines and potentially individual subs.

So rather than other countries copying it ... the problem is that other countries may now have a good idea what that particular sub will sound like, and may know when the US is illegally sneaking in and out of other countries waters etc with this sub, or if this sub is positioned just outside their waters with all it's nuclear WMD's ready to go.

On the other hand, maybe the US doesnt care at all ... maybe this was an old propeller design being replaced and retired.

Face it....

[8127972]

... In the age of Google Earth, Virtual Earth, etc. (not to mention Google), there are no secrets. Welcome to the new world.

Re:

[WombatDeath]

I would guess that the navy doesn't particularly care - if this were some ultra-sensitive technology they probably wouldn't have left it lying around in the open. If you can build a bleeding-edge submarine you can build an enclosed space to put it in.

Re:

[Dunbal]

If you can build a bleeding-edge submarine you can build an enclosed space to put it in.

      However an "enclosed space" with lots of soldiers around it and signs saying "TOP SECRET" and "KEEP OUT" will only attract attention. Sometimes hiding things in plain sight is a viable option.

Re:Face it....

[pclminion]

... In the age of Google Earth, Virtual Earth, etc. (not to mention Google), there are no secrets. Welcome to the new world.

Okay... So what's sitting on the topmost shelf of the rightmost cabinet on the east side of the wall of my garage?

If its still available to view

[nurb432]

Then its not that much of a 'leak' and i bet its rather old ( ie, known ) technology.

Link to base since the blog is hosed

[SuperBanana]

Since the guy is over quota: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4 7.7276611328+N,+122.7155085586+W&ie=UTF8&ll=47.721 427,-122.718315&spn=0.070444,0.139046&t=k&z=13&iwl oc=addr&om=1 [google.com]

Coordinates are +47 43' 39.58", -122 42' 55.83" for the base (this can be plugged into Google Earth.)

The location of the snapshot is of the dry-dock at 4744'36.08"N, 12243'48.51"W.

This link may or may not work: http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=ryqjnb4s5 7d5&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1 0352732&encType=1 [live.com]

There's no propeller visible in the Google Earth imagery. All you can see is that there's what might be a sub; it's quite blurry. The Windows Live imagery shows a blurry whirly instrument of death; looks like a bunch of boomerangs.

Honestly, it's stupid. Half the shit that's classified, is just classified to impress. For example, the top speed of various US air craft carriers. Like that can't be figured out by a foreign government...? Like our *propeller technology* is that much more advanced, and other nation's subs haven't figured out what it sounds like? C'mon.

Re:Link to base since the blog is hosed

[BCW2]

Think again! 99.9% of the Navies of the world don't have sonar good enough to even get a sniff of one of our boats. The best the Soviets ever had was 2 generations behind! There is supposed to be a canopy over the the screw before the dock is pumped out. If you ever go to Groton for a launch you might notice that the boats are launched without a screw, it is installed later alongside the pier. Of course there are 2 different screws for each class of boats. A speed screw is used on the first few to generate top performance numbers then removed. A silent screw goes on all operational boats. The difference? Shape, pitch, and number of blades.
I rode a Fast Attack in the Cold War, so I might know more than someone who hasn't been there.

Re:

[Nimey]

The propeller's blades bear a resemblance to the AH-64 Apache's main rotor -- straight for a certain length, then a sharp bend followed by a shorter length of prop blade. It's similar to the C-130J's as well.

Interesting, but a fluid dynamicist could probably make more of the prop's exact dimensions &c than I could.

movies

[Loconut1389]

I swear to ghu that I saw a propeller like that in some sub movie- though it fails to render a name in my mind. I remember seeing a prop just like that on a cg shot of the sub driving away/up - perhaps in a torpedo sequence?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I think I've seen one before.

Same here - I clicked the link

[NotQuiteReal]

I clicked the link, saw the propeller, and though - meh, I've seen that before.

Of course I don't know what I am looking at, technically, but I know I've seen a propeller that shape before, somewhere.

I am sure, as far as efficiency and stealthiness, the devil is in the details and there is a lot more to it than seeing a clear, but distant, photo to gleen any "secrets".

In fact, if you zoom in, the third blade from the top, counter-clockwise, says Made in China right on it.

Re:

[Megane]

I've seen that before... in my rotary electric razor. That's what the cutter blades look like.

Fantastic images!

[TheHawke]

Better than the leaked Keyhole satellite shots of the first Soviet Carrier.

The image is of a Ballistic Missile or "boomer" submarine, OHIO class. There are two sets of screws or propellers that they can put on them, a speed screw and a patrol screw. Obviously, the screws are named for their performance level and how quiet they are at a given speed.

The US Navy spent untold hundreds of millions in hydrodynamics and propeller research, so they don't want to make it easy for the opposition to get their grubby p

Closeup of the propeller

[newscloud]

K changed my original post but I put a close up of the liveearth propeller image here [idealog.us]. I agree the U.S. govt doesn't care about it at this point or MSFT would have blurred it.

Closeup?

[mikesd81]

Closeup? It's simply a cropped part of the original image...Close up would...closer up?

Re:

[newscloud]

Sorry, it is just a thumbnail crop ...

Misdirection?

[TallGuyRacer]

Perhaps the U.S. Navy put a fake propeller on the sub.

U.S. Navy: "Hey you guys do the aerial photos for Google and Mircosoft, right?"
Acme Aerial Photos: "Yip."
U.S. Navy: "When are you guys next flying over our base?"
Acme Aerial Photos: "Next Tuesday. Weather permitting."
U.S. Navy: "Thank you. You have been very helpful. <evil laugh>"

It's been seen before...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a book (U.S. Submarines Since 1945, An Illustrated Design History, by Norman Friedman, 1994 Naval Institute Press) that shows an old publicly released official Seawolf model with a hooked propeller very similar to the one shown in that image. The same book also has a very good image of the scythe-bladed propeller of a Las Angeles class submarine, whos manufacturing techniques were at the root of the late Toshiba milling technology sale scandal) I'm thinking that the blogger who discovered this has ma

Behind the times

[DerekLyons]

(Obligatory disclaimer but without the obligatory tortured acronym: Yes, I am a former submariner (and have been to the Delta Pier many times), and am a student of naval history and related security issues.)
 
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:

[MtViewGuy]

By the way, that design of the propellers won't exactly work for Russian subs, either. You try an exact copy of the propeller and it could adversely affect the handling of the Russian Akula, Sierra and Oscar class submarines; in short, each submarine type requires its own unique propeller design. And this design definitely does not work with the type of ducted propellers that are starting to appear on the very latest submarine designs (The US Seawolf class submarine uses them, and I believe the new Virginia

Setec Astronomy?

[3rd_Floo]

I wonder if Microsoft Visual Earth has been getting their data from Setec Astronomy??

Stick to Linux folks

[rock603]

I'm just amazed. Reading Slashdot is like speaking with your "know it all" good friend or relative. You like to discuss important topics with them, but at the end of the day, they're really only an expert at one or two things!

Okay - so I'll comment as a ten year Navy veteran (with Sub time) and as an MS Virtual Earth employee.

On the actual propeller, some of the comments above are accurate with respect to design, power, speed and cavitation issues. If it's covered by Wikipedia, then it must be true! There has always been a policy to cover the propeller whenever the boat was pulled out of the water - it's part of the secret sauce behind our submarine stealth. Not showing it in public only makes sense, but this picture from the air could have been taken by anyone flying a private plane. Shame on the Navy for not covering it, but then again, there's more to the engineering behind it than a picture could ever show.

Talk of satellite imagery and Government intervention is an interesting topic of the day, however. For one thing, the image was not taken by satellite, but rather by airplane using a unique capability for oblique imagery. In Virtual Earth, you can view the same area at 2 zoom levels and 4 compass points. The imagery comes from Pictometry, and MS uses the term "Bird's Eye" to depict areas in which it is available. It's pretty incredible imagery, truly raising the quality bar over systems using only satellite imagery.

Note that Microsoft does not manage satellite or aerial providers - we only take the imagery in, enhance it, tile it and then provide it to our customers in the form of an API. The organizations that provide the imagery have been in business for years capturing images of the earth and selling them to commercial and government organizations. If anyone should be on point to discuss the appropriate image capture time and location, these would be the organizations to do so. Since I do not work for one of these organizations, I will abstain from commenting on their data capture policies. Perhaps they have a Slashdot reader who would like to comment!

So what is Microsoft's position on this issue? A quick search (http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=justin+osme r+submarine+propeller [live.com]) yields the following statement on Navy Times from Justin Osmer of the MS Virtual Earth product team:

"Our mapping products fully comply with U.S. laws governing the acquisition and publishing of aerial imagery," according to the statement. "The clarity of the images is impressive, but beyond a certain zoom level the images become 'pixilated' and blur. In addition some Virtual Earth imagery can only be viewed from certain distances.

"Additionally, there are other instances where images have been intentionally blurred for security purposes. We review requests to do so on a case-by-case basis. In addition, we do not provide real-time data or live satellite images. All the imagery has been collected at a fixed point in time over a period of the last few years."

At the end of the day, several commenters here and elsewhere have used the term "get used to it", referring to the fact that we're losing our privacy and anonymity every day via cameras in the sky and search engines on earth... Perhaps this is true, but then again, maybe it's exactly what we need at this point in our civilization.

another pic of the same technology...

[ErnstKompressor]

"Ducted propulsion" [globalsecurity.org] on a navy demonstrator vehicle...

...is this a secret?

In regards to that propeller design...

[MtViewGuy]

...I think the Russians figured out more or less the same propeller design about the same time the Americans did. People forget the Russians during the Soviet era had excellent scientists, and TsAGI (the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute) did a lot of pioneering work in aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, including work on ship and submarine propeller design.

By the way, that picture confirms what I saw several times on the History Channel, where they showed a Los Angeles class submarine underwater running with a multibladed propeller (you can see the propeller blades clearly in the video).

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[Gerhardius]

Hmm, do you believe that having subs means needing a big surface fleet to protect them? The US has a big navy because they have a need to be everywhere at once. Some places the US likes to get involved lack any friendly air bases so they need carrier groups. China has no need to try to match the US Navy, just as the US has no need to match the size of the Chinese Army. Additionally, any intelligence of value on current US sub programs is already in Moscow and Beijing: history has shown how simple it is to buy information in a debt driven economy.

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[enrevanche]

A submarine does not need a carrier battle group. The point of a sub, is a stealthy platform for launching missiles or for sneaking up on other vessels undetected. A group of effective submarines could make a carrier battle group ineffective. In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless unless their air, submarine and missile forces can be neutralized. They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[Jarjarthejedi]

"In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless..."

And where did that factoid come from? One would imagine that a ship with the capability to strike at extremely long distances is always useful, if you can hit your enemy before their weapons can reach you you have an advantage. As for carriers being vulnerable to subs that's only partially true. Certain types of submarines, especially advanced nuclear subs (and diesel ones, so long as they don't surface anywhere near the carrier group and have enough battery power to get in and out) could conceivably slip through the defenses around a carrier and then it's aircraft would be useless. Given that the last major (that I know of) engagement between large groups of submarines and carriers was WWII, and that was clearly decided in favor of the carrier groups (53 u-boats sunk to less than 10 of the CVE mini-carriers) I'd say a generalization like 'Subs counter carriers' is kinda...wrong. A carrier battle group at war would typically have at least 1 radar plane (Orion?) on CAP. If the sub surfaces nearby radar has a chance of picking it up. In addition the carrier's escorts have darn good sonar and wouldn't be too hesitant to use it.

So basically, 1 lone carrier vs sub is an easy win for the sub, unless the carrier sees it coming from a long way off and launches anti-sub efforts. 1 carrier battlegroup is at least a match for any similar number of warships, including subs, and very good at other tasks such as beach assault, long range support etc. A carrier battle group is currently the most versatile type of navy imaginable, as such it may not be the best way to counter all threats (a pair of destroyers working in tandem with some anti-sub helicopters would be cheaper and pretty effective against small numbers of subs). It's a Jack of All Trades, master of none type of thing, a Carrier group is good at anti-surface ship, anti-sub, and anti-land combat.

Sneaking up on a ship which is fully prepared for war is a lot harder than some things would lead you to believe. Just because you're underwater and pretty quiet doesn't mean your undetectable, and if you're too quiet you can be detected that way (one possibly problem with modern US subs is that they're actually quieter than the surrounding ocean and could *conceivably* be detected that way). No amount of noise-reduction is going to save you if even 1 enemy ship is using active-sonar, you're going to be detected unless it's a cloak-and-dagger fight which is something aircraft carriers rarely engage in, they're more 'Hey look, I'm right here, I don't need to hide because I'm that much better than you' style fighting, and in that arena (when radars are at full and sonars are active) subs lose all stealth benefits, and an unstealthed sub vs a carrier group is just asking for trouble.

So to sum it up, no, a carrier battle group is not useless. Subs are easily countered (unless you're trying to be stealthy as well) and missile blocking is what Aegis (common in CBG's) class destroyers were partially built for. Aircraft carriers are built for show, and are good against weaker enemies, but also against equals, it's against stronger enemies (few and far between at this moment) that they begin to look impossibly weak and fragile.

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[Comatose51]

Hate to break it to you but the Swedish sub, Gottland has managed to "sink" the USS Reagan before [wikipedia.org] in a war game simulation. The US Navy's defense against diesel electric sub is not that perfect.

Re:

[sznupi]

And ORP Orzel (modified Kilo class diesel submarine, extent of modifications is largery unknown, except new German batteries) "sunk" two US submarines during one war game...

Re:

[tylernt]

I'm particularly interested in how modern subs can dodge all forms of active sonar.

Anechoic tiles [wikipedia.org].

Re:Sinking the U.S.S. Reagan

[ultranova]

In an NBC4 news story (transcript and video) we hear about the Swedish submarine HMS Gotland, participating in a training exercise with the US Navy:

According to Swedish newspapers, in training exercises the Gotland has sunk our most sophisticated nuclear submarines. But perhaps even more disconcerting, it reportedly sunk our largest aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Reagan.

Well, what did you expect ? They're vikings, for pete's sake ! Half ninjas, half pirates, half polar bears ! They rape, pillage and plunder, and then they flip out and get really mad ! Even Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia knew better than to fuck with them !

Just be thankful they used a wussy submarine and not a Viking longboat with a dragon on the bow - then it'd really have been a massacre.

Re:

[Dunbal]

They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.

This made me laugh. You obviously have no idea what a carrier battle group can do. It can seriously ruin ANYONE's day. Tell me something - why do you think the island hopping in the Pacific in World War II happened AFTER and not before the Japanese lost their carriers in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway? Why do you think that the main objective of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was to sink the US carr

Re:

[tftp]

A "group" of enemy submarines would have to be very lucky indeed to get close enough to score a hit on a carrier.

This missile [wikipedia.org] can be launched from undersea position 290 km away from the target:

The missile is in service with the Indian Navy. The missile is fitted on the Rajput class of destroyers. The submarine launched version of the missile is ready for testing. The missile will be either tested on a Kilo class submarine of the Indian Navy or will be tested in Russia.

(Additional link 1 [strategypage.com] and link 2 [bharat-rakshak.com].)

I

Re:

[Ironsides]

A group of effective submarines could make a carrier battle group ineffective. In a war against a major enemy, carriers will probably be useless unless their air, submarine and missile forces can be neutralized. They primarily for show and wars of aggression against far weaker enemies.

Just a casual glance at WWII pretty much disproves everything you claim about what a carrier is for and what it is useless against. What was it that took out the Japanese carriers in WWII? Oh yeah, carriers. Not submari

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[kestasjk]

I guess everyone on Slashdot is a military commander who knows about the reasoning behind strategic positioning of aircraft carriers.. And why do you say that the enemy's air forces need to be neutralized before carriers can be used? Isn't that exactly what carriers are for?!

One week before the Washington Times hyped the ONI report, the nominated commander of Pacific Command, Admiral Timothy J. Keating, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee where he dismissed alarmist reports of recent gains in Chinese submarine development.

"If the reports are fairly accurate, they are well behind us technologically. We enjoy significant advantages across the spectrum of defensive and offensive systems, in particular undersea warfare," he said according to Taipei Times [taipeitimes.com]. In an interview with the paper, Keating added: "Should it become necessary for us to put our forces [in harm's way], the development of Chinese submarines are [sic] a concern to us, but it is hardly an insurmountable concern."

Source [fas.org]

Also read about the low amount of use China's submarine fleet gets, and the inexperience they have:

The implications of the low patrol rate are significant. The total operational experience for the entire Chinese submarine force is only 49 patrols in 25 years, corresponding to each submarine conducting an average of one patrol every third year.

As a result, Chinese submarine crews appear to have relatively little operational experience and consequently limited skills in operating their boats safely and competently. It suggests that the tactical skills that would be needed for the Chinese submarine force to operate effectively in a war may be limited.

China continues - at least for now - to use its submarine force as a coastal defense force.

Source [fas.org]
This basically amounts to China having never actually used their submarines as a nuclear deterrent, and since they have no ICBMs that can reach the US they have no nuclear deterrent against the US and a comparatively very limited navy. (Report [fas.org])

The media loves to hype up China's military spending, but if you think China's grounded 1980's built subs, or the speculated five new Jin-class (Type 094) subs [fas.org], are going to make the US Navy "ineffective", or if you think aircraft carriers (the most expensive ships of all) are just for intimidating small nations, then you're a few warheads short of a nuclear power.

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[Black Parrot]

The US has the mightiest navy in the history of the world, greater than every country's navy put together.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

An interesting point, all power fades. Completely pointless in usage since the quote was not saying 'The US has, and will always have...' but rather pointing out that, as of now, the US has the best navy. The quote does nothing to disparage that and in reality only seems to emphasize the original poster's point as the quote is commonly believed to be referencing Ramesses the Great (wikipedia) who pretty much was the world power at his time. Of course that power faded but it doesn't mean that it never existe

Re:

[spyfrog]

When WWII started, then the British fleet was the far most advanced, biggest and strongest fleet in the world.

Still, the German Navy almost defeated them with their much more effective submarines.

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[Dunbal]

Still, the German Navy almost defeated them with their much more effective submarines.

      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:

[dcam]

The movie Das Boot [imdb.com] starts with the statistic that of the 40,000 German sailors who served on U-Boats in WWII, 30,000 of them died.

Re:

[spyfrog]

If the British surface navy was so extremely bad as you suggest, then why was the quite good German admirals so afraid of facing it?
Very few German surface navy ships saw action against the British navy, one exception being Bismarck which coincidently was sunk mostly due to the actions of the "ancient" Spearfish planes on the British fleet carriers....

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[Dunbal]

then why was the quite good German admirals so afraid of facing it?

      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:

[WNight]

I think they could defeat the peasants. They could probably defeat all non-microbial life in the area, if they were told to.

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 I

Re:

[turing_m]

"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."

Considering that they build everything else in the world, I'd give them 3 years.

But carrier battle groups and nation states are so 20th century. All you have to do to invade someone these days is walk over a border, set up a restaurant that serves tasty cuisine, make sure that you only buy raw materials and land, and have lots of children.

Re:The US Navy Is Not Such A Secret

[gerardrj]

Forgive my naivety but why would your god bless instruments of or an organization dedicated to perfecting death? Aren't "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" core teachings of jesus and of most Judeo-Christian religions?

Re:The real secret

[G Fab]

I served for a long time.

And I was exposed to all branches for long periods of time. You will not find a less gay friendly place than the Navy. Even the Marines are more tolerant. It's because of the hollywood archetyping of the navy as gay that the navy has had such a buildup of anger about it. The 1993 DADT policy greatly increased the problem, and violence against gays has increased by about an exponent from 1993-1999 (no idea of the exact recent statistic, but it has increased greatly up to today)

Gays int he military are usually quite good. dedicated to serve in spite of additional hassle. The Brits have been open for a while, and they are, man for man, extremely effective. I'm not implying that there is some kind of problem with gayness in the military.

But this is typical trash propaganda. Sounds ludicrously paranoid, but the fact is that there is an effort to portray soldiers as feminine weakling children or sociopathic monsters. You'll find most gays in the Army. You'll find the fewest in the Navy.

Re:The real secret

[Dun Malg]

You'll find most gays in the Army. You'll find the fewest in the Navy.

I served for several years as well. I was in the Army, but working in intelligence, I had contact with all the services. I wouldn't call the above an accurate assessment. Navy and Army were "baseline gay", from my experience, with what appeared to me to be the closest to civilian mix of gay:straight. The Army may edge out the Navy when you look at the "meat pancake" soldiers, like Rangers, for reasons I'll explain later (see USMC, below). I met somewhat more "self-openly" gay men who were in the Air Force, and a somewhat larger fraction of them than in the Army or Navy. But the Marine Corps? I swear, the Corps must be close to 30% closeted gay men. All the most rabid homophobic nutcases I've met were Marines, and you know anyone who gets that worked up about homosexuality has to have some personal stake in it. Really, it's not that hard to understand. If some percentage of kids are gay and grow up in creepy conservative places, then a certain number of them will come to an "obvious" conclusion: joining the military will "make a real man of me" and drive the fag-ness out. If you're thinking like that do you join the Navy? Hell no! Air Force? Hell no, those cream puffs don't fight unless they're pilots. Army, eh.... maybe, if you can get into a real he-man branch like infantry and go for Ranger training. No, the other three are all wishy washy. If you want to be a big tough boneheaded manly man, you go straight for the US Marine Corps.

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.